Home - List All Discussions

Hello, I'm New (My Views 1)

My Introduction

by: LiberalChiRo

Hello! I don't know if introduction posts go here, but I hope a mod moves it if it's wrong.
I was a long time (we're talking years!) poster and moderator on eHealth Forum.
I am pro-choice, but in moderation. I am pro-birth control. I am pro early-term abortions for elective reasons.
I am against late-term (27+ week) abortion unless it is for the mother's safety or severe fetal deformity etc. I am against abortion as a sole form of birth control. I am against one woman having too many (3+) elective abortions unless there are extenuating circumstances.
I am against late-term abortions because I believe the fetus gains a right-to-life when it becomes capable of independent life. This occurs around week 27. This is also when the brain becomes mature, and the unborn is capable of feeling pain.
From my user-name you may guess that I am a Liberal Christian. I believe in God, whom I believe is nature, the world around us, our spirits, us, and everything in the universe. There are many ways to experience God. Some people see Him with many faces (polytheism), some people call him by other names. However, I do believe God is there. I approach God through Christianity because it is the system I am familiar with; I was raised Christian. It is how I am comfortable talking with God and having a relationship with Him (it).
I do not believe Christianity is the only right religion. God has revealed himself to humans all over our planet in many ways. Every religion has something to teach.

reply from: sander

So, the long and short of it is, you're proabortion who thinks they're a Christian.....swell.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I am not pro-abortion, I would like to state that right away. The most offensive thing to me is being called pro-abortion, because I'm not.
I wish abortion never, ever had to happen. If abortion were obsolete I would be happy! I wish pregnancy only happened when a woman wanted it, and I wish fetuses didn't develop horrible, deadly, life-threatening deformations that kill not only them, but also risk the life of the mother. I wish rape didn't happen so little 11 year olds were in life-threatening situations.
I do not like abortion. It is ending the life of a human before it can even truly begin. The unborn is a baby, a human.
Also, I'm supposedly a better christian than you... since I haven't judged you like you have judged me. I have not told you your faith is false, yet you have told me so. Thankfully, I don't need your affirmation of my belief. I came to it on my own; to say "I love God" is one of the best feelings in the world. Being pro-choice does not mean you cannot be christian. Being christian does not mean you cannot be pro-choice.
I urge people to check out The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice: http://www.rcrc.org/

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Welcome! Pleasure you meet you
I'm a fan of the ehealth website myself.
I'd go back, but I purposely left the first time due to corruption on the moderator's board, and the second time they just outright banned me for daring to come back!

reply from: sander

You are proabortion, whether you like the title or not. Here's a clue, if you are for abortion at any stage in a pregnancy, you're pro abortion and there's no such thing as a Christan for abortion. I don't have the time and right now the inclination to go into why....but, understand something, this is a 100%, no exceptions, PRO-LIFE website.
If you think for one minute your skewed view of prolife is going to sway anyone you're absolutley wrong.
Proaborts are only "tolerated" by the owner of this website, this is not meant to be a debate forum, though it turns out that way more often than not, especially of late.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I take it that Sander is someone to ignore?
I am here with the intent of reaching out and closing the cap, healing the wounds between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. The extremists act like they rule the world; they try to tell each of us how to think, how to be pro-life or pro-choice. It's offensive and terrible. Who are you, who is anyone to tell me how to think, how to be pro-choice or pro-life? You are no one if you think you have that right. You become someone the moment you accept that my thoughts are as important as yours.
Whoever runs this site does not have to allow us for any reason. I can only reason that he or she allows pro-choicers because s/he WANTS a different opinion, and also because s/he hopes that by being exposed to the pro-life view, pro-choicers may change their mind. There is no rule saying that "anyone" must be accepted onto a forum. S/he could easily ban us but does not. Debate strengthens our convictions - if it doesn't, then maybe you're not pro-life or pro-choice for the right reasons.
That happened to me on eHealth. I finally got sick of people being demeaning to pro-lifers on there and getting away with it despite supposed rules against it. I was forcibly called pro-abortion by pro-choicers! My beliefs got me called pro-life, even. Yet you are trying to say I am nothing. It just makes me shake my head.

reply from: sander

His name is Mark Crutcher and he allows proaborts (of which you are one) here as he thinks it sharpens the debate skills of prolifers. But, the primary purpose of this forum is not to entertain proaborts in this manner.
You're here for the wrong reasons, there is no gap to be closed. Either you are proabortion or you're prolife. There is no inbetween. You said you're a Christan, have you ever heard that Jesus said He would have us "hot" or "cold" and the lukewarm would be spewed out of His mouth?
If it's "extreme" to be 100% pro life...NO excpetions, then you're up against a whole slew of "extremists" here, to which, I am proud to be one.
So, you might want to entertain the idea of saving your breath, because only the proaborts will see any value in your take on abortion rights.

reply from: Faramir

Welcome back.
But what you are describing is "pantheism" and not Christianity, unless I am misunderstanding you.
Do you believe that people have immortal souls, which live on after death as essentially the same person before death? Do you believe that the fetus or embryo has a soul?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Welcome back.
But what you are describing is "pantheism" and not Christianity, unless I am misunderstanding you.
Do you believe that people have immortal souls, which live on after death as essentially the same person before death? Do you believe that the fetus or embryo has a soul?
Thank you, and very good questions
Yes, I agree that "Pantheism" is another way to say polytheism. And I do think that it is just a different way God has presented himself to other humans on Earth. They have interpreted his presence as the existence of many gods, but what they're really doing is just faceting the one body of God. Their religions are certainly not Christianity, I just feel we are all worshiping the same spiritual force whether they are aware of it or not. There is one spiritual force in our universe.
As for immortal souls, I believe our souls are tendrils of God, or his spiritual force, to say it another way. Just like waves have individual peaks, but are still part of the greater ocean, I believe our souls are ours, but still connected to God. When we die, we re-join with God. Going to hell, in my opinion, is severance from God. If the very act of being alive is to be with God, then hell is an existence "deader" than death. Alone, away from light and life.
As for the unborn, yes I believe they have a soul, because I believe that every living thing has soul energy, even plants. Inanimate objects have the touch of God in them too of course, since God is nature, but they don't have his blessing of LIFE. I believe our souls have been part of our existence since life began on Earth - which, by the way, I believe started in the oceans as simple one-celled organisms. I believe in evolution and have seen for myself how it fits easily into the bible.
As a liberal Christian, I do not interpret the bible literally in most cases. I use it as a guide, a tool, a resource, but in the end, I make my decisions based on my own experiences and what I feel is the right choice.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Have you ever been called anti-choice or anti-woman? How about baby-humping-bible-thumper? I know names too, Sanders. But I know they hurt. I know there is no point in calling names, or throwing stones. You are not without sin, Sanders. Every good Christian knows that he or she is not perfect. Before you judge and before you think it's "Ok" to call others names, maybe you should open your bible again. Jesus speaks of love, not hate.

reply from: sander

Have you ever been called anti-choice or anti-woman? How about baby-humping-bible-thumper? I know names too, Sanders. But I know they hurt. I know there is no point in calling names, or throwing stones. You are not without sin, Sanders. Every good Christian knows that he or she is not perfect. Before you judge and before you think it's "Ok" to call others names, maybe you should open your bible again. Jesus speaks of love, not hate.
So, proabortion and or prolife are names to be called?
They're descriptions of one's stance on the issue of abortion, nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, every "good" Christian knows they are not without sin, and every "good" Christian knows abortion is murder.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Have you ever been called anti-choice or anti-woman? How about baby-humping-bible-thumper? I know names too, Sanders. But I know they hurt. I know there is no point in calling names, or throwing stones. You are not without sin, Sanders. Every good Christian knows that he or she is not perfect. Before you judge and before you think it's "Ok" to call others names, maybe you should open your bible again. Jesus speaks of love, not hate.
So, proabortion and or prolife are names to be called?
They're descriptions of one's stance on the issue of abortion, nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, every "good" Christian knows they are not without sin, and every "good" Christian knows abortion is murder.
No, pro-abortion and anti-choice are names to be called. Pro-life and pro-choice are proper titles. But to think about it in another way, if I called a pro-lifer who was ok with abortion in the case of maternal danger a pro-choicer, she or he might be very offended!! That is why I also was offended to be called a pro-lifer by someone else on another forum, just because I am not for all abortions, any time, any reason. Because I am not 100% pro-choice, this person said I was pro-life. I've also been called "pro-YOUR-choice". There are many names to call people.
In the end, the proper terms are pro-life and pro-choice. I am giving you that courtesy, why do you refuse to extend it to me?
Also, please check out the link I posted to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. You will see that abortion does not always conflict with the bible. The again, I am not a bible-literalist. It is a guide, not an absolute.

reply from: sander

I wouldn't click on that link for love or money.
I've been a Christian too long, done too many studies to believe for a single second that God all mighty is good with abortion on demand.
Listen, you have your views surrounding Christianity and abortion and I have mine. This is not the board to discuss those views.
As far as "names", you're free to use whatever descriptions you choose, and I'll use mine. You can't possibly be so full of yourself that you think you're going to dictate to others how we can post, right?

reply from: faithman

Have you ever been called anti-choice or anti-woman? How about baby-humping-bible-thumper? I know names too, Sanders. But I know they hurt. I know there is no point in calling names, or throwing stones. You are not without sin, Sanders. Every good Christian knows that he or she is not perfect. Before you judge and before you think it's "Ok" to call others names, maybe you should open your bible again. Jesus speaks of love, not hate.
So, proabortion and or prolife are names to be called?
They're descriptions of one's stance on the issue of abortion, nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, every "good" Christian knows they are not without sin, and every "good" Christian knows abortion is murder.
No, pro-abortion and anti-choice are names to be called. Pro-life and pro-choice are proper titles. But to think about it in another way, if I called a pro-lifer who was ok with abortion in the case of maternal danger a pro-choicer, she or he might be very offended!! That is why I also was offended to be called a pro-lifer by someone else on another forum, just because I am not for all abortions, any time, any reason. Because I am not 100% pro-choice, this person said I was pro-life. I've also been called "pro-YOUR-choice". There are many names to call people.
In the end, the proper terms are pro-life and pro-choice. I am giving you that courtesy, why do you refuse to extend it to me?
Also, please check out the link I posted to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. You will see that abortion does not always conflict with the bible. The again, I am not a bible-literalist. It is a guide, not an absolute.
Abortion always conflicts with the Bible and the God who wrote it. Their is no such thing as a pro-abort christian. Only pro-death scum bag maggot bortheads pretending to be christian. No one can say they love Christ, then agree with destroying His pre-born image.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Those who do not question will never learn. If you are so firm and safe in your beliefs, then clicking that link could not possibly do you any harm. It may in fact give you new ammunition for your beliefs. Reading it can't be that harmful... so why do you refuse to read it?
Don't you think me being here is rather like you clicking that link? I am surrounded by those who believe differently than me, but rather than avoiding you, I am talking with you. I learn so much by being in places like this!
I used to think I was 100% pro-choice, but through the kind calm discussion with other pro-life posters on another forum I have developed the courage to stand up and say "No, all abortions are not ok, all reasons are not ok, and all time-periods are not ok". I don't fit in with pro-choicers because I am not 100% pro-choice, but I also do not fit in with pro-lifers because I do approve of abortion some of the time. I've spent a lot of time around pro-choicers, and now I'd like to experience the other side from inside.

reply from: sander

I do my reading of the Bible, taking God's Word in context. I've been studying God's Word for 38 years. I've heard all the arguments pro and con. Surely, you've read "there's nothing new under the sun"?
No, I don't think you being here is rather like clicking that link, you're here by choice.
I hope you're able to one day, see that God created the womb for His purpose and that ALL were created in His image. We were all fearly and wonderfully made and before we were formed in our mother's womb, He knew us and all our "members" were written down in a book. If those truths can help you find your way to being 100% prolife, wonderful, if not, that's something God alone will deal with.
Again, this is a 100% Pro-Life website, surely you didn't miss the title chosen by Mark Crutcher, right? This is PRO-LIFE AMERICA, so if the titles disturb you then I don't know what to tell you, perhaps this isn't the place for you then. This isn't a religious forum, though it sometimes veers off in that direction.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I feel God's word needs to be taken in context to the time period it was written in, and also looked at in context to today's world also. We are in a very different place than we were 2000 years ago. I wouldn't take medical advice from someone back then, so I take their ethical advice with a grain of salt too. There are good things in the Bible, wonderful advice, good tales of how to be a good person. There is much to value in such a book.
I know we are all created in His image, but as I explained on another thread, the path we walk is already known by him. We cannot surprise him. If we are meant to be aborted or to abort, then that is part of his plan. However, for us, it is a choice we have to make. He cannot make it for us.
I do not know why you keep name-dropping... I do not know these people. If the owner of this site did not want me here, or any other pro-choicer, he would remove us. If you find our presence disturbing, please inform him. However, you will find us everywhere, just like I find pro-lifers on every pro-choice forum. I welcome them, I welcome the chance to show them how I think and feel.

reply from: churchmouse

Which means you are pro-abortion. You cant sit the fence on this issue. You do not defend the rights of the unborn child, if you are pro-choice. You hide behind the pro-choice lable like other pro-aborts.......you are pro-abortion.
Whats early term? And for what reasons?
Which ones are ok?
I want to finish school, a baby would set me back.
I already have a boy, I wanted a girl.
I am to poor.
I am scared.
I dont know who the father is.
Kids dont have kids.
I'm on drugs.
I have enough kids.
I dont want to get fat.
I'm in prison.
The world is overpopulated.
The baby has a deformity.
I just dont want to have a baby, it will cramp my style.
Abortion is my birth control.
If you are really PRO-CHOICE, then all these should be acceptable for you. And you should not be able to tell a woman what to do. And If you say you are against abortion then every child in the circumstances above deserves the right to live.
They deserve you to stand up for them. And if you are pro-choice, you willingly look the other way.
You know nothing obviously about the fetus in the womb, gestation and viability. My neice was born at around 22 weeks. She is now 16 years old.
If you are pro-choice then the statement you make here is absolutely laughable.
Because to deny any woman an abortion for whatever reasons that SHE wants, is to enslave her. You are pickin and choosin here my friend, all based on what YOU THINK. Have you once looked at what science and medicine says about the unborn child? Do you know when the heart starts beating? When they can measure brain waves?
LMAO Your hilarious. We are dealing with KILLING A LIVING HUMAN BEING HERE. Can you look at any woman and tell me at that time whether or not her unborn is viable? That it ALL OF A SUDDEN, is worth saving. Please. You have no clue about this, that is for sure. Babies are viable long before 27 weeks. Why would care about pain. How do you know for sure when it feels pain. Say your the abortionist with the suction tool.....and you are standing there at around 27 weeks with a pregnant woman on the table. Could your guess at when the fetus is viable be wrong? I mean dont make a mistake here, your mistake could cause some pain....while you are dismembering the unborn.
I would add a few words to this.........Left wing radical Christian in name only.
Th views you have are no more Chrisitian than I am Carrie Underwood. Seriously are you for real, or here just playing around and making fun of those of us that are Christian? You need not be Christian to know that abortion is murder.......but to claim what you say here........that your faith is of the Christian one....is not right. Everything you say, goes against the scriptures.
God of the Bible is not nature. God created nature. We were created in the image of God. Are we the sun, and the moon? Are we earthquakes or rivers?
Christians rely on the Word, or the Bible to guide them, show them how to live. If your a Christian why dont you do this?
I bet you have never read the Bible have you? Do you know what the Great Commission is? Do you know why Christ came in the first place? Do you know what sin is and what happens if you never repent of sin?
To have a relationship with God you must accept Christ as your personal Savior. I am not making this up......it is written in Scipture, by Christ Himself. He said, He is the ONLY WAY TO GOD TO HEAVEN.
Christ is the only way to have eternal life.
\
Its not enough to sit in front of a babbling brook and meditate on how beautiful the crystal clear water is. Nature isnt gonna save ya........Christ will, and He is the only one that can.
Then you are not a Christian. In no way shape or form based on what you have said here.......are you a Christian.
There is only one path Liberal, there are not many. If you are a Christian then you should already know this. I would encourage you to pick up a Bible and read what Christ says.
You have got to be kidding me? There will ALWAYS BE A GAP UNTIL THOSE THAT ARE PRO-CHOICE CHOOSE TO JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON OF LIFE FOR THE UNBORN. By being pro-choice/abortion, you take a black magic marker and you draw a bullseye on every child in the womb.
RAndy Alcorn has this to say, " In terms of moral impact, there is NO significant moral difference between people who are in favor of drug dealing and people who don't like it personally but believe it should be legal. Someone who is pro-choice about rape might argue that this is not the same as being pro-rape. But what is the real difference? Wouldn't being pro-choice about rape allow and effectively promote the legitimacy of rape?................Some people have the illusion that being personally opposed to abortion while believing others should be free to choose it is some kind of compromise between the pro-abortion and pro-life positions. It is not. Pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion people. Both oppose legal protection for the innocent unborn. Both are willing for children to die by abortion and must take responsibility for the killing of those babies even if they do not participate directly. To the baby who dies it makes no difference whether those who refuse to protect her were pro-abortion or merely pro-choice."............
If abortion doesn't kill children, why would someone be opposed to it? If it does kill children, why would someone defend another's right to do it?
Being personally against abortion but favoring another's right to abortion is self-contradictory and morally baffling. It's like saying, "I'm against child abuse, but I defend my neighbors right to beat his children, if that is his choice." Or "I am against genocide but if others want to kill off an entire race, that's none of my business."
People like yourself say, don't call me pro-abortion, I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. My question to you would be then, why are you opposed to being called pro-abortion? Is there something wrong with abortion? "
I have met Mark Crutcher many times at pro-life events. He is passionate about the unborn in the womb. He is a godly man working his tail off night and day for the unborn child. I would encourage you to read his blogs. I am sure he allows those that are pro-choice/abortion to be here so that they MIGHT BE THE ONES CHANGED in their postions about abortion. That they might see the light and how horrible inhumane their postions are.
You mock God. I do not judge your heart.......your actions and what you have said here I can judge however. You are bashing everything Christ said and did. There is no other way to put it.
Liberal I think you are wasting your time.

I know the feeling. I feel that way especially when people claim to be Christian and do not even know or stand on what the Bible says. When you say things like this......"As a liberal Christian, I do not interpret the bible literally in most cases. I use it as a guide, a tool, a resource, but in the end, I make my decisions based on my own experiences and what I feel is the right choice."
I dont mean to be cruel here......but you have no idea what you are talking about as far as Christianity goes.
Both those lables do not kill someone. They don't deal with death. I had an abortion. I murdered the child inside me. I know names, I have been called them. I deserve the lable in a sense because it is what i did. Nothing can change that. I am a Christian and God forgave me, when I repented. He can forgive you too if you ask. He is not the ocean. He is real. And He created us, in His image. I work with groups that are trying to overturn Roe, that counsel those who have had abortions. I work with Right To Life issues. Abortion is life issue.
Jesus came for one reason Liberal. He was about love but He came because, we were doomed, lost. He came to save us. Christ talked about sin, hell and what would happen if people did not repent and believe in Him. How can you pick and choose what you believe Jesus said is true and what is not? Christ said, you will NOT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE if you dont repent and ask Him into your heart. He said, You must be born again. His message was not all about love. It was about redemption.
Sometimes the truth hurts. If you are hurt because people label you pro-abortion, then maybe its time you did some research on what you stand up for. You are pro-abortion.
I understand why you dont want to be called pro-abortion. I think you know that its murder. And if you admit this.......well you know as well as I do how that sounds. Pro-choice is targeting a living human being in the womb.
The lables are what they are. And if you stand on pro-choice......in my book you are PRO-ABORTION. That is your stance.
Then I urge you to question your position, you will come to learn a lot.
I ask you............if there is nothing wrong with abortion, why are you opposed to pro-abortion lable. And if there is something wrong with it.......then why dont you stand up for the innocent life in the womb.
And for your information Liberal....Sander is right on.

reply from: galen

libral chi ro....
i have read your posts here and othre threads and i have a few questions?
why is abortion OK to you given what you have just professed about your belief in the souls of every living thing?
why do yu profess christianity? is it only your belief in Christ?
under what circumstances would you find abortion acceptable for early temers and why....?
where did you get yur info on the brain development of children and thier viability... its a bit outdated? what do you consider the definition of viability as it pertains to humans?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I question my position every day, that's why I'm here.
I am opposed to pro-abortion because I do not think that "nothing" is wrong with abortion, as I have stated several times. I think it is bad to end a life prematurely, even if that life is debatable as being a person. It doesn't matter if it's a person or a pig. I am pro-choice because I feel in my core there should be a choice; I can't explain why I feel it is right, I just know it is. It's not a very nice choice. I wish there were no unwanted pregnancies. I wish unwanted fetuses could be removed and placed into mechanical wombs until ready for "birth". I wish a lot of things, because I do care about the baby.
"Whats early term? And for what reasons?"
Early term is anything before the 27th week. Scientists on both the pro-life and pro-choice side agree that this is the stage at which the fetus becomes viable.
"Which ones are ok?"
I want to finish school, a baby would set me back.
- I feel this is an acceptable reason for an early-term abortion. One, not fifteen.
I already have a boy, I wanted a girl.
- Not an acceptable reason. The pregnancy was purposeful; you owe it to that child to give birth to it.
I am to poor.
- Acceptable reason. I can understand a woman not giving birth because she simply couldn't afford to give it food, a good home, or a chance at a real education. Poverty breeds poverty.
I am scared.
- This woman needs more counseling, it is clearly not time for her to make the decision just yet to keep, adopt or abort.
I dont know who the father is.
- I can't see how this would even factor in to someone choosing to abort unless she was a hussy who slept around with a bunch of men but was now trying to be steady with one man, and didn't want to "accidentally" give birth to a mixed child. I'd say that this is not an acceptable reason to abort.
Kids dont have kids.
- Kids shouldn't have kids, I agree 200%. It is not physically or emotionally safe for a young girl to give birth. Getting her period is not the end of puberty, it is the beginning.
I'm on drugs.
- I'd consider that an acceptable reason to abort. There are many complications in this situation, whether the drug is legal or not.
I have enough kids.
- This goes with the too poor answer, and again, if you can't pay to raise another child, you shouldn't.
I dont want to get fat.
- No woman actually uses this as a reason to abort, and if she did, would you actually want that shallow of a woman to be a parent? She'd probably do something to cause the fetus to die irresponsibly before term anyway. No, this is not an acceptable reason to abort.
I'm in prison.
- How did you get pregnant?
The world is overpopulated.
- The world's population should have nothing to do with YOU wanting to have a baby. If you want one, have one.
The baby has a deformity.
- It depends on the severity. Deformities are not normally noticeable until later on, so most parents won't abort a wanted child anyway unless the dformity is truly life-threatening or severely limits the child's potential quality of life. This can be an acceptable reason to abort.
I just dont want to have a baby, it will cramp my style.
- Again, I don't think sane women actually use this as a reason. However if this was their only reason, I would say it is not an acceptable reason to abort. A baby's life is not worth your "style".
Abortion is my birth control.
- I despise abortion as birth control.
In conclusion, I feel that the situations in which I feel abortion is OK are situations where the fetus' potential life is taken into concern as well as the mother's life.

reply from: jujujellybean

Sorry, I do not like the ehealthforum. I was treated like poo there. Apparently, I am a terrorist. What is your name there?
Pro abortion and pro choice are the same thing: they both believe that abortion is ok, and a woman has the right to choose. pro choice is just a fancier name for believing it is ok to give the mother that right.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I believe no soul is killed or removed from the whole when an abortion takes place, so I don't see how harm is done in that sense. The baby's soul just rejoins with the whole.
It is actually because I was born Christian and it is through this religion that I am most familiar with communicating with God. As a liberal christian, I sometimes question the divinity of Jesus, though I never deny his importance as a person. I am still struggling to learn
I actually answered a bunch of situations above. Basically, if the abortion is being done because the birth of a child will be a danger to the mother, or if the child would not have a proper quality of life, then I feel an early-term abortion is ok. I feel any decision to abort should be done FOR the fetus, not for the woman.
That information is cutting edge. I could go look some up but I don't have any resources right on hand.
Viability is the stage at which the fetus can feel pain, reaches mature brain development, AND is capable of surviving more than 50% of the time if born and given intensive post-natal care. Yes, a child was born at 22 weeks and survived, but that is rare.
Because a baby at 27 weeks old is capable of independent life (disconnected from the mother), I feel it has a right to that life.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Sorry, I do not like the ehealthforum. I was treated like poo there. Apparently, I am a terrorist. What is your name there?
Pro abortion and pro choice are the same thing: they both believe that abortion is ok, and a woman has the right to choose. pro choice is just a fancier name for believing it is ok to give the mother that right.
You were treated terribly, I remember you. I was recently there as cmyked. Before that, I was Eiri.
And I again feel that pro-abortion and pro-choice are two different things, just like I'm sure you feel that pro-life and anti-choice are two different things!

reply from: sander

In conclusion, you're still a pro-abort, thru and thru.

reply from: galen

i believe your viability knowledge is limited. viability is used in medicine as the time when a fetus can be sustained outside the womb.. currently this is between 18 and 22 weeks depending on the child. 27 weeks is the usual without vent support but still suplementation ( cpap) in majority of cases. surfactant may or may not be used...
i'll referr you to a recent NY Times article that quotes the newer issues of pain controll in a NICU ans ask again where you get your info.
as for the rest... i do believe that your instances of when an abortion is acceptable pull you twrd to prochoice side rather than the prolife side.
just stating that its OK to kill a child based on someones desire to finish school would put you there.
Women do LOTS of things while pregnant. It is definately a place in your life where people tend to be MORE willing to help yu with things like school thann at any other time. where there is a will there is a way.. i know from experience.
it is good you question things.
this is someone elses life that is being taken... and gues what THIS is the ONE instance where there are NO reasons where that life is ever forfit.. on either side of the equation as this child has had no life experience... for the same reasons you can not go up and legally shoot your neighbor's noisy kids, you should not kill any child... my only exception is the one i posted in another thread that outlines the VERY rare health threat to a woman that MUST be dealt with immeadiately.

reply from: jujujellybean

Sorry, I do not like the ehealthforum. I was treated like poo there. Apparently, I am a terrorist. What is your name there?
Pro abortion and pro choice are the same thing: they both believe that abortion is ok, and a woman has the right to choose. pro choice is just a fancier name for believing it is ok to give the mother that right.
You were treated terribly, I remember you. I was recently there as cmyked. Before that, I was Eiri.
And I again feel that pro-abortion and pro-choice are two different things, just like I'm sure you feel that pro-life and anti-choice are two different things!
Oh yah! You were one of the nice ones! Great to have you here!
I don't think they are; actually in the dictionary they are the same; I am against a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn baby; that's what that means, so I must be that. I will call you pro choice though if you prefer it. I just don't see a diff really...
anyways, welcome with open arms to the forum!

reply from: galen

here is a lonk.. i don't know if you are a lay person or not but if you are its simple reading on fetal pain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/magazine/10Fetal-t.html?ex=1360299600&en=87d026ab3a07be6d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

reply from: lukesmom

Hmmm, I am prolife AND pro choice. Difference between you and me is that killing the unborn for any reason or non reason is not a choice. That is what makes me prolife, antiabortion or whatever label anyone wants to use and that is what makes you proabortion, antilife or whatever label anyone wants to use.

reply from: 4given

I find that hard to believe. Juju makes a point of expressing displeasure over others "attacking" posters regardless of their views. I am quite sure you have her confused.

reply from: carolemarie

LiberalChiRo answered this way
- I despise abortion as birth control.
But ALL abortion is birth control. It stops you from giving birth.
That is why women have them. Every reason possible to have an abortion boils down to I don't want to give birth to a baby. Abortion ALWAYS is birth control

reply from: AshMarie88

Oh, so you're for women's rights in moderation? That's not very pro-woman of you...
Abortion IS birth control! It controls the number of babies that are born... at least, born alive. They're all "born" dead after they're aborted. Only difference is, they're sucked out, not carefully pulled out by loving hands.
... Why? Why should it matter how many abortions she has? If the "thing" is just a blob of tissue and if it's her right to terminate it, why does it matter how many she has? It's not your right to judge whether more than 3 is worse or not.
It's HER body, HER choice, HER life!!
Fetuses don't become independent life until at least the age of 16+ years... I'm 19 and still not independent yet! I guess I'm a "fetus"...
Pain sensors begin to develop prior to the 7th week after fertilization, and babies can feel pain even around 20 weeks. Many babies have been and still are born around the 20th week and they feel pain. Care to explain that one?

reply from: carolemarie

Originally posted by: LiberalChiRo
I am against late-term (27+ week) abortion unless it is for the mother's safety or severe fetal deformity etc. I am against abortion as a sole form of birth control. I am against one woman having too many (3+) elective abortions unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Pro-choicers have always had issues with women who have multiple abortions. I have never understood that.
But if it is my choice, why am I limited to some arbitrary number of procedures. Either women have the right to reproductive freedom or they don't. Why would you lose that right after two procedures? Please explain that line of reasoning to me....I am curious to your reasoning.

reply from: sheri

I havent talked with a pantheist in years, ive been wanting to get hands on one to continue a conversation, can you tell me if the spirit creator is offended at the removal of His gift? My antagonist equated God with a tree that sends out little tendrals (us), if we are removed from the tree our life force reverts to its base, and another shoot pops up to take its place. Now if a shoot is forcibly removed (say it has a deformity) would not the creator be offended? after all it was his shoot deformity and all, he made it, he usally reserves the right to recall etc.
Thank you, liberalCheerio. for your help in this long standing question.

reply from: 4given

I don't know if I should be shocked or laugh. Talking "smack"..? Perhaps you and I have different ideas of smack talk.

reply from: Faramir

LCR, this is NOT Christianity. This looks like pantheism, but whatever it is you are preaching, it's NOT Christianity.

reply from: Faramir

No one who calls someone a scumbag or a scanc or who judges someone else's sin can be a Christian.
Hateful people cannot be Christians, right?

reply from: 4given

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PRO-ABORT CHRISTIAN! Faramir- do you believe that an awakened being is alive in Christ? Do you believe that the dead in Christ will enter in? Do you believe that advocating the slaughter of God's created children goes against Him personally? Does a true follower and lover of Christ waiver for convenience over murder?

reply from: 4given

God looks on the heart...

reply from: Faramir

I do not think any Christian should be in favor of abortion rights.
Every Chrisitan should see it as a grave injustice and should oppose it to whatever degree he can--at the very least by not participating in abortions and by not supporting prochoice candidates.
But not every Christian knows the fullness of the Truth.
Some Christians even embrace the evil of contraception. Some Christians promote it as good.
I have to cut them some slack and realize that they are ignorant and don't know any better, and possibly I could help inform them of how its use goes against God and how it encourages abortion.
It's the same with abortion. Christians SHOULD know that it is wrong. Christians SHOULD belive that life begins at conception. But not all of them know this and not all of them have a teaching authority. There are thousands of sects who each do their own thing, all claiming to have the same bible as their authority.
So the bottom line for me is sadly, there ARE some ignorant people who are prochoice and Christains, just as there are some ingorant people who are pro contraception and Christians.

reply from: churchmouse

No you dont, or you wouldn't be pro-choice/abortion and you would be as outraged like all of us feel here on this forum over how they are slaughtered daily.
Dont all unborns deserve the same chance?
Let me ask you this. If you walked into a nursery at a hospital and saw a room full of babies and I told you to pick out the baby whose mother was raped.....could you do it? How about if I told you to pick out the baby whose family is poor? How about the baby, whose mother has no clue who the father is? How about the mother who happened to be in prison?
They all look the same. They all deserve the same rights, whether they are in the womb or they are out.
And so does violence. Violence breeds violence. And an abortion is an attack, a violent act carried out on an innocent living human being.
They shouldnt have sex either, but they do, and with sex comes responsibility.
I gave you a list of examples of excuses women use for abortion. You were all over the place on these. Yes no yes no....
So what you really are saying here is that you feel that you should have a choice and no one else should. Because you just gave about six no's on the list I gave you.... to woman that think they should have a choice to abort for the reason they can live with. If you stand on choice.......then you must allow choice for people you disagree with. And that is not a pro-life position.
Prove that what your saying is true.
You said, "I think it is bad to end a life prematurely"
You said, "I wish abortion never, ever had to happen."
You said, "I do not like abortion."
You said, "The unborn is a baby, a human."
Then you said..............
"As for the unborn, yes I believe they have a soul,"
But your pro-choice and think abortion is ok if it fits your criteria.

You say the unborn has a soul so in that sense abortion isnt that bad.
You just gave an entire post on how you think its wrong. LOL
It is,, it isnt, it is, it isnt, it is, it isnt, it is it isnt.
I dont think what you know what you believe because you dont know all the facts and you certainly didnt learn anything at that medical site you hung out at. You said that you question your position every day.......yea I can certainly see that you do.
About that site.
That site you gave is satanic. Sander is right. If you are a Christian you dont go near it.
THEY WANT ABORTION SAFE AND LEGAL.
http://www.rcrc.org/movie/tfsfrjmovie.cfm

reply from: churchmouse

Cant be both just like I pointed out to Liberal. To be pro-choice.......you have to allow EVERYONE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES, TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS, even if you dissagree with that decision. Killing is killing. That never changes. YOU ARE NOT PRO-LIFE, if you are content to look away, while you condone that someone else kill their child.
You are pro-choice/abortion.
It is impossible to stand on life and give somone the right to kill, even if you wouldnt do it yourself.
Good posts Faramir.

reply from: sander

Bravo!
What a great way to point out the utter fallacy of the proabort excuses!

reply from: churchmouse

Sander..........the child in the womb is innocent. It matters not to him/her what the circumstances of his conception or death would be. The unborn deserves a chance at life.
Anyone that says they believe this should be a personal decision, like I said, marks a bullseye on the unborn in the womb. They look away......they hide and they dont want to be associated with that pro-abortion lable. But anyone with a brain can see that they are one and the same.
What really gets me are the so called Christians that are pro-choice. In no way shape or form are they Christian. They could never align their views with what God says in the scriptures. In fact we should have a thread here that points that out. I think I'll start one.
Speaking to Christians here.....
The fact is we are all created by God. He created us for His glory. Our lives are significant to Him and so are the unborns in the womb. Abortion does not Glorify God.
Our purpose must be to fulfill the reason that God created us.....to Glorify HIm. He would never rejoice in abortion.
We need a thread pertainly to God and abortion.........a systematic theology.
What does the Bible say about life? How does this relate to abortion?
If we can't reach pro-choice, non christians, maybe we can show through scripture and get to the pro-choice Christians that stand on death for the unborn.

reply from: sander

I belong to a Bible forum, I'm STUNNED at the poraborts that post there, "posing" as Christians!
No amount of pursading seems to spark anything, but the seeds are planted and we have to let God give the increase.
Most of the proaborts usually slither away and not heard from again, the few that stick around are as stiff necked as they come! God help them.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm not a pantheist, so I can't really help you.
However, from a Liberal Christian point of view, why would God be offended by something he knew was going to happen?
I think God is above such petty human emotions as offenses and anger. God is love, not hate. God is patience, not irritation.

reply from: galen

__________________________________________________
i would request your comments on this article and how it affects or does not affect your views.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I am personally against it because I believe the unborn has worth. Everything in moderation, as well. That's why "NO abortion" is just as bad as "MANY abortions". I feel it is offensive to life and to nature to abort multiple times. A female's body is SUPPOSED to get pregnant. That's a natural thing.
To me it's like constantly ripping hair out of your head. Once or twice because you're stressed out, maybe. But it's harmful, painful, and doesn't exactly look attractive...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I hate when people play that word game. I'm not even going to grace this with a response. You know what I meant; so stop being pedantic.

reply from: sander

I'm not a pantheist, so I can't really help you.
However, from a Liberal Christian point of view, why would God be offended by something he knew was going to happen?
I think God is above such petty human emotions as offenses and anger. God is love, not hate. God is patience, not irritation.
Goodness, are you ever going to "study to show yourself approved"? You haven't even read the Bible thru, so all your ramblings concerning Christianity are just that...ramblings without any Biblical context.
God is offended by sin....see Noah, see Revelations and above all SEE THE CROSS!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If your information on viability is correct then why have no babies been born at 18 weeks and survived? If there were some actual proof of this information then I would retract my dates to 18 weeks, however all of the information I've ever seen from truly credible, unbiased sites, say 27 weeks. I'll read the article, however I'm extremely skeptical.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm not a pantheist, so I can't really help you.
However, from a Liberal Christian point of view, why would God be offended by something he knew was going to happen?
I think God is above such petty human emotions as offenses and anger. God is love, not hate. God is patience, not irritation.
Goodness, are you ever going to "study to show yourself approved"? You haven't even read the Bible thru, so all your ramblings concerning Christianity are just that...ramblings without any Biblical context.
God is offended by sin....see Noah, see Revelations and above all SEE THE CROSS!
I have not read ALL of the bible, however, I have read from it, so you just lied. Your attempts to deface me won't work.
You are one kind of Christian; the kind who believes that only s/he is right, and anyone who doesn't believe exactly like them is wrong, evil, and bad. That kind of Christianity is slowly dying and I am GLAD.

reply from: galen

try this link... its for 21 weeks per LMP she would have been 18 weeks that is why i hyphenated.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2888874&page=1

also most states asses viability at 20 weeks. For the purpose of preforming abortion they rate viability there and when to term stillbirth vs miscarriage.

reply from: faithman

I have a nephew who was born at 22 weeks in 1983. He is still doing just fine.

reply from: sander

That's exactly what I said, "you haven't read the Bible THRU", no attempts to deface you at all. I will say, you managed that on your own anyway.
You are a liar. I NEVER said you were evil or bad, I have said you state things as a Christian without any Biblical reference. I also said it doesn't matter what YOU or I "think", it only matters what God says. How convient for you to forget that.
Oh yes, you are right, in a way. The Bible says there will come a day and is all ready here, you add to the proof:
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

From your article, Galen:
"Even as some research suggests that fetuses can feel pain as preterm babies do, other evidence indicates that they are anatomically, biochemically and psychologically distinct from babies in ways that make the experience of pain unlikely. The truth about fetal pain can seem as murky as an image on an ultrasound screen, a glimpse of a creature at once recognizably human and uncomfortably strange."
"In the absence of such first-person testimony, he concludes, it's "better to err on the safe side" and assume that the fetus can feel pain starting around 20 to 24 weeks."
"The capacity to feel pain, he proposed, emerges around 29 to 30 weeks gestational age, or about two and a half months before a full-term baby is born. Before that time, he asserted, the fetus's higher pain pathways are not yet fully developed and functional."
"Before nerve fibers extending from the thalamus have penetrated the cortex - connections that are not made until the beginning of the third trimester - there can be no consciousness and therefore no experience of pain."
I like this one in particular, since it goes with my earlier argument:
"Mellor notes that when faced with other potential threats, like an acute shortage of oxygen, the fetus does not rouse itself but rather shuts down more completely in an attempt to conserve energy and promote survival. This is markedly different from the reaction of an infant, who will thrash about in an effort to dislodge whatever is blocking its airway. "A fetus," Mellor says, "is not a baby who just hasn't been born yet."
"Anand maintains that doctors performing abortions at 20 weeks or later should take steps to prevent or relieve fetal pain."
"Stuart Derbyshire warns against "anthropomorphizing" the fetus, investing it with human qualities it has yet to develop. To do so, he suggests, would subtract some measure of our own humanity. And to concern ourselves only with the welfare of the fetus is to neglect the humanity of the pregnant woman, Mark Rosen notes. When considering whether to provide fetal anesthesia during an abortion, he says, it's not "erring on the safe side" to endanger a woman's health in order to prevent fetal pain that may not exist."
"Two years ago, a Swiftian satire of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act appeared on the progressive Web site AlterNet.org. Written by Lynn Paltrow, the executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, it urged the bill's authors to extend its provisions to those fetuses "subjected to repeated, violent maternal uterine contraction and then forced through the unimaginably narrow vaginal canal."
Overall, it's an interesting article but with nothing conclusive below even week 20. It mentioned nothing of viability, which is the ability to survive outside the womb with medical help. The world's youngest baby born was 21 weeks and 6 days old, so that's my current lowest point for viability - on average, it's higher, around 26 weeks.
Will this single article change my stance on abortion? Only to concede that pain may occur as early as week 20. I tend to agree with the doctors who discuss the brain connections, and mention weeks 28-30. However, it maybe be a combination of the two things, so let's call it an even 25 weeks.
To be honest, I can't understand why a woman would be aborting at 25 weeks along... most women know by week 10; that's two missed periods. 90% of abortions occur between weeks 6 and 12, did you know that? That's no where NEAR the thresholds for pain, even the lowest which was 17 weeks!! I could agree to making elective abortions illegal (with exceptions determined by a doctor) past 20 weeks. Medically-necessary abortions are rare, and abortions past week 20 account for less than 1% of all abortions ANYWAY, so that's not a huge concession to make. Medically-necessary abortions should always be legal in my mind.

reply from: galen

hmmmm and what would you consider medically valid?

reply from: AshMarie88

OMG! The poverty excuse! So nearly my entire family should've been aborted??? Because the majority of them lived in poverty and a lot of times lived on the streets and had nothing to eat, in the late 50s and 60's! I won't go into detail but yea, I'm assuming you feel they should've been aborted!

reply from: galen

________________________________________________
are you reviseing this statement?

reply from: galen

also where are you getting your abortion stats?..PP's stats alone say that abortions past the 20 wk mark are a bit higher than 1% .. even Dr tiller acknowledges around 5% for his late terms.

reply from: galen

some more interesting and unbiased reading from one of our leading medical schools...
http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=9029&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

reply from: galen

and another one on what OB's consider viable for routine purposes...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18240080

reply from: galen

even Guttmacher has revised down to 23-24 weeks ...why do you want to call it even at 25?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18240080

reply from: galen

here is one for 22 weeks in the state of MN.
www.comtecmed.com/cogi/cogi5/abstracts/Norwitz.doc · Cached page· DOC file

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It may sound terrible, but I would not consider alone a site or research done by a religiously-backed company to be valid, because all of their research is going to be spun to promote fetal rights. Conversely, pro-choice (Guttmacher for example) sites will be trying to spin towards fetal inhumanity, though I honestly notice less dishonesty from them, then again they too could be not revealing certain information.
The best thing to do, and what I like the article did, is to reference ALL of these places and compare the data. That's why I say "HM" to 17 weeks, but also "HM" to the claims of 30 weeks or even post-natal ideas that born babies can't feel pain!! Clearly, outliers are not correct.
So, overall, while I might not consider a religious organization's investigation unbiased at all, when comparing it to the other unbiased extreme, I can formulate a truer picture. I do not consider either source valid on its own, but together they can be very worthwhile.

reply from: lukesmom

Cant be both just like I pointed out to Liberal. To be pro-choice.......you have to allow EVERYONE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES, TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS, even if you dissagree with that decision. Killing is killing. That never changes. YOU ARE NOT PRO-LIFE, if you are content to look away, while you condone that someone else kill their child.
You are pro-choice/abortion.
It is impossible to stand on life and give somone the right to kill, even if you wouldnt do it yourself.
Good posts Faramir.
church, did you read further than the first sentence of my post? I am prochoice in chosing ctt or adoption or whatevery choice anyone wants to make except abortion which IS NOT A CHOICE for any reason. That does not make me pro-abortion. Bite your tongue!

reply from: galen

you totally missed the point of that question..
i asked ' what do you consider medically valid'...
i asked you a medical question not one about religion.. in fact i am asking ALL of this based on medicine.. not religion. You may not have realised this but 90% of my arguments against abortion have NOTHING to do with my religion , unless a person wants it that way i tend to stick to the medicine.

reply from: lukesmom

Well Sander, these posters like to form their "own" kinda God because they can't or aren't willing to live God's law. They think they can create God to be what THEY want rather than to become the person God wants. This way they can change their beliefs anytime they want to reflect what ever fits the situation. I call this "flavor of the day" God. These people try to control God instead of giving over control of their life into God's Hands. In the end, I feel sorry for them because they haven't got a clue and may learn too late.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I do not think it is respectful to live in poverty, to live off welfare, and to suck down my tax dollars that I earn by doing a good job. I'm all for helping someone get on their feet, but I am not in approval of having entire families living off of welfare for their entire life.
Is life sometime hard? Of course, and that's why welfare is there. It is for TEMPORARY relief when life just goes wacky. Welfare should NOT be a life-style; but for millions of Americans it is.
My own parents needed WIC (I think that's the abbreviation) which provided milk, formula, eggs, cheese, etc, when I was a baby. However, my parents pulled themselves up in the workforce. WIC only pays when the child is young, and that's it. My father joined the army for a stable job and pay. My mom alternated between a stay at home mom and a day-care worker. Now at age 47, they are both on a second career as teachers. They went from not being able to afford cheese to owning two very nice cars, a house in a gated community, etc etc.
Does everyone have to achieve exactly that? No. But every single person has the ability to help themselves. Living a life of poverty is 100% curable. Those who choose that life get no respect from me.
That is how I personally feel about bringing a child into the world whom you cannot afford. If you are willing to work hard enough that you will not need to live on welfare for your entire life, then go for it. But if you are PLANNING to purposely give birth and live off of government subsidies, then that's just not cool.
But in the end, whether I respect that lifestyle or not, it is the mother's CHOICE.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

________________________________________________
are you reviseing this statement?
I don't understand what you mean...

reply from: sander

Well Sander, these posters like to form their "own" kinda God because they can't or aren't willing to live God's law. They think they can create God to be what THEY want rather than to become the person God wants. This way they can change their beliefs anytime they want to reflect what ever fits the situation. I call this "flavor of the day" God. These people try to control God instead of giving over control of their life into God's Hands. In the end, I feel sorry for them because they haven't got a clue and may learn too late.
Very well put, Sue.
Only God could have and did say it better:
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

A bit higher than 1% is hardly a difference compared to less than 1%. I don't have these stats memorized so if I'm off by 1%, please forgive me. They're estimates based on what I remember.
AROUND 1% of abortions are past 20 weeks. Happy? That's still negligible, and I should think you'd be focusing on the fact that I was saying "I'd be fine with outlawing elective abortion past 20 weeks", instead of my lack of a photographic memory.

reply from: carolemarie

I am personally against it because I believe the unborn has worth. Everything in moderation, as well. That's why "NO abortion" is just as bad as "MANY abortions". I feel it is offensive to life and to nature to abort multiple times. A female's body is SUPPOSED to get pregnant. That's a natural thing.
To me it's like constantly ripping hair out of your head. Once or twice because you're stressed out, maybe. But it's harmful, painful, and doesn't exactly look attractive...
There is no logic to your position. How can terminating two pregnancies be okay, but the third or fourth is offensive? And if it is because the unborn have worth, why would it be okay to terminate two pregnancies?

reply from: lukesmom

I do not think it is respectful to live in poverty, to live off welfare, and to suck down my tax dollars that I earn by doing a good job. I'm all for helping someone get on their feet, but I am not in approval of having entire families living off of welfare for their entire life.
Is life sometime hard? Of course, and that's why welfare is there. It is for TEMPORARY relief when life just goes wacky. Welfare should NOT be a life-style; but for millions of Americans it is.
My own parents needed WIC (I think that's the abbreviation) which provided milk, formula, eggs, cheese, etc, when I was a baby. However, my parents pulled themselves up in the workforce. WIC only pays when the child is young, and that's it. My father joined the army for a stable job and pay. My mom alternated between a stay at home mom and a day-care worker. Now at age 47, they are both on a second career as teachers. They went from not being able to afford cheese to owning two very nice cars, a house in a gated community, etc etc.
Does everyone have to achieve exactly that? No. But every single person has the ability to help themselves. Living a life of poverty is 100% curable. Those who choose that life get no respect from me.
That is how I personally feel about bringing a child into the world whom you cannot afford. If you are willing to work hard enough that you will not need to live on welfare for your entire life, then go for it. But if you are PLANNING to purposely give birth and live off of government subsidies, then that's just not cool.
But in the end, whether I respect that lifestyle or not, it is the mother's CHOICE.
ranting? And how, exactly does this justify killing an innocent unborn life?

reply from: sander

I don't think she respects life at all, Sue.
She's as smug as they come, so what would be wrong with killing off the "human weeds"?
Sanger would have loved this one!
But, remember, she's all about..."God is LOVE"!

reply from: galen

________________________________________________
are you reviseing this statement?
I don't understand what you mean...
________________________________________________
i mean are you reviseing your original statement on viability?

reply from: galen

A bit higher than 1% is hardly a difference compared to less than 1%. I don't have these stats memorized so if I'm off by 1%, please forgive me. They're estimates based on what I remember.
AROUND 1% of abortions are past 20 weeks. Happy? That's still negligible, and I should think you'd be focusing on the fact that I was saying "I'd be fine with outlawing elective abortion past 20 weeks", instead of my lack of a photographic memory.
________________________________________________________
no because even Dr Tiller admits his late terms are around 5% so 1 % is not anaccurate figure.

reply from: galen

_____________________________________________
how can you be prochoice and still hate abortion? how can you say your prolife and still say abortion is the mothers choice?

reply from: galen

_______________________________________________________
you still did not answer this one...

reply from: Banned Member

Hello! I don't know if introduction posts go here, but I hope a mod moves it if it's wrong.
I was a long time (we're talking years!) poster and moderator on eHealth Forum.
I am pro-choice, but in moderation. I am pro-birth control. I am pro early-term abortions for elective reasons.
I am against late-term (27+ week) abortion unless it is for the mother's safety or severe fetal deformity etc. I am against abortion as a sole form of birth control. I am against one woman having too many (3+) elective abortions unless there are extenuating circumstances.
I am against late-term abortions because I believe the fetus gains a right-to-life when it becomes capable of independent life. This occurs around week 27. This is also when the brain becomes mature, and the unborn is capable of feeling pain.
From my user-name you may guess that I am a Liberal Christian. I believe in God, whom I believe is nature, the world around us, our spirits, us, and everything in the universe. There are many ways to experience God. Some people see Him with many faces (polytheism), some people call him by other names. However, I do believe God is there. I approach God through Christianity because it is the system I am familiar with; I was raised Christian. It is how I am comfortable talking with God and having a relationship with Him (it).
I do not believe Christianity is the only right religion. God has revealed himself to humans all over our planet in many ways. Every religion has something to teach.

Introductions are fine, and welcome to the forum. I have been on eHealth forum in the past, speaking about abortion. And rather than it being like yelling fire in a movie theater, it's rather like yelling fire in a burning building. Not only do others not hear, they do not care.
Pro-choice in moderation? Which abortions would you moderate? Are there any abortions that you would outright have banned? You say that you are against abortion as a means control. More than 98% of all abortion are just that, although I disagree in even calling abortion birth control. Abortion is in fact birth prevention and human murder. And I see that you are against late term abortions, except for the mothers health or fetal deformity? That's rather vague. Would you abort a downs child? a blind child? a child with one hand, arm, leg? What exactly would "etc" constitute? There are not life inhibiting circumstances! Favorable and unfavorable human life? Smacks of eugenics.
I think that you would find that if you were honest, you would find that such health circumstances where the child's life could be considered unlivable would be extremely rare. If you were even in favor of limiting abortion to less than 1% of its current rate, you would not even be able to consider yourself pro-choice, but largely pro-life. You are not pro-life. Why even try to play the moderate?
Pro-early term abortion. That puts you in the category of supporting somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of all abortions. Too many abortions? Isn't one too many? Is there some kind of lesson to be learned after one? Is there something that you know about a woman having two or three abortions? Extenuating circumstances? What would those "extenuating circumstances" be?
An unborn person is always an unborn person. Always. Even by your definitions though, people like Barack Obama would in fact be killing person would they not? Would any abortion by your definition be the killing of an unborn person? The problem with your definition of independent life is that is does not hold up for all people who are born, to say nothing of the unborn. A person is a living human being. The unborn are living, they are human a they exist in a state of being as much as the born of this world are.
You, are not a Christian. You are polytheistic, paganistic, gnostic, and perhaps actually a secular humanist, in the same league as Barack Obama. You seem to think that God is a reasonable placebo for living; a self help method of mental and/or spiritual well being. Christians believe that Christ is the Son of the Living God. Jesus Christ is the truth, the light and the way. There is no such thing as a liberal Christian. Oh you may have liberal ideas on foriegn and domestic policies as far as that goes. But to be of Christ, you must live of Christ. Jesus is not Mohammed, or Allah, or Buddha, or any other strange guises. Jesus does not hide the truth, nor does he disguise the truth in figures of other religions. Certainly no Christian can be for the taking of unborn human lives. You do not believe in God, you believe in something abstract that you call religion. Jesus Christ is not a system. Jesus Christ is not a way of talking about God. Jesus speaks with the authority of God the Father, and is God in the flesh in the person of the Son of God who lived among us, died among us and rose from the dead. While there may be kernals of truth in other belief systems, belief systems cannot claim to hold the fullness of truth, and some can do no more than claim to hold to accidental truths. None but Christ however can claim with genuine authority to speak for God.
That said, abortion and the right to abortion are illogical fallicies that transcend even the need for religion to disprove. An atheist of intellectual honesty, and of scientific honesty can proclaim that abortion is murder with the same authority as the believing and practicing Christian. You are neither a believing Christian or an intellectually honest person about either your thoughts on abortion or religion.
You need to profoundly re-think your views.

reply from: Banned Member

I am not pro-abortion, I would like to state that right away. The most offensive thing to me is being called pro-abortion, because I'm not.
I wish abortion never, ever had to happen. If abortion were obsolete I would be happy! I wish pregnancy only happened when a woman wanted it, and I wish fetuses didn't develop horrible, deadly, life-threatening deformations that kill not only them, but also risk the life of the mother. I wish rape didn't happen so little 11 year olds were in life-threatening situations.
I do not like abortion. It is ending the life of a human before it can even truly begin. The unborn is a baby, a human.
Also, I'm supposedly a better christian than you... since I haven't judged you like you have judged me. I have not told you your faith is false, yet you have told me so. Thankfully, I don't need your affirmation of my belief. I came to it on my own; to say "I love God" is one of the best feelings in the world. Being pro-choice does not mean you cannot be christian. Being christian does not mean you cannot be pro-choice.
To allow for any abortion, is to be pro-abortion. I am anti-choice! Call me anti-choice. I will not dodge that truth. There is not the choice to life. There is only life. If you are offended, you might want to consider why? Abortion never does have to happen. There are no exceptions. Rape victims constitute a very small portion of all abortions. Those that are children who have been raped, an even smaller percentage. Save the crocodile tears. If you had any honesty, you would admit that 99.9% of all abortions do not meet your criteria of abortions that are tragically needed. 99% of all abortions are the covering up of sexual discretion by destroying the living evidence. There is no moral difference between a professional abortion and the teen that drowns her newborn in the toilet.

reply from: AshMarie88

I do not think it is respectful to live in poverty, to live off welfare, and to suck down my tax dollars that I earn by doing a good job. I'm all for helping someone get on their feet, but I am not in approval of having entire families living off of welfare for their entire life.
Is life sometime hard? Of course, and that's why welfare is there. It is for TEMPORARY relief when life just goes wacky. Welfare should NOT be a life-style; but for millions of Americans it is.
My own parents needed WIC (I think that's the abbreviation) which provided milk, formula, eggs, cheese, etc, when I was a baby. However, my parents pulled themselves up in the workforce. WIC only pays when the child is young, and that's it. My father joined the army for a stable job and pay. My mom alternated between a stay at home mom and a day-care worker. Now at age 47, they are both on a second career as teachers. They went from not being able to afford cheese to owning two very nice cars, a house in a gated community, etc etc.
Does everyone have to achieve exactly that? No. But every single person has the ability to help themselves. Living a life of poverty is 100% curable. Those who choose that life get no respect from me.
That is how I personally feel about bringing a child into the world whom you cannot afford. If you are willing to work hard enough that you will not need to live on welfare for your entire life, then go for it. But if you are PLANNING to purposely give birth and live off of government subsidies, then that's just not cool.
But in the end, whether I respect that lifestyle or not, it is the mother's CHOICE.
So my family should've been aborted... How nice of you... NO it's NOT the mother's choice! Get over yourself. Murder should never be a "choice"!! Look at photos of dead babies and see what you REALLY support. Don't hide behind your words. Open the damn curtain.
And I know what WIC is. What's your point of all your stupid ranting?

reply from: sander

Ash,
She's just a Margaret Sanger wannabe. *shudder*

reply from: Banned Member

But if you are PLANNING to purposely give birth and live off of government subsidies, then that's just not cool. = Abortion=Ethnic Cleansing=Genocide

reply from: Banned Member

She's just a Margaret Sanger wannabe?
With remarks like, If you are PLANNING to purposely give birth and live off of government subsidies, then that's just not cool, she is not just a wannabe, she is the real thing.

reply from: sander

Oh, so THAT'S what she means by, "God is Love"!
Right....I'll make a note of that, then burn it.

reply from: Banned Member

I take it that Sander is someone to ignore?
I am here with the intent of reaching out and closing the cap, healing the wounds between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. The extremists act like they rule the world; they try to tell each of us how to think, how to be pro-life or pro-choice. It's offensive and terrible. Who are you, who is anyone to tell me how to think, how to be pro-choice or pro-life? You are no one if you think you have that right. You become someone the moment you accept that my thoughts are as important as yours.
Whoever runs this site does not have to allow us for any reason. I can only reason that he or she allows pro-choicers because s/he WANTS a different opinion, and also because s/he hopes that by being exposed to the pro-life view, pro-choicers may change their mind. There is no rule saying that "anyone" must be accepted onto a forum. S/he could easily ban us but does not. Debate strengthens our convictions - if it doesn't, then maybe you're not pro-life or pro-choice for the right reasons.
That happened to me on eHealth. I finally got sick of people being demeaning to pro-lifers on there and getting away with it despite supposed rules against it. I was forcibly called pro-abortion by pro-choicers! My beliefs got me called pro-life, even. Yet you are trying to say I am nothing. It just makes me shake my head.
If you think that Sander is someone to ignore than you had better well ignore me. I'll inform you though sweetheart that while you may ignore me, I will not be ignoring you. Neither can you cause others to not view what I will write in response to your posts. Reaching out? Healing wounds? Your views wound humanity to the tune of 1.5 million dead every year. Heal that! To be pro-life is not extreme but to people like you even banning some abortions, or even one abortion is extreme. I am someone whether I except your thoughts or not, but be certain that I will be considering your thoughts. Demeaning? I could let you off by being dismissive by way of demeaning remarks, but I find that truth is a much harder tonic to swallow than insults. So strap in for the days ahead. Because if you think that your abortion views are ill treated now, you haven't seen anything yet!

reply from: AshMarie88

Oh oops... I guess I shouldn't be so nice to her then. :-)

reply from: Faramir

I think she's a pantheist.

reply from: yoda

That's the bottom line, really.

reply from: yoda

No, that would be YOUR posts........

reply from: yoda

Which by definition makes you "proabortion".
But then, we've had this discussion before, about how you're so much smarter than all dictionaries put together, right?

reply from: sander

Which by definition makes you "proabortion".
But then, we've had this discussion before, about how you're so much smarter than all dictionaries put together, right?
I rather think we've heard the last of this fruitcake.
She's been pwnd so much in this thread alone that she ought to be embrassed to show up....hopefully. But, you never know with these proaborts, some of them never seem to tire of being embrassed.

reply from: Banned Member

pagan; one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person
pantheist; the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently
Okay, the verdict is pantheist... maybe. This person is not Christian, and in all honesty, I don't think that they know what they believe. This whole business of "god is in the water, good is in the wood" smells like paganisn. When God becomes an idea, rather than the definitive I AM, than he has ceased to be God and has been replaced by some strange idol.

reply from: faithman

Worshiping the creation, rather than the Creator. The intrinsic value of the individual, was established by a transendant God. One human soul is worth more than all the riches of the world. That soul comes to visit earth at the moment of conception. Even the Creator Himself became as one of us, at the moment Mary concieved a SON. The personhood of the preborn Christ started at conception. When one violates the humanity present in the womb, by the word of God, they give up their own and become an evil aggressor, who's duty to stop belongs to the rest of civil humanity. To willingly ignore these truths makes one in direct opposition to the will of God, and also in direct opposition to the documents that founded this nation, which were constituted to be the guardian of divine rights, not the origin of the blessings of LIFE< LIBERTY< AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS! You can not pursue anything chopped up in a planned parenthood dumpster.

reply from: churchmouse

faithman my neice was born at 22 weeks and she is now 16 years old.
And you respect those that kill the unborn for whatever reason? LOL
Sander, Sanger would hire her in a spilt second. So would any abortion mill around the country.

reply from: churchmouse

You are right. How can Liberal call himself Christian when he denies the basic things Christ said and did?
Liberal made this statement
This shows he has never read the scriptures. Heaven and hell are both equal realities for people and Christ talked about both. He came for the lost. Sinners that usually do not want to stop sinning use the love thing as a way of avoiding looking at the real issue, the sinfulness in their own lives......that they will go to hell unless they confess that Christ died for them. They dont want to hand over the reins of their lives to God, they dont want to be accountable for what they do.
CHRIST SAID

"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives live to whom He wishes. For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him"(Jn. 5.21-23).
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never know you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS'" (Mt. 7.21-23 cf. Lk. 13.24-30).
"Jesus therefore answered and was saying to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and greater works than these will He show Him, that you may marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life'" (Jn. 5.19-24).
This is what Christ said Liberal. Will you enter the kingdom? Are you doing the will of God? Will Christ deny He knew you? Do you hear the Word and live by it?
If you go to hell it will be because you denied knowing HIm, accepting HIm and doing His Will. Hell will be a place that you picked out for yourself not because He sent you there.
There is only one way to escape hell and that is to accept Christ...confess sin and ask for forgiveness. Only then will you have everlasting life.
Hell might not be real for some people, but its very real for Christ. And it is a place reserved for those that deny Him. I didnt say this..........HE DID. There are not multiple ways to the Father............there is only ONE WAY AND THAT IS CHRIST JESUS.
You are a Christian and you havent read all the Bible? Well that says it all doesn't it?
No attempt are made to deface you, you clearly do it well yourself. You would know what is right and wrong if you were a believer. But you are not. You say that kind of Christianity is dying?.........which one honey, the one that you havent read about in the bible? LOL
Yes or No Liberal. Christ said you must publically acknowledge Him. So I am sure you wouldnt mind answering a few questions.
Do you know where you are going after you die?
Do you admit you are a sinner and need Christs forgiveness in order to get to heaven?
Are you living, trying to stay on that narrow path? Do you even know what that narrow path is?
The scriptures, the Bible.........DOES NOT NEED ANYONE TO SPEAK FOR THEM. They are true without error. They are Gods love letter to us. They tell us what we need to know to make decisions, and to live our lives Glorifying God.
Do you even get why God created us?
Liberal.............do you know what fear the Lord means?
Moses - Deut. 10:12;13:4; 6:13 - "Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name."
Job - Job 28:28 - "And he said to man, The fear of the Lord - that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding.'"
Peter - 1 Pet. 1:17; 2:17 - "Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king."
Christ said this Liberal........Matt. 10:28 - "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
If you think God is all about love.......think again.
"Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him." (Romans 5:9) and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come. (1 Thessalonians 1:10)
For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Thessalonians 5:9)

reply from: Faramir

My undestanding of pantheism is to believe that god is everything we see and that all matter and each person is a part of god, and not a seperate and distinct creation.
I am god, you are god, a tree is god, a river is god, a baby in the womb is god, etc. Not separate gods, but parts or manifestations of the same god.
That's why she can accept abortion, since if a baby is killed in the womb, god is just reshaped. Nothing is really killed from a pantheist perspective.

reply from: nancyu

And you respect those that kill the unborn for whatever reason? LOL
Churchmouse, please try to be careful about who you direct your comments to. I don't think this is true of ashmarie.

Maybe you confused her with jujujellybean, they have the same author icon.

reply from: 4given

Actually it was LiberalChiro who stated that- not Ashmarie.

reply from: galen

churchmouse is not known to read through a whole post.

reply from: Faramir

Pagans are not necessarily motivated by anything like materialism, hedonism, or sesual pleasures.
Pagans can live like monks and still be pagans.

reply from: Faramir

Christians should not define paganism in a negative way. To be a pagan does not mean to be more inclined to do evil than anyone else.

reply from: sander

Nope, she's not a Christian. God isn't in the water, He isn't in the trees, He isn't even in the universe. The universe is IN HIM!

reply from: jujujellybean

if I was ever the tiniest bit rude it was simply because I didn't like being called a terrorist. the second I said I was pro life, they called me a terrorist and said I have no feelings for women. I was a little irked by that, as you might imagine, because most knew I posted here and said I hung out with loons and crazy people. I absolutely got fed up; so I left. I highly doubt you tracked all my conversations anyway, and wouldn't have any clear view of this 99% you talk about.

reply from: jujujellybean

That's the bottom line, really.
with born people and unborn people alike.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That site is not unbiased, it is Christian. I would need a pro-choice website to balance its claims against. I do not trust either source by its self these days. They both have agendas and twist what they say.
CNN just had a clip about premature babies and pain which was short but interesting, and featured none other than Dr. Anand!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There is no logic to your position. How can terminating two pregnancies be okay, but the third or fourth is offensive? And if it is because the unborn have worth, why would it be okay to terminate two pregnancies?
Everything in moderation, that's how. I DON'T think it's "ok", for the last time! I think it's a waste of life - HOWEVER, I can empathize with why a woman would make such a decision and I feel it is her right to do.
Doing something bad once won't get you as big a punishment as doing something bad 3 times. Doing something bad over and over causes the punishment to escalate each time.
So while one abortion may be regrettable and sad, 3 or 4 is becoming inexcusable, especially in a society where there are so many contraceptive choices and things such as NFP, where no drugs are needed yet pregnancy is avoided.
If I accidentally killed someone who was attacking me, it would be sad, but I would probably go free. If I did it a second time, people might raise their eyebrows. 3 and 4... I highly doubt I'd be set free. I should have learned non-lethal ways to defend myself especially if I live a normal life.
I've heard abortion called self-defense, so that's why I use that comparison. It's not "good" to kill another human, but I can understand if it was an accidental pregnancy and you're going to do all you can to prevent it again in the future.
Some women are just plain unlucky and have birth control fail multiple times; in that case, I wouldn't be so offended because at least she was trying.

reply from: sander

YOU may not be so offended, but the child in the womb is; to the point of death.
So, spare us your sappy excuses, they don't wash.

reply from: Faramir

It's not the same as self defense.
Nobody would fault someone else who had to defend himself 10 times, and use lethal force. He might live in a bad neighborhood or be very unlucky.
But abortion is not self defense.
An accidental pregnancy is more than just a pregnancy. Another human being is as stake.
Just because the pregnancy was unintended does not make the life involved less valuable, or the killing of it less unjust.

reply from: sander

'Womb children' cannot be offended. They have no conception of such an abstract idea.
(Waits for the "How do YOU know?" idiotic defense)
You can read minds now...quick, what number am I thinking?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, certainly. When presented with concrete evidence from several sources as has happened, any smart person would revise their idea. I can only form ideas based off of the information I know. The forum I was previously on ranted and raved about absolute freedom at all stages of pregnancy for as many times as a woman wanted, no questions ever asked. I consider that very unethical. We women should be held accountable for our actions, and yes, that means having to tell a doctor why on earth you want to kill another human.
That is not to exclude men. I am also in the school of thought that men should have the right to sign away their rights as fathers before the child is born. I think it's unfair that a man is always capable of being sue for child-support. Rapists? Yes. Always. But just as a woman has the right to abort, I think the man should have the right to wipe his hands clean. I know not many people like this idea, as the concept is that men should be sucked clean of their cash for daring to insert their penis in a vagina.
I do feel men should be held accountable to some extent however, and I just don't know how to do it. If a woman wants to keep the baby because she feels she should, what right is there to force the man to be involved?
I think the issue stems from people who have sex even if they are not in a committed relationship. I'm all for pre-marital sex, but when you bring the possibility of pregnancy AND responsibility for the child into the picture, I can't help but frown upon promiscuous behavior.
As you can see, I do not consider the abortion debate to be a simple issue that is only about the mother and the baby. Our entire society is involved in this debate. Sorry, I'm afraid I've gotten a bit off topic!
Please, what I ask from you is that you don't attack my ideas. Think about why I could be saying the things you don't like (and don't try to simplify it to "she's a disgusting heretic!). Truly try to think about it. Ask yourself how you can get more clarity from me if you don't understand an answer. Don't try to hurt me or insult me; I don't wish to hurt or insult any of you. I'm here to learn. Be teachers!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

A bit higher than 1% is hardly a difference compared to less than 1%. I don't have these stats memorized so if I'm off by 1%, please forgive me. They're estimates based on what I remember.
AROUND 1% of abortions are past 20 weeks. Happy? That's still negligible, and I should think you'd be focusing on the fact that I was saying "I'd be fine with outlawing elective abortion past 20 weeks", instead of my lack of a photographic memory.
________________________________________________________
no because even Dr Tiller admits his late terms are around 5% so 1 % is not anaccurate figure.
Dr. Tiller is an exception to the rule, he specializes in illegal late-term abortions so of course his statistic are going to be far higher than the legal, national norm.
I refuse to discuss Dr. Tiller. I do not like him or respect him. He is the worst example of a pro-choice, and he is one of the few people I would actually call pro-abortion.

reply from: yoda

Say what? Did you say "inexcusable"?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm a complicated person, aren't I?
I don't like killing cows, but I like hamburgers. How can I possibly be both?
Obviously my dislike for abortion is much stronger than my dislike for killing cows, but it is an example of how many Americans are contradictory without often even thinking about it.

reply from: yoda

We have a hard enough time getting people to attack the ideas, rather than the people here. If we aren't allowed to attack the ideas, how on earth can we have a debate?

reply from: yoda

I think "self-contradictory" would be more accurate.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Who on earth is that? You love name-dropping without sourcing.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I also love how everyone is trying to tell me what my beliefs are, what my religion is... next are you going to tell me what gender I am, despite my physical anatomy? I am not telling any of YOU who or what you are. Why do you have such a strong desire to do it to me?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I suppose that is fairly accurate, however, I also believe that this spiritual "force" has a consciousness, and that consciousness is God. I also don't necessarily believe actual rocks are God, but that they were shaped by God, yet by being His creation, they are part of Him. I suppose my being an artist accounts for that point of view. When I make a work of art, a part of me remains in it. When someone sees that image, they see me. Is that image literally "me"? No... and so also, my human flesh is not actually "God", but was shaped by Him and an essence of His soul is in me. We are His art, and because He made us, we are part of Him.
The part of Him that is in us goes back to Him when we die, nothing is lost and nothing is gained, except our experiences.
Does that help a little?

reply from: yoda

That's the price of posting on an "open" forum. We have an "iggy" button.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Say what? Did you say "inexcusable"?
Yes I did.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

We have a hard enough time getting people to attack the ideas, rather than the people here. If we aren't allowed to attack the ideas, how on earth can we have a debate?
Haha. I suppose I also meant "Don't attack me"!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's the price of posting on an "open" forum. We have an "iggy" button.
The price of posting on an open forum is to have people tell me who I am?
There should not be a "price", there should only be gain. Lessons to learn. Already, I have learned that the information I received on eHealth was false and/or skewed, and that viability and pain is far closer to 20 weeks than 27.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'd like to mention that I am not reading everyone's posts, as some of them are very inflammatory and I wish to maintain my own personal decorum, despite any nay-saying and negative behavior that may be going on around me. Some of which is very, very un-Christian. Also, this thread has moved very quickly! So if I've ignored your post, it's either because I found it offensive, I feel I've already answered the question you asked, or I just didn't feel it was poignant enough to reply to. I'm trying to stay on track mostly with Galen as s/he is being most kind and very thoughtful. Some of you others are being very kind as well, so if you feel I missed something important please let me know!

reply from: Faramir

Ok, if you want to learn about Christianity, expecially Catholicism, I'll be happy to send you a Catechism.
No personal offense is intended, but I can't accept your beliefs as "Christian." You are espousing panthesim, but calling it Christianity.
I'm not telling you off or anything--just making a point. But I am more than happy to have civil discussions with you.
But that won't be the case with everyone here. Some will try to hurt you or insult you, and that's just the way this board is. It is not moderated like other boards I've been on, and the most abusive comments are tolerated.
So don't expect much...

reply from: sander

Who on earth is that? You love name-dropping without sourcing.
Most people who are involved in prolife or proabortion are keenly aware of who she was, I thought you were informed enough to know.
She was the mother (monster) of Planned Parenthood, extoled the virtues of egugenics and talked much like you do here.
Hence, Margaret Sanger wannabe.
Your views are highly offensive to those who don't believe children, (under the circumstances you've listed as reasons to abort), are so much chattle to be disposed of when inconviently conceived.
It's a form of power wielding, that no human should have control of.
If your spiritual views were singulary your own and not confessed as "Christian", those views would be left un-touched.
Your first post listed your views as being held rock solid, so it shouldn't be a surprise that those views are questioned.
If you think you've been all that kind, you need to re-read some of your posts. I assure you, they don't always come off as such. They come off as rather smug and with a know it all attitude, so getting down off your high horse would probably go a long way in how you're addressed in the future.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Ok, if you want to learn about Christianity, expecially Catholicism, I'll be happy to send you a Catechism.
No personal offense is intended, but I can't accept your beliefs as "Christian." You are espousing panthesim, but calling it Christianity.
I'm not telling you off or anything--just making a point. But I am more than happy to have civil discussions with you.
But that won't be the case with everyone here. Some will try to hurt you or insult you, and that's just the way this board is. It is not moderated like other boards I've been on, and the most abusive comments are tolerated.
So don't expect much...
I just explained that I am not pantheistic, and why. Please read it. I think it's on page 7.
Just because you cannot accept it does not give you the right to tell me what I believe in. Only I have the right to say what I am, not you. I don't mean to tell you off, either. I'm just making a point.
And of course I'd be interested in reading anything about religion; I'm keenly interested in it. I think it's fascinating. The man I actually credit my coming back to christianity is a catholic priest. I met and talked to him on ehealth. He was capable of talking to me in the way I expect a true catholic to do; calm, honest, and logical. He was an inspiration to me. He didn't harp on me being pro-choice; and that, I think, is what allowed us to talk.
Do you think it is right for others to try to hurt and insult? Do you think such people should be allowed on a board that professes to be not only pro-life, but also mainly christian? Respecting life means more to me than just keeping everyone alive. It means respecting them as a person, their ideas and their beliefs. Insulting someone and hurting them is NOT pro-life... But then again, I can't tell people they are not pro-life because they are mean. I can't say they are not christian because they judge. It is up to them to say that they are pro-life or christian.

reply from: Faramir

I'll see if I can find your comments about why you are not pantheistic. I missed those. But if I say I'm a Communist and then sing praises about captalism, then I'm being contradictory, and there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. From a Catholic perspective and from the perspective of any mainstream Christian denomination, your beliefs are far from Christian. That's not intended to be an insult. I'm just saying that by definition, you are not a Christian.
I agree that part of being prolife means to be kind and thoughtful, since it is hate which underlies all evil, and there is no point in using hateful energy to fight abortion, or you're just another horn on the same devil.
People who judge and are mean are not behaving like Christians should, but that doesn't mean they are not Christians, and there's nothing wrong with reminding them they are not behaving like Christians, though it will fall on deaf ears on most of them here, and they'll justify it somehow. But if they say they are Christians and that they also worship the Sun, they certainy are NOT Christians, regardless of their behavior. And there is nothing wrong with pointing out an inconsistency.

reply from: Faramir

Let's try it this way.
Does a human soul live on with a consciousness that is unique and is a continuation of the same consciousness it had when in a body?
When you die, will you sill be you?

reply from: faithman

Ok, if you want to learn about Christianity, expecially Catholicism, I'll be happy to send you a Catechism.
No personal offense is intended, but I can't accept your beliefs as "Christian." You are espousing panthesim, but calling it Christianity.
I'm not telling you off or anything--just making a point. But I am more than happy to have civil discussions with you.
But that won't be the case with everyone here. Some will try to hurt you or insult you, and that's just the way this board is. It is not moderated like other boards I've been on, and the most abusive comments are tolerated.
So don't expect much...
I just explained that I am not pantheistic, and why. Please read it. I think it's on page 7.
Just because you cannot accept it does not give you the right to tell me what I believe in. Only I have the right to say what I am, not you. I don't mean to tell you off, either. I'm just making a point.
And of course I'd be interested in reading anything about religion; I'm keenly interested in it. I think it's fascinating. The man I actually credit my coming back to christianity is a catholic priest. I met and talked to him on ehealth. He was capable of talking to me in the way I expect a true catholic to do; calm, honest, and logical. He was an inspiration to me. He didn't harp on me being pro-choice; and that, I think, is what allowed us to talk.
Do you think it is right for others to try to hurt and insult? Do you think such people should be allowed on a board that professes to be not only pro-life, but also mainly christian? Respecting life means more to me than just keeping everyone alive. It means respecting them as a person, their ideas and their beliefs. Insulting someone and hurting them is NOT pro-life... But then again, I can't tell people they are not pro-life because they are mean. I can't say they are not christian because they judge. It is up to them to say that they are pro-life or christian.
Do you think it is right for amoral death skancs to chop womb children into little bitty bits? "Prochoice" means pro-legal murder. If you don't want to be hurt or insulted, then don't insult the personhood of the womb child with denied humanity, and don't hurt their body with abortion. You teach a dog not to eat chickens by tying a dead one around their neck. I have no intention of being "nice" to an advocate of womb child slaughter. I could care less what your wishes are. Don't present yourself as the enemy of the womb child, and you won't have any probs. Make excuses for the killers, and you will get what you deserve.

reply from: nancyu

I think "self-contradictory" would be more accurate.
edited for a temporary attack of kindness

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Let's try it this way.
Does a human soul live on with a consciousness that is unique and is a continuation of the same consciousness it had when in a body?
When you die, will you sill be you?
I do not believe souls maintain individual identities, no. But if that single concept is all you believe makes someone Christian... I'll just shake my head to that.
I don't believe souls maintain an individual identity because I believe, as I said, that out souls are parts of God, in a sense. We are part of his energy. Like his fingers, or tendrils of his essence.
It never made any sense to me that more and more souls are created and every one goes to heaven or hell and more and more keep being created for every single living thing on the planet... Where do they all go? Energy or matter has to go somewhere. You can't convince me that spirits and God is a "not here, but affective force". If you can explain how every single soul of every living being goes OTHER than "it's God, he can do anything", then I'll be willing to listen. I don't want the answers I can get from a pre-school teacher.

reply from: carolemarie

There is no logic to your position. How can terminating two pregnancies be okay, but the third or fourth is offensive? And if it is because the unborn have worth, why would it be okay to terminate two pregnancies?
Everything in moderation, that's how. I DON'T think it's "ok", for the last time! I think it's a waste of life - HOWEVER, I can empathize with why a woman would make such a decision and I feel it is her right to do.
Doing something bad once won't get you as big a punishment as doing something bad 3 times. Doing something bad over and over causes the punishment to escalate each time.
So while one abortion may be regrettable and sad, 3 or 4 is becoming inexcusable, especially in a society where there are so many contraceptive choices and things such as NFP, where no drugs are needed yet pregnancy is avoided.
If I accidentally killed someone who was attacking me, it would be sad, but I would probably go free. If I did it a second time, people might raise their eyebrows. 3 and 4... I highly doubt I'd be set free. I should have learned non-lethal ways to defend myself especially if I live a normal life.
I've heard abortion called self-defense, so that's why I use that comparison. It's not "good" to kill another human, but I can understand if it was an accidental pregnancy and you're going to do all you can to prevent it again in the future.
Some women are just plain unlucky and have birth control fail multiple times; in that case, I wouldn't be so offended because at least she was trying.
Rarely have I been stunned into silence....but this logic completely floors me....

reply from: faithman

There is no logic to your position. How can terminating two pregnancies be okay, but the third or fourth is offensive? And if it is because the unborn have worth, why would it be okay to terminate two pregnancies?
Everything in moderation, that's how. I DON'T think it's "ok", for the last time! I think it's a waste of life - HOWEVER, I can empathize with why a woman would make such a decision and I feel it is her right to do.
Doing something bad once won't get you as big a punishment as doing something bad 3 times. Doing something bad over and over causes the punishment to escalate each time.
So while one abortion may be regrettable and sad, 3 or 4 is becoming inexcusable, especially in a society where there are so many contraceptive choices and things such as NFP, where no drugs are needed yet pregnancy is avoided.
If I accidentally killed someone who was attacking me, it would be sad, but I would probably go free. If I did it a second time, people might raise their eyebrows. 3 and 4... I highly doubt I'd be set free. I should have learned non-lethal ways to defend myself especially if I live a normal life.
I've heard abortion called self-defense, so that's why I use that comparison. It's not "good" to kill another human, but I can understand if it was an accidental pregnancy and you're going to do all you can to prevent it again in the future.
Some women are just plain unlucky and have birth control fail multiple times; in that case, I wouldn't be so offended because at least she was trying.
Rarely have I been stunned into silence....but this logic completely floors me....
...and just what logic did you use to kill 3?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There is no logic to your position. How can terminating two pregnancies be okay, but the third or fourth is offensive? And if it is because the unborn have worth, why would it be okay to terminate two pregnancies?
Everything in moderation, that's how. I DON'T think it's "ok", for the last time! I think it's a waste of life - HOWEVER, I can empathize with why a woman would make such a decision and I feel it is her right to do.
Doing something bad once won't get you as big a punishment as doing something bad 3 times. Doing something bad over and over causes the punishment to escalate each time.
So while one abortion may be regrettable and sad, 3 or 4 is becoming inexcusable, especially in a society where there are so many contraceptive choices and things such as NFP, where no drugs are needed yet pregnancy is avoided.
If I accidentally killed someone who was attacking me, it would be sad, but I would probably go free. If I did it a second time, people might raise their eyebrows. 3 and 4... I highly doubt I'd be set free. I should have learned non-lethal ways to defend myself especially if I live a normal life.
I've heard abortion called self-defense, so that's why I use that comparison. It's not "good" to kill another human, but I can understand if it was an accidental pregnancy and you're going to do all you can to prevent it again in the future.
Some women are just plain unlucky and have birth control fail multiple times; in that case, I wouldn't be so offended because at least she was trying.
Rarely have I been stunned into silence....but this logic completely floors me....
Could you explain which parts are specifically confusing you? Perhaps I can clarify.

reply from: Faramir

That's not the only thing, but that's HUGE. You must believe in an immortal soul to be a Christian. Otherwise you are simply appropriating the word "Christianity."
You would have to trash much of the New Testament to accept this belief.
That's a pantheistic belief. You are very close to pantheism if you are not that, but VERY far from Christianity.
I'll see if I can come up with anything that makes any sense, but meanwhile, I'm very curious how you see your beliefs as Christian.
You reject so much of Christianity.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't feel I reject much of christianity. But as I said in my first post, I call myself christian because it is how I was taught to talk to God and how to view him etc, and so it is how I feel comfortable discoursing with Him, it, whatever, now. I tried being buddhist and it just didn't ring true. Also, saying I believe in God feels right to me.
From my experience in the world, I believe in universal acceptance of people's beliefs as long as they don't cause harm. The core beliefs of many religions are harmless; it's the people who do terrible things with it. Many of the hard-core christians on this very forum are people I would consider harmful and capable of such things as Hitler, of persecuting a group of people and saying it is in the name of God, and that scares me. Gays, pregnant women, blacks, jews... it doesn't matter who you persecute.
I call myself christian because I am not an atheist, and calling myself pantheist or deist or any of those titles feels like I'm just trying to be "cool", you know? I call myself christian because I have nothing left to call myself.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lol. In my belief, God takes anyone who is willing to be a good person.

reply from: Banned Member

You seem to think that God is a reasonable placebo for living; a self help method of mental and/or spiritual well being. Christians believe that Christ is the Son of the Living God. Jesus Christ is the truth, the light and the way. There is no such thing as a liberal Christian. Oh you may have liberal ideas on foriegn and domestic policies as far as that goes. But to be of Christ, you must live of Christ. Jesus is not Mohammed, or Allah, or Buddha, or any other strange guises. Jesus does not hide the truth, nor does he disguise the truth in figures of other religions. Certainly no Christian can be for the taking of unborn human lives. You do not believe in God, you believe in something abstract that you call religion. Jesus Christ is not a system. Jesus Christ is not a way of talking about God. Jesus speaks with the authority of God the Father, and is God in the flesh in the person of the Son of God who lived among us, died among us and rose from the dead. While there may be kernals of truth in other belief systems, belief systems cannot claim to hold the fullness of truth, and some can do no more than claim to hold to accidental truths. None but Christ however can claim with genuine authority to speak for God.
That said, abortion and the right to abortion are illogical fallicies that transcend even the need for religion to disprove. An atheist of intellectual honesty, and of scientific honesty can proclaim that abortion is murder with the same authority as the believing and practicing Christian. You are neither a believing Christian or an intellectually honest person about either your thoughts on abortion or religion.
You need to profoundly re-think your views.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Thats an interesting quiz. Here was my result:
"You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent."
Seems I'm a rather good Christian afterall.

reply from: Faramir

The results didn't mention Christianity.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The quiz is based off of the Christian concept of God, Faramir.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I got the same, on the atheist path.
Bloody Loch Ness always bites me on the ass.
Haha, I answered true for that one... true that, if there is no considerable evidence for it, it's logical to assume it doesn't exist.

reply from: faithman

I got the same, on the atheist path.
Bloody Loch Ness always bites me on the ass.
Save you from having to cut that body part off I guess.

reply from: Faramir

I took most of the test and it has little to do with a Christian God, except possibly the misconceptions the person has who made that test has about Christianity. And they refer to God as "she" which is never done in Christianity.
Here's an example of some the idiotic logic behind that test:
This is simply a version of the quesiton, "Can God make a weight so heavy he cannot lift it?''
The problem is not that God is limited, but that the question is a contradiction.
The questioner might as well ask "Can God be God and not be God at the same time?"
No, this test has nothing to do with Chrisitianity. It is the work of a smug atheist who thinks he has set clever traps, but who has not bothered venture beyond his bigotry and learn the basis of Christian theology.

reply from: galen

why is the emory school of medicine biased?
Jean A. Wright, M.D., M.B.A.
Clinical Associate Professor of Pediatrics
Emory School of Medicine
he wrote the paper long before anyone else got hold of it...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

A good christian I once talked with felt that adults coming to christianity should not be fed "easy" christianity, but rather the "meat and potatoes" of the religion. The basics you talk of are taught to children in sunday school, but an adult will never be converted by such simplistic thinking.

reply from: galen

Yes, certainly. When presented with concrete evidence from several sources as has happened, any smart person would revise their idea. I can only form ideas based off of the information I know. The forum I was previously on ranted and raved about absolute freedom at all stages of pregnancy for as many times as a woman wanted, no questions ever asked. I consider that very unethical. We women should be held accountable for our actions, and yes, that means having to tell a doctor why on earth you want to kill another human.
That is not to exclude men. I am also in the school of thought that men should have the right to sign away their rights as fathers before the child is born. I think it's unfair that a man is always capable of being sue for child-support. Rapists? Yes. Always. But just as a woman has the right to abort, I think the man should have the right to wipe his hands clean. I know not many people like this idea, as the concept is that men should be sucked clean of their cash for daring to insert their penis in a vagina.
I do feel men should be held accountable to some extent however, and I just don't know how to do it. If a woman wants to keep the baby because she feels she should, what right is there to force the man to be involved?
I think the issue stems from people who have sex even if they are not in a committed relationship. I'm all for pre-marital sex, but when you bring the possibility of pregnancy AND responsibility for the child into the picture, I can't help but frown upon promiscuous behavior.
As you can see, I do not consider the abortion debate to be a simple issue that is only about the mother and the baby. Our entire society is involved in this debate. Sorry, I'm afraid I've gotten a bit off topic!
Please, what I ask from you is that you don't attack my ideas. Think about why I could be saying the things you don't like (and don't try to simplify it to "she's a disgusting heretic!). Truly try to think about it. Ask yourself how you can get more clarity from me if you don't understand an answer. Don't try to hurt me or insult me; I don't wish to hurt or insult any of you. I'm here to learn. Be teachers!
_______________________________________________________
i have never called you a heretic or attacked your ideas.. only reported to you that i as a medical profesional have a bit of a hard time when someone touts science that is outdated. If you don't tell someone how you came to those ideas.. how are we supposed to know. i don't read minds.

reply from: Banned Member

Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

reply from: galen

A bit higher than 1% is hardly a difference compared to less than 1%. I don't have these stats memorized so if I'm off by 1%, please forgive me. They're estimates based on what I remember.
AROUND 1% of abortions are past 20 weeks. Happy? That's still negligible, and I should think you'd be focusing on the fact that I was saying "I'd be fine with outlawing elective abortion past 20 weeks", instead of my lack of a photographic memory.
________________________________________________________
no because even Dr Tiller admits his late terms are around 5% so 1 % is not anaccurate figure.
Dr. Tiller is an exception to the rule, he specializes in illegal late-term abortions so of course his statistic are going to be far higher than the legal, national norm.
I refuse to discuss Dr. Tiller. I do not like him or respect him. He is the worst example of a pro-choice, and he is one of the few people I would actually call pro-abortion.
_____________________________________________
well that is one of the things he is...
but he is not the exception to the rule.. PP even has the same stats.

reply from: galen

I'm a complicated person, aren't I?
I don't like killing cows, but I like hamburgers. How can I possibly be both?
Obviously my dislike for abortion is much stronger than my dislike for killing cows, but it is an example of how many Americans are contradictory without often even thinking about it.
___________________________________________-
i get more of a sense that you make statements based on a small bit of knowledege learned at least 3 years ago.. and never went furthur than that, and are now basing all your ideas on it. i hope to enlighten you medically.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

One of the websites wasn't christian; I don't remember which but I didn't mention it since it was clearly unbiased.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I didn't actually mean YOU. I meant most of the others on this thread. I do believe I mentioned that, too.

reply from: Faramir

But there is more to Christianity than the name.
Here are some characteristics of a Christian belief from a Catholic perspective:
Belief in the inerrancy of the Scripture
Belief that God is three persons in one nature, i.e., The Trinity
Belief that Jesus was a man and God born of a Virgin. He was and is the Son, the second person of the Blessed Trinity
Belief that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. He was crucified, died, buried and he rose from the dead.
Belife that Jesus performed miracles, such as causing a blind man to see, and raisin Lazurus from the dead.
Belief that to be a Christian one must be Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirt
Belief that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and those who die in God's friendship go to Heaven and those who die hating God go to Hell
Belief in the resurrection of the body--that at some point all who have died will be given new incorruptible bodies
This is not all, but based on what you have stated, I think there are some things you would reject, and there is nothing here that you could reject that is not an important and necessary part of Christian faith.

reply from: galen

the website you quoted from is the only net scource for that paper as it is only published in medical journals that require a license to get into. As i am fairly certain you do not have a medical license i posted from one you could easily access... and so could anyone else.

reply from: galen

I didn't actually mean YOU. I meant most of the others on this thread. I do believe I mentioned that, too.
_____________________________________________
later on yes.. but i was posting as i saw them tonight... forgive my lateness but i had radiation therapy today and it makes me really tired.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

But there is more to Christianity than the name.
Here are some characteristics of a Christian belief from a Catholic perspective:
Belief in the inerrancy of the Scripture
Belief that God is three persons in one nature, i.e., The Trinity
Belief that Jesus was a man and God born of a Virgin. He was and is the Son, the second person of the Blessed Trinity
Belief that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. He was crucified, died, buried and he rose from the dead.
Belife that Jesus performed miracles, such as causing a blind man to see, and raisin Lazurus from the dead.
Belief that to be a Christian one must be Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirt
Belief that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and those who die in God's friendship go to Heaven and those who die hating God go to Hell
Belief in the resurrection of the body--that at some point all who have died will be given new incorruptible bodies
This is not all, but based on what you have stated, I think there are some things you would reject, and there is nothing here that you could reject that is not an important and necessary part of Christian faith.
Yes, some of those things I do question and outright reject.
Belief in the inerrancy of the Scripture
-- Nope.
Belief that God is three persons in one nature, i.e., The Trinity
-- Yes
Belief that Jesus was a man and God born of a Virgin. He was and is the Son, the second person of the Blessed Trinity
-- Yes, though I sometimes have trouble with it. I come from a very scientific background so some of the mysticism of christianity is hard to swallow.
Belief that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. He was crucified, died, buried and he rose from the dead.
-- Again, that whole mysticism thing. Sometimes I say yes, and sometimes I say no.
Belife that Jesus performed miracles, such as causing a blind man to see, and raisin Lazurus from the dead.
-- Let's just lump all of these mystic things together, shall we?
Belief that to be a Christian one must be Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
-- To be christian, yes, I believe baptism is important though not 100% necessary. I do NOT believe baptism is necessary to go to heaven.
Belief that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and those who die in God's friendship go to Heaven and those who die hating God go to Hell
-- I do believe in a concept of heaven and hell, and that going to either place is based off of one's actions in life. A good atheist will go to heaven, Hitler (a christian) went to hell.
Belief in the resurrection of the body--that at some point all who have died will be given new incorruptible bodies
-- Where?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I didn't actually mean YOU. I meant most of the others on this thread. I do believe I mentioned that, too.
_____________________________________________
later on yes.. but i was posting as i saw them tonight... forgive my lateness but i had radiation therapy today and it makes me really tired.
Of course it's no problem.

reply from: Faramir

But this does not seem consistent with what you said before--that the soul is not unique and distinct. I had the impression that you thought when someone dies his soul just gets "reabsorbed" into God.
But if someone goes to Heaven or Hell, he is still SOMEONE after death, the same person he was before death.
And I believe its possible that non Christians and atheists could go to Heaven, and that some Christians could go to Hell.

reply from: galen

_______________________________________________________
you still did not answer this one...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

But this does not seem consistent with what you said before--that the soul is not unique and distinct. I had the impression that you thought when someone dies his soul just gets "reabsorbed" into God.
But if someone goes to Heaven or Hell, he is still SOMEONE after death, the same person he was before death.
And I believe its possible that non Christians and atheists could go to Heaven, and that some Christians could go to Hell.
Yes it does seem consistent if you know that my concept of heaven is rejoining with God. I don't believe heaven is a place where souls wander around in bliss. I believe heaven is being totally a part of God once more, instead of attached by umbilicals as we are when we are humans.
My concept of hell is being broken away from God completely; the absence of love and light.
So either way, there is no "person". You either rejoin with God, or you cease to exist in his light.

reply from: galen

where? i must have missed it because i went back to the beginning and scanned for that one specifically... could you bump it for me?

reply from: Faramir

But this does not seem consistent with what you said before--that the soul is not unique and distinct. I had the impression that you thought when someone dies his soul just gets "reabsorbed" into God.
But if someone goes to Heaven or Hell, he is still SOMEONE after death, the same person he was before death.
And I believe its possible that non Christians and atheists could go to Heaven, and that some Christians could go to Hell.
Yes it does seem consistent if you know that my concept of heaven is rejoining with God. I don't believe heaven is a place where souls wander around in bliss. I believe heaven is being totally a part of God once more, instead of attached by umbilicals as we are when we are humans.
My concept of hell is being broken away from God completely; the absence of love and light.
So either way, there is no "person". You either rejoin with God, or you cease to exist in his light.
Sounds like annihilation of the person either way.
Not really anything to look forward to.
And not even close to the Christian point of view.

reply from: yoda

That's one of the things you can expect here, yes. You need a thick skin to survive here. Or a thick head.

reply from: yoda

Yes, I thought you would notice this little gem...and the word "inexcusable".. and yet on another thread, this same poster says "What's with those people (who mention your previous 3 abortions)?"........
Kind of self contradictory, isn't she?

reply from: yoda

As an agnostic, I'd appreciate it if you gave the Christians here a break and didn't call yourself anything, unless it was something like "agnostic", or "no religion at all".

reply from: sander

As an agnostic, I'd appreciate it if you gave the Christians here a break and didn't call yourself anything, unless it was something like "agnostic", or "no religion at all".
The latter two certainly sums up her ramblings in an honest way, but maybe intellecutal honesty isn't her strong suit?
I believe God has more respect for your honest doubts, Yoda, then the mumbled jumbled mess she touts.

reply from: Banned Member

A person does not get to choose what Christianity is, any more than they get to choose who a human person is. Some truths are established and do not change and while many are going to sit here and discuss this new members counterfeit religion, they are in fact advocating the killing of the unborn in their original post. People can discuss what heaven is, or what the afterlife is, but LiberalChiRo justifications send 1.5 million people to the afterlife each year. The advocation of the killing of the unbon seems to me to suggest a complete lack of recognition of the very concept of person.
How about speaking about the attached umbilicals that are ripped away in the womb when an abortion occurs? Would anyone care to discuss that? How about the hell of conscience that such an act incurs upon the guilty of killing the unborn?
The gospel is not a multiple choice quiz any more than the concrete personhood of the unborn. It's no suprise to me that someone that can make such a mincemeat pie out of religious doctrines that are and have been established for 2000 years can easily distort reality right here, right now, to justify even the smallest number of abortions. Some of you have looked at LiberalChiRo's swinging gold watch just a little too long. This person is pro-abortion. Make them justify that! Make them explain the logic of killing unborn children!
Among the doctrines that this imposter apparently rejects is the command not to kill human persons. But they have already established that killing people is no different from killing bacteria demonstrating their embracing of radical moral relativism. Any further disussion is irrelevant based upon their obvious lack of intelligent reasoning.
No Catholic priest would lead a person back to Christ to such an obvious state of error, and various states of error. No Catholic worth their salt would ever overlook such a stumbling blocks to faith and truth while someone advocates the horrors of abortion; the killing of unborn children in the womb. One can no more continue embracing and extolling the virtues of pornography and be a Christian than be pro-choice and be and remain a Christian. This new poster is not Christian, not Catholic and obviously sees no exceptions to the evils of abortion. Not even a single exception! It is no insult to speak the truth. If such a Catholic priest existed that led this person to a counterfeit christ, than they should be seriously reprimanded, or informed that this lost sheep is even more lost and confused than what must have been initially realized. I do not have to respect anyones beliefe that says that killing the unborn is okay, so long as the circumstances are to their liking. Tolerance does not mean condoning evil and confirming one in their own sins.

reply from: Banned Member

http://www.rcrc.org/
The ability of people to make reproductive health decisions in keeping with their religious beliefs and conscience is at risk.
No, it is not at risk. What is at risk are the unborn from people that where the disguise of religion and advocate the killing of the unborn!
People of Faith for REAL
Contact Congress: Support Sexuality Education
Man was created in the image of God! There; your first sexuality education lesson.
Try reading Love and Responsibility by Pope John Paul II, or didn't LiberalChiRo's Catholic priest friend tell her about that book?
Clergy for Choice = Heretical Christians for Abortion
Choice means Abortion. Every time a liberal says choice they mean abortion!

reply from: Banned Member

I believe that this person is here for one reason and one reason alone. To create and promote the idea that faith and abortion are compatible.

reply from: sander

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CHRISTIAN THAT IS PRO-ABORTION!
godless prolifers org. has more truth than what is being touted here by this person.

reply from: Banned Member

Pro-choice in moderation? Which abortions would you moderate? Are there any abortions that you would outright have banned? You say that you are against abortion as a means control. More than 98% of all abortion are just that, although I disagree in even calling abortion birth control. Abortion is in fact birth prevention and human murder. And I see that you are against late term abortions, except for the mothers health or fetal deformity? That's rather vague. Would you abort a downs child? a blind child? a child with one hand, arm, leg? What exactly would "etc" constitute? There are not life inhibiting circumstances! Favorable and unfavorable human life? Smacks of eugenics.
I think that you would find that if you were honest, you would find that such health circumstances where the child's life could be considered unlivable would be extremely rare. If you were even in favor of limiting abortion to less than 1% of its current rate, you would not even be able to consider yourself pro-choice, but largely pro-life. You are not pro-life. Why even try to play the moderate?
Pro-early term abortion. That puts you in the category of supporting somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of all abortions. Too many abortions? Isn't one too many? Is there some kind of lesson to be learned after one? Is there something that you know about a woman having two or three abortions? Extenuating circumstances? What would those "extenuating circumstances" be?
An unborn person is always an unborn person. Always. Even by your definitions though, people like Barack Obama would in fact be killing person would they not? Would any abortion by your definition be the killing of an unborn person? The problem with your definition of independent life is that is does not hold up for all people who are born, to say nothing of the unborn. A person is a living human being. The unborn are living, they are human a they exist in a state of being as much as the born of this world are.
You, are not a Christian. You are a new age pantheistic, polytheistic, neo-paganistic, gnostic, counterfeit christian secular humanist, in the same league as Barack Obama. You seem to think that God is a reasonable placebo for living; a self help method of mental and/or spiritual well being. Christians believe that Christ is the Son of the Living God. Jesus Christ is the truth, the light and the way. There is no such thing as a liberal Christian. Oh you may have liberal ideas on foriegn and domestic policies as far as that goes. But to be of Christ, you must live of Christ. Jesus is not Mohammed, or Allah, or Buddha, or any other strange guises. Jesus does not hide the truth, nor does he disguise the truth in figures of other religions. Certainly no Christian can be for the taking of unborn human lives. You do not believe in God, you believe in something abstract that you call religion. Jesus Christ is not a system. Jesus Christ is not a way of talking about God. Jesus speaks with the authority of God the Father, and is God in the flesh in the person of the Son of God who lived among us, died among us and rose from the dead. While there may be kernals of truth in other belief systems, belief systems cannot claim to hold the fullness of truth, and some can do no more than claim to hold to accidental truths. None but Christ however can claim with genuine authority to speak for God.
That said, abortion and the right to abortion are illogical fallicies that transcend even the need for religion to disprove. An atheist of intellectual honesty, and of scientific honesty can proclaim that abortion is murder with the same authority as the believing and practicing Christian. You are neither a believing Christian or an intellectually honest person about either your thoughts on abortion or religion.
You need to profoundly re-think your views.
LiberalChiRo is Pro-Abortion!

reply from: churchmouse

nancy you are right, ash did not say that. I am so sorry ash !!!!
I cant get used to those bracket things........I hate em. I can't tell who says what.
Thanks galen for being so nice and understanding. LOL
liberal I noticed you did not want to tackle any of the questions I asked you. You can't, or you won't?
Why? Its ok to kill a couple of kids.......but three or four is to many to kill?
And how is abortion self-defense?
The unborn got there by an act done by its parents. Who is the unborn hurting? The woman willingly let sperm inside her body, EVEN IF IT GOT THERE BY MISTAKE.
Every woman that has sex should know that pregnany could occur. If someone does not want to get pregnant, they should refrain from sex or get fixed. If she has sex she takes the chance.
Tiller s not the only doctor doing this. Read the book, LIME 5, by Crutcher. Its simply an amazing account of undercover activities.
And if you are pro-choice like you said you were, then what is he doing that is wrong? Women are choosing to kill........that is pro-choice. You said you were pro-choice.
You said you were a Christian. We have every right to challenge you on what you say. And what you say about Christianity is not Christianity. Ask any Christian here if you stand on scripture.
Anyone can claim to be a Christian. God knows who is and who isn't. But based on what you have said here, you say you havent read the entire book.......i dont think you have a firm grasp of what Christianity is.
You told us what you were in your opening statement.
That much is obvious. How can you be taken seriously IMO, if you do not dialogue with those people that ask the tough questions and challenge you? How will you learn anything if you run? You won't answer questions, you won't talk about Tiller.......what will you talk about? Only the things that you choose?
You know its not mean to challenge someone on what they say. Why are you so defensive?

The abortion debate is one thing.........but I take it very seriously when someone claims to be a Christian and rapes the faith. As I said its not unchristian to challenge someone on their faith. If you were so sure of yourself I wouldnt think that you would hesitate defending your positions. You came here and talked at length about the spiritual things you believe. And you have packaged it up as being Christianity. What you say and what the scriptures say.....are completely different however and many here already have stated this. I see no similarities. I have not called you names or been mean. But I ask serious questions......you obviously cant answer.
If you dont want to respond to my posts fine......i will however continue challenging yours.
Obvious you take challenging questions as insults. I think that is a cop out. You claimed to be a Christian. What you said is not scriptural, why cant we challenge you?
In your belief? Its not what we think......its about what God says. You have to read the Bible. Good enough isnt good enough. No one is good enough to make it to heaven.
The Bible tells us, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10)
The Bible tells us in Titus 3:5, "He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy."
Philippians 3:8-9 tells us: "Not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith."
Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Dont try to figure it out. LOL
I swear we are being punked. Someone is laughing thats for sure. LOL

reply from: sander

She won't. She cherry picks her responses the same way she cherry picks which babies live or die.
Oh, and I might add, the same way she cherry picks what her idea of God is.
It's all about "her", in other words.
But, your responses are valid all the same and need to be said.

reply from: Banned Member

Beware that proponents for Barack Obama are going to make an initiative to portray abortion as being compatible with faith. They will do this by making themselves appear to be compassionate Christians who regret abortion and by misportraying "choice" as being in the spirit of the Gospel.
Beware of these false pro-abortion witnesses that are spreading their counterfeit christianity.

reply from: sander

Fair warning, indeed.
What's getting rather shocking is, the wolves aren't even bothering to wear sheeps clothing anymore and so many are STILL believing the lies.

reply from: Faramir

It's just too darn bad that it seems the best we have is to vote AGAINST Obama.
I sure wish I had a candidate I felt good about voting FOR, but I don't.
But I WILL vote against Obama.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I didn't directly address that quote, however, I did discuss my feelings about both christian and pro-choice sources and how I felt both are biased, so that referencing just one or the other is not giving all of the true information.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I believe we stop being divided from God and become one with Him. It's not annihilation because nothing is lost; to annihilate something, you must destroy it, get rid of it, take it completely out of existence. That's the exact opposite of what I feel.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, I thought you would notice this little gem...and the word "inexcusable".. and yet on another thread, this same poster says "What's with those people (who mention your previous 3 abortions)?"........
Kind of self contradictory, isn't she?
If you look at the other thread, I clarified myself without contradicting anything I have previously said.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

As an agnostic, I'd appreciate it if you gave the Christians here a break and didn't call yourself anything, unless it was something like "agnostic", or "no religion at all".
I am not an agnostic. I am christian. I certainly don't have "no religion at all".

reply from: churchmouse

Liberal, what is a Christian?
Do you think someone can deny what Christ said.........and still be a Christian?

reply from: galen

this has nothing to do with christian vs anything else... i am speaking purely on medical grounds..
i asked 'what you consider a medically valid reason for abortion?'
why does this have to do with anyones religion?
when i post a medical scource i do not look at the religious views of the researcher... just as when i recieve a grant to conduct a scientific quest i do not get asked that myself. I don't even work at a religious university... so why the dodge?
i really would like to know the answer to this question.. out of your keyboard.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I did a lot of searching before coming to the conclusion that I am christian; it was not a sudden decision.
"A Christian" is not a simple definition to me. I don't view the abortion debate as something simple, so I am not going to view religion as simple.
Am I a traditional christian, catholic or protestant, etc? NO.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Sorry; I thought you were asking something else.
A medically necessary abortion would be an ectopic pregnancy. A medically necessary abortion would be one where it is determined that the woman cannot stop any current medications because she will either die or become a danger to herself and others. Being too young and physically undeveloped is a medically necessary reason. The mother being in a lethal situation is a reason. The fetus being so deformed it has either no chance at life or a very low chance at anything considered a normal life is a medically necessary reason. If it can be proven that the woman will suffer mentally to an unacceptable extent due to the pregnancy and birth, that is a medically acceptable reason.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I believe we stop being divided from God and become one with Him. It's not annihilation because nothing is lost; to annihilate something, you must destroy it, get rid of it, take it completely out of existence. That's the exact opposite of what I feel.
If someone killed you, your spirit "rejoins God," so nothing is "lost?" Like I said, this argument would seem to apply to all persons, born or unborn. If your belief regarding an "afterlife" justifies abortion, why not all killing?
Spiritually nothing is lost. From our position down here on earth as humans, yes, something is lost. But in the big picture of soul-force, God, nothing is lost. It makes sense, it's just difficult to explain because it is not simple.
And my belief in the afterlife is NOT my justification for abortion. My belief in the afterlife has absolutely NOTHING to do with justifying any abortion. I have never even considered connecting the two concepts.

reply from: galen

its funny... those are the resons people like Tiller give for all thier Abortions...
ok i agree with the medication reason...the rest i do not.
ectopics are not considered abortions...
underdeveloped? you mean like the 11 yo rape victim? hmmmm nope
though i can understand your resoning i do not agree with it.
what is lethal? abruption hemmoraghe DIC? possibly depends on the case...a bit of spotting... no / 5 pints of blood? yes.
the deformity question... i'll referr you to the prenatal partners for life website.. MANY times ultrasound misdiagnosis fetal anomaly and MANY times doctors are sued for thier misdiagnosis... in my opinion it is better for the mom and the possibly future wellbeing of the child to carry the pregancy to it natural conclusion. The child will still ecperience some of its parents through the womb... can still experience love and careing, should it be born alive... and instead of dying alone with nothing but a needle in the heart or head to comfort it( not an instant death) the child will have a parent/s to comfort it during its demise.
i think suffering mentally is not as great a reason as its racked up to be... some suffering is required by the human psyche and so is some stress.. i think anyone who fels our exsistance should be stress free is deluding themselves.

reply from: sander

It's difficult to explain because it's utter nonsense. You simply can't be allowed to espouse spiritual lies un-challenged, since you wrap them up in Christianity.
You can ignore what anyone says, but the truth is posted here for those who would be duped into believng the rubish you utter.
There is an after-life and Christianity and the truth of God's Word says all person will spend eternity somewhere, heaven or hell. What you "feel" as no bearing on the truth.
What is truth?
John 17:17
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Here is something I just read. I'm reading a book by Harry Wong; it's an educator's book, but in this chapter he's talking about rules and consequences. Consequences aren't punishments. A consequence can be a reward, or a penalty.
"Consequences are not punishments. At most, they may be considered penalties, but students are used to penalties, as there are penalties in the games they pay. The issue is CHOICE People who cannot accept choice as part od responsible living cast themselves as victims. Victims blame others for their actions. Thus it is advisable to spend more time discussing consequences than discussing rules. Discuss an understanding that their actions or choices result in consequences. And consequences can be positive or negative."
I don't entirely know how I feel about this, aside from the fact that I feel it is incredibly meaningful for this debate. I hear time and again that women should not be punished for an accidental pregnancy. One consequence of sex is possible pregnancy. Not one punishment, one consequence. It doesn't matter if it's an accident. A consequence still comes. For some women of course the consequence is a reward, because they have been trying to conceive. For other women, the pregnancy is a penalty for having sex because they were not trying to conceive. Hm, ick. I don't like considering pregnancy a penalty OR a punishment because I consider pregnancy to be a wonderful thing.
Whether it is a penalty or a reward, it was her CHOICE (normally) to have sex, and pregnancy is always a possibility. People who gamble don't expect to win even when they lose, yet an abortion is kind of like demanding to "win".
What do you all think?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I just explained to galen many situations of a medically necessary abortion that I would approve of.

reply from: sander

All very nice sounding words, Vexing. No doubt.
But, as I've mentioned before, we have to embrace the "whole councel of God", in that way, I'm countering what Liberal is saying, in totality. If she was espousing personal views on her idea of spirituality and not within the context of Christianity, what she says wouldn't matter a whole hill of beans, to me.
Hope that makes sense.

reply from: sander

No offense intended, but that's the most sense you've made on this board, to date and very well put, I might add.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Why?
I just about shook with anger that you would approve of a raped 12 year old having her body destroyed and her hips ripped open by a pregnancy that her body is not developed to handle. Do you understand that an 11 year old is not built to give birth? Menstruation is NOT the end of puberty it is the beginning. "Old enough to bleed" is NOT OLD ENOUGH TO BREED. It is sick, disgusting, and I consider it child abuse to force a little girl to give birth. It's physical abuse, it's mental abuse, it's child abuse. I could absolutely never ever approve of forcing her to give birth, never.
If she wanted to, after being told how very dangerous it is and how she has a higher chance of death than a normal adult female, how she has a high chance of injury, and how her child has a very high risk of being premature and developing many of the ailments assosciated with premature birth including learning and developmental disabilities...
If a little girl still wanted to have the baby after all of that, then it's her choice.
Well of course I'm not talking about just a little bleeding. I really do actually mean a truly lethal situation. Why do you think I mean something else?
I can understand a parent's choice to keep the pregnancy, however I also understand their decision to abort. This would be a late-term abortion where the deformity is extremely obvious, with no chance for accidental diagnosis.
Any woman that has mentally suffered or needed to be on medication to control depression and mood swings will have the right to abort if she is going to commit suicide from being off the medication, and even moreso if she has a high chance of being permanently mentally damaged by going off her medication. Then again, I also feel that woman should be allowed a castration to prevent further pregnancy if being pregnant is such a detrimental situation to be in for her.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The denomination I often get on denomination quizzes is Liberal Quakerism hahah XD

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I will say this again.
I do not think any abortion for a non-medical reason is "ok". I feel it is medically justifiable in early pregnancy based off of fetal viability in connection with a woman's right to not be pregnant. What I would actually LIKE would be if the unwanted pregnancy could be removed without killing the unborn. But, because early-term fetuses are not viable (cannot survive outside the womb) BUT the mother also has a right to control her body, the compromise is abortion.
It's currently not a desirable situation to give birth prematurely because there are too many ailments assosciated with premature birth, otherwise I would say a woman should wait until the fetus is viable, induce labor and then be done with it. No one dies, everyone's pseudo-happy.
As for that hypothetical situation, I would say that yes, it would be ok for her to abort because at that moment, when she wants to abort, the fetus could not survive EVEN IF a doctor removed it without killing it. It would just die on the counter or in his hands.

reply from: sander

No doubt there's a denomination that she fits into.
But, that's the whole point. We shouldn't be the ones defining what a Christian is. I posted the Scripture that says what is truth. We need to define ourselves by God's truth, not ours.
I don't look for a denomination that suits my ideas, I look for one, or perhaps it's not even a demoniation, that fits into what are God's ideas.
And yes, great advice, go back to the basics and stick with them, more to the point. But, those basics start with the premise, "God's Word is truth".

reply from: galen

a child of 11 or 12 has a great risk no matter what the procedure... but her risk of sterility is greater with abortion. This same young girl can also be given anesthsia for sedation and a cesarean in order to help her through the birth.( wich in the aforementioned case will be less hard for her to recover from)..yes she is considered high risk.. but with proper care there is no reson why she can not have a healthy child... and again the same problem that other rape victims have is hers also.. that of long term surviablility.. and because of her age she is already set up to lose.
I understand the desire to 'push it all away' and hope she forgets... but the truth is she won't ... and abortion only compaounds the problem.
and besides that who speaks for that child who has harmed no one, but whose execution is supposed to make us all 'feel better'... does he/ she need to be yet another victim of the rapist, because this is what your doing by saying the should have never exsisted.
next time you think this way please stop yourself and realise that probably 2 out of the 300 people you pass everyday will be in that category... and some may even bee your friends. probably one who were adopted. should they too have been killed?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

But killing that same little girl would have been acceptable 11 plus years earlier?
If she were a non-viable fetus in a woman who never wanted to get pregnant in the first place? Yes.
I am alive because of an abortion. My older sibling was aborted when my mother was in college. She was coerced by my grandmother to do it. She became pregnant because a condom broke. Her father would have disowned her for being pregnant before marriage, and so my grandmother did what many women have done for centuries... she helped my mother cover it up. My mother wouldn't have met my dad if she had given birth and gone down a different path. My mother regrets the abortion and is pro-life, but she is grateful for the life she has now and the two children she has. What does she regret even more than the abortion? Getting pregnant in the first place. She regrets the pregnancy, she regrets the broken condom.
What is most tragic about this scenario to me? It's not the abortion. It's the culture my mother came from that forced her and my grandmother to take the action they took. Guess what religion my mother, grandmother and grandpa are? Christian. Very christian. Traditional christian. And that religion would have torn their family apart. I do not consider that good or ethical. I consider it horrendous and backwards.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What about the risks of the baby? You didn't touch on those at all. And I'd like to see some sources on the comparisons between a young child who gives birth and a young child who aborts.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that 2/300 people are results of rape?
I do have a friend who is adopted, though not because of a rape. He is mostly pro-life but he and I have some really good conversations about abortion and the right to life.
It's not "SHOULD", it's the woman's choice! Nobody SHOULD have an abortion, they simply have the choice.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't believe a fetus qualifies as a born child. It is a living human but it is not the same thing as a born child.

reply from: galen

What about the risks of the baby? You didn't touch on those at all. And I'd like to see some sources on the comparisons between a young child who gives birth and a young child who aborts.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that 2/300 people are results of rape?
I do have a friend who is adopted, though not because of a rape. He is mostly pro-life but he and I have some really good conversations about abortion and the right to life.
It's not "SHOULD", it's the woman's choice! Nobody SHOULD have an abortion, they simply have the choice.
____________________________________________
It is simple medical fact that a planned cesarean can be better healed phyisiologically than an unplanned trauma during birth. Its one of the reasons an episiotomy is used rather than risking a stage 4 tear.
Children who are born of mothers this young, who have proper prenatle care, do not seem to suffer more than the average high risk pregnancy ( thank goodness there are not enough to do a formal study on this age group) but if you go through all the case histories that you can get your hands on you'll see what i mean. I'll try to post some here.. but usually they are written up in journals that the public can not access easily. you however can google it and find a few on your own.
the youngest girl i ever helped with was 12 and she had not been raped... she was very petite and after a full term pregnancy was delivered of a 8lb 3 oz baby boy by cesarean with no complications. she recovered fully with no long term affects of the surgery except a scar that had faded by the time she was 17 ( i saw her at a pool party in a bikini) she never had another pregnancy. She is now a delightful young woman of 20 nd has plans to finish her masters this year...in buisness.
The child was adopted to an out of state family so i have no news on it.
As far as the rape sts yes if you include 'date rape' etc and not just the stranger rapes... and all the ones that are termed molestation than yes 2 of every 300 people in the world are concieved by rape.

reply from: galen

What about the risks of the baby? You didn't touch on those at all. And I'd like to see some sources on the comparisons between a young child who gives birth and a young child who aborts.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that 2/300 people are results of rape?
I do have a friend who is adopted, though not because of a rape. He is mostly pro-life but he and I have some really good conversations about abortion and the right to life.
It's not "SHOULD", it's the woman's choice! Nobody SHOULD have an abortion, they simply have the choice.
________________________________________________
here is an older study you can look at
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/full/100/3/481

it shows the risk factors to an infant born of lower maternal age are not from her age/ maturity of body.. but rather a mix os psychological and socioeconomic factors that could have been overidden by adoption.
ie.. its not the fact that she is 12 but the fact that she kept the baby, that caused it to die..( implication)
there for is these infants are adopted out you can save the mom from the knowledge that she killed her child and the child from her rage( the paper assumes that any pregnancy in one so young be classified as rape)

reply from: galen

at least in ALL ( leukemia in young kids) it seems a younger mom protects the child.
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/16/2/347

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And I don't believe either qualifies as an adult. What's your point?
That there is a physical difference far more important between an embryo and a baby than there is between a baby and an adult. I've listed these physical differences already. The very things that make us HUMAN, an embryo or fetus may lack if it is young enough. No matter how pro-life anyone is, to ignore those differences is foolish.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm wondering why it is okay to discriminate against another human being, based on its development?
A, I don't consider it discrimination and B, it's not based solely on development.

reply from: galen

i'm getting a bad taste in my mouth... if you discriminate against someone for age/ development, etc its a short step to sex and race.

reply from: Banned Member

Denomination quizzes? Where do you find those? In your idle time on myspace? Because that is where you juvenile outlook on the world tends to lead me. My Christian faith was determined by the actions of the disciples of Christ, by the early Church fathers such as Augustine and Jerome. It was also determined by the many Christian martyrs that died for the very truth that does not change and has not changed for 2000 years. You think that taking denomination quizzes gives some kind of name to your faith? You are bearing false witness as the wolf in sheeps clothing. Rather a wolf in cheap clothing, your message isn't convincing even to the casual observer of the Christian faith.
That's 99% of abortions and you will not even support a ban on 1% of all abortions. There are extremely few abortion that having anything to do with a real threat to the health of the mother or the unborn child. If there is any threat most real medical professionals, people that actually work to preserve life, will provide care for the mother until such time as an early delivery can give both the greatest chance for health and susrvival. You are pro-abortion. If the pregnancy, you advocate killing the child. Do you really think that the mother should not experience any risk for the unborn child? Fetal viability outside of the womb is a myth created by the courts and abortion rights ideologues. The only viability that matters is that of the viability of the unborn person in the womb. Womb viability makes the unborn viable.
The viability of a person in conditions that are not part of their current state of development gives neither reason or right to kill a person. By your reasoning it would be okay to drown a person, because after all, it's not your fault they cannot breath under water. Completely illogical. Rather sick and twisted in appearance to the rational mind. That an unborn child cannot survive outside of the womb, with or without assistance gives no one the right to kill that unborn child. You seem to be advocating some kind of abortionsist practioners Darwinism; kill that which is least fit to live.
Not desirable? For whom? The abortion proponents that would have these undesirables not be pointed out as the examples of the viability myth? Tell the thousands of parents right now that are hoping and praying over their premature babies that are being cared for around the clock by caring and moral medical professionals that value life. Adversity only adds to the value of the human life in the overcoming of that adversity. Eugenics hawks like you have no heart to care for less than perfect children. Would you have children pass a health inspection as to the fitness to live?
This is your rationale for abortion, that somehow abortion is good because it led to your birth? Knowing that the right to live exists before all other rights, you owe your life not to a fortuitous abortion, but to an act of murder. I will not even speculate who was more right to live, you or your sibling. That kind of causality is beyond my reckoning. I will say that pride led to the abortion of your older sibling, not Christian faith or religion. Many have abortions who have no religion for the same reasons of family and personal pride, being more concerned with societal judgement that any care for human life.
I too was an unexpected child in a very Christian, very Catholic Christian family, and abortion was never an option on the table. My family was able to discern the difference between what was an error in judgement on my mothers part, and the greater need to protect and cherish life. I am my mothers only child, and to my grandparents I was as one of their own children.
This is among the most convoluted thinking that I have ever encountered. If the unborn is a human person, of course living, than you have no moral right to kill them, just as you have no right to kill any living human. A human person is a living human being, in any and all states of human development regardless of the capacity for independent survival.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Myspace? Hah, I don't even have one. No, it was actually found with a 2 second google search. I by no means think it is a real determination of someone's domination, as that is a personal choice one comes to after learning about the real denominations and seeing which one fits you best. However, it is a fun little activity.

reply from: Banned Member

Myspace. Thats right, dig deeply into the substance of my entire post.

reply from: lukesmom

Tell that to a mother who has just miscarried...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There are multiple factors that I attribute to abortion being legal. A disclaimer: What I list may not be a full list, but simply a list of the ideas that occur to me at the moment.
1. Z/E/F development: Mostly in regards to viability. A z/e/f between the date of conception and week 12 (when 90% of all abortions occur) is not viable. It cannot survive outside of the mother's body. It is 100% dependent on her, and her alone. In my opinion, this means she is in charge of it AND that it is not a person.
2. Personhood. What do noses and ears have to do with the abortion debate? There are aspects we all think about when we think "person". When I look at a 8 week fetus, I honestly do not see a person or even a baby. Because it is not a person OR independent, it does not have a right to life.
3. Women's rights. The woman has a right to control her body. The zef is using her bodily resources. She has a right to not have it inside of her.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The rest of your post was the same drivel I've heard over and over. It doesn't warrant a response.

reply from: Banned Member

Drivel?
No, it is the same drivel that you have not heard over and over again, otherwise you would not be in support of the murder of unborn children.
To the vacuumous space between what was once your conscience and what is now your distorted and lying intellect, it may sound like drivel, but others have heard and considered what I have said.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Every pro-lifer I have ever met has said the exact same things you have said.

reply from: galen

____________________________________________________________-
what about the child's right to live... and also what about the child's right once conceived not to be executed for the sake of convienence...
you say yur abohor late term abortions... but the reasons you give for abortions past 20 weeks.. with the exception of viability are the same reasons used to sanction late term abortions too.
with the exception of viability all the reasons you give are subjective and have all been used in the past to condone some sort of mass slaughter, bodily autonomy was used by eugenic supporters to justify forced sterilization of undesireable people.. personhood for slaves and experiments on minorities. For someone who has said they have a profound intrest in ethics i expected more succinct answers.

reply from: sander

This NEEDS to be highlighted, as it comes close to summing up her views. I say "close" because her views are so contradictory and all over the map, it's probably humanly impossible to totally sum them up. It may seem like "drivel" to Liberal, but others need to see how dangerous her twisted thinking really is.
She's advocating NOTHING less than eugenics and if she doesn't have the intellucal honesty to admit it, any rational, clear thinking person will be able to see it for what it is.

reply from: galen

and just so we are all on the same page about the proper terms for developement here are a few links. please note that the term zef is never used interchangeably it is either a blastocyst, a zygote, and embryo, a fetus or a baby. Each has its distinct stages in development. the only universal term for all is CHILD.
http://www.medicinenet.com/fetal-development-pictures-slideshow/article.htm
http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/conception/?ordersrc=msn3fetaldevelop_tool&cobrandId=ww5&s_kwcid=TC-3024-878998824-p-16296919
http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Stages/CStages.htm

reply from: sander

EXCELLENT, Mary.
Thanks.

reply from: Banned Member

Thank you.
Sometimes these posts are exhausting, there being so much to wrap up and address in a concise space. I see this persons posts and see something that amounts to blindness and deafness of the soul, forming a complete internal darkness. There is neither reason or compassion. Pope Benedict XVI is known for his view that faith and reason are necessasarily compatible. What if such a person were divorced of both these attributes? What kind of horrors have we seen from the minds of such people? We cannot understand such evil, because we cannot go where they go to conceive such things.
I fear what has become when I see people that arbitrarily asserts a mindless heartless authority that judges who is deemed fit to live and who is deemed fit to die. If this is not the culture of death, than one should fear what culture might yet become in these times ahead.

reply from: nikil005

Hi every one,
I am new to this forum. thanks for welcoming. I think it would interest a wide audience. I'd certainly link to it.
============================================
vinus
http://www.goinggreenbuzz.com
http://www.goinggreenbuzz.com

reply from: galen

here is another more consise refrence.... i use in class as the pics are great.
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html

reply from: sander

Well said, Augustine and a warning that should be paid attention to.

reply from: sander

And nothing in those pictures looks so menacing that he or she is worthy of death.

reply from: galen

here is another great link... you see long before this child becomes a fetus it is already a functioning human with all the parts a 'normal' human has ...
http://cna.uc.edu/embryology/contents.htm

reply from: sander

Since you've extended a thank you for being welcomed, somebody ought to do just that...welcome.
But, you might want to start a thread to introduce yourself.

reply from: sander

Mary, you are a wealth of information!

reply from: galen

bump up for choicerulz

reply from: nancyu

This is not the fault of Christianity. It is the fault of bad judgment on the part of yourmother and Grandmother.
The culture did not force your mother and grandmother to do anything.

reply from: yoda

I must have missed that one..... care to repeat it?

reply from: yoda

Such a predatory attitude could also justify killing a "good" born Christian, could it not? Their soul would not be "lost", right?
Of course not! You just "happened" to mention it here, right?
It has nothing to do with your proabort attitude, right?

reply from: faithman

I must have missed that one..... care to repeat it?
No contradiction at all yoda... kill any womb baby, at any time, for any number of contrived reasons.

reply from: yoda

There's nothing complicated about that at all, it's a simple statement of natural fact.
But then, Obama says he wouldn't want his daughter "punished" with a baby...... right?

reply from: yoda

You have the most amazing ability to make perfectly self-contradictory statements as if you were totally blind to their complete inconsistency.
There is absolutely NOTHING "medical" about fetal viability OR a woman's "right not to be pregnant"........ ABSOLUTELY NOTHING "MEDICAL" ABOUT THOSE TWO THINGS!!

reply from: yoda

What an incredible lie. YOU have absolutely no idea why YOU were born to a particular mother and/or father, or whether you would've been born to some other parents at some other time......
But I suppose you think that you are so valuable that your birth justified the killing of your sibling anyway, right? And that makes (early) abortion okie dokie, right?

reply from: yoda

Your ignorance is astounding. And your willingness to show it as well.
There is NO "qualification" to be a born child except to be A CHILD and to BE BORN....... PERIOD!!
The phrase "same thing" MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING....... AT ALL!!

reply from: yoda

Just when I think your display of ignorance has reached it's greatest limit, you exceed it.
A HUMAN embryo or fetus CANNOT be other than "HUMAN"!!!!!!!!!

reply from: yoda

YOUR willful blindness has no effect on REALITY.............
But then you prefer to live in your pretend world, don't you?
That makes it easier to espouse the philosophy of baby killing, does it not?

reply from: yoda

I doubt that. But even so, when a great many sincere, honest people say the same thing, then perhaps you ought to open your mind up just a tiny crack..... and let some light in?

reply from: yoda

Yes, but ONLY for honest people with no agenda for justifying baby killing.
All baby killing advocates say "zef". It is a part of their mantra.

reply from: yoda

Jump right in, vinus, the water's hot!!

reply from: yoda

I must have missed that one..... care to repeat it?
No contradiction at all yoda... kill any womb baby, at any time, for any number of contrived reasons.
Wasn't it amazing how quickly she retreated from her "inexcusable" comment?

reply from: sander

Yoda, this Lib character is one for the record books!!!!!!!!!
Honestly, I think there are entirely too many kids out of school for the summer with absolutley nothing better to do.
Their parents would be better off making them do chores.....please tell me this one is a kid! pretty please
There's got to be some rational explanation for the stuff she spouts.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It still does not appear that full functionality occurs any sooner than week 20, I'm sorry. Something else I noted is that lungs are not even minimally functional until week 24.
Also, I'm twenty-three, and an elementary teacher. I teach third graders.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

This is not the fault of Christianity. It is the fault of bad judgment on the part of yourmother and Grandmother.
The culture did not force your mother and grandmother to do anything.
I think it did. Their christian culture taught them that premarital sex was such a horrible thing and premarital pregnancy was so horrendous that they were willing to kill the baby just to avoid the situation.

reply from: faithman

SSSSSOOOO if a born person is missing an arm, or can not walk, or is below a certain IQ, we should kill them as well? It is no wonder we are falling behind the rest of the developed world in education with such confused idiots as you given access to children. You would make a good poster image for home school.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

SSSSSOOOO if a born person is missing an arm, or can not walk, or is below a certain IQ, we should kill them as well? It is no wonder we are falling behind the rest of the developed world in education with such confused idiots as you given access to children. You would make a good poster image for home school.
I have already told you and others that it is not just "one thing" that determines personhood. It is a subjective determination that I feel should be discussed between the woman and her doctor. I also feel that, based on development and viability, a fetus automatically gains personhood at week 20. Previous to week 20, personhood and viability should be determined by the doctor and woman, and her need for the abortion should be assessed by a knowledgeable practitioner.

reply from: faithman

SSSSSOOOO if a born person is missing an arm, or can not walk, or is below a certain IQ, we should kill them as well? It is no wonder we are falling behind the rest of the developed world in education with such confused idiots as you given access to children. You would make a good poster image for home school.
I have already told you and others that it is not just "one thing" that determines personhood. It is a subjective determination that I feel should be discussed between the woman and her doctor. I also feel that, based on development and viability, a fetus automatically gains personhood at week 20. Previous to week 20, personhood and viability should be determined by the doctor and woman, and her need for the abortion should be assessed by a knowledgeable practitioner.
Oh how sweet. The worth of a womb child is to be determined by the assasin, and the one who hires them. Personhood begins a conception. If you "teach" anything else you are not an educator, you are an indoctrinator that feels you can sit on the seat of judgement to decrea who is worthy of life. And you are willing to throw away womb children simply because they are to young to survive without a womb. Personhood is not subjective to the whims of man. It is a right granted by the Creator. You can violate that right, but you can never take it away.

reply from: yoda

She was spouting the same stuff over on eHealth months ago, so it's not a recent phenomenon. It's like someone put a blindfold over their eyes and then demanded to be allowed to lead a parade of blind people through a cave.

reply from: yoda

You just won't listen, will you?
We don't CARE about the developmental status of the unborn, with regard to a moral justification for healthy mothers killing healthy babies!!
Size, age, development, and physical and mental abilities have NOTHING to do with the moral value of an innocent human being.
But then, you don't really place any value on innocent human life, do you?

reply from: yoda

Wow.... this just gets worse and worse........
"Personhood" is not some magical suit of armor that just appears on a baby. The term it is derived from is nothing more than a common term for any member of our species, Homo sapiens, PERIOD!!
And YET..... you have the gall to tell us that we as individual humans have the right to SUBJECTIVELY decide when to allow a baby to live, and when it's okay to kill it.
You'd make a terrific Russian Tzar, by the way.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You just won't listen, will you?
We don't CARE about the developmental status of the unborn, with regard to a moral justification for healthy mothers killing healthy babies!!
Size, age, development, and physical and mental abilities have NOTHING to do with the moral value of an innocent human being.
But then, you don't really place any value on innocent human life, do you?
I know you don't care, because you like ignoring the facts.
I'm a little surprised you place value on innocent life, as pro-lifers have always told me that they don't place value on one life over another. Well here finally we've got some honesty! You value the innocent fetus over the horrible, disgusting, unethical mother.
You know, pro-choice may try to dehumanize the fetus, but pro-life dehumanizes the woman.

reply from: yoda

"FACTS"????? You call you equating of physical development with moral worth a "FACT"?????? I've seen people with a lot of gall before, but you really take the cake!!
Are you on drugs, or sick, or something? Do you realize that you're not making any sense at all?
No one said anything about valuing the fetus over the mother, and yet you claim that what I said proves that?
You need to go take a rest, for a week or two. You're becoming hysterical.

reply from: faithman

You just won't listen, will you?
We don't CARE about the developmental status of the unborn, with regard to a moral justification for healthy mothers killing healthy babies!!
Size, age, development, and physical and mental abilities have NOTHING to do with the moral value of an innocent human being.
But then, you don't really place any value on innocent human life, do you?
I know you don't care, because you like ignoring the facts.
I'm a little surprised you place value on innocent life, as pro-lifers have always told me that they don't place value on one life over another. Well here finally we've got some honesty! You value the innocent fetus over the horrible, disgusting, unethical mother.
You know, pro-choice may try to dehumanize the fetus, but pro-life dehumanizes the woman.
No the woman did that to herself when she destroyed womb humanity. Funny how you death skancs want to put the consiquence of your actions on others. Kill the baby, defend the killer. How sweet and womanly of you.

reply from: churchmouse

I think it makes a big difference. Because for those people that deny Christ says He is.......they will not spend eternity in Heaven, but in Hell. THAT IS WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY. I didnt make this up....go read for yourself.
People have to know the way to spend eternity with God. Hell is a place, its not just an imaginary place God uses to scare people. It is a physical place. Read Revelation.
We all are bad, none are worthy of His forgiveness, none of us are righteous. Like I said and gave scriptures for,,,,good is not good enough to make it to heaven.
Christianity is all about one thing and that one thing is our relationship with Christ. You are NOT a Christian unless you confess sin, ask forgiveness and become born again. This is scriptural, I am not making this up.
We are here on earth for one thing, and its not our enjoyment that comes first. We are here to glorify God. Sin does not glorify God. Abortion does not either.
Dismembering a live human being in no way glorfifies God?

reply from: churchmouse

Augustine you hit the nail on the head with this one
AMEN
I understand this is not a religious forum...... But any Christian would stand up for their relationship with CHRIST. That is not the case with a lot of the people here. They run for the hills when God is mentioned. They dont want to talk about it.
And LiberalChiRo....you again avoided the question.
What is a Christian? What do you have to believe in to be a Christian? I assume that if you can't answer, you simply do not know.
Could you cite the bible to back this view up? Find the scripture where God says nothing is lost.
What do you think God would think about abortion? You see no connection?
She has never read the bible and she is making it up as she goes along. I find it odd that she does not back anything she says up with scripture.
Liberal........you can look anything up on biblegateway.com, if you dont have a bible.
You know who gets punished don't you? The unborn child gets punished. Call it whatever term you want to use.......but the unborn is the real victim. You are right it doesnt matter to the unborn how he got there.......but it does matter to him that he will be dismembered alive and his one shot at life was decided for him by a mother who uses free choice to kill him.
You say you consider pregnancy a wonderful thing. It is a wonderful thing. What is abortion? You say you are pro-choice. What happened to the wonderful pregnacy in those cases?
You are saying two things here. You are absolutely all over the place on this.

Look at how your first sentence contradicts your second one. LOL
You are pro-choice/abortion, that is what you are. I base that on WHAT YOU SAY.
The legal dismemberment of the unborn is not the most tragic thing in all of this? You have got to be kidding? Something is killed........dismembered alive......and that is secondary?
Had your mother been walking with God, has she been on that narrow path that God talks about...........she wouldnt have been having sex which is sin......she wouldnt have conceived a child out of wedlock, which is sin........and she wouldnt have had to suck her family into her sin by killing a living human being.
The child payed for your mothers sin. He paid with his life. Now by your own words you say if she got the abortion early.......no big deal. That is sad.
Do not blame culture. If you walk in the light of Gods Word things like that do not happen. Your mother is the one to blame.
I know, I did it, I was the responsible party. NO ONE IS TO BLAME REALLY BUT THE WOMAN. Your mother killed your sibling, she is responsible.
WHAT DONT YOU GET? You say you are a Christian.....and yet you know nothing about it. The scriptures say any sex outside marriage is sin. Your mother was sinning not the culture she lived in. The cultrue probably at that time was Christian and would have held your mother to the Word.
I am still.......lookin for Ashton Kutcher, enough is enough.

reply from: churchmouse

galen you mentioned that in an etopic pregnancy, its not an abortion.
"An early ectopic pregnancy can sometimes be treated with an injection of methotrexate, which stops the growth of the embryo.'
So is the baby alive or dead when this happens?
If it is alive, then the medicine would help kill it. Right?
It is alive if they have to stop the growth.
In that case its an abortion.
"the pregnancy may sometimes be removed'
What they really mean is the unborn. Right? It is alive and it has to be taken, or killed in order for the surgery to be successful.
http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/pregnancy/ectopic.html

Isnt the life alive before the surgery takes place in most cases?

reply from: nancyu

This is not the fault of Christianity. It is the fault of bad judgment on the part of yourmother and Grandmother.
The culture did not force your mother and grandmother to do anything.
I think it did. Their christian culture taught them that premarital sex was such a horrible thing and premarital pregnancy was so horrendous that they were willing to kill the baby just to avoid the situation.
The culture did not force your mother and grandmother to do anything.
(what you think doesn't matter.)

reply from: nancyu

SSSSSOOOO if a born person is missing an arm, or can not walk, or is below a certain IQ, we should kill them as well? It is no wonder we are falling behind the rest of the developed world in education with such confused idiots as you given access to children. You would make a good poster image for home school.
No kidding!!!! what a horrifying thought!!!! Please everyone, pray for these third graders. ( in case my prayers don't work -- I didn't get my tea and chocolate from CM yet)

reply from: sander

Nancy, wisely said,
But, but....Nancy, the ENTIRE universe revolves around this lunatic, didn't you get the memo? What she "thinks" (which I'm convinced is a huge strain), is the ONLY cirteria that makes anything matter.
Nancy, this one is so FAR gone she couldn't be reached with 10 10 foot poles!

reply from: sander

This is not the fault of Christianity. It is the fault of bad judgment on the part of yourmother and Grandmother.
The culture did not force your mother and grandmother to do anything.
You don't think, that's your problem. You've convinced yourself that random thought patters constitutes thinking.
It wasn't their "Christian culture", it was the written Word of God that speaks to these matters. NOW if they would have been obedient to God's Word NONE of this would have happen.
Apparently you came by your inability to apply the Word and apply logic, honestly.

reply from: faithman

SSSSSOOOO if a born person is missing an arm, or can not walk, or is below a certain IQ, we should kill them as well? It is no wonder we are falling behind the rest of the developed world in education with such confused idiots as you given access to children. You would make a good poster image for home school.
No kidding!!!! what a horrifying thought!!!! Please everyone, pray for these third graders. ( in case my prayers don't work -- I didn't get my tea and chocolate from CM yet)
What about that bible that says mercy for the guilty comes at the expence of justice for the womb child? Her Holiness CM has proclaimed us in sin because we advocate equal justice between the born and preborn. Is absolution found in them thar chocolates?

reply from: galen

___________________________________________________________-
and you got through basic biology in c ollege in the last 5 years or so? How on earth did you become so misinformed on human development?

reply from: galen

SSSSSOOOO if a born person is missing an arm, or can not walk, or is below a certain IQ, we should kill them as well? It is no wonder we are falling behind the rest of the developed world in education with such confused idiots as you given access to children. You would make a good poster image for home school.
I have already told you and others that it is not just "one thing" that determines personhood. It is a subjective determination that I feel should be discussed between the woman and her doctor. I also feel that, based on development and viability, a fetus automatically gains personhood at week 20. Previous to week 20, personhood and viability should be determined by the doctor and woman, and her need for the abortion should be assessed by a knowledgeable practitioner.
_________________________________________________________________
no doctor says to any expectant mother.. congratulations you have an blostocyst, embryo etc.
its congratulations your going to be a mother, yourpregnant, or your going to have a baby.
personhood it determined by the act of being human. dolphins, chimps, eagles, and sandworms are not and never can be persons. only a human can do that... and the law actually makes no distinction about developmental stages in relation to that question otherwise the ADA would never have been passed.
You might ask how many parents of your third graders with ADD or Autism have decided thier kids were not persons, as this seems to be the track you are walking.

reply from: galen

_________________________________________
you really just want to muddy waters don't you....
yes its alive and guess what metho does not usually work and is only used in a few cases... it never fixes the problem and so surgery is the option that it usually taken... removal of the tube along with the gestational sac. IT IS NEVER AN ABORTION.

reply from: churchmouse

Call it whatever you want.......it has to be killed to save the mother.
That is exactly what happened to my daughter. She has surgery and the tube had to be taken.
Nevertheless, something died.

reply from: galen

so what do you do throw your own guilt on her and tell her SHE had an abortion... what are you Mengle?
NO ONE CONSIDERS AN ECTOPIC PROC EDURE ABORTION IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM... ecept people who want to project thier own guilt and remorse upon others.

reply from: churchmouse

Of course not. She knew exactly what they had to do. What does this have to do with me? She knows about what I did, and the difference between what happened to her and what happened to me.
They had to do what they did to save her life.
NEVERTHELESS IT WAS STILL A LIFE. You dont acknowledge the life taken galen?
So you are saying that when she went into surgery, the embryo was dead alread?
Yes or no.

reply from: galen

it is not an abortion... i think you just feel like tearing other people apart so they can feel as bad about themselves as you obvioulsy feel about yourself.
go work on your own problems and stop trying to convince everyone they are just as bad as you.

reply from: Faramir

Of course not. She knew exactly what they had to do. What does this have to do with me? She knows about what I did, and the difference between what happened to her and what happened to me.
They had to do what they did to save her life.
NEVERTHELESS IT WAS STILL A LIFE. You dont acknowledge the life taken galen?
So you are saying that when she went into surgery, the embryo was dead alread?
Yes or no.
The reason it is not considered an abortion, is that the tube was removed and the death of the embryo was an unintended consequence. So long as there is no direct attack on the embryo or fetus, by the principle of "double effect," it is ethically sound, and not an abortion.

reply from: churchmouse

Neither one of you answered the question.
Sometimes they do not need to take the tube.
They did in my daughters case.
It might not be called an abortion........but nevertheless a life is ended because of an act..... In this case an act to save my daughter.
I am not trying to make anyone feel bad. We are talking about facts not rheroric.
She wont answer becasue she would have to admit that there is a living thing that will die. If it was dead.......nothing would have to be done.
If life starts at fertilization........then is it or isnt it a life, even if its in tube?
I dont care how it dies.......it dies. It was a life.
My daughter and our whole family mourned over the loss of her little one.
Sorry you cant see that and you think it was nothing.

reply from: Faramir

I didn't say it was nothing. Where did you get that idea?
I said that removal of the tube in a way that is not a direct attack on the fetus is not considered to be an abortion.
I don't know what the circumstances were in your case.
Regardless, a life ends and it's sad. Nobody is disputing that. And I'm not clear what point you are trying to make about this.

reply from: galen

Neither one of you answered the question.
Sometimes they do not need to take the tube.
They did in my daughters case.
It might not be called an abortion........but nevertheless a life is ended because of an act..... In this case an act to save my daughter.
I am not trying to make anyone feel bad. We are talking about facts not rheroric.
She wont answer becasue she would have to admit that there is a living thing that will die. If it was dead.......nothing would have to be done.
If life starts at fertilization........then is it or isnt it a life, even if its in tube?
I dont care how it dies.......it dies. It was a life.
My daughter and our whole family mourned over the loss of her little one.
Sorry you cant see that and you think it was nothing.
____________________________________________________________
have you been smoking something?
YOU are the one equating an ectopic pregnancy with ABORTION...
i hate to rain on your parade ms know it all ... but you still remove the tube after methotrexate... the sac never goes away and usually scarrs so badly that surgery is still called for.
Why do you insist that this is the same as abortion? are you on drugs?
i have yet to meet someone who claims to be prolife that is as twisted as you... and i've met quite a few twisters on this forum.
people mourn many things, misscarraige, still birth, SIDS..and ectopic pregnacies.. YOu however are the first person i've ever seen here that is so steadfast in trying to equate them ( ectp) with abortion...Have you no mercy for the women here who have gone through one...? Have you no tact...
I repeat my earlier statement but let me say it plainly... you are a real B****. I am glad i do not know you in RL. I feel sorry for your family.

reply from: english

Hey
Why do you think babies can survive independantly at 27 weeks?
50% survive at 24 weeks.
The youngest baby to survive is 21 weeks and 6 days.
Even if a baby cn survive outside the womb for a few seconds it proves it's a separate human with feelings.
Btw I completely understand your description of "God."
That's why I say I believe in mother nature lol it's over simplified but it's the easiest way to explain

reply from: english

Welcome back.
But what you are describing is "pantheism" and not Christianity, unless I am misunderstanding you.
Do you believe that people have immortal souls, which live on after death as essentially the same person before death? Do you believe that the fetus or embryo has a soul?
Thank you, and very good questions
Yes, I agree that "Pantheism" is another way to say polytheism. And I do think that it is just a different way God has presented himself to other humans on Earth. They have interpreted his presence as the existence of many gods, but what they're really doing is just faceting the one body of God. Their religions are certainly not Christianity, I just feel we are all worshiping the same spiritual force whether they are aware of it or not. There is one spiritual force in our universe.
As for immortal souls, I believe our souls are tendrils of God, or his spiritual force, to say it another way. Just like waves have individual peaks, but are still part of the greater ocean, I believe our souls are ours, but still connected to God. When we die, we re-join with God. Going to hell, in my opinion, is severance from God. If the very act of being alive is to be with God, then hell is an existence "deader" than death. Alone, away from light and life.
As for the unborn, yes I believe they have a soul, because I believe that every living thing has soul energy, even plants. Inanimate objects have the touch of God in them too of course, since God is nature, but they don't have his blessing of LIFE. I believe our souls have been part of our existence since life began on Earth - which, by the way, I believe started in the oceans as simple one-celled organisms. I believe in evolution and have seen for myself how it fits easily into the bible.
As a liberal Christian, I do not interpret the bible literally in most cases. I use it as a guide, a tool, a resource, but in the end, I make my decisions based on my own experiences and what I feel is the right choice.
Ooooh my dayz we think very similarly O.O bloody hell I totally understand your way of thinking.
I MASSIVELY know what you mean by saying by fitting things into your religion.
I also think that people should get their beliefs into context and think for themselves, otherwise it's difficult to understand things properly! There's a difference betweeen understanding what something means and understanding it - the difference between sympathy and empathy. I might seem to be talking bollocks but since I have similar though patterns to you I thought I would take the chance *blushes and wishes I didn't talk bollocks*
But I'm not Christian and I'm completely "pro-life"
Sorry I just get excited when people think like me

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well Hi there! Nice to see a friendly face here ^^
As for the 27 week thing, I've been presented with some very interesting information since coming to this site and I've decided my cut-off date is now 20 weeks. I didn't know 50% survived at 24 weeks! Wow! The information about this is so surpressed. I think a lot of pro-choicers would listen and change their minds if they knew. But of course, the information needs to be presented kindly, not with anger. So thanks
As for what I mean by independent survival... I mean more than just a few seconds. I mean extended survival into a full-length life of 60+ years on this planet.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Hahaha, thanks again! Yeah, religion and understanding is deep stuff, and I am always frustrated when people try to define one "right" way to do it and call all the rest of us wrong. That's not religion! That's not faith. Faith is something beyond rules and things like that.

reply from: nancyu

Well Hi there! Nice to see a friendly face here ^^
As for the 27 week thing, I've been presented with some very interesting information since coming to this site and I've decided my cut-off date is now 20 weeks. I didn't know 50% survived at 24 weeks! Wow! The information about this is so surpressed. I think a lot of pro-choicers would listen and change their minds if they knew. But of course, the information needs to be presented kindly, not with anger. So thanks
As for what I mean by independent survival... I mean more than just a few seconds. I mean extended survival into a full-length life of 60+ years on this planet.
A child can survive from 7 minutes after conception if it is allowed to grow within its mother's womb. Is that not to be a consideration of whether or not a child is "viable"? If a child has already died, then it is not viable. If a child is alive and growing it is most certainly viable.
Why should it matter if it is capable of independent survival. Are you yourself capable of completely independent survival?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Galen... I personally consider an ectopic removal to be an abortion in the most basic sense of the work, aka, the cessation of a pregnancy before term, in which the unborn dies... A miscarriage is also technically an abortion.
Now, I know what you mean too, you are thinking of abortion only in the sense of a doctor removing the embryo or fetus from the uterus and killing it in the process. However, that's only one definition of abortion.
What is not an abortion? Well, since an abortion is the ending of pregnancy, anything that occurs before implantation cannot be, by definition, and abortion, since pregnancy does not actually begin until implantation. Yet I hear many people calling devices and hormones that prevent implantation abortifacients. And I can certainly agree, to an extent, that since it is still ending a life before it is born that is is like an abortion.
However, both you (who feels an ectopic is NOT an abortion), and people who feel birth control IS an abortion, are wrong.

reply from: galen

i still wan to know about how you view kids with disabilities... are they not people too.?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well Hi there! Nice to see a friendly face here ^^
As for the 27 week thing, I've been presented with some very interesting information since coming to this site and I've decided my cut-off date is now 20 weeks. I didn't know 50% survived at 24 weeks! Wow! The information about this is so surpressed. I think a lot of pro-choicers would listen and change their minds if they knew. But of course, the information needs to be presented kindly, not with anger. So thanks
As for what I mean by independent survival... I mean more than just a few seconds. I mean extended survival into a full-length life of 60+ years on this planet.
A child can survive from 7 minutes after conception if it is allowed to grow within its mother's womb. Is that not to be a consideration of whether or not a child is "viable"? If a child has already died, then it is not viable. If a child is alive and growing it is most certainly viable.
It can survive INSIDE of her, but I am strictly using the word "viable" in relation to a baby's ability to survive OUTSIDE of the mother with any needed medical care.
In the way I am relating the words to pregnancy, yes. I most certainly am not directly connected to my mother via an umbilical cord, lol! Neither is a viable baby. It is completely independent from its mother; anyone can now take care of it. Previously, only the mother can care for it as it is connected to her body directly via the umbilical cord.
I am using these words in a very specific manner, so I am hoping that by explaining how I'm using them I can avoid confusion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

They are born; it is a completely different issue. Once a child is born alive, every reasonable measure should be taken to ensure its survival for the rest of its life.

reply from: nancyu

Well Hi there! Nice to see a friendly face here ^^
As for the 27 week thing, I've been presented with some very interesting information since coming to this site and I've decided my cut-off date is now 20 weeks. I didn't know 50% survived at 24 weeks! Wow! The information about this is so surpressed. I think a lot of pro-choicers would listen and change their minds if they knew. But of course, the information needs to be presented kindly, not with anger. So thanks
As for what I mean by independent survival... I mean more than just a few seconds. I mean extended survival into a full-length life of 60+ years on this planet.
A child can survive from 7 minutes after conception if it is allowed to grow within its mother's womb. Is that not to be a consideration of whether or not a child is "viable"? If a child has already died, then it is not viable. If a child is alive and growing it is most certainly viable.
It can survive INSIDE of her, but I am strictly using the word "viable" in relation to a baby's ability to survive OUTSIDE of the mother with any needed medical care.
In the way I am relating the words to pregnancy, yes. I most certainly am not directly connected to my mother via an umbilical cord, lol! Neither is a viable baby. It is completely independent from its mother; anyone can now take care of it. Previously, only the mother can care for it as it is connected to her body directly via the umbilical cord.
I am using these words in a very specific manner, so I am hoping that by explaining how I'm using them I can avoid confusion.
If you would murder a child simply because it is not capable of surviving without its mother, then you are nothing but pro abort scum wad piece of mindless non viable tissue, and you are not deserving of any kindness whatsoever.

reply from: galen

They are born; it is a completely different issue. Once a child is born alive, every reasonable measure should be taken to ensure its survival for the rest of its life.
________________________________________________________
so if every resonable measure should be taken after birth.. why not before? Is that child less worthy because of location? all things being equal as far as the mom's health is concerned why not help the child before and after birth...what do you say about fetal surgery... are these parents wasting time and rescources?
What about all those physician predictons that are wrong...i can remember a doctor that was covering for my OB during my second pregnancy( 15yo) who said that i should abort and try again later because i had such a high fever because of a virus.. he predicted webbed fingers and toes and heart trouble...he was wrong.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

They are born; it is a completely different issue. Once a child is born alive, every reasonable measure should be taken to ensure its survival for the rest of its life.
_______________________________________
so if every resonable measure should be taken after birth.. why not before? Is that child less worthy because of location? all things being equal as far as the mom's health is concerned why not help the child before and after birth...what do you say about fetal surgery... are these parents wasting time and rescources?
What about all those physician predictons that are wrong...i can remember a doctor that was covering for my OB during my second pregnancy( 15yo) who said that i should abort and try again later because i had such a high fever because of a virus.. he predicted webbed fingers and toes and heart trouble...he was wrong.
A prediction is just that: a prediction. It is an educated guess. Yes, they might be wrong, but if they were wrong all the time or even half the time, they'd be getting sued left and right. Fact is, they go to school and they study their entire lives to know about these things. I will trust my doctor. If I want to take the chance, then goody for me, but I know chances are good my doctor is right. If he's wrong, then it is I who has luck. You had luck. Also, you were 15 and pregnant for a SECOND time? Forgive me if I cringe... Your doctor had good reason to predict what he said, he has probably read countless studies and seen the outcomes of such cases where the baby did indeed have heart issues and webbed fingers.
Moving on to "what about before birth?". For me, all reasonable care should be taken starting at viability. Personally, reasonable care should be taken throughout a pregnancy and a woman should be held liable for preventable anomalies, like FAS and drug addictions.
In the end, yes, I understand. No, I don't think location makes a difference. Yes, I think even young embryos and fetuses should be cared for. But despite all this, I STILL FEEL that abortion should be legal. I can't explain why, I don't know why, I just know it feels RIGHT in my heart and soul.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That is not my sole reason, but thanks for playing the assumption game!

reply from: galen

no you goose....
my son is 15yo NOW...... gees.
I'm flattered you think i'm young but really that's too much.
RFLMAO!!!!!!!!
heheheheheheheahahahaahahahheheheheheehehhhahahahahah!

reply from: galen

They are born; it is a completely different issue. Once a child is born alive, every reasonable measure should be taken to ensure its survival for the rest of its life.
_______________________________________
so if every resonable measure should be taken after birth.. why not before? Is that child less worthy because of location? all things being equal as far as the mom's health is concerned why not help the child before and after birth...what do you say about fetal surgery... are these parents wasting time and rescources?
What about all those physician predictons that are wrong...i can remember a doctor that was covering for my OB during my second pregnancy( 15yo) who said that i should abort and try again later because i had such a high fever because of a virus.. he predicted webbed fingers and toes and heart trouble...he was wrong.
A prediction is just that: a prediction. It is an educated guess. Yes, they might be wrong, but if they were wrong all the time or even half the time, they'd be getting sued left and right. Fact is, they go to school and they study their entire lives to know about these things. I will trust my doctor. If I want to take the chance, then goody for me, but I know chances are good my doctor is right. If he's wrong, then it is I who has luck. You had luck. Also, you were 15 and pregnant for a SECOND time? Forgive me if I cringe... Your doctor had good reason to predict what he said, he has probably read countless studies and seen the outcomes of such cases where the baby did indeed have heart issues and webbed fingers.
Moving on to "what about before birth?". For me, all reasonable care should be taken starting at viability. Personally, reasonable care should be taken throughout a pregnancy and a woman should be held liable for preventable anomalies, like FAS and drug addictions.
In the end, yes, I understand. No, I don't think location makes a difference. Yes, I think even young embryos and fetuses should be cared for. But despite all this, I STILL FEEL that abortion should be legal. I can't explain why, I don't know why, I just know it feels RIGHT in my heart and soul.
___________________________________________________________-
i really do not understand that last part... you agree with the prolife postition but you still want access to abortion no matter what?
why not limit it to health of the mom and be done with it..?
What other reason can there possibly be...rape is not that common an occurance when you are speaking about conception...and 99% of prolifers do not consider it a viable reason...so what other scenario do you have?

reply from: yoda

Wow..... what a miracle..... "Liberal" speaks and more babies can live!!
Do you realize how incredibly compassionate that is of you, to allow even younger babies to live? It's like you can just snap your fingers, and give life! Why, that makes you almost "God-like", doesn't it?

reply from: yoda

Location, location, location!!
Why sure, any baby that is so stupid that it's still inside it's Mom deserves to be whacked, right?
Hey, no sophomoric, sappy sentimentalism for you, right?

reply from: yoda

Let me help you out there...... you feel that abortion should stay legal so that any woman that wants to can legally kill her unborn baby, for no particular reason, and therefore satisfy her desire to keep the power of life and death over her own offspring. It's power over the helpless, that's all.
And if you can't come up with any other reason, my suggestion probably fits.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Because I believe a lot more things are a risk to the mother's health than you (Galen) do. I believe young age is a risk to health, for instance, and I know for a fact that it is much safer for a young teen to have an early abortion than it is for her to carry to term. An early abortion is extremely safe for the mother, so diabetics too should be able to obtain an abortion. Personally, the mother-risk clause is what makes ANY term abortion ok in my opinion.
IF there were not a social stigmata against pregnant women, IF pregnant women could get optimum care even if they couldn't pay, and IF the adoption system were capable of handling all of these babies, then I would be ok with narrowing it down to rape/incest, young age/maternal risk, or severe fetal deformity*. I believe, and always will believe, that those reasons are acceptable reasons to abort. It should always be the mother's choice, too. But then again, a pregnancy for ANY woman can be extremely physically demanding. Constant nausea, gestational diabetes, not to mention the death rate for birthing is higher than the death rate for getting an early abortion... I don't know if I can force a woman to go through with that.
*Severe fetal deformity, aka ones where the child would have a severely compromised quality of life, would be alive only on a machine (brain-dead), or would die in the womb or soon after birth, and other such similar cases. Missing an arm or leg is not "severe".

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Wow..... what a miracle..... "Liberal" speaks and more babies can live!!
Do you realize how incredibly compassionate that is of you, to allow even younger babies to live? It's like you can just snap your fingers, and give life! Why, that makes you almost "God-like", doesn't it?
Am I a bad person for changing my opinion when confronted with more information?

reply from: yoda

And you are an OB-GYN specialist, right?
And you do think that any medical "threat" at all is justification for abortion, right?

reply from: yoda

Who said you were a "bad person"?
I don't think you realize how "God like" you are, making all those arbitrary life and death decisions about which babies live, and which ones die... why you're practically an immortal, supernatural being!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Who said you were a "bad person"?
I don't think you realize how "God like" you are, making all those arbitrary life and death decisions about which babies live, and which ones die... why you're practically an immortal, supernatural being!
Your response to me saying I had changed my mind was extremely harsh and sarcastic. I do not act like that towards most people, and if I did, it would be towards someone I thought was bad.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And you are an OB-GYN specialist, right?
And you do think that any medical "threat" at all is justification for abortion, right?
I would trust doctors to be able to be able to make the decision, actually. I would trust them to determine what is a medical threat.

reply from: galen

LCR.. your rational for the safety of abortion is incorrect.. because of several things..
1 it is an unregulated industry with little to no informed consent. It is the only SURGICAL procedure done in this country where a woman is 'spared' the gory details of what might happen to her. The industry says its to avoid causing the mother undo stress..i belive that this is just the opposited. If i have a woman w/ cancer of the cervix we are required by law to tell her 'all the gory details' so that she can make an informed descision as to her treatment and what it might do to her, her family, and her furutre fertility..impending death tends to be more distressing than an unwanted pregnancy, so stress just dose not click for me. I think that if they can not tell women its just a clump of cells then they would loose revenue.
2 when a woman NEEDS an abortion you won't find any OB's who would balk at the procedure in a safe hospital setting, where emergencies can be handled effeciently . And you don't find too many prolife people who do not think that preserving the life of the mom is a problem. So why put these women through the 'mills' of PP? money....if your not in a hospital you are not regulated as closely. Other docs can't look over your shoulder and say 'hey what are you doing this past viability for?' Or ' why did i hear a baby cry?'
3 even your friend OBAMA thinks that mental health should not be an issue. and you agreed with him.
4 Teen moms are less likely to have big babies.. this is true.. but there is no real reason that they should not have a healthy pregnacy anyhow..most do.The one who don't are without any support system and this needs to change. But it does not explain the killing of a child because it may have a less than perfect start. Most of the great leaders of this world in every industry and vocation have come from less than optimal starts.
5 There is no reason why a woman can not give optimal care in this country if she wants it. At no time in her life is a woman going to have as many people looking out for her intrests than she will when she is pregnant.. but she must ask for the help and learn to be assertive for herself and her child.. things she'll need in this life anyway.
6 woman who do not have optimal health and can not safely reproduce without risk to themselves can be sterilized...this operation is reversable or IVF can be used at a later date should she be cured and want a child. Or she can adopt. There is no reson why a woman who KNOWS she will ahev to abort can not take steps to avoid the situation.
7 severe fetal deformity... why does this child not deserve the right to die in its parents arms while in a comfortable environment with docs meds etc...rather than being torn limb from limb with or without a shot of digoxin ( which may or may not work) ? PS you still need to speak w/ lukesmom about this one she knows firsthand what it is like.
8 there is no reson to kill a viable child when a cesarean delivery would do to save BOTH lives... there is no situation post 20 weeks where this is not so.. there for late term abortion is a load of phooey in my book.
none of the reasons for early abortion for the reason of 'life of the mother' would ever be sent to one of the 'mills' for the procedure... its just a cop out. If your sick enough to have an abortion... you need it done then... not 4 weeks later.

reply from: galen

And you are an OB-GYN specialist, right?
And you do think that any medical "threat" at all is justification for abortion, right?
I would trust doctors to be able to be able to make the decision, actually. I would trust them to determine what is a medical threat.
_________________________________________________________
doctors, yes.. but your opinion does not jibe with medical science today...
20 years ago i might have agreed with most of what you have stated .. on principal i was prolife but knew an abortion had its place in medicine , now its just not the case.
doctors yes.. they should know hat is an emergency, sadly most abortionists won't even call an ambuance for a patient or even be able to be reached after hours for an emergency.. most do not even have hospital priveleges.. funny how that is when they preform surgical procedures. And how about those oh so informed docs who thought it was OK to insert a drug vaginally when that was strictly against guidelines. Abortionists do that job because it the only one 99% of them can get and keep.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

1. Are you sure that women are not told the risks? I've never even had an abortion and I know death and infertility are possibilities, but statistically they are extremely rare. That means it is a safe procedure for the mother.
2. I do agree that some clinics (PP or not) are kind of like factory farming. Pregnant women go in, babies don't come out. I totally agree that the system needs a ton of reform, where the woman is treated as a proper patient, not a dollar sign.
3. What are you talking about? I'm so confused... I do not think "normal" maternal distress is a cause for a late-term abortion. I do not think any woman should have a late term abortion except for rape/incest, maternal danger/age or severe fetal deformity.
4. There are other physical risks to the teen mother aside from the size of the baby. It's just not healthy in any way shape or form. It's not about her lack of money or education, it's about her health. It is not healthy for her to be pregnant.
5. Many women don't know where to go to get optimum care; this needs to be rectified. They are stigmatized; they feel no one they care about is there for them. Strangers offer help; they don't want strangers. That's a cultural change that needs to happen.
6. Sterilization is not very sucessfully reversible and I will never approve of sterilizing a woman against her will. I can't believe you'd even suggest that. If she's not in optimal health, it's unlikely she will be able to afford IVF later in her life. What you have suggested is classist, racist, and much like eugenics.
7. When I say severe fetal deformity, I again do not mean it's just missing an arm. I mean it is already likely to die BEFORE or after birth. If a mother and father want to end the pregnancy so they can try again SOONER for a healthy child, that is their choice. It's up to the parents, not you. Many times (In case you didn't know) these babies are delivered whole for the exact purpose you state: the parents want to hold it and they want to bury it whole. You don't seem to know the facts.
8. If a viable cesarian could save both lives, AND does not cause an increased risk to the mother, then go for it. However, I think current statistics find cesarians to be too risky as compared to an abortion, even at week 25 or whatever. I'm not totally sure how that makes sense since cesarians are on the rise these days, but there must be a connection between the size of the younger fetus and the procedure used. Again, I feel that it's a risk that must be weighed for both options with the mother and doctor. Case-by-case is how it should be done. In some cases, cesarian may be safer for the mother. In other cases, abortion may be safer for her.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I have heard horror stories but I don't know how they fit into the real statistics of most successful abortions. I cannot believe abortion is known as one of the safest procedures in america yet have all of these horrible outcomes... Someone is exaggerating, and I don't think it's me.

reply from: galen

1 yes i am sure.. there has even been legislation about it.. and PP has written about it several times on its national website.
3 replying to this statement...'Personally, the mother-risk clause is what makes ANY term abortion ok in my opinion. '
4 most of the women at our shelter are either teen moms or were teen moms when thier troubles began.. define healthy..most of these women were in trouble long before thier first pregnancy.. we get them jobs educate them get them off welfare and away from abusive spouses...all of wich led to thier immidiate need.. not thier pregancy. Besides.. how healthy is death, beause that is what you are talking about for her child.
5 i agree that is what i have as a goal in my life..its why i do what i do.
6 no one was talking against her will... and guess what if she can not afford a child she should not adopt or use IVF her situation will continue to get worse with a child. Again.. whos fault is it if she gets pregnant... because its not the child's ( i am excluding rape in this instance)
7 if a child dies BEFORE birth its not an abortion... i can see you've not met too many grieving parents... i assure you they are not usually all that eager to 'try again.' most need a period to grieve.. and from my experience the one who are pregnant right away are usually not too thrilled about it.
8 whee do you get your stats? PP? you really need to do more researched from your unbiased scources... if a csection is dangerous for health of the mom then abortion is likely to be to... at any stage it is preformed.. and if you use the 'pill' for an AB it can make some conditions worse...

reply from: galen

I have heard horror stories but I don't know how they fit into the real statistics of most successful abortions. I cannot believe abortion is known as one of the safest procedures in america yet have all of these horrible outcomes... Someone is exaggerating, and I don't think it's me.
____________________________________________
nope its the abortion industry... i know i've seen the proof of scarred cervical tissue... fertility problems etc.. its just not the case in most instances ( safety)
If the industry was regualted possibly it might become safer but for now the lobby for the abortion industry has been pretty good at blocking things.
try for yourself... present at a PP or other clinic and see what they tell you....or ask someone who has had an AB recently... if they'll tell you that is.
also what do you term a sucessful abortion...the industry terms it where the mom does not die and sends her friends...no word about quality controll etc.
in fact PP is trying hard to distance itself from several in florida that the state has tried to close down for violations.. in fact there is not a state that has not has problems when PP has moved thier industry in.

reply from: sander

Liberal, back and forth, confused, said:
Is there anything so serious, so important, so tied with health, life and death issues, that you would say this? Would you make any other serious decision based on, "I don't know why, I just know it feels right?"
Do you apply critical thinking for anything in your life?
You've got, yes, no, yes, but, down pat for this, how on earth did you get a college degree?
And you said I WAS SILLY???? LOL!!

reply from: galen

here are a few links
http://www.lc.org/prolife/pba_case_info.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/congress.abortion.ap/
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1095.html

reply from: galen

a few more.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1095.html
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=3910&SessionID=3&GA=93

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Did you just say that these issues are not the case in most instances? That's what I said, too. I definitely agree 200% that the abortion industry needs regulation!
A successful abortion to me is one where all pregnancy material is completely removed, no permanent damage is done to the mother's body, and no other problems occur. I feel I have very strict quality control opinions.

reply from: galen

some from PP themselves
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/4/gpr100406.html

reply from: galen

and here is an unbiased scource on the BC issue.
http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/lanfranchi.pdf

reply from: galen

_____________________________________________________________
my point was that you can not assume safety in an unregulated industry...unlike plastic surgery, when deaths occure in abortion.. the industry closes ranks and does nothing for patients. remember abortion is elective in all but .5% of cases.

reply from: galen

on reulation of clinics
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/mar/19/bill_toughening_regulation/
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/feb/18/opponents_testify_against/

https://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/trap_laws.html

reply from: galen

abnd a few on abortion pill deaths..
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/25/health/main711384.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/health/main1418828.shtml
http://women.webmd.com/news/20050720/deaths-prompt-abortion-pill-warning
http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/tb/9853

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Healthy in my book means capable of carrying a pregnancy to full term and give birth to a healthy child with no permanent debilitating effects. Most teens can't do that. Yes, there are issues that come up during a woman's pregnancy that cannot be predicted, but teen pregnancy risks are well known. Girls in africa die by the thousands because their babies get stuck in their birth canals. If that's not solid enough proof that a teen's body isn't ready for birth I don't know what is.
But how do you expect to sterilize these women in the first place? I know many women who do want sterilization and can't get it because doctors refuse to do it to young women. I guess I just don't understand your "game plan" for getting undesirable women to voluntarily sterilize themselves. Its a very dangerous and very expensive procedure, and it just sounds like a bad idea.
If a child dies before birth it's not an abortion? Then what is it? I thought that's what abortion was? I'll assume you just got the typo demons for a second. And that's just a reason I've heard for why a woman would abort a deformed fetus.
I assure you these stats are not from planned parenthood lol. An abortion is nothing like a c-section. In a c-section, the woman's entire stomach and uterus is sliced open. It's an extremely invasive procedure with many risks including blood-loss, the most common cause of death. Compared to that, an abortion is barely intrusive at all, not much more so than a pap-smear. And with proper regulation, they could be even safer.
I do agree that a medicated abortion is far more dangerous and much more likely to "fail", that is, not expel all of the pregnancy material. This can lead to parts of the placenta remaining in the uterus and bleeding constantly. A woman who has a medicated abortion is much more likely to have to go in for a second abortion, this time surgical. Surgical abortions almost never fail like that.

reply from: galen

First...
most teen moms do give birth to healthy infants under the conditions you describe... i post a few links for you on this one.
second
i never said undesireable.. you did, i would NEVER use that term.
a woman who needs to be sterilized is able to do so laproscopically in under 15 min.. and it is safer than a tonsilectomy...again if a woman wants it there are many ways to go about getting it. I know no OB who says that its better for you to have an abortion than a sterilization.
third
to clarify.. if a child is killed intentionally before birth it IS abortion, if the child dies through natural means it is a stillbirth. If a child dies due to treatment of the mother it is a stillbirth.
fourth
how many abortions have you actually witnessed..? i assure you its not an entirely begnign procedure..in fact after about 12 weeks it is particularly stressful. true a cesarean involves cutting... striaght surgical easily repaired inscisions. abortion involves stretching and forcefully dialating a cervix unready to open.. often resulting in tears thaqt lead to problems maintaining a pregnancy. Most of the procedure is done blind..meaning the abortionist ( even w/ ultrasound) does not have a feild of view. this leads to bad things like running through the uterus w/ various instruments. leads to infection, bloodloss, death. ther is actually MORE blood lost during an abortion than most cesarians....we can even do bloodless ones for moms with infectious diseases.
DIC and clotting issues are more pronounced during a surgical abortion.
The discovery health channel not withstanding and i'm sure it seems very dramatic but cesarean is probably less traumatic in the long run than abortion. of course vaginal delivery at term is always preferred.

reply from: galen

What about the risks of the baby? You didn't touch on those at all. And I'd like to see some sources on the comparisons between a young child who gives birth and a young child who aborts.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that 2/300 people are results of rape?
I do have a friend who is adopted, though not because of a rape. He is mostly pro-life but he and I have some really good conversations about abortion and the right to life.
It's not "SHOULD", it's the woman's choice! Nobody SHOULD have an abortion, they simply have the choice.
________________________________________________
here is an older study you can look at
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/full/100/3/481
">http://www.greenjournal.org/cg.../full/100/3/481
it shows the risk factors to an infant born of lower maternal age are not from her age/ maturity of body.. but rather a mix os psychological and socioeconomic factors that could have been overidden by adoption.
ie.. its not the fact that she is 12 but the fact that she kept the baby, that caused it to die..( implication)
there for is these infants are adopted out you can save the mom from the knowledge that she killed her child and the child from her rage( the paper assumes that any pregnancy in one so young be classified as rape)
____________________________________________
bumping this paper...

reply from: galen

here is another on infertility et al... done in canada..
http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.html#five

reply from: LiberalChiRo

"The unhealthy mothers"? I'm sorry, but you want to sterilize unhealthy women! That's offensive to me. I have heard over and over again about young women turned away from hospital after hospital, doctors refusing again and again to sterilize them because apparently, they're too young and dumb to "really" know if they don't want children, since apparently EVERY woman wants a baby.
The stretching of the cervix takes hours, it is not done in a few minutes. It is done carefully. Also, an additional practice I believe should be added is the use of an ultrasound during the procedure to ensure it is not done blind. However, the complications you list are extremely rare and almost never happen.
DIC? Clotting issues are more pronounced during a surgical... compared to what? A natural miscarriage? That's the closes comparison I can think of.
The cesarians on Discovery Health are quite tame. XD

reply from: galen

stretching of the cervi in a vaccume aspiration is done over a 7 minute pperiod. It it achieved by using progressively larger dialators thrust into the cervical opening to forcebly enlarge it... how do you think these girls get out of the vlinic in 1/2 a day?
i didn't say I wanted to sterilize unhealhy women... i said that this was an option for them if they truely shouldn't concieve... you are being purposely obtuse.
DIC clotting issues ar emore pronounced compared to everything else OB related..
do you understand the mechanism of DIC? if not i'll post alink for you.

reply from: galen

Abortion results in cervical damage, which results in permanent weakening of the cervix, which, in turn, is unable to carry the weight of a later pregnancy. The cervix opens prematurely. A survey by Dr. Ren, "Cervical Incompetence - Aetiology and Management," Medical Journal of Australia (December 29, 1993), Volume 60, reported that symptoms related to "cervical incompetence" were found among 75% of women who undergo forced dilation for abortion
_______________________________________________________________________
In a study performed with 252 women, the investigators concluded that "the occurrence of either induced or spontaneous abortions independently and significantly increased the risk of subsequent development of secondary infertility. - Study done at Harvard from the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Feb 1993 issue.

reply from: galen

have another link..
http://www.state.sd.us/applications/ph17abortioninfo/inlet/Abort.htm

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I head that expanders were placed into the cervix on the first visit the day before...
o, I'm not being obtuse. I really seriously thought you meant all unhealthy women should be advised to get sterilized. Of course I feel that sterilization should be available for ANY women who wants it, sick or healthy.
I don't know what the abbreviation DIC stands for. Dialation In Conclusion? Heh.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

1993 is a little old, don't you think?

reply from: galen

here is a link for DIC...it is more a complication of surgery than childbirth...
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec14/ch173/ch173h.html

would you like to see an abortion... i can testify to the trueness of the procedure... its a D&C... its pretty graphic.
the 1st part of the procedure shows what i am speaking of with the dialators....the second is the removal of the child through forceps/ hemostat ( pliar type tools) the last is the currette.
whole thing takes about 15 minutes.

reply from: galen

__________________________________________-
not if the data has not changed significantly... which is sad... the medicine should have progressed... it has in all other fields except this one.

reply from: galen

head that expanders were placed into the cervix on the first visit the day before...
__________________________________________________________________
that is only for a later term AB prior to 20 weeks they just force it open in minutes...

reply from: galen

here is another DIC link.
http://www.dermnetnz.org/vascular/dic.html

reply from: LiberalChiRo

This website seems to be very straight-forward about the risks of abortion, as have all sites I've ever seen.
"Common side effects that most women will experience following the procedure include cramping, nausea, sweating, and feeling faint.
Less frequent side effects include possible heavy or prolong bleeding, blood clots, damage to the cervix and perforation of the uterus. Infection due to retained products of conception or infection caused by an STD or bacteria being introduced to the uterus can cause fever, pain, abdominal tenderness and possibly scar tissue.
Contact you healthcare provider immediately if your side effects persist or worsen."
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/surgicalabortions.html

Here's where they discuss beginning the opening of the cervix the day before:
"Dilation and evacuation is a surgical abortion procedure performed between 15 to 21 weeks gestation. In most cases, 24 hours prior to the actual procedure, your abortion provider will insert laminaria or a synthetic dilator inside your cervix. When the procedure begins the next day, your abortion provider will clamp a tenaculum to the cervix to keep the uterus in place and cone-shaped rods of increasing size are used to continue the dilation process."
I assume that this preparation is not done in earlier abortions for two reasons. 1, the cervix is softer so it is easier to open and 2, it does not have to open as far. This is the D&E.
"Although some clinics may perform the proceudre, it is usually performed in a hospital setting because of the greater risk for complications. The fetal remains are usually examined to ensure everything was removed and that the abortion was complete."
This is not the procedure you're talking about, as it seems quite regulated, even done in a hospital to ensure the mother's safety.
"Induction abortion is a procedure that uses salt water, urea, or potassium chloride to terminate the viability of the pregnancy. Your abortion provider will insert prostaglandins into the vagina and pitocin will be given intravenously. Laminaria is then usually inserted into your cervix to begin dilation. This procedure is rarely used, and normally only occurs when there is a medical problem or illness in the fetus or women."
This procedure must be the one where I see the burnt fetus pictures from. It's almost never done because of the risks.
I like this site. They seem very unbiased. What do you think about them?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh, eew. Nasty condition. I have never heard of that before in my life.

reply from: galen

______________________________________________________--the site is ok not particularly informative...they tend to bare bones things and i think it leads to misinformation....
the cervix is not easier to open prior to 20 weeks.. its just that the pregnancy will fall out if they do it slowly... and that's not good PR.
want that link?

reply from: galen

here it is for our lurker friends...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmmzc9kEcOc&feature=related

note this is graphic... but i c an also attest to its truthfulness for a hospital procedure. Unfortunately most clinic abortions are not nearly as sterile.
corrected link

reply from: galen

another link... this one leaves nothing to the imagination ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cVBSbJgVuw&feature=related

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That is quite terrible. I wonder if many pro-choicers have seen that video. It cannot be good to pull on the cervix like that... I'm certainly not happy after seeing that.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Done a bit of thinking about it, and do forgive me if tomorrow after a good night's sleep I change my mind, but as of right now, I don't think that's a procedure a woman should EVER have done voluntarily to herself or her baby. Brain surgery looks gross too, but no other medical procedure is done to purposely kill an innocent life. I could NEVER do that; and I know now that if I had ever needed an abortion, I would NOT have been able to go through with it and would have regretted the decision. How can a woman let that happen to her even once, much less THREE times!? Drawings don't do it justice. People have access to videos of pretty much every procedure out there: breast implants, liposuction, brain surgery, stomach bands... So why not abortion? Even "The Silent Scream" isn't as poignant as this; I've seen Silent Scream.
Even though all you can really see is blood... You know what's in there. It's wrong. Any feelings I had about abortion being ok are pretty much gone now. It no longer seems "right" for a woman to be able to choose that. THAT is something that NO woman should ever have to go through, unless she's dying. Rape? That's ten thousand times worse than any rape. That's like raping the inside of your uterus. Show a rape victim that video and I can't imagine she'd want to abort.
This wasn't even a late-term abortion, I think that's what really gets me. This is the average abortion. I can only imagine it gets worse the older the fetus gets. How can aborting a late-term fetus be better than giving birth to it? I just can't see how, now. Unless the fetus is too dangerous to give birth to, and then, I'd think a c-section would be safer. Even if the baby still dies, it's better than an abortion.
I'm a visual learner, let's just leave it at that. I need to see it to believe it. Thank you, Galen. Your patience and kindness have paid off. It's not even about the unborn entirely, maybe 30%. It's about THAT being done to a woman. It's just wrong. The things opening the cervix didn't look so bad at first, until the doctor started really forcing them in there. That couldn't have been good. And how are those clamps not harmful? I know they're used in every single abortion to secure the cervix. MY CERVIX DOES NOT DO THAT NATURALLY!!! Leave it alone!! Keep your clamps and metal rods away from it. Pull out the poor woman's entire reproductive system while you're at it...

reply from: Banned Member

It is incomprehensible that women who will tell you that no one has a right to tell them WHAT to do with their bodies would allow anyone to do THIS to their bodies. Abortion is unnatural. Abortion is undignified. Abortion is the violation of a woman.

reply from: Banned Member

LiChiRo,
Let your heart be moved by these images. Let your heart and mind make the choice to support life at every stage of development. Abortion is an unjustifiable choice both for the mother, and for the unborn child. It is your right to right to take a stand for life. This is a belief and a truth that we can all have in common. I sincerely invite you to the pro-life movement. Your voice is needed to defend women and the unborn.

reply from: galen

i am glad you were able to view the video. I am glad you have changed your mind. i hope you'll pass the information along to anyone you think should see it.
This is why i have the opinion that i do about any of these procedures. They are never in a woman's best intrest and certainly not the child's.

reply from: Faramir

Good work galen. If this change of heart is genuine--and it certainly appears to be--it would be wonderful.
And you didn't even call her a "pro abort" or a "scanc."
Funny how sometimes the unconventional methods of kindness and patience can work.

reply from: faithman

You are such an idiot. It took assaulting the eyes with horible imagery, and if they do change proabort scanc no longer applies. Calling evil evil, is not wrong or hateful, it is simply the truth.

reply from: yoda

So if there was a nice, gentle way to kill babies that didn't hurt women, you'd be okay with that?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So if there was a nice, gentle way to kill babies that didn't hurt women, you'd be okay with that?
Oh shut up.

reply from: galen

So if there was a nice, gentle way to kill babies that didn't hurt women, you'd be okay with that?
Oh shut up.
____________________________________________
i second that one.

reply from: churchmouse

It's about winning hearts for Christ first.
You meant me here, right.......So be it.
I live by scriptures. I find it sad that people that claim to be Christian dont do the same thing, use them for Gods glory and not their own.
God should get the credit.
I never address anyone scripturally that does not say they are a Christian. If they bring it up or challenge my lifestyle then I will discuss it. You challeneged my faith.......I challenged you. You were offended I called you a humanist. I stopped. I look back and I caved in. I never should have done that.
I won't in the future. We are what we are. You say I am a bible thumper and I am proud to be just that.....you are a humanist. You just have a problem with labels.
http://www.humaniststudies.org/humphil.html

reply from: galen

It's about winning hearts for Christ first.
You meant me here, right.......So be it.
I live by scriptures. I find it sad that people that claim to be Christian dont do the same thing, use them for Gods glory and not their own.
God should get the credit.
I never address anyone scripturally that does not say they are a Christian. If they bring it up or challenge my lifestyle then I will discuss it. You challeneged my faith.......I challenged you. You were offended I called you a humanist. I stopped. I look back and I caved in. I never should have done that.
I won't in the future. We are what we are. You say I am a bible thumper and I am proud to be just that.....you are a humanist. You just have a problem with labels.
http://www.humaniststudies.org/humphil.html
_____________________________________________________________
its about not killing babies first...
many on this board are not Christian... all you do with you blather is push those people right into the hands of an abortionist... wake up.
if you want to go convert people there is a street corner in your downtown area with your name on it.

reply from: yoda

So if there was a nice, gentle way to kill babies that didn't hurt women, you'd be okay with that?
Oh shut up.
Not likely.
Why don't you want to answer that one?

reply from: Faramir

So if there was a nice, gentle way to kill babies that didn't hurt women, you'd be okay with that?
Oh shut up.
____________________________________________
i second that one.
Only yodavater would harrass a proabort in the midst of converting to prolife.
Gee yoda, that should really help the process along.
Of course he's always said we are not here to convert them, so I suppose a conversion would be a bad thing???

reply from: yoda

4 score and 7 years ago.........

reply from: galen

________________________________________________-
did you change your mind?

reply from: churchmouse

You single me out in every thread. And to think that because you whinned and ask me to stop calling you a humanist, when all along I believed you were a humanists...I stopped. That was a mistake on my part.
You are a humanist in every sense of the world.
A humanist is way more than that but you dont get it. LOL
You were offended and you told me so.
If you say differently, you are lying.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So if there was a nice, gentle way to kill babies that didn't hurt women, you'd be okay with that?
Oh shut up.
___________________________________________
i second that one.
Lol! Thanks. Sorry, last night I was pretty much ready for bed. I've had an upset stomach all day and spent ten hours in a car.
To respond in a more appropriate way... As I stated in my first post on this forum, I do not like the fact that embryos and fetuses die in an abortion so I don't really care how "gently" you do it. Would that make it better for the woman? Yes. But the other part of that was how I still felt abortion was ok in the early weeks due to fetal inviability and because I thought an abortion was less traumatic than birth. I'm not sure anymore.
I think that women should be given the option to watch that video or one like it. Just as graphic, no hiding the truth. They should not be FORCED to watch, but it should be provided. If a woman is going to change her mind after seeing that video, then she shouldn't have the abortion in the first place. If she can watch that video and still want an abortion, then I don't feel I should stop her. That's because I feel most women would NOT go through the abortion after seeing that video.
Also, I still feel abortion should be legal because, if a LEGAL abortion looks like that, I can't even imagine what an illegal one looks like. I don't want women aborting, but if they're going to, I want them to do it safely. What I really want is for them to CHOOSE LIFE, and I feel that can be achieved through the use of videos of the procedure.

reply from: Banned Member

Here we are, right back at Square One. The inability to make an objective assertion about the value of an act.
Please excuse me while I go bang my forehead on some large hard object.

reply from: galen

fair enough... but we'll get into what the child experiences later.. enough for now.

reply from: Faramir

I should have figured a conversion was too good to be true...

reply from: galen

its normal to be somewhat ambivilant a day or two after.. she's had a long few years on the other side of the coin.. its OK.. I'm sure that video will play in her head from time to time..
and i have others and tracts that describe pain up to 7 weeks .. its a nueral cascade that does not rely on an intact nervouse sytem..but today has been a long one and i don't want to hit LCR all at once. I'm hoping to give her time to absorb and process. enough shocks for now.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Good night Galen! Believe me, I'm mulling it over in my mind. What I felt when I watched that video was horror for the mother, and a growing horror for her child.
What I wish is that abortion would become truly socially unacceptable, while pregnancy would become the opposite. Right now, unless you're married it seems, pregnancy is frowned upon terribly. Why I think many women abort is because they're afraid of what their peers, friends and family will think of them, even if they're intending to adopt it out.
I still don't consider the truly young to be as equal as a full grown baby, but the fact that it WILL be a baby is starting to matter more.

reply from: Faramir

Good night Galen! Believe me, I'm mulling it over in my mind. What I felt when I watched that video was horror for the mother, and a growing horror for her child.
What I wish is that abortion would become truly socially unacceptable, while pregnancy would become the opposite. Right now, unless you're married it seems, pregnancy is frowned upon terribly. Why I think many women abort is because they're afraid of what their peers, friends and family will think of them, even if they're intending to adopt it out.
I still don't consider the truly young to be as equal as a full grown baby, but the fact that it WILL be a baby is starting to matter more.
I'm happy that you are being open minded and objective and sincerely considering these things. Most prochoicers will not venture outside the box, and I applaud you for it.

reply from: galen

open minds learn moor..
Good night to you too LCR.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Not all of them, though. You pick and choose. You are unwilling to stop sinning, so you insist it is impossible, implying that your God is a liar, since "His word" says nothing will be impossible to you if you just believe. So, which is it? Do you not believe, do you simply refuse to be free from "sin," or is your God a liar?
Excellent question.
Evangelical Christians are so entangled up in and enslaved by sin that they divorce at a rate slightly higher than the national average and may in fact indulge in sin as much or more than the average citizen.
I believe they do not want to be free of the sins that they enjoy indulging in and really have no faith to believe it is possible to be freed from their bad impulses and habits.
A New Testament paraphrase of God says, "I will send them strong delusion, so they may all be condemned who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in unrighteousness." Taking pleasure in unrighteousness means that they enjoy sinning.
"God is not mocked, whatever a man sows, is also what he shall reap." Plant onions, harvest onions. Plant peas, harvest peas. Plant sin, harvest corruption (death). This verse is still true: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."
Evangelicals believe they can continue planting sin and they will harvest eternal life and a wonderful trip to heaven. God talks about their ministers in the Bible, "They are Satan's ministers transforming themselves to appear as angels of light; and no wonder, for even Satan himself appears as an angel of light."
In Jeremiah it is written that this is what the people say to the ministers, "Don't speak to us about right things, tell us smooth things, tell us lies."

reply from: galen

i've never heard it summed up quite in that way...
* hmmmm*

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I don't know if you were referring to my post, but it is a really serious matter. People believe Satan's claim that if they sin, they shall not surely die. Do you remember Adam and Eve being deceived by the Serpent? People are falling for the same exact deception, by so called "Ministers of Christ". Christ means King or Messiah, a King that you apparently do not need to follow or obey?!? What a perplexity!
Sin is going against God's Will and decree to love God and love your neighbor. The Bible says, "Sin is the transgression of the Law." The Law says you must love God and neighbor.

reply from: galen

sometimes GL4U2L you actually make a bit of sense... i wish you could get past some of the other stuff... that's what i like about u though.. u tend to surprise me.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Holy smokes! An actual compliment?! Thank-you for the smiley face and pleasantries. Have a great evening!

reply from: yoda

How about making child abuse legal then? Wouldn't that make child abuse safer for the perp and the child as well? Wouldn't you rather that child abusers "do it safely"?
Or does killing an unborn child seem less traumatic and serious to you than abusing a born child?

reply from: yoda

Welcome to my world, Augustine. I went through this for four months on eHealth forum with her. It never changes, it's the old "bait and switch" routine.

reply from: yoda

Do you have problems with grammar? "As equal as"? What does that mean, anyway?
Care to explain that phrase?

reply from: jujujellybean

Welcome to my world, Augustine. I went through this for four months on eHealth forum with her. It never changes, it's the old "bait and switch" routine.
LOL I've laughed several times too. Like when I read Lolita's comment that she had a 'bit of a right to be selfish'....I would have laughed out loud if it hadn't been so sad!

reply from: faithman

Do you have problems with grammar? "As equal as"? What does that mean, anyway?
Care to explain that phrase?
She agrees with killer carole that womb children are not on the same "level" as born children. Equality does not mean equal on every level. Equality means you have an equal right to life. That you have an equal right to pursue happiness, and express all your potential on a level playing field. Equality does not mean to compete at the same level, just an open spot at the starting line. When we celebrate the individual, then we cherish all that individual has to contribute, no matter how small and insignifigant some may consider it to be, we are all enriched by the effort. Abortion on demand will lose because it is intrinsicly evil, and denies the individual an equal spot at the starting line of life. A blessing that the contitution secures for posterity. Roe is an assault on the constitution, not a "right" guaranteed by it.

reply from: yoda

That's the whole basis of the civil rights movement, and the intent of the equal rights amendment.
Women, for example, do not need to be as strong as, as quick as, or even as well suited in any way to certain tasks to have the right to hold a job. They have that right because they are human beings, not because of their physical, emotional, or mental development is "equal" to men. The same ought to be true for unborn babies.

reply from: sander

That's the whole basis of the civil rights movement, and the intent of the equal rights amendment.
Women, for example, do not need to be as strong as, as quick as, or even as well suited in any way to certain tasks to have the right to hold a job. They have that right because they are human beings, not because of their physical, emotional, or mental development is "equal" to men. The same ought to be true for unborn babies.
This explains why the proaborts cannot, will not, reconize the womb child as even human, it's why the mantra of "product of conception", and constant droan of "fetus" is heard over and over.
How on earth they have got away with that for so long is beyond my understanding.
But, Faithman is right, abortion rights will end one day.....the lies, and sheer lunacy of it all will catch up to society at large in the same way it finally caught up to those who believed it a right to own a slave.
And history will look on them the same way history looks on the slave owner, with utter distain.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How about making child abuse legal then? Wouldn't that make child abuse safer for the perp and the child as well? Wouldn't you rather that child abusers "do it safely"?
Or does killing an unborn child seem less traumatic and serious to you than abusing a born child?
lmao... I've never heard of the parent dying from abusing their child. I have heard of a woman, a scared, terrified, confused woman, dying from shoving a coat hanger up her uterus. I think you're on a special kind of crack.
But guess what I really want the outcome of her situation to be? Not an abortion. I want her to get HELP, to pay for prenatal care, a counselor to help her with telling her family and friends, someone who will be there at the meeting. These women need a counselor assigned to them from the moment they walk into the clinic, and that same woman should be with her until SHE feels comfortable with her situation. That may last until after she delivers. These counselors should be at the woman's clinic, to show the video and actually help these women CHOOSE life as opposed to abortion.

reply from: sander

No Liberal, he's not on any kind of crack....he just equates the born and unborn as human beings equal of the same rights and protection.
Only a mind numbing delusion can explain those of your ilk who refuse to see the humanity of the child in the womb.

reply from: galen

LCR.. the old coat hanger thing..was never much used .. those discriptions were few and much lauded so that people felt that thousands of them were done each year. The reality of the situation today is that 4000 children die each day in the manner you saw in the video.. Women lay themselve down each day and are mutilated by doctors who do a less sterile job than the one you saw. And the children are torn apart.So yoda and your comparisons not withstanding i think you've missed the point.
A child as young as 7 weeks has nerve ending very close to the skin and almost no fat layer. They feel things more accutely. The pain of crushed muscle and skin when they tear off your limbs and twist your intestines ..compare it to a severe heartattack. the pain when they crush your head..may only last a few seconds but is proceded by the shock as they tear the rest of your body apart. Nueral cascade allows the child to experience pain and terror before its nervous system is even finished.Ask any pedeatrician and they can tell you just how much pain a preemie feels.. and how likely it is for a very young child in the womb to feel.
Add to that the fact that most women today are NOT sedated for the procedure and you will understand what i mean about torture.. to both patients.
the video you saw was a D&C abortion.. it gets worse for mom and baby when they use suction ( vaccume aspiration) or prostaglandin..
i urge you to read the stories of women who aborted with Tiller in another thread.. they are all ages and gestations.. and they as far as i can tell are all true. The medical details and descriptions are accurate.. and they are not at all unusual in the cases before 20 weeks and around 22-24 weeks.

reply from: yoda

Odd...... the word "parent" wasn't in my post, where did you get that? Nor did I say anything about an abuser dying.. where did that come from?
Abusers, however, can be in danger of being beaten to death, or shot by outraged parents of the victims. Or, they can be sent to jail, or at least suffer a ruined reputation..... all of which might be "cured" if child abuse was made legal.
It's the same principle as keeping abortion legal. You just don't want to face the real issue here. I especially noted your "lmao" as a sign that you think these topics are "funny".

reply from: galen

here are a few links to get started on pain..
http://children.webmd.com/news/20080424/cuddline-cuts-preemie-pain?src=RSS_PUBLIC
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PainManagement/PainManagement/tb/9915
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060418/news_lz1c18notes.html

reply from: galen

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro02/web3/a1dymkowski.html
http://www.premature-infant.com/Articleunderstandingpain.html

reply from: galen

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/102/3/e35
http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=81146
http://www.pedsanesthesia.org/meetings/2003jspa/pdfs/manuscript2.pdf

reply from: galen

http://www.anesthesia.org/winterlude/wl95/wl95_6.html

it amazes me how we have known so much about the pain a child feels in the womb.. and for how long and no one seems to connect this with tearing them up during an abortion...!
get back to me on this LCR.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The coat hanger is a metaphor for ALL illegal abortions. Darning needles, dirty back-door clinics, I don't care where it's done. It is lethal for the mother AND the child, whereas if she knew she could to go a clean, warm clinic and meet a counselor who would work with her to find a solution to her pregnancy where NO one dies - that, I feel, is a much better plan. If she's absolutely adamant she abort, then if the counselor feels she is in sound mental condition, she should be allowed to do so.
I still do not like the idea of forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will. I want it to be HER choice to give life. I just feel the focus should be on life, not abortion. I think most women would, if people just talked to them!!
"Why do you want to abort?"
"I don't want to be pregnant."
"Why?"
(after some yelling on how it's not anyone's business...)
"Because I don't want my parents to know."
That girl doesn't WANT to kill her own child. She's just afraid of her parents. She's not a slut, she's scared! That girl needs her counselor to arrange a meeting with the parents, the friends, the peers, anyone that girl is afraid of telling, and have the meeting with the counselor present. They need to be taught that pregnancy is not shameful.
Pro-choice talks about respect for women, and feminism!! Yet they consider pregnancy unnatural, parasite, cancer, rape!!! There is nothing more natural than birth!! Respecting women means respecting pregnancy!! To revere woman is to revere her ability to give birth!! Pregnant women should be PRAISED, not PUNISHED!!!
Sorry, got a bit enthusiastic there. <_<

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I believe the usual reply should be... "It doesn't matter if it feels pain since it's going to be dead in a few minutes anyway".
I thought up a story in my head about a woman who almost aborts in college, but then decides to give it up to adoption. Years later, she discusses it.
"I would still probably be here today if I had aborted. I would have my great job, my big house, my husband and my children. But my first daughter would not be here to congratulate me. Her parents would not have her as their child."

reply from: sander

Liberal,
How on earth do you keep your head from spinning clear off your shoulders?
You're more back and forth then a tennis match....you do realize you're having that conversation with yourself, right?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You have no imagination? You've never thought up stories in your head? I feel sorry for you...

reply from: sander

I make plenty of stories up in my head, none happen to be why a child should die...save the sympathy for yourself on that one.

reply from: galen

interesting.. your replys..
IT DOSE MATTER.. and it always should matter..because the mom does not get a cute clean clinic to abort in.. most of those mills are worse than what you find in a run down shopping centre.. they are unregulated and do no followup on thier patients.
Think about how you would feel if you were having an AB and the sterilization equitment was on the fritz.. and no one told you..
or someone did not wash thier hands befor helping you..
most clinic workers are NOT docs and nurses but everyday people off the street with just enough training to make them seem plausible.
Please read the tiller posts...
several times in the past few years the people preforming the actual procedure had no medical training at all.. they owned the clinic..
This can not be allowed to go on....
if a woman REALLY needs an abortion.. no doc in thier right mind would deny them. ANd no law will either.. its the ones that don't really need the procedure.. except as a quick fix that make this into the mess it is today.. if women don't go to the clinics.. they shut down.
If you REALLY want to help these wome4n who find themselves in the situation of unwanted pregnancy.. why not learn how to be a prolife counselor at a CPC who relly dose something. Someone who follows the mom through her pregnancy.. helps her navigate a job/ school/ counseling etc. helps provide her with clothing food shelter..
you could start a whole new org. in your community.. Goodness knows there are more needed.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I haven't made up one of those on here. Could you go quote one, perhaps I just don't remember? The only story I remember sharing with you is the one I just posted about a woman NOT ABORTING. I forget, I'm not replying to you. Nothing good comes out of it, just nonsense, insults and filth.

reply from: galen

sander.. i agree with LCR.. i think your misread..

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well that's why it should be regulated, of course. The whole system needs reform.
Are these a few cases out of thousands, or is this the proven majority?
See this is where I flip flop back to pro-life thought, because I agree that only women who actually NEED to abort should do so. It's just the itchy grey area of determining what "need" means. Some people say rape is a need, others don't. Some say maternal age is a need, some don't.
I'd rather be an undercover pro-life counselor at an abortion clinic Sneak that video into my counseling session... "What boss? None of my patients abort? Huh; guess I just get all of the ones who don't actually want to do it..."
I'm in Florida; they're pretty pro-life down here.

reply from: galen

as far as the ones who were not medical personell.. there have been 2 in the last few years.. the clinics that they had each preformed several hundred abortions a year.. they worked there many years.. so that's over 1,000 women who were unfairly worked on..
if your in florida..hmmmm anywhere near Orlando? Winter Park maybe?
if so go volunteer at BETA house part of St margaret Mary Catholic church.
they would be very very glad to see you. possibly you can get some more experience in this matter.
unfortunately working in an abortion clinic is not something i think you could stomach if the video upsets you..Its probably not a good idea to sneak into one...
but i guess you could try.
Need is determined by health and not by mental status or stress... if that wer the case half the people in your state would not be going through what they are right now w/ foreclosures..the NEED of the mom to not go thru a pregnancy based on stress level should NOT outweigh the NEED of the child to be born...if she can not afford to keep the child i assure you there are plenty of people who would support her and her family through a pregnancy in order to adopt her child.. needs met.

reply from: sander

"Filth", that's a bit over the top.
But, yes I stand corrected...guess I just got dizzy with the back and forth you display here. Yes, no, yes, no....hopefully one day you'll settle on the side of life for both mother AND child.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lol, not near Orlando, about 3 hours south. I'd work as a counselor in a clinic, certainly not in the operating rooms themselves. Don't have time at the moment though; getting ready for the new school year.
As for those stats, it's certainly terrible that two people out of the hundreds (thousands?) of medical professionals that are abortionists were fakes, but that doesn't send waves of fear through me. It's just another reason the industry needs regulated. Our entire health system needs nationalized, including abortion. It needs to be controlled, and only allowed in cases of true need.
Mental HEALTH can also be a physical health issue, but I agree that true mental health situations are few and far between. Plain old stress happens every day.
Pregnancy lasts 9 months, an abortion lasts 15 minutes. But the dead child gets 0 time on earth.

reply from: galen

you can volunteer at any catholic CPC for a few hours on satudays or possibly at night one day a week..
help take care of babies so moms can study.. help teach them how to cook.. it does not have to be an everyday thing like i do with my family.. but i do warn you it can be addicting.
as far as the problems being few and far between.. the industry has no real regulation and they don't want any.. your state has recently prooven that.
i wanted you to read Dr tiller's dtuff because you will get a good look at what really goes on for these girls /women. it is My experience that the stories change a few details but they are not all that dissimilar in the overall experience.

reply from: galen

i think the only true emergencies in mental health are those where a woman is on some sort of anti psychotic drug or other drug that is prooven tetrogenic.. those women also need BC and support.. all others that have MH issues can be supported through 9 mo of stress..

reply from: yoda

People have been trying to "talk to them" for 35 years now, and where has it gotten us?
You say you don't like the idea of forcing a woman to "stay pregnant against her will", and yet you know quite well that in most cases that simply means "not kill her baby".
How does telling someone that it's illegal to kill their own baby constitute an unreasonable constraint?

reply from: yoda

There is NO "need" to abort, period. That's a propaganda phrase put out by proaborts. Surgery to save a life is not an abortion.

reply from: yoda

And is dead forever.........

reply from: LiberalChiRo

"Abortion" means the cessation of pregnancy by natural or unnatural means before birth, and in which the unborn dies. This includes ectopic surgery and any surgery done to save the woman's life and purposely kill the unborn. I know you hate the word, but it's a fact.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm sorry, but I've heard too many angry viral statements from pro-choicers to read anything about Tiller. He is an extremist, he is not the norm, and he is not what the majority of abortions are like. He should be arrested. Even pro-choicers hate him. Believe me.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Definitely need birth control... I again think our whole view of pregnancy needs to change.

reply from: sander

In the same sink hole we started in and worse for the 50+ million dead babies.
It should be obvious to the most casual observer, talk has failed, miserably.

reply from: galen

__________________________________________
our culture is such that while medically your statement is correct.. no doctor ever uses the term interchangeable.. and they have not from about the early '80's onward.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, but it's generally applied to situations in which the whole purpose is to kill the unborn.
"Early delivery" is more appropriate for a life saving operation in which both the mother and the unborn are given every possible chance to survive.
Do abortionists do everything they can to save the baby?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

People have been trying to "talk to them" for 35 years now, and where has it gotten us?
Abortion clinics do not provide adaquet counseling, and the annoying pleading of pro-lifers outside of clinics does more harm than good.
And YOU personally have not tried to "talk" to anyone that I know of. You yell, you demand, you condemn. You don't LISTEN, and that's what you need to do. Telling a girl she has no reason to abort is not the same as LISTENING to why she thinks she needs to. You can not read minds. You need to LISTEN for once, instead of preach.
Pregnancy is not a simple situation to be in, so I refuse at this point to simplify it to those terms.
Because not everyone considers it to be a baby. Not even all doctors agree.

reply from: sander

Really? That's odd, because it's the proaborts that defend him without reservation.
If the proaborts really hated him, he'd have been out of business a long time ago. But, wait...it's their over riding love of abortion on demand that must stop them from acting...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

__________________________________________
our culture is such that while medically your statement is correct.. no doctor ever uses the term interchangeable.. and they have not from about the early '80's onward.
Is this really true? What do doctors call it then? I mean, "ectopic surgery" is pretty obvious, but what about other cases?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yeah, but it's generally applied to situations in which the whole purpose is to kill the unborn.
"Early delivery" is more appropriate for a life saving operation in which both the mother and the unborn are given every possible chance to survive.
Do abortionists do everything they can to save the baby?
I'm not talking about "early delivery". I am talking about an abortion done to save the woman's life. What would you call it?

reply from: galen

I'm sorry, but I've heard too many angry viral statements from pro-choicers to read anything about Tiller. He is an extremist, he is not the norm, and he is not what the majority of abortions are like. He should be arrested. Even pro-choicers hate him. Believe me.
_____________________________________________________________
Tiller himself is an extremist because he takes on post viability abortions.. in the industry though the experience he gives his other patients is a telling one.. and not unusual by industry standards.
theer just are not any 'nice clean' mills out there. i would rather have a tatoo done in a swamp in the amazon than have an abortion done in this country.. based on standards alone.
Providers of abortion fight to have the regulations pulled because they can not make any money if they are in place. They want to keep costs down so they can do as many in a day as they can pack in.
it is not unusual to see the PP clinic a few hours from me full of patients (35-40) each day they are open.. and most stay the whole day.. so its likely they are terminating ( what this particular clinic is knowm mainly for , they pull from several diffrent areas)
as distateful as it may seem.. please read the accounts..

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Really? That's odd, because it's the proaborts that defend him without reservation.
If the proaborts really hated him, he'd have been out of business a long time ago. But, wait...it's their over riding love of abortion on demand that must stop them from acting...
Weirdly, I have never met a single pro-choicer (well, maybe one: Birch) who likes Tiller. Most call him pro-death and bad. Most of them would love to see him arrested.

reply from: yoda

Why should they? They're in business to make MONEY, didn't you know?
Those "annoying" prolifers have saved tens of thousands of babies, by the testimony of the women themselves. But who am I to question an "expert" in the field..... I'm sure you've taken surveys, right?
You personally don't know what the hell you are talking about. You've never been to the clinic where I protest, you have absolutely no idea what goes on there.
Yeah, I know.... proaborts just can't make their mouths form the words "kill the baby", can they? And your fingers just won't type it, will they?
Okay, that's probably the biggest lie you or any proabort has told here in quite a while.
NO ONE denies the validity of the use of the term "baby" to unborn humans EXCEPT those determined to support and advocate the KILLING OF THOSE BABIES.
I've shown you with countless linked dictionary quotes that all academic authorities agree that the use of "baby" is a PERFECTLY VALID usage, and yet you cling to this DAMNABLE LIE.......... as your cold, cold heart tells you that you must do.

reply from: yoda

Of course they do, he's their "hero". He gets a standing ovation every time he shows them a photo of an aborted baby.

reply from: galen

__________________________________________
our culture is such that while medically your statement is correct.. no doctor ever uses the term interchangeable.. and they have not from about the early '80's onward.
Is this really true? What do doctors call it then? I mean, "ectopic surgery" is pretty obvious, but what about other cases?
______________________________________________________
depends.. miscarrige, stillbirth, incomplete termination, depends on what the cause is and when in the pregnancy it happens.
no one wants thier patient who is grieving a loss to see the word abortion in thier medical file.

reply from: yoda

Just that...... an "early delivery".
What's wrong with that? Do you not perceive, or do you just refuse to admit the difference between intentionally killing the baby, and respectfully and carefully removing it to save the mother's life?
Is that difference just too subtle for you?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I've never actually seen or been in a PP that provided abortions...
Would you agree initially for regulating the industry? I definitely think it needs to be done. As for the money issue, statistics I've seen show that abortion clinics (PP in particular) don't actually make very much if any money from the abortions. The money covers the cost of the doctors/medicines and that's it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Induced miscarriage perhaps? An incomplete termination would mean it lived, wouldn't it?

reply from: sander

Really? That's odd, because it's the proaborts that defend him without reservation.
If the proaborts really hated him, he'd have been out of business a long time ago. But, wait...it's their over riding love of abortion on demand that must stop them from acting...
Weirdly, I have never met a single pro-choicer (well, maybe one: Birch) who likes Tiller. Most call him pro-death and bad. Most of them would love to see him arrested.
I don't know how many proabortion people you've met, but he has his defenders right on this forum and if the proabortion community would stand with those who have wanted and tried to see this man arrested, he would have been by now.
But, he continually gets a pass, why? Becuase the proabortion community does not want to see him shut down, it would put too big of a focused light on the abortion industry itself.
Don't let them fool you, if they wanted to see him shut down and arrested, he would have been by now.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Just that...... an "early delivery".
What's wrong with that? [T]he difference between intentionally killing the baby, and respectfully and carefully removing it to save the mother's life?
Is that difference just too subtle for you?
It's still intentionally killed in this scenario.
It's still DEAD. Is that just too obvious for you?

reply from: galen

once again.. no one says.. congratulations .. your pregnant with a fetus...
even Tiller uses the term baby.
in a medical record we will use the terms of the carnegie, or use the terms blastocyst or embryo or fetus to denote age of development..but that is the only time.
the only time lay people use these terms interchangeably( and often wrong) is when they do not want to acknowledge that it is a CHILD growing in there... for whatever reason.
No OB i know of ever goes on about a parents' fetus or embryo.. its thier baby...as it should be.

reply from: yoda

No, that's the whole point.... it isn't.
If in fact it does not survive, it is not because someone pulled it's head off, or injected it with poison, or stabbed it with a sharp instrument..... it's because it wasn't able to survive naturally.
But of course, you really don't see the difference, do you?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

As far as "baby" or "child", I'm with pro-life on that. If pro-choicers want to get away with "parasite" and "cancer", even though the two are actually far less accurate than baby or child, then pro-lifers can say baby all day long.

reply from: galen

I've never actually seen or been in a PP that provided abortions...
Would you agree initially for regulating the industry? I definitely think it needs to be done. As for the money issue, statistics I've seen show that abortion clinics (PP in particular) don't actually make very much if any money from the abortions. The money covers the cost of the doctors/medicines and that's it.
___________________________________________________________
yeah.. that's why the feds are indicting them for embezzelment in your state and CA.. the clinic may not make much.. but the owners do.. and they lied to get nonprofit status besides..
if i ever did half of what they are in trouble for i'd be in jail for life.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, that's the whole point.... it isn't.
If in fact it does not survive, it is not because someone pulled it's head off, or injected it with poison, or stabbed it with a sharp instrument..... it's because it wasn't able to survive naturally.
But of course, you really don't see the difference, do you?
Ah durrr.... in my example of an abortion performed to save the life of the mother, I figured you were smart enough to realise that YES, it is killed because NO, there is no chance for life and the doctor has decided in this case that it MUST die to save the mother's life.
Now then... what would you call that?

reply from: sander

Of course they do, he's their "hero". He gets a standing ovation every time he shows them a photo of an aborted baby.
It's delusional to believe the proabort community does not applaud this man.
He should have been arrested for openly admitting he kills viable babies, but no, he gets a pass. The reason why is entirely evident.

reply from: yoda

Say what? You've changed your mind THAT quickly?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Wow, that's terrible. Sick-minded people will make money off of anything these days it seems...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Say what? You've changed your mind THAT quickly?
You weren't on eHealth when I argued with Birch and Darkmoon over that one. had them right pissed off, I did!! And that was months and months ago, so no "quick" change going on in relation to that. Haven't you noticed I've been saying "baby" on here?

reply from: yoda

I'd call it an unavoidable side effect of the effort to save the mother's life. I'd call it tragic. I'd call it ANYTHING but an abortion.
Abortions are done to kill a baby, period.

reply from: galen

Induced miscarriage perhaps? An incomplete termination would mean it lived, wouldn't it?
____________________________________________________________
never heard or taught the term induced misc arrige.. what that describes is abortion.. and abortionists are plenty blunt because most of the time thier records are not in a patients normal file.. but usually they even use the word termination.
ie termination was carried out via vaccume aspiration.. or some such
an incomplete termination is one that did not follow with a total removal of the products of conception. Ie the miscarrige was incomplete and remaining tissue was removed by D&C.
an abortionist better not have missed something .. if he did he's an imbecile..( did i type that out loud?)

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'd call it an unavoidable side effect of the effort to save the mother's life. I'd call it tragic. I'd call it ANYTHING but an abortion.
Abortions are done to kill a baby, period.
Well, if that's how you're defining the word I'll try to keep it in mind, but that's now how I view it.

reply from: yoda

No, I mean from just a few minutes ago, when you were saying (on this thread) "Because not everyone considers it to be a baby. Not even all doctors agree."
Now you're saying it IS a baby?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lol!! I've heard induced miscarriage somewhere before. But again, I define abortion in a fairly simple way, the way the dictionary does if I recall (though I have no need to quote one). The premature removal of the unborn from the uterus by natural or unnatural means, in which the child dies... when it's natural it's referred to as a miscarriage, but a miscarriage is technically a natural abortion.
"Abort" just means stop... "They aborted the mission due to bad weather."
It's not a dirty word...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, I mean from just a few minutes ago, when you were saying (on this thread) "Because not everyone considers it to be a baby. Not even all doctors agree."
Now you're saying it IS a baby?
No, I'm saying not EVERYONE CONSIDERS it a baby; what I happen to feel is irrelevant to that statement.

reply from: galen

just remember you are not speaking to people here who would use the same terminology...and will twist what you say if you use the right one in a way they are not used to.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, it is..... to me.

reply from: yoda

No, I'm saying not EVERYONE CONSIDERS it a baby; what I happen to feel is irrelevant to that statement.
Say what? Which way are you leaning now?
And if some group of radicals tried to change some other word's meaning, would you also pander to their political radicalism and say that the word no longer means what it has meant for thousands of years?

reply from: sander

It should be a bad word when connecting it to "stopping" a life in progress, especially of a hapless child that cannot defend his or herself. It should be a very, very bad word.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, I'm saying not EVERYONE CONSIDERS it a baby; what I happen to feel is irrelevant to that statement.
Say what?
Which way are you leaning now?
Doesn't matter in this context. I have been using the words baby and child to describe the unborn for months now. Read into that what you wish.
However, I am still keenly aware that not everyone on the planet thinks that the unborn is a baby.

reply from: sander

No, I'm saying not EVERYONE CONSIDERS it a baby; what I happen to feel is irrelevant to that statement.
Say what?
Which way are you leaning now?
No offense to anyone, but it is like watching a verbal tennis match with this one!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

In that context, if the stopping of life was not done to save another life, then I would agree that it is a bad word.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yeah, it is..... to me.
Even completely out of context to the death of an unborn child? Would you actually get offended at NASA for saying they aborted a mission? Bad news; they say it all the time!!

reply from: yoda

You're not making any sense here.
You seem to be saying that the stubborn refusal of some proaborts to recognize the truth makes babies "not be" babies.
You're apparently saying that making up lies about common words we've used for thousands of years changes what society in general recognizes as the "meaning of that word".
Surely you're not that stupid? Surely you know that NO GROUP OF RADICALS can change the meaning of a well established word, right?
I mean, really....... you do understand that, don't you?

reply from: galen

even in the context of ectopic pregnancies it is a word that has a sad meaning.. just because it is stopping a life.
anyway any surgeon worth thier salt will referr to it not as an abortion but as the removal of the tube and products of conception therin...

reply from: yoda

The "context" here is well known. The subject here on this forum is well known. Let's stick to the subject, okay?

reply from: galen

here is another link for you..
http://www.abortionconcern.org/stories/stories.php

reply from: galen

and another... no tiller stories here..
http://www.gargaro.com/regrets.html

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The "context" here is well known. The subject here on this forum is well known. Let's stick to the subject, okay?
Hey, I'm just saying that the word "abort" can have a completely benign meaning. You're the one saying it can ONLY apply to the death of the unborn for non-health reasons.

reply from: galen

heer is one from florida..
http://www.forerunner.com/fyi/victim/kirsten.html

reply from: galen

one with both pro and con
http://www.pregnantpause.org/ownwords/index.html

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You're not making any sense here.
You seem to be saying that the stubborn refusal of some proaborts to recognize the truth makes babies "not be" babies.
Nooo... I'm saying exactly what I am typing, there is nothing to read between the lines here. Whether or not it IS a baby is not dependent in its name. Why are we even arguing over this in the first place? I've entirely forgotten the point here.

reply from: yoda

No, I never said any such thing...... I have simply spoken IN CONTEXT about that word.....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Just from clicking that link and looking at the front page, I see a lot of women who should not have aborted. Every single one of them is referencing an outside influence. This is a result of bad counseling.
Tattoos shouldn't be illegal just because some people regret getting them. They shouldn't have gotten the tattoo in the first place. Please don't compare that to abortion, just think about the concept I'm trying to illustrate here.
Abortion shouldn't be illegal because some women regret getting them. They shouldn't have gotten the abortion in the first place. IF abortion should be illegal, it is because the procedure is a physical affront to women and causes the death of the child.
Please don't quote just the first sentence of that paragraph; read ALL of it. Talk about keeping things in context...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, I never said any such thing...... I have simply spoken IN CONTEXT about that word.....
Then an abortion to save a woman's life is an abortion. Is this not the issue we have been discussing for the past two pages?

reply from: yoda

Let me refresh your memory:
I said: "How does telling someone that it's illegal to kill their own baby constitute an unreasonable constraint?"
And you replied: "Because not everyone considers it to be a baby. Not even all doctors agree."
You seemed to be saying that making elective abortion illegal is unreasonable simply because "not everyone" agrees with the dictionary that the meaning of "baby" that exists today in our society is "valid".
So the stubborn refusal of some extremists to acknowledge what has been "public knowledge" for many centuries somehow makes laws against abortion "unreasonable"?????

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What is your opinion on the positive stories? Do you believe the statistics that more than 50% of women are glad they aborted? What's your opinion on that?
Then again I suppose we never hear stories of women who considered abortion, didn't do it, and regretted giving birth. We just see their abused children.

reply from: yoda

Not to me, it isn't. Not unless the physician performing it intentionally kills the baby.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Not to me, it isn't. Not unless the physician performing it intentionally kills the baby.
So then again, you feel that abortion is only abortion when it is NOT a life-saving procedure. That's EXACTLY what I said above, yet you said "durr, no, that's not what I think!"
Seriously, go back and read what you wrote. You have no idea what's going on here. I even stipulated a situation where the baby was intentionally killed in order to save the mother's life and you said it was not an abortion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Hm, guttmacher shows the number of abortions have gone down in recent years...
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Good, right?

reply from: NoHardFeelings

I agree with what you're saying LiberalChiRo. I am also against abortion as a form of birth control, but feel it does serve a purpose, however unfortunate that may be.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one. Doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't make it right either.
I don't feel like any less of a Christian because I choose to swing towards the pro-choice side of things. Ah, the joys of free will!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Also from Guttmacher, this is where I get my statistics that most abortions take place before week 20:
The risk of abortion complications is minimal: Fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization.[12]
. Abortions performed in the first trimester pose virtually no long-term risk of such problems as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries.[13]
. Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers.[13]
. In repeated studies since the early 1980s, leading experts have concluded that abortion does not pose a hazard to women's mental health.[14]

reply from: sander

Yes, the joys of free will that will still seperate you from God, feelings have nothing to do with it.
Opinions are varied, no doubt, but opinions that agree with murder are wrong.
For any Christian there's only One whose opinion matters.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

This site: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html shows the same decrease.

reply from: sander

I thought you didn't like biased opinions? Guttmacher is an arm of PP.

reply from: NoHardFeelings

Well then if that truly is the case, then I will deal with it when the time comes. Until then, I'm not going to worry about nitpicking what might separate me from God based on your opinions. Unless he hand wrote you a letter or left a voicemail, I'm going to stick to my beliefs on it, thanks.
I'm secure in my faith and my values, so at the end of the day, that's all that matters. If you feel secure in yours, then more power to you.

reply from: sander

Have it your way, just so you know you've been given fair warning.

reply from: NoHardFeelings

Just like Burger King, sweet! And you're right, I feel duly warned of my impending doom. I believe I'll go feed my child out-of-wedlock dinner now, (bad Chrisitan that I am!) while pondering the fate of the world.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

*Sigh* Christianity is about so much more, you know? The logic of the universe seems incomprehensible, especially when we try to act as if we have a clue as to what God wants!

reply from: galen

What is your opinion on the positive stories? Do you believe the statistics that more than 50% of women are glad they aborted? What's your opinion on that?
Then again I suppose we never hear stories of women who considered abortion, didn't do it, and regretted giving birth. We just see their abused children.
________________________________________________________-
you may think me weird.. but i say lets talk in about 20 years.
You see i've not met anyone past the age of 35 who felt OK with thier AB.. what i HAVE seen is a sharp increase in the age of women i've counseled about thier AB who hit menopause and were slapped in the face with what they can no longer have. No i do not believe the stats because from what i've seen of the industry it just does not pan out this way.. i think its more like 85% regrett and the rest seem to be in deep denial or truely don't care.
Most women who abuse thier kids do so not out of frustration but because they were abused themselves.. its a sign that they should be in counseling long before they have children.. its a call to cure abusive parents.. not to kill kids.

reply from: galen

______________________________________________--
yep good. except when PP uses these figures to get more $$ from the government to solicit for them...

reply from: NoHardFeelings

No one can say for sure what God wants. You do the best you can, believe what you choose to believe, and that's all you can do. There's no one human being on Earth who can say what God thinks or feels about what goes on in the world. All it is, is specualtion based on the Bible, but it doesn't make anyone right.

reply from: galen

___________________________________________________________
10 abortion complications may not require hospitalization... most people do not realise they have a "complication" untill they have trouble in the future with thier GYN health.. also many women do not tell thier docs they've had an AB..just a miscarrige.. unless you see the inside of a damaged uterus or cervix its hard to tell the diffrence on pelvic.
I've refuted the rest in earlier links...
come on you saw the video.. if nature intended a cervix to have that done to it.. don't you think that it would not be so hard to do it?
forcing ANYTHING where it does not belong causes damage physically, in other surgery there is a risk/ benefit ratio that is used , not in surgical abortion.

reply from: galen

____________________________________________________________
this guy is not unbiased.. your rules.. and got his stats from Gutt et al.. he is an abortion proponent.. i'm not sure why you use this guy.. i'm willing to say yes the # has gone down.. its still not zero and its still dangerous.

reply from: galen

___________________________________________
ok so why are you here?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

________________________________________________________
you may think me weird.. but i say lets talk in about 20 years.
You see i've not met anyone past the age of 35 who felt OK with thier AB.. what i HAVE seen is a sharp increase in the age of women i've counseled about thier AB who hit menopause and were slapped in the face with what they can no longer have. No i do not believe the stats because from what i've seen of the industry it just does not pan out this way.. i think its more like 85% regrett and the rest seem to be in deep denial or truely don't care.
But why would a woman who is ok with their abortion go to you in the first place? I'm just saying... I realise your talking about a slightly different situation. I suppose some research needs to be done in regards to how many women grow to regret their abortion years later.
I'm certainly not implying they should have been aborted, but the idea of pre-parental therapy is great.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

____________________________________________________________
this guy is not unbiased.. your rules.. and got his stats from Gutt et al.. he is an abortion proponent.. i'm not sure why you use this guy.. i'm willing to say yes the # has gone down.. its still not zero and its still dangerous.
He is? From the site, he seemed pro-life personally; but I just skimmed. All I was looking for were statistics/facts. I think the fact that he talks about how hard it is to get good stats shows he's not pro-choice, because someone wouldn't complain about that unless it concerned them...
And I never said it was 0.

reply from: galen

____________________________________________________________
this guy is not unbiased.. your rules.. and got his stats from Gutt et al.. he is an abortion proponent.. i'm not sure why you use this guy.. i'm willing to say yes the # has gone down.. its still not zero and its still dangerous.
He is? From the site, he seemed pro-life personally; but I just skimmed. All I was looking for were statistics/facts. I think the fact that he talks about how hard it is to get good stats shows he's not pro-choice, because someone wouldn't complain about that unless it concerned them...
And I never said it was 0.
_______________________________________________
i know that you never said it was zero.. it was just my thoughts that it should be.
also i skimmed his article and misread some things.. so i revise the proponant statement.. he was prolife as of 2008 february.

reply from: yoda

The STATS are from Guttmacher, the "research arm" of PP... how "unbiased" is that?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, it does. Murder also serves a purpose, it kills people.
But what do you have to say in support of the "purpose" of abortion? That it kills "unwanted babies"?
Is that the purpose you had in mind?

reply from: galen

____________________________________________________________
this guy is not unbiased.. your rules.. and got his stats from Gutt et al.. he is an abortion proponent.. i'm not sure why you use this guy.. i'm willing to say yes the # has gone down.. its still not zero and its still dangerous.
He is? From the site, he seemed pro-life personally; but I just skimmed. All I was looking for were statistics/facts. I think the fact that he talks about how hard it is to get good stats shows he's not pro-choice, because someone wouldn't complain about that unless it concerned them...
And I never said it was 0.
_______________________________________________
i know that you never said it was zero.. it was just my thoughts that it should be.
also i skimmed his article and misread some things.. so i revise the proponant statement.. he was prolife as of 2008 february.

reply from: churchmouse

Liberal you said that you dont like the fact that embryos and fetuses die in an abortion.
Then you said,
You dont care enough is what it boils down to.
But this statement takes the cake.

You are kidding us here arent you?
It should be legal because it matters how the killing is done? What difference does it make how its killed? Its killed, murdered, snuffed out, terminated, dismembered alive.......what ever term you want to use, one thing happens. Its killed.
You think abortion should be legal, so woman wont kill it in a more inhumane way then the killing is already being done legally?
Wow.
Pregnancy is not frowned upon today really for the unmarried woman. Not anymore in this day and age of sexual permissiveness. Our schools have daycares......no you wont convince me of that.
Abortion is convenient....make an appointment, pay, sit and wait in line, kill the child, leave........in what maybe the span now of 2 hours or less? No fuss, done, finished, no one need know.

reply from: churchmouse

Very well said and something to really think about. I like the way you put this.
I pray you are right and I am wrong, but I believe abortion will always be legal and things will get worse......doctors assisted suicide will be legalized, euthanasia, cloning. The traditional family will be no more, same sex marriage, polygamy will both be legalized.
We have two parties in our country that do not stand on life that give us nothing but lip service. We have pastors all over the country that wont stand up at the pultpit and preach the sanctity of life message.To stand up and actually say...."abortion is murder," that it is sin, for the sake of not losing those tithing.
I believe our churches are filled with false prophets.
Last year we were planning a march through downtown Phoenix against abortion. There was a church near where we were all going to meet. We called to see if they would allow us to park there during the march. They said no, they were pro-choice. I wanted to stand in front of their church and picket......but there wasnt enough time.
"Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." Romans 10:17
This church is not hearing the message and I believe a growing number of churches are not hearing it either.
Now I am not Catholic and have a few disagreements with their doctrine.....but I will say this. They are the biggest and only visible church that is standing up for the unborn child. The majority of people I picket with, march with, work with at Right To Life, are Catholics. Lts put it this way, would Joel Osteen and Rick Warren ever stand up and call abortion what it is?
We live in a secular country today. Our public schools, our institutions of higher learning are filled with educators that are liberals. God has been replaced by Darwinism, socialism, communism, no asolute morality, no right or wrong what ever feels good do it...... They have been and they will continue to brainwash our children. The NEA..........the biggest union in the country......big supporter of liberal causes abortion just one.
No I do not think things will get better but I will never stop praying or trying.
Once the hate crimes law goes through we will then be like Canada and Sweden. No pastor if they have the guts will be able to preach that homosexual sex is sin. Thy will not be able to preach from Leviticus. The bible will be classified as hate literature. Christianity will be criminalized. I think its scriptural that times will come when this happens when anything deviant is celebrated.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You are kidding us here arent you?
It should be legal because it matters how the killing is done?
No, it should be legal for now, until a cultural revolution takes place, so the mother doesn't die. Period.
The ONLY reason abortion should remain legal right now is for the mother's sake, for her health. However, the industry should be heavily monitored and regulated. Women should have to go through intense counseling before she is allowed to abort, and everything should be done to convince her otherwise (other than lying or guilt trips). If it is determined she doesn't NEED the abortion, she shouldn't get one.
Pregnancy is not frowned upon today really for the unmarried woman. Not anymore in this day and age of sexual permissiveness. Our schools have daycares......no you wont convince me of that.
Abortion is convenient....make an appointment, pay, sit and wait in line, kill the child, leave........in what maybe the span now of 2 hours or less? No fuss, done, finished, no one need know.
If I became accidentally pregnant in highschool, I would have been shunned 100%. People may not say it out loud, but you see the side-long glances, you hear the whispers.

reply from: churchmouse

Oh pleaze. I cant believe you, I just cant. You are yes, no, yes, no, maybe, I dont know?????????????????????
Heaviy monitored? Why?
Its not monitored today, why should it be in the future? Why monitor it? Now nurses are even starting to do abortions. Nurses now can kill just like the doc can. Soon it will be LPNs, PA's......midwives.......the people in the lab that take your blood.....the people at the reception desk.........
Do you think it matters to the life in the womb who KILLS IT? WHO MONITORS IT?
See in your eyes, its ONLY about the mother because you do not recognize the child in the womb as a person. The unborn obviously just does not matter to you.......
Dont agree at all. I have kids that just went through high school and college. I know kids that got pregnant and i know many of the parents. Sure they were dissapointed but certainly no one shunned them. They both finished school.
You must be over 40.

reply from: yoda

Great. Lots of child predators die because after they kill their victims, they are executed legally or killed by the child's parents. Should we legalize child predation and give them police protection, to save the lives of the predators? That's essentially the principle you're arguing.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You didn't go to MY highschool, so disagree all you want. Only I know what the atmosphere was like at my highschool.
And I said I was pro-confused yesterday.
Heavily monitored so women don't die! Heavily regulated so that unnecessary abortions don't take place. So all employees there are actual DOCTORS. So women who don't actually want to abort get the care they really need for themselves and their child. It's a crime that it's not regulated. Nurses should not be giving abortions. I AGREE with you that it's terrible how it's not regulated!!
I won't even debate you about it being just about the woman, because I don't believe that and I never have, not since I got to this forum and not even long before. I have always cared about the unborn too. That's why I said "I think it's terrible the fetus dies and I wish it didn't have to happen". Reading comprehension obviously just does not matter to you. You just want to bash me for any sliver of a "fact" you think you have in your distorted, senile brain.
I'm 23, by the way. I went to highschool in a rather conservative region of Northern New York. All farmland up there for the most part.

reply from: yoda

Umm... okay..... why? Do you still consider it a "waste", as you once remarked? A waste of what?
And is the "wastefulness" of killing an innocent baby why you "wish it didn't have to happen"?
And most importantly, why does it "have to" happen?

reply from: galen

so LCR while abortion is still legal ( and i never think i should be) what are you going to do about the suffering of the child..?
once all that legeslation is in place and all the clinics are pristine.. how do you want the child treated?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Umm... okay..... why? Do you still consider it a "waste", as you once remarked? A waste of what?
And is the "wastefulness" of killing an innocent baby why you "wish it didn't have to happen"?
And most importantly, why does it "have to" happen?
I do not mean for the phrase "it is a waste of life" to be insulting. I used it to represent that I feel the fetus has value; otherwise, there could not be any "waste" in its death. Do you understand?
And it has to happen when women are going to die otherwise. Oh that's right, you don't consider that abortion. The baby still dies either way, and I consider it a waste either way. But in one situation it can be avoided if the woman gets proper counseling.
I believe 100% now that the reason most women abort is because they think they have to. They are socially trained to do so. They abort because they've been told it's safer than giving birth. The abort because they don't want the condensation of their peers.
I know this hatred for pregnant unmarried teens exists because I FEEL it. I look at a pregnant teen and think "what a loser, she's having unprotected sex and probably expects to live off of welfare the rest of her life, the little *****." Whether or not I'm right doesn't matter. I know other people see pregnant teens and think exactly the same thing because they were raised like I was: to consider premarital and teen sex to be shameful, via the good old Bible. It was ingrained into my brain that teens who have sex have no morals, that they're stupid, and that they'll never amount to anything higher than serving me food at McDonalds. I was taught they're ignorant and that they often come from poverty and will remain in poverty. I was taught to DISDAIN them. I was shown statistics to support these claims, showing how hardly any of them graduate and how their income stays depressed. I was also shown statistics of how one teen mother often leads to another in the next generation, on and on.
I don't happen to feel this way about a pregnant adult woman because I foolishly suppose that she's got her stuff together and can actually care for the child.
Then again, everything I was taught hinged on the fact that most teens keep the baby. I was shown stats for that, too. Anyway, that's what I was taught and that's how I know it still exists today. Teens just shouldn't be having sex.
From the research I've seen, it's actually women in their 20's who already have a child who are most likely to abort, not a teen who's accidentally pregnant. Those women abort because they can't afford another child, but if the price is the only issue then I don't understand why they don't give it to adoption.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

One of the early links you gave me had a doctor suggesting that the unborn be given painkillers before being aborted.
The only reason I want it to stay legal for the moment is so we don't have a sudden increase in maternal death due to botched illegal abortions. That's the only reason.
Once the clinics are clean, they'll have proper counselors who will guide the woman towards a real solution instead of abortion. They won't really be abortion clinics anymore, they'll be crisis pregnancy centers. But abortion would still be available for the head-strong extremists who would try to hurt themselves to an extreme degree - even die - to try and kill their unborn child. I want that choice to be the very last resort, after everything else has been tried. I also want the time limit to be at LEAST 20 weeks if not younger, so if these women come in past that date they can't abort anyway. Abortion would be severely limited, extremely shunned, and women would be redirected away from it in every way possible (except lying and guilting). It would still be there, people just wouldn't have a need for it anymore. Eventually it will become completely vestigal and taken off the books for good. People will look back on it like the no-donkeys-in-the-bathtub laws.
It HAS to happen slow; nothing happens fast. Racial rights, women's rights, everything has to wait for society to change before it's truly accepted. I think with the program outlined above we could really outlaw abortion and no one with any power would resist.

reply from: sander

At least your honest, but holy cow...you're a grown woman and you STILL feel this way about teens who become pregnant? You actually "hate" them? Wow, that's a stunning statement and very bigoted.
On the one hand you seem to be blaming the "good old Bible", but when the "good old Bible" is actually adhered to, there are no pregnancies outside of marriage and just because you were raised with this kind of hatred and bigotry does not mean others of great numbers, as you seem to suggest, feel the same way.
This is nothing more than projecting and contriving an excuse. What a sad commentary.
There's no doubt you're 100% confused, but you don't have to be.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't think I actually hate them these days, but it's definitely pity and not empathy. I do feel negative emotions when I see a pregnant teen, and my first thought is always "that's a shame, her life is ruined now".
I'm a cornucopia of confused ideals. I'm very liberal in some cases and very conservative on others. I think the reason I partially blame christianity for this is because it manages to make the hate work, but it doesn't manage to keep penises out of vaginas. It did in MY case, but I feel like the exception to the rule often. I lost my virginity when I was 20 and deeply in love, after dating the same man for something like 9 months. We were safe, too. But even I became careless with my birth control. I shake my head in shame and awe and just thank the lord I never fell pregnant. If I messed up I made him use condoms, but it was SUCH a risk.
Well, another issue is that no matter how much religion or ethics you teach, if the kid has too much time alone at home with no parents around, sex is bound to happen. My parents watched me like a hawk, so I never had the desire OR a chance to get in trouble!

reply from: galen

One of the early links you gave me had a doctor suggesting that the unborn be given painkillers before being aborted.
The only reason I want it to stay legal for the moment is so we don't have a sudden increase in maternal death due to botched illegal abortions. That's the only reason.
Once the clinics are clean, they'll have proper counselors who will guide the woman towards a real solution instead of abortion. They won't really be abortion clinics anymore, they'll be crisis pregnancy centers. But abortion would still be available for the head-strong extremists who would try to hurt themselves to an extreme degree - even die - to try and kill their unborn child. I want that choice to be the very last resort, after everything else has been tried. I also want the time limit to be at LEAST 20 weeks if not younger, so if these women come in past that date they can't abort anyway. Abortion would be severely limited, extremely shunned, and women would be redirected away from it in every way possible (except lying and guilting). It would still be there, people just wouldn't have a need for it anymore. Eventually it will become completely vestigal and taken off the books for good. People will look back on it like the no-donkeys-in-the-bathtub laws.
It HAS to happen slow; nothing happens fast. Racial rights, women's rights, everything has to wait for society to change before it's truly accepted. I think with the program outlined above we could really outlaw abortion and no one with any power would resist.
___________________________________________________--you still addressed the issue in a difrent way than i expected..
the point i was trying to make was that it is ludecris to say its ok to kill an innocent somebody.. for the convienence of another.. just because they can. Its why the abortion laws we have today need to be trashed.
A child born too soon in a hospital is comforted and cuddled if at all possible. A child in a clinic is ripped limb from limb.. no ammount of painkiller is going to comfort that second baby. Abortion laws to protect the health of the mother have never been disputed.. and if a woman can not have an abortion she is much more likely to continue w/ her pregnancy. Only a few women each year ( comparitively speaking) aborted before RvW enabled convienence. And to be honest i have SOME sympathy for the women who were desprate enough to do so.. but not a whole lot. Desperation leads to many things.. like murder.. but while we may give a more lenient consequence to it it should never be dismisseed out of hand or made legal.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't think it should be elective without counseling anymore; I think that is one step we can start making.
What would your suggestion be for women caught/proven to have recently had an illegal abortion? I think jail time is completely inappropriate; the woman is a victim, too. What are your ideas as to what should be done?

reply from: galen

i do not think jail time inappropriate.. in a sense..i believe it completely justified.. do i think it should be a capitol offense no.. but manslaughter .. yes.
i also think that counseling and a long probation are in order.
If the same woman is caught more than once i think the penalty should go up.
each person is an individual.. a raped woman is a case that deserves special consideration 9 although i do not believe it should be legal) however a multiple offender should be treated like a woman who fakes crib death in multiple children.
i do not believe this should be retroactive.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I would personally say that any woman who aborted if the procedure was illegal was not in her right mind, especially since in this world it would be common knowledge that the unborn is a baby AND owing to the dangerous nature of the procedure. As such, I'd say she belongs in therapy, not prison.

reply from: galen

and then there is Lowlita.. who did just that.. ( yes it was legal) she KNEW what was at stake and did so anyway.. now she's pregnant keeping it and bragging about it.. all the while laughing about FM, and posting illegal info...its as if she enjoys her sociopathy.
people like her are not so far between..they would need jail.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Millions of women get abortions (legal and illegal) and I think it's very rare you'll find one who doesn't know what's going to happen when she agrees to the procedure. I didn't post illegal info, all I did was link to a public site and comment on it. There's nothing illegal about repeating something you got from an open and public source.

reply from: sander

Scram, lowlife...we don't believe anything you say.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well I think there is a difference. First strike, after review by a board of psychologists, would be therapy unless she was determined to simply be cruel. Second strike would be jail time.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh, I should put her on ignore...

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Oh yes, the ignore button. "I don't like what they say so I'll just pretend I don't hear it!"
You disgust me. I don't have anyone on ignore, I never have, and I never will.
I'll just have to start PMing you my posts. Starting with this one.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And I'll just report you to the moderator for harassment. Which I just did.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

Wait... I thought you put me on ignore.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I said I should, I didn't say I did. Moron.

reply from: LolitaOlivia

You're grasping at straws. Don't worry, you're in good company. A lot of the people here claim to have other members on ignore, but then you see them responding to their posts...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I never claimed I did, pro-liar.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh goodness I'm bored tonight. Who's up for crashing eHealth? There are women on there who are actually willing to listen, but there are some on there who need a serious kick to the head with logic.
Where else do you guys post, what other forums do you frequent that involves the abortion debate?

reply from: carolemarie

Millions of women get abortions (legal and illegal) and I think it's very rare you'll find one who doesn't know what's going to happen when she agrees to the procedure. I didn't post illegal info, all I did was link to a public site and comment on it. There's nothing illegal about repeating something you got from an open and public source.
Lolita had a legal abortion. She broke no laws. I had legal abortions and I knew very well what I was doing, but in my circumstance I felt it was the best and only real choice I had. All women who have abortions feel it is the best choice for them or they would chose something else. Calling us all sociopaths is a bit much.

If abortion is against the law, most women will chose something else. For those who don't, jail is totally inappropriate. Jail the abortion provider who gets rich off exploiting women in trouble. As it was before Roe happen.
As a side note to Lolita
I think your post to shame Fman was in bad taste and a violation of posting personal information, Why don't you just apologize for that act bad judgment? It is okay to admit that you were wrong about something.
I will say that Faithman has said terrible things to you, and I can understand wanting to get back at him, but that was simply wrong.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I definitely agree to jailing the abortion provider. They are not a victim.
As for women who don't know what they're getting into... from what I heard as a pro-choicer, they really are very in the dark.

reply from: galen

Millions of women get abortions (legal and illegal) and I think it's very rare you'll find one who doesn't know what's going to happen when she agrees to the procedure. I didn't post illegal info, all I did was link to a public site and comment on it. There's nothing illegal about repeating something you got from an open and public source.
Lolita had a legal abortion. She broke no laws. I had legal abortions and I knew very well what I was doing, but in my circumstance I felt it was the best and only real choice I had. All women who have abortions feel it is the best choice for them or they would chose something else. Calling us all sociopaths is a bit much.

If abortion is against the law, most women will chose something else. For those who don't, jail is totally inappropriate. Jail the abortion provider who gets rich off exploiting women in trouble. As it was before Roe happen.
As a side note to Lolita
I think your post to shame Fman was in bad taste and a violation of posting personal information, Why don't you just apologize for that act bad judgment? It is okay to admit that you were wrong about something.
I will say that Faithman has said terrible things to you, and I can understand wanting to get back at him, but that was simply wrong.
_________________________________________________
you misunderstand me.. i call lowlita a sociopath not because she had an abortion.. but because she is so gleeful about it.. she has no remorse and no respect for the child she killed for selfish reasons.. if she ever truely said she was sorry for hat she did then i might change my opinion of her. She knew what it was and what she was doing and did it anyway..

reply from: nancyu

It doesn't matter what any of us think the punishment should be. It is up to a jury of 12 to decide. Each murder or manslaughter case is unique and needs to be decided individually.
It is illegal to murder persons. An unborn child is a person. Laws supporting abortion need to be abolished, then the laws against murder and manslaughter will apply, as they do to any other person.

reply from: nancyu

She broke laws against murder of persons. She had protection from other laws, that support abortion, that doesn't mean she didn't break any.

reply from: sander

It may be legal in the sense of rvw, but that does not negate the fact; abortion is a crime against humainty.

reply from: faithman

This is the idiotic mistake being made here. The information about fetal development is way to accessible now. If one is ignorant about the child in the womb, it is willing ignorance. The crime of paying for murder should carry jail time. Whether the person murdered is born or preborn. Womb child development should be included in every high school biology course. All that is represented here is advocacy of unjust jutice. The issue is equality thru personhood. Once established, the same laws governing murder for hire of the born person, would cover the pre-born as well. No nedd for special laws. Particularly laws that require justice to lift the blind fold and give special consideration based on gender. Scot Peterson is in jail for killing his pre-born child. Why should a killer mom get a free walk for doing the same? All that is need is to establish personhood for the womb child, then a jury of their peers will dole out the punishment to those who pay to kill.

reply from: galen

This is the idiotic mistake being made here. The information about fetal development is way to accessible now. If one is ignorant about the child in the womb, it is willing ignorance. The crime of paying for murder should carry jail time. Whether the person murdered is born or preborn. Womb child development should be included in every high school biology course. All that is represented here is advocacy of unjust jutice. The issue is equality thru personhood. Once established, the same laws governing murder for hire of the born person, would cover the pre-born as well. No nedd for special laws. Particularly laws that require justice to lift the blind fold and give special consideration based on gender. Scot Peterson is in jail for killing his pre-born child. Why should a killer mom get a free walk for doing the same? All that is need is to establish personhood for the womb child, then a jury of their peers will dole out the punishment to those who pay to kill.
___________________________________________________________________
i agree FM and i think yu for saying so without any ranting on your part

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It doesn't matter what any of us think the punishment should be. It is up to a jury of 12 to decide. Each murder or manslaughter case is unique and needs to be decided individually.
It is illegal to murder persons. An unborn child is a person. Laws supporting abortion need to be abolished, then the laws against murder and manslaughter will apply, as they do to any other person.
Abortion is a unique situation because of the very nature of what a fetus is: it is a human being attached to another human being - INSIDE of her. This situation never occurs at any other time in our lives; yet it is a moment that happens to ALL of us. Because of this, abortion is not just a case of manslaughter, and I believe it is foolish to treat it as such. It is insulting to the mother. Her motivations are far more complicated than anyone can understand.

reply from: sander

All you said here is that "location" makes a difference in the intenional killing of another human being.
Since when is "location" a justifiable reason?
The baby was handed an invitation to be "attached", thru no fault nor choice of their own. It's very, very bad form to recend the invitation for any reasons other than the legitimate life of the mother.

reply from: churchmouse

What is an unneccessary abortion in your opinion Liberal?
You don't take ownership for what you say Liberal because with every new post you say something totally contradictory to what you said before.
You are pro-choice. You do not believe the unborn is a person that deserves the right to live or YOU WOULDNT WANT ANY ABORTION TO HAPPEN. If you stood on LIFE, then no abortion would be acceptable. You do NOT SEEM TO CARE ABOUT THE UNBORN CHILD.
You go on to say that,
If abortion were illegal like it was pre Roe, 99% of woman would not abort and would have their children. Women would think twice about having sex because of the consequences. Today woman know that abortion can be used as birth control. Statistics show that the majority of woman have multiple abortions.
What do clean clinics have to do with counseling?
Do you know when the heart starts beating Liberal?
Life starts at fertilization but the heart begins to beat at around 20 days.
I would suggest looking at an unborn in the womb at 20 weeks.
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment2.php

Liberal killing is killing. It's the same whether its done at 2 weeks, 6 or 9 months. It doesnt matter where its done, an abortion clinic, a private doctors office, a back alley........its the same thing.
Liberal what is an unecessary abortion?

reply from: Faramir

She broke laws against murder of persons. She had protection from other laws, that support abortion, that doesn't mean she didn't break any.
Have you reported her to the authorities or are you going to look the other way again?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What is an unneccessary abortion in your opinion Liberal?
One not done for maternal age/physical or mental danger issues, rape issue, or fetal deadly deformity issues - though the fetal issue is directly related to maternal danger issues. By mental danger, I mean a case where a psychologist has determined that carrying the pregnancy will cause permanent psychological damage to the woman. Simply being stressed out and frightened doesn't count.
If abortion were illegal like it was pre Roe, 99% of woman would not abort and would have their children. Women would think twice about having sex because of the consequences. Today woman know that abortion can be used as birth control. Statistics show that the majority of woman have multiple abortions.
What's your point? That was then, this is now. Instantly making abortion illegal will not take us back to the "good old days", sorry to say. It doesn't work that way.
What do clean clinics have to do with counseling?
Abortion clinics already have counselors. Cleanliness is related to the fact that they're now regulated. If they're regulated, then specific kinds of people can be hired. If there are pro-life counselors in the clinics, they can guide the woman away from killing her child and guide her towards choosing life. Obviously. Sorry if the leap of logic between regulated and clean was too much for you.
Do you know when the heart starts beating Liberal?
Hearts do not equal human or person. Frogs have hearts. I'm sorry, but I just don't consider a beating heart to be the first sign of it being human. It's human before it is even conceived. The fetus is not an independent being until the umbilical cord is cut. It is a UNIQUE individual being from the moment the sperm hits the egg.
I'm aware of what it looks like and what it's capable of and that's why I feel it shouldn't be aborted. Duh.

reply from: churchmouse

Nothing will but I will tell you this......making abortion illegal would save millions upon millions of unborn children every year.
Is that a bad thing?
It INSTANTLY became legal on January 22, 1973..........so why would it be any different then if it all of a sudden ended on July 11, 2008?
You think they are regulated? Read this book Liberal.....LIME 5, by Mark Crutcher. He writes about abortion clinics all over the country that do not even meet the standards of a animal vet clinic. You think that the people that administer anesthetic are always certifide? You will be appauled after reading this book.
We are talking about places that are not regulated as far as licensed professionals and that do not even meet government standards. You have no clue. I wish you could hear Crutcher talk about this. He has done undercover work all over the country.
I am going to quote from his book here.
Crutcher says, "But the facts prove that this safety argument is a fraud. After more than 20 years of legalization, they have yet to even approach minimum safety standards, and American women are being butchered because of it....................................Abortion proponents claim that there is always a risk to surgery and the numbers based on how many abortions are performed are still low. But gaining full access to accurate data would require the cooperation of the abortion industry as well as the state and local government agencies responsible for compiling such data. But due to their political agendas (chapter 3) they have little interest in reporting industry disasters, and more interest in covering them up. Because mainline media and a good portion of the medical community are also interested in covering up, all research in this field becomes totally independent on whether abortion injured women seek justice through the legal system.
Another factor limiting research into this field is that the majority of these cases are settled before they go to trial. That's a problem for two reasons.
Most abortionists demand a confidentiality agreement as part of their willingness to settle a case.
2. Legal research services track only cases that actually go to trial. So, except in those rare instances in which a settled case is sensational enough to be covered by the media, there is little chance that we could even find out it exists.
Crutcher says that facilities that were checked often .....
"Have no one on staff who was qualified to administer anesthesia.
Did not employ proper procedures or equipment for administering anesthesia
Did not administer preliminary test dosages to determine a patients sensitivity to anesthetic drugs
Used dosages of anesthesia that were twice as high as specified in the clinic's in-house procedure manual
Maintained no procedures or devices to accurately gage the amounts of anesthesia being given, estimating dosage "by eye"
Conducted per-operation medical examinations and medical histories that were cursory and inadequate
Had no functioning emergency equipment on site
Had a number of emergency medications that were past their expiration date
Had no one on staff with current CPR training
Did not document respiration and pulse prior to anesthesia
Had insufficient lighting in operating rooms
Lacked proper hand-washing sinks in exam rooms, and had no soap or paper towels at either the scrub sink or recovery room bathroom
Improperly stored oxygen and nitrous oxide canisters
Had unsanitary conditions, including stained scrub sinks, dirty walls and floors, trash stored in operating scrub room, blood on two wheels of the operating room table, red make up stains on the rim of oxygen and nitrous oxide masks, uncovered and dusty tubing on suction machines.
Stored medical supplies on the floor
Stored sterile surgical supply items in dirty wash room
Had no provisions for disposal of infectious wastes"
You think these clinics are watched and regulated? LOL
Suzanne Poppema, head of NAF's Clinical Guidelines Committee, even admits that NAF "has no credentialing power....It's not a board and has no enforcement power."
Warren Hern who is a NAF Board member, former head of its Clinical Guidelines Committee and author of the book Abortion Practice-helped write NAF's abortion standards, but now calls them "ornamental," cosmetic," and "meaningless." He also says that NAF "has never pursued a serious program of standards implementation and program evaluation," adding that, "Following good standards costs money. And people don't want to do that." He also points out in his book that NAF has never implemented a system to monitor whether its facilities are following its standards.
All quotes from The American Medical News, "Claiming Abortion Malpractice," By Diane Gianelli, 2/6/95
CBS did a news show (60 Minutes) about a Maryland abortion clinic that had killed two woman in botched abortions. They interviewed a woman by the name of Barbara Radford who at the time was executive director of NAF. They asked her in an unbelievable interview if she knew of the problems at the clinic. She responded that she was indeed aware of them but had decided to remain silent because, "This is the last thing we need. We had hoped that it wouldn't get national publicity because of the political nature of all this."
And this is unbelievable.
In the same program 60 Minute reporter, Marilyn Viero, pointed out that even thought these laws could make clinics safer, abortion advocates fight them. That was backed up by then pro-choice State Senator Mary Boergers. She said, "There's only so much of a willingness to try to push a group like the pro-choice movement to do what I think is the responsible thing to do because they then treat you as if you're the enemy. We want women to make sure that women have choices when it comes to abortion services, and if you regulate it too strictly, you then deny women the access to service."
CBS News, 60 Minutes, 4/21/91
This statement is absolutely idiotic I am sorry. You make no sense at all.
A biology lesson.......
A baby is NOT AN ORGAN OF THE WOMANS BODY..
"It is a well-established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existence at conception. Once fertilization takes place, the zygote is its OWN entity, genetically distinct from both the mother and the father. The newly conceived individual possesses all the necessary information for a self-directed development and will proceed to grow in the usual human fashion, given time and nourishment. It is simply untrue that the unborn child is merely a "part of the womans body." In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn possesses separate circulatory, nervous and endocrine systems." (Landrum Shettles and David Rorvik, Rites of Life:The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth (Grand Rapids, Mich 1983)
Liberal its a clear scientific fact that the mother is one distinctive and self-contained person and the child is another. Being inside something is NOT the same as being part of something. Ones body does not belong to another's body merely because of proximity.
Louise Brown was the worlds the first test tube baby. She was conceived when sperm and egg were joined in a Petri dish. She was no more part of her mothers body when placed there than she had been part of the Petri dish where her life began.
A child is not part of the body in which she is carried.
That truth was affirmed in July 2000 by the U.S. House of Representatives when they unanimously passed a bill making it illegal to execute a pregnant woman. Why? The logical reason for this decision is that a preborn child is an individual person, distinct from his mother and with his own separate right to life.
But you said that you think that abortions can be done up until 20 weeks. So one week before this picture, you would condone it.
Duh.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You are saying things I never believed in the first place. Even when I was pro-choice I constantly argued with them that a baby is not a true part of the mother's body. It's connected to her, and I don't believe it is independent of her, but it certainly isn't HER body. It has its own body.

reply from: nancyu

Oh, my gosh, isn't this the same liberla chico broad who told me I should show respect to others?

reply from: galen

nancy i agree with liberal CHM says this
Liberal said, "Hearts do not equal human or person. Frogs have hearts. I'm sorry, but I just don't consider a beating heart to be the first sign of it being human. It's human before it is even conceived. The fetus is not an independent being until the umbilical cord is cut. It is a UNIQUE individual being from the moment the sperm hits the egg."
This statement is absolutely idiotic I am sorry. You make no sense at all.
__________________________________________________________
SHE ( liberal ) HAS NEVER said the unborn child was an organ or part of the mother...
and saying idiotic is no better than saying moron...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh, my gosh, isn't this the same liberla chico broad who told me I should show respect to others?
In all honesty, I did it after extreme frustration from being called worse things for a long, long time. I'm not a saint; I do finally bite back. From certain members I have been treated like crap since the day I came here; can you REALLY expect me to not fight back eventually?

reply from: carolemarie

Oh, my gosh, isn't this the same liberla chico broad who told me I should show respect to others?
In all honesty, I did it after extreme frustration from being called worse things for a long, long time. I'm not a saint; I do finally bite back. From certain members I have been treated like crap since the day I came here; can you REALLY expect me to not fight back eventually?
Some people on this board just want to be mean
Ignore them, they are just being jerks.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Thank you too, Carol Marie!

reply from: 4given

I know. It is so hard dealing with big meanies when all they want to do is support killing innocent and defenseless children.. sniff.. ABORTION IS MEAN

reply from: sander

Thank you, 4Given!
"sniff" or cry me a river....

reply from: english

LiberalChiRo - I can't seem to quote what we was talking about a few days ago but hi
So where do you stand on abortion now?
I'm glad you seem to have shifted a little bit less "choice" because obviously I think that's the right thing to do. But I hope you can come to a conclusion soon, it's always nice to be secure of your opinions.
I've decided I'm going to be nice to everyone, pro or anti, I understand (though completely disagree with) the "choice" since talking to rsg001 whatever her name was.
ps I have to point out that in an FPA (our equivalent of planned parenthood) leaflet about pregancy that foetuses start to feel at 16 weeks, not 27
nancyu - I'm anti abortion!! I don't think any abortion is right and understand totally what your saying. I was just saying that pro-aborts might as well have their cut-off point at 20-22 weeks as just after that, the chance of survival is high and that's when they consider it its own person, when it can live outside the mother.

reply from: carolemarie

There is no reason for personal attacks. This woman changed positions. Do you really expect her to be completely on board with everything you or Nancy believes overnight?
Cant we cut her some slack and try reasoning with her rather than slinging insults....

reply from: Faramir

Abortion is mean, but being mean back does not stop abortion. It does not make a proabort see the light.
Being mean serves the person who is expressing the meanness--nothing more. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BABIES. It's an ego trip only. The babies and a noble cause are an excuse.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Abortion is mean, but being mean back does not stop abortion. It does not make a proabort see the light.
Being mean serves the person who is expressing the meanness--nothing more. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BABIES. It's an ego trip only. The babies and a noble cause are an excuse.
Faramir, you haven't been exactly KIND either, so maybe you should eat those words.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There is no reason for personal attacks. This woman changed positions. Do you really expect her to be completely on board with everything you or Nancy believes overnight?
Cant we cut her some slack and try reasoning with her rather than slinging insults....
I doubt I will ever believe everything that the extremists on this board believe.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I now consider myself pro-life because I do not believe abortion is the right choice for a woman to make unless there are extenuating circumstances.
That's good; understanding WHY they feel the way they do is really important. Trying to convince most of them that the unborn has worth probably isn't going to work because they use that as the crux of their entire defense. However, showing the horrors of what abortion does to the WOMAN, now that will get you somewhere. That's what happened to me. I saw a video of an actual abortion, and that's what changed my mind. Then again I've always felt the fetus had SOME worth, I just felt that the woman's life was more important than it no matter what.

reply from: faithman

Abortion is mean, but being mean back does not stop abortion. It does not make a proabort see the light.
Being mean serves the person who is expressing the meanness--nothing more. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BABIES. It's an ego trip only. The babies and a noble cause are an excuse.
That is simply your opinion, and not fact. What are you basing it on? My experiance tells me that you can chase workers, guards, and volunteers away from clinics. The only super ego here is yours, and CP's. Who made you the big expert? I have made many bortheads see the "light" with my tacics that you call mean. But it ain't a one size fits all. different tactics for different situations. "nice" doesn't always work as you imply. And I don't come here to be nice to killers. I will leave that up to you idiots. You don't do anything but strut around with your puffed up self, and try to judge others actions, when you do very little yourself. You want to talk about ego trips, look in the mirror.

reply from: faithman

There is no reason for personal attacks. This woman changed positions. Do you really expect her to be completely on board with everything you or Nancy believes overnight?
Cant we cut her some slack and try reasoning with her rather than slinging insults....
If you want to be played by a phony, that is your perogative. But of course birds of a feather....

reply from: Faramir

Abortion is mean, but being mean back does not stop abortion. It does not make a proabort see the light.
Being mean serves the person who is expressing the meanness--nothing more. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BABIES. It's an ego trip only. The babies and a noble cause are an excuse.
Faramir, you haven't been exactly KIND either, so maybe you should eat those words.
In what way have I been unkind?
To YOU?

reply from: faithman

Hey! you agree with killer carole!!

reply from: faithman

Oh, my gosh, isn't this the same liberla chico broad who told me I should show respect to others?
In all honesty, I did it after extreme frustration from being called worse things for a long, long time. I'm not a saint; I do finally bite back. From certain members I have been treated like crap since the day I came here; can you REALLY expect me to not fight back eventually?
Some people on this board just want to be mean
Ignore them, they are just being jerks.
the biggest jerks are post abortive killers who appose personhood so future post abortive killer jerks get a free walk. No matter how much "nice" paint you smear on it, killing womb children is a million times meaner than anything I have [posted here.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Abortion is mean, but being mean back does not stop abortion. It does not make a proabort see the light.
Being mean serves the person who is expressing the meanness--nothing more. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BABIES. It's an ego trip only. The babies and a noble cause are an excuse.
Faramir, you haven't been exactly KIND either, so maybe you should eat those words.
In what way have I been unkind?
To YOU?
Do you reeeally want me to go dig up some posts from when I first got here? By the way, I consider being called pro-abortion offensive so any post in which you called me that is fair game. Also included is "bortie", "proabort", "pro-death", etc etc.

reply from: Faramir

When you first came here I took issue with you calling yourself a Christian, and stated my opinion, but was not unkind about it--at least no unkindness was intended.
I do not call prochoicers, "borties," "pro aborts," or "pro-death."
When I posted regularly on another board I got very tired of being called a "anti-choice" and a "misogynist" by the prochoicers, and made it clear that I would be resepctful and call them what they want to be called, and that I thought they should do likewise, and some finally came around and used "prolife" and stopped using the "m" word too. So as much as the word "pro-abort" is used here, I don't feel comfortable with it, and I don't use it myself--except rarely--but not directly to a prochoicer.
I don't think "choice" is a fair word, though. I think a fairer description would be "pro abortion rights." I think a fairer label for prolifers would be "anti abortion rights," but those are long words. If there is to be a respectful dialogue, I don't see why we cannot use the terms that opponent wants.
But on this board, disrespectfulness rules, and in some cases is considered virtuous, so good luck in trying to change things.

reply from: yoda

And you're the poster who said "I'd rather see a thousand babies aborted than..... (fill in the blank)"????
Yeah, you fit these definitions:
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813
pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a·bor·tion PRONUNCIATION: pr-bôrshn ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html

Main Entry: pro·abor·tion Pronunciation: (')prO-&-'bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion -pro·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)n&st/ noun http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion

reply from: faithman

Abortion is mean, but being mean back does not stop abortion. It does not make a proabort see the light.
Being mean serves the person who is expressing the meanness--nothing more. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BABIES. It's an ego trip only. The babies and a noble cause are an excuse.
Faramir, you haven't been exactly KIND either, so maybe you should eat those words.
In what way have I been unkind?
To YOU?
Do you reeeally want me to go dig up some posts from when I first got here? By the way, I consider being called pro-abortion offensive so any post in which you called me that is fair game. Also included is "bortie", "proabort", "pro-death", etc etc.
How about scum bag magot pro-death skanc?

reply from: Faramir

And you're the poster who said "I'd rather see a thousand babies aborted than..... (fill in the blank)"????
Yeah, you fit these definitions:
pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813
pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a·bor·tion PRONUNCIATION: pr-bôrshn ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html
<br ">http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html
Main Entry: pro·abor·tion Pronunciation: (')prO-&-'bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion -pro·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)n&st/ noun http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion
None of those definitions include "proabort."
And all the definitions say it is an "adjective" and not a "noun."
You don't refer to someone using just an adjective. You don't call someone a "tall" or a "smart."
Obama is not a "proabortion." He is a a "proabortion candidate."
I could not find definitions for "pro abort" or "bortie." Can you?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

When you first came here I took issue with you calling yourself a Christian, and stated my opinion, but was not unkind about it--at least no unkindness was intended.
I do not call prochoicers, "borties," "pro aborts," or "pro-death."
When I posted regularly on another board I got very tired of being called a "anti-choice" and a "misogynist" by the prochoicers, and made it clear that I would be resepctful and call them what they want to be called, and that I thought they should do likewise, and some finally came around and used "prolife" and stopped using the "m" word too. So as much as the word "pro-abort" is used here, I don't feel comfortable with it, and I don't use it myself--except rarely--but not directly to a prochoicer.
I don't think "choice" is a fair word, though. I think a fairer description would be "pro abortion rights." I think a fairer label for prolifers would be "anti abortion rights," but those are long words. If there is to be a respectful dialogue, I don't see why we cannot use the terms that opponent wants.
But on this board, disrespectfulness rules, and in some cases is considered virtuous, so good luck in trying to change things.
Well I considered it very offensive to be told that my faith was false, and I find it hard to believe you don't know people find that offensive.
And I think a fairer term for pro-life is pro-fetal-rights. But people who felt abortion should be illegal named themselves pro-life, and in response, people who felt it should be legal named themselves pro-choice, accenting the idea that a woman has a CHOICE, only one of which is abortion.
Those are the right names for these things. I'm glad you seem to respect this. I'm not trying to change this forum, I just put them on ignore.

reply from: Faramir

I doubt that I used the word "false." I don't doubt that whatever faith you have is sincere and meaningful to you. That wasn't the issue.
The issue to me was that you called your faith "Christianity," and from what I remember, you expressed some beliefs that were contrary to core Christian beliefs.
I did not mean to be offensive.
Regardless, your beliefs about abortion rights are much more disturbing to me.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I doubt that I used the word "false." I don't doubt that whatever faith you have is sincere and meaningful to you. That wasn't the issue.
The issue to me was that you called your faith "Christianity," and from what I remember, you expressed some beliefs that were contrary to core Christian beliefs.
I did not mean to be offensive.
Regardless, your beliefs about abortion rights are much more disturbing to me.
You're saying I'm a false Christian. That is offensive, but I accept your apology.
And how are my current beliefs on abortion disturbing to you?

reply from: carolemarie

I don't think anyone expects you to agree with them on everything. Only they are that delusional. they operate from a pro-baby position, not a prolife position.
They don't care about anyone or anything else but the baby. They justify being hateful cause it's "for the babies", yet their mean talk saves not one baby, it just relieve their feelings. This is all about their feelings . Why would they want to push you back into a prochoice position is beyond me.....
There is no reason for personal attacks. This woman changed positions. Do you really expect her to be completely on board with everything you or Nancy believes overnight?
Cant we cut her some slack and try reasoning with her rather than slinging insults....
I doubt I will ever believe everything that the extremists on this board believe.

reply from: galen

i think its ok to question a certain stance... in vexings case i belive its the junk thrown on her here and in RL that led to her conversion... but some people are not happy with that.

reply from: 4given

I don't think anyone expects you to agree with them on everything. Only they are that delusional. they operate from a pro-baby position, not a prolife position.
They don't care about anyone or anything else but the baby. They justify being hateful cause it's "for the babies", yet their mean talk saves not one baby, it just relieve their feelings. This is all about their feelings . Why would they want to push you back into a prochoice position is beyond me.....
There is no reason for personal attacks. This woman changed positions. Do you really expect her to be completely on board with everything you or Nancy believes overnight?
Cant we cut her some slack and try reasoning with her rather than slinging insults....
I doubt I will ever believe everything that the extremists on this board believe.
Carole you edited your response.. am I "they".. Interesting- the "feelings" reference, being that it is an actual issue I have.. Carole- if your question, issue or response was intended to go to me- do so directly. And you are off some.. I am not "hateful".. I have an issue with insincere death mongers.. trying to spill their weak justifications to kill another... Good thing you are here to save the "you" pushed back into a pro-choice postion, huh?! Maybe.

reply from: lukesmom

If you are so concerned about fairness, tell me this: Were is the "fair" for the unborn when it comes to abortion?
Gimme a break and if you continue the whinning we may start calling you Wendy.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If you are so concerned about fairness, tell me this: Were is the "fair" for the unborn when it comes to abortion?
Gimme a break and if you continue the whinning we may start calling you Wendy.
Whaa...? Why Wendy? Who's that?
And Faramir and I were discussing words and the respect one shows when using the correct ones.
The pro-choice answer to your question is thus: Abortion can be merciful when it is a case of severe fetal deformity (missing a brain type of thing), or in preventing the child from living a life of abuse (weak argument imo).
As far as the severe deformities go, most pro-lifers agree that it is an acceptable reason to abort anyway. It is still a case where abortion could be fair to the child.
To be honest, I used to say that because I thought that it prevented pain to the child. However, most severe deformities like that aren't discovered until late in pregnancy when the fetus is already capable of feeling pain. Then the only reason for the abortion would be to lessen trauma for the mother through an induced labor and extraction of the previously killed fetus. Whether or not this is more or less traumatic and painful than carrying to term is unknown to me.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Who knows? As you said, they're delusional lol!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh, those crazies won't be happy until women have the "right" to stand barefoot in the kitchen and never have to worry about "working" a day in their life. Just breed.

reply from: faithman

There has been no conversion, only perversion dawning a wool jacket. But an ole wolf can't help but howl when stepped on by truth. Same ole baying at the abortion moon. Same ole words, same ole lies. Conversion means a complete 180 change of mind. Not just adding a little "pro-life spice" to the poisioned stew of womb child slaughter. Conversion means dropping the mantras of the death skancs, and taking up the cause of equality for the womb child thru the establishment of personhood for the preborn. Anything less is unexceptible. We may have to take several steps to get there, but true converts will not stop marching until that goal is reached.

reply from: sander

liberal pulled something out of thin air and said:
Got any stats on this proving MOST PRO-LIFERS agree? Or are we to take the word of a proabort? Because I'd like to see the breakdown on the stats, if there are any. I'd also like to see the background of those who produced these stats.
Either there is proof or you pulled something out of thin air...I'd say the actual place, but I'll reserve that in case you actually do have proof.

reply from: sander

Oh, those crazies won't be happy until women have the "right" to stand barefoot in the kitchen and never have to worry about "working" a day in their life. Just breed.
You mean as opposed to the crazies that would rather see A THOUSAND DEAD BABIES? You are patethic and beyond DELUSIONAL.

reply from: galen

LCR you would do well to go to the link provided in the sig on lukesmom before you speak to her about deformities....
and you are WAYYY off base on this.

reply from: faithman

Oh, those crazies won't be happy until women have the "right" to stand barefoot in the kitchen and never have to worry about "working" a day in their life. Just breed.
What is more apealing, a "whore house", or a work shop of divine activity? The so called women's advocates are the ones who devalue women as nothing more that an apparatus at a sexual sporting event to be used by irresponcible men. Personhood folks honor women as persons, whos womb is a divine work shop where the very image of the Creator is replicated, and the gift of life is breathed into the unique vessel of individual humanity. The death murchants constantly come up with "what if" excusses to devalue the office of motherhood, and exalt the whorish debasment of women as objects of sexual pleasure, and the gift of womb life, as an inconveniant by product of their puriant desire. But it is a common tactic of the godless humanist to vomit their evil, and blame others for it's reprocussions. Put the pro-death dogs can not help but return to their own puke and vigerously lap it up. They will leave us, for they were never of us.

reply from: faithman

I doubt that I used the word "false." I don't doubt that whatever faith you have is sincere and meaningful to you. That wasn't the issue.
The issue to me was that you called your faith "Christianity," and from what I remember, you expressed some beliefs that were contrary to core Christian beliefs.
I did not mean to be offensive.
Regardless, your beliefs about abortion rights are much more disturbing to me.
You're saying I'm a false Christian. That is offensive, but I accept your apology.
And how are my current beliefs on abortion disturbing to you?
Your own words are what betrays you as being a phony. You are niether christian or pro-life. We would much rather offend you into heaven, than love you into hell.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Am I supposed to feel guilty or something? Because I don't. I didn't say anything like "kill those disgusting freaks of nature, they don't deserve to live!". I discussed how I USED to think it was merciful but how I NOW am not sure, but how in the end I think it needs more investigation to determine if aborting in the 20th weeks can be better for the mother. It's an extremely personal choice.
And again, by the way, I'm not talking about minor deformities or things like Down's Syndrome. I'm taking about things like this: http://www.obgyn.ufl.edu/ultrasound/MedinfoVersion/sec18/images/i12.jpg , which is a lethal form of dwarfism. That baby died from its own body being the wrong shape.
"Thanatophoric dysplasia (TD) is the most common form of skeletal dysplasia that is lethal in the neonatal period."
There are hundreds of lethal conditions such as this. It's depressing and terrible, but it happens. In Lukesmom's case, anecephaly is also completely lethal. And there are many ways to have an intact early-term birth where the baby is not "torn apart". This is often done in cases of lethal deformity, so the parents can hold their baby and bury it. These children are dearly loved and mourned just like any miscarriage. It's wonderful when a mother decides to carry these children to term, but if the mother can't, then termination can bring closure without weeks of agony. It's a deeply personal decision. Lukesmom didn't end it, and some women do. I would never, EVER condemn a woman for making either decision because it's just that personal.

reply from: faithman

Am I supposed to feel guilty or something? Because I don't. I didn't say anything like "kill those disgusting freaks of nature, they don't deserve to live!". I discussed how I USED to think it was merciful but how I NOW am not sure, but how in the end I think it needs more investigation to determine if aborting in the 20th weeks can be better for the mother. It's an extremely personal choice.
And again, by the way, I'm not talking about minor deformities or things like Down's Syndrome. I'm taking about things like this: http://www.obgyn.ufl.edu/ultrasound/MedinfoVersion/sec18/images/i12.jpg , which is a lethal form of dwarfism. That baby died from its own body being the wrong shape.
"Thanatophoric dysplasia (TD) is the most common form of skeletal dysplasia that is lethal in the neonatal period."
There are hundreds of lethal conditions such as this. It's depressing and terrible, but it happens. In Lukesmom's case, anecephaly is also completely lethal. And there are many ways to have an intact early-term birth where the baby is not "torn apart". This is often done in cases of lethal deformity, so the parents can hold their baby and bury it. These children are dearly loved and mourned just like any miscarriage. It's wonderful when a mother decides to carry these children to term, but if the mother can't, then termination can bring closure without weeks of agony. It's a deeply personal decision. Lukesmom didn't end it, and some women do. I would never, EVER condemn a woman for making either decision because it's just that personal.
What is more apealing, a "whore house", or a work shop of divine activity? The so called women's advocates are the ones who devalue women as nothing more that an apparatus at a sexual sporting event to be used by irresponcible men. Personhood folks honor women as persons, whos womb is a divine work shop where the very image of the Creator is replicated, and the gift of life is breathed into the unique vessel of individual humanity. The death murchants constantly come up with "what if" excusses to devalue the office of motherhood, and exalt the whorish debasment of women as objects of sexual pleasure, and the gift of womb life, as an inconveniant by product of their puriant desire. But it is a common tactic of the godless humanist to vomit their evil, and blame others for it's reprocussions. The pro-death dogs can not help but return to their own puke and vigerously lap it up. They will leave us, for they were never of us.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't think anyone expects you to agree with them on everything. Only they are that delusional. they operate from a pro-baby position, not a prolife position.
They don't care about anyone or anything else but the baby. They justify being hateful cause it's "for the babies", yet their mean talk saves not one baby, it just relieve their feelings. This is all about their feelings . Why would they want to push you back into a prochoice position is beyond me.....
There is no reason for personal attacks. This woman changed positions. Do you really expect her to be completely on board with everything you or Nancy believes overnight?
Cant we cut her some slack and try reasoning with her rather than slinging insults....
I doubt I will ever believe everything that the extremists on this board believe.
Carole you edited your response.. am I "they".. Interesting- the "feelings" reference, being that it is an actual issue I have.. Carole- if your question, issue or response was intended to go to me- do so directly. And you are off some.. I am not "hateful".. I have an issue with insincere death mongers.. trying to spill their weak justifications to kill another... Good thing you are here to save the "you" pushed back into a pro-choice postion, huh?! Maybe.
No, you are not one of the people I was thinking about -I was thinking Fman, Nancy, Joe....
I think she is just finding her way as to exactly what she believes. It takes some time to sort out the truth from misconceptions, especially when you have believed and advocated for one thing for any length of time.
She has been pretty patient answering rude questions, and I am not suprised that she finally lost her temper. Is it the goal of some of the prolifers to force her back into a prochoice position? I wouldn't be suprised to find out that was true (not of you)

reply from: nancyu

I don't think anyone expects you to agree with them on everything. Only they are that delusional. they operate from a pro-baby position, not a prolife position.
They don't care about anyone or anything else but the baby. They justify being hateful cause it's "for the babies", yet their mean talk saves not one baby, it just relieve their feelings. This is all about their feelings . Why would they want to push you back into a prochoice position is beyond me.....
There is no reason for personal attacks. This woman changed positions. Do you really expect her to be completely on board with everything you or Nancy believes overnight?
Cant we cut her some slack and try reasoning with her rather than slinging insults....
I doubt I will ever believe everything that the extremists on this board believe.
Carole you edited your response.. am I "they".. Interesting- the "feelings" reference, being that it is an actual issue I have.. Carole- if your question, issue or response was intended to go to me- do so directly. And you are off some.. I am not "hateful".. I have an issue with insincere death mongers.. trying to spill their weak justifications to kill another... Good thing you are here to save the "you" pushed back into a pro-choice postion, huh?! Maybe.
No, you are not one of the people I was thinking about -I was thinking Fman, Nancy, Joe....
I think she is just finding her way as to exactly what she believes. It takes some time to sort out the truth from misconceptions, especially when you have believed and advocated for one thing for any length of time.
She has been pretty patient answering rude questions, and I am not suprised that she finally lost her temper. Is it the goal of some of the prolifers to force her back into a prochoice position? I wouldn't be suprised to find out that was true (not of you)
Anyone who can be forced back into a pro choice position is pretty weak, so she should just as well stay on the other side of the fight.
It's not wise to try and fight both sides of a war. You need to figure out which side you want to be on before you can fight for anything. The side of the innocent child? or the side of legalized abortion, which is wrapped in armor and surrounded by tanks and defended by the government.
If you're weak and afraid you are better off on the pro abort side, don't you think?

reply from: carolemarie

That is crazy even for you....

reply from: lukesmom

Am I supposed to feel guilty or something? Because I don't. I didn't say anything like "kill those disgusting freaks of nature, they don't deserve to live!". I discussed how I USED to think it was merciful but how I NOW am not sure, but how in the end I think it needs more investigation to determine if aborting in the 20th weeks can be better for the mother. It's an extremely personal choice.
And again, by the way, I'm not talking about minor deformities or things like Down's Syndrome. I'm taking about things like this: http://www.obgyn.ufl.edu/ultrasound/MedinfoVersion/sec18/images/i12.jpg , which is a lethal form of dwarfism. That baby died from its own body being the wrong shape.
"Thanatophoric dysplasia (TD) is the most common form of skeletal dysplasia that is lethal in the neonatal period."
There are hundreds of lethal conditions such as this. It's depressing and terrible, but it happens. In Lukesmom's case, anecephaly is also completely lethal. And there are many ways to have an intact early-term birth where the baby is not "torn apart". This is often done in cases of lethal deformity, so the parents can hold their baby and bury it. These children are dearly loved and mourned just like any miscarriage. It's wonderful when a mother decides to carry these children to term, but if the mother can't, then termination can bring closure without weeks of agony. It's a deeply personal decision. Lukesmom didn't end it, and some women do. I would never, EVER condemn a woman for making either decision because it's just that personal.
Yup, I know a lot about prenatal diagnosises, minor, major and fatal. I have talked to hundreds of women who have face or are facing this. Most "terminate", politacally correct terminology for aborting, by either D&C or early induced labor. In the case of early labor, these unborn children are in 95% of cases killed by digoxin injected into their heart and then labor is induced. Painless by whos standards? I don't judge women who consent to this. I know their fear and pain because I was there too. What they and you don't understand is the joy and peace of allowing your dying child to live until natural death. None of us understand until we have gone through it. A year ago, all 4 of my living children were diagnosed with an unnamed heart defect and my oldest with a potentially fatal heart rhythem. This has been a painful year filled with medical testing and surgical procedures to try to pinpoint the severity of the problem. My son may die at an early age, may also live to a ripe old age, but before he dies, he will have lived. The same for my unborn son Luke. Before he died, he lived the life he was given. I will not be responsible for any of my children's deaths, no matter what age. I don't understand why that is soooo very difficult for some to understand. As for prochoice as in my choice to allow my son Luke to live, I have been called many names and told I allowed my son to suffer and told he wasn't human and I had no business using medical resources for anything but killing him, all by so called "prochoicers". The only choice I see prochoicers advicating is the choice to kill your child vs allowing life to continue.
I don't care what diagnosis or nondiagnosis an unborn child has, concenting to early labor before viability, d&c or any other procedure designed to kill or hasten death IS ABORTION and NOT miscarraige. It is concidered murder in a born child and is no different in an unborn child no matter gestation or age.

reply from: galen

Am I supposed to feel guilty or something? Because I don't. I didn't say anything like "kill those disgusting freaks of nature, they don't deserve to live!". I discussed how I USED to think it was merciful but how I NOW am not sure, but how in the end I think it needs more investigation to determine if aborting in the 20th weeks can be better for the mother. It's an extremely personal choice.
And again, by the way, I'm not talking about minor deformities or things like Down's Syndrome. I'm taking about things like this: http://www.obgyn.ufl.edu/ultrasound/MedinfoVersion/sec18/images/i12.jpg , which is a lethal form of dwarfism. That baby died from its own body being the wrong shape.
"Thanatophoric dysplasia (TD) is the most common form of skeletal dysplasia that is lethal in the neonatal period."
There are hundreds of lethal conditions such as this. It's depressing and terrible, but it happens. In Lukesmom's case, anecephaly is also completely lethal. And there are many ways to have an intact early-term birth where the baby is not "torn apart". This is often done in cases of lethal deformity, so the parents can hold their baby and bury it. These children are dearly loved and mourned just like any miscarriage. It's wonderful when a mother decides to carry these children to term, but if the mother can't, then termination can bring closure without weeks of agony. It's a deeply personal decision. Lukesmom didn't end it, and some women do. I would never, EVER condemn a woman for making either decision because it's just that personal.
______________________________________________________
no one was trying to make you feel guilty... just telling you that once again you have been misinformed...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Am I supposed to feel guilty or something? Because I don't. I didn't say anything like "kill those disgusting freaks of nature, they don't deserve to live!". I discussed how I USED to think it was merciful but how I NOW am not sure, but how in the end I think it needs more investigation to determine if aborting in the 20th weeks can be better for the mother. It's an extremely personal choice.
And again, by the way, I'm not talking about minor deformities or things like Down's Syndrome. I'm taking about things like this: http://www.obgyn.ufl.edu/ultrasound/MedinfoVersion/sec18/images/i12.jpg , which is a lethal form of dwarfism. That baby died from its own body being the wrong shape.
"Thanatophoric dysplasia (TD) is the most common form of skeletal dysplasia that is lethal in the neonatal period."
There are hundreds of lethal conditions such as this. It's depressing and terrible, but it happens. In Lukesmom's case, anecephaly is also completely lethal. And there are many ways to have an intact early-term birth where the baby is not "torn apart". This is often done in cases of lethal deformity, so the parents can hold their baby and bury it. These children are dearly loved and mourned just like any miscarriage. It's wonderful when a mother decides to carry these children to term, but if the mother can't, then termination can bring closure without weeks of agony. It's a deeply personal decision. Lukesmom didn't end it, and some women do. I would never, EVER condemn a woman for making either decision because it's just that personal.
Yup, I know a lot about prenatal diagnosises, minor, major and fatal. I have talked to hundreds of women who have face or are facing this. Most "terminate", politacally correct terminology for aborting, by either D&C or early induced labor. In the case of early labor, these unborn children are in 95% of cases killed by digoxin injected into their heart and then labor is induced. Painless by whos standards? I don't judge women who consent to this. I know their fear and pain because I was there too. What they and you don't understand is the joy and peace of allowing your dying child to live until natural death. None of us understand until we have gone through it. A year ago, all 4 of my living children were diagnosed with an unnamed heart defect and my oldest with a potentially fatal heart rhythem. This has been a painful year filled with medical testing and surgical procedures to try to pinpoint the severity of the problem. My son may die at an early age, may also live to a ripe old age, but before he dies, he will have lived. The same for my unborn son Luke. Before he died, he lived the life he was given. I will not be responsible for any of my children's deaths, no matter what age. I don't understand why that is soooo very difficult for some to understand. As for prochoice as in my choice to allow my son Luke to live, I have been called many names and told I allowed my son to suffer and told he wasn't human and I had no business using medical resources for anything but killing him, all by so called "prochoicers". The only choice I see prochoicers advicating is the choice to kill your child vs allowing life to continue.
I don't care what diagnosis or nondiagnosis an unborn child has, concenting to early labor before viability, d&c or any other procedure designed to kill or hasten death IS ABORTION and NOT miscarraige. It is concidered murder in a born child and is no different in an unborn child no matter gestation or age.
Firstly, I am glad YOU are talking to me, and not letting others talk for you.
Of course abortion is not miscarriage, but that doesn't mean these parents don't still grieve just as strongly. Yes, the basic concept of pro-choice is the right to kill the unborn child.
It's not difficult for me to understand the peace that comes from letting the child die naturally. It is also not hard for me to understand a family who wants to get it over with sooner. They figure they will stop any suffering before it lasts longer. Yes, abortion is most likely painful for the child, but they feel that it is more merciful to end it there, instead of letting it carry on.
But who is to know if your angel felt any pain? The people who said such things to you refuse to even try and understand. It's unlikely he felt anything; and he was blessed with a real birthday. You are a very courageous woman - every woman who goes through this difficult situation is brave.
I believe every child, whether conceived in rape or in love, deserves to live the life it is given, as you said. That's beautiful; it has really touched me. I know that for me, it is a choice I can easily make, for life.
But I cannot imagine the pain of a woman in your situation, and I don't know what I would do in that situation. I would have to trust the words of my doctor and the research I would do. If he told me the child was in pain, and if my research confirmed that, I don't know if I would want my child to continue going through that pain. Perhaps an induced live birth, and then painkillers until the baby passed away would be the choice I would take, because I would want to stop the pain it was in as soon as possible. Carrying to term wouldn't do that, since it would still be in pain inside of me.
If the child did not seem to be in pain then I would carry to term and care for him until his time came.

reply from: 4given

I do. The "pro-life" side has enough apathy.. What good is the lukewarm anyway? How does it help the confused to have a mixed (faux-life)message? It doesn't. Truly that is what concerns me about the alleged converts and their posts. It seems to me like it is more of an exception ploy. That doesn't represent a fight for the innocent flesh and blood waiting in the balance for their life or death sentence.
Remember D's sticker?- I think, therefore I am pro-life..

reply from: sander

The "faux-life" do more harm than good. They "fight tooth and nail" the real legislation that would save all the babies and would rather see a thousand dead babies then......(fill in the blank), they're up, down, yes, no, they hurt, they do not help the cause of pro-life. The Bible talks about "wavering" and what that causes.
There's no grey area for the death of babies in the womb....you're either for life or against it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

bumping my own thread so Lukesmom can find it.

reply from: lukesmom

Am I supposed to feel guilty or something? Because I don't. I didn't say anything like "kill those disgusting freaks of nature, they don't deserve to live!". I discussed how I USED to think it was merciful but how I NOW am not sure, but how in the end I think it needs more investigation to determine if aborting in the 20th weeks can be better for the mother. It's an extremely personal choice.
And again, by the way, I'm not talking about minor deformities or things like Down's Syndrome. I'm taking about things like this: http://www.obgyn.ufl.edu/ultrasound/MedinfoVersion/sec18/images/i12.jpg , which is a lethal form of dwarfism. That baby died from its own body being the wrong shape.
"Thanatophoric dysplasia (TD) is the most common form of skeletal dysplasia that is lethal in the neonatal period."
There are hundreds of lethal conditions such as this. It's depressing and terrible, but it happens. In Lukesmom's case, anecephaly is also completely lethal. And there are many ways to have an intact early-term birth where the baby is not "torn apart". This is often done in cases of lethal deformity, so the parents can hold their baby and bury it. These children are dearly loved and mourned just like any miscarriage. It's wonderful when a mother decides to carry these children to term, but if the mother can't, then termination can bring closure without weeks of agony. It's a deeply personal decision. Lukesmom didn't end it, and some women do. I would never, EVER condemn a woman for making either decision because it's just that personal.
Yup, I know a lot about prenatal diagnosises, minor, major and fatal. I have talked to hundreds of women who have face or are facing this. Most "terminate", politacally correct terminology for aborting, by either D&C or early induced labor. In the case of early labor, these unborn children are in 95% of cases killed by digoxin injected into their heart and then labor is induced. Painless by whos standards? I don't judge women who consent to this. I know their fear and pain because I was there too. What they and you don't understand is the joy and peace of allowing your dying child to live until natural death. None of us understand until we have gone through it. A year ago, all 4 of my living children were diagnosed with an unnamed heart defect and my oldest with a potentially fatal heart rhythem. This has been a painful year filled with medical testing and surgical procedures to try to pinpoint the severity of the problem. My son may die at an early age, may also live to a ripe old age, but before he dies, he will have lived. The same for my unborn son Luke. Before he died, he lived the life he was given. I will not be responsible for any of my children's deaths, no matter what age. I don't understand why that is soooo very difficult for some to understand. As for prochoice as in my choice to allow my son Luke to live, I have been called many names and told I allowed my son to suffer and told he wasn't human and I had no business using medical resources for anything but killing him, all by so called "prochoicers". The only choice I see prochoicers advicating is the choice to kill your child vs allowing life to continue.
I don't care what diagnosis or nondiagnosis an unborn child has, concenting to early labor before viability, d&c or any other procedure designed to kill or hasten death IS ABORTION and NOT miscarraige. It is concidered murder in a born child and is no different in an unborn child no matter gestation or age.
Firstly, I am glad YOU are talking to me, and not letting others talk for you.
Sorry you think others are talking "for" me. I am very able to talk for myself when I am here. The truth is, it is summer and 3 kids are playing baseball and work is really busy and I have very little time to be here during the summer. So if "others" here are talking for me, that is fine with me.
Of course abortion is not miscarriage, but that doesn't mean these parents don't still grieve just as strongly. Yes, the basic concept of pro-choice is the right to kill the unborn child.
Couldn't agree with you more about grieving but is the grief any different if you "terminate" your child or allow your child to live the life they were given? The answer is "Yes" you do grieve differently. I have spoken with many moms as I have worked extensively with parents dealing with prenatal diagnosesis. I have spoken to many moms who terminated and wonder "what if" and grieve not only their child's death but their own active participation in that death. I have spoken to moms who were told their ONLY option was to terminate by the very MD's who were supposed to give them all options. I have spoken to many, many moms who have carried to term and NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS REGRETTED ALLOWING THEIR CHILD TO LIVE UNTIL A NATURAL DEATH. Every single one of these moms have peace in their grief and that is not a small thing.
It's not difficult for me to understand the peace that comes from letting the child die naturally. It is also not hard for me to understand a family who wants to get it over with sooner. They figure they will stop any suffering before it lasts longer. Yes, abortion is most likely painful for the child, but they feel that it is more merciful to end it there, instead of letting it carry on.
Unless you have been there and done that you actually have no understanding, you can only attempt to understand. I know what it is like to live in the hell of knowing your child is going to die and not be able to do anything to change that. Of course I wanted "it" over with sooner. Who likes living in hell. Funny thing, that "hell" turned into a wonderful blessing and suddenly the peace of living each moment which is a memory, one of the few memories, of this living child. Life is full of suffering. My oldest suffers emotionally now because of his health issues but I can guarentee he doesn't want me to kill him to prevent this pain now or prevent future pain. Again, pain is a vital part of life. Without the bad, we wouldn't have the good.
But who is to know if your angel felt any pain? The people who said such things to you refuse to even try and understand. It's unlikely he felt anything; and he was blessed with a real birthday. You are a very courageous woman - every woman who goes through this difficult situation is brave.
I have no way of knowing if my Luke had pain before he was born but I do know with dealing with pain in my other kids the best and most comfortable place for a child in pain is in his/her mother's arms. Same with an unborn child held safely and lovingly within his/her mom's womb. I do know, once born, Luke had no pain. If he would have, I would have known. I also had a birth plan that instructed for pain meds if there was any indication of pain or any struggle.
For the thousandth time; I am NOT courageous and I am NOT braver than anyone. In fact I am a big whimp. BUT I am a mom and carrying Luke was a privalige, not a courageous or brave act or a sorrow or anyother negative platatude.
I believe every child, whether conceived in rape or in love, deserves to live the life it is given, as you said. That's beautiful; it has really touched me. I know that for me, it is a choice I can easily make, for life.
I am glad that statement touched you. Please be very careful of what you say. I thought too, I would chose life without a thought. Never underestimate what shock, emotional pain and fear can do. We all have the fight or flight instinct and the instinct to flee pain is stronger than fight, I have found. That is why abortion is so prevelant, it is easier to flee our fears instead of fighting the unknown and what we feel is impossible.
But I cannot imagine the pain of a woman in your situation, and I don't know what I would do in that situation. I would have to trust the words of my doctor and the research I would do. If he told me the child was in pain, and if my research confirmed that, I don't know if I would want my child to continue going through that pain. Perhaps an induced live birth, and then painkillers until the baby passed away would be the choice I would take, because I would want to stop the pain it was in as soon as possible. Carrying to term wouldn't do that, since it would still be in pain inside of me.
I am going to give you a little advise as a nurse, doctors are human with all the human fraities and preconceived prejudices. Listen to your doctor, do your research and trust YOURSELF first. Doctors are infallible. I pray to God you never have to face this but killing is not the answer for pain relief. If it were the earth would be pretty sparsly populated
If the child did not seem to be in pain then I would carry to term and care for him until his time came.
Beware of "easy" words because in actuality, you have no idea how you would react. I do have to apologise for my spelling errors, never could spell but able to live comfortably dispite.
God bless and keep striving for the "truth".

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's okay, and thanks for responding. I know, I know, never say never, right?

reply from: lukesmom

3 days after Luke was born and died my youngest brother told me he could never have done what I did. A month later his wife left him for another man and verbally attacked him and spread many lies.
While I was carrying Luke a coworker also told me she could never handle something like this. 2 yrs later her 7 yr old daughter was diagnosed with a brain tumor. She is now 10 and after 2 brain surgeries and maxing out on chemo is at the end of her fight and her death is expected at any time. My youngest is the same age. Never, ever say what you could never do because you don't know what you will have no choice in doing. Life is sad, life is joyful, life is painful and life is beautiful, life is contrasts and often, that is why it is worth living.

reply from: churchmouse

Liberal I am sorry but if you or anyone is pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.
Why dont you like being called pro- abortion? You admitted that you were for abortion. Whats the big deal?
Do you stand up for the unborn in the womb? Yes or No
Do you believe any woman should be able to abort the child she carries? Yes or no.

Now I realize that some here think its mean to give anyone this lable.... I would ask why? If its the truth about the position, then why not use it?
A lot of people say, "I am pro-choice, but personally opposed to abortion." They hate being called pro-abortion too. But Liberal you admit to being pro abortion up until some magic number that you've made up, what 20 weeks dont you?
You are pro-abortion period. If you dont like this position then by all means change it. I hope you do one day recognize that your position is inhumane. But until you do and admit that abortion is killing........and abortion is wrong, then you must fall under the category of pro-abortion.
So Liberal if abortion doesn't kill children, why would someone be opposed to it? If it does kill children, why would someone defend another's right to do it?
I dont believe I am mean for saying what I just did sorry.

You can fight for your position, you should......but you have to afford others that right as well.
What is "being mean" to you? Who here at one time or another has not spoken harsh words to describe their point or positions?
What is extreme to you Liberal? That believing the life in the womb is worth saving? That it is murder to kill the unborn?
What? What do we extremists believe?
Do you think its an insult to call her pro-abortion? Yes or no
Do you think she or anyone can sit the fence on this issue?
"I'm kinda sorta against it......but I kinda think the woman kinda should have the choice to kill up until this month."
You can say it nicely........."Liberal, i know your coming around, but your views still reflect that of one that is pro-abortion."
There it was said nicely. What is wrong with still telling her she is still pro-abortion?
Shouldnt we stand on the truth?
I now consider myself pro-life because I do not believe abortion is the right choice for a woman to make unless there are extenuating circumstances.

reply from: yoda

The redefinition of already established words and phrases is part and parcel of the proabort agenda/playbook. It is a part of their theology that "proabort" means something other than what the dictionary says it means, and they will not budge on their theology. They are a very stubborn cult.

reply from: Faramir

The redefinition of already established words and phrases is part and parcel of the proabort agenda/playbook. It is a part of their theology that "proabort" means something other than what the dictionary says it means, and they will not budge on their theology. They are a very stubborn cult.
I agree that someone who is prochoice is proabortion.
But I cannot find "proabort" in the dictionary. What does the dictionary say this word means?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

3 days after Luke was born and died my youngest brother told me he could never have done what I did. A month later his wife left him for another man and verbally attacked him and spread many lies.
While I was carrying Luke a coworker also told me she could never handle something like this. 2 yrs later her 7 yr old daughter was diagnosed with a brain tumor. She is now 10 and after 2 brain surgeries and maxing out on chemo is at the end of her fight and her death is expected at any time. My youngest is the same age. Never, ever say what you could never do because you don't know what you will have no choice in doing. Life is sad, life is joyful, life is painful and life is beautiful, life is contrasts and often, that is why it is worth living.
Humans are capable of defying all the odds! Who am I to deny someone the chance to do so!?

reply from: carolemarie

Newsflash: the new ones are not Christians, so forgive them for not instantly sharing your worldview or taking your word for it. As of 48 hours ago, they believed an entire different set of values. Now she and vexing are sorting it all out for themselves. They have to balance the compassion they feel for women with the new truth they have embraced.

reply from: carolemarie

carole said, " Can't we cut her some slack and try reasoning with her rather than slinging insults...."
Do you think its an insult to call her pro-abortion? Yes or no
Do you think she or anyone can sit the fence on this issue?
"I'm kinda sorta against it......but I kinda think the woman kinda should have the choice to kill up until this month."
You can say it nicely........."Liberal, i know your coming around, but your views still reflect that of one that is pro-abortion."
There it was said nicely. What is wrong with still telling her she is still pro-abortion?
Shouldnt we stand on the truth?
Yes, I think it is insulting to call her names because she doesn't agree with everything you believe. She has changed positions, and it didn't take having an abortion to convince her that it was wrong.
So, here is a woman who changed her position on abortion. That was 3 or 4 days ago. Has she worked out all the details. No. Has she got everything nailed down,? no. Is this a work in progress? Yes.
Try talking to her, like Lukesmom does and Galen does and maybe you will see her consider the points you make.
It took me a long time to change positions- how long did it take you? Cut her the same slack that others cut you back then.

reply from: faithman

We will never win as long as we accept half hearted compromise from half hearted people.

reply from: faithman

Like those who would refuse to amend the constitution in order to end abortion on demand?
No like those who ignore a direct constitutional time saving action like passage of the Life at conception act. Only an idiot monkey boy fool would ignore the quickest way to end it and advocate decades more of dead babies by trying to get the constitution amended and losing the constitution doing it. An amendment is unnessisary, a waist of pressious time, and a tact of those who want the killing to continue to make money off of the PR war. But little jail house wives could really care less about the quikest way to end it when they get their girly boy feelings hurt.

reply from: faithman

Like those who would refuse to amend the constitution in order to end abortion on demand?
No like those who ignore a direct constitutional time saving action like passage of the Life at conception act. Only an idiot monkey boy fool would ignore the quickest way to end it and advocate decades more of dead babies by trying to get the constitution amended and losing the constitution doing it. An amendment is unnessisary, a waist of pressious time, and a tact of those who want the killing to continue to make money off of the PR war. But little jail house wives could really care less about the quikest way to end it when they get their girly boy feelings hurt.
You mean the pointless legislation you guys have had introduced 3 times in the last 7 years? Riiiiight....
It is not5 pointless and has met the same resistance from pro-aborts that an amendment would meet. Why do you advocate action that would alter the constitution to the point abortion on demand could never be outlawed? Do you hate womb children SSSSOOO much that you intend to hinder any effective direct constitutionally timely action? Why do you want to delay an end for decades?

reply from: nancyu

Liberal I am sorry but if you or anyone is pro-choice, they are pro-abortion.
Why dont you like being called pro- abortion? You admitted that you were for abortion. Whats the big deal?
Do you stand up for the unborn in the womb? Yes or No
Do you believe any woman should be able to abort the child she carries? Yes or no.
Now I realize that some here think its mean to give anyone this lable.... I would ask why? If its the truth about the position, then why not use it?
A lot of people say, "I am pro-choice, but personally opposed to abortion." They hate being called pro-abortion too. But Liberal you admit to being pro abortion up until some magic number that you've made up, what 20 weeks dont you?
You are pro-abortion period. If you dont like this position then by all means change it. I hope you do one day recognize that your position is inhumane. But until you do and admit that abortion is killing........and abortion is wrong, then you must fall under the category of pro-abortion.
So Liberal if abortion doesn't kill children, why would someone be opposed to it? If it does kill children, why would someone defend another's right to do it?
I dont believe I am mean for saying what I just did sorry.
You can fight for your position, you should......but you have to afford others that right as well.
What is "being mean" to you? Who here at one time or another has not spoken harsh words to describe their point or positions?
What is extreme to you Liberal? That believing the life in the womb is worth saving? That it is murder to kill the unborn?
What? What do we extremists believe?
Do you think its an insult to call her pro-abortion? Yes or no
Do you think she or anyone can sit the fence on this issue?
"I'm kinda sorta against it......but I kinda think the woman kinda should have the choice to kill up until this month."
You can say it nicely........."Liberal, i know your coming around, but your views still reflect that of one that is pro-abortion."
There it was said nicely. What is wrong with still telling her she is still pro-abortion?
Shouldnt we stand on the truth?
I now consider myself pro-life because I do not believe abortion is the right choice for a woman to make unless there are extenuating circumstances.
Good post overall, but this last statement confused me. "unless there are extenuating circumstances" huh??? What is your real name? Planned Parenthood? Margaret Sanger?

reply from: nancyu

Calling someone "pro abortion" when they are pro abortion, is not calling someone names. It's just stating the truth.

reply from: nancyu

Like those who would refuse to amend the constitution in order to end abortion on demand?
Why would you want to mess with the Constitution, when there is nothing wrong with it just the way it is.
The only thing that needs to change is SCOTUS' interpretation of it in Roe V Wade.
Messing with the Constitution is dangerous to our nation's sovereignty (which has been damaged enough as it is)

reply from: yoda

The term "proabortion" and it's shortened version "proabort" are not "names". They are legitimate labels according to the dictionary. (I mean the REAL dictionary, not the proabort one.)

reply from: yoda

It can be, unless it is done carefully. It has been amended 27 times so far, with pretty good results.
Yes, it is a slow process to amend the constitution. But that also makes it a slow process, and much more difficult, to undo an amendment. So it cuts both ways.
Also, an amendment is beyond the reach of the courts. They cannot declare it "unconstitutional", because it is part of the constitution. The courts have overturned many laws passed by congress, but never an amendment. So a law passed by congress would be much less time consuming, but also much less "permanent".
The way I see it, why not do both? Why waste time debating which is better?

reply from: sander

Newsflash: the new ones are not Christians, so forgive them for not instantly sharing your worldview or taking your word for it. As of 48 hours ago, they believed an entire different set of values. Now she and vexing are sorting it all out for themselves. They have to balance the compassion they feel for women with the new truth they have embraced.
I never said the "new ones" are Christians, you really need to stop trying to read minds, you're really not the one who is omni-anything.
And maybe you can drop your Christianity at the front door, I cannot.

reply from: yoda

Ah, but maybe you thought it for just a second? You're guilty of having bad thoughts if you did, ya know?

reply from: sander

Ah, but maybe you thought it for just a second? You're guilty of having bad thoughts if you did, ya know?
I heard....and CM will be the first one to turn those "bad thought" people in to the authorities. After all, she must have been given the gift to read minds for a reason.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What do you mean by the "new ones", and them not being Christian?

reply from: faithman

Like those who would refuse to amend the constitution in order to end abortion on demand?
Why would you want to mess with the Constitution, when there is nothing wrong with it just the way it is.
The only thing that needs to change is SCOTUS' interpretation of it in Roe V Wade.
Messing with the Constitution is dangerous to our nation's sovereignty (which has been damaged enough as it is)
So, is "our nation's sovereignty," which currently allows the wholesale slaughter of around 4,000 unborn children per day, more important than the lives of those children in your view? It is true that the SCOTUS could reverse Roe, just as you stated, but it is also true that is highly unlikely under the current make up of the court. There is really not much point in state legislation such as the personhood bill in Colorado at this time for that reason, which means it's pretty much up to Congress, at least as far as effecting change in the immediate future. Unfortunately, the Constitution deters Congress from over riding the SCOTUS, so the only viable option is amending the document at this time.
You and your sock pupet are wrong. I havr proven you wrong and you are willingly ignorant of what the constitution says, and the authority of the court. Yes the congress does have trhe power to make exceptions and regulate the court. Acticle one, amendment 10, 5th section of the 14th amendment, article 3 section 2, and the very language of Roe agrees with me, and proves you a fool. You have absolutly no understanding of who our government is suppose to work. The court had no jusidiction to make Roe in the first place. Texas was not in violation of any law, or any part of the constitution. The 10th amendment gives states the final say over anything not in the constitution, not the court. Roe is a violation of the constitution, not a part of it. All that is needed is to use the power that is already there. There is no need for an amendment.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Slavery was a violation of the Constitution too. Still took an amendment.
I can understand not wanting to make too many amendments to the constitution (how many do we have now?!) but IF this is a signal that it needs re-written... then I'm ok with that. It was written when the world was a far different place. Just like I don't use the Bible to make national laws, perhaps we shouldn't use a 200+ year old document to do so?

reply from: revkev

Why do you call yourself a "Christian"? You cannot be a true christian and not believe that Jesus is THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE. There cannot be many ways if Jesus says HE is the ONLY WAY. "No man cometh to the Father, BUT BY ME." I think you should search a little deeper to find out what you are, and what you believe. I can say what you are not by what you have stated,
'I do not believe Christianity is the only right religion. God has revealed himself to humans all over our planet in many ways. Every religion has something to teach. "
Either Jesus is the truth, or he was a psychopathic liar who was on a power trip. I know He is the truth and what the bible says about him (king james version) is the truth. I hope you find him, but you won't find him looking at other faiths in the world. It is found between Genesis 1 and Revelation 22:21. Don't seek a religion, rather seek a relationship with the Creator, and that is found in Christ Jesus. I will be praying for you. This response is not to get you upset at me, but rather my hopes is that it is helpful to you. God bless.

reply from: churchmouse

The "F" word is not in all dictionaries either but we all know what that one means.
One split second after seeing my neice that was born at 22 weeks I realized what abortion was all about. I dont remembering anyone having to cut me slack. My uncle who I used to debate with when I was pro-choice.......called me what I was. He cut me no slack and I didnt deserve it, I was wrong. Just because someone has changed postions doesn't mean the crowd should remain mute on the issue with them.
I ask tough questions, does that mean I am mean? For most the time here she was pro-abortion. And sorry I am with Faithman on this one when he said,
THERE IS NO COMPROMISE. Its just like Bush.....hes not really pro-life. He gives lipp service and makes compromises. And if he were standing in front of me I wouldnt cut him any slack on his actions and position either on abortion.
LOL
It is someone elses quote I forgot to address so it posted with mine and I didnt see it. I wonder if its to late to edit it out?
I am not so sure. I dont care how abortion ends.......as long as it does. We can argue until the cows come home how to do it, lets try them all.......
Everyone looks to the Constitution. Judges are biased and always will be. We dont need their interpretation.......if it stated in black and white and it was added in the form of an ammendment........it wouldnt matter if a liberal pro-choicer was on the bench. I agree with yoda that it has been amended many times successfully with no negative results. An amendment is beyond the reach of the courts like yoda said. It becomes part of it. Judges and governors in one swipe of a pen can and do.....veto. Like our pro-death, pathetic governor, Janet Napolitano who just vetoed the PBA ban. Boy would I like to throw a few pies in her face at the fair.
Great post Yoda.
Sander you said something so right-on......You hit a bulls eye here.
Thats because its part of you. You live it, its the air you breathe.
If you are a Christian you are a Christian 24/7....at all times, everywhere. You make lifes decisions based on your faith in Christ. This should be the most important thing always to remember. Its not about us, its about HIM.
When people say that you should leave your religion or relationship at home and not bring it to the workplace.......they dont understand Christianity. You cant be a part time Christian. You either stand up for Christ in all things.......or you dont stand up for Him at all.
Amen to that one hundred times. Its not about religion, its all about a relationship........the relationship with the one that calls Himself Christ, the Son of God.

reply from: carolemarie

And before that....you posted that there were many years between coming to realize you were wrong.
And I didn't say be mute. I said talk to her politely. Would you yell at a woman at the clinic? Of course not. That isn't how you change someones mind.

reply from: nancyu

Thanks for clearing that one up. My apologies, churchmouse.

reply from: yoda

Everyone that speaks English knows that our society shortens words for ease of use, but some are so stupid as to deny that they know that.
Nope. You can do that anytime.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Hello Revkev! I'll try to answer your questions.
I call myself a Christian for reasons I have already stated. I grew up speaking to God through the window of Christianity. It is how I am able to express my spirituality, it is the way I am used to doing it. I tried being buddhists but found it unfamiliar and unsatisfying.
As for Jesus, I am still learning. He is a great man; whether he is actually the representation of many great teachers or if he was one single man I don't know. The magical part of Christianity challenges my logic, but don't condemn me for that. I come to Christianity with a different eye now than I did as a child. The fairy-tales worked when I was six. Today, Christianity is an ethical and philosophical tool that I am using to express my spirituality. I know there is "something" out there, and I have been taught to call it God. So I do. I have been taught about a teacher He sent down, and that teacher was called Jesus.
In other cultures, God is called something else, and his teacher(s) are called something else. Sometimes, God is viewed as many beings; sometimes, He is represented by an object, or by nature itself. I believe God has brought Himself down to many people on this planet, and either they saw Him in a different way, or He formed Himself differently. Either way, I know that this is part of His plan to show us who He is and how to learn from Him. It is also part of His plan to show us many sides of Himself. It is a way to teach us Diversity.
I do not believe any true religion is wrong, because I believe every religion is God speaking to us. Humans have interpreted His words and lessons in many ways. There is something to learn from every single religion. Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, all of the ancient teachers have been the voices of God.
So that's what I believe. Christianity is but one way, one lens to look through to see God.
OR, option number three is that Jesus was indeed a teacher of God, and the people who wrote the New Testament exaggerated what he did and said, placing words in his mouth. We all know how stories get exaggerated the more they're told. The story goes from Jesus buying someone wine to him making wine out of water. I think the two extremes example is very silly. Either he's the son of God or he's insane. I don't buy that.
I sincerely believe Jesus was inspired by God, and probably possessed the spirit of God within him, being both God and the son of God. But I don't believe Jesus is the only person to ever have been inspired and possessed by God. If you look back into nearly every religion, they have Prophets. I believe these prophets and saviors were all sent by God to teach all kinds of humans his word.
Forgive me if I laugh hysterically... KJV is one of the most scripturally and scholarly raped documents on the planet.
I wouldn't look at other religions to find Jesus. God? Yes. God is everywhere; everything IS God.
I don't seek a religion, I seek a relationship with the force I believe created our universe. I call that force God. Some call him Yaweh, some call him Allah, some have many names for him, Zeus and Athena... They are all ways God has shown himself to us and I think it's foolish to dismiss these other religions or to try and force everyone to be one religion, because that's like trying to hide part of God's face.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How ironic. Apparently you are more prolife, according to the standards of those who condemn you, than they are!
I'm just that awesome apparently!

reply from: yoda

Sure, making a "metaphor" about preferring the abortion of a thousand babies was just a Freudian slip, right?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, I did it on purpose.

reply from: yoda

Thanks for clearing that up.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No problem. I don't say many things by accident. What you SHOULD have read from it was that I feel very strongly for women's rights, since that was the point of using such an exaggerated comparison.

reply from: churchmouse

Sure like over 15 years. I didnt think about it at all. I was pro-choice. When I layed eyes on my neice......I knew instantly. It was then I had trouble, serious trouble, really really bad trouble that almost ended my life.
I dont think I am yelling carole. Because I state things as I see them, I am yelling?
We all have different styles thats for sure. I am not one to sit back and wait days, sorry. I am glad her position has changed. Everyone reacts differently to things.
It is not enough to just believe Jesus is a great guy Liberal. WE will be judged in heaven as to who we say Christ is.
If I may ask, have you ever read the Bible, particularly the Gospels? You need to read about Christ and what He came to do, what He said. Don't take our word for it, read for yourself.
Christianity a tool? For what?
Christ commanded those that believe Him to spread the Word. God sent Christ because we are sinners and we are not good enough to go to Heaven. He died for us. He took on the sins of the world so that we might have eternal life. Christ said, He was the ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER. That means if you believe Christ, if you repent of your sin, ask Him to change you....come into your life........HE WILL MAKE YOU A NEW CREATURE. But with change comes commitment. You must try to be like Christ who is God in the Flesh. That means you dont look to other religions for the Truth. Christ is the Truth.
How can you call yourself something that clearly isnt biblically right, especially when you say this,
You contradict what Jesus says Liberal. Christ is the ONLY WAY, NOT A WAY. I didnt say this, He did. And if He said, He was the only way......then who is Muhammed? Buddah?
Liberal Jesus is God. He is God in the flesh that is what the scriptures say. Why talk about all other religions. They are false if you believe in Christ. All roads do not lead to heaven. There is one path, one way, Christ. You need to study some other religions to see the difference. Read the Koran and you will see that the Bible and the Koran are completly opposite. They worship a different God.
You cant be a Christian and believe in Muhammed and Allah, and Buddha. Only one is right because they all contradict each other.
Laugh all you want, but what makes you say this? I doubt you've ever read the bible because what you say doesnt jive scripturally any Christian here will tell you that.
Everything isnt God Liberal. We are not God. We were created in His image, but we are NOT GOD.
You are not a Christian if you look to Allah, if you look to Buddah. Christians believe in Christ alone. A Buddhist wouldnt be a Buddhist if he looked to Christ. and Muslims if they look to Christ.......usually get beheaded if they live in the Middle East that is.
You need to study some more, you are very confused.

reply from: yoda

I did read that. I ALSO read that you consider the subject of abortion so trivial that you see no harm in using the abortion of a thousand babies as a "mere metaphor" for displaying your devotion to another cause.
A thousand babies is a very, very serious subject to me, and I wouldn't ever think of throwing it around as a "metaphor". Too bad you can't see that.

reply from: sander

I did read that. I ALSO read that you consider the subject of abortion so trivial that you see no harm in using the abortion of a thousand babies as a "mere metaphor" for displaying your devotion to another cause.
A thousand babies is a very, very serious subject to me, and I wouldn't ever think of throwing it around as a "metaphor". Too bad you can't see that.
Since she plays fast and loose with her metaphors, let's just hope she doesn't use ones like that when she's teaching the concept of metaphors to her third graders.

reply from: yoda

This just leaped out at me..... I know CM didn't write it.....
But that's the first time I've ever heard that scholars rape documents.... my, that sounds kinky!!

reply from: yoda

I shudder to think of it.......

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I did read that. I ALSO read that you consider the subject of abortion so trivial that you see no harm in using the abortion of a thousand babies as a "mere metaphor" for displaying your devotion to another cause.
A thousand babies is a very, very serious subject to me, and I wouldn't ever think of throwing it around as a "metaphor". Too bad you can't see that.
Oh, it wasn't a "mere metaphor". The fact that I used it was with the intent that I consider it a very serious subject, just as serious as women's rights. Too bad you can't see that.
I would not compare two things that were not both serious; that would make for a very ineffective metaphor. "I'd rather see a thousand dandelions killed." Hm, not quite as effective I'm afraid.

reply from: yoda

Well, if that isn't their intentions, they're sure as heck missing a great opportunity to try to weaken the resolve of the prolife side to remain true to the unborn. But I really don't think they're missing it too much.....

reply from: yoda

Oh, so you consider killing a thousand babies "just as serious" as violating a single woman's rights?
My, how utterly feministic of you.......

reply from: Banned Member

Pro-choice in moderation? Which abortions would you moderate? Are there any abortions that you would have banned outrightly? You say that you are against abortion as a means control. More than 98% of all abortion are just that, although I disagree in even calling abortion birth control. Abortion is in fact birth prevention and human murder. And I see that you are against late term abortions, except for the mothers health or fetal deformity? That's rather vague. Would you abort a downs child? a blind child? a child with one hand, arm, leg? What exactly would "etc" constitute? Favorable and unfavorable human life? Smacks of eugenics.
I think that you would find that if you were honest, you would find that such health circumstances where the child's life could be considered unlivable would be extremely rare. If you were even in favor of limiting abortion to less than 1% of its current rate, you would not even be able to consider yourself pro-choice, but largely pro-life. You are not pro-life. Why even try to play the moderate?
Pro-early term abortion. That puts you in the category of supporting somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of all abortions. Too many abortions? Isn't one too many? Is there some kind of lesson to be learned after one? Is there something that you know about a woman having two or three abortions? Extenuating circumstances? What would those "extenuating circumstances" be?
An unborn person is always an unborn person. Always. Even by your definitions though, people like Barack Obama would in fact be killing person would they not? Would any abortion by your definition be the killing of an unborn person? The problem with your definition of independent life is that is does not hold up for all people who are born, to say nothing of the unborn. A person is a living human being. The unborn are living, they are human a they exist in a state of being as much as the born of this world are.
You, are not a Christian. You seem to think that God is a reasonable placebo for living; a self help method of mental and/or spiritual well being. Christians believe that Christ is the Son of the Living God. Jesus Christ is the truth, the light and the way. There is no such thing as a liberal Christian. Oh you may have liberal ideas on foriegn and domestic policies as far as that goes. But to be of Christ, you must live of Christ. Jesus is not Mohammed, or Allah, or Buddha, or any other strange guises. Jesus does not hide the truth, nor does he disguise the truth in figures of other religions. Certainly no Christian can be for the taking of unborn human lives. You do not believe in God, you believe in something abstract that you call religion. Jesus Christ is not a system. Jesus Christ is not a way of talking about God. Jesus speaks with the authority of God the Father, and is God in the flesh in the person of the Son of God who lived among us, died among us and rose from the dead. While there may be kernals of truth in other belief systems, belief systems cannot claim to hold the fullness of truth, and some can do no more than claim to hold to accidental truths. None but Christ however can claim with genuine authority to speak for God.
That said, abortion and the right to abortion are illogical fallicies that transcend even the need for religion to disprove. An atheist of intellectual honesty, and of scientific honesty can proclaim that abortion is murder with the same authority as the believing and practicing Christian. You are neither a believing Christian or an intellectually honest person about either your thoughts on abortion or religion.
You need to profoundly re-think your views.
The only truly life inhibiting circumstance is death!
Moderation does not cure abortion. Abortion cures living by causing death!

reply from: sander

Oh, so you consider killing a thousand babies "just as serious" as violating a single woman's rights?
My, how utterly feministic of you.......
Isn't that something!?!?
The unborn baby is so de-humanized that she doesn't even reconize how she has bought into that lie, hook, line and sinker.
There is NO way of twisting out of this one....she said she'd rather see a thousand dead babies then.....it doesn't matter what goes in the blank.
And it doesn't matter what the lame excuse is....metaphor my foot.
I'd like to see her say, "I'd rather see a thousand dead Jews, or a thousand dead Muslims, or a thousand dead African Americans.....think she'd have the rest of the board all over that????

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh, so you consider killing a thousand babies "just as serious" as violating a single woman's rights?
My, how utterly feministic of you.......
Being called a feminist is not an insult. Many feminists are pro-life.
A single woman's rights? Probably not. But the metaphor should make you think about how threatened women feel; we have barely gained our rights and still don't have true equality, and the right to control our bodies has become enveloped in the abortion debate. Many women fear that outlawing elective abortion will send us back to the dark ages. If you cannot truly understand that fear, then you are missing out on a huge part of the abortion debate.

reply from: Banned Member

Dark allies and rusty coat hangers? Such evil acts deserve a suitable setting.

reply from: carolemarie

Think about this for a minute. You were prochoice for 15 years. You surely heard about abortion and knew that other people opposed it right? You had children, so you knew about fetal development facts. And yet none of that opened your eyes.....
So why should you think it would be different for anyone else? That is all I am saying. You can make your points by holding a conversation and treating her and Vexing with the same respect that you would want to be treated.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Elective abortions. Abortions not done to save the woman's life. Abortions not done for severe fetal deformities - despite my changing views on that, I still think it is the family's choice to end the baby's pain prematurely or to wait and give birth.
Yes. I would ban abortions done just because of social pressures. A girl in highschool or college can make it through the pregnancy and still take classes. Giving birth will not take her out of class for long. She may even be able to get medical leave. And then she can give it up for adoption if she doesn't want it. She still graduates, and nobody dies.
Abortion prevents birth, thus it is birth control. I am against abortion as a SOLE form of birth control with no hormonal or NFP or even condoms being used. I feel it is an abuse to the woman's body (now more than ever since I've seen the abortion video) and obviously an abuse of the unborn child. It's an abuse of what a woman's body was made for via nature.
I think it's still too complicated for me personally to classify a NEEDED abortion as murder, because of the unique location and physical existence of the unborn. It's not like any other person on the planet. It is a stage we all go through that is completely different from our existence for the rest of our lives.
Not a lethal deformity. No abortion.
No, no, no, no. Not lethal deformities.
I have further specified (through my time on here) "severe deformity" into lethal deformity, a deformation that WILL cause the death of the child. Yes, such things exist.
So what? Their rarity doesn't mean you can outlaw the procedure for them. Would you actually outlaw ALL abortions and sacrifice the "few" deaths of these mothers and their children too? That's not very pro-life of you. ANY death should be considered unacceptable if you're so "hardcore".
Have you not been reading anything I've been posting on here for the past few weeks? I'm pro-life now.
Not anymore.
She's going to die, the baby is going to die. Rape possibly, but only after a psychologist's review and a doctor's advice. There could be other options. I'm still on the wall about rape. I'm also on the wall in relation to the mother's age. I think there needs to be more research done on the abuse a young teen's body and mind faces during and after an abortion, and during/after birth. I'm personally leaning towards abortion being legal for young teens if they want it. We're talking ages 9-14, ages when the girl's body is just not prepared for pregnancy.
I tend to agree these days.
It would be so.
Independent as in not connected directly to another body. The only example that is relevant at all is Person A connected to Person B via blood transfusions and other such connections, where Person A is breathing, eating, excreting, etc for Person B, and if Person A disconnects, Person B dies. In this case, wouldn't you say Person A has the right to stand up and say "no, I don't want to be used!"?
I agree the unborn are living people. Even pro-choicers often agree that the unborn are living. I have met a few nutcases who don't consider the unborn alive until birth, but they're idiots and thankfully far and few between.
I have often heard of Christianity used to help people rise out of lives of sin and become good people. From my reading of the bible and understanding of Christ, that is precisely one of God's intents. There's something about Him not wanting the faithful, but wanting the sinners. He wants to change them to faithful people. So yes, I certainly think Christianity serves that purpose.
Oh no! I don't exist!
I never said he was.
Why do you so firmly believe that only your holy book is right? This flabbergasts me; as I see God in so many forms and ways in this world. You are purposely only looking at ONE of his faces. That makes me sad. I think it makes him sad, too. I have heard of God described as a disco ball, and each fragment of mirror is one religion, one way of looking at God. But some people are so obsessed at looking upon only one piece that they totally miss the big picture. You can't see the forest for the trees.
I disagree. There are many logical ideas behind pro-choice idealism. They may not be right, but they are far from fallacious.

reply from: Banned Member

Well, that get's rid of 98% of all abortions in the United States. We're making some progress. The vast majority of abortions are purely elective. The right of the unborn person supercedes any right of the family or mother to choose. It's the right of the unborn child to have a chance at a meaningful existance. Every persons first right is to life. I also think that there is another problem with this.
I had a friend that was told that because the amniotic fluid was missing during his wifes pregnancy that their child would be born with severe physical and mental handicaps. The doctor suggested an abortion so that the child would not "suffer". Being strong Christians they found another doctor. The disgnosis was the same but the doctor supported their choice to have their child. Their child is now nearly 5, larger than most kids his age, physically strong and very active and extremely bright.
Again I don't like that. There are too many unlocked doors in your world. Exceptions quickly become rules. Familiarity breeds contempt.
Abortion causes death. It doesn't impede the birth somehow, it ends the life of the child once and for all. The choice of abortion is final and there is no turning back to that child. That child is dead and forever dead.
If abortion ends the life of a human being that it must be murder! What else is it if it is not murder?
Would it interest you to know that Barack Obama voted against allowing for anesthesia for unborn children who could be aborted after they reach what you would call "viability" outside the womb? So by your definition, this unborn child that can feel pain at this point; at 25+ weeks old, can be aborted either by being ripped apart, or killed by a saline abortion whereby the child is essentially chemically burned out of the womb, Barack Obama would allow the child to feel the pain. Some children have survived one and sometimes two saline abortion attempts. Some have even lived to be born.
You are pro-life with exceptions. An exception is a someone, an unborn someone. Every someone matters to me.
Time to get off the wall. Most pregnancies even among what could be called problem pregnancies can make it to so-called viability stage so that early delivery can give a chance for the best health and welfare of child and mother. And... More and more children are being delivered earlier and earlier with the advancement of medical techniques and technology. Rape still results in an innocent child in the womb who has committed no wrong to anyone. How can you justify killing them? Get off that wall!
Why? Why does independance have to be established to show that an unborn child has the right to live? I would state that a mother has the obligation to care for her unborn child. Obligations in the natural order of human affairs supercede personal rights. Man can not alow himself to sink into social darwinism that only ever considers what is best for "self". That kind of thinking creates a horrifying vision of mankind. A woman carrying a child is a mother first, and a person capable of asserting personal choices second. The obligation of parents is to care for children, not to decide whether or not those children have some personal value to them.
It is not morally possible to be a secularized worldly person that objectifies the human being and also be faithful to the truth that man is a being created in the image and likeness of God.
The evidence of faith and more importantly what Jesus says; specifically WHO HE SAYS HE IS! God is not in many forms. God is one and eternal. Consider this Psalm as it is one of my favorites.
Psalm 19
The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims its builder's craft. One day to the next conveys that message; one night to the next imparts that knowledge. There is no word or sound; no voice is heard; Yet their report goes forth through all the earth, their message, to the ends of the world. God has pitched there a tent for the sun; it comes forth like a bridegroom from his chamber, and like an athlete joyfully runs its course. From one end of the heavens it comes forth; its course runs through to the other; nothing escapes its heat. The law of the LORD is perfect, refreshing the soul. The decree of the LORD is trustworthy, giving wisdom to the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart. The command of the LORD is clear, enlightening the eye. The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The statutes of the LORD are true, all of them just; More desirable than gold, than a hoard of purest gold, Sweeter also than honey or drippings from the comb. By them your servant is instructed; obeying them brings much reward. Who can detect heedless failings? Cleanse me from my unknown faults. But from willful sins keep your servant; let them never control me. Then shall I be blameless, innocent of grave sin. Let the words of my mouth meet with your favor, keep the thoughts of my heart before you, LORD, my rock and my redeemer.
God is not in the heavens and in nature. God created these things and as such they are only things; a reflection of the power of God, but not God himself.
There are many temporal and materialistic reasons that support the pro-choice argument, but not logical reasons. We are not judged by the logic of our worth but by the knowledge that we are a people created and loved by a forgiving and giving creator. So in truth the only logic is the true identity and worth of the human person regardless of materialistic worth, regardless of ability, level of development, degree of health, level of physical confort or ability or any other temporal factor that could otherwise reduce the human person to an object that is judged on its level of practical desirability.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well, that get's rid of 98% of all abortions in the United States.
That would be the point, wouldn't it?
The rights of NO ONE exceeds the rights of anyone else. The fetus does not hold rights to life over the woman, nor any other rights. How anti-woman of you to think the fetus has rights over the woman.
That's why it is the choice of the mother, not the doctor. The situation you describe was not a case of fatal deformity.
Again I don't like that. There are too many unlocked doors in your world. Exceptions quickly become rules. Familiarity breeds contempt.
What are you talking about? There are no exceptions in the above statement. Name one.
Abortion causes death.
No sheet, sherlock.
It prevents the birth. That is impeding it.
Also true.
Again, no duh, captain obvious.
If abortion ends the life of a human being that it must be murder! What else is it if it is not murder?
I don't know. I don't have all the answers but unlike you, I don't claim to know what I don't know. I don't make up answers either, nor do I substitute the "best guess". I simply don't know. The existence of the fetus inside of the woman is a unique situation; this fact cannot be ignored in my opinion.
Would it interest you to know that Barack Obama
Nope. Don't really care.
You are pro-life with exceptions.
So are you. Would you allow an abortion to save the mother's life? If so, you are pro-life with exceptions. If you wouldn't, then you're anti-woman and pro-fetal-life-only.
Time to get off the wall.
No. I don't have all the information yet; I'm not going to make a decision willy-nilly.
I compltely agree and wish this happened more often. I love watching Discovery channel programs where the women try their hardest to stay pregnant as long as they can and still be healthy, to ensure their child's life. But endangering your own life for someone else is YOUR choice. You do not have to run into a burning house, or into shark infested water... and I do not believe a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy that has a high chance of causing her death.
Isn't it wonderful!?
The woman is a victim too.
Why? Why does independance have to be established to show that an unborn child has the right to live?
I didn't say it did, I am simply discussing how I feel it is an important concept to remember when discussing abortion with a woman who may feel disgusted by her pregnancy. It's important to remember when discussing abortion in general, because the fetus IS dependent.
Why? What if she never intended to get pregnant?
Does woman have the obligation to give birth to as many children as man can shove into her? Sorry; I heavily dislike the language you are using; it sounds mysogynistic and heavily sexist to me.
Why?
Again, why?
You have an awful lot of "obligations" listed here, but where do any of them come from? How can you explain these obligations to some one who is not religious?
There are many temporal and materialistic reasons that support the pro-choice argument, but not logical reasons.
Only if you refuse to acknowledge them.
And what about the atheists?
I have no idea what this paragraph is saying.

reply from: Banned Member

The only true logic that matters, is that which values true identity and intrinsic worth of the human person; regardless of any perceived materialistic worth of life, regardless of physical abilities of the person, level of development of the person, or degree of physical or mental health. No other temporal factor matters that could otherwise reduce the human person to an object to be judged solely on their usefulness and conveniance to those around them.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The only true logic that matters in your opinion is one that values human life regardless of any exceptions?

reply from: 4given

Dark allies and rusty coat hangers? Such evil acts deserve a suitable setting.
Yes. Too bad the "back alley coat hanger" bit is another proabortion lie.. Rusty, huh? Sounds like you are used to the typical abuse and waste?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

In MY opinion, the driving force for human morality is instinctive - though that instinct is probably given to us by God, the same spark that makes us conscious of our own existence. Human morality comes from a base instinct of "don't kill me, don't take my food/stuff" - rather selfish. It gets extended to our friends and loved ones because we are a social animal, and levels up eventually to a societal level where our laws play a part in protecting us from each other so that we may all be protected, happy, and prosperous.
I don' know if this is a "logic" or not, but it's extremely arrogant of you to assume that your idea of "true logic" is the only one that matters.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Dark allies and rusty coat hangers? Such evil acts deserve a suitable setting.
Yes. Too bad the "back alley coat hanger" bit is another proabortion lie.. Rusty, huh? Sounds like you are used to the typical abuse and waste?
The fact that you both completely ignore the woman as victim horrifies me. Do you really think a woman would go to such means if she were not desperate? She needs help, not hate.

reply from: Faramir

Then we need to edcutate these women, because there are no ages that are darker than an age that kills 4,000 a day and calls it "choice."

reply from: 4given

Then we need to edcutate these women, because there are no ages that are darker than an age that kills 4,000 a day and calls it "choice."
Right.

reply from: 4given

Dark allies and rusty coat hangers? Such evil acts deserve a suitable setting.
Yes. Too bad the "back alley coat hanger" bit is another proabortion lie.. Rusty, huh? Sounds like you are used to the typical abuse and waste?
The fact that you both completely ignore the woman as victim horrifies me. Do you really think a woman would go to such means if she were not desperate? She needs help, not hate.
I don't know if I should cuddle or kick you.. The above is based on lies LC. I understand that women are desperate and vulnerable- especially when faced with uncertainty. Truth is the "coat hanger, back alley" bit is just that. Most abortions were performed by licensed physicians in their offices. Tiller's father was one of those illegal baby butchers.. Who and how am I ignoring the woman? As a woman yourself, do you want my pity and compassion over whether or not you can kill your child illegally and brutally? Is abortion not brutal enough. Never mind the mother.. what about the way her child dies?

reply from: yoda

Good point, but don't you know? Unborn babies are not near as important to her as born Jews, Muslims, or African Americans!

reply from: yoda

Ah, so it would take the removal of TWO women's rights to equal the killing of a thousand babies, right?
We don't have any industries devoted to the elective killing of threatened women. We DO have an industry devoted to the elective killing of innocent unborn babies.
See the difference?

reply from: yoda

Dark allies and rusty coat hangers? Such evil acts deserve a suitable setting.
Pretty much so, yeah. We cannot always protect people against themselves.

reply from: yoda

The rights of NO ONE exceeds the rights of anyone else. The fetus does not hold rights to life over the woman, nor any other rights. How anti-woman of you to think the fetus has rights over the woman..
I see you are having comprehension problems. Augustine did not say anything about a fetus holding rights "over the woman".
Augustine said that the unborn person holds rights over the "right to choose", meaning of course, the right to kill that unborn person.
You really need to slow down and smell the nouns and verbs.

reply from: yoda

In the case of the elective killing of an innocent human being, there are NO exceptions.

reply from: yoda

You need to learn the difference between "victim" and "perpetrator".

reply from: sander

Good point, but don't you know? Unborn babies are not near as important to her as born Jews, Muslims, or African Americans!
Can't "see" the child in the womb, therefore no protection. That's the ONLY difference, between the thosand dead babies and a thousand dead other human beings.

reply from: churchmouse

This is why you dont get what Christianity is all about. It makes Him sad Liberal that you pervert His Word. I dont think you do it intentionally I just dont think you have read the Bible to know better. You need to study it and search the scriptures to see why God came for you.
This is what Christ said, "I am the Way the Truth and the Life, NO ONE comes to the Father but through ME."
The Father for your information is God. So unless you believe in Christ and what He came to do......you will NOT get to heaven.
"I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God... unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:3,5)."
Without Christ, even "good people" are condemned in God's eyes.
Buddah........Allah.........Muhammed cant get you there. There is no truth but the Word. And if you believe that all roads lead to heaven, then you are not a Christian period.
Do you think that I can dress up in a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader outfit and simply run out onto the field and say I am a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader? Theres criteria that makes one a Cheerleader. Its the same way with Christianity.
You cant call yourself a Christian if you do not take what Christ said as the TRUTH and do what He commands you to do.
He is not saying his logic.I think he means that Gods Word is the thing that matters, not what we think or want. If you are a Chrisitian you should know this Liberal. Its all in the Word and the Word is the only Truth.
Liberal you said the woman is the victim in a rape. So true. But if she chooses to abort, kill, dismember her unborn.......what is she then, if abortion kills?
You think the child cares how he was conceieved? Do you think you could pick out of a crowd of people those whose mothers quite possibly had been raped? Rape babies are alive and they deserve to have the right to live, despite the violent act done against its mother.
What would it be called if an innocent child was killed just because his mother was raped?
The doctors told my sister and brother in law that my neice should be taken off life support right after she was born because she had a brain bleed and would be retarded. She was just under two pounds and at 22 weeks, the bridge of her nose wasnt even formed yet. You could see the blood literally running through her tiny veins.
They refused to take her off thank you God. Today she is 16, and last year was inducted into the National Honor Society with a 4.4 grade point. She is petite and wears glasses because her vision is horrible......other than that she is healthy and happy. And so are we.

reply from: churchmouse

Womans rights should not include killing their own children.
God bless you for this one Augustine.
Horse hockey.
Todays woman rule the roost. We can be anything we want. Its the white male that should feel threatened. If you feel threatened about anything its your own fault. We can control out bodies.........WE CAN EVEN DO SOMETHING MEN CANT DO....KILL OUR OFFSPRING. You dont think that is power?
The dark ages was when women had the children they concieved. We know to much today about the unborn....that we did not know in the past. We have all sorts of things that show the humanness of the unborn.......sonograms etc.
We have it all. We can even throw men to the curb by denying them rights to their unborn children. Threatened my arse. Its a weak woman that feels threatened.
If you look at the facts Liberal you would see that.......the majority of abortions before legalization were done in doctors offices, not in alleys, and certainly not by coathangers. This was one of the lies that was presented to the Supreme Court.
___________________
I got my abortion in 1979. I was pro-choice before and after this.....until my sisters child was born 16 years ago.....1992. It was after this date that I was pro-life and agaisnt abortion. I looked for medical facts about abortion and did research about fetal development.
Nothing opened my eyes until I saw my neice. I didnt really think about it until she was born. Then I realized what I had done was way more than aborting globss of tissue.
When I realized what I had done.......I began to suffer both physically and emotionally. I was pro-life but I didnt want to think about what I had done because I wanted it to go away. I looked to the scriptures for even one thing that would give me an out. There wasnt any. On 9-11 I went from being a Christian in name only to being Born Again. I have been working pro-life ever since.
Carole you obviously selectively read what you want to see.
I will NOT TALK TO ANYONE THAT HAS A FOUL MOUTH and makes threatening comments. Galen and vexing are two such people. You have totally IMO ignored what both have said to me, why? They get a free pass and I am the meanie? Pleaze. Why dont you open your eyes to exactly to what type of people they really are.

I will not change my opinion about vexings situation. I will not. I look to scriptures and find nothing that condones a sex operation/change. And because of this I have been attacked. I cant have an opinion?
Find a mean and cruel thing that I have said about vexing or galens character. other than referring to vexing as a male........what? How have I been more mean to them then they have been mean to me?
mary is so kind and writes hateful poems.......or maybe you dont think they were hateful. Do you? I told vexing flat out after he threatened me I was ending it......and the two of them have stalked me around this board trying to start something.
Why dont you look at the whole picture carole. I have politely ask this to stop.......and galen said, no I am fair game. Now what do you want me to do? Maybe you should ask your oh so kind friend why she acts as she does.
You find anywhere on this board carole anything i have said that compares to these below..I wont even get into vexings threats......with the rusty pipe.
And your friend Mary said............
She lied because she still won't drop it. Evidently I am not on ignore. She cant hold back, I did and she says I am running by not answering vexing. I am through with him.....after he threatened me....forget it.
So what do ya think Carole.........its all about me and how I am mean?

reply from: yoda

I've heard it said "If there was a window on the womb, abortion would disappear overnight"...... and that's probably 98% true.

reply from: sander

Churchmouse hit the nail on the head:
You bet it's power, power of the worse kind, power that kills can lead to nothing good. That same kind of power has been held by dictators since forever....any power structure that is built on the deaths of others will one day crumble.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Dark allies and rusty coat hangers? Such evil acts deserve a suitable setting.
Yes. Too bad the "back alley coat hanger" bit is another proabortion lie.. Rusty, huh? Sounds like you are used to the typical abuse and waste?
The fact that you both completely ignore the woman as victim horrifies me. Do you really think a woman would go to such means if she were not desperate? She needs help, not hate.
I don't know if I should cuddle or kick you.. The above is based on lies LC. I understand that women are desperate and vulnerable- especially when faced with uncertainty. Truth is the "coat hanger, back alley" bit is just that. Most abortions were performed by licensed physicians in their offices. Tiller's father was one of those illegal baby butchers.. Who and how am I ignoring the woman? As a woman yourself, do you want my pity and compassion over whether or not you can kill your child illegally and brutally? Is abortion not brutal enough. Never mind the mother.. what about the way her child dies?
The woman is a victim no matter where the abortion is being performed. A very interesting movie was "Orange House Rules", I can only imagine it was ignored because it dared to discuss abortion. Won a few awards though... Yes, I want your compassion. I want your compassion to guide me OUT of the abortion clinic and into a place where I can receive HELP for the fears I am facing. God yes, I want your compassion for every frightened woman out there.
You only ever bring up the child, that's why pro-choice hates you. Because every time they mention the mother, you trot out the tot. WOMEN want to be cared about, they want to feel loved and cared for. They abort because they think NO ONE CARES.
Care.

reply from: sander

Oh hog wash, women abort because they think no one cares....
There are MORE crisis pregnancy centers then there are abortion clinics. There are more ministries reaching out to women in crisis then there are PPs.
There's plenty of help, there's plenty of compassion, it's just darn well easier to abort then to carry thru for nine months. Get your head out of the sand, then maybe, just maybe you can be effective in the prolife world.

reply from: Banned Member

Actually I believe that she is referring to the Tobey McGuire movie, "The Cider House Rules"

reply from: sander

Crisis pregnancy centers are not "regligious" in nature, even those that are started, supported and ran by churches. There are CPC's that are started and ran by people who never see a church.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I have read the bible.
I disagree. I find it impossible to believe that every single non-christian in the entire universe (since God's will extends beyond our tiny planet) is going to "hell".
I was baptized, so we're all good.
"Allah" means God. God can't get me to heaven? Allah is the name of God in a different language, that's all.
"All roads"? What do you mean by that? I believe good wholesome behavior leads to heaven; that's a rather specific road.
Short skirts?
What is the person who defends their home against an intruder and accidentally kills the other person? What is ANYONE who kills in self-defense? I'm not saying all abortions are cases of self defense... but they are cases of one person killing another. And they are cases where someone doesn't go to jail. So is that person still a murderer, just one that gets to go free because of "extenuating circumstances"? Doesn't this all sound familiar? Pregnancy is a complicated situation and trying to simplify it doesn't help anyone.
If that child was in her womb, it would be called abortion. Again, I don't know how I feel about rape cases. It's extremely delicate and you will NOT win an argument with a pro-choicer about rape victims, I guarantee that.
That's nice. I don't believe born children should be taken off of life support unless they ARE brain dead AND the parents want it. Terry Shivo is a terrible case of this; her passing should have been quicker and far less painful.

reply from: sander

Liberal said:
I'm curious, so the following is no longer true:

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Womans rights should not include killing their own children.
I don't believe it should, ordinarily. But I'm still ok with abortion to save the mother's life. I just can't think of many situations it's necessary.
Todays woman rule the roost. We can be anything we want. Its the white male that should feel threatened. If you feel threatened about anything its your own fault. We can control out bodies.........WE CAN EVEN DO SOMETHING MEN CANT DO....KILL OUR OFFSPRING. You dont think that is power?
Then why are women still being paid less for the same labor? Sexism is alive and well.
Men can't become pregnant in the first place. If they could, I bet abortion wouldn't even be debated. It would be legal, period.
Except equal pay. Or the right to drive, in some countries. Have you never heard "you're just a girl?" I have. Women can't go into combat in the military. That's not equal.
Or one who has real eyes.
I'm glad for your revelation. I'm glad I was never fooled into thinking the unborn were nothing but globs of tissue.
You have said some very offensive things to me. Should I ignore you? You dish it out but won't take it back? Hm. I jut ignore your offensive comments. Delete them when I quote you, etc.
Galen is incredibly kind and peaceful. I've only seen Galen say harsh things when she is really, really upset about something. That's normal, humans have emotions.
When I see them say something mean to you ASIDE from calling you a meanie in the first place, I'll let you know.
You haven't seen anything that DOES condone it either now have you? There's simply NO biblical support for sex-changes. And that freaks you out, because your book that is supposed to have "all" the answers is clueless. Open your eyes!!! There's more to see in this world!! The Bible is a GUIDE, not an absolute. It DOESN'T have all the answers. The WORLD does, the world God gave to us and the world you are refusing to look at with an open mind.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

When I thought I was pregnant, that was what ran through my mind, so try and say hogwash again to me. I didn't wan religion shoved down my throat because I wasn't christian at the time.
I was also terrified of my family. Do crisis centers help communicate between the woman and her family? I was terrified of society's reaction, I was terrified I wouldn't be able to finish college. Will a crisis center help with all of that?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

LOL! Yeah, that's it. Oranges, cider... XD

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I never wanted to go to one because I was under the impression I would have religion thrown at me.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm curious, so the following is no longer true:
I didn't say "I have read ALL of the bible". What, do I actually have to say "I have read parts of the bible" every single time I say I've read it? Jesus Christ indeed.

reply from: sander

Well, after taking His Name in vain....I'm not surprised you don't know the difference between "I have read the Bible" and "I have not read all the Bible".
There is one, you know....a big one.
Churchmouse is appealing to your knowledge of the Bible, so if you tell her you have read the bible, she'll believe you have read the whole book the way you worded it.
It's called being intellecutally honest and I was just curious if you had actually finished reading the whole Bible, you might be surprised how your views would be effected.

reply from: lukesmom

When I thought I was pregnant, that was what ran through my mind, so try and say hogwash again to me. I didn't wan religion shoved down my throat because I wasn't christian at the time.
I was also terrified of my family. Do crisis centers help communicate between the woman and her family? I was terrified of society's reaction, I was terrified I wouldn't be able to finish college. Will a crisis center help with all of that?
YES, YES, YES! These centers will eithor provide or point you to financial assistance, couselling, medical assistance, etc. They will help you understand your choices. Many, many prolife women have faced a crisis pregnancy and can share their experiences. This is why I reach out to women facing a poor or terminal prenatal diagnosis, because I KNOW their fear, I LIVED it and I offer to help because no woman should go through a crisis pregnancy alone. BUT, you have to overcome your fear and actually seek help. Of course you were terrified, you are human, prolifers are human, dispite what fanatical choicers say. Sometimes you have to let go and trust. We do care about women as much as we care for their unborn child.

reply from: carolemarie

Churchmouse:
First of all, this isn't all about you being mean or not mean. I was simply talking about the way you were constantly insisting that LRC is proabortion because she is inconsistant on so many things. Yes, give her a break. It took you sixteen years to figure it out, why in 2 weeks should she have it all figured out? when you take the time to ask her questions and stuff, she gives thoughtful answers.
You and Galen have your own issues, that I don't even get. I have no idea what you are fighting with her about, so I stay out of it I disagree with Galen on things but I don't think we have ever gotten into a spat over it. Not everybody gets along on this board in case you didn't notice. Actually, the prochoicers are more polite on this board than the prolifers. Which is weird.
As for Vexing, there is nothing in scripture that speaks to her situtation. She was born with messed up chromosones and this is a cure. Christians are allowed to get medical help. In her case, it isn't about having sex, but being recognized as the sex she is. Scripture speaks to sexual immorality, not gender identification based on medical stuff. I think you can just say, I don't know and let it go at that. Judge not is a wise thing when you don't know the answer. She has changed her position based on discrimination. She feels that Christians discriminate against her. I hope that isn't true, but even if it is, God sees into her heart and loves her. She is precious to Him and He wants her to find Him.
I personally like you and have no problem with you at all I just think that we might be able to cut a little slack to people when they first start to change positions. It takes time to grow and sort out truth from fiction.

reply from: churchmouse

You are 100% right.
Woman today can have their cake and eat it too. They can kill their children, eliminating the father altogether. Then if they decide to have the child they can go after him if he never wanted the child to begin with.
That is power.
You think I care or anyother pro-lifer cares if we are hated by the pro-abortion crowd? They hate the unborn or they would protect it. They are anti-life, anti-child in the womb.
Honey, the child is the one that is BEING DISMEMBERED ALIVE. You debate and discuss this issue everyday in multiple threads. Seriously what dont you get? The child is the one being killed. You seem to always forget that. Why?
You are right. It is easier to abort because today its convenient. All ages of pregnant women are embraced whether its by the media or on television, or even by the secular church. And whose picture was on People this week? Jamie Lynn Spears. How old is she, 16? Thank gosh she did the right thing, and I give her a lot of credit.
You would never know it. Do you believe it is "God Breathed"?
Then you are not a Christian. Did you read what Christ said? Do you think He was lying? He said, unless you believe in HIm............you will not make it. It's not about what you think, or what I think is right. It's all about what He said is right. You can't be a Christian and deny what Christ says and what He says is in the Word.
Christ did not come to just to show love. He came to save. Who do you think He came to save? And why did he talk as much about hell as He did heaven? If everyone makes it then, why did God have to send Him? Why did He have to die?
In Acts 16:30-31, the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas: " . . . 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved . . . .' "
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13).
Who is the Lord Liberal? Lord, is Jesus Christ. So in this verse it states, whoever calls........will be saved. If you dont call on Christ, you will not be saved. Makes sense doesnt it?
"Whoever" includes YOU, but only if you ask, repent.
You should be baptized in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ as a public testimony of your salvation, and then join with a Bible-believing church THAT STANDS ON THE WORD. A church that encourages you to read for yourself what God says.
"Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord . . . ." (2 Timothy 1:8)
"Whosoever therefore shall confess [testify of] Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 10:32).
If you do not confess Christ before men.......then what happens? You look through scriptures, there are no second chances after you die. He will not accept any excuses.
I could take some water and baptize anyone, a Muslim and that will not save them. Only Christ knows who truly a believer. Being saved is more than just water over your head. Actually Christ was baptized by submerssion. The thief on the cross was never baptized, neverjoined a church. He believed by faith....... and that is what saved him. How can a child, an infant publically acknowledge Christ and ask Him into their heart? You become saved when you ask Christ yourself......parents cant do it for you. So if you think you are safe.........you should read the scriptures again. This is a PERSONAL DECISION THAT ONLY YOU CAN MAKE.
I was baptized as a baby. I like to think of it today as a dedication by my parents. I was saved on 9-11, when I asked Him into my heart. Then I was baptized by submersion.
This is NOT WHAT CHRIST SAID LIBERAL. I plead you to read what He said. You have to accept Him and no one else. It is plain in the Word as to what you have to do. None are righteous not even ONE. No one can be good enough, or do good enough works to make it to heaven. Jesus came for this very reason.
This explains it better than I can.
Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. [14] For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." [NASB-U]
http://www.aschurch.org/Enter.htm

Not at all the same. If you kill in self defense you are not a murderer. Someone came after you and wanted to harm you. What is abortion? What does the fetus do? Does he intentionally try to harm his mother? Come on. Abortion is premeditated murder on an INNOCENT HUMAN BEING. We are talking about legal, child abuse, premeditated murder here not self defense.
I asked you this question........."What would it be called if an innocent child was killed just because his mother was raped?"
You did not really answer it.
And what is abortion? You said you were pro-life. Then why dont you see the rape baby as a life worth saving? Listen rape is a horrible act, a violent act that no woman deserves. But two wrongs dont make a right. Abortion is even more inhumane than rape IMO because it KILLS a living human being.
Terri was not brain dead. She was not even on life support. She was only on a feeding tube. They simply starved her to death.
The state executed her without her permission........and the world watched and did nothing.
Please read the Word Liberal. Dont take anyone elses opinions.....read for yourself.

reply from: carolemarie

When I thought I was pregnant, that was what ran through my mind, so try and say hogwash again to me. I didn't wan religion shoved down my throat because I wasn't christian at the time.
I was also terrified of my family. Do crisis centers help communicate between the woman and her family? I was terrified of society's reaction, I was terrified I wouldn't be able to finish college. Will a crisis center help with all of that?
Of course you thought that! That is because the pro-choice industry has declared war on pregnancy help centers, except that they call them fake centers.
You should visit one near you and find out exactly what they do and what kind of help there is. Visit a couple of them and get a feel for what is done there. They will be glad to show you around and tell you what they do and how.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't understand if you consider child-support to be bad. Doesn't it take two to tango? Without child support, men have absolutely NO consequence for sex (aside from STD's).
[...] the pro-abortion crowd? They hate the unborn or they would protect it. They are anti-life, anti-child in the womb.
When I was pro-choice, I did not hate the unborn. I was not anti-life. I was not anti-child. I wished abortion never had to happen.
I don't debate the fact that the unborn is dismembered. Where did I ever claim that doesn't happen? You won't find it. I never forget that. I just refuse to ignore the woman.
Not, it's just darn louder that abortion is the right choice and that pregnancy crisis centers are full of religious nutcakes who will guilt you into keeping the child and then toss you out on the street the moment the child is born.
You would never know it. Do you believe it is "God Breathed"?
If you mean do I believe that the Bible is the exact word of God totally faithfully written down and has then withstood centuries of retranslations and editing and changing... No. The Bible is not now the exact word of God.
Then you are not a Christian.
Nooo, I'm not YOUR kind of Christian. Many Christians believe in universal salvation.
I believe any good person walks with God and knows Jesus in his heart even if he's not aware of that fact. I believe we are all born with the spirit of Christ inside of us, and to lose it causes you to go to hell. Being a very bad person. So I believe everyone believes in Christ even if they aren't aware of it, because good people believe in love, and God is love. If Christ is the son of God and IS God, then Jesus is love too.
I have, and yet you disagree with what I have seen.
I could take some water and baptize anyone, a Muslim and that will not save them.
In a christian church. Duh.
I was a baby so I don't actually remember. Is it necessary to completely submerge my body, or is that just a Born-Again trend these days?
So baptism ISN'T necessary!! Catholics must hate you.
Because infants know love.
Not at all the same. If you kill in self defense you are not a murderer. Someone came after you and wanted to harm you. What is abortion? What does the fetus do? Does he intentionally try to harm his mother?
An intruder doesn't always intentionally harm either. What about a mentally handicapped person? They may not know they are harming someone.
An abortion of an ectopic pregnancy is. The embryo isn't intentionally doing it, but he or she is killing the woman.
You didn't answer mine. What would it be called if a woman had an abortion to save her life?
I answered your question. I said "If it is unborn, it is called an abortion".
And what is abortion? You said you were pro-life.
Abortion in some cases is not murder. Because of the complicated state of pregnancy I cannot call most abortions murder, especially ones done before the unborn is viable. After that, if it's not done to save the woman's life, it IS murder.
I do, but it's not my choice to make.
You'll have to convince the woman of that, not me. She may feel the child growing in her stomach is a horrible disgusting product of violence. Convince her, not me. I believe it's her choice.
Terri was not brain dead. She was not even on life support. She was only on a feeding tube. They simply starved her to death.
She was declared brain dead by several doctors. As for the life support, sorry. It was just a feeding tube I guess. It was still slow and horrible.
It was her husband's request actually. She was not "alive" in my opinion. Of course she had a body, but there was no mind. By the way the Pope died the same week.
I did, you just disagree with my interpretations.

reply from: churchmouse

You said, I was insulting her. I compare what she says here to other threads and her views are anything but pro-life. I call her on what she says sorry. She has a sharp tongue...... I do understand what you are saying........but her views are all over the board. Until she says she is agaisnt abortion.......she is pro-abortion IMO. I cant lie about how I feel.
About vexing......anyone can blame God about how they were created. The pediphile can say he was born wanting to sexually abuse children. The blind, the retarded, the homosexual, the prostitute, the drug addict, the adulterer.......we can all blame God cant we. Thats the popular thing to say now a days.......I cant help it.
I am not going to get into a debate over anyones sexuality on this board. This is a pro-life board and the basic discusssion should be aroung topics that have to do with this. I have stated this very clearly. He attacked me in threatening ways......I said I wanted to end it. That isnt good enough..... galen says the gloves are off and I am fair game. GAME.......They wont end it.
Kind? Ya really think so carole?

reply from: churchmouse

Yes, and woman today are getting botox and breast implants, augmentation, liposuction on every part of the body, lip injections WHY?........they love being on covers of all sorts of magazines half naked......Madonna, Britney, Christina, Paris,.......that our youth try to emulate. Little Britney and Christina starting out as innocent virgins. Boy that didnt last long before they turned into Madonna impersonators? Madonna the queen of porn.
Movies, television that shows everything..Tina Tequila, The Girls Next Door,.......they seem to all be in control dont they?
Look at the growing porn industry. Are men the porn starts? No woman are and today they are celebrated. Jenna Jamison, Pamela Anderson, every mans dream women..... who have made their livings laying on their back with their legs up in the air. Cant go anywhere without their breasts bulging out of their shirts. Listen to popular music today. It couldnt get worse so parents dont have anything to worry about in the future. Woman are called *****es and ho's.......and the girls of today love it. Friends with benefits, oral sex isnt really sex thanks Billy Clinton.......oh yea woman have it rough.
If anything we have asked for it. When a popular kid store sells thongs to little girls that is pathetic. What eight year old needs a thong? And you say woman are not in control?
Why should that bother you if your faith is strong?
"liberal said, "I don't understand if you consider child-support to be bad. Doesn't it take two to tango? Without child support, men have absolutely NO consequence for sex (aside from STD's)."
Why should woman get child support based on our laws today, that dont take the father into consideration? If women have the right to call the shots, if our courts say the man is a non-issue, then why should the father have any obligation to pay for a child that the government says he has no right to, and that is property of the woman?
I believe he should have a choice.....he should be included...He is the father and the child has half his DNA. It was his sperm that united with the egg.....that created the child. He should have rights. I dont understand why men arent more vocal on this really. He should have to help the support his child. BUT NOT BASED ON OUR LAWS THE WAY THEY ARE NOW. NO WAY.
Not mine. I dont matter. You would know that if you read the Bible, you are simply wrong. You dismiss Christ. You dismiss why He came. You dismiss everything about HIM. NO PERSON IS A CHRISTIAN THAT DENIES CHRIST AND THE WORD. There is no such thing as UNIVERSAL SALVATION, not in Christianity there isnt.
Ok Liberal you have read the bible. Present some verses where Christ says EVERYONE MAKES IT AND THAT YOU DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE IN HIM.
Present the scripture where it says.......everybody goes.
Show me scripture veres where Christ said, if your good you go, that if you deny what He says, its ok, ya get a free pass.
How can you not be aware? You have got to be kidding? Christianity isnt about religion its about a personal relationship with Christ Liberal. If you are unaware of one then you dont have a relationship. Tell that to a Muslim....that they are born with Christ inside them. Tell that to a Buddhist. Tell that to Concerned and Vexing and the others on here that are not Christians. See what they say about that.

God is love.......but the scriptures say FEAR THE LORD. That is the beginning of wisdom. He will eventually pour out His Wrath on people that have not come to HIm. He talked about HELL a lot did you know that? Read about the end times in Revelation.
You think He is all about love? He is way more than just about love.
Jesus was not baptized in a Church. You think you have to be in a Church? What saves you Liberal, the church or Christ? I believe it is Christ. At least he says He is the one that saves.
Jesus was submerged in water. You dont have to be, I mean its no requirment to do it this way. But you have to personally make a public statement that you accept Christ. THIS IS SCRIPTURAL. You can do it to anyone but you need to make one and mean it. God knows if you mean it.
Born again is scriptural. Google "born again Christian" and see what comes up. Jesus said, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN. If you dont like it Liberal take it up with Him. I did not make it up.
"I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God... unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:3,5)."
Do you think that Christ said this as a joke Liberal? Its certainly is not a fad to be "born again". It is the exact time that you accept Christ by faith. And when you do the Holy Spirit fills you and makes you new. I believe here that
Jesus was explaining the importance of a SPIRITUAL REBIRTH, saying that people don't enter the kingdom by living a better life but by being spiritually born.
This is not about hate. I dont hate anyone that believes that, I just think that based on scripture they are wrong. Christ when the thief accepted Him......was not baptized and Christ said, today you will be with me in paradise. If you look at ALL the verses that talk about how to get to heaven.....there might be one that talks about being baptized.......but the majority do not. I am saved by the Grace of God.
I beleive baptism, like communion is an act of faith. Do I believe that the water saves......the bread saves, No. Christ saves by faith and no act that we possibly could do. Did the theif take communion? No.
That is not enough Liberal to feel or show love. You must acknowledge what Christ did. This must be a personal decision.
You asked me this question.
It would be a tragic situation indeed. But i believe that abortion should only be done to save the mother, if she so chooses. But today, this rarely happens, usually both can be saved.
When I asked you about saving the rape babies life you said, this.......
Pro-life? No Liberal you are not......you said you are for abortion if the woman is raped.
I cant do this any longer with you. You just dont make sense, I'm sorry. Sometimes I think I am talking to two people here......your all over the place.
Your now pro-life......you dont like abortion and you say this. It not murder. Abortion is ok before viability. You just dont get it. You just dont get it.
About Teri.......You said this.
No she was not. http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/907674805.html

reply from: Faramir

Do you understand the XXY situation?
If it were as simple as a physically normal man who wants to be a woman, I would also have a problem calling a him a her.
But there is much more to it than that.
I knew nothing about it before doing some internet research, and still know very little, but I learned enough to understand there are some genuine physical issues involved.
I don't see why you couldn't give vexing the benefit of the doubt and refer to her as "she" or "her."
It's not fair to put this phsical condition in the same category as prostitute, adulterer, or pedophile.
If a person is born with male and female parts, he/she is not committing a sin by inheriting that body. If in vexing's case, she identifies more with the female side, that is not a sin either, as is adutery, etc.
I don't know enough about what is going on with her condition to know what is the morally right thing to do from a Christian perspective. But I see no harm in giving her the benefit of the doubt--that she is striving to do what is the best thing and the right thing, and that if she wants to be called a "she" then why not respect that?

reply from: churchmouse

Faramir I am sick and tired about making this forum about vexing. I am done taking about it. I said last week that was it.....not going there any more. I wont be pulled into conversations where I am threatedned. Vexing did just that. What about his respect for people that dissagree?
We can blame God for all the situations that happen to us.
I will say this. For someone that wants people to embrace their situation, vexing certainly had a funny way of showing it. You think he cares what anyone else thinks? He said so.........he doesnt. He mocks God, Christians..........and well as he said himself, he is more woman then any woman here. He pits people against eachother.
I am done talking about him. I will not compromise what i believe the Word is. Lastly I believe God loves vexing. And i believe with God all things are possible. I will leave it at that.
Thank you however for you thoughtful comments.
Now about the unborn children............

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Crap, I made a huge reply and somehow closed the window. I don't feel like repeating myself, so here's the short version:
Women being treated as sex objects is NOT EMPOWERING, it is degrading and I want to vomit that you even consider porn to be "empowering", you sick son of a b. I am not the same kind of christian as you. Rape is a unique situation that should be discussed between a woman and a counselor. Show me an unbiased site about Terry.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Faramir I am sick and tired about making this forum about vexing. I am done taking about it. I said last week that was it.....not going there any more. I wont be pulled into conversations where I am threatedned. Vexing did just that. What about his respect for people that dissagree?
We can blame God for all the situations that happen to us.
I will say this. For someone that wants people to embrace their situation, vexing certainly had a funny way of showing it. You think he cares what anyone else thinks? He said so.........he doesnt. He mocks God, Christians..........and well as he said himself, he is more woman then any woman here. He pits people against eachother.
I am done talking about him. I will not compromise what i believe the Word is. Lastly I believe God loves vexing. And i believe with God all things are possible. I will leave it at that.
Thank you however for you thoughtful comments.
Now about the unborn children............
Show me the scripture that says sex-changes are a sin.

reply from: sander

Who said porn was "empowering"?

reply from: revkev

Hey LiberalChiro,
I respect your thoughts and will not condemn you. I can't say that I agree with you, but argueing with you and condemning you will do nothing but breed things that are unfruitful. As regards to the KJV, most people that believe liberally have the same opinion of the KJV. Me being VERY conservative hold that version of the bible in high regard. Even in the Christian faith, there are those that rape that version terribly. I've actually talked with people that "hate" that version. I don't hate any version of the holy bible, but I hold fast to what I believe about the version I read because of what I've studied about its' origination and the texts it has for its' foundation. So, hopefully you got a good laugh for yourself on my account. I like to make poeple laugh anyway. I hope and pray that what you are searching for will be revealed to you. In the end, you will find that there is only one way, not many. Look into the life of Keith Green, he searched and searched also, and came to a conculsion you might find interesting. I promise to keep things friendly when I correspond, and if anything ever comes across as hateful or ugly, please know that is never my intent. God bless.

reply from: faithman

Who said porn was "empowering"?
It empowers devils to subvert minds all the time.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Who said porn was "empowering"?
Chruchmouse did. He said women LOVE being involved in porn, and apparently that it makes women superior to men. Clearly Church mouse has never seen a porno or he would not be saying such things. Most porn is a terribly degrading thing for women where they are treated as nothing more than holes for penises.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

*Chuckle* Hey, at least you're sticking with it because you WANT to. It's what you're familiar with, and I can respect that. I personally haven't found a bible that I really like yet, but I use a student's edition New International Version. I've heard some terrible things about it, too. It's kind of silly people get so angry about that, but then again we are talking about the book that is supposed to be a holy scripture and the direct words of God, so the fact that there's more than one version of it causes some serious drama. I personally want to read all kinds of bibles and find one I like.
I hope we can remain amicable as well, since it makes the sharing of ideas a a lot easier when we're not trying to "get back" at each other!

reply from: sander

Who said porn was "empowering"?
Chruchmouse did. He said women LOVE being involved in porn, and apparently that it makes women superior to men. Clearly Church mouse has never seen a porno or he would not be saying such things. Most porn is a terribly degrading thing for women where they are treated as nothing more than holes for penises.
Can you point to the post where she (Churchmouse is a woman) said this? I've never seen her say anything like that. I'd like to read it for myself, you tend to confuse things, nothing personal. I'd ask her myself, but she's on vacation.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Who said porn was "empowering"?
Chruchmouse did. He said women LOVE being involved in porn, and apparently that it makes women superior to men. Clearly Church mouse has never seen a porno or he would not be saying such things. Most porn is a terribly degrading thing for women where they are treated as nothing more than holes for penises.
Can you point to the post where she (Churchmouse is a woman) said this? I've never seen her say anything like that. I'd like to read it for myself, you tend to confuse things, nothing personal. I'd ask her myself, but she's on vacation.
Certainly.
If that was sarcasm, Church failed miserably, especially since we were arguing over how women are supposedly "equal". I was saying there is still sexism. Church was trying to say there isn't, but bring up porn was a very bad idea, as the porn industry is one of the GLARING examples of unabashed sexism in this country. Women are treated like scum and represented as nothing but objects to have sex with. No brains, all breasts. I can't begin to list all of the things wrong with mainstream porn. Empowering? NO. DEGRADING.
And the songs she mentions? Also degrading!! Women don't LOVE this kind of attention and if Church IS a woman, by saying this is she implying that SHE loves it? Because the above quote could have been written by a sexist male pig as far as I'm concerned. The kind that need their balls cut off. She is a shame to all women if she actually believes modern culture is good for females.

reply from: sander

Well, I certainly agree that porn is degrading and I'd go as far as to say it's a plague on society that harms both men and women.
But, I'd also wouldn't go so far as to say that Churchmouse was saying porn was empowering, but I guess I'll wait til she returns and ask her to clairify.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It sounded directly as if she were saying porn was a good thing for women and that degrading music is too, and that all women "love" this disgusting, demoralizing industry. She was saying that women are superior to men because women are in porn and because we're treated like objects. That's some screwy thinking.

reply from: churchmouse

I leave on vacation tomorrow....so I'll be posting until bedtime, I am all packed.
Well liberal I think pornography is demeaning. But the point I was trying to make....was that society thinks that it isnt. Its not looked at the same way it used to be....even women seem to embrace it today.

Little girls are sexualized at young ages.....look at the advertisments, the magazines they read. They want to look like Paris, smell like Paris.....be Paris. You cant go to a sporting event without cheerleaders looking like hookers. But hey......lookin like a Hooters girl is where its at. POWER and woman have it.
It what society wants its what it demands.......and woman are there to deliver.
And the sad thing is.....parents allow their children into being sexualized.
I never said, porn was good, its damaging in every way, not only to the people involved but for society. But many women ask for it, they want it......it makes them feel powerful. And today if you want to be a slut.....like that Tina Tequila and flaunt your sexuality, then you fit right in to society and what society says is acceptable. Look at the outrageous programing on television.
You did not need to call me a how did you say it........"you sick son of a b."
Grow up.
And for your information, I am a 52 year old woman. I had an abortion, or dont you read other threads. LOL I've been around the block a few more times then you have my dear. Believe me I've seen a porno Liberal.
So to clarify what I said........Satan has a hold of the pornography world and everyone in it. Plain enough?
I feel this way but society does not. Like I said, woman like Jenna Jamison are not treated any differently than any Hollywood movie actress. They might even be treated better. Its big business and woman are not only acting in them but producing them. Its a huge huge business. HUGE. How many families have porn broken up?
Does that answer your question Liberal?

reply from: churchmouse

I was re-reading some posts and wanted to address these I missed.
You are right, questioning is good. And reading and studying the scriptures is even better.
The Bible guides us on what we should believe and how we should behave. It provides the foundation for our faith in Jesus, as it records what Jesus said and did.
"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16
The only way to know what Christ is all about is through scripture. He tells us point blank what it takes to be saved.
"Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." Romans 10:17
The Laws of the Lord...Psalm 19: 7-8 tells us the purpose of the Bible.
"The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes."
The Word for Christians is the only Truth. You cant throw some out as being false and rely on the set of morals that you find acceptable. The people that do this dont want to be judged by God or anyone else for that matter.
For a Christian the Bible does not become the Word of God; it already is the Word of God. Scripture only becomes meaningful to people when their hearts are open and illuminated by the Holy Spirit. Jesus once asked Peter," Who do you say I am", and Peters immediate response was, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus then said," Blessed are you, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in Heaven" This scripture would mean nothing to someone who did not have the Holy Spirit inside Him.
So Liberal Christianity believes and teaches that the Bible alone is the revealed Word of God. Even though it was written by men, the author was God. This was not invented by the church but it is the claim the Bible makes for itself. Peter 1:25, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21
Over 2000 times in the Old Testament alone there are sentences such as, "And God spoke...." The Bible is Gods Word.
Amen. I am glad you are here. And I learn too. Have you really studied the scripture to really really know what it says? Do you pray before you beginning reading and ask the Holy Spirit for help?
You know before I got saved......I did a lot of stuff I am not to proud of. Not only did I have an abortion......but lets just say I had a lot of lust in my heart. I thought I knew it all until a kind and loving Christian sister in Bible study pointed out my error in thinking and the way I was acting. She taught me a lot about the Christian walk. I was wrong about a lot of the sin stuff....in fact very wrong. The more I read the more I prayed and the more I understood. I didnt agree with God on a lot of issues. But it is not about what I think and understand. Its all about what God says. I believe by faith and I have layed everything to Him, especially the things I dont like, the things I dont understand. It doesnt matter if we comprehend everything. Gods plan is perfect.
The important thing to remember is that you are a sinner. Christ came for you Liberal and died so that you might spend eternity, if you so choose with Him. But you have to ask Him into your heart first, just believing He exists isnt good enough. This is something no one, no thing can do for you. You give HIM THE steering wheel of your life. Like Carrie Underwoods song..........JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL. A lot of people wont do that. But so many blessings can be yours if you accept Him. You need to repent and ask forgiveness. He is faithful, He keeps His promises and you will spend eternity with Him, but you cant deny His Word....who He said He was (God), and why he came.
You cant do this, or you are in fact calling Him a liar and Christianity then becomes nothing more than a fairy tale.
Like sander said, " I hope you're able to one day, see that God created the womb for His purpose and that ALL were created in His image. We were all fearly and wonderfully made and before we were formed in our mother's womb, He knew us and all our "members" were written down in a book. If those truths can help you find your way to being 100% prolife, wonderful, if not, that's something God alone will deal with."
Amen SAnder.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You are right, questioning is good. And reading and studying the scriptures is even better.
The Bible guides us on what we should believe and how we should behave. It provides the foundation for our faith in Jesus, as it records what Jesus said and did.
"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16
The only way to know what Christ is all about is through scripture. He tells us point blank what it takes to be saved.
"Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." Romans 10:17
The Laws of the Lord...Psalm 19: 7-8 tells us the purpose of the Bible.
"The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the Lord are radiant, giving light to the eyes."
The Word for Christians is the only Truth. You cant throw some out as being false and rely on the set of morals that you find acceptable. The people that do this dont want to be judged by God or anyone else for that matter.
For a Christian the Bible does not become the Word of God; it already is the Word of God. Scripture only becomes meaningful to people when their hearts are open and illuminated by the Holy Spirit. Jesus once asked Peter," Who do you say I am", and Peters immediate response was, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus then said," Blessed are you, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in Heaven" This scripture would mean nothing to someone who did not have the Holy Spirit inside Him.
So Liberal Christianity believes and teaches that the Bible alone is the revealed Word of God. Even though it was written by men, the author was God. This was not invented by the church but it is the claim the Bible makes for itself. Peter 1:25, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21
Over 2000 times in the Old Testament alone there are sentences such as, "And God spoke...." The Bible is Gods Word.
Amen. I am glad you are here. And I learn too. Have you really studied the scripture to really really know what it says? Do you pray before you beginning reading and ask the Holy Spirit for help?
You know before I got saved......I did a lot of stuff I am not to proud of. Not only did I have an abortion......but lets just say I had a lot of lust in my heart. I thought I knew it all until a kind and loving Christian sister in Bible study pointed out my error in thinking and the way I was acting. She taught me a lot about the Christian walk. I was wrong about a lot of the sin stuff....in fact very wrong. The more I read the more I prayed and the more I understood. I didnt agree with God on a lot of issues. But it is not about what I think and understand. Its all about what God says. I believe by faith and I have layed everything to Him, especially the things I dont like, the things I dont understand. It doesnt matter if we comprehend everything. Gods plan is perfect.
The important thing to remember is that you are a sinner. Christ came for you Liberal and died so that you might spend eternity, if you so choose with Him. But you have to ask Him into your heart first, just believing He exists isnt good enough. This is something no one, no thing can do for you. You give HIM THE steering wheel of your life. Like Carrie Underwoods song..........JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL. A lot of people wont do that. But so many blessings can be yours if you accept Him. You need to repent and ask forgiveness. He is faithful, He keeps His promises and you will spend eternity with Him, but you cant deny His Word....who He said He was (God), and why he came.
You cant do this, or you are in fact calling Him a liar and Christianity then becomes nothing more than a fairy tale.
Like sander said, " I hope you're able to one day, see that God created the womb for His purpose and that ALL were created in His image. We were all fearly and wonderfully made and before we were formed in our mother's womb, He knew us and all our "members" were written down in a book. If those truths can help you find your way to being 100% prolife, wonderful, if not, that's something God alone will deal with."
Amen SAnder.
You think I haven't heard all of that before?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yeah, but you should have worded it better in the first place. Because you came across as seriously insane.

reply from: yoda

Oh, my..... I see you've "dispensed with" common courtesy too!

reply from: churchmouse

Off to the tropics...........God Bless

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh, my..... I see you've "dispensed with" common courtesy too!
I didn't call her insane. I said that the way she posted made her SEEM insane.

reply from: yoda

Oh yeah...... that's MUCH better...........

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Even I become frustrated. As stated in today's sermon, none of us are capable of doing enough good to get us into heaven. We are all equal in sin.

reply from: nancyu

Yeah, but you should have worded it better in the first place. Because you came across as seriously insane.
Anyone who comes across as seriously insane in liberal's view, is a friend to the unborn in mine.
I hope you have a wonderful vacation, churchmouse.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I know now that she was trying to say that this is how she THINKS society feels. She's dead wrong, but she came across as liking it that way herself!! Sorry if I think someone who LIKES this kind of culture is insane.

reply from: churchmouse

Well I am posting from the computer lab at the Westin in Cancun........and it has been raining every since we got here. Tail end of a hurricane....no sun, ocean closed, high winds.......making the best of it.
Vexing I am sure that some porn stars are treated horribly. But society does not look at the porn industry like it used to, iM sorry.

reply from: futureshock

Eiri!
What happened to your id over at ehealth? You practically ran the place!!!! What is wrong with them?????

reply from: futureshock

Wow, I've missed A LOT! So what happened? When did the moderator corruption happen? What kind of corruption?
You can pm me if you'd rather, or email me. I'll pm you my email,

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Wow, I've missed A LOT! So what happened? When did the moderator corruption happen? What kind of corruption?
You can pm me if you'd rather, or email me. I'll pm you my email,
I don't mind saying it here. There was a group of moderators that were badly behaved, and as far as the debate forums went, I was one of them (I admit to this). Birch and Darkmoon were two others, as well as Kypros. Not all of them were mods but Birch was. Despite my complaints to admin, none of them were removed, and admin justified this by saying "well Eiri, people complain about you too". My thought was "well then remove ALL of us for God's sake!!".

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Bump! This was my first post.

reply from: Birch

Wow, I've missed A LOT! So what happened? When did the moderator corruption happen? What kind of corruption?
You can pm me if you'd rather, or email me. I'll pm you my email,
I don't mind saying it here. There was a group of moderators that were badly behaved, and as far as the debate forums went, I was one of them (I admit to this). Birch and Darkmoon were two others, as well as Kypros. Not all of them were mods but Birch was. Despite my complaints to admin, none of them were removed, and admin justified this by saying "well Eiri, people complain about you too". My thought was "well then remove ALL of us for God's sake!!".
Someone just pointed this out to me, and it is hysterically funny. Tyna, you are living in some kind of alternative reality. What a bunch of BS this is, and you contradicted yourself in another post, too, where you admitted being banned three times. And now you are a prolife advocate. I'm sure your brand of crazy really helps out the cause!
I said I wouldn't post again, but this was too good not to comment on. Have a nice day!

reply from: micah

You're not pro-choice. Either you give a woman control over her body or you don't. You are a less extreme anti-choicer.
Originally posted by: LiberalChiRo
I am pro-choice, but in moderation. I am pro-birth control. I am pro early-term abortions for elective reasons. I am against late-term (27+ week) abortion unless it is for the mother's safety or severe fetal deformity etc. q]

reply from: yoda

She can call herself either one, it's not up to you. You don't get to say who is prochoice anyway, just like I don't get to say who is prolife. The dictionaries define those words, not you or I. And they are rather liberal in some sources, so much so that anyone can qualify for either label now.

reply from: CharlesD

I believe a woman should have control over her own body, but not the body of another human being, regardless of where that other human being happens to reside.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Old post is ANCIENT.
This was the first post I made when I came here... I am no longer pro-choice at all. I am pro-life.
BUT PEOPLE, I'd like to point out that Micah is a case of a pro-choicer who does not think that ANY kind of restriction on abortion is allowed. This is a pro-choicer who advocates abortion till birth. As you can see, he has even called me an anti-choicer. Now it doesn't bother me of course because I'm pro-life now, but back when I was pro-choice people like Micah pissed me off.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Who the hell is Tyna?

reply from: Antibigot

Wow, I've missed A LOT! So what happened? When did the moderator corruption happen? What kind of corruption?
You can pm me if you'd rather, or email me. I'll pm you my email,
I don't mind saying it here. There was a group of moderators that were badly behaved, and as far as the debate forums went, I was one of them (I admit to this). Birch and Darkmoon were two others, as well as Kypros. Not all of them were mods but Birch was. Despite my complaints to admin, none of them were removed, and admin justified this by saying "well Eiri, people complain about you too". My thought was "well then remove ALL of us for God's sake!!".
Someone just pointed this out to me, and it is hysterically funny. Tyna, you are living in some kind of alternative reality. What a bunch of BS this is, and you contradicted yourself in another post, too, where you admitted being banned three times. And now you are a prolife advocate. I'm sure your brand of crazy really helps out the cause!
I said I wouldn't post again, but this was too good not to comment on. Have a nice day!
I'm sure it's true. Maybe at leat somewhat. Darkmoon is VERY VERY nasty when making posts and I find it interesting that this person never seemed to have ever been banned. All he/she did was threaten and make insulting comments about pro-lifers. What's so special about Darkmoon anyway? I notice pro-choicers tend to get away with more at ehealth. Not always, but it is definitely harder for a pro-lifer to speak their true minds.

reply from: Rosalie

Funny, considering how you and your pals seem to have nothing better to do every single day to call Carolemarie everything but pro-life.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Funny, considering how you and your pals seem to have nothing better to do every single day to call Carolemarie everything but pro-life.
And me. In fact, they call a lot of peope on here "faux-life". Yoda, you're the first voice in the crowd to say "Liberal isn't pro-life".

reply from: yoda

That was before the "new" definitions showed up. Now, according to one dictionary, all one must do is say "I'm opposed to abortion" in order to qualify as prolife. IOW, being "prolife" doesn't mean much of anything anymore.
Sad, really. It used to have a least a little meaning.

reply from: Rosalie

Funny, considering how you and your pals seem to have nothing better to do every single day to call Carolemarie everything but pro-life.
And me. In fact, they call a lot of peope on here "faux-life". Yoda, you're the first voice in the crowd to say "Liberal isn't pro-life".
True.

reply from: Birch

Who the hell is Tyna?
LOL!
A big lying "Christian" hypocrite apparently!
Should I post some pics or more information or are you going to just keep on lying and praying for forgiveness, Miss D.? LOL!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Who the hell is Tyna?
LOL!
A big lying "Christian" hypocrite apparently!
Should I post some pics or more information or are you going to just keep on lying and praying for forgiveness, Miss D.? LOL!
If you continue in this direction I will contact the police.

reply from: Banned Member

Who on earth is that? You love name-dropping without sourcing.
PRICELESS! THE WOMAN HAD BEEN ARGUING ABOUT ABORTION FOR YEARS AND THE NAME "MARGARET SANGER" NEVER CAME UP?

reply from: Yuuki

Who on earth is that? You love name-dropping without sourcing.
PRICELESS!
Yes, I was very unknowledgeable about your fetishes back then, Augustine.

reply from: Banned Member

THE WOMAN HAD BEEN ARGUING ABOUT ABORTION FOR YEARS AND THE NAME "MARGARET SANGER" NEVER CAME UP?

reply from: Faramir

You don't need to explain anything, Yuuki.
Your post saying "I want abortion to be illegal" is all that is necessary to demonstrate that NOW you are a "pro-lifer."
Congratulations for your growth, and don't worry about people who want to hold sins and previous beliefs of your past against you.

reply from: Yuuki

No, it didn't. Pro-choicers don't whack off to the founding mother of Planned Parenthood, unlike you.

reply from: sander

You really need to become a better liar, I'm sure spitwad can give you lessons...no, wait, she isn't any better at it than you, yucky. LOL
OH MY GOSH....THIS IS HILARIOUS!
You were a bad liar then and apparently you haven't got any better! LOL!!

reply from: Yuuki

Yeah I can't really understand how him bringing up this post - which I have VOLUNTARILY BROUGHT UP before in the past - is supposed to do anything except solidify that I have grown enormously in my pro-life views.

reply from: Faramir

Yeah I can't really understand how him bringing up this post - which I have VOLUNTARILY BROUGHT UP before in the past - is supposed to do anything except solidify that I have grown enormously in my pro-life views.
Of all people "Christians" understand that nobody is locked into their sins or errors, and that anyone can turn their back on it and start over--not that having the wrong opinion at your age is a "sin."
What you are now is what counts.
Wow, how desperate some are to get some cheap entertainment tonight.

reply from: Banned Member

The more marginal and unconvincing a persons pro-life views are the more Faramir respects them.

reply from: sander

It takes one to know one.
He couldn't care less about the baby and if it wasn't for the church I doubt he'd give a spit at all.

reply from: Faramir

I don't respect ALL yuuki's views but I do respect her as a person.
I don't see why she should be so badly harrassed and persecuted here.
She said that she wanted abortion to be illegal.
Is that the statement of a "pro abort"?
What more is required?

reply from: Faramir

It takes one to know one.
He couldn't care less about the baby and if it wasn't for the church I doubt he'd give a spit at all.
She can read hearts AND minds.
Wow, such power.
I suppose I would have a problem being humble too, if I were so gifted.

reply from: Shenanigans

This is what irks me. The "pro-abortion" movements twisting of words. "Pro" comes from Latin, it means "for", as in "supporting", "pro-abortion" at its purest semantical sense does not mean "for abortion all the time" it means "for abortion".
WHen someone says they are "pro-choice" we all knwo you're mincing words and are saying you support abortion. You support the choice to kill an unborn child, hardly something the Lord God you claim to worship would be happy about it.
I mean, think about it, Jesus died on the cross for all of us, for our terrible sins which we could not pay the price for. Sacrifice. That's what it is. Abortion is selfish, its abou ttaking the life of a child, YOUR child, for your own benefit, there is no sacrifice and no generosity. Jesus gave His life for us, and yet you support a woman's right to take the life of her own child for her own comfort?
You done any research on what you're harping on about?
And really, I wish abortion never ever had to happen, I wish it were obsolete et cetera et cetera et cetera, the only difference between you and I is that I don't support the KILLING of a human being for selfish, silly reasons.
OooooOOOOOOOooooooh, you get yourself on a slippery slope when you start talking about before human life can "truly" begin.
Here's a science lesson for you my friend, human life begins at conception. Not before and not after. AT conception. A new human life has begun and will do what it does, it grows, it progresses from zygote to blasotcyst to embryo to foetus (and a few inbetween I can't be arsed looking up).
Turn the other cheek.
And loving God is a great feeling indeed. And God loves all of us, everyone from Hitler, to Tiller, to Pol Pot to you and me and everyone else in existance.
You can still call yourself Christain, but its not us you have to answer to, its not people on the net you have to try and convince about your christain pro-choiceyness.
Its God.
You think He's going to be happy with you deciding, or supporting the decision to KILL a human life?
God is the creator of Life. God is a god of Life. He owns and crafts all life and He is the one who decides when we leave this world. So, I ask you, who are YOU to decide, or to support someone else's decision to END another human life based on some silly assumption of when life "truly" begins?
Those people are scum bags.
And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

reply from: Shenanigans

Hehe, I just realised how damn old this thread is. Meh.

reply from: Faramir

It takes one to know one.
He couldn't care less about the baby and if it wasn't for the church I doubt he'd give a spit at all.
Wow, like it would be bad if Jesus, speaking through the Church, convinced me abortion was wrong...
I'm not smarter or better than Jesus, so I would not be ashamed to say his Church helped me to see the light about abortion, though I did oppose it before I "found religion."

reply from: yoda

That's a very astute observation.........

reply from: yoda

No, that would be good....... any chance of it happening?

reply from: Banned Member

That's okay, all of Yuuki's threads are old. You might call them, threadbare.

reply from: Agooseturd

YUUKI WAS LIBERALCHIRO!!!
SHE ADMITTED IT!!!
YUUKI SHOPS AT WAL-MART!!!

reply from: Shenanigans

You know, I"ve never actually seeen a goose turd. Mind you, I've never seen a lot of geese before. THere were some at a local park, and they were mean and vicious and would chase me. (And I hadn't even done anythign to them!!)

reply from: Agooseturd

SHENANIGANS HAS DEVIANT RELATIONSHIPS WITH SHEEP!!!
SHE IS A DANGER TO THIS BOARD AND TO YOUR SHEEP!!!

reply from: Agooseturd

CONCERNEDPARENT IS A SECULAR HUMANIST!!!
HE ADMITTED IT!!!
I HAVE PROOF!!!

reply from: Banned Member

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk135/kedesign/me_yellow.jpg

reply from: MZDREAMER213

I WAS WONDERING IF YOUR 3WEEKS ALONG DO YOU STILL USE THE VACUMM?OR CAN YOU TAKE ANY KIND OF PILL TO BRING YOURPERIOD DOWN


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