Home - List All Discussions

A hypothetical question for Yod

by: AmericanPie

Yod, you’re a great one for coming up with bizarre hypothetical questions and situations for me to answer. So here’s one for you that’s perhaps not so bizarre.

Let’s say that you and your wife have been married for 25 years, you’re both in your mid-40s. You have one child, born the second year of your marriage, but for whatever reason, your wife was unable to conceive anymore after that.

Your wife is now 46, has diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and a heart murmur. She just found out that she is pregnant. Two weeks along. She, because of her anti-abortion beliefs, wants to have the child, but is nonetheless very frightened over the prospect because she knows what it could mean. She looks to you for advice. Both of you know that a full-term pregnancy could very well kill her because of her various infirmities.

So…from your posts here, I'm assuming you are vehemently anti-abortion no matter the circumstance, I'd like to know...do you advise her to have the child, knowing full well that there is a very good chance that she could die giving it birth, or that she AND the child could both die? Or do you go against your beliefs and advise her to have an abortion? Remember, it’s very early in the pregnancy. Two weeks.

Do not tell me this situation can’t or could never happen. I asked you a question. Answer it.

reply from: yoda

Hey no problem. I don't dodge your question, do I?

Risking one's life is a decision that only the person themselves can morally make. If a woman decides to take the risk for the sake of her child, I admire and respect that. If a woman decides that she wants to protect her life at the cost of her baby's life, I understand that. Now the woman that takes the risk is braver, more self-sacrificing, and less selfish than the other woman, but it's simply human nature to respond to the fear of losing your life. It's such a basic instinct (self-preservation) that it is amoral, IMHO.

So I don't "advise" anyone on whether to risk their life or not, that's their decision only.

So, when are you going to start answering my questions?

reply from: AmericanPie

I've answered them all. Some several times over. You just don't like the answers you received.

But you did dodge the question! Your "wife" has come to you for advice. The paragraph you wrote above indicates you would give her none, that "she" would have to make the decision. That's not the question I asked. I asked:

do you advise her to have the child, knowing full well that there is a very good chance that she could die giving it birth, or that she AND the child could both die? Or do you go against your beliefs and advise her to have an abortion?

A simple "yes, I would advise her to have the child" or "no, I would advise her not to have the child" will do. Not "Risking one's life is a decision that only the person themselves can morally make". That is a dodge, sir.

reply from: ChristianLott

I'll tell you.

She should have the child and the doctor should take the baby early, as soon as he saw she'd be in risk.

Sure, the baby would be a premie. Premie's are beautiful too, don't you know?

Also, I find the 'it' in your statement offensive. Be PC about it and say him/her. The baby does have a sex.

reply from: Jazzy95

I am new here and just learning the players.

So I am assuming from the post above that Yodavatar is pro-choice?

reply from: Jazzy95

I'll tell you.

She should have the child and the doctor should take the baby early, as soon as he saw she'd be in risk.

Sure, the baby would be a premie. Premie's are beautiful too, don't you know?

Also, I find the 'it' in your statement offensive. Be PC about it and say him/her. The baby does have a sex.

How much experience have you had with premature children?

reply from: ChristianLott

Why, is there something wrong with premies?

(Isn't your next line going to be - 'they're better off dead'?)

reply from: bobinsky

Ampie, your "hypothetical" happens all too frequently in real life, I can see what you're getting at. Even healthy women take risks with pregnancies; it's the nature of the situation. Any woman who carries a pregnancy risks her life during the pregnancy and during labor/delivery. So technically, any woman should be allowed to decide whether to continue the pregnancy and risk her life during it and labor/delivery, or she should have the choice to reduce the risk 100% by terminating the pregnancy.
Now, if I may I ask a question about your hypothetical, was the couple using any method of birth control? If the woman's health is that bad, should this couple be engaging in sex in the first place?

reply from: ChristianLott

That is the biggest lie.

I've already discussed this with you and gave you a link on the facts.

Where are YOUR facts?

Are you here to have a discussion about abortion or are you here just to encourage it?

Obviously the latter.

For those who want to know the truth:

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/finmort.htm

reply from: AmericanPie

Hey Bob. No, my hypothetical stands as is. At 46, many if not most women are menopausal anyway and the last thing they expect is to get pregnant, even if they had sex 6 times a day 7 days a week. So... no BC was used. The question here is not so much if the woman's health is "bad"...the question is, is it good enough to bear a child without killing her in the process? In the best case with a healthy woman, childbirth is the most severe strain that could be placed on her body. Diabetes quadruples the strain and high BP quintuples it. Not to mention the risk of deadly infection with a diabetic because of the circulatory problems in healing. Sex, in contrast, is a walk in the park. Because a person has diabetes and high BP or even cancer doesn't mean they quit having sex.

Welcome Jazzy. Heheh. Well, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question. He claims he's anti-choice. I just would like to know what he'd do if the situation was a personal one for him, and not some anonymous woman whose life didn't mean all that much to him.

You obviously don't know that much about diabetes, Lott. I do. "Take the baby early", as in a C-section, you say. All will be hunky-dory, right? Unfortunately, major trauma to the body as is the case with a C-section could very likely cause her kidneys to fail. Permanently. That's only the beginning. Healing from that C-section for a diabetic? Slow and agonizing, and sometimes there is no healing, but a continuous open and draining wound that will not heal. Which would eventually become infected, cause peritonitis, and lead to her death.

I know your answer to this question, Lott. You would force your wife to bear the child. If she died...oh well. *shrugs* At least she'd be received in heaven with open arms for her "unselfishness".

reply from: bobinsky

Amp and Jazzy, just so you know, all the anti-choicers use anti-choice websites to glean their "facts", which is why they post the information they do. There are worlds of neutral websites that they could access, but these sites do not support their beliefs, so they stick to the biased, non-neutral anti-choice sites. You know how this goes, as CL did in his previous post on this thread. I ignore their BS because that's just what it is. Also, in case you didn't know, "hereforareason" is Amber from our board. She's always been respectful in dialogue with us and I give her the same respect back. Just FYI.

reply from: bobinsky

Ahem. I'll be 46 in July and I'm not menopausal. Of course, I have no uterus either, so that's probably why. 6 times a day, 7 days a week? Do you have this guy's phone number?
We all know there are men who would "force" or "advise" their wife to follow through with such a pregnancy. Of course, these aren't pro-lifers. I'm interested to see what yoda "advises" his wife to do, if he ever answers the question.

reply from: Allizdog2000

Isn't that what you do "advise" people after you have chased the Ambulance?

reply from: bobinsky

Alliz, I'd like to clear up the misconception you made in the above statement, but I've been silenced from saying anything about myself by sobbing sarah, the martyress of the board. You are indeed wrong in your ASSumption, but far be it from me to straighten you out.

Tell me, are you still into devil worship?

reply from: AmericanPie

I'm 47 and *gag*...I am. Have been for a full year. There's some good and then some...not so good about it. Those hot flashes suck majorly. Then there's the good part. I don't have to describe what that is.

Ooo, I just can't wait for the mudslinging to start from the AC corner, now that I've announced I'm, shhh now...menopausal!!!!

reply from: Allizdog2000

Alliz, I'd like to clear up the misconception you made in the above statement, but I've been silenced from saying anything about myself by sobbing sarah, the martyress of the board. You are indeed wrong in your ASSumption, but far be it from me to straighten you out.

Tell me, are you still into devil worship?

No, I don't worship the Devil. But you serve the Devil by Promoting Abortion.

reply from: AmericanPie

I didn't know Satan was in the abortion biz! Damn, I must read the newspaper more often. And here I thought he was so busy teaching Osama and the boys how to bring on "Jihad".

reply from: YodeMan

Hi all! I'm new here. I've been snooping around for a little while and thought I would join.

Please explain and prove. How exactly do these things relate, devil worship/service and abortion? You can't just say these "pearls of wisdom" and expect assent. I assume you mean that abortion is immoral, so therefore it is un-Godly, and anyone you does something against God's will is a servant of Satan. Tell me, when was the last time you sinned? Nice to meet you, fellow servant of the dark master! And where does grace, mercy and forgiveness fit in to all this?

I suppose by the illogic and clear emotionalism of the immorality=servant-of-the-devil idea, Yoda is a servant of the devil: There you have it. It is a matter of choice. Therefore, Yoda is pro-choice. Therefore, Yoda is promoting abortion. Therefore, Yoda is serving Satan.

See how these black-and-white, come-back-to-bite-you-in-the-ass absolutes that some call "morality" are nothing more than cheap, easy ways out of a complicated issues and more like the Pharisaical Letter of the Law than the Spirit of Love of Jesus?

If you want to say these kinds of things about other people of good conscience who disagree, then you better prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that abortion is the most high sin on God's list of no-no's. But you can't. The bible is silent on the subject, expect for the numerous indirect references and their very challenged pro-life interpretations. Along with the not-so-obvious ignoring of all the texts that devalue a fetus. Science and medicine talk volumes about the nature of reproduction, yet the pro-life movement largely ignores such things while grasping on for dear life to any study that shows a fetal heart beat or single neuron firing. Plus all the pretty, and not so pretty, fetal pictures. Not to mention the history of Jewish law and how consistently the fetus was considered less than a human life to a degree that even bothers a pro-choicer like me. And how, even though it was widely practiced, the church up to the modern era was so un-bothered by this issue that it was rarely discussed, even though there were notable exceptions. So, the burden of proof is on the pro-lifer. And these kinds of comments serve no purpose whatsoever toward that goal.

reply from: ChristianLott

I'll ignore the newbie for now...

Doesn't have to be a C-section.

reply from: Hereforareason

Really?
haha, Mom's doing pretty good.

Oh brother.
Yodeman, I'd like to say that you are welcome here and if you debate civily, you will be answered civily. I'm afriad I'm starting to doub that fact though.

Oh, one thing I did want to comment on.

Hold your horses you are jumping the gun!
I'll not touch it being a matter of choice. But you know what? with my own terms, I am pro choice. I
believe a woman should have the choice of keeping her baby or adopting it if she can't take care of it.

You know why Pro-choice in this way doesn't mean I am pro-abortion?
The same reason Pro-choice doesn't mean I'm for rape or murder. Now please don't go saying that it's not the same type of thing, because at least to me it is.

Amber

reply from: yoda

No, it's more like a Caddilac.

Unlike you, I do not believe that I must impose my will on others. Such an important decision as a life and death decision is not one that someone else ought to make for another person. Only the person who's life is at risk ought to make that call. Even if they are too young to make it at the time you are considering killing them.

reply from: yoda

Why? Because I think each person should decide when to risk their life or not? Yes, I'm prochoice on that, and I'm prochoice on letting unborn babies live long enough to decide for themselves whether they want to live or not.

Is that what you meant?

reply from: yoda

Yes, that's right:

Main Entry: an·ti·choice Pronunciation: "an-ti-'chois, "an-"tI-Function: adjectiveDate: 1978: ANTIABORTION
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=antiabortion

I'm certainly not this:

pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

reply from: yoda

"Choice" is something else other than abortion, did you know that? It's true, abortion is not the only "choice" in the world, believe it or not!

I know that you probably think that "choice" and "abortion" are exactly the same thing in all cases, but that just isn't true....... it's only true when the word choice is used in the abortion debate. Why, I can recall years ago when the word "choice" didn't have anything to do with abortion, but now it seems to have become the main use of the word (at least in abortion debates).

BTW, having fun with your imitation of my nick?

reply from: AmericanPie

I don't have time to respond properly right now, however, YODAVATER, I'd like to comment that YODEMAN is not "having fun with your nick". I happen to know Yodeman and that was his username looooong before he came here. And it's CadiLLac, not CaDDilac.

That's why I said "many if not most", Amber, instead of ALL. Look the three words up in Webster's, and you'll note the differences between them. Many if not most women begin menopause in their 40s. Naturally, you'll find the anomaly who doesn't start till her 50s, and then there's the case for Ripley's who still menstruating when she's 60.

Yod, you made 5 posts on this thread, none of which answer the question I asked. Care to try for a sixth?

reply from: Hereforareason

I was not questioning you. But what three words are you reffering to? Or did you mean four?

Amber

reply from: yoda

That's okay, we're used to your superficial, flippant posts by now.

What question, the one about the "advice"? Why is it so hard for you to concieve that someone might want to keep their advice to themselves in some circumstances?

Do you insist that others must be as controlling as you want them to be?

reply from: Jazzy95

Why, is there something wrong with premies?

(Isn't your next line going to be - 'they're better off dead'?)

Sir I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. You do not even know me or my stand on abortion.

What I am wondering is what is so beautiful about a baby who has an IV sticking out of its head because that is the only vein big enough to support it. What I am wondering is what is so beautiful about a child who cannot regulate its own body tempature outside of its mother's womb so it must be kept under heat lamps. I am wondering what is so beautiful about a child who needs artificial ventilation because its lungs have not yet formed struggling to breath. I am wondering what is so beautiful about a child who I have to use calming techniques on because its heart rate is 147 bpms.

That is what I am wondering. Is he or she better off dead? Well... are you a christian? You tell me. Heaven or Hell?

reply from: Jazzy95

That's okay, we're used to your superficial, flippant posts by now.

What question, the one about the "advice"? Why is it so hard for you to concieve that someone might want to keep their advice to themselves in some circumstances?

Do you insist that others must be as controlling as you want them to be?

Sir you are demonstrating hypocrisy with your current answer to American Pie's question. If you leave the choice to your wife than you are obviously pro-choice. Why would you chose to keep your advice to yourself if your own child's life is at risk?

reply from: Hereforareason

That is what I am wondering. Is he or she better off dead? Well... are you a christian? You tell me. Heaven or Hell?

They are beautifull because one day they will (Or should) function properly on their own. And it's also beautiful that there is the technicality and people available to save those lives.

You know its' intereseting that you ask that. Because I've just been listening to a study. Do babies go to hell? NO. What I believed was that they went to heaven. I have recently heard and am looking into the belief that they actually are in a "between" kind of place beholding the face of God and will during the 1,000 year rein of Christ come back into the earth to live their lives and make the decision of God or Satan. I hadn't heard it before.

By the way, do you work with premies all the time?

Amber

reply from: yoda

Because the woman's life is at stake also?

Also, I will not discuss anything with you or other proaborts in terms of my family. I've learned the hard way that leads to nasty personal attacks on family members.

reply from: Jazzy95

So if that is your final answer you are guilty of dodging the question and you are using drama and hyperbole to do it.

American Pie already told you that a simple "yes you advise her to have the child or abort" will do. Your current answer leads me to believe you are pro-choice. She didn't ask you for names of your family or address. What do you advise your wife in this case?

And what makes you think I am pro abort. Whatever that means. The terminology on this board confuses me. Perhaps that is why I don't understand your answer. Please see my new thread.

{edited for spelling correction}

reply from: yoda

I do not take instructions on how to answer questions put to me, from you or pie or anyone else.

Your attitude.

reply from: AmericanPie

They're only superficial to those with one-track minds.

You know as well as I that this has ZIPPO to do with "control" as you say. This is your wife asking...begging you for advice...HELP...on a life-or-death matter that she is in no frame of mind to make "on her own". Are you that much of an insensitive twit or are you just a coward by REFUSING to give it? And why do you refuse to give it? Because you don't want to tell her that your first inclination is to say "HAVE the BABY! YOUR life is SECONDARY!" ???

Yes, that probably is it.

Do you know what "hypothetical" means, Yod? What I asked you was a hypothetical question. You know...like the many you like to throw out at ME. This has nothing to do with your actual situation, which, incidentally, I don't care one iota about (and why? because it's none of my business...you should investigate the meaning of those four words sometime).

This is just your slick way of DODGING THE QUESTION. And it doesn't fly, dude.

reply from: yoda

Yes, I thought so.

Yes, I do. In this case it means "thinly veiled reference to YOUR family members, disguised as hypothetical family members".

It won't fly, dude, I know you're trying to rattle my cage. You guys are like muggers slashing away at a victim, trying to get a reaction. After all, what else do you have to bring to this debate but nasty personal attacks?

Bring them on, if the moderator doesn't care, why should we?

reply from: AmericanPie

Lott, after my offering on the stress of childbirth to a diabetic woman, you say:

Okay. So they don't take the baby by C-section. The only other alternative is to induce labor.

Did you not read my post? Labor is the biggest strain a healthy woman faces on her body. It makes all her body processes run in hyperdrive. Having diabetes quadruples that strain. Having high blood pressure on top of that quintuples the strain. A diabetic woman on daily insulin shots is usually strongly advised not to have children at all because of the heavy strain it puts on her kidneys and her entire body.

Do I need to spell it out further for you?

reply from: AmericanPie

Who's paranoid here? Sounds like you are.

You know that that is a steaming crock, Yod. You just do not wish to answer the question.

Why not just say so, then?

Excuse me? Who has been called a "babykiller" here? Who has been told she's "going to hell"? Who has been informed that she panders to the devil? Who has been accused of having "blood" on her hands? In other words, WHO'S ATTACKING WHO HERE? It is I who has been attacked repeatedly.

I ask you a hypothetical question, not knowing your family circumstances at all and not CARING to know, and you say it is a "nasty personal attack"? You're delusional.

Just state that you DON'T WISH TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. It's so much more honest than just dodging it.

reply from: yoda

Which one of those is profanity? Which one of those came from me?

Have you stopped beating your husband yet?

reply from: AmericanPie2

Ahh! After HOW many times, he finally remembers I'm female!!! Bravo, Yod!

Actually, no. I still hit him with the spatula now and then.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, it was difficult to think of you as feminine....... that's true........

reply from: ChristianLott

Great, welcome all the lies in. When a crisis pregnancy comes in, the pro aborts can have her aborted.

reply from: Hereforareason

Excuse me, but isn't this a debate forum? Isn't that what you are here for? You can't have a debate without people from both sides present. And if another crisis pregnancey comes in and you want to let her go, fine. But I won't.

Amber

reply from: YodeMan

Thanks for the welcome, or whatever it was. I make one post, and you judge me as "uncivil" Not that I'm surprised. From what I've seen, what passes for civility, PC, and honest debate on this board is quite another world to me. The people here, for the most part, have no right to throw that particular stone of judgement. And, it's curious how what I wrote is not challenged, but I am personally attacked right out of the gate. To me, that only proves my point: you are all on standing on the sand to begin with. Or maybe trying to surf a mudslide...

I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. There is a difference, but I don't expect anyone here to get that. And I arrived at my conclusions after spending many years as an ardent pro-lifer.

reply from: Hereforareason

No no. I meant that I'm beginning to doubt you will be answered civily. I'm not judging you. I'm just not sure about the board anymore.

Amber

reply from: bobinsky

Yode, my love, "hereforareason" is Amber from IC. She doesn't have as much time to post as others do because she helps tend that big family that she comes from. Also, she probably has a real life.
Anyway, she was not criticizing you in her post, please believe me. The "line" on this board is that if you're nice to them, they're nice to you, but this is not the case, as you've seen already, from yodavater and the others. When you get time, if you have a little extra, read some of the posts from months ago and you'll see that they treat all pro-choicers the same: like dirt. No debate, no discussion, just straight-away attacks. Then they cry when someone says "boo" to them. Case in point: several of them have already turned on Amber - one of the most pro-life, Christian people I've ever met in life or on a board - because she dared to disagree with one of them.

And just to clear things up about who I really am, as if you didn't know after all this time, I'm a racist, pro-murder, KKK-loving Nazi who slaughters feti in my spare time (don't mention that I stomp baby kittens when I'm really bored) - because I support the work of Margaret Sanger, the woman, who, you should know, is PERSONALLY responsible for all abortions in this country, even before she was born and after she died! Now ain't this something? How do you suppose she pulled this off from her grave?

reply from: Tam

I was not questioning you. But what three words are you reffering to? Or did you mean four?

Amber

I think she meant "many", "most", and "all". I think she was just being mean to you, Amber.

reply from: Tam

Ok, I'll bite. What made you change your mind?

reply from: yoda

Hmmm..... let's see...........

pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

pro-choice adjective advocating access to legal abortion: advocating open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pro-choice.html

Hmmm...... look about the same to me, but then I guess you're probably smarter than all the dictionaries in the world, right?

reply from: Tam

It's amazing to me that Bob still thinks MS can be responsible for abortions that took place before her birth...or is it that she does know MS is not responsible for THOSE abortions and uses that to pretend she can't see the connection between MS and abortion--to pretend, apparently, that MS has NO responsibility for the situation now (heck, she's dead--how could she be responsible!). It's like saying that Hitler isn't responsible for any anti-semitic acts that take place today, because he's not here fanning the flames of anti-semitism right this minute. Gee, what's the connection between Hitler and today's anti-semites? I guess there must be no connection at all and Hitler is being falsely accused of having anything to do with today's atrocities--he's gone, after all--how can he be held responsible?

reply from: ChristianLott

No. As far as I'm concerned a pro abort is never welcome. Quit crying and look what you stand for.

Quit kissing on the murderers and fight.

reply from: sarah

It's amazing to me that Bob still thinks MS can be responsible for abortions that took place before her birth...or is it that she does know MS is not responsible for THOSE abortions and uses that to pretend she can't see the connection between MS and abortion--to pretend, apparently, that MS has NO responsibility for the situation now (heck, she's dead--how could she be responsible!). It's like saying that Hitler isn't responsible for any anti-semitic acts that take place today, because he's not here fanning the flames of anti-semitism right this minute. Gee, what's the connection between Hitler and today's anti-semites? I guess there must be no connection at all and Hitler is being falsely accused of having anything to do with today's atrocities--he's gone, after all--how can he be held responsible?

Good points, Tam.

It's important for those who support the evilness of MS to try and find as many ways as possible to distance themselves from her.
They like to completely ignore what a "LEGACY" means. Too bad for them, as clear thinking people know better and they will NEVER be able to complete that distance. Never.

reply from: Hereforareason

Is this you replying to Me CL?
If a pro abort is never welcome, then why are you here? I thought it was to debate. Mark Crutcher seems to have a different view on that in case you haven't heard him invite pro aborts especaially to the forum.
Oh, so I"m crying and kissing the murderers now huh?
Are you seriouse?
Alright I'm stopping here. I can't respond to this or I am going to get out of control.

Amber

reply from: bobinsky

You know, sobbing sarah, you can say all you want, but the millions of clear thinking women out there who use birth control and are honest about it, know what legacy Ms. Sanger has left. And these millions of women are grateful for the options to choose when and if to bear children. The fact that your insipid narrow-mindedness can't comprehend anything but the simplest of facts stands alone. Any woman who uses birth control, or has used BC, owes a debt of gratitude to Margaret Sanger. And I DARE you to go to another debate board and ply your Ms. Sanger eugenicist, racist, murderer garbage to another entire group of people who don't all think - or most appropriately, NOT think - like you do and debate your way through your beliefs about Sanger. Of course you won't take the dare because you know you'll lose in a heartbeat. But your safe here on your little board where you can pretend to know a whole lot of things and nobody's the wiser.

reply from: YodeMan

OH! My bad. Sorry about throwing you into the same cauldron! Considering the general tenor of the board, I skipped right to the worst. I'm so sorry, please forgive...

reply from: YodeMan

You know exactly what I mean. Regardless of the strict definition, you people use "pro-abortion" as a way to make people think "baby killers", not pro-choice. Just like we use "anti-choice" instead of pro-life. It is pure marketing. But, being called a murderer is quite a bit worse...

reply from: YodeMan

Hello Bob, my sweet. Thanks for the FYI; I got it after her post. I completely misread her intent - I do that sometimes. I was all geared up when I came in.

And, I know exactly who you are...that's why I like you!

reply from: ChristianLott

Whatever would give us that idea?

reply from: YodeMan

Ok, I'll bite. What made you change your mind?

Well, it is not one thing and it didn't happen overnight. Part was my rejection of fundamentalism and a re-embracing of my earlier upbringing in the faith - less Reformation/Calvin/Luther and more Anabaptist/Quaker/Mennonite. A deeper understanding of Jesus and His Teachings, or perhaps just a non-fundamentalist perception of them. A greater knowledge and understanding of Church and Jewish history. More education on reproduction and medicine. Even my education at a fundamentalist Bible college contributed, believe it or not. Political leanings. An open mind. And finally, putting it all together in my head and critically thinking about ALL the issues involved and coming to my own conclusions. And I am still on that journey.

But my main case for pro-choice is mostly about politics. Who gets to decide? The gov't? Puleaze.. This is a matter for a woman, her family, and her god. Not gov't. I happen to think that the gov't deciding issues like this is more dangerous than any other scenario. There is immense divide over this issue and I have found good people on both sides of this debate. And it needs to stay in the hands of the people, as a matter of individual choice, not a choice of the collective. At least until the day this issue can be resolved somehow. And since abortion has been with us since at least the dawn of civilization, I doubt we can truly resolve it today or anytime soon. And I can't recall another time in history where this has been such an issue or mandated by God to be outlawed and destroyed. It just isn't a big issue in the Bible, I'd say a non-issue, just like homosexuality, but these are the things we must focus our national attention on. It is ridiculous and appalling, especially when the teachings of the bible that are recurring themes and mentioned 100's of times over, are largely ignored by Christians today. It is very disturbing to me how foolish some people can be about how to actually go about removing abortion from our culture, and how that has nothing to do with outlawing abortion or having abstinence-only education. It has always been here and always will be. I know that, you know that, and God must surely know that. Solve the heart of the matter, as Jesus said, and the external problem will take care of itself. We need full and complete sex education, for adults and children. We need to deal with poverty. We need to provide better access to contraception for women. And we mostly need to stop regarding sex, and the female form, as the great evils of the world and start teaching open sexual knowledge and responsible sexual activity.

reply from: Hereforareason

That's okay. Easy to do.

Amber

reply from: chooselife

Bobinsky - since I am a pro-lifer that posts on this board I will assume I am part of the "they" - I feel like I have treated you with respect and posted responses that were in no way attackful of you. Granted - I greatly disagree with your position on Margaret Sanger - I posted my response and you never responded. But this is a forum and the topic changes quickly -- I understand that it is hard to keep up with the sometimes frantic posting that goes on, but I have to take issue with being criticized and lumped with every pro-lifer on this board. You are also quick to accuse us of being uncaring towards women. I take offense to that as you do not know what each of us does in our personal lives. I spent 4 hours on Thursday counseling a young woman who had 2 previous abortions and was considering her 3rd. I grabbed her hands, looked her in the eyes, and simply told her that I believed in her. I did not condemn her or call her awful names. I cried WITH her as she mourned the 2 children she aborted. I cried WITH her as she told me of her drug addictions, past gang rape, and feelings of rage. I care about her AND her unborn child. I told her I would help her get professional counseling to help her begin to understand how her rape is affecting her, I gave her the names of pregnancy homes where she could go to get clean and be safe, I told her how our center would help her apply for medicaid and how we could help provide maternity clothes, layettes, diapers, formula, cribs, car seats, etc for when AFTER the baby is born. I told her about our parenting classes and I told her about our post-abortion recovery group that is led by a woman who has had 3 abortions. Generalizations benefit no one here. If you have a problem with a specific poster take it up with them....but don't just lump us all together and say that we all follow your example of, "No debate, no discussion, just straight-away attacks. Then they cry when someone says "boo" to them."

reply from: sarah

You know, sobbing sarah, you can say all you want, but the millions of clear thinking women out there who use birth control and are honest about it, know what legacy Ms. Sanger has left. And these millions of women are grateful for the options to choose when and if to bear children. The fact that your insipid narrow-mindedness can't comprehend anything but the simplest of facts stands alone. Any woman who uses birth control, or has used BC, owes a debt of gratitude to Margaret Sanger. And I DARE you to go to another debate board and ply your Ms. Sanger eugenicist, racist, murderer garbage to another entire group of people who don't all think - or most appropriately, NOT think - like you do and debate your way through your beliefs about Sanger. Of course you won't take the dare because you know you'll lose in a heartbeat. But your safe here on your little board where you can pretend to know a whole lot of things and nobody's the wiser.

No matter the histronics, you are a supporter of a racist. All your "dares" and name calling, no matter how many hoops you try and jumpr thru, you still have aligned yourself with one of the lowest life forms that ever walked this planet.
If you don't like hearing that, then I "dare" you to leave this forum and go where you can get all the pats on the back you so crave. But, you won't take that "dare", your massive ego wouldn't allow such a thing to happen.

MS was a racist and her legacy will follow her til the end of time. Just learn to live with that fact and your histronics may settle down. After all, we wouldn't want you to pop a vein.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean..... you mean you want to twist meaning of words to suit your agenda, and you're not going to let the facts expressed in a standard reference work like a dictionary stand in your way. Is that about right?

As far as "what people think" when they hear the term "proabortion", just read the dictionary quote again. The dictionary TELLS US what people USUALLY think when they hear that term, that's what dictionaries ARE FOR......... What did you think they were for?

reply from: bobinsky

Choose, you've been off the forum for a while, haven't you? Nice to see you back.

As far as I can remember, you've treated everyone here respectfully. You must understand, Choose, that in my book there are two different types of people involved on "your" side of the abortion issue: pro-lifers, such as Amber and you, and the anti-choicers, who are the "they" I was referring to. So any criticism of anti-choicers (they) is not directed at persons such as you. I've read your posts before where you talk about helping women and caring about them.

See answer above. Choose, again, when someone on this board who claims s/he is "pro-life", then states that it is acceptable that abortion providers be murdered or that a woman who dies from an abortion got what she deserved, I'm not going to fall for this obviously convoluted "pro-life" view because these ideas don't fit in with the pro-life view. Saying that a woman who died from abortion got what she deserved IS uncaring toward women,don't you think?

You've mentioned before your counseling with women, so I'm aware of your efforts and you're to be commended. Yours IS a pro-life stance because you care about both the woman and the fetus. There should be many more persons like you out on the battlefields, people who can look at a woman and see her as she is, rather than a whore or a murderer.
Conversely, I do what you do in that I spend time with the women and talk to them and listen and listen and hold them while they cry and do whatever is in my power to help them. But I'm considered a monster and a murderer here because I believe that any decision involving reproduction belongs to the woman facing the pregnancy. It's not my place to tell these women what they should and shouldn't do. It's my place to help them, like you do, in any manner I can. Yet I am vilified. I don't take kindly to this.
And it is consistently and constantly "impressed" upon anyone whose ideas differ from the majority on this board that we pro-choicers are all murderers, have no morals, are racist, etc., when the anti-choice posters on this board know nothing about most of the pro-choice posters here. Should I let this inequity just go on and say nothing?

Take a look at several of the newer posters on this board, Choose, and see how they were treated by the people on this "debate forum". They presented their ideas, and were immediately ridiculed and personally attacked. One woman, who is Asian, I believe, got an immediate unfavorable comment about her name from a regular poster here. Yodeman was treated very rudely after his first post.

In a post by ChristianLott or Alliz, can't remember which, he make no bones about wanting us pro-choicers off this board and what better way to do this than drive us away with personal attacks and insults? The history of this board is one big attack against any pro-choice person who comes here.

reply from: ChristianLott

Ah, you're going to have to prove that one.

I don't make personal attacks because I don't know you personally.

reply from: Allizdog2000

It was me! Because it's impossiable to argue with a soulless lawyer. What do you expect, this is a pro-life board, people aren't going to be happy with your opinion. Liberals tend to LOVE the victimhood status, feeding apon and enjoying it.

reply from: Amy

"After all, we wouldn't want you to pop a vein."

With all due respect Sarah...you don't think someone who believes another doesn't think unless they agree with them is some serious evidence of brain-vein popping? Yeah...it is...and big time too. Your warning just came a tad too late.

So some pro-abortionists are now claiming that Sanger was not a Malthusian eugenics disciple?

reply from: bobinsky

It was me! Because it's impossiable to argue with a soulless lawyer. What do you expect, this is a pro-life board, people aren't going to be happy with your opinion. Liberals tend to LOVE the victimhood status, feeding apon and enjoying it.
Alliz, the description of this board is a debate forum. Pro-choicers are welcomed to come onto the board and debate. If you don't like the way the board is set up, why don't you leave? What do you expect when the board is described as a forum board for pro-choice and anti-choice persons to engage in debate? Take it up with the person(s) who set up the board. As far as victimhood status, you're the one bawling about pro-choicers being here when they've been invited.
And I am NOT a soulless lawyer. I am a soulless glorified secretary/ambulance chaser, Alliz. Don't you forget it.

reply from: sarah

Oh, she's Saint Sanger to some, due much respect and admiration. Stunning, but maybe that's what happens when the vein pops....what other logical explanation can there be?

reply from: Allizdog2000

Why don't you leave, instead?

I expect a bunch of rhetoric from the Pro-Abortion side.

The victimhood status is a favorite among Pro-Abortionists, Homos, and FemNazis and lawyers that get rich off it.

Believe me, I won't. until I find some new words, could you help me? You should be use to hearing them.

reply from: bobinsky

Why don't you leave, instead?
Can you not read? This is a debate forum, according to the owners, and they invite pro-choicers to this board. There's no reason any pro-choicer should leave this board. Unfortunately, the agenda here, as admitted by you, I believe, is to get rid of us. Not at all a fair-play sort of thing, and definitely not what the board owners seem to want to happen. Take it up with them if you don't like the way the board works.

I expect a bunch of rhetoric from the Pro-Abortion side.
Well, what you get from the pro-choice side is truth in the form of shooting down the useless, miscontrued misrepresentations and outright lies the majority of anti-choicers here post. This is when the whining starts from you AC's.

The victimhood status is a favorite among Pro-Abortionists, Homos, and FemNazis and lawyers that get rich off it.
You're pathetic. You've done nothing but whine this whole post, and now you allude that others claim victimhood status. Well, FYI, anti-choicers, homosexuals and women have all been victims of closed-minded bigots for many years. The pro-choicers aren't the ones who go around blowing up clinics and murdering doctors because they don't get their way. Lawyers can't claim victimhood status.

Believe me, I won't. until I find some new words, could you help me? You should be use to hearing them.
No, you're on your own here. I'm sure you're up to the task.

reply from: Amy

"Well, what you get from the pro-choice side is truth in the form of shooting down the useless, miscontrued misrepresentations and outright lies the majority of anti-choicers here post. This is when the whining starts from you AC's."

Ok...how about just ONE truth Bob...just one. I've seen a lot of shrewish snipes at anyone who doesn't think exactly the way you do...apparently in your mind that's a requirement to achieve 'intelligence'....but not one 'truth'.

Here's a truth for you. A handful of out-of-control people...crazies if you will...have harmed those who perform, or those who work to achieve, abortions. Those people are in jail serving time for the harm they created. However, all pro-abortionists have snuffed out the lives of millions of innocent lives...lives with the full potential of having done many great things in this world.

You're very one-sided in a two-sdied debate Bob. But then I guess that's what makes this such a heated issue...apparently you haven't gotten that yet. You're still stuck at being snotty.

May I ask...how old are you?

reply from: sarah

Exactly who is this "someone"? I've personally never read any such comments. If you are going to make that accusation, then please provide the context and the link. Otherwise, we are free to think you're making the whole thing up to bolster your side.



You have a great propensity for twisiting things. Maybe you get away with that being a "lawyer", but here it's a different matter and that galls you no end.

I did NOT give an unfavorable comment about her name, because she was Asian and you KNOW that.
I made a link between your profession and her screen name, "Sue Yu"....Sue You. It was not a slam about her ethnicity. How many people do you know give their true name as a screen name? False accusations are a bad thing, no?

reply from: Amy

Hi Sarah

Ok, well I don't want to go out on a stretch and be mean...but the fact is patently obvious. Bob is a head-case...in a mean-spirited way to boot.

reply from: yoda

That's way too complicated for bob to comprehend........

reply from: Amy

LOL !!!!

I've talked to people like this for a long time...read the posts here and on other such forums.

To be honest with you Sarah...I don't think logic is part of their genetic make up. And dang it, but common decency in discussion doesn't work for them either.

reply from: Amy

Hmmm...I don't think Bob is even on speaking terms with comprehension. Spewing...yes...comprehending...definitely no. And ouch, but that man/woman has some serious issues with religion and people of faith.

reply from: sarah

Hi Amy,
You are a quick learner! She has serious issues with all the things you mentioned! I couldn't agree with you more.
She is/has done what the vast majority of pro-aborts do and that is to take the discussion away from the important issue at hand and make this some kind of a re-play of high school. Well, maybe that's giving her too much credit, probably more like grade school play yard histrionics.
This was a rather peacful forum til she blew in! We actually stayed on topic, if you can believe that.
Also, wanted to say I sure appreciate your voice here, you're a great asset to the forum and the pro-life cause. Hope you'll make this a little home away from home.

reply from: sarah

That's way too complicated for bob to comprehend........

Absolutley no doubt, Yoda!

Notice how she paints herself all nice and pretty, poor little victim? She sure forgot to mention to Mandi her veiled threats to Tam and CL, my what an oversight. Just unbelievable.

reply from: ChristianLott

May I have the 'honor'?

quote:

I've already forwarded it to several legal aid organizations, including the ACLU, that will be on the lookout should you deign to pass the thing out. If you are as smart as you think you are, you would be aware that what you're doing is not legal in some states and very iffy in other states.

quote:

Actually, I worked with the ACLU for a time and am still connected to them and I know that, as busy as they are, they all appreciate a good joke and the chance to challenge stupidity.



quote:

You know what, CL? I'm not sure where you live, but I hope I'm around when you are thrown in jail for illegal soliciting or inciting a riot or promoting violence against others.

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=392&enterthread=y

reply from: ChristianLott

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=375&enterthread=y

reply from: Amy

All I can say is...Holy Smokers!!!

reply from: Amy

Thanks Sarah...that's very sweet of you.

I think, most likely, many of us are simply trying to find a more reasonable solution...or maybe trying to understand the logic behind the 'other-sides' position. I'm sure there are those of us who hope our voices make some kind of a difference...I know that is the case with myself. There are millions of people who want this barbaric practice to end and need to find a way to gathering together and finding a solution that works and is proactive.

But when you have to try and deal with someone who has obvious anger-management issues and drowning in anti-religious bedlam-esque rambling, well there simply isn't going to be a good solid discussion coming out of that. It simply isn't very nice to come right out and call someone like that a nutbag...but that's about what it comes down to. Unfortunately a lot of time is wasted trying to reason with people like Bob...only for it to almost always end the same way...frustated and argumentative. That is Bob's tact and exactly what he/she is hoping for. People like that love to try and sharpen their exceedly dull wit on others...it makes them feel important. When that begins to fail they they will engraciate themselves with certain individuals to cause dissention. It's all pretty simple-minded tactics.

I look forward to sharing idea with others in this forum. It's a good thing for people to fellowship on important social issues...it's important to find ways to be a more responsible and positive affect on those around you. While there are wrong-minded people on both sides of the issue...clearly more with abortionists...the issue at hand never changes. Millions of children are being murdered, women are being made in to murders...there is suffering abound from this archiac and barbaric practice...and it must be stopped.

You and many others have a clear, strong voice...and I appreciate being able to read you.

Again, thank you for your kindness Sarah.

reply from: sarah

You're welcome!

Well said.

I believe that if the legality of abortion on demand could be put to a vote that practice would go down in flames. I have NO doubt that the hedious and aborhent practice of late term abortion were put to a vote it too would go down in flames. The judiciary has entirely too much power, unfortuantley. The liberals have found a way to drown out the voice of the people. For this reason, above all others, Pres. Bush is despised. They fear his judicial appointments.

Again, very well said! The vast majority of pro-aborts feel a sense of superiority. After all they are so progessive and we're so backwoods. They can't come up with a rational defense. And I really think they believe they can waltz in on a discussion of abortion on demand and just wrestle it to the ground. When that doesn't happen, oh boy....the claws come out! What else then do they have? Being forced to view the horrendous cruelty of what they support is more than they can bear. Just look at the gyrations they go thru to support M. Sanger! Step on her "sainted" memory and they go into a tail spin! Excuse me, I have to go wash my keyboard after having typed her name with the word "saint" within the same thought!

I truly believe within this debate that calling a "spade a spade" is of the utmost importance. The lines need to be drawn and the enemy exposed for what it is. How can we win the battle if we don't know who and what we are up against?

I look forward to hearing more of your ideas. very mcuh.
That is the bottom line, there are millions of children being made to pay the price and die on the alter of convience. This must be stopped. The more we speak up, the more we "do" within the limits of the law, the more we vote pro-life the closer we get to seeing the day when the butchering of these helpless developing human beings is ended with the governments sanction and support.

Again, you are very welcome and thank you for the kind words. You've come in here and brought a breath of very much needed fresh air!

reply from: Allizdog2000

No, I rather take it up with you, and finish it.

What I get from the Pro-Abortion side is a bunch of lies.



I say again!

"The victimhood status is a favorite among Pro-Abortionists, Homos, and FemNazis and lawyers that get rich off it." hmm..... ACLU.

Homos, Liberals, Pro-Abortionists, FemNazis whing about "How come we can't get married?", "It's my Body, It's my CHOICE!", "Keep your rosaries away from my overies!" "If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church!" - Typical Liberal bumper sticker philiosophy. As for blowing-up abortion clinics and killing abortion "doctors", those groups that commit those acts are no worse that the Abortion "doctor" that kills a child, or escort that leads a woman to have her child killed. My opinion is they are the same wave length, just opposite ends of the spectrum.

This is ultimately about ending Abortion. How is that controlling her body or say in her reprodcutive future? What it really means is "You can't get an abortion here."

reply from: bobinsky

Whatever. You are free to believe whatever you wish.

To end abortion would mean that the government would step in and force women to carry their pregnancies to term. Now, tell me how the government can force a woman to carry an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy to term? What are its choices?
The government could pass a law against abortion. Okay, but we all know laws are broken all the time. So this might - might - lessen the number of abortions, but it won't end abortions.
Could the government put women in jail until they have given birth to the unwanted/unplanned child? How could the gov't do this? The woman hasn't broken any law.
If abortion is outlawed, then abortion providers will be law breakers. Okay. But abortion has been against the law before and this has not stopped women from going out of the country, finding private doctors who will terminate pregnancies, attempting to terminate the pregnancies themselves either via chemical or manual means. Women have always found ways to abort. In short, abortion cannot be stopped, no matter what this government does.

In this country, adults having consensual sex is not illegal. Sex ending up with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy is not illegal. Aborting an unwanted pregnancy is not illegal. For abortion to be "stopped" completely means that the government or some agency would have to insert itself into each woman's life and force her to remain pregnant then give birth. It means the government would tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. But the Constitution says that a all persons have the right to privacy concerning their body. You anti-choicers have to reconcile your beliefs against abortion with what the Constitution says. Alliz, I try to understand what you anti-choicers want, but again, what you want doesn't exist in reality.

reply from: ChristianLott

?

Nobody said we were going to lock up every woman who becomes pregnant on the chance she might get an abortion. This is a ridiculous line of questioning.

When abortion becomes illegal we will treat it like before, except now they have more people who will fight against it and more who will fight for it.

It's not something that will come overnight. Abortion was not legalized overnight. All the way back to FDR they were hustling in communist judges.

I know you won't but I encourage others to pick up the book 'The Supremacists' by Phillis Schlafly.

First thing they did was to remove the obscenity laws under the auspice of free speech.

Where was I...

So when they outlaw abortion there just might be an influx of dedicated police officers who are morally involved with their job instead of just 'earning a living'. I hope so.

As soon as the pope starts ex communicating the pro abortion politicians who claim they are Catholic, I might even start showing up for church.

Who knows??

reply from: Amy

"I believe that if the legality of abortion on demand could be put to a vote that practice would go down in flames. I have NO doubt that the hedious and aborhent practice of late term abortion were put to a vote it too would go down in flames. The judiciary has entirely too much power, unfortuantley. The liberals have found a way to drown out the voice of the people. For this reason, above all others, Pres. Bush is despised. They fear his judicial appointments."

You're, of course, absolutely correct Sarah. A clear 73 % of the population are against abortion on demand. A higher percentage would stop late term abortions all-together. It seems the electorate has lost it's stomach for the use of abortion as a way of birth-control...and so it should. Thirty years ago the number of birth control measures were a mere handful...today we have dozens of choices to make...and the majority without the consequences and side-effects once experienced. Women in today's world command much more respect...they can multi-task with the best of them. They are offered much more help by way of govt agencies and work place incentives...eg...longer maternity leave, spousal maternity leave, day-care options etc. Now if the tax code would only make more family considerations. Now let's consider the procedure of abortion itself. It has not changed in as many, if not more, years. It is as barbaric today as it ever was...more so. It leaves women in a traumatized state phyically, mentally and emotionally. Many women do not recover for years in one way or another. Now we have studies that come out saying that it is shown to grossly affect the reproductive health of women in the long run...like shock of all shocks we didn't know that. It's kind of like the cigarette companies coming out and telling people their product is addictive and they've been lying to us all along...well no sh*t.

As far the judiciary goes...they are completely out of control. When you have 3/4's of the electorate voting to make law banning gay marriage and a judge supercedes that decision by the people...that's when you know we are in for the fight of our lives against radical judges legislating from the bench. Or when you have USSC justices using the law practices of other countries to jump-skip the laws we have on our own books...yeah it's time to get those radicals out of the black robes and in to some pin-strippped jail garb. It's these people who take some kind of pride in twisting simple text every which way from Sunday as to appear nothing even close to Constitutional intent.

Unfortunately, conservatives in this country are still too shell-shocked from what happened during the VN War...what that generation allowed to happen...that they still look at the tops of their shoes when some nutbag accuses them of being a 'Bible Thumper' or 'closed-minded' or what-have-you. Well tell you what...I am a Christian woman...Catholic in fact, which is even more horrifying to those kinds of people *boo*...and I am proud to be so...proud to have the rights I have in this great country...and have no compulsion about expressing those things and many others. Heck...let them hate me...it makes them wrinkle, get old and ugly faster. And as much as I know this will please them to no end...I have seven siblings who are as, if not more, conservative then I am...all of us are staunch voters in EVERY election coming down the pike...and we are all raising three or four a piece just like us. Yep, you know how us Catholics breed by the dozens. That's probably why their support for abortion has been wanning over the years...they've been killing off their children while we've been blessed with ours who hold strong values and faith...and now they can vote. Now if we can just shake the 40-somethings out of this leftist imposed guilt mindset and actually participating to fight these kinds of people...we'd be off to the races with a winning hand no doubt what-so-ever.

Their hate for President Bush is a study in complete psychosis. It's amazing how rabid and well...stupid they are in it. They look like they are near frothing...white foam around their mouths...that wild eye'd look...and nothing short of absolute moronic michael moore conspiratorial mad-rambling. Look at How-weird Dean...the guy is a freaking lunatic. It's downright creepy. On top of that they expect us to just sit there and be pleased as punch they aren't even hiding the fact they want to turn this in to a socialist...thier nice word for communist...nation. That is not the legacy I intend to leave for my children.

I suppose I could continue...but I won't tell you anything you're not already well aware of. I don't wish them ill...I just want them put in their place...not the lofty place they think they should hold...but square in the middle of having to deal with the majority putting a damper to their craziness...as the framers intended it.

"Again, very well said! The vast majority of pro-aborts feel a sense of superiority. After all they are so progessive and we're so backwoods. They can't come up with a rational defense. And I really think they believe they can waltz in on a discussion of abortion on demand and just wrestle it to the ground. When that doesn't happen, oh boy....the claws come out! What else then do they have? Being forced to view the horrendous cruelty of what they support is more than they can bear. Just look at the gyrations they go thru to support M. Sanger! Step on her "sainted" memory and they go into a tail spin! Excuse me, I have to go wash my keyboard after having typed her name with the word "saint" within the same thought!

I truly believe within this debate that calling a "spade a spade" is of the utmost importance. The lines need to be drawn and the enemy exposed for what it is. How can we win the battle if we don't know who and what we are up against?"

I completely agree Sarah. How they come by this feeling of superiority is beyond me...perhaps a manic phase? Nope...rational thought is nothing they own...manipulation is their forte. Faced with the horrors of abortion and the fact that the procedure is from the stone-age and cruel to an extreme...they've got nothing...other than "yeah well you're a a a a a CHRISTIAN!!!" Freaking children. Interestingly, while they are killing off millions of children in this country, these are the same people whining about SS tanking. I guess they shouldn't have killed off all those tax-payers huh?

You know...these people are huge manipulators. They will even take Sangers words and twist it to sound more benign...much the same as they try to take the very faith out of the hearts and minds of the framers no matter how much they instituted faith within their writings. Come to think of it though Sarah, what more can you expect from people who are so exempt they think that ripping a living human beings arms and legs from it's body acceptable...seemingly enjoying the affect it has on our society? Honestly, I can't help but come back to the explanation that they are just nuts.

Yes...the only way to combat this kind of behaviour is to call them on it...every time we see it. When they are shown to be so far out of the main-stream they seem to pop a few brain-cells and really get out there...see How-Weird Dean again. Backed in to a corner where they have to actually give lucid explanation they just come up...well, not to wear the word out...nuts.

"I look forward to hearing more of your ideas. very mcuh.
That is the bottom line, there are millions of children being made to pay the price and die on the alter of convience. This must be stopped. The more we speak up, the more we "do" within the limits of the law, the more we vote pro-life the closer we get to seeing the day when the butchering of these helpless developing human beings is ended with the governments sanction and support.

Again, you are very welcome and thank you for the kind words. You've come in here and brought a breath of very much needed fresh air!"

Oh yes...I completely agree. The law as it is stated is on our side...no reason to go outside it's context to fight these kinds of people in the court of public opinion which leads to the voting booth. If they cared about these women who feel resigned to having no place to go other than an abortion clinic for a solution...then they would find a way to empower them. Abortion has never been proven in any way to empower women...rather the opposite. The left has simply gotten hook and craw in to the word 'choice' for voting purposes...to control. They throw these women away afterwards. It's completely shameful. Not to mention what they've done to our male population...but that's for another post.

Thanks for the great conversation Sarah...you've give me much food for thought. You're a very insightful and intelligent woman. You should be proud.

Text

reply from: sarah

Time is not on the pro-aborts side. And part of that reason is what you have just stated. I believe that is one of the reasons for the histronics being upped a few notches. Well maybe more than a few notches gaging by the hyperbole espoused by the likes of some very liberal senators and a few of the pro-aborts on here.
There might be a little "shaking" going on!



The excuses for abortion on demand are getting thinner and thinner, don't you think? And thanks for pointing those often forgotten facts.



We think alike. I've been saying the same thing about the tobacco companies for ages. Money talks, and as soon as someone can find away to make as much money off of exposing the abortion industry's lies as they did off the tobacco industry, we'll see quite the change.


As soon as Renquist retires, the fight of the century will take place.
What a relief it would be to see those black robes exchanged for the "pin-stripped jail garb"! We just might see the America that so many men and women died to create in the firs place and died to perserve. Minus of course, some rather ugly periods and one particular decision as aborhent as Roe v Wade...Dred Scott. I believe with all my heart that one day there will be a generation that will look back on R v W with as much shame and shock as we do Dred Scott.

My gosh, so true! I'm hoping after the last elections that the conservatives are getting some more steele in their back bones. They came out in greater numbers over moral principles. And hopefully, the next elections will bring them out in even greater numbers. We're making progress, but unfortunatley for the little ones as Yoda calls them, it's entirely too slow.



LOL! Too funny, you've got a great wit!



Good point! And thank you to you and your siblings for doing a fine job raising those much wanted and needed conservatives! I think I see off in the distance a little more "shaking" going on!

The last four years has been like watching "One flew Over the Kook-koo's Nest", on 24/7. Fortunatley for us they imploaded.
Ah, Dean....a conservatives best friend! The more they spew the further right the nation goes.

Well, please feel free to continue. I have a feeling hearing it again from you would be very refreshing!

A manic phase is probably as close to the truth as we'll hear. The manipulation is in full swing on these boards! Stunning to see it at work nonetheless.
I wish I had book-marked it, but years ago I heard someone go into the details of how abortion would eventually effect our economy. I'll have to do a in depth search for that.

"Nuts" is a good description, much kinder than they spew at us anyway. The contortions they go thru to support abortion on demand the likes of Sanger are actually at times, painful to watch and certainly painful to hear! A racist is a racists is a racist, NO matter how you try and dress her up. It only serves to make them look the bigger fool than they are, but they just have no choice. Sanger painted them in a corner they can't twist out of and her legacy has taught them how to make their dweilling in that old river "Denial"!!

You can't wear that word out, Amy. And calling them out on it is something they despise. You have to have mighty thick skin to deal with the venom, but the babies are worth that and more.

Perfectly said. Taking any defensless life cannot, by it's very nature produce anything but the most negative experience, short and long term.

Well, the pleasure was all mine, truly. And thank you very much for the kind words, again!
Shhhh....don't let bobinsky hear you say that last bit, you'll really be in her bad graces....she made the express point of letting me know what a stupid person I am. Ah, well....I just considered the source.

reply from: megan

Hi CL. Right now those in law enforcement are of course in a position of having to support abortion because that is the law. However it is important to support laws about parental notification/permission, minors, state lines, etc. If/when abortion is outlawed it will make a big difference HOW that happens. For example if Roe is overturned there might be state and local laws cropping up--those are the responsibility of the state/local law enforcement. If it is legal locally but a federal law criminalizes it, the federal law enforcement will be responsible for enforcing the federal laws over the local. As an example, Marin county in California legalized growing up to 25 marijuana plants per adult. It is still illegal at the state and federal level but the local law enforcement will not arrest anyone for doing it--it is legal locally and it is the responsibility of the state and federal authorities to arrest people if they want (and they do!). A similar situation could arise if abortion were illegal nationwide but laws permitted it in certain areas. Just some thoughts on the law enforcement situation.
Meg

reply from: Tam

Well, the pleasure was all mine, truly. And thank you very much for the kind words, again!
Shhhh....don't let bobinsky hear you say that last bit, you'll really be in her bad graces....she made the express point of letting me know what a stupid person I am. Ah, well....I just considered the source.

Sarah, just remember--stupid is as stupid does. (Right, yoda?) I agree with Amy. But then, that's not terribly surprising, since Amy is also a very insightful and intelligent woman. You know who this makes me really miss a lot? Shiprah. She's a young woman but very insightful and intelligent. I miss her. Bobinsky's treatment of her prompted her to take a hiatus (not from pro-life activism, just from this board). I hope she's back soon.

reply from: yoda

Yep, according to forrest bob.

reply from: Tam

There is a difference between outlawing one thing and forcing something else. A difference between mandating an action and prohibiting its opposite. I think most of us can understand the difference. For example, although murder is illegal, the government doesn't "step in and force" us to be nonviolent. It just punishes us if we break the law.

Do you really think that if abortion were illegal, there is any chance whatsoever that the number performed would not decrease? If so, you are incredibly naive. But I don't think that's the case. I think you're just incredibly manipulative. Nice try, but I don't think you can get anyone to jump on your "a law wouldn't even decrease abortion" bandwagon. But hey, maybe I'm wrong--anyone ELSE think there's a chance a law prohibiting abortion would have zero effect in reducing the number of abortions?



Perhaps, to make sure no one does anything bad, we should all be put in jail. Wouldn't that be easier? That seems to be your idea for preventing crime--pre-emptive incarceration. Good plan, Bob! Just about as good as your plan to kill anyone who might be unhappy at any point later in his or her life. Wow, with this kind of progressive thinking, we'll have the abortion issue solved in no time! I guess the only question is: with everyone in jail, who will be the jailers? Maybe the nuking the whole planet idea is better after all. Simple, neat, permanent. No more unhappy children, no more poor families--no more children and no more families! Or maybe that's too harsh. Better just jail the high-risk folks--pregnant women, those with a history of violence in the family, etc. Anyone who might commit a crime--jail 'em first, to make sure they don't. After all, in this country, we're guilty until proven innocent. Anyone need a good lawyer? Well, don't look here.

reply from: sarah

I miss her too, Tam. And bob has the nerve to rant on how us pro-lifers run off those ever endearing *cough, gag* pro-aborts! HA! There's a case of selective memory.

reply from: Amy

"There is a difference between outlawing one thing and forcing something else. A difference between mandating an action and prohibiting its opposite. I think most of us can understand the difference. For example, although murder is illegal, the government doesn't "step in and force" us to be nonviolent. It just punishes us if we break the law."

That's not only basic legal application, it simply logic Tam. That Bob doesn't catch that really leaves the whole atty premise suspect. You cannot hold someone on thought crimes...Bob seems to want to suggest just such a thing. I guess that's how abortionists scare people in to supporting the murder of innocent children.

reply from: Tam

"There is a difference between outlawing one thing and forcing something else. A difference between mandating an action and prohibiting its opposite. I think most of us can understand the difference. For example, although murder is illegal, the government doesn't "step in and force" us to be nonviolent. It just punishes us if we break the law."

That's not only basic legal application, it simply logic Tam. That Bob doesn't catch that really leaves the whole atty premise suspect. You cannot hold someone on thought crimes...Bob seems to want to suggest just such a thing. I guess that's how abortionists scare people in to supporting the murder of innocent children.

Amy, I don't think for a second that Bob believes what she wrote. I have no idea whether she's a real attorney or not (who cares?), but she is a great manipulator, so it could be true. The simple logic is where she really falls short, though. In other words, I don't think she believes the government would "step in and force women to carry their pregnancies to term" as such. She knows there is a difference between mandating one thing and prohibiting its opposite. But she doesn't care about logic when the topic is abortion. She doesn't even want to talk about abortion, she wants to talk about poverty and ignorance and health problems and semantics--try to get her into a discussion about abortion--good luck! She doesn't actually believe the things she writes--she just uses words to achieve whatever end she wants, and thinks that justifies the twisted means. In other words: she lies. But then, you figured that out on, what, your very first day? Or did it take you two?


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