Home - List All Discussions

My Ever Changing Views On Abortion 3 (new!)

Again! :)

by: LiberalChiRo

So here are my updated views on abortion. I have of course come to the realization that I don't have to like abortion or tolerate it. Sometimes, our ethics are "forced" on other people: they're called Laws. There needs to be a better Law about killing unborn children.
I. Elective Abortion: No.
I do not approve of elective abortion during any stage of pregnancy. If a woman wants to kill her child she's going to need a reason. There needs to be a lot more funding out into both free prenatal care, free birth control, birth control education and sexual education.
II. Disabled Fetus: No.
Any pro-lifer can be against elective abortion. I don't believe in abortion for fetal abnormalities. The children I worked with - bless their hearts - deserve every second of life they can get. So I oppose all abortions done only because of fetal abnormalities.
III. Rape: Circumstantial
I still feel a woman should have the option to abort, but only after going through a lot of therapy and it has been determined that abortion is the only way to prevent permanent harm to her mind or body. This is likely to be rare.
IV. Young Maternal Age: Circumstantial
I again feel that this should be determined on a case-by-case basis, judging on the health of the young lady. There are cases where carrying to term could be extremely harmful and I know that's hard to believe but it's true. Extremely young teen pregnancies are rare anyway. Actually now that I think about it, this really falls under Maternal Danger, so let's move on.
V. Maternal Danger: Yes.
I definitely believe in abortion to save the mother's life. End of discussion on that one.
All women with crisis pregnancies should be approached initially in the same way: as a pregnant woman. Not a woman who wants to abort. Nobody goes to the hospital planning to have serious, dangerous emergency surgery; that's a decision reached by the doctors who determine that it is the best solution, and even then the mother has a right to refuse.
Women with crisis pregnancies should not think "I need to go to the clinic to schedule an abortion, and maybe someone will talk me out of it". No, they should go there thinking "I need to go to the clinic for help and counseling."
Other thoughts:
The thought that some people have behind providing clean needles for addicts is "well, at least they'll be safe", and that's the same though behind making abortion elective. "Well they'll abort anyway, so at least they'll be safe". Doesn't that sound stupid when compared to the addicts? I suppose the people who fought for Roe v Wade were going off the thought that "women will abort anyway", so they were hoping to keep it safe for just those women. I don't think they were expecting abortion to explode as it has into a third form of birth control (on top of abstinence or safe-sex).
Moving on: let's not talk about being attached to a body for a moment. An embryo is a person in the embryonic stage of life. We were all embryos at one point. That was your body, that's what your body was supposed to be like at that time. It was still YOURS. Saying that women have the right to electively kill embryos is just the same as saying she has the right to kill her child during any other stage in life.
<<<<<~
[edited for stupidity]
I know what I consider myself to be, but what is YOUR opinion, based on the above statements? Am I pro-life or pro-choice?

reply from: KaylieBee

If you don't know, how could we?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I do know. I'm asking because apparently I'm wrong. Or do you not read anything Yodahater writes?

reply from: KaylieBee

I thought you had the ghy on ignore?

reply from: scopia1982

I would call you undecided. I agree with you on almost everything ,except the rape and save the life of the mother clause. Please let me give my rebuttal:
Rape: A baby concieved by rape has just as much right to be here as those who were not. To say that abortion is ok in this circumstance is to dehumanize the unborn child as less then human. My heart goes out to any victim of sexual assault, especially those who find themselves pregnant as the result. And every resource and extensive mental health care should be made available to insure that her and her baby get safely to term. The choice to parent or surrender the baby for adoption is her choice. Many women who abort get counsling for the rape itself without addressing the abortion. Find they have come to terms with the rape but not the abortion. They are back at square one.
Moms Life: Barring an ectopic pregnancy, where you have to take the baby no chance that it will survive. Do everything to get Mom and baby as safely to as close to term as possible. This could mean strict bedrest for mom and possible a premature birth, but with the medical technology we have available, no need to sacrifice a child.

reply from: Bgraphics

You are Pro-Abortion...
There is no in-between, either you are or you are not.
To condone Abortion in any aspect you are Pro-Abortion... Pro-Choice whatever.
I would concider Rape babies to be aborted, but I don't because. Abortion is only used in this way very rarely. And is really used for personal gain.
For the mother that could die during pregnancy or during labor.
A life was born in the place of hers. And that is the way it should be viewed but its not.

reply from: KaylieBee

B, did you know most rapes are never reported? Therefore, how can you know the true percentage of babies being aborted because of rape? And if you factor in underage girls impregnated by older men (statutory rape) I imagine the percentage goes up quite a bit. Most pro-lifers seem to define statutory rape as the same as real rape, judging by your reactions to PP not reporting instances of it.

reply from: yoda

You got that right, "prochoice with exceptions".
I wonder who it is that this "yodahater" hates so much?

reply from: KaylieBee

Ew, no she is not pro-choice.

reply from: yoda

I thought you had the ghy on ignore?
Apparently, my posts are "irresistible".

reply from: yoda

Ew, yes she is.
She does not advocate that elective abortion be made illegal, so she is prochoice/proabortion.

reply from: KaylieBee

Sorry, no, she is not pro-choice to me. At all.

reply from: Bgraphics

I fill to do away with the abortion movement all together I would sacrifice the exceptions. I never stated knowing the full statistics of rape and self-gain abortions. I also know alot of reported rapes don't really accure. And are used to excuse abortion. I fill for all rape victims. But there is a thing called the mourning after pill that can be used to prevent a pregnancy. And should be used in all cases after rape. My wife is a rape victim, and I asked her what would she have done if she got pregnat. She told me to kill that baby would have been alot worst than that man raping me.

reply from: yoda

Well of course you're perfectly free to make up your own silly, idiotic, individual definition of that term, anytime you want to... okay?
pro-choice adjective advocating access to legal abortion: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pro-choice.html

reply from: KaylieBee

well that's great, but not all women see it the same way as your wife. Some women would see if as a constant, daily reminder of the terrible crime which had been committed, and relive it daily for nine months.
And some people consider the morning after pill an abortion, which is why some pharmacists refuse to give it out.

reply from: Bgraphics

I am a male with moral values.
Are you a murderer, or a killer
I would rather the mother die, than the baby be murdered.
Thats a better way to say it.

reply from: KaylieBee

So, you wouldn't mind if your wife died in birth, to save your fifth child, leaving you as a single father with five children to raise on your own? Do you really think that's fair to them?

reply from: scopia1982

I am a male with moral values.
Are you a murderer, or a killer
I would rather the mother die, than the baby be murdered.
Thats a better way to say it.
I think its wrong to outright sacrifice one over the other. Let me bring my Catholic beliefs into the equation. I was taught that every effort must be made to save both. If you do everything medically possible and one dies anyway, you have done all you can do. No sin is committed. But if you save one without trying to save the other, than you have sinned.

reply from: Bgraphics

In what world. Everyone I know is Pro-Life. You are the minority and will soon find out. Rowe v Wade will not last forever. Not when the people of this country do a public vote, and kick the Liberal judges out the door. It will come to that. Its just a matter of time.

reply from: Bgraphics

So, you wouldn't mind if your wife died in birth, to save your fifth child, leaving you as a single father with five children to raise on your own? Do you really think that's fair to them?
I wouldn't have it any other way neither would my wife. Let me note that there would be an attempt to save both.

reply from: KaylieBee

Okay, but how would you raise five children as a single man, assuming you never find another woman?

reply from: KaylieBee

And in Canada, there are no federal laws limiting abortions. =)

reply from: KaylieBee

Some provinces are restrictive, though, like this one.

reply from: Bgraphics

Thats a bunch of shi? My wife fills the same way even without my influince. So to speak of something you haven't experianced is foolish. My mother died giving birth to me. That is MORAL values. And I commend her for it. Never did she say to any one she thought of abortion. And she knew the risk of having me.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I thought you had the ghy on ignore?
I do. I'm referencing all of his posts to me in which he says I am not pro-life, of which most are in the past, before I put him on ignore. Which is why I put him on ignore, partially.

reply from: KaylieBee

They won't for much longer if McCain/Palin wins. =(

reply from: Bgraphics

Okay, but how would you raise five children as a single man, assuming you never find another woman?
I would raise them the same that I raise them now. I don't have any problem raising my kids. I'm a stay at home father. With a home based business. My wife works away from home. We all do just fine.

reply from: scopia1982

I agree neither candidates are prolife. If they were it would have been outlawed a long time ago

reply from: KaylieBee

If your wife dies, you lose 50% of your income. Many single parents live below the poverty line. I assume you want your babies to attend college, so can you imagine what it would be like when they all reach that age? As a single parent?

reply from: Bgraphics

If your wife dies, you lose 50% of your income. Many single parents live below the poverty line. I assume you want your babies to attend college, so can you imagine what it would be like when they all reach that age? As a single parent?
We'll do just fine. Besides money is paper, life is my children.

reply from: KaylieBee

You need money to support your children, you can't deny that.

reply from: scopia1982


I VALUE my life, but if it came to me or my child I would choose my babies life. Because for me that is the morally acceptable thing to do, but still every effort should be made to save both.

reply from: KaylieBee

What if it were most likely both of you would die if the pregnancy were continued?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Why, if I can ask? My exceptions are the same exceptions many pro-lifers have. I think some of the pro-lifers on this board are extreme. Other pro-lifers I have met out in the real world are totally ok with abortion in cases of rape, incest, young age, and maternal danger. Many in fact are also ok with abortion for lethal fetal deformities, which I am actually against.
It's absolutely not. What concerns me is that rape cases are technically under the Maternal Danger clause. The mother's mental well-being is important too. If she's going to be severely depressed and have other mentally disabling conditions for the rest of her life (severe paranoia, for example) then I feel her life deserves to be better than that. It's not her fault, it's not the baby's fault... but she was here first. Again, this is extremely unlikely to happen.
That's all good and well.
Well of course you do all of that first. But if it is an emergency situation there may not be time for all of that. That's what I'm talking about. Also, cases where the mother is going to be physically debilitated (like, paraplegic) for the rest of her life, then she should have the choice to abort.

reply from: scopia1982

I would do whatever I could to bring my baby into this world. I would leave it in Gods hands.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Why, if I may ask? If you think pro-life means being so against abortion that you let women die, then you are not pro-life in my opinion. That's anti-life. The woman is alive too, and letting her die is not pro-life.
There is grey in this world, not everything black and white. I'm sorry you feel that way.
I have never met a pro-lifer who would let a woman and child die just to say you are "100% pro-life" and didn't let her abort. Again, I consider that to be anti-life and anti-woman.
I don't understand your paragraph here... You would be OK with rape babies being aborted after that whole spiel you just gave? You are then, by your own definition, "pro-abortion".
I don't understand that either. You're saying you would let the woman die during pregnancy or birth as long as she didn't abort to save her life, BUT you would be totally OK with her aborting due to rape? You have me all confused. Also, again I think you are anti-life.
That's disgusting. Sorry, but as a woman, I am not going to die in childbirth. I desperately want a child someday, but if I die, then I can't give birth to any more babies and all of my eggs die with me. So your viewpoint is completely anti-life to me.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lol, I agree. I am against almost all pro-choice tennants. To be pro-choice you must at least approve of early-term elective abortion, maternal danger, rape abortion and abortion for deformities. The disputed areas are late-term elective abortions. I have met pro-choicers who feel you must be for any and all abortions without exclusion or you're anti-choice, or "only-pro-your-choice".
As I am against all elective abortions, that automatically places me in the pro-life arena.

reply from: Bgraphics

I can't deny that. We will do fine. I am fortunate to have a talent and have used it to benefit my family with. It is a for sure thing that will grant my children the things that are needed.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't, because there is no proof that it (or any other hormonal contraceptive) causes failure to implant.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm hoping to change how pro-lifers are viewed. Do I at least sound sane to you?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So, you wouldn't mind if your wife died in birth, to save your fifth child, leaving you as a single father with five children to raise on your own? Do you really think that's fair to them?
Or what if she had died before even giving birth to the second? That would be five dead people who never existed.

reply from: scopia1982

Liberal I sent you a PM to answer your post

reply from: LiberalChiRo

LOOOL.
Heh. Most people I knew were pro-choice, so me and the BG cancel each other out.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Thats a bunch of shi? My wife fills the same way even without my influince. So to speak of something you haven't experianced is foolish. My mother died giving birth to me. That is MORAL values. And I commend her for it. Never did she say to any one she thought of abortion. And she knew the risk of having me.
It's spelled FEEL. "Fill" means something totally different.

reply from: carolemarie

I like Sarah Palin and the more I listen to her, the more I like her. She is a regular mom, with a regular family and I think we could use more common sense in government.
The more I listen to the slander and muck searching, the more I am want to see her elected....America needs a strong woman at its helm....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Ok, I'll check it out!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What about that "paying for rape kits" accusation? Personally I think we need national health care and I think that's more important than the abortion debate. There are more born people than unborn; the born people's rights come first. National health care will also help lessen abortion because women who would abort because they can't afford prenatal care will be able to give birth.

reply from: scopia1982

What about that "paying for rape kits" accusation? Personally I think we need national health care and I think that's more important than the abortion debate. There are more born people than unborn; the born people's rights come first. National health care will also help lessen abortion because women who would abort because they can't afford prenatal care will be able to give birth.
Liberal I agree that we need National Health, maybe when and if its enacted we can crimnalize abortion. I agree we need safety nets for women in Crisis pregnancies.

reply from: Bgraphics

Excuse the spelling. To your quotes I think it is important that every attempt is made to save the mother and the child. And for you to say I'm pro-death, or anti-life is misleading. I don't think it is right to kill to save another. I think if it was meant for the mother to die then that is destiny. It was meant to be. And for me to clam up and worry about the risk of life would do nothing to enhance my life. So to say if my wife had died with the first thus killing 5 children is abserd. I'm not a clam and I don't let things like that control the way my life works out.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Of course it's important that every effort be made to save both the mother and the child. I don't think my statements are misleading at all. You would rather see a woman AND baby die to say "no abortion". You would rather see the mother die than her life saved, yet by sacrificing her, you kill every single one of her other potential children. It IS true that IF your wife had died, all of your other children would not exist. I know, that's a terrible thing to face. But it's true.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What about that "paying for rape kits" accusation? Personally I think we need national health care and I think that's more important than the abortion debate. There are more born people than unborn; the born people's rights come first. National health care will also help lessen abortion because women who would abort because they can't afford prenatal care will be able to give birth.
Liberal I agree that we need National Health, maybe when and if its enacted we can crimnalize abortion. I agree we need safety nets for women in Crisis pregnancies.
Yes, exactly! A great way to work in criminalizing elective abortion is by everyone's taxes being responsible for everyone's health care. Abortion as an elective procedure would not (and could not) be covered by this, but prenatal care would be covered! It's like encouraging birth vs abortion

reply from: abc123

LiberalChiRo....what does it matter what you are called? Once you say "I don't believe in abortion.....unless" you have made made a justificiation of why YOU don't feel that life in the womb is worthy of being brought to term and delivered and granted life. To be pro-life is to say "I don't believe in abortion for any reason" rather than unless. Once you put the word unless it changes everything.
In the case of rape: I believe someone already touched on this but to say that a child is not worthy of life because of how that child was conceived is not pro-life. Yes that mother was violated in the worst of ways but to violate her again would be a travesty. Killling the child conceived in rape is not going to change the fact that she was raped. I think your feelings in this case flow over into your other exception clause. An abortion is her being raped again by an abortionist, but she's going to pay for this one and someone is surely going to die in this case, her son or daughter.
Danger for the mother: I think many have this as an exception clause and this thinking is flawed. A parent is called to protect their child at every cost. A parent is called to lay down THEIR LIFE for the lives of their children. Our children are supposed to bury us not vice versa.
To put this into perspective lets say a mother and child are kidnapped. The kidnapper has made a deal with the father/husband statings for a ransom of $100,000 he will release one of them but the other one will surely be killed. The kidnapper gives the mother the choice of who will be released and who will be killed, it is either the fate of her child or her own life that is at stake. What a tough choice she has to make. I believe the instinct of every mother should be to release her child, to truly lay down her life for her child. Let's say that this mother chooses to release herself over her childs. The kidnapper opens the door, the mother comes running out with her hands up crying. Within 10 seconds from her release she hears a gunshot. After the gunshot the police swarm the property and aprehend the kidnapper. They find that mother's child in a pool of blood, dead! Did this mother make the right choice? This mother sacrificed her own child so that she may live.
If I remember correct you confess to be a Christian. What if Jesus Christ wasn't willing to be sacrificed and told the Father He wasn't willing to die for the sins of the entire world. I mean why would He, He was sinless.....why should He die for a bunch of sinners, many of them who hate Him? John 15:12-13 (These are words of Jesus) - My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
Jesus Christ loved us so much that He was willing to die for us......a mother or father should love their child as Jesus loves us, even to death if that is the call and that is the truth.

reply from: scopia1982

Liberal, I rethought your prolife/choice question. I would have to say your prochoice. Because to be truly prolife you have to be so without exception and with out apology. But your almost embracing the prolife view point. I hope and pray you will get there soon.

reply from: yoda

Complete, utter nonsense.
NO ONE can predict in advance who is going to be depressed about a situation, so that's clearly NOT a valid reason to justify abortion. Not only that, the majority of rape victims who become pregnant DO KEEP their own babies. And most important of all depression is a temporary disability, it does not rise to the level of a justification to KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING.
Making someone "better off" is NEVER a valid reason to KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING!!

reply from: yoda

It only takes agreement with ONE pro-choice tenant to make you pro-choice.

reply from: yoda

Translation: There is considerable medical opinion that it does, but I don't really give a rat's a** about human embryos like that, so I'll ignore them.

reply from: yoda

That's worth repeating. I agree 100%

reply from: yoda

Then do us all a favor and find yourself a forum dedicated to the debate about national health care, or something that you really do care about.
It's quite obvious that you are here only to antagonize prolifers.

reply from: yoda

Of course we need them, and we need a lot of other things for poor and underprivileged people too.
But read the surveys about why women abort and then tell me if you really think that national health care insurance would "stop abortion". I think you will find that only a small percentage of abortions would be affected.
TABLE 2. Percentage of women reporting that specified reasons contributed to their decision to have an abortion, 2004 and 1987
Reason 2004 1987 (N=1,160) (N=1,900)
Having a baby would dramatically change my life 74 78*
Would interfere with education 38 36
Would interfere with job/employment/career 38 50***
Have other children or dependents 32 22***
Can't afford a baby now 73 69
Unmarried 42 na
Student or planning to study 34 na
Can't afford a baby and child care 28 na
Can't afford the basic needs of life 23 na
Unemployed 22 na
Can't leave job to take care of a baby 21 na
Would have to find a new place to live 19 na
Not enough support from husband or partner 14 na
Husband or partner is unemployed 12 na
Currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance 8 na
Don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems 48 52*
Not sure about relationship 19 na
Partner and I can't or don't want to get married 12 30***
Not in a relationship right now 11 12
Relationship or marriage may break up soon 11 16*
Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children 2 3
Have completed my childbearing 38 28**
Not ready for a(nother) child† 32 36
Don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant 25 33*
Don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child 22 27*
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion 14 24***
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 13 14
Physical problem with my health 12 8**
Parents want me to have an abortion 6 8
Was a victim of rape 1 1
Became pregnant as a result of incest <0.5 <0.5
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

reply from: CharlesD

You know, I think a lot of people are being unjustly harsh here. What is our goal as pro-lifers? I know that question sounds obvious, to end abortion, but how do we go about that? Sure, changing the laws would be nice, but the way to meet that goal is to change hearts. Change the way people think about it, persuade people to come over to our side of the issue. Now I can remember how the positions I hold now were formed. It wasn't like I went from one side to the other overnight on most things. I struggled, looked at evidence, prayed, consulted others, researched, and then formed opinions after a drawn out process. Not just my positions on abortion, but on many things. Maybe you had a Damascus Road experience, but most of us who change opinions on issues don't do so overnight. What we're seeing is someone who is moving in the right direction.
I'm a trucker. I spend a lot of hours behind the wheel and I have a lot of time to think. Anyway, let's say that I have a run from San Diego to Nashville, nearly a 2000 mile trip. Nashville is my destination, where I want to be. Do I beat myself up when I'm in Phoenix because I'm not in Nashville yet? You could say that I'm not where I need to be, but what you should look at is what direction I'm heading in. If I'm going west, I think I need to turn around, but if I'm headed east and the vehicle is running fine, there's no reason to believe I won't eventually end up in Nashville as long as I'm on the right road.
I think we're seeing someone who is on the right road and heading in the right direction. She might not be at the final destination yet, but there appears to be some growth and we need to encourage that. It's ok to debate minor points; that's what this board is for, but to insist on putting labels on people or to beat them down because they haven't reached the destination yet isn't really the way to further this cause. A lot of people are in a transition on this issue. We need to encourage those who appear to be moving in the right direction and figure out how to point the others in that direction. Blazing away with both barrels at the opposition might feel good, but I sometimes wonder how effective it is. And I speak as someone who is as guilty as anyone else on that count, but I've been actively pro-life for over 20 years now and I've learned quite a bit over those years. Speak the truth, but speak it in love. That will go a long way.

reply from: yoda

Those goals are not mutually exclusive, in fact they go together quite well. We change opinions, people vote for prolife candidates, and laws get changed.
I admire your optimism. I've known this particular poster for many, many months in another forum. My optimism if greatly diminished by that experience.
But you know, no matter how abrasive a prolifer may be, logically that's not a rational reason for someone to embrace abortion. After all, abortion does not kill prolifers, it kills babies. And what I or any other abrasive prolifer says does not make people mad at babies, does it?

reply from: CharlesD

Those goals are not mutually exclusive, in fact they go together quite well. We change opinions, people vote for prolife candidates, and laws get changed.
I admire your optimism. I've known this particular poster for many, many months in another forum. My optimism if greatly diminished by that experience.
But you know, no matter how abrasive a prolifer may be, logically that's not a rational reason for someone to embrace abortion. After all, abortion does not kill prolifers, it kills babies. And what I or any other abrasive prolifer says does not make people mad at babies, does it?
I wasn't saying that changing hearts and changing laws are exclusive, merely that changing hearts is the first step that will lead to the second.
Also, I know abrasiveness doesn't cause people to embrace abortion, but I sometimes wonder how it leads to bringing people over from that position to ours. Maybe it works with some, like the graphic pictures work with some, but it's not the method that has been most effective for me. I have had more success over the years with gentle persuasion. I've been around the block in the pro-life movement too. I was active with Operation Rescue in the 90s and spent some time in jail. I spent some time on the sidewalks and have done quite a bit of writing. I've had more success with the written word than in those other areas, even though I saw women change their minds almost at the door of the clinic when I was involved in more hands on pro-life work. There is plenty to do and there are plenty of methods to use, but I've found that for me "speaking the truth in love" has been more effective.

reply from: sweet

i think you are on the right track! you are admitting the truth. you know abortion is wrong. why you dont come out and say that it's wrong in all cases, i'm not sure...something is causing you to hold back a little...either way, it's obvious you are intelligent and have the best intentions...i think you are "pro-life"...you just have yet to fess up to it...i'm glad that you are reconsidering your stance! i hope all is well with you and your loved ones. keep up the stand for what is right! *smiles*

reply from: yoda

Oddly enough, I've seen many testimonies that the written word is the weakest way to communicate the prolife message, as compared to photos and other methods. But, whatever works for you is fine with me.

reply from: yoda

Whatever. You know, predictions based on speculation, plus five dollars, will get you a cup of coffee almost anywhere.
The bottom line is that killing a baby to avoid "future emotional complications" is a cowardly, selfish, horrible thing to do, IMO.

reply from: Bgraphics

I seat up last night and called my father/mentor and asked him what to make of this. What he thought of it. and then ask my wife what she thought.
First I would like to commend you for asking this phyisofical question. Yet I still stand ferm on my answer. If I was to worry every time I got in the car to go to the grocery store that I would be killed a half mile down the road I would never go to the store. So to say I would kill all the other potential children would be in conparison of dying every time I got the car. No one knows how many children they will have in there life time. If you are a true christian then you would know what the Lord really wants from you on this subject. He died for you, so why would you not die for your child. I would give my life for my child with no questions asked. And so would my wife. And so did my mother. Its not a sacrifice, just a moral decision. Would you rather kill your child to save your own life. Because you fill you can make it up with another potential child later. That is selfish which is the bases for women having abortions. Who is to say you will ever have another child. You could have save the child that was killed, And it would have children as well. Thus your grand kids could live on to say I am here because my grandmother gave her life for us.
I asked my wife last night if she had complications with this baby and I had to choose between her and the baby what would she want me to do. She got mad at me, and said why do you think something is going to happen to me? I told her I didn't I just needed to know her wishes. She then told me to do what our Lord would want from us. I asked her if that meant letting her die, and the child live, or KILL the child and save her. She said to let her die and the child live.
There is a difference between Dying, and Killing. I would not kill my wife she would be dying, I would save a life in the process. If I killed the baby, I would also be saving a life, but under selfish terms.
You stated I was Anti-Life. If thats the way you want to look at it then thats fine. But also say I did it without being selfish, and that my decision was couragious.

reply from: yoda

Exactly right.
You must understand, to a proabort any decision which does not involve killing a baby is "selfish". That's just the twisted way they think.

reply from: yoda

Been there, done it myself, MS "Know-it-all".
But I never got to the point that I would kill an innocent person to "better myself".

reply from: yoda

True. I know some folks like that, but none of them ever expressed a willingness to kill someone else to make themselves better.
And also, NO ONE can predict the course of a depressive episode.

reply from: carolemarie

While depression or mental illness can make someone unfit to parent, it doesn't stand to reason that they are unable to place the child for adoption...studies show that pregnant women are less likely to attempt suicide than non-pregnant women...so it can have a beneficial effect.
Abortion unless it is to save the mothers life is always wrong.
I can empathise that for a particular person it might be the best choice for them to choose abortion, from a purely selfish position(less consequences, less personal misery) but in is never in the best interest of the child, who will die.
Adoption is a win-win situtation. My son was born to a crack smoker with drugs in his system. Now he is a bright gifted normal 8 year old who is the light of my life.
His life is full of potential and I can't imagine a world without him.
His mom may have done alot of screwed up things, but he isn't one of them.
That is why abortion is a flawed idea to support.

reply from: Bgraphics

I would go against her wishes to save the child. But I would do it out of love for life, I would take on the resposibilities of being a father and provider for all my children. I love my wife the same as I love my children I love my faith more though. And to do what my God wants me to do is what I would do. I don't kill any any fashion, I would not be Killing my wife I would be letting her Die. There is a big difference. I just would not have told her that if thats what she wished.

reply from: CharlesD

You know, it's easy to say what we would do in certain situations, but I honestly can't say what I would do in that situation. I love my wife dearly and can't imagine losing her. That's a pretty difficult thing to think about. We have to consider another thing though. How often is it actually necessary to perform an abortion to save the mother's life? Seriously, how often is killing the baby the only way to save the mother? It makes no sense to me. If what is needed to save the mother is to remove the baby, must the baby always end up dead? Can it not be removed from the womb and then every effort made to keep it alive? That would seem to be the most ethical way to approach this. If the mother will end up dead by going through with birth, then do a c-section to get the baby out and then do everything medically possible to save both. If one dies, then at least you haven't actively killed either.

reply from: Bgraphics

Wow.
And us prochoicers are accused of being heartless!
So I guess the next time I come across an accident its ok then for me to do nothing - after all, I'm just letting them die.
This is disgraceful.
You are definitely anti-woman.
Look my wife has had 3 c-sections we did it to save the first child, the second was be cause the dr. advised us to, the third with twins, every attempt was made to save both the babies and the mother. If the same situation is needed this time then we will save both. to stand back and do nothing is disgraceful. I have had 3 Pre-mature babies. And they are as healthy as any other child out there.
You are a killer, very disgraceful, selfish, and imoral person that kills babies for self gain, and greed. Even if you condone, or advocate killing something that can't fight back. That also makes you a coward. If I was anti-woman I would not be married so that is an imature rant.

reply from: Witness

All the argument over mother or child ignores the reality that most mothers would readily give themselves for their children. Literally, if my son or daughter were in danger and I could get between them and it, though it cost my life, I would immediately and without a second thought do so. So, this is really the same old argument that the child in the womb isn't as important as the older child. I say it is and that to really be pro-life, you have to stand on that point.

reply from: yoda

You have to consider the source. Proaborts will say almost anything to try to provoke us to anger, in the hopes that we will be less effective when we are angry.

reply from: nancyu

Some people can change, liberal is not one of them. I'd like to agree with you here, but I know liberal too well to believe that her views have changed a bit since being here. She is trying to appear pro life and be accepted by the crowd, but I don't buy it. I'm betting she's employed be Planned Parenthood or some other pro abortion group. Don't fall for her lies.

reply from: yoda

That takes me back to the "good ole days", when it was understood that both parents would give their lives gladly to save their children. Now days, it's the "me generation", who expects the kids to sacrifice themselves for the convenience of the parents.

reply from: Bgraphics

You have to consider the source. Proaborts will say almost anything to try to provoke us to anger, in the hopes that we will be less effective when we are angry.
I mostly find it funny... And try to hold back the backlashes which are approprate
at times..

reply from: CharlesD

Well, I'm still kind of new around here, but I'm just responding to what I seem to see on the surface, a person who is still fairly young and is formulating her views on this issue, views that are still in something of a flux and subject to change. I hope that is the case. I am something of the eternal optimist, in spite of the condition the world is in that would lead some Christians to think otherwise. I do always have hope though. I once was blind but now I see, but my sight wasn't instantaneous; it took time and I hope that's what I'm seeing in her case. I may be wrong but I hope I'm not.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

LiberalChiRo....what does it matter what you are called? Once you say "I don't believe in abortion.....unless" you have made made a justificiation of why YOU don't feel that life in the womb is worthy of being brought to term and delivered and granted life. To be pro-life is to say "I don't believe in abortion for any reason" rather than unless. Once you put the word unless it changes everything.
Then almost NO one on this forum is pro-life. Because almost every single person here would let the mother abort to save her life. That's no the definition of pro-life I'd ever heard and it is not a definition I accept. I reject your logic as faulty.
I don't feel it has anything to do with that. Rape should actually be under Maternal Health.
They do.
I will not EVER approve of forcing the mother do die. NEVER. This is non-negotiable.
No they aren't. I can think of many situations where if the parent saved themselves instead of the child no one would even be disturbed. Secondly, the baby only came into existence because it has been supported completely by the woman's body. She has a right to live just as strong - in fact stronger IMO - than the unborn child does. The woman's life comes first.
Let's not, since nothing you can say will change my mind.
I don't think there is a "right choice" in that situation. You could actually say that the mother SAVED the lives of her future children, still just eggs. Also, what if the mother was single and had a special needs child at home? You never know. If the mother made that decision to save herself, you can bet she'd have a reason. You cannot judge that situation or say there is a "right" or "wrong" answer, because there is not.
Yep. So?
Liberal Christian, actually. Which is quite different.
That would be his choice. What? God would have found someone else. I was told once that if Mary had said no, God would have found someone else. Jesus had the choice; he was man and God combined but he still has his free will. I wouldn't blame the man for saying "uh you know what? no." There would have been another Jesus. For all you know, there WERE other failed messiahs to whom God spoke, and who chickened out at the last minute.
Sure it's all nice to say "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" but as Star Trek teaches us, sometimes, saving that ONE person can be just as meaningful as saving hundreds.
I don't recall "self preservation" being a sin. We all get scared.
Um, that's nice and all... don't see how that relates to abortion though.
Not everyone is christian and I am not going to force such morals upon them. They have the choice to come to god under their own power. And I know that if it was me pregnant, I would abort to save my own life if the only other option was death. I'd try everything else under the sun before resorting to that, but I would do it. I do not live just for myself. I live for my loved ones too; and voluntarily taking myself away from them just to birth a child is SUICIDE. Suicide is a sin; wanting to live is not.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Then almost no one on here is pro-life. I disagree with your logic and find it to be extremely faulty. Wishing death upon the mother is anti-life.

reply from: carolemarie

IT has always been the mainstream position of the prolife movement that abortion is acceptable to save the life of the mother.
That was legal before Roe was ever passed.
Only extremist think that women should be forced to die to give birth.

reply from: carolemarie

sorry dude, you do come across as a woman hater when you state you would go against your wives wish and let her die to birth a baby.
That is a anti woman statement and shows that the baby is all that matters to you, if I was her, I would appoint someone else with my power of attorney for health care...
Newsflash!
Women are not breeding stock, our lives are just as valuable as the baby.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's what I've been saying this whole time! But some naysayers seem to think that the people don't matter, their hearts don't matter. Yoda in fact says that he doesn't care about converting anyone to pro-life at all. I can't comprehend how he expects to enforce or even PASS a law that the majority doesn't want.
Thanks, that's how I feel. My transition really has taken more than a year; back last summer I started questioning the absolutist views of pro-choice and started voicing my opinion that elective late term abortion is wrong. I really started questioning everything in about April, and by May or June I was on here. This summer has been one of transition for me, though I definitely do not consider myself a Moderate anymore. I feel, according to all (sane) definitions I have encountered online and in real life, that I am completely pro-life.
Pretty ineffective actually. It's actually what got me so offended about pro-choice thought and made me ally with some pro-lifers on another board. I wasn't pro-life at the time, but I was really angry at how they were being treated. This bad treatment is also what has made me put several people on this forum on ignore. It's too bad because one of them has said very thoughtful things and has helped me on rare occasions, but the overwhelming hate I get from them is just too much to take.
People on here will disagree with you, though I can't really understand why.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

i think you are on the right track! you are admitting the truth. you know abortion is wrong. why you dont come out and say that it's wrong in all cases, i'm not sure...something is causing you to hold back a little...either way, it's obvious you are intelligent and have the best intentions...i think you are "pro-life"...you just have yet to fess up to it...i'm glad that you are reconsidering your stance! i hope all is well with you and your loved ones. keep up the stand for what is right! *smiles*
What's holding me back is my respect for the woman. I will never, ever EVER force her to die. Never. Forcing her to die is murder in my book. Me choosing to die is suicide. I do not condone either of those things. I do "fess up", I've been calling myself pro-life for months. The reason the mother should have the choice in cases of maternal danger is because she is here first, her body is the one being "used", and so her rights come first. Every effort should be made to save both but if it is the bottom line, baby or mom, I say mom.
Lol, my family is fine! My grandma probably won't make it to Christmas, but it's not a surprise and she's doing ok right now.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh no Carol, you're not really pro-life!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I would go against her wishes to save the child.
You sick minded, murdering, sexist pig. You would let her die against her wishes, that makes it murder through inaction. Allowing another human to die through your own actions or by refusing to provide aid is murder. You are anti-life, you are pro-murder. But only of females.
But not out of love for your wife.
Would you take on the responsibilities of being a murderer?
Can't do that when you're in jail for murder.
Sick.
Has he talked to you personally and said "Bgraphics, murder your wife through inaction and against her will so that the child will live but all of your future children will also die? You'd have one living baby, four never-existing children and a dead wife. Pretty anti-life to me!
That's like not rescuing a drowning person. You're not killing them, you're just "letting them die"!! Murder.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's ridiculously rare actually, which is why I can't understand why it's such a big deal!
I think that's what happens in most situations.

reply from: carolemarie

So I have been told....
Funny how men are willing to let the mothers of their children die....I find a man who loved me and wasn't willing to let me die....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You don't know me at all; you didn't even have a clue I existed until I joined the forums. And you're lying, since I have changed quite a bit. I was completely for all elective abortions when I first got here, and now I am completely against all elective abortions. How is that not a drastic change? You just want to hate on me, that's all this is.
I work at a school called Bayshore Elementary. I am employed as a paraprofessional working in pre-kindergarten Exceptional Student Education (ESE), that is students with special needs such as severe autism, emotional and behavioral disturbances, physical disabilities, other mental disabilities, etc. The kids are wonderful. It's great because my mom works in the room next door with a normal 3rd grade class. She helped me get the job. The school has an all-inclusion program, where all ESE students in 1-5th grade are included in regular classrooms. My students are too young yet.
I've only actually been in a Planned Parenthood once in my life, and that was for my very first pap-smear and birth control prescription. The speculum was heated, which was nice! The lady was funny and helped me relax. All of my other pap smears have been on a campus or in private clinics.
I have never worked for a "pro-choice group", and I wouldn't even know what that would entail. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Nancyu has no idea who I am, don't fall for her lies. The experiences I have shared on here have been things you can't just make up and even have a hope of keeping straight. If I were lying, I would have made a mistake and been outed as a liar long before now.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well, I'm still kind of new around here, but I'm just responding to what I seem to see on the surface, a person who is still fairly young and is formulating her views on this issue, views that are still in something of a flux and subject to change. I hope that is the case. I am something of the eternal optimist, in spite of the condition the world is in that would lead some Christians to think otherwise. I do always have hope though. I once was blind but now I see, but my sight wasn't instantaneous; it took time and I hope that's what I'm seeing in her case. I may be wrong but I hope I'm not.
You're not wrong. The world needs more people like you.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There seem to be an awful lot of extremists on here.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yeah, I think someone needs to inform his wife that he will murder her to save the baby.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Very true LCR ^^^
Its shocking.
It is, isn't it!?

reply from: carolemarie

It isn't a prolife statement. Because if you are prolife you are supose to care about all life,not just babies that are unborn.
I think his attitude is what keeps abortion legal-- a total disregard for women except as breeding machines....

reply from: scopia1982

Then almost no one on here is pro-life. I disagree with your logic and find it to be extremely faulty. Wishing death upon the mother is anti-life.
I dont wish death upon the mother. Every effort should be made to safe mom and baby. There is no reason in this day and time it cant be. I find your logic to be extremely faulty. To say that babies not conceived by rape are more worthy of life than those that are is faulty. I never said that a woman should have to die. I said that every medical effort to save both must be done. Im not choosing one over the other. All human beings are worthy of life from the baby concieved in rape to the convicted murderer setting on death row. Im also against the death penalty because I realized I could not truly call myself prolife without being against all forms of killing. Abortion. Captial Punishment, Assisited Suicide . I am against all of them because only God can take life. To say that certain babies are worthy of life or that only the women are worthy is playing God and I dont do that. I never said once that the mom should be sacrificed to save a baby except when pertaining to my own personal self. My husband knows my wishes on the matter. Every effort possible will be done to save both, but if it comes down to me or the baby. He knows he betters save the baby.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Then almost no one on here is pro-life. I disagree with your logic and find it to be extremely faulty. Wishing death upon the mother is anti-life.
I dont wish death upon the mother.
If you would refuse her an abortion to save her life then you are.
I am not denying that.
Hey, like I said, these cases are so rare that they almost never happen HOWEVER if one case did come up, the mother's life comes first.
And I find YOURS to be faulty!!! >
I am NOT saying that, so you're off base. Rape falls under maternal danger. Stop thinking about it as rape. If a woman happens to have been raped, and if it is determined that abortion could be beneficial for her, then she should have the right to do it. Rape pregnancies are extremely rare anyway, and the likelyhood of her ALSO having debilitating depression caused by the pregnancy is even more unlikely. HOWEVER, if the situation were to arise, I feel she should have the choice. She can still say NO, but the choice should be available.
If you would deny her a life-saving procedure you ARE saying you want her to die.
I have never denied that fact and agree. But if all efforts have been exhaused and the ONLY way to save her life is to abort, then she should have that choice. She can say NO, but the choice should be available.
Yes you are. If it came down to mom vs the baby, you would save the baby.
Well at least you're consistent on that end. But don't just be against the death penalty because you feel it contradicts being pro-life. Be anti-death penalty because you actually BELIEVE it. I said a lot of things as a pro-choicer because I was told I "should" feel that way, but in the end I was just lying to myself. So if you don't actually believe people on death row deserve life, then admit that!

reply from: sweet

Then almost no one on here is pro-life. I disagree with your logic and find it to be extremely faulty. Wishing death upon the mother is anti-life.
I dont wish death upon the mother. Every effort should be made to safe mom and baby. There is no reason in this day and time it cant be. I find your logic to be extremely faulty. To say that babies not conceived by rape are more worthy of life than those that are is faulty. I never said that a woman should have to die. I said that every medical effort to save both must be done. Im not choosing one over the other. All human beings are worthy of life from the baby concieved in rape to the convicted murderer setting on death row. Im also against the death penalty because I realized I could not truly call myself prolife without being against all forms of killing. Abortion. Captial Punishment, Assisited Suicide . I am against all of them.you can in fact be against killing innocent babies and for killing murderers.

reply from: scopia1982

Then almost no one on here is pro-life. I disagree with your logic and find it to be extremely faulty. Wishing death upon the mother is anti-life.
I dont wish death upon the mother. Every effort should be made to safe mom and baby. There is no reason in this day and time it cant be. I find your logic to be extremely faulty. To say that babies not conceived by rape are more worthy of life than those that are is faulty. I never said that a woman should have to die. I said that every medical effort to save both must be done. Im not choosing one over the other. All human beings are worthy of life from the baby concieved in rape to the convicted murderer setting on death row. Im also against the death penalty because I realized I could not truly call myself prolife without being against all forms of killing. Abortion. Captial Punishment, Assisited Suicide . I am against all of them.you can in fact be against killing innocent babies and for killing murderers.
Yes you can and I used to think that way. But FOR me I cant call myself prolife and think any form of killing is ok. But the capital punishment debate is for another forum. I think most of us that are here are against abortion. And thats what we all need to work on.

reply from: sweet

Then almost no one on here is pro-life. I disagree with your logic and find it to be extremely faulty. Wishing death upon the mother is anti-life.
I dont wish death upon the mother. Every effort should be made to safe mom and baby. There is no reason in this day and time it cant be. I find your logic to be extremely faulty. To say that babies not conceived by rape are more worthy of life than those that are is faulty. I never said that a woman should have to die. I said that every medical effort to save both must be done. Im not choosing one over the other. All human beings are worthy of life from the baby concieved in rape to the convicted murderer setting on death row. Im also against the death penalty because I realized I could not truly call myself prolife without being against all forms of killing. Abortion. Captial Punishment, Assisited Suicide . I am against all of them.you can in fact be against killing innocent babies and for killing murderers.
Yes you can and I used to think that way. But FOR me I cant call myself prolife and think any form of killing is ok. But the capital punishment debate is for another forum. I think most of us that are here are against abortion. And thats what we all need to work on.i understand...but i really think it's all tied in together...i can't go robbing stores by night and yell stop killing by day...being against abortion is deeper than the title 'prolife'...we all have reasons for being 'prolife' and along with being against abortion, many of us are for/against other things...i'm not sure if i ant to be silenced by a 'prolife' box...i think abortion is wrong,& homosexuality is wrong, for example.

reply from: scopia1982

i understand...but i really think it's all tied in together...i can't go robbing stores by night and yell stop killing by day...being against abortion is deeper than the title 'prolife'...we all have reasons for being 'prolife' and along with being against abortion, many of us are for/against other things...i'm not sure if i ant to be silenced by a 'prolife' box...i think abortion is wrong,& homosexuality is wrong, for example.
I understand that it goes deeper than just a title of prolife. I am against it because not just because its wrong, but to honor the memory of my daughter that I lost through a forced abortion. I think we often put people in boxes and im guilty of that myself. Im Catholic and my church teaches that the death penalty is wrong.

reply from: yoda

There is no "prolife box", there is only a definition written in a few dictionaries.
And those most certainly will not "silence you", will they?
Most prolifers I know hold other beliefs about moral and social issues that are generally more conservative than the general population, but they are not all the same. There is no "If you're prolife then you believe this or that" kind of stereotype. That's all nonsense put out by people who want everyone else to believe as they do, and that's got nothing to do with being prolife.
Being prolife means to oppose legal abortion. People who oppose legal abortion have many other positions in common, but also disagree on many other social and moral positions.
So I don't know where you got the idea that anyone wants to "silence you" on any other issues, and I can tell you that this forum is full of threads on homosexuality, gay marriage, and other social and moral issues.
By all means, express yourself to your heart's desire.

reply from: Draiocht

Nah, they're only against the death penalty for rapists. Using women against their will is the mark of a hero to some prolifers. Take our man with the Killer Sperm, for example; He's outright stated that he'd murder his wife to see his seed grow. Personally I feel that any man that would refuse lifesaving medical treatment for his wife against her wishes should be neutered. Every time he has sex with her (and knowing males as I do, they don't feel "loved" unless they're given free reign to stick it to us) he's trying to kill her. Every second of his pleasure could spell her death, and he risks NOTHING in the process. I can't even call a creature that would deliberately end his own partner's life that way a man.
All the man has to do is grunt. I think it's pretty twisted that a woman should have to risk her life to fulfill her husbands perceived "intimacy needs" yet if she chose not to out of fear of maternal death, he'd probably stick it to someone else on the side or toss her away for not being "attentive" enough.
This creature really doesn't know how good he's got it. He's no different from any other domestic abuser...he just uses his sperm to abuse or kill his wife instead of his fists. I doubt he even sees a human being when he looks at women.

reply from: RedTaintedRose

I would go against her wishes to save the child. But I would do it out of love for life, I would take on the resposibilities of being a father and provider for all my children. I love my wife the same as I love my children I love my faith more though. And to do what my God wants me to do is what I would do. I don't kill any any fashion, I would not be Killing my wife I would be letting her Die. There is a big difference. I just would not have told her that if thats what she wished.
Another "pro life" person who wants to kill women or at least stand idly by and watch them die so they can have the fetus they worship. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that if you kill the woman she doesn't have a fetus? That the trauma to her body might kill the fetus?
I realize that to you only the fetus has importance and the woman is nothing more then the means to the end but if you stand idly by and watch someone die when you could have helped or prevented it you are in serious legal trouble.
I bet you don't recognize lying by omission as lying either but it is. You cannot have it both ways. If the woman dies the fetus loses oxygen and dies. You lose both and for what?
You are telling me your god views only the fetal life as valuable? Seems you worship one screwed up diety because the xtian god I read about valued the woman's life as well. Whom exactly do you worship?
You worship your own ego and nothing else.
You aren't pro-life you and pro fetal life and a bigotted misogynyst to boot.
ONLY the woman has the right to decide for herself if she wishes to take a risk of her own life to gestate. I know that decision personally; she turned 14 on Wednesday but no one except me made the Choice to gestate that pregnancy. It was an informed Choice. I knew the risks but the CHoice was mine and mine alone.
I find it entirely *****ing pathetic that someone who will never face that choice feels he is qualified to play god; to determine who dies and who does not.
Grow up.

reply from: Draiocht

RtR, I can see it all now:
Bgraphics: "Are you pregnant?"
Woman: "No."
Bgraphics: "Sorry little lady, you have to be. God says so."
Bgraphics has tons of fun and his female companion pays the ultimate price for his orgasm.
Bgraphics (Seven months later): "No Doctor, let her die. I can buy another one cheap and I don't have to pretend to even care about her if I get her from one of these 'mail order bride' catalogs!"

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Sort of. I only argue that point when the person is FOR the killing of abortionists, women who have aborted, or who would murder the woman through inaction. Otherwise, I'm actually personally FOR the death penalty. I think if you do something heinous, you forefit your right to life.
I think it's wacky when pro-choicers are anti-death-penalty lol. Their reasoning is even more senseless than mine.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Nah, they're only against the death penalty for rapists. Using women against their will is the mark of a hero to some prolifers. Take our man with the Killer Sperm, for example; He's outright stated that he'd murder his wife to see his seed grow. Personally I feel that any man that would refuse lifesaving medical treatment for his wife against her wishes should be neutered. Every time he has sex with her (and knowing males as I do, they don't feel "loved" unless they're given free reign to stick it to us) he's trying to kill her. Every second of his pleasure could spell her death, and he risks NOTHING in the process. I can't even call a creature that would deliberately end his own partner's life that way a man.
All the man has to do is grunt. I think it's pretty twisted that a woman should have to risk her life to fulfill her husbands perceived "intimacy needs" yet if she chose not to out of fear of maternal death, he'd probably stick it to someone else on the side or toss her away for not being "attentive" enough.
This creature really doesn't know how good he's got it. He's no different from any other domestic abuser...he just uses his sperm to abuse or kill his wife instead of his fists. I doubt he even sees a human being when he looks at women.
That's a very powerful post, and it's exactly how I feel.

reply from: KaylieBee

Sort of. I only argue that point when the person is FOR the killing of abortionists, women who have aborted, or who would murder the woman through inaction. Otherwise, I'm actually personally FOR the death penalty. I think if you do something heinous, you forefit your right to life.
I think it's wacky when pro-choicers are anti-death-penalty lol. Their reasoning is even more senseless than mine.
If you don't believe in religion, leaving a person in a small, dark room all day with no human contact, and just enough food and water to keep them alive is a far better punishment that simple death, which only ends them, and stops them from receiving any real punishment for their crime.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well I don't know; I just think the worst thing you can do to someone is kill them, unless you could psychologically evaluate them to determine what would be most punishing for them.

reply from: KaylieBee

Imagine youdon't believe in religion, therefore, only what is done to a person prior of death can affect them in anyway. If a person cannot be affect, they cannot be punished. Therefore, all death is is an end, and not really a punishment, just non-existence. Of course, no one actually advocates torture of criminals, physical of psychological. However, perpetual boredom can do a lot to a person.
Were you ever grounded when you were young? locked in a room with for entertainment? Imagine if you went like that for years and years, only way worse. Imagine if you have no interaction with other humans, and that you were kept alive, only to do absolutely nothing with that life but sit, eat, and defecate.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's not hard to imagine not believing, I recently wasn't! My stance on the death penalty has nothing to do with "sending them to hell". And people on death row do not go from street to court to electric chair; they sit in jail and rot for years as the appeals go through; tortured by the knowledge they are going to die but suffering with the hope they'll be saved, only to have that hope crushed. I think that's pretty good punishment.

reply from: BossMomma

Chick, I don't think you know what to believe where abortion is concerned, you keep changing your views. Why don't you try making up your mind before trying to debate.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

To quote myself:
So stop insulting me without provocation. I came to this forum to learn and to change and I have been completely open about that. You should know that, so why do you only now have a problem with it?

reply from: BossMomma

I am a male with moral values.
Are you a murderer, or a killer
I would rather the mother die, than the baby be murdered.
Thats a better way to say it.
You are a male who will never experience pregnancy, labor or, have to sacrifice anything. Luckily you also have no say in a woman's choices, I for one would not sacrifice my life for an unborn child and leave my born children motherless.

reply from: KaylieBee

I think she's just curious as to why it really matters what others think, as you know how you feel. You shouldn't need them to validate it.

reply from: Bgraphics

It's not hard to imagine not believing, I recently wasn't! My stance on the death penalty has nothing to do with "sending them to hell". And people on death row do not go from street to court to electric chair; they sit in jail and rot for years as the appeals go through; tortured by the knowledge they are going to die but suffering with the hope they'll be saved, only to have that hope crushed. I think that's pretty good punishment.
Do you not think there is a place in hell for those who shed innocent blood, no matter what the cause is?

reply from: Bgraphics

I would go against her wishes to save the child. But I would do it out of love for life, I would take on the resposibilities of being a father and provider for all my children. I love my wife the same as I love my children I love my faith more though. And to do what my God wants me to do is what I would do. I don't kill any any fashion, I would not be Killing my wife I would be letting her Die. There is a big difference. I just would not have told her that if thats what she wished.
Another "pro life" person who wants to kill women or at least stand idly by and watch them die so they can have the fetus they worship. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that if you kill the woman she doesn't have a fetus? That the trauma to her body might kill the fetus?
I realize that to you only the fetus has importance and the woman is nothing more then the means to the end but if you stand idly by and watch someone die when you could have helped or prevented it you are in serious legal trouble.
I bet you don't recognize lying by omission as lying either but it is. You cannot have it both ways. If the woman dies the fetus loses oxygen and dies. You lose both and for what?
You are telling me your god views only the fetal life as valuable? Seems you worship one screwed up diety because the xtian god I read about valued the woman's life as well. Whom exactly do you worship?
You worship your own ego and nothing else.
You aren't pro-life you and pro fetal life and a bigotted misogynyst to boot.
ONLY the woman has the right to decide for herself if she wishes to take a risk of her own life to gestate. I know that decision personally; she turned 14 on Wednesday but no one except me made the Choice to gestate that pregnancy. It was an informed Choice. I knew the risks but the CHoice was mine and mine alone.
I find it entirely *****ing pathetic that someone who will never face that choice feels he is qualified to play god; to determine who dies and who does not.
Grow up.
F... U

reply from: scopia1982

Men are not designed to carry off spring, unless your a male sea horse. But many men do sacrifice when their partners are pregnant they take time off work to go to doctor appointments, help them around the house. I had morning sickness real bad and my husband cleaned up the mess. During the last part of pregnancy I couldnt bathe myself and he did that and when I couldnt go to the bathroom and clean myself he did that all without bit of complaint. When I gave birth and he was there the whole time not leaving my side once. Even when I yelled that I wanted to neuter him toward the end did of labor he didnt leave. When we got home he did all of the cooking, cleaning and all of the nightime feedings so I could rest and recover. If that isnt sacrifice I dont know what is. Would you sacrifice your life to save your born children? If someone had a gun pointed at my son, I would jump in front of him and take that bullet. My son would be left motherless but I could not live with myself if I didnt.

reply from: BossMomma

So stop insulting me without provocation. I came to this forum to learn and to change and I have been completely open about that. You should know that, so why do you only now have a problem with it?
No one's insulting you, I just find the constant revising of your viewpoint on abortion to be a bit monotonous. State your views once and go with it seems wisest to me. Just my opinion.

reply from: Bgraphics

Nah, they're only against the death penalty for rapists. Using women against their will is the mark of a hero to some prolifers. Take our man with the Killer Sperm, for example; He's outright stated that he'd murder his wife to see his seed grow. Personally I feel that any man that would refuse lifesaving medical treatment for his wife against her wishes should be neutered. Every time he has sex with her (and knowing males as I do, they don't feel "loved" unless they're given free reign to stick it to us) he's trying to kill her. Every second of his pleasure could spell her death, and he risks NOTHING in the process. I can't even call a creature that would deliberately end his own partner's life that way a man.
All the man has to do is grunt. I think it's pretty twisted that a woman should have to risk her life to fulfill her husbands perceived "intimacy needs" yet if she chose not to out of fear of maternal death, he'd probably stick it to someone else on the side or toss her away for not being "attentive" enough.
This creature really doesn't know how good he's got it. He's no different from any other domestic abuser...he just uses his sperm to abuse or kill his wife instead of his fists. I doubt he even sees a human being when he looks at women.
You have competely blew this out of porportion. My wife has told me to save the baby. It is gods will to let that happen. To murder that baby would be a sin. I am Baptist Christian. I wouldn't be killing my wife I would only let her die of natural causes. So if you can call that murder then what do you call an abortion?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I think she's just curious as to why it really matters what others think, as you know how you feel. You shouldn't need them to validate it.
She should have said it in a way that wasn't so insulting. I have no desire to answer her. I don't need validating, but I do like opinions of others, especially after the abuse I faced at the hands of Yoda. I was simply hoping that some of the sane members of this site would help reject his views.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So stop insulting me without provocation. I came to this forum to learn and to change and I have been completely open about that. You should know that, so why do you only now have a problem with it?
No one's insulting you, I just find the constant revising of your viewpoint on abortion to be a bit monotonous. State your views once and go with it seems wisest to me. Just my opinion.
I find that to be insulting.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Nah, they're only against the death penalty for rapists. Using women against their will is the mark of a hero to some prolifers. Take our man with the Killer Sperm, for example; He's outright stated that he'd murder his wife to see his seed grow. Personally I feel that any man that would refuse lifesaving medical treatment for his wife against her wishes should be neutered. Every time he has sex with her (and knowing males as I do, they don't feel "loved" unless they're given free reign to stick it to us) he's trying to kill her. Every second of his pleasure could spell her death, and he risks NOTHING in the process. I can't even call a creature that would deliberately end his own partner's life that way a man.
All the man has to do is grunt. I think it's pretty twisted that a woman should have to risk her life to fulfill her husbands perceived "intimacy needs" yet if she chose not to out of fear of maternal death, he'd probably stick it to someone else on the side or toss her away for not being "attentive" enough.
This creature really doesn't know how good he's got it. He's no different from any other domestic abuser...he just uses his sperm to abuse or kill his wife instead of his fists. I doubt he even sees a human being when he looks at women.
You have competely blew this out of porportion. My wife has told me to save the baby. It is gods will to let that happen. To murder that baby would be a sin. I am Baptist Christian. I wouldn't be killing my wife I would only let her die of natural causes. So if you can call that murder then what do you call an abortion?
No, your wife told you to save HER. Now you're lying just to cover up the truth. Secondly, letting anyone die for any reason ESPECIALLY when there is a life-saving procedure is murdering them. Drowning is totally natural too, but if you saw a child drowning and didn't rescue them on purpose, you'd be a murderer.

reply from: BossMomma

So stop insulting me without provocation. I came to this forum to learn and to change and I have been completely open about that. You should know that, so why do you only now have a problem with it?
No one's insulting you, I just find the constant revising of your viewpoint on abortion to be a bit monotonous. State your views once and go with it seems wisest to me. Just my opinion.
I find that to be insulting.
Well it wasn't an insult, it was a request that you make up your mind. Decide where you stand before throwing it out there, it makes you look more intelligent and it gives you a chance to defend your position. When you are constantly revising and contradicting yourself you lose credibility.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You said it in a condescending way, including the use of "Chick". "Why don't you make up your mind" is also not polite in any way, plus you seem to think you can read my mind with "I don't think you know what to believe". So yeah, your entire post was a snarky insult.
My whole point of being on here is to discuss my changing opinions! And you're trying to say I should shut up and sit down because "the grown ups are talking". That's basically what you're saying.

reply from: carolemarie

I like reading her posts....it is interesting to see how her beliefs change with information, yet she stays true to her core believes of caring about women...
I think lots of people are uncomfortable with some of the things they believe, at least she is honest enough to examine them....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Thank you Carol :3 I'm trying to be totally open and look where it gets me...

reply from: Bgraphics

Men are not designed to carry off spring, unless your a male sea horse. But many men do sacrifice when their partners are pregnant they take time off work to go to doctor appointments, help them around the house. I had morning sickness real bad and my husband cleaned up the mess. During the last part of pregnancy I couldnt bathe myself and he did that and when I couldnt go to the bathroom and clean myself he did that all without bit of complaint. When I gave birth and he was there the whole time not leaving my side once. Even when I yelled that I wanted to neuter him toward the end did of labor he didnt leave. When we got home he did all of the cooking, cleaning and all of the nightime feedings so I could rest and recover. If that isnt sacrifice I dont know what is. Would you sacrifice your life to save your born children? If someone had a gun pointed at my son, I would jump in front of him and take that bullet. My son would be left motherless but I could not live with myself if I didnt.
I am a stay at home father that cooks, cleans, and watch after my children at the same time work from home running my own business. My wife works outside the home (though she knows she doesn't need to.) But only does it because thats where she fills more comfortable. I love my wife with all of my heart and to let her expire while giving birth would be the worst decision of my life. And can't say I would be able to live w/out her.

reply from: BossMomma

Men are not designed to carry off spring, unless your a male sea horse. But many men do sacrifice when their partners are pregnant they take time off work to go to doctor appointments, help them around the house. I had morning sickness real bad and my husband cleaned up the mess. During the last part of pregnancy I couldnt bathe myself and he did that and when I couldnt go to the bathroom and clean myself he did that all without bit of complaint. When I gave birth and he was there the whole time not leaving my side once. Even when I yelled that I wanted to neuter him toward the end did of labor he didnt leave. When we got home he did all of the cooking, cleaning and all of the nightime feedings so I could rest and recover. If that isnt sacrifice I dont know what is. Would you sacrifice your life to save your born children? If someone had a gun pointed at my son, I would jump in front of him and take that bullet. My son would be left motherless but I could not live with myself if I didnt.
I am a stay at home father that cooks, cleans, and watch after my children at the same time work from home running my own business. My wife works outside the home (though she knows she doesn't need to.) But only does it because thats where she fills more comfortable. I love my wife with all of my heart and to let her expire while giving birth would be the worst decision of my life. And can't say I would be able to live w/out her.
Well you'd have to, unless you fancy suicide and letting your kids grow up in foster care. Thankfully though fewer women die as a result of pregnancy and delivery, thanks to ultrasound and c-sections. Complications can be detected early on and dealt with.

reply from: Bgraphics

Nah, they're only against the death penalty for rapists. Using women against their will is the mark of a hero to some prolifers. Take our man with the Killer Sperm, for example; He's outright stated that he'd murder his wife to see his seed grow. Personally I feel that any man that would refuse lifesaving medical treatment for his wife against her wishes should be neutered. Every time he has sex with her (and knowing males as I do, they don't feel "loved" unless they're given free reign to stick it to us) he's trying to kill her. Every second of his pleasure could spell her death, and he risks NOTHING in the process. I can't even call a creature that would deliberately end his own partner's life that way a man.
All the man has to do is grunt. I think it's pretty twisted that a woman should have to risk her life to fulfill her husbands perceived "intimacy needs" yet if she chose not to out of fear of maternal death, he'd probably stick it to someone else on the side or toss her away for not being "attentive" enough.
This creature really doesn't know how good he's got it. He's no different from any other domestic abuser...he just uses his sperm to abuse or kill his wife instead of his fists. I doubt he even sees a human being when he looks at women.
You have competely blew this out of porportion. My wife has told me to save the baby. It is gods will to let that happen. To murder that baby would be a sin. I am Baptist Christian. I wouldn't be killing my wife I would only let her die of natural causes. So if you can call that murder then what do you call an abortion?
No, your wife told you to save HER. Now you're lying just to cover up the truth. Secondly, letting anyone die for any reason ESPECIALLY when there is a life-saving procedure is murdering them. Drowning is totally natural too, but if you saw a child drowning and didn't rescue them on purpose, you'd be a murderer.
How are you going to tell me what she said?!!!! She told me to save the child. Where did I say she said to save her? You need to scroll back a few pages and read what I wrote.

reply from: Bgraphics

Well you'd have to, unless you fancy suicide and letting your kids grow up in foster care. Thankfully though fewer women die as a result of pregnancy and delivery, thanks to ultrasound and c-sections. Complications can be detected early on and dealt with.
I agree...

reply from: BossMomma

First, "chick" is simply a friendly term I use towards another female, my sisters and I refer to each other lovingly as chick all the time, I'll refrain from using it towards you if you find it condescending. Secondly, no one told you to shut up and sit down or refered to you as a child. I simply advised you to analyze your position before posting it. You seem to be trying to find insult in my posts when all I'm doing is offering friendly advise. I'm a straight forward person and I don't sugar coat things, I say them exactly as I mean them.

reply from: Bgraphics

I seat up last night and called my father/mentor and asked him what to make of this. What he thought of it. and then ask my wife what she thought.
First I would like to commend you for asking this phyisofical question. Yet I still stand ferm on my answer. If I was to worry every time I got in the car to go to the grocery store that I would be killed a half mile down the road I would never go to the store. So to say I would kill all the other potential children would be in conparison of dying every time I got the car. No one knows how many children they will have in there life time. If you are a true christian then you would know what the Lord really wants from you on this subject. He died for you, so why would you not die for your child. I would give my life for my child with no questions asked. And so would my wife. And so did my mother. Its not a sacrifice, just a moral decision. Would you rather kill your child to save your own life. Because you fill you can make it up with another potential child later. That is selfish which is the bases for women having abortions. Who is to say you will ever have another child. You could have save the child that was killed, And it would have children as well. Thus your grand kids could live on to say I am here because my grandmother gave her life for us.
I asked my wife last night if she had complications with this baby and I had to choose between her and the baby what would she want me to do. She got mad at me, and said why do you think something is going to happen to me? I told her I didn't I just needed to know her wishes. She then told me to do what our Lord would want from us. I asked her if that meant letting her die, and the child live, or KILL the child and save her. She said to let her die and the child live.
There is a difference between Dying, and Killing. I would not kill my wife she would be dying, I would save a life in the process. If I killed the baby, I would also be saving a life, but under selfish terms.
You stated I was Anti-Life. If thats the way you want to look at it then thats fine. But also say I did it without being selfish, and that my decision was couragious.
Liberal You need to read this again.

reply from: Bgraphics

So, you wouldn't mind if your wife died in birth, to save your fifth child, leaving you as a single father with five children to raise on your own? Do you really think that's fair to them?
I wouldn't have it any other way neither would my wife. Let me note that there would be an attempt to save both.
You also need to read this again. This was posted on page 2 The on above was on page 4

reply from: Bgraphics

I would go against her wishes to save the child. But I would do it out of love for life, I would take on the resposibilities of being a father and provider for all my children. I love my wife the same as I love my children I love my faith more though. And to do what my God wants me to do is what I would do. I don't kill any any fashion, I would not be Killing my wife I would be letting her Die. There is a big difference. I just would not have told her that if thats what she wished.
Liberal This is on page 5 now go back and read what I wrote in my thread.

reply from: Bgraphics

How are you going to tell me what she said?!!!! She told me to save the child. Where did I say she said to save her? You need to scroll back a few pages and read what I wrote.
Are you woman enough to admit you where wrong?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I see:
And
You wouldn't have told her what? You know, it doesn't matter what your wife ACTUALLY said. All that matters is that IF she said 'save me' you WOULDN'T.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

First, "chick" is simply a friendly term I use towards another female, my sisters and I refer to each other lovingly as chick all the time, I'll refrain from using it towards you if you find it condescending.
I heartily do; the only person I can hear saying "chick" is a sexist pig male who thinks women are just objects.
Oh but that was the feeling. You told me to not debate since I apparently had no clue how I felt. The shorthand of that is "shut up and sit down because you're clueless".
I'm going to repeat the fact that my entire purpose of posting is to analyze my position. I'm not finding an insult, the insult is there for everyone to see.

reply from: BossMomma

First, "chick" is simply a friendly term I use towards another female, my sisters and I refer to each other lovingly as chick all the time, I'll refrain from using it towards you if you find it condescending.
I heartily do; the only person I can hear saying "chick" is a sexist pig male who thinks women are just objects.
Oh but that was the feeling. You told me to not debate since I apparently had no clue how I felt. The shorthand of that is "shut up and sit down because you're clueless".
I'm going to repeat the fact that my entire purpose of posting is to analyze my position. I'm not finding an insult, the insult is there for everyone to see.
Ok, I'm sorry. I'll just shut up, sit back and, wait for version four of your "ever changing views on abortion"

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm not asking you to shut up, but I am asking for some politeness.

reply from: BossMomma

I was being polite, you just misunderstood the tone. Had we been talking face to face it would have been different, but then maybe our definitions of polite differ. I'm a very straight foreward person, not known to sugar coat what I say. Some find my method of voicing my opinion abrasive, it's not intended, it's just how I was raised. I find it rude when people speak to me using pretty words and euphamisms as though I can't handle the straight forward truth.

reply from: KaylieBee

You're joking, right?

reply from: BossMomma

You're joking, right?
No kidding, I call my sis up and she always answers with " What's up chick" or " hey chica"

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You're joking, right?
No. My experience with the word chick comes from college, where only frat boys or guys who used girls as sex objects said "chick". "Look at that chick". Always an object, never a woman.

reply from: BossMomma

You're joking, right?
No. My experience with the word chick comes from college, where only frat boys or guys who used girls as sex objects said "chick". "Look at that chick". Always an object, never a woman.
I'm a woman, a straight one, why would I refer to you as an object. It was a misunderstanding, I refer to my female friends and family as " Chick" "Chica" "Chickadee" etc. I was trying to be nice, how was I to know you'd find the word insulting?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

My meaning behind using the word retard is irrelevant if Lukesmom is offended anyway. So I don't use it.

reply from: BossMomma

Had I not used the word I'd have never found out your opinion of it, communication has it's trials and errors.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, but to repeatedly defend your use of it and imply bad things about me for being offended was unnecessary.

reply from: BossMomma

What bad things did I imply? I defended my use because it is not a derrogatory word in my opinion, nor was it meant as such and I never implied anything bad about you. I tried to give you advise to improve your debating tactic and make your position more credible. You made it clear that you do not appreciate it and so you will get no more advise from me. I will debate with you as one mature individual to another and expect you to hold your own ground.

reply from: scopia1982

You're joking, right?
No. My experience with the word chick comes from college, where only frat boys or guys who used girls as sex objects said "chick". "Look at that chick". Always an object, never a woman.
Liberal I agree with you as far as men goes. But I and several of my girlfriends have called each other "chick" as a term of affection. I think its the context in which men and women use the term.

reply from: Bgraphics

And
You wouldn't have told her what? You know, it doesn't matter what your wife ACTUALLY said. All that matters is that IF she said 'save me' you WOULDN'T.
I honestly didn't think you could do it. Yes and like your ever changing views I went on and changed my statement. Do you honestly think I care what you think about me. No, I don't nor anyone else on the form so what makes you think I would go back on what I said. Because you think I might idealize you. LOL. I don't condone killing at all. To let nature take it course is totally the oppisite.
This is where I stand... I will never be faced with answering the question because I know what my wifes wishes were. "You didn't show me where she said to let her live." did you. No you didn't. And even if she did. Do I as a man not have the right to choose. What makes you more superiour than I. Do you not respect my wifes choice to choose to die, Thats the way I take it, If not then why would you not respect my choice. That is hypicritical.
Again my wife and I would make every attempt possible to save both, But if it comes to her or the child we BOTH as Partners choose to let the child live. That is the moral thing to do. And if you still want to change my views, Stand back and ask yourself if you are really Pro-Life. If you condone the killing of babies (no matter in what fashion) you are Pro-Abort. So stop saying you are Pro-Life. Its an embarisment to those who don't kill.

reply from: KaylieBee

Um, B, if you don't care, why are you arguing about it?

reply from: Bgraphics

Why do you care you don't live in the US do you? How does our laws reflect yours.
You are the one that seeks attention. Or you would'nt even be here. I don't like to be smeared or have lies told about me, when I am I retaliate. It's not because I seek attention. Or because I'm worried what anyone thinks.

reply from: KaylieBee

Then clearly you do care.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well then that's all you had to say. So I need to clarify, just to be sure: Would you choose the child even if your wife wanted her own life spared?

reply from: Bgraphics

Well then that's all you had to say. So I need to clarify, just to be sure: Would you choose the child even if your wife wanted her own life spared?
I would never be face with answering the question, so why answer it. It would be the same as asking me what would I do if I was pregnant. I'll never be pregnant.
So my answer would be inconclusive. Right.
I did tell you my views though. And I stand firm. If my wife did tell me that she would rather live then I would ask her to get someone else be in charge of her wishes. Such as another family member. I would not want to fill responsible for making the wrong desicion. It wouldn't make me irresponsible to do this, and would be the best thing for me to do on both sides. So again I would never be faced with answering the question.
You made it seem as though I care nothing for my wife. When we both share the same views. We got married because we were soul mates, and not just a place for me to lay eggs. We both agree on just about every thing. And thats why I married her.
When you call me Anti-Life, Murderer, Sexist pig, Anti-Woman etc. You are also calling my mother and my wife the same thing. Both of which are the same gender as you. What I didn't here you call them was Pro-Life. Which is not the same as you. And was a complete insult to my decised mother, and the woman I love more than life itself. I'm also sure that you will not admit you were wrong here either.

reply from: yoda

Hypothetical questions are usually only wild guesses at best. And asking someone to choose between two people whom they love very much is an exercise in insanity. How can you condemn someone to death and love them intensely at the same time? You can't. I think I might be unable to speak if someone posed that question to me in real life.
A (good) husband and a father's basic instinct is to protect and provide for his family. To ask him to condemn a family member to death is asking too much. To ask him to be their executioner is way, way too much.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well then that's all you had to say. So I need to clarify, just to be sure: Would you choose the child even if your wife wanted her own life spared?
I would never be face with answering the question, so why answer it.
Stop chickening out.
That's the first I've heard of it. So you'd be a chicken in real life, too.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Hypothetical questions are usually only wild guesses at best. And asking someone to choose between two people whom they love very much is an exercise in insanity. How can you condemn someone to death and love them intensely at the same time? You can't. I think I might be unable to speak if someone posed that question to me in real life.
A (good) husband and a father's basic instinct is to protect and provide for his family. To ask him to condemn a family member to death is asking too much. To ask him to be their executioner is way, way too much.
To do nothing in said situation is still condemning at least one person to death; wouldn't you rather have the power to choose, and to exercise that right?

reply from: Bgraphics

Well then that's all you had to say. So I need to clarify, just to be sure: Would you choose the child even if your wife wanted her own life spared?
I would never be face with answering the question, so why answer it.
Stop chickening out.
That's the first I've heard of it. So you'd be a chicken in real life, too.
This coming from the one that claims she is a liberator. Hypocrite. That is not woman enough to admit fault. You are weak minded. And care for no one but your self. Selfish. Killer. You are a person that spreads lies, and mis-leading information. Liberal. And are looking to pick fights, after you claim to be the one that tries to seattle them. If you think you are going to break me you've got something coming. Because it is your true colors that are showing. You are the one filled with hate. And I can clearly see I've opened your book only to find blank pages. Call me a chicken if you will. I'm not the one scared of which place I'll end up when I die. Its one thing to be a christian, and another to claim it. There is no in between.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Fault? What fault have I made? I have never killed anyone, so I would ask you to stop lying. I'm not trying to "break" you, just to point out that you are too afraid to take your wife's own well being into your own hands, and that if push came to shove, you'd back away and hide! Those are your own conclusions, I'm just saying them right back to you. You would put your wife's life into someone else's hands because you're too scared to make a choice.

reply from: scopia1982

My husband and I have discussed this and he knows my wishes and will abide by them. But I think if I was a man, I of course would tell them to do everything to save both mom and baby. But if it came down to either I dont think I could just decide ahead of time which one to save if every effort had been attempted and not successful. I guess I would tell the doctors to save the one that had the greatest chance of survival . One really doesnt know how they will act unless they find themselves in this situation. I must emphasize efforts have to be taken to save both.

reply from: Bgraphics

You stated my wife told me to let her live.
You disrespected my mother, and my wife.
You call me sexist, murderer, anti-life.
And you don't value the very thing you stand by Pro-Choice.
When you advocate the killing of babies its the same as being the killer. No matter the situation. It makes you an assory to the killing.
If you want to look at me as scared then okey. At least I'll know I want have to answer for it later. My god tells me in one of his ten rules not to kill. He also tells me not to shed innocent blood. The lord was clear when he said not to kill. Are you the person that changes what he wrote? No his law says not to kill. You also need to ask yourself did he not die for me. When he hung on that cross and yelled to his mother "hold back your son." who was his brother trying to give him something to drink. There are parables in the bible in the most obvious places. you just need to understand how to find them. What might sound like one thing to one person will sound different to another. You just need the sight to see it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

At least "saving the one most likely to survive" is logical. "A mother must sacrifice her self because God says so" isn't very logical at all.

reply from: Bgraphics

I don't see how.
Women have the right to give their life for their unborn child. It is their decision.
But a man who thinks his wife should have to give her life, is a sexist pig. Its not his life he's discussing.
I would give my life for my child. So would my wife. I would also give my life for my wife.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You stated my wife told me to let her live.
Yeah; from what YOU wrote, it seemed as if that's what she said. Can't blame me for you writing an incomprehensible post.
How so? By wishing them to live? I've never heard wishing life upon someone to be disrespectful.
I was not at fault for saying those since they are opinions. I guess I should have said you are a potential murderer, since in my opinion if you fail to provide your wife with a life saving procedure against her will you have killed her.
I'm not pro-choice, so I don't have to respect it one inch. Please stop lying.
I don't. Please stop lying.
If you advocate your wife dying for your child you are the same as being the killer.
And again, I'm not pro-choice, I don't advocate killing anyone but you actually do. You'd let your wife die through your own inability/unwillingness to make a choice.
I don't know how else to interpret an unwillingness to take a stand on your wife's life.
Not everyone is christian so using christianity to support anything is pointless.
No actually Kind James did that. And again, not everyone is christian so using it as part of your argument is useless.
The hippocratic oath says not to kill through inaction. Sometimes, someone has to die. Sometimes, you have to make a choice. You have to choose. People make up these hypothetical situations because they reveal our core ethics. I had a professor who failed a student for her daily participation grade because she refused to choose an answer in one of these hypothetical cases.
Voluntary self sacrifice is wonderful. Forced self-sacrifice is murder.
Yeah, he also yelled "God, why hast thou forsaken me?" which seems to me like he expected to be saved from death and was going "God! WTF!?".
I thought it was a Roman solider actually. What does that have to do with this discussion?
I have no clue how Jesus drinking wine from a sponge has anything to do with refusing to make a choice about your wife's life.
You need to understand how to find better ones.
Huh?

reply from: Bgraphics

Did you not say you were christian. Then why do you question the one you turn to for help. It might not be logical but it is moral. People die every day of natural causes. To give birth, or get pregnant is natural. To kill the baby is going against what god wants from you. I hope you can understand this. And I'll pray for you to see it. I don't mean to question your beliefs I'm just tring to let you see the light.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I am christian, but not everyone is. I'm also a Liberal Christian, which means I have the right to question God and the bible. You should look up Liberal Christian. Basically, Christianity is the language I use to express my faith. It's a tool, not a way of life. I was raised saying "God" and "Jesus". I believe the concept of God is something much more than just the Christian interpretation. Anyway I could go on and on, but let's just say I don't live by the bible, don't consider it inerrant, and I certainly don't use my religion in a debate.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

ROFL !!!!!!!!!!!
Lol, I'm an ASSory!

reply from: ProInformed

You remind me so much of myself when I started calling myself pro-informed instead of pro-choice. I commend you for refusing to 'choose' between what the media portrays as the only two options in this debate. The truth is as far as I can tell most people have a POV somewhere in between the two 'extremes'. Unfortunately most moderates or undecided citizens are lumped in with the 'pro-choice' side, giving the false impression that most citizens endorse the current legal status of abortion. In reality, very few citizens support abortion on demand for the whole nine months of pregnancy.
"III. Rape: Circumstantial
I still feel a woman should have the option to abort, but only after going through a lot of therapy and it has been determined that abortion is the only way to prevent permanent harm to her mind or body. This is likely to be rare."
I would like you to also include that the immense societal pressure put on rape victims to abort (the assumption that of course they would want to) should be strongly challenged. Everytime an innocent baby concieved by rape is referred to as 'the rapist's baby' it is prejudicial and promotes killing of those babies as a hate crime based on that prejudice. Pregnant rape victims should be supported and allowed to express their maternal love towards THEIR own baby, should be protected from such ANTI-CHOICE and outdated notions that the innocent baby deserves to die for the crime of the rapist, that a baby's worth is ONLY tied to who the biological father is. By the time a rape victim finds out she is pregnant she has heard those hate and ignorance based comments countless times in her life. It must be VERY difficult for pregnant rape victims to stand up to that sort of pressure to abort. How often do people tell them that it is OK for them to love their baby and to allow their baby to live? Rape victims deserve to be assured that the rape was not their fault and that they don't have to agree to an abortion in order to prove their innocence, or to hide (cover up) the rape, or that they are now 'unclean' until they abort.
ELIMINATING that sort of pressure, by challenging and chastising those who say such hateful things, is something that pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike should agree on.

reply from: ProInformed

"The thought that some people have behind providing clean needles for addicts is "well, at least they'll be safe", and that's the same though behind making abortion elective. "Well they'll abort anyway, so at least they'll be safe". Doesn't that sound stupid when compared to the addicts? I suppose the people who fought for Roe v Wade were going off the thought that "women will abort anyway", so they were hoping to keep it safe for just those women.
As I learned more about how/why Roe v Wade was passed, how Roe v Wade didn't contain ANY health/safety regulations, how ONLY pro-lifers were trying to pass such safety measures, AND the abortion industry consistently opposed all such efforts, my belief in the 'safe and legal' slogan waned and eventually disappeared. The abortion industry reveals their lack of concern for the health and lives of women when they prefer to operate assembly-line style in order to maximize profits (and rush the customer into buying before they change their mind). When women are injured or killed by so-called 'safe' legal abortions the abortion industry defends the dangerous abortionists and dangerous clinics instead of the women. Also, abortion is inherently dangerous, no matter where or how it's done, or by whom. (I learned that from neutral sources who have a genuine concern for the health of women).
"I don't think they were expecting abortion to explode as it has into a third form of birth control (on top of abstinence or safe-sex)."
Actually many former abortion industry employees openly admit that abortion is agressively marketed with the motive of increasing abortion profits. The abortion industry is quite aware of the fact that there are females who are repeat aborters, using abortion instead of contraceptive. They've known this, and had no problem with it, for decades. The recent lip service being heard from some 'pro-choice' reps, about how abortion should be taken more seriously and become more rare, is mostly an attempt at damage control since so many citizens are now aware of and condemning the way irresponsible sex and promiscuity increased with the legalization of abortion on demand. In order to maintain the facade of being moderates some pro-choice politicans and groups have FINALLY had to modify their stance some and admit that legalizing abortion did indeed increase casual sex and unplanned pregnancies. Again, up until very recently they lied and claimed that was not happening despite the evidence otherwise.

reply from: Cecilia

I read the first post only, and I think Liberal that you have the views that many 'in the middle' prolifers have. If you supported elective abortions up to a certain time frame then you'd probably lean into the 'in the middle' prochoice camp.
I think your views are probably realistic of what most of society's prolife people believe.

reply from: ProInformed

I'm wondering why there is so much emphasis on the life of the mother vs the life of the baby debate?
Even in the VERY RARE cases of real danger to the mother's life, it's still possible to protect the life of the mother without killing the baby. If there truly is a reason related to maternal health for ending the pregnancy there are non-violent ways to do so that gives the baby a chance to live.
The vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with the mother's physical health. Doe v Bolton created a loophole allowing late-term abortions for 'maternal health' excuses like finances, relationship, career plans, whatever.
The abortion industry, pro-abort politicians, and biased media pretend that pro-lifers are opposed to late-term abortions even if the mother's LIFE is in danger.
The truth is that such situations are extremely rare, can be resolved without killing the baby, and MOST late-term abortions are elective - the mother is not going to die if she doesn't abort.
MOST late-term abortions are elective and eugenic (prejudice against babies with health problems is not exactly a life-threatening condition for the mother).
And since Doe v Bolton provided such a gaping loophole, there are perfect babies killed by late-term abortions too, when NEITHER the baby or mother has a PHYSICAL health problem as the excuse.
Besides, most pro-lifers and most pro-life legislative efforts would not ban abortions for the extremely unlikely case that refraining from inflicting fatal violence on the baby would surely cause the mother to die.
The whole mother vs baby argument is just another dishonest evasion tactic employed by pro-aborts.
Besides, when a woman has an abortion she increases the chance that she and/or her baby will have health problems in future pregnancies. Genuine concern for the health and lives of women should include giving women the right to be informed of those risks. Pro-aborts don't care if a woman's ability to safely have a baby has been damaged BY abortion, do they? Pro-aborts don't even care when women are killed BY abortion? So why go along with their pretense to even care about the health and safety of pregnant women when they debate the life of the mother vs the life of the baby?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh definitely! I think the entire concept that ANY woman "should" abort should be challenged.
Yeah. It's the victim's baby too.
That's the feeling many rape victims have, and I've heard pro-choicers say that these women abort to get the "monster" out of them. But that's because we're all TOLD it's a "monster", and "invader".
Definitely. I feel that both pro-life and pro-choice have really lost their way... They're both about compassion, but pro-choicers have forgotten about the baby and pro-lifers have forgotten about the woman!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I have to say that I don't totally believe everything you've said in this post, but I'm a skeptic who doesn't fall easily into conspiracies and gradiose ideas. That doesn't mean you're lying or that you're misinformed, it just means I'm skeptical to be safe! lol. Certainly IF these things are true they are frightening. Heck, if even aspects of them are fact they're frightening.
I think a general change in culture caused more casual sex, not abortion. Abortion may be a factor, but it is not the sole causation. Not by a long shot. That's like wackos saying the HPV shot will make teens more promiscuous. That's silly! Besides, I don't really have a problem with promiscuous adults as long as they're safe.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That is so ridiculous it makes me want to puke. That's the "life style" issue I actually argued against as a pro-choicer! Your life style is not your LIFE. There is a difference. I always argued against it in reference to late term abortions. Maternal health should be maternal HEALTH, not maternal-spring-break-plans.
Well, some people on here ARE.
I'd like to see fewer ones done for reasons other than literally saving the mother's life.
Yeah, I definitely disagree with that. Every baby deserves life no matter what's wrong with them.
That's pretty wrong, unless the mother had a real, viable psychiatric need. Which I would think is even more rare than a physical need. You don't hear of many women going completely psychotic after giving birth. And even then, you could just remove the baby. No need to kill it. And if she's going to go crazy unless she knows the baby died... then she's already crazy in my book! "I need to kill my baby or I'm gonna go crazy"?
Well it does seem as if they ask the question and then try to slide from maternal death to maternal-spring-break. It's like they think because one case is justified, all cases are justified. It's not true. Killing someone could be justified depending on the circumstance; but that doesn't make ALL murders Ok.
Well I still don't believe the breast cancer thing. I don't think there's enough American research done on the subject.
Well, foreign examples seem to show that using abortion as birth control does not affect a woman's ability to reproduce later on. Some women get as many as 11 and then give birth just fine. And most early-term abortions are very safe. Then again, me shooting someone in the head is plenty safe for ME; still doesn't make it right.

reply from: scopia1982

Originally posted by: LiberalChiRo
Originally posted by: ProInformed
Y
"
I
I
That's the feeling many rape victims have, and I've heard pro-choicers say that these women abort to get the "monster" out of them. But that's because we're all TOLD it's a "monster", and "invader".
I have ask pro choicers about the rapist children he had from a consensual relationship. Are these children monsters as well since their father is a rapist? Should we have them killed too? I mean if the child concieved of rape is a monster according to their logic the others should be monsters since they have the same father. Yet none of them can offer an explanation. A child is not responsible for the crimes of the parents and by aborting a baby concieved in rape your executing and innocent human being.

reply from: ProInformed

I was told and believed that too.
But I learned otherwise from several neutral sources.
There have been women who've been disemboweled or killed by so-called 'safe' first trimester suction abortions, and women who've died from pill abortions.
IMHO assuring women that abortions are 'very safe' is dishonest if in fact women have been seriously injured or even killed by it. The argument was made that the motive for legalizing abortion was to make it safe... so why does the abortion industry oppose all attempts to pass the safety regulations then? Doe v Bolton didn't provide any safety regulations. Legalizing abortion made women FEEL safer, so the abortion industry could sell more abortions. The pregnant women themselves should have the right to be informed of the risks so they (not somebody else) can decide whether or not they think it is 'safe'.
Have you visited the Real Choice site?

reply from: scopia1982

"There have been women who've been disemboweled or killed by so-called 'safe' first trimester suction abortions, and women who've died from pill abortions."
I believe that happened in the case of RoeVAwareWoman. The lady has to use a bag for the rest of her life. They also use the machines in other abortion procedures to sunction out any "debri that may have been left behind. I will leave the room if My husband turns on the Vacum Cleaner, because it sounds like that machine.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

PLease fix your post, Scopia. I did not say what you are quoting. Also, your post is inside Pro's post! Make sure you type your post after the last [/ q], ok?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I was told and believed that too.
But I learned otherwise from several neutral sources.
There have been women who've been disemboweled or killed by so-called 'safe' first trimester suction abortions, and women who've died from pill abortions.
Of course there have been. But those are rare. Bad things happen with any operation; no one is denying the risks. But the risks are minimal. That's what "safe" means.
So going to the dentist isn't very safe either. Or getting your tonsils removed. Or any other commonly performed procedure. Yes there are risks with all of these but the fact that these things don't happen very often is what makes it safe. Asprin is safe too, even though it can kill you. Botox!!
They do? I didn't know any safety procedures had been sent to congress. I think it's ridiculous to deny them; I feel my personal first steps towards outlawing abortion is instating stringent safety procedures and shutting down any clinic that violates them.
Even the planned parenthood site openly lists the serious risks in the same sized font as everything else; they're not hiding it. They do add the additional truth that these complications are rare.
No, that sounds like a pro-life propaganda site.

reply from: KaylieBee

And there are people who have died on rides at Disney.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Did you hear the horrific story of the little girl in the wading pool? She sat over the suction vent and it didn't have the usual white grate with holes over it, it was just a hole... and her intestines were sucked out. This is a 100% true story. That doesn't mean wading pools should be illegal, but it did make people up the safety of wading pools.

reply from: KaylieBee

Lol just kidding, right? I thought no one believed that one beyond middle school.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lol no. Dead serious. Her name is Abigail Taylor.
http://www.mukamo.com/6-year-old-girls-intestines-sucked-out-in-pool-drain-accident/
http://vikibabbles.newsvine.com/_news/2007/07/05/820575-wading-pool-drain-sucks-out-girls-organ
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f73_1206124159
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19619471/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288182,00.html

If MSNBC and Fox News doesn't convince you I don't know what will.

reply from: KaylieBee

WTF, I always thought that was bull*****. Hm, The more you know. Mythbusters should do this to a ballistics gell Grant, so I can drool over Adam and Jamie some more...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

lol I love ballistics gel XD

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh, she died a year later after cancer caused by the failing pancreal transplant, btw.

reply from: KaylieBee

And Adam/Jamie/me threesomes. =D

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lol. Just Adam for me. I don't know. Neither of them are really attractive to me but I'm sure they make up for it in personality. Like Dr. House XD

reply from: KaylieBee

I know. And factor in that they're sooo much older than me, and could so very easily controll me. Mmm. And could do it on a work bench and all...
Goddammit.

reply from: KaylieBee

I tihnk doing Hugh Laurie would be extra hot because he has a daughter the same age as me. I think...

reply from: CharlesD

The safety or lack of safety of abortions really isn't the major issue. It's kind of a non-issue used by people in favor of abortion to try to keep it legal. Keep it safe and legal, they will tell you. It's just like the rape and life of the mother issues. Those are rare exceptions. The truth is that women have been harmed physically during abortions, but people have been harmed during other surgical procedures. If we spend all of our time arguing these side issues, the other side has won part of the battle because they keep our focus off the main point, which is that abortion ends the life of an innocent human being. We can't ignore the main point here. What they don't focus on is the emotional trauma that some women go through who have had abortions. I know a couple women in my church who had abortions years ago and still feel the guilt. I can't claim to know what they're going through. But all in all, these other arguments aren't really the issue. Abortions are not completely safe now. If they are made illegal they still won't be completely safe. Many things that aren't wrong aren't safe. Driving can be pretty unsafe too, but we still do it. Just stepping out your door can expose you to many dangers, but that's part of life. So how does that information change the nature of what abortion is? It's a diversionary tactic to try to get us off the main point. If you establish two truths, that an unborn child is an innocent human being, and it is wrong to take the life of that innocent human being, then everything else falls into place. The more time we spend debating these other issues, the less time we give to establishing those two basic tenets of the pro-life position. People on both sides of this issue are guilty of spending too much time on the other issues. The pro-choicers use those arguments to get the pro-lifers off the main point, and most pro-lifers take the bait and invest too much time trying to argue all the minutia. It's like that whack a mole game where you sit there and try to nail each thing that pops up. We need to stay focused on the main issue.

reply from: CharlesD

Now here is a prime example of where context is very important when determining what someone is saying. I saw the first sentence of the above comment quoted by itself, but if you include the second part, it really changes the meaning quite a bit. The first part by itself makes it appear as if the person quoted is using the safety argument to argue for early term abortions, but the next part shows what is really being said, that the safety of the procedure really isn't the point. It doesn't matter if it was completely safe for the mother and there were never any complications. It's never safe for the unborn, therefore it falls under the same category as shooting someone else in the head. That's what I said in my previous post. The safety or lack thereof isn't the main issue here. What is happening to the unborn is the issue.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Heh, I hate when people post out of context. I really try not to. I decided a long time ago that the risks/benefits for the mother is the same for a healthy birth or abortion, so that eliminates her from the health issue for most abortions. That only leaves the unborn, which dies for certain in an abortion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You know I think one of the things Yoda keeps harping on is "What are you doing to stop abortion?". Well, something that I would like to do is buy a pair of these:
http://www.hh76.com/pro_life_products.asp?group_id=8

Precious Feet. It's a tiny pin of two little feet the same size of a fetus' feet at week 10. I think it's beautiful and subtle. I'm not a loud type of person, I don't like proclaiming my views in front of clinics or losing my job over arguments or those kinds of things. I'm not like that.

reply from: BossMomma

Aww, I liked the necklaces and might just get one. I wish they'ed make them on infant bracelettes. I had my daughter a bracelette made with her birth stone for beads so it's opal beads with silver block letter beads that spell out her name.

reply from: ProInformed

So stop insulting me without provocation. I came to this forum to learn and to change and I have been completely open about that. You should know that, so why do you only now have a problem with it?
No one's insulting you, I just find the constant revising of your viewpoint on abortion to be a bit monotonous. State your views once and go with it seems wisest to me. Just my opinion.
As if forming a POV on abortion that you carefully guard against revision is somehow better LOL. What is wrong with being primarily pro-informed, with learning as much as you can about abortion, even if that might cause you to re-evaluate or even change your POV?
Hey if you personally are not up to that sort of intellectual challenge than you are free to go right on protecting your status quo POV from any new info that might threaten it.
But complaining about LiberalChiRo being open-minded enough to keep learning and modifying her POV is sort of rude. Didn't she start this thread specifically for her own purpose of doing so? Don't post in it if you prefer the 'this is my POV and I'm sticking to it no matter what' attitude. (Now THAT is MEGA 'monotonous' yawn.)

reply from: scopia1982

I got a pair of these, I only wear on the anniversary of my abortion. Which is October 29. I got them free from my local CPC.

reply from: ProInformed

And there are people who have died on rides at Disney.
If you have a surgery and experience a side effect the doctor failed to warn you about normally you have the right to prevail in a lawsuit based on the patient protection right of informed consent... unless the surgery was abortion and the doctor was an abortionist.
Do you think it is OK for abortion clinics to withhold the information about the risks and to even lie to women and falsely assure them that there are no serious risks?
I know you think this is all some big joke (because you don't really care about the health and lives of women).
The truth is more people are aware of the risks of riding a roller coaster, or have heard of the risk of being disemboweled by a swimming pool drain, than know about the risks of so-called 'safe' legal abortion. And you know why that is? Because silly sheeple like you assure women that the abortion industry can be trusted, and then the abortion clinic 'counselors' lie about the risks, AND when the women who suffer the complications they were never warned about (or their families because the woman died), they are made fun of and harrassed by naive brats like you.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

And there are people who have died on rides at Disney.
If you have a surgery and experience a side effect the doctor failed to warn you about normally you have the right to prevail in a lawsuit based on the patient protection right of informed consent... unless the surgery was abortion and the doctor was an abortionist.
Do you think it is OK for abortion clinics to withhold the information about the risks and to even lie to women and falsely assure them that there are no serious risks?
I know you think this is all some big joke (because you don't really care about the health and lives of women).
The truth is more people are aware of the risks of riding a roller coaster, or have heard of the risk of being disemboweled by a swimming pool drain, than know about the risks of so-called 'safe' legal abortion. And you know why that is? Because silly sheeple like you assure women that the abortion industry can be trusted, and then the abortion clinic 'counselors' lie about the risks, AND when the women who suffer the complications they were never warned about (or their families because the woman died), they are made fun of and harrassed by naive brats like you.
I take it you had a bad experience, correct? Where and when? What occurred? How did it affect you?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

from UnImformed:
"If you have a surgery and experience a side effect the doctor failed to warn you about normally you have the right to prevail in a lawsuit based on the patient protection right of informed consent... unless the surgery was abortion and the doctor was an abortionist."
I'm so happy you told me this. Now I can sue the surgeon who repaired my torn rotator cuff, because he did not tell me the following before my shoulder surgery:
- It would hurt for weeks
- The pain pills would not help enough
- It would make popping noises when I moved
- I would have to pay for physical therapy
- It would cost thousands of dollars
- He would have an intern assisting
- I would not be allowed to drive for 3 weeks
And more!!!!!! Thanks for the tip - I will share part of my lawsuit winnings with you!

reply from: ProInformed

Actually you can prevail in an informed consent lawsuit against that surgeon based on his failure to inform you of possible side effects.
If you win anything I don't want part of the financial reward - use it to support legislative efforts to grant pregnant women the same patient protection right of informed consent that all other patients have instead.

reply from: ProInformed

Actually I had the same sort of experience most women who've had abortions describe (once they come out of the denial phase that is), a bad experience because the abortion industry cares about profits, not women.
I was assured that a clinic was a safe place I could trust to go to for pregnany confirmation and assistance with whatever choice I wanted. The clinic I went to was endorsed by the NAF as being a good one. I asked questions but found out later all the answers were lies. I was offered NO help with my choice to continue the pregnancy. When I revealed I didn't want an abortion I was lied to and told there was something wrong that made it impossible for me and my baby to survive the pregnancy. Of course that was a lie too, I just had a negative Rh factor which did NOT mean I "had to abort". I had never heard of that before and had no reason to suspect that the clinic staff would lie to me just to sell an abortion.
The clinic I went to was not some rare bad apple. It was endorsed by the NAF and MANY women AND abortion industry employees have revealed that my experience was not very different from the way the abortion industry operates in general. There are women who went to clinics way worse than the one I went to.
If you really care about women why don't you learn more about the abortion industry and how they treat women? Better yet, contact pro-choice groups and ask them to suport legislation to ensure the rights and safety of the women who go to abortion clinics.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Honestly, if the doctor didn't tell you all that you SHOULD sue.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I'm not into suing people for anything. And I most certainly would NOT do anything that would be fairly frivolous and that would raise the price of health care. Malpractice insurance has risen through the roof to the point that many doctors have stopped practicing and I refuse to be part of the problem.
My shoulder is fine and I am accustomed to pain.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Actually I had the same sort of experience most women who've had abortions describe (once they come out of the denial phase that is), a bad experience because the abortion industry cares about profits, not women.
I was assured that a clinic was a safe place I could trust to go to for pregnany confirmation and assistance with whatever choice I wanted. The clinic I went to was endorsed by the NAF as being a good one. I asked questions but found out later all the answers were lies. I was offered NO help with my choice to continue the pregnancy. When I revealed I didn't want an abortion I was lied to and told there was something wrong that made it impossible for me and my baby to survive the pregnancy. Of course that was a lie too, I just had a negative Rh factor which did NOT mean I "had to abort". I had never heard of that before and had no reason to suspect that the clinic staff would lie to me just to sell an abortion.
The clinic I went to was not some rare bad apple. It was endorsed by the NAF and MANY women AND abortion industry employees have revealed that my experience was not very different from the way the abortion industry operates in general. There are women who went to clinics way worse than the one I went to.
If you really care about women why don't you learn more about the abortion industry and how they treat women? Better yet, contact pro-choice groups and ask them to suport legislation to ensure the rights and safety of the women who go to abortion clinics.
I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. You DO know, I hope, that you need to inform your OB/GYN about this before you become pregnant again (if the father is the same man.) FYI:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001600.htm

RH incompatability CAN be fatal to the fetus.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

This is another helpful article:
http://kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_newborn/pregnancy/rh.html

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It would hurt for weeks - That is not frivolous.
I would have to pay for physical therapy - Also not frivolous. My mother went to PT for an injury and we were slapped with the bills; she'd been going several times a week and was literally in shock when we got the bills. We were not financially stable at the time and if she'd been TOLD, she never would have gone to the PT. We couldn't afford it; I think we ended up buying groceries on credit cards just to eat.
It would cost thousands of dollars - Not frivolous. You should always be informed of the cost of your procedure (at least an estimate) before going into it.
He would have an intern assisting - Definitely not frivolous. "Beginner" errors could have killed you. You should have been informed.
I would not be allowed to drive for 3 weeks - Again, definitely not frivolous! What if you were single and driving was the ONLY way you could get to work? You'd be out a job, with a medical bill that you have no clue how much it is, PT bills that you had no idea you'd have to pay, and you're in intense pain.
Definitely NOT frivolous in any sense of the word.

reply from: CharlesD

23 posts and every one is the same thing? Is that why all of the threads that actually had active discussions going on are now on page 2? Why respond to every single thread with the same exact thing? I don't get it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Maybe Celebate doesn't understand how message boards work?

reply from: yoda

It's the strategy of a lazy troll. He just spams the same old crap all over the forum in an attempt to knock active discussions off the front page. That makes it up to us to bring them back, and up to the moderator to get rid of this guy.


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