Home - List All Discussions

Abortion hurts Women

by: Hosea

Women who have had an abortion are 50% more likely to develop breast cancer.
28 out of 37 studies have shown

24.3% of women will have complications in future pregnancies due to abortion.
Acta/ obstetrics and Gynecology

The risk of having a tubal pregnancy after one abortion is 30%, 160% after 2 or more abortions.
American Journal of public health.

The risk of Placenta Previa increase 600% after an abortion.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

There is a 200% increased risk of miscarriage after an abortion.
AMA Journal

50% of Women who have an abortion have experienced emotional and psychological disturbances.
British journal of OB/GYN

reply from: lukesmom

And none of this is told to women before they have an abortion. Telling them this info is called "Informed Consent" and is a basic right of health care but not a woman's basic right before undergoing the invasive procedure called an abortion...
Go figure and prochoicers say prolifers don't care about women....

reply from: galen

yes we get more informed before we have a tooth pulled w/ anesthesia.

reply from: sk1bianca

even pro-choicers say no woman ever WANTS to have an abortion. the simple fact that they do something they don't want shows they are pressured. by partners, by friends, by society and the stigma still attached to single mothers, by financial situation, by lack of help...
when you are pressured to do something you don't like and you don't want, such a thing is hurting you, one way or another.
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/

reply from: jujujellybean

exactly. If she didn't want to do it, she felt somehow she had to.

reply from: BossMomma

Because they are pro-life myths that medical science debunked a long time ago.

reply from: KaylieBee

Lol, what pro-choicers say that? Clearly if she's pressured it isn't HER choice, is it? It's someone elses choice for her.

reply from: jujujellybean

and those things involve killing a baby? I don't think so.

reply from: jujujellybean

Lol, what pro-choicers say that? Clearly if she's pressured it isn't HER choice, is it? It's someone elses choice for her.
Uh, lets see, tons. Whenever I go to a site they say, 'no woman wants an abortion, but sometimes she needs it.' People DO say that. All the time.

reply from: KaylieBee

I bet they do.
Ever going to reply to that PM, darling? Or are you scared of my dyke cooties?

reply from: KaylieBee

I'm not going to change my dialect for someone on the nets, CP.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

You're a real freak. You claim to be a total weirdo and degenerate at the tender age of 16. You need to do an about face and develop yourself into a decent person. Don't revel in your present depravity.

reply from: KaylieBee

Ouch, that's some homophobia if I've ever seen it.
I imagine you and Fred Phelps are pretty tight.

reply from: sweet

how did homophobia come up? "gay" is a choice also - right?
also, why not admit that abortion is psychologically painful?

reply from: KaylieBee

Maybe you should read his post, and the one he was quoting. If you don't get it then, well, there's no hope for you, is there?
Do you honestly believe we chose our sexuality? DO you think if you wanted to, you could be aroused by your own gender?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Of course, the sexual practices you elect to engage in are a choice. Anyone can choose to get excited by the prospects of sexual activities in any manner of ways if one dwells on it long enough. Currently, I have had no sexual activities of any type for several weeks now as my wife was pregnant and now is going through her recovery time. I'll have to warm up to the idea of engaging in such activities again in a few more weeks. Like I was in my youth, sex just hasn't been thought about or desired. I have to redevelop that appetite. Some, like food hogs, are into overindulging; this includes those that are promiscous or act out with same sex individuals.

reply from: KaylieBee

...You have to warm up to the idea of sex with your wife? And you say I have problems.

reply from: BossMomma

They hating on you for being a lesbian?

reply from: yoda

Nah, like a typical proabort she's making it all up.... there was nothing in his post about homosexuality at all.

reply from: galen

______________________________________
go to physicians for life... they have pages of this stuff.. all scientific and even...gosh.... unbiased.

reply from: galen

sorry but it does have a wide base that they draw from... its why i use it for research on some things... and why i use Guttmacher (pp's research arm) for others... as long as the paper isn't sponsered ONLY by a particular side the science is still science...
Physicians for life routinely posts diffrent sides of an issue... all scientifically based... Guttmacher has gotten better about it but not as well rounded and they have fewer international studies that they use... they tend to stick to the americas.
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/

reply from: galen

heer is another link from that site... from there you can go offsite and look at the full papers that only have quotes on that page...
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1516/26/

reply from: Hosea

Because they are pro-life myths that medical science debunked a long time ago.
Most of the articles have sources. . Breast cancer is caused by many things and abortion is one of the contributing factors. Instead of all the name calling read the studies and actuall;y open your mind, then decide the truth. Truth is not determined by what you want to believe. The breast cancer and abortion link has been proven in many studies.Here are a few.
Ye et al. (2002) Br J Cancer 87:977-981
Brinton et al. (1983) Br. Journal of Cancer 47:757-62
Reproductive factors in the etiology of breast cancer.
Rosenburg et al. (1988) Am J Epidemiology 127:981-9
Breast cancer in relation to the occurrence and time of induced and spontaneous abortion.
Marcus et al. Am J Public Health 1999 Aug; 89(8):1244-7
Adolescent reproductive events and subsequent breast cancer risk.
Palmer et al. (1997) Cancer Causes Control 8:841-9
Induced and spontaneous abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer.
Lazovich et al. Epidemiology 2000 Jan;11(1):76-80
Induced abortion and breast cancer risk.
Daling et al. Am J Epidemiol 1996 Aug 15;144(4):373-80
Risk of breast cancer among white women following induced abortion.
Daling et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994 Nov 2;86(21):1584-92
Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion.
Laing et al. J Natl Med Assoc 1993 Dec;85(12):931-9
Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience.
White et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:505-14
Breast cancer among young U.S. women in relation to oral contraceptive use.
Newcomb et al. (1996) JAMA 275:283-7
Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer.
Howe et al. Int J Epidemiol 1989 Jun;18(2):300-4
Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40.
Andrieu et al. Br J Cancer 1995 Sep;72(3):744-51
Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast cancer--a combined analysis of six case-control studies.
Hirohata et al. (1985) Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 69:187-90
Occurrence of breast cancer in relation to diet and reproductive history: a case-control study in Fukuoka, Japan.
Ewertz & Duffy (1988) Br J Cancer 68:99-104
Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark.
Lipworth et al. (1995) Int J Cancer 61:181-4
Abortion and the risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Greece
Rookus & van Leeuwan J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1759-64
Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study
Talamini et al. (1996) Eur J Cancer 32A:303-10
The role of reproductive and menstrual factors in cancer of the breast before and after menopause

reply from: yoda

Nah, like a typical proabort she's making it all up.... there was nothing in his post about homosexuality at all.

reply from: BossMomma

______________________________________
go to physicians for life... they have pages of this stuff.. all scientific and even...gosh.... unbiased.
Sounds like a pro-life site to me, lets have a look.

reply from: BossMomma

Physicians for life is a pro-life site and very biased, we asked for unbiased sources from doctors whose only agenda is to put out facts. Not those with an anti-choice agenda.

reply from: BossMomma

I believe I was asking KaylieBee.

reply from: faithman

I believe I was asking KaylieBee.
So?

reply from: yoda

Wow, is this the "new prolifer" who's biased against prolife sites?
Hmmm........

reply from: yoda

To quote Clark Gable...... "Frankly, my dear, (you know the rest)".

reply from: faithman

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: sweet

you CHOOSE sex with a man or sex with a woman. whether you're aroused or not is beside the point.
now on the real topic abortion HURTS women.

reply from: BossMomma

To quote Clark Gable...... "Frankly, my dear, (you know the rest)".
Get bent yoda

reply from: BossMomma

S'ok, I'm willing to bet that he has rather intimate knowledge of what a punk tank is. In fact I found this little ditty on youtube that reminds me of him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnS2xixCMCU

reply from: Cecilia

If you are pressured into giving birth, and you don't like it and don't want it, then that's hurting you, one way or another.

reply from: Cecilia

If you are pressured into giving birth, and you don't like it and don't want it, then that's hurting you, one way or another.
No pressure need be applied in order for a pregnant woman to give birth. Birth is the natural outcome of pregnancy. If you are suggesting that not allowing you to kill your offspring equates to coercion, your reasoning is obviously skewed. By that same logic, laws against child neglect/abuse "pressure" women, and therefore hurt them if they wish to neglect/abuse their children.
If I don't want to give birth and forcebirthers such as yourself pressure me to, then that is hurting me. It's the same logic stated by skiblanca.
Women shouldn't be pressured to give birth or have abortions. They certainly shouldn't be forced either way.

reply from: Cecilia

Then logically, every law "pressures" everyone, and "hurts" those who wish to do what is prohibited. Is that "wrong?"
That is exactly why skiblanca's logic is inaccurate. You and I are in the same boat.

reply from: Cecilia

Do you not desire forced parturition once a woman is pregnant?

reply from: Cecilia

Do you not desire forced parturition once a woman is pregnant?
Parturition requires no outside force, since it is the inevitable natural result of conception in the majority of cases. I can no more force a woman to birth a live child than I can forbid her to naturally miscarry. Both are natural events that I have no control over whatsoever.
We live in a world where abortion is an available alternative. You cannot deny that abortion is factually and technically an available alternative to pregnancy.
It is like demanding patients of condition X that they continue on the course of the disease naturally without treatment Z. You deny that treatment Z exists because the course of condition X is "natural".
Now taking that abortion is a technically and factually alternative to pregnancy, and you wish that no woman was able to make that choice, do you not desire forced parturition once a woman is pregnant?

reply from: Cecilia

I already answered this several times, and rather than answering my questions, you insist on repeating the ones I have already answered ad nauseum...
You are not answering the question. You are playing dodgeball.

reply from: Cecilia

I already answered this several times, and rather than answering my questions, you insist on repeating the ones I have already answered ad nauseum...
You are not answering the question. You are playing dodgeball.
The answer is NO, and I have explained it in detail several times! I have absolutely no desire to force any woman to give birth, and even if I did, I could never do so. It would be impossible for me to exert any control over that. How much more clear can I be?
Oh, great, you are prochoice! Excellent! Welcome.

reply from: Cecilia

I am not sure how this quote function works yet so please have patience.
"Hopefully, innocent human beings are not harmed, and "innocence" is defined by absence of guilt. Since the unborn are not capable of being guilty of anything, they must logically be "innocent," regardless of whether refusing to acknowledge that simple truth suits your purposes."
That was your response to my question: And what happens when you object to "intentionally harming innocent human beings"? Which you did not answer. (Hint: it has something to do with forcing women to give birth.)
Just as by prohibiting the killing of born children also "removes options," but once more, birth occurs naturally, and can not be "forced." Can we forbid natural miscarriage?
I don't understand why you are failing to recognize the consequence of what you advocate.
First of all, ad hominem circumstantial in that you misrepresent the motive, implying that we wish to control women when our only concern is preventing killing
I never said anything about your motivations. I don't know your motivations. I do know what will happen if your agenda comes to fruition. Why don't you?
You are also relying on a false assumption in that you mean to imply that it is "wrong" to "force" someone to do something against their will, which is obviously not universally true, .
Actually, if you return to the thread I believe you are referencing you will find that that I did not say that either and I actually agree with you on this concept.
and you also imply that prohibiting one option "forces" the other, which is also not true There is only one alternative to pregnancy and if you eliminate it, you do indeed force birth.
And of course all choices must not be allowed. For example, if you had the choice to eliminate abortion with the snap of your fingers, we must not allow you to snap your fingers.
"Now, I have offered logical arguments against your illogical contention, even though the argument is logically fallacious in that it attempts to distract from the real issue as well, that issue being the question of whether it is ethical to allow women to kill their offspring, under what circumstances, and why. I challenge you to clearly explain your position on these points, since they are obviously central to this issue, and stop playing these silly games"
What debate tactic is that called?
You want to turn the tables around and talk about ethics of abortion now instead of addressing what your ethics mean in the real world, and since I stay on topic I play "silly games".

reply from: Cecilia

Obviously, my objections do not "force" anyone to give birth. How did I not answer the question? You wanted my answer to be that objecting to the killing of innocent human beings forces women to give birth? It is unreasonable to insist that the only acceptable answer is a falsehood.
I don't understand why you insist that forbidding you to kill your offspring forces you to give birth. You are not even required to become pregnant to start with, and the prohibition I advocate will not force you to. If you give birth, it will be a direct result of your choice to engage in sexual intercourse, unless you were raped, in which case you might have a valid argument if you contended that the rapist "forced you to give birth." In either case, abortion prohibition would not force you to give birth. It would not logically effect any aspect of natural reproduction, but would simply make it illegal for you to kill your offspring!
Is not becoming pregnant an option? I'm pretty sure it is...
It's called "attempting to honestly address the real issue without deliberate obfuscation."
Oh, I see. The topic is "abortion hurts women," but you do not think that discussion of the ethics of abortion is relevant. You do however, seem to think that forbidding women to kill their offspring harms them, so insisting repeatedly that I advocate "forcing women to give birth" is relevant.
Very well. Of course, I have shown that, logically, your assertion is invalid, and that it is irrelevant whether "forcing childbirth" harms women, since it is impossible to force a woman to give birth by prohibiting abortion. Since that is settled (whether you accept it or not) I will move on...I wouldn't want to further offend you by veering off topic.
It is becoming clearer to me that you will continue to deny the basic fact that eliminating the legal and real choice of abortion for pregnant women effectively leads them down no other route than forced parturition. If they no longer have a choice, then there is no choice to be made and they must give birth.
It is logical and sound. Incidentally I have heard no other antiabortionchoice individuals chime in on this.
What do you others think?

reply from: Cecilia

What part of this do you not understand?
Your comments and sentiments are very clear. It is not true that if one disagrees with you they must not understand your point of view.

reply from: Cecilia

You have no rebuttal worthy of debate. You believe A, the facts are X, and if you cannot see it by now it is not interesting to me to continue.

reply from: Cecilia

Which points do you dispute? Which statements are not "factual?" Here's a "fact" for you. Logically, if what I say is true, then your contention is proven to be false. So, if you assert that your contention is true, you must logically believe some part of my rebuttal to be false. So which part do you dispute?
This is so terribly boring.
I dispute this:
You have choice A or B. You remove choice B. You now no longer have any choice and as such A is all that is left. You must do A.
This:
No. Not accurate, just emotive. If you give birth, it is a direct result of your decision to give birth, since abortion is not a philosophical concept but an actual medical procedure.
and this:
I think the issue we are having is that you adhere to this concept of "natural" and attach an emotion to it, instead of looking at this from a pure reality based perception. You are also ignoring that not only would prohibiting abortion make it illegal to kill offspring in the womb, but it would also effectively force pregnant women to give birth. You keep coming back with 'I can't force pregnant women togive birth because it's natural' because you are assuming that natural means there should be no other choice. You dislike abortion so heavily that you cannot even see it as an option to pregnancy without attaching emotion to it.

reply from: yoda

As an "antiabortionchoice individual", I think you're way oversimplifying the situation. We ALWAYS have a choice. If elective abortion is made illegal, then there is always the choice to procure an illegal abortion, is there not? Being illegal does not make a choice not "real", does it?
And of course, pregnant women always give birth (unless it's a "stone baby"), the only choice is whether to allow the baby to be born alive and healthy, or dead and mangled. Which way do you prefer?

reply from: Cecilia

As an "antiabortionchoice individual", I think you're way oversimplifying the situation. We ALWAYS have a choice. If elective abortion is made illegal, then there is always the choice to procure an illegal abortion, is there not? Being illegal does not make a choice not "real", does it?
And of course, pregnant women always give birth (unless it's a "stone baby"), the only choice is whether to allow the baby to be born alive and healthy, or dead and mangled. Which way do you prefer?
You are correct; being illegal will not eliminate the choice of abortion. It will however, become an unregulated procedure fraught with problems. The last thing I desire if for frightened women to seek out unqualified abortionists in non-clinical settings. It is not the answer.
My preference for how women deliver stops at their preference.

reply from: Cecilia

It doesn't do you any good to dispute that. It is a fact that I do not understand why you continue to insist that forbidding you to kill your offspring forces you to give birth.
Choice A = childbirth (not really a "choice," since you can not control whether or not you will miscarry or deliver, but I'll play along)
Choice B = abortion
Choice C = having sex
Choice D = not having sex
You are assuming there are only two choices. That is a false assumption, the first logical error in your argument...
If you choose C, and conceive a child, then you have two choices, A or B. If option B is eliminated, you can avoid option A simply by choosing option D rather than option C, therefore the elimination of option B does not force you to choose option A. It's elementary logic. Your argument is indisputably defeated...Without even addressing your other objections!
No. Not accurate, just emotive. If you give birth, it is a direct result of your decision to give birth, since abortion is not a philosophical concept but an actual medical procedure.
Giving birth is certainly a direct result of having sex! This is no "philosophical concept," but a biological fact! The fact that it can be avoided by killing the child does not change that! It can also be avoided by not having sex, the act that must occur in order for the possibility to exist to start with...Like I said, other conscious choices that you seem to be ignoring also come into play here.
I think the issue we are having is that you adhere to this concept of "natural" and attach an emotion to it, instead of looking at this from a pure reality based perception. You are also ignoring that not only would prohibiting abortion make it illegal to kill offspring in the womb, but it would also effectively force pregnant women to give birth. You keep coming back with 'I can't force pregnant women togive birth because it's natural' because you are assuming that natural means there should be no other choice. You dislike abortion so heavily that you cannot even see it as an option to pregnancy without attaching emotion to it.
What emotion? This is logic in it's purest form! If you have sex, there are two possible results. Either you will conceive a child, or you will not. If you conceive, the natural result that will occur without any outside interference, is pregnancy and childbirth, or pregnancy and miscarriage. These are not "choices," and can not be controlled. Abortion forces the issue by killing the child, preventing the two otherwise inevitable possibilities. Prohibiting abortion removes all aspects of "force" from the equation. If we do nothing, the pregnant woman will either give birth or miscarry with no force being required, the pregnancy having already been set in motion by a previous choice of the mother.
And now we come to it.
Having sex is not Option C or D when one is determining their alternatives to the state of being pregnant.
Abortion is an alternative to pregnancy, having sex or not having sex is not.
Spock would not agree with your logic. "Bones" might, though.

reply from: galen

As an "antiabortionchoice individual", I think you're way oversimplifying the situation. We ALWAYS have a choice. If elective abortion is made illegal, then there is always the choice to procure an illegal abortion, is there not? Being illegal does not make a choice not "real", does it?
And of course, pregnant women always give birth (unless it's a "stone baby"), the only choice is whether to allow the baby to be born alive and healthy, or dead and mangled. Which way do you prefer?
You are correct; being illegal will not eliminate the choice of abortion. It will however, become an unregulated procedure fraught with problems. The last thing I desire if for frightened women to seek out unqualified abortionists in non-clinical settings. It is not the answer.
My preference for how women deliver stops at their preference.
___________________________________________________-
i think you have the wrong assumption here... abortion isn't regulated the way other medicine is. It is the only surgical procedure that anyone with a pregnancy can undergo, with out regard to age, status of health, informwed consent, regular sterile environment, and followup care. If a regular gyno oprerated the way the AB clinics do then they would be run out of the US.
Malpractice suits are very rarely brought because of the shame associated with the procedure. It is the only procedure in america where one of the patients in the surgical room routinely dies for every 2 brought in.
Abortion is NOT a good thing for women, just by the fact of its unregulation ( wich the industry continually fights)
Abortion is NEVER a good thing for the baby.

reply from: yoda

It's pretty much unregulated right now, haven't you noticed? Every effort made by prolifers to impose regulations on abortuaries is met with fierce resistance from the proabortion lobby.
But BOTH legal and illegal abortion are fraught with one problem: they are designed to electively kill an innocent human being. But you're okay with that, right?

reply from: Cecilia

Do you think that changing the status from legal to illegal will in any-way change the way abortion is done, coming from a safety persepective?

reply from: Cecilia

You become pregnant as a result of choosing between C and D. As long as you are free to choose between C and D, no one can force you to have to choose between A and B. If option B is eliminated, the choice becomes C + A, OR D. In any event, you are not forced into choosing one option by elimination of all others as you continue to imply. My logic is sound, and I think you know it. You now seem to be arguing that if you choose C + A, A has been forced upon you by having eliminated B. It just ain't so. You would have chosen A, since the elimination of B, makes it impossible to separate C and A by choice. Choosing C would imply acceptance of the possibility of A, since there would be no choice that would allow you to separate the two.
Are you unable to understand this, or are you simply unwilling to accept the error of your logic for personal reasons?
Are you basically assering that the choice of having sex means that you have also made the explicit and immediate choice to give birth as well? How would you prove that?
If one has sex and gets an STI, that does not mean that they have given up their choices for treatment. It means they have an STI, nothing more, and they have a road ahead of them to determine.
Just as if one has sex and becomes pregnant, it does not mean they have given up their choices, either. It means they are pregnant, and in this 21st century with medical advances one can have an abortion. Irrefutable fact.

reply from: Cecilia

It's pretty much unregulated right now, haven't you noticed? Every effort made by prolifers to impose regulations on abortuaries is met with fierce resistance from the proabortion lobby.
But BOTH legal and illegal abortion are fraught with one problem: they are designed to electively kill an innocent human being. But you're okay with that, right?
Are the regulations opposed because the motivations behind them are to eliminate abortion?
I am accepting of the end result of abortion, I do not oppose it. A dead fetus.

reply from: Cecilia

If the answer is no, then you must understand that consent to sex only means consent to sex. If an unwanted pregnancy occurs, that does not mean someone has to consent to give LIVE birth, since abortion is an actual medical procedure that someone can actually choose to partake in.
You avoided the concept. If there is 'no need to deny any person necessary medical treatment' then you would not deny this to women who desire abortion, since abortion can factually be considered a necessary medical treatment. You have attached emotion to the concept, which is fine so long as you do not deny the reality of the situation.
More of the 'choose sex= choose to give LIVE birth" concept, which is erroneous. Skydiving comes with a risk of death. That does not mean when someone jumps out of a plane towards the ground that they choose to not be treated against death in case of injury, since treatment is available.
This has nothing to do with your position on abortion, but are you male, concernedparent? I've noted that more of the vocal and sometime extreme posters on here, such as faithman, yodavater, and Augustine are of the male gender.

reply from: galen

If you are pressured into giving birth, and you don't like it and don't want it, then that's hurting you, one way or another.'
________________________________________
then don't have sex... its not so hard.

reply from: galen

Do you think that changing the status from legal to illegal will in any-way change the way abortion is done, coming from a safety persepective?
________________________________________
i don't think it will become more dangerous... most illegal abortions were preformed in a hospital setting under the terms of a D&C... the whole back alley thing was really blown out of proportion. I would definately be in favour of a hospital setting for any procedure of this magnitude...if its not illegal it should definately be harder to aquire...
however i'm more in favour of its illegality.

reply from: galen

You become pregnant as a result of choosing between C and D. As long as you are free to choose between C and D, no one can force you to have to choose between A and B. If option B is eliminated, the choice becomes C + A, OR D. In any event, you are not forced into choosing one option by elimination of all others as you continue to imply. My logic is sound, and I think you know it. You now seem to be arguing that if you choose C + A, A has been forced upon you by having eliminated B. It just ain't so. You would have chosen A, since the elimination of B, makes it impossible to separate C and A by choice. Choosing C would imply acceptance of the possibility of A, since there would be no choice that would allow you to separate the two.
Are you unable to understand this, or are you simply unwilling to accept the error of your logic for personal reasons?
Are you basically assering that the choice of having sex means that you have also made the explicit and immediate choice to give birth as well? How would you prove that?
If one has sex and gets an STI, that does not mean that they have given up their choices for treatment. It means they have an STI, nothing more, and they have a road ahead of them to determine.
Just as if one has sex and becomes pregnant, it does not mean they have given up their choices, either. It means they are pregnant, and in this 21st century with medical advances one can have an abortion. Irrefutable fact.
________________________________________
treating and STD is not killing a human being, abortion is...

reply from: yoda

Didn't you get the memo? The proaborts consider pregnancy an "STD".

reply from: galen

right... but how many herpes viruses grow up to have a brain and feelings?

reply from: galen

gee vexing why not say how you really feel?

reply from: carolemarie

Abortion hurts women because it promises a quick fix and seems like a way out of a bad situtation. But the cost is the life of your child. And that is hard to live with. It has a negative effect on your self-image, or there woudn't be so many repeat abortions and totally messed up lives.
It simply makes women weak pathetic victims, who are forced to claim silly statements as truth to justify the abortion.
Killing your own child isn't in your best interest. It always hurts you. I find it sad that women would argue that they should be able to have their baby killed. Even most animals protect their own young...women are hardwired to protect their children, and to actually believe that you can terminate the pregnancy and not be effected is the height of denial.

reply from: yoda

Actually, that was sarcasm, but I really don't expect you to recognize it.
Now that's an interesting concept. You actually think that women would electively kill their innocent unborn children to "spite me"?
What kind of a woman would kill her own baby to "spite me"?

reply from: yoda

Now, now, you must remember that vexing, like Lib, has "self control issues" and cannot be expected to maintain civility in these debates!

reply from: nancyu

Now, now, you must remember that vexing, like Lib, has "self control issues" and cannot be expected to maintain civility in these debates!
I always love those kinds of arguments, don't you. We are the ones forcing women to abort. Just like we forced vexing to go back to being pro abortion because we weren't nice to her.

reply from: yoda

Oh yeah...... who wouldn't want to kill their babies, after reading how mean we are to vexing and Lib...... ?????

reply from: nancyu

It's not erroneous at all. If you jump out of an airplane YOU assume that risk of death or injury. You can't jump out of the airplane, and when the chute doesn't open, jump back into the plane. We are not forcing you to hit the ground by saying this, it is a fact of life.
Women are designed to carry babies. If a woman has sex she runs the risk of getting pregnant. If you want gender equality, do like vexing and change your gender, or if gender is such a problem for you become an it, I don't really care. But you don't kill babies to have your life the way you want it.

reply from: galen

Now, now, you must remember that vexing, like Lib, has "self control issues" and cannot be expected to maintain civility in these debates!
I always love those kinds of arguments, don't you. We are the ones forcing women to abort. Just like we forced vexing to go back to being pro abortion because we weren't nice to her.
_______________________________
reaqlly ... i never heard her say that... what i have heard are certain people attacking her and anyone like her for not being prolife enough! Hell some of them have even accused me of it... so i was actually on vexings side on this one...

reply from: yoda

I hadn't read that either....... I just thought nancy was being hypothetical about what "might be said".
You can't really be "not prolife enough". You either are, or you aren't. That term belongs to society, not to us. And society says (through dictionaries) that it applies to all who oppose the legal availability of elective abortion. And I'm not sure if I ever heard her say she did oppose it, so I don't know if she ever actually became prolife. You can't just say "I'm prolife now" and become prolife, unless you oppose the legal availability of elective abortion.

reply from: galen

she said she was prolife based on her veiws that discrimination was wrong... and its still wrong to discriminate against someone who is not born yet... hence she is against abortion.
i posted and reposted it ...in fact i think its even on the private thread...

reply from: galen

When someone reconsiders their support of abortion, I see that as a victory for our cause. I don't see how a "true prolifer" can work as hard as some of you do to keep certain people "out of the club." Vexing finally conceded that we have a valid position, then the self righteous idiots on this forum rushed to try to kick that sand castle over. She just isn't good enough to be "on our team" in some of your eyes, and you made that quite clear, now you say she "went back to being pro-abortion," even though you refused to acknowledge that she was coming around to start with. Some people try to bring them to our side, others slam the door in their faces...The ones who put themselves on a pedestal and feel they are the only "true prolifers" do more to hurt this cause than the "pro-aborts" do IMO.
"The best way to destroy your enemy is to make him your friend."
~Abraham Lincoln~
__________________________________________
i guess i'll never be a true prolifer... maybe i should just end it all now.

reply from: yoda

Well, not to rain on anyone's parade, but unless you "oppose elective abortion" by supporting laws to make it illegal, you still don't fall under the prolife definition.
Lots of people say they "oppose abortion personally, but support it politically"... and they are not prolife either.

reply from: galen

she opposes it completely... kinda like one would oppose slavery...

reply from: yoda

I think that what's interesting is how a proabort extremist sees everyone else as "extreme", even moderates.

reply from: yoda

Sorry, I just can't recall ever seeing her say that she opposes the legality of abortion. But if she did, then that puts her in the prolife category.

reply from: galen

Sorry, I just can't recall ever seeing her say that she opposes the legality of abortion. But if she did, then that puts her in the prolife category.
__________________________________________________
i'll try to bump the thread when i get back from YOGA...
see you in a while...

reply from: yoda

What I find most interesting about vexing is how she attacks prolifers and defends proaborts in general...... and still claims to be prolife. And of course, no one but Mary ever says a word to her about her virulent attacks, because she's so "special".

reply from: xnavy

i am a woman and i hope for the day that abortion becomes ilegal except to save the life of the mother, and a mother of 3 children.

reply from: yoda

That's highly subjective and could be said about some of the proaborts here too, but she defends them while attacking the prolifers. To me, that raises serious questions. And I didn't have to do a thing to her to get the "benefit" of her latest rant in this very thread. I think I handled it rather well, but I also think she's just about used up her "get out of jail free" cards.

reply from: Cecilia

Do you think that changing the status from legal to illegal will in any-way change the way abortion is done, coming from a safety persepective?
________________________________________
i don't think it will become more dangerous... most illegal abortions were preformed in a hospital setting under the terms of a D&C... the whole back alley thing was really blown out of proportion. I would definately be in favour of a hospital setting for any procedure of this magnitude...if its not illegal it should definately be harder to aquire...
however i'm more in favour of its illegality.
"I would definately be in favour of a hospital setting for any procedure of this "
magnitude"--can you tell me why and describe "magnitude"?

reply from: Cecilia

If I may be so bold, you could work on how you word your posts. You can come across as...unpleasant to deal with. I was surprised by your posts on this thread of insight into your actions.
Galen is a good role model for you.

reply from: Cecilia

I disagree with your opinions.

reply from: Cecilia

Step A is the cut, Step B is the bleeding, and Step C is the treatment.
Step A is sex, Step B is pregnancy, and Step C can be abortion.
If one jumped off a ten story balcony(A), they assume the risks inherent(B). However, that does not mean that they may not receive treatment(C) for their condition.
Consent to consequences may be implied but no one in their right mind would also consent to "nature's way".
Yes. But, you can control the outcome, since abortion is a reality, not a fantasy.
This has been done to death. A fetus in the womb has no inherent right, by either law or nature, to grow and be born alive.
You do not get to define for others what their needs are, as much as you'd like to.
The argument is that the removal of the choice of legal abortion implicitly creates the legally compelling situation of FORCING every single pregnant woman to give birth.
It might surprise you that I agree with you. Women should be responsible for the consequence of their choices, just as men should. Sometimes that means terminating their pregnancy. "Responsible" is subjective.
I think I understand what you are saying. To continue with the skydiver analogy, the skydiver would not be denied treatment as a consequence of their action. You contend that neither should pregnant women. My point of contention, and this will never be agreed upon, is that people with your advocation want to decide what that treatment is.
You have attached emotion to the stripped down concept of responsibility, and decided that your idea of what is responsible, or ethical, is it for everyone.
Your opinions are not invalidated by your emotional imput, I never said that. It is important to retain that information, however, because emotions are subjective. The ethics of abortion are subjective, and no one can be more right than anyone else. That is why it is of paramount important that each individual decide their own course.

reply from: Cecilia

Do you get to determine what treatment the skydiver undergoes?
Women are also designed to be autonomous.
I have said nothing of gender equality. Why did you post all that?

reply from: carolemarie

I disagree with your opinions.
i disagree with your opinions as well.

reply from: yoda

Some of them may think that way, but the problem with getting a hysterectomy OR getting castrated at a relatively young age is that doctors fear lawsuits from such patients who change their minds later on. Fear of lawsuits is THE driving force in medicine.

reply from: Cecilia

I disagree with your opinions.
i disagree with your opinions as well.
I am glad you recognize your thoughts as opinions.
Because they are most certainly generalizations, which, are almost always wrong.

reply from: Cecilia

Certainly, but no one's right to autonomy is absolute. There are things you are not permitted to do, and things you are required to do. Generally one may not exercise any right in such a way as to infringe on the rights of another.
No one's right to life is absolute, either, if such a thing even exists.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, reliability is a problem, and even those procedures are difficult to obtain in some areas.

reply from: Cecilia

You should have said, "I think there is not always treatment for all cuts, just like there is not always treatment for all pregnancies (in the form of abortion).
So there is A, B, and sometimes C for cuts, and A, B, and sometimes C for pregnancy.

My point is that when you chose to take the risk, you intentionally set an event in motion. From that point, you are responsible for what happens based on your choice. There is not always a viable option that will allow you to control the consequences of every choice, though. Also, not all "choices" should be allowed, either.
--but there is in pregnancy--
No one can command another's conscience, and no one should be able to do that either, in pregnancy or in spirituality.

What does justice have to do with anything?
You say "nope" but then go on to say that "yes, I get to define needs for others".
I do not know anything about mothers that can abort right up to delivery when there are no health problems. Where is this done?
"Yes, but she has a choice not to become pregnant"--No, she has a choice not to have sex. Pregnancy is not a voluntary choice.
In pregnancy there are limited options. Post pregnancy, there are numerous.
Are you a promotor of celibacy?
All subjective.
Could you tell me more about what you mean here?
Yes, you should decide your own ethics and courses on those issues as well. The law is a separate entity which I have not addressed much, because I do believe that 'just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right', so that would be a poor argument for abortion choice to be legal.

reply from: yoda

Wichita, Kansas, for one. Go to George "Killer" Tiller's website and click on "Late Term Elective Abortion". He has put such things as "patient wants to go to prom" and "patient wants to attend concert" on medical records as the reason for late term abortions on healthy unborn babies.
Oh, btw, I'd be eternally grateful if you'd delete all the spaces out of your posts.

reply from: Cecilia

Wichita, Kansas, for one. Go to George "Killer" Tiller's website and click on "Late Term Elective Abortion". He has put such things as "patient wants to go to prom" and "patient wants to attend concert" on medical records as the reason for late term abortions on healthy unborn babies.
Oh, btw, I'd be eternally grateful if you'd delete all the spaces out of your posts.
Right up to delivery when there are no health issues?? I didn't see that on that website. I saw this: "We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable."

reply from: Cecilia

Yes it is what you said, on your very previous post:
It doesn't matter if I disagree or not, the point is that it is all subjective, unable to be proven, and inappropriate.
This statement, more about this statement: The law is inconsistent in the abortion exception, and primarily because of historical ignorance that has bound us to archaic law.
Quote me. I have said no such thing. I am trying to determine where the "rights" come from for this fetus to grow, and be born.

reply from: yoda

And of course, guess who gets to determine WHEN the baby is viable? YES, that's right, the same doctor who stands to earn many thousands IF he aborts the baby. No "conflict of interest there", right?
And what he puts on his website is just the tip of the iceberg. The medical records I spoke are a matter of public record now, one woman wanting to abort at 8 months "so she could attend a concert", another very late abortion so she could "go to her prom".

reply from: yoda

Then be specific. Are you asking about moral or legal rights?


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