Home - List All Discussions

What best describes you?

How many of us are on the extremes?

by: CharlesD

It's always been my belief that most Americans are somewhere in the middle on this issue, that very few people believe that abortion should be allowed in every circumstance or that there should be no exceptions. Where do we stand here?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I feel there should be always the exception for the life of the mother, but in circumstantial, case by case situations, I believe the mother's health could also be a valid reason to abort. Could, but is not always. And it would have to be strictly controlled so killers like Tiller don't get away with murder.

reply from: CharlesD

Well, so far not a lot of data to go on, but I'm not surprised at the percentages so far, small sample size and all. The two extreme positions have one vote each, while two votes for the life of the mother exception. All that really tells us is that three pro lifers have voted to one person on the other side, but I'm going to wager that if this poll was given to a large enough sample, we would see the two extremes at smaller percentages than the people that would fall under one of the other categories. I would bet that most people would favor some level of restriction, but that the level of restriction is what people disagree on. It should be interesting to see where this comes out with a few more responses.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Health of the mother has always been the exception - before RvW. The first two choices should be combined. The last three choices should be combined. Once you go down that path there's no way to tell the difference between them legally.
It really is black and white, life and death.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm not an extremist by any measure, rape, incest and, maternal health should be considered.

reply from: 4given

Maternal health has always been considered. How is the product of a rape (a living child) worth any less? Opposing the elimination of alleged rape babies does not make one an extremist. I assume incest falls into the same category. I can imagine what these women feel. How is abortion going to help with their healing? Abortion after rape will only prolong the process. All scenarios are considered for the "immediate relief" factor. What consideration is given to the innocent victim here? Who can say that they would protect and defend the life of one being, yet dismiss the life of another? How does means of conception=value?

reply from: CharlesD

I've stated my view on here numerous times, which is what I would describe as a modified life of the mother exception. By that I mean that if the life of the mother is in danger and the only way to save her is the removal of the baby, then the baby should be removed alive and every attempt made to save the baby as well. In that case you did what you needed to do to save the mother, but you didn't deliberately kill the baby either. If the baby dies through no deliberate action, at least you haven't done anything unethical. I don't know where that would put me, but I thought that would be a little too long winded to try to include as one of the options.
Health is a very broad term that can be interpreted numerous ways. It does little to actually restrict anything in my book.

reply from: BossMomma

Maternal health has always been considered. How is the product of a rape (a living child) worth any less? Opposing the elimination of alleged rape babies does not make one an extremist. I assume incest falls into the same category. I can imagine what these women feel. How is abortion going to help with their healing? Abortion after rape will only prolong the process. All scenarios are considered for the "immediate relief" factor. What consideration is given to the innocent victim here? Who can say that they would protect and defend the life of one being, yet dismiss the life of another? How does means of conception=value?
It's my belief that when a woman has done her best to avoid sex and gets it forced on her it should be her choice to decide whether to remain pregnant should pregnancy occur. What proof do you have that abortion would prolong the woman's suffering? I know women who aborted after rape who felt nothing but relief long after the abortion. RU486 is often used after a rape to prevent pregnancy as a woman is not pregnant until implantation.

reply from: CharlesD

Abortions done from rape pregnancies are such a small percentage of the total abortions done that it's almost a non issue. If you allowed that exception, you would still be eliminating nearly 99%. I would support any policy that further restricted it, with the knowledge that we could keep working for the rest of the pie down the road. Take what you can get at the moment. Also, with the constant advances in medical technology, a lot of these issues could be rendered moot in the years to come.
What would happen to abortion if someone invented an artificial womb that an embryo could be implanted in and nurtured until viability? That would take away every objection to a ban on abortion since the embryo could be removed and implanted there. It might sound like sci fi, but with the way science is always coming up with new advances, it wouldn't surprise me to see that in my lifetime.

reply from: BossMomma

In the case of an artificial womb I would support abortion being banned completely, there would be no excuse to choose death, no medical nessesity for maternal health. And, rape victims could have a safe surrender option for their pregnancies. I'd give every spare penny I had to research on artificial gestation.

reply from: JRH

The following is not mine.
As the Princeton bioethicist, Peter Singer, noted:
[T]he distinction between directly intended effect and side-effect is a contrived one. We cannot avoid responsibility simply by directing our intention to one effect rather than another. If we foresee both effects, we must take responsibility for the foreseen effects of what we do.
Singer then gave an example to show the ludicrousness of this doctrine. Let us say that a factory, in financial trouble, decides to dump its chemical waste into a nearby river; causing much damage to the ecosystem and perhaps some deaths of residents nearby. Upon being approached by the authorities, the plant manager defended himself with the doctrine of double effect. "That was just a secondary effect" he insisted. "My main intentions are pure and morally and economically defensible. The main action, using the limited available funds to enhance production rather than in environmental protection, was to keep our costs down so that we can ensure that our workers, who have families to feed (!), continue to be employed. Furthermore the low cost of our production is translated into cheaper products in the market, which keeps down the costs of living of those who require them."
It is obvious that our fictitious plant manager is only engaging in sophistry to get himself out of trouble. Yet his use of the double effect doctrine is impeccable: it was not his intention to pollute the river, it was his intention to save the jobs of his workers and to reduce the cost of living of his customers. This simple example makes it clear why the doctrine of double effect is fallacious : we must take into account all the consequences of our actions. We make decisions based on judging whether the bad effects is outweighed by the gains. [20] In the case of the factory, obviously the damage to the environment and the resultant deaths outweigh the positive effects. Similarly in the case of ectopic pregnancy, what the church tries to hide is this moral fact: the life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the fetus!

reply from: yoda

Rape and incest are the only two crimes for which an innocent bystander is sometimes executed.

reply from: CharlesD

Sometimes, but very rarely actually. The people on the other side who use this as a reason to keep all of them legal are really grasping since so few are done because of those reasons. You and I both know that the vast majority of abortions done are done for none of the reasons that I listed as exceptions.

reply from: nancyu

Sometimes, but very rarely actually. The people on the other side who use this as a reason to keep all of them legal are really grasping since so few are done because of those reasons. You and I both know that the vast majority of abortions done are done for none of the reasons that I listed as exceptions.
They're not grasping, they know this is a way to keep the door open to legal-ized abortion on demand. Exceptions are completely unnecessary.

reply from: JRH

Rape and incest are the only two crimes for which an innocent bystander is sometimes executed.
Why does a rape victim have to use her body to support the fetus? You can't even claim she consented by having sex. You are saying that the fetus has more rights than than an adult person.

reply from: ProInformed

Maternal health has always been considered. How is the product of a rape (a living child) worth any less? Opposing the elimination of alleged rape babies does not make one an extremist. I assume incest falls into the same category. I can imagine what these women feel. How is abortion going to help with their healing? Abortion after rape will only prolong the process. All scenarios are considered for the "immediate relief" factor. What consideration is given to the innocent victim here? Who can say that they would protect and defend the life of one being, yet dismiss the life of another? How does means of conception=value?
I agree and I would add that with so much prejudice against innocent babies conceived by rape, the pretense that a pregnant rape victim is making a "choice" to abort devoid of pro-abort pressure is a falsity. EVERY time the ASSUMPTION is made that OF COURSE a pregant rape vicitm HAS TO be allowed to abort, women are being told that if they ever become pregnant from rape, 'everyone' expects they'll naturally want to be able to abort...
The notions that a baby concieved by rape has only one biological parent (the rapist) and that the baby deserves to be put to death for the rapist's crime, are BOTH outdated anti-feminist notions.
Those babies being called "the rapist's seed" is a disgusting attempt to villify the innocent baby and to put pressure on the innocent mother, so that she will "get rid of" HER OWN BABY. Such anti-choice hate speech should be objected to every time it is viciously spewed.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

The following is not mine.
As the Princeton bioethicist, Peter Singer, noted:
[T]he distinction between directly intended effect and side-effect is a contrived one. We cannot avoid responsibility simply by directing our intention to one effect rather than another. If we foresee both effects, we must take responsibility for the foreseen effects of what we do.
Singer then gave an example to show the ludicrousness of this doctrine. Let us say that a factory, in financial trouble, decides to dump its chemical waste into a nearby river; causing much damage to the ecosystem and perhaps some deaths of residents nearby. Upon being approached by the authorities, the plant manager defended himself with the doctrine of double effect. "That was just a secondary effect" he insisted. "My main intentions are pure and morally and economically defensible. The main action, using the limited available funds to enhance production rather than in environmental protection, was to keep our costs down so that we can ensure that our workers, who have families to feed (!), continue to be employed. Furthermore the low cost of our production is translated into cheaper products in the market, which keeps down the costs of living of those who require them."
It is obvious that our fictitious plant manager is only engaging in sophistry to get himself out of trouble. Yet his use of the double effect doctrine is impeccable: it was not his intention to pollute the river, it was his intention to save the jobs of his workers and to reduce the cost of living of his customers. This simple example makes it clear why the doctrine of double effect is fallacious : we must take into account all the consequences of our actions. We make decisions based on judging whether the bad effects is outweighed by the gains. [20] In the case of the factory, obviously the damage to the environment and the resultant deaths outweigh the positive effects.
My abortion position is the same as CharlesD. Abortion is only a last ditch effort to save the mother, such as an ectopic pregnancy.
The Peter Singer example said you must take into consideration all consequences of one's actions. He said the resultant deaths outweigh the positives. Wouldn't the resultant death of a baby outweigh the benefits to mom and dad of ending a pregnancy (financial freedom, calendar cleared, can get a degree, can continue a career, etc)?
Peter's put down of the importance of human life in your little quote is abominable:
"The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval."
Human life is sacred because we are made in the image of God.

reply from: ProInformed

Surveys have consistently shown that most citizens favor a legal status of abortion somewhere in the middle. Roe v Wade was supposed to allow the citizens to pass laws via the state legislatures to create a legal status for abortion that the citizens of each state supported. But the abortion industry and biased media has successfully conned so many citizens into either believing the extremist pro-abort status quo is already moderate, or that any attempt by the citizens to even monitor the abortion industry, let alone regulate it, are 'anti-abortion' attempts to completely and immediately ban all abortions.
The truth is if the citizens were allowed the right to choose the exact legal status of abortion by referendum vote, most babies that are now aborted could be save, and there would be far fewer women suffering physical and emotional complications from abortion. But the abortion industry doesn't care about the babies OR the women that they are killing and harming - only the profits.
There are a LOT of citizens who don't really support the current legal status of abortion; but they don't speak up because of ignorance and/or apathy.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I think my views are very moderate and in line with most of the country. Maternal health (physical AND mental) should always be more important than the fetus and I doubt that my view about that will change.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

So if mom says, "This child will make me anxious and nervous about my finances", that is mental health grounds for aborting him/her?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

So if mom says, "This child will make me anxious and nervous about my finances", that is mental health grounds for aborting him/her?
Oh, hell no!!! I'm talking about women who have a valid psychiatric disorder such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression, etc. "Anxious" or "nervous" don't constitute mental health issues at all as they are simply states of mind.

reply from: CharlesD

Where you are could be described two ways. You're either pro life with exceptions, or pro choice with exceptions. People in the middle like that are hard to label either way really.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Where you are could be described two ways. You're either pro life with exceptions, or pro choice with exceptions. People in the middle like that are hard to label either way really.
Mental or physical health of the mother can be broadly defined and results in a blank check to kill the child at any time for any reason. It basically comes down to just being the mother's decision, no strings attached.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

In your humble opinion, WHOSE choice should it be? The father's? The grandparents'? The government's??

reply from: BossMomma

So if mom says, "This child will make me anxious and nervous about my finances", that is mental health grounds for aborting him/her?
No stupid, when doctor says the meds you take to stay sane will severely damage the unborn child but you can't do without them, that is mental health grounds to abort.

reply from: BossMomma

Where you are could be described two ways. You're either pro life with exceptions, or pro choice with exceptions. People in the middle like that are hard to label either way really.
It may come as a shock but some of us really don't care about lables.

reply from: CharlesD

I agree with you there about using the word health without defining it. If you just leave health in there without any definition, you open the door for just about anything to be described as health.
What I'm saying is that people have even called me pro choice because of my view that the only exception is if it is absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother, and even then the baby should be removed alive and every effort made to save him/her. There are people on both sides who think that if someone allows any exceptions at all that he/she is on the other side. I have heard pro choice people call people on their side traitors because they accepted certain restrictions and I have had people call me pro choice because of my stance. I consider myself to be very pro life with only one exception, and that exception is very narrowly defined. I think people like RML are still in the pro choice camp no doubt, but probably closer to sitting on the fence than they realize. People on the fence can be pushed either way and it's my hope that more of them can be pulled over to our side.

reply from: CharlesD

I've been labeled wrong so many times I stopped caring, but a lot of people here are into having to put a label on everyone, and some folks around here don't really fit the strict labels too well.

reply from: BossMomma

I've been labeled wrong so many times I stopped caring, but a lot of people here are into having to put a label on everyone, and some folks around here don't really fit the strict labels too well.
That's why it doesn't matter what people call me, my opinion of myself will always matter more. I'm pro-life but I'm reasonable, I'm against elective abortions on healthy pregnancies with healthy mothers which make up the vast majority of abortions.
More pregnancies end naturally than are terminated for instances of rape/ incest, fetal anomaly and, maternal health combined, I see no reason to judge women who choose to terminate due to extreme circumstances. Extremists on either side of the debate are often irrational and care about one thing only when abortion is a broad spectrum subject.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"The truth is if the citizens were allowed the right to choose the exact legal status of abortion by referendum vote, most babies that are now aborted could be save, and there would be far fewer women suffering physical and emotional complications from abortion."
If this is "TRUE" as you purport, how do explain the massive opposition to Colorado's "personhood" proposal, as well as the defeat of the anti-abortion referendum in North Dakota?????

reply from: CharlesD

Your views, if enacted, would eliminate nearly 99% of the abortions done in this country. That would be a good thing.

reply from: CharlesD

The South Dakota measure was pretty restrictive. I think he is saying is that if things were put to most Americans and they could vote the way they really feel, most people would favor some level of restriction. Let's look at it the other way around. How many people would vote for a bill that said that abortion should be allowed in all circumstances for the entire nine months? That bill would not pass either. Most people, and I guess you would fall in this camp, would accept some level of restriction. People just disagree on how much restriction.

reply from: BossMomma

Your views, if enacted, would eliminate nearly 99% of the abortions done in this country. That would be a good thing.
Exactly but there are still those extremists who would call me "pro-abort" and "baby killer".

reply from: BossMomma

Ignore them.
I do, you can't please everyone and I'm not going to kill myself trying to.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I felt that way too; my views have changed a bit but I still feel that if the mother's quality of life post-birth would be severely impaired, such as permanent brain damage or physical disability, then the child should be removed. Not aborted mind you, but removed via induced labor or c-section. It deserves a chance at life even if it is premature.

reply from: ProInformed

So if mom says, "This child will make me anxious and nervous about my finances", that is mental health grounds for aborting him/her?
Oh, hell no!!! I'm talking about women who have a valid psychiatric disorder such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression, etc. "Anxious" or "nervous" don't constitute mental health issues at all as they are simply states of mind.
So if what you are saying about your POV is true than you do NOT endorse the current legal status of abortion.
So what are you doing to change the legal status of abortion?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

So if mom says, "This child will make me anxious and nervous about my finances", that is mental health grounds for aborting him/her?
Oh, hell no!!! I'm talking about women who have a valid psychiatric disorder such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, severe depression, etc. "Anxious" or "nervous" don't constitute mental health issues at all as they are simply states of mind.
So if what you are saying about your POV is true than you do NOT endorse the current legal status of abortion.
So what are you doing to change the legal status of abortion?
Actually, I can't have kids any longer so I really don't care. I'm fine with current restrictions and am doing absolutely nothing to advance ANY abortion-related agenda.

reply from: ProInformed

Your views, if enacted, would eliminate nearly 99% of the abortions done in this country. That would be a good thing.
Exactly but there are still those extremists who would call me "pro-abort" and "baby killer".
The labels mean very little compared to what each individual citizen DOES.
The legal status of abortion could/should have been changed decades ago if the masses of moderates would only speak up and actively advocate for CHANGE.
There are those who remain silent and inactive because of fear of being labeled EITHER pro-abortion or anti-choice. And there is the false assumption that by calling themselves 'pro-choice' they are supporting a 'moderate' legal status of abortion.
Why IS it that the moderates don't have their own label/organizations?
Fear of being labeled an extremist may be an excuse for apathy but ONLY if the fact that they can create their own label and groups, but just never bother to, is ignored.

reply from: ProInformed

But why buy into the lie that the mother and baby are mortal enemies?
First of all, cases where the mother's life really is in danger during pregnancy are extremely rare (and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the vast majority of abortions).
And even then there are safer (for BOTH mother and baby) ways to end a pregnancy than abortion.
It is never necessary to purposely kill the baby.
Yes, the baby might die if removed from his or her mommy's body before viability, but there's no valid excuse to brutally kill the baby with an act of violence.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

But why buy into the lie that the mother and baby are mortal enemies?
First of all, cases where the mother's life really is in danger during pregnancy are extremely rare (and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the vast majority of abortions).
And even then there are safer (for BOTH mother and baby) ways to end a pregnancy than abortion.
It is never necessary to purposely kill the baby.
Yes, the baby might die if removed from his or her mommy's body before viability, but there's no valid excuse to brutally kill the baby with an act of violence.
I have never in my life heard the mother and fetus describred as "mortal enemies" (or any kind of enemies, for that matter), so I must ask what you have been reading and to whom you have been listening if you think that is the PC view of pregnancy. It's so extreme and untrue that I don't know where you got that idea.

reply from: CharlesD

There are a few extremists on the pro choice side that view pregnancy as a curse and the baby as an enemy, basically as an unwanted intruder. Even if that rhetoric isn't in the majority, it's out there.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

There are a few extremists on the pro choice side that view pregnancy as a curse and the baby as an enemy, basically as an unwanted intruder. Even if that rhetoric isn't in the majority, it's out there.
It sounds like you described Obama. He said he didn't want his daughter punished with a pregnancy. Yes, he views pregnancy as a curse, the baby as an enemy, basically an unwanted intruder. Obama believes women can have an induced abortion and the child can be left in the soiled linen to die for all he cares. He doesn't give a sh*t about abandoning a baby to die. Stab'em in the head, poison them, rip their arms or legs off, leave them gasping for breathe if they've been born alive. Such a wicked, wicked man; what he wouldn't do to a child.

reply from: Rosalie

An unwanted pregnancy that a girl/woman is forced to continue against her will can very easily be seen as a punishment.
Too bad you have to take Obama's statement out of the context for it to fit your agenda.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Seeing it as punishment is as easy as seeing it as a blessing. It's your state of mind. And no matter how you view it, abortion kills a human being. What's your state of mind on that?

reply from: carolemarie

I would support a ban on abortions with a rape, incest or life of the mother exception.
I think we need more aid in place for women and children, especially for pregnant women.

reply from: CharlesD

Here's the context. He said that if one of his daughters got pregnant "I wouldn't want to see her punished with a baby."
So a baby is punishment? I think his meaning was quite clear in that statement. If a young girl is sexually active and ends up pregnant, having to take care of a baby would be further punishment for her actions. Well, what's wrong with punishing a deserving family with that baby, a family that will view it as a blessing and not a punishment?

reply from: BossMomma

Your views, if enacted, would eliminate nearly 99% of the abortions done in this country. That would be a good thing.
Exactly but there are still those extremists who would call me "pro-abort" and "baby killer".
The labels mean very little compared to what each individual citizen DOES.
The legal status of abortion could/should have been changed decades ago if the masses of moderates would only speak up and actively advocate for CHANGE.
There are those who remain silent and inactive because of fear of being labeled EITHER pro-abortion or anti-choice. And there is the false assumption that by calling themselves 'pro-choice' they are supporting a 'moderate' legal status of abortion.
Why IS it that the moderates don't have their own label/organizations?
Fear of being labeled an extremist may be an excuse for apathy but ONLY if the fact that they can create their own label and groups, but just never bother to, is ignored.
Lables really don't mean anything, that's why we mods don't bother with them.

reply from: scopia19822

I dont believe abortions should be allowed under any circumstances. When i say this I am not including ectopic pregnancies or emergency removal of a previable fetus in an accident, where the bleeding cant be stopped, as that usually indicates placental abruption and death has occured or will soon occur for the fetus.

reply from: BossMomma

No offense but that is rather shallow thinking.

reply from: CharlesD

She's Catholic though. I think that's pretty much the standard Catholic view.

reply from: Hosea

Rape and incest are the only two crimes for which an innocent bystander is sometimes executed.
Rape is the only crime where the criminal's child can be given the death penalty (capital punishment) for his father's offense

reply from: 4given

Right. But the child's mother- the other half of its DNA is the one that decides that. Why is it that so many people assume mom should/would abort her child if conceived this way? It is still her child. It is sad. I know several "rape babies". One is the head of Right To Life in my state.

reply from: BossMomma

She's Catholic though. I think that's pretty much the standard Catholic view.
Ah right, Abortion is wrong, contraception is wrong, sterilization is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, masturbation is wrong and any other form of non-procreative sex is wrong. I love Catholism :gag:

reply from: scopia19822

She's Catholic though. I think that's pretty much the standard Catholic view.
Ah right, Abortion is wrong, contraception is wrong, sterilization is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, masturbation is wrong and any other form of non-procreative sex is wrong. I love Catholism :gag:
The Catholic Church and all Prostestant denominations teach any sex outside of marriage is wrong. As far as birth control goes, the Church teaches that it is acceptable to space out ones children as long as artificial means are not used to establish this. Hence why NFP which is not the old rhythem method is taught and endorsed by the Church. Any other means would be seen as playing God and violating the Natural Law. However if a woman has a medical condition such as mine where the Pill is used as treatment, it would be permitted to take the Pill. It is in the intent of why one would take the Pill that would determine whether it would sinful or not.If a married couple is infertile they can still have sex. A married couple is encouraged to have sex for pure pleasure, it is actually considered a form of prayer. I would suggest you do more research on my religion before you bash it.

reply from: BossMomma

She's Catholic though. I think that's pretty much the standard Catholic view.
Ah right, Abortion is wrong, contraception is wrong, sterilization is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, masturbation is wrong and any other form of non-procreative sex is wrong. I love Catholism :gag:
The Catholic Church and all Prostestant denominations teach any sex outside of marriage is wrong. As far as birth control goes, the Church teaches that it is acceptable to space out ones children as long as artificial means are not used to establish this. Hence why NFP which is not the old rhythem method is taught and endorsed by the Church. Any other means would be seen as playing God and violating the Natural Law. However if a woman has a medical condition such as mine where the Pill is used as treatment, it would be permitted to take the Pill. It is in the intent of why one would take the Pill that would determine whether it would sinful or not.If a married couple is infertile they can still have sex. A married couple is encouraged to have sex for pure pleasure, it is actually considered a form of prayer. I would suggest you do more research on my religion before you bash it.
Why? You just confirmed everything I said in the above post. Catholism is one of the most judgemental sects of Christian religion and with the high instances of child molestation I think you guys should loosen up and just shag grown folks for fun, it'd take the attention off the alterboy.

reply from: BossMomma

Right. But the child's mother- the other half of its DNA is the one that decides that. Why is it that so many people assume mom should/would abort her child if conceived this way? It is still her child. It is sad. I know several "rape babies". One is the head of Right To Life in my state.
Pro-fetus extremists are the only one's I've ever seen that will actually take up for a rapist.

reply from: scopia19822

[]
"Why? You just confirmed everything I said in the above post. Catholism is one of the most judgemental sects of Christian religion and with the high instances of child molestation I think you guys should loosen up and just shag grown folks for fun, it'd take the attention off the alterboy."
Unbelievable, so now I am a pedophile because of my religion? And you have the unmitigated gaul to call me narrow minded and judgmental? Pot meet Kettle. If you dont like what i have to say use the iggy function.

reply from: BossMomma

It's called giving you a taste of your own. I don't actually hold that view point but was being intentionally judgemental so you'll know how it feels when you put a woman's health at the bottom of your list of priorities. As to the iggy function, take your own advice.

reply from: scopia19822

It's called giving you a taste of your own. I don't actually hold that view point but was being intentionally judgemental so you'll know how it feels when you put a woman's health at the bottom of your list of priorities. As to the iggy function, take your own advice.
No you implied that I and all Catholics were pedophiles. I do not put a womans health at the bottom of my priorties, but with all the progress modern medicine has made, barring a ectopic or traumatic accident where the fetus has to be removed, even if it means the baby dies, there should be no need for an abortion.Usually if the child is wanted efforts are made to save both mom and baby and both usually can come out ok. In a pregnancy there are multiple patients, not just one. You are starting to sound like you did before your conversion. How can one say they are prolife and support elective abortion under any circumstances? As far as women who have chronic medical conditions or take medications and have been advised time and time again not to get pregnant, have an obligation to themselves to take precautions. But if those precautions fail that does not give them the liscence to kill that child. Someone who has a mental illness with the right medications can carry that pregnancy to term with no or minimal effect to the fetus. Just like with bipolar disorder, there is different degrees of depression and different strengths and type of medication. Most anti depressants advise to not take while pregnant or to consult a doctor. It is doable, you just have to work with your doctor.

reply from: Draiocht

Males are pure evil. They want sex all the time and they claim they'll suffer if they don't get it.
But, if you don't spread your legs and give it to them, they'll find someone else that will.
Yet if you do spread for the walking hormones, you're ALWAYS blamed. It's never the men's *****ing fault, it's just yours. No *****ing wonder so many women go lesbian.

reply from: BossMomma

It's called giving you a taste of your own. I don't actually hold that view point but was being intentionally judgemental so you'll know how it feels when you put a woman's health at the bottom of your list of priorities. As to the iggy function, take your own advice.
No you implied that I and all Catholics were pedophiles. I do not put a womans health at the bottom of my priorties, but with all the progress modern medicine has made, barring a ectopic or traumatic accident where the fetus has to be removed, even if it means the baby dies, there should be no need for an abortion.Usually if the child is wanted efforts are made to save both mom and baby and both usually can come out ok. In a pregnancy there are multiple patients, not just one. You are starting to sound like you did before your conversion. How can one say they are prolife and support elective abortion under any circumstances? As far as women who have chronic medical conditions or take medications and have been advised time and time again not to get pregnant, have an obligation to themselves to take precautions. But if those precautions fail that does not give them the liscence to kill that child. Someone who has a mental illness with the right medications can carry that pregnancy to term with no or minimal effect to the fetus. Just like with bipolar disorder, there is different degrees of depression and different strengths and type of medication. Most anti depressants advise to not take while pregnant or to consult a doctor. It is doable, you just have to work with your doctor.
An abortion for medical reasons is not elective. Some with mental illness can carry a child to term by having their meds changed or reduced, some can't and sometimes precautions against pregnancy do fail, does that mean that the woman should be SOL?
If I sound like a pro-choicer it's because I'm not as unreasonably extreme as you. I'm not unrealistic, I realize that sometimes it's the baby or the woman and in those circumstances the woman has my full sympathy, it should be no ones place to judge, especially when there are pro-lifers out there that have aborted for less.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

From what some have posted, it seems that pro-lifers want a pregnant woman with medical problems to do everything possible to give birth. They keep talking about "saving the baby" or "having a C-section."
If a woman has medical problems and discovers she is pregnant, I believe she should have an abortion as soon as possible! Why wait and endanger her own health, subject herself to MORE complications and/or have dangerous surgery? That is NOT pro-woman at all, it is simply pro-fetus.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You... are psychotic. Seriously.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If said medical problems have a high known maternal mortality rate, I think she should carry as long as is healthy to carry, and then deliver the baby no matter how far along it is. If it's below 20 weeks then I can justify abortion ONLY because it could not survive anyway, so there is no sense in adding the additional risk to the woman's life on top of the child's life that will already be lost. If it is after 20 weeks, the child has a chance and should be given that chance via induce delivery.
It's about finding a balance.

reply from: JRH

If said medical problems have a high known maternal mortality rate, I think she should carry as long as is healthy to carry, and then deliver the baby no matter how far along it is. If it's below 20 weeks then I can justify abortion ONLY because it could not survive anyway, so there is no sense in adding the additional risk to the woman's life on top of the child's life that will already be lost. If it is after 20 weeks, the child has a chance and should be given that chance via induce delivery.
It's about finding a balance.
Induced labor is to risky. I say just kill the fetus and protect the woman. Her health is much more important.

reply from: BossMomma

I have a son and found this to be extremely offensive, my boy is not a walking hormone, he is not pure evil. The name of this forum is not pro-male bash America, if you have nothing of value to add to the discussion it might be best to find a forum that suits your particular...issue.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If said medical problems have a high known maternal mortality rate, I think she should carry as long as is healthy to carry, and then deliver the baby no matter how far along it is. If it's below 20 weeks then I can justify abortion ONLY because it could not survive anyway, so there is no sense in adding the additional risk to the woman's life on top of the child's life that will already be lost. If it is after 20 weeks, the child has a chance and should be given that chance via induce delivery.
It's about finding a balance.
Induced labor is to risky. I say just kill the fetus and protect the woman. Her health is much more important.
You don't care about the child at all, so your opinion is rather worthless.
By the way, do you have ANY proof that induced labor at 20 weeks is more risky than an abortion at that time?

reply from: BossMomma

If said medical problems have a high known maternal mortality rate, I think she should carry as long as is healthy to carry, and then deliver the baby no matter how far along it is. If it's below 20 weeks then I can justify abortion ONLY because it could not survive anyway, so there is no sense in adding the additional risk to the woman's life on top of the child's life that will already be lost. If it is after 20 weeks, the child has a chance and should be given that chance via induce delivery.
It's about finding a balance.
Induced labor is to risky. I say just kill the fetus and protect the woman. Her health is much more important.
You don't care about the child at all, so your opinion is rather worthless.
By the way, do you have ANY proof that induced labor at 20 weeks is more risky than an abortion at that time?
Induced labor at 20 weeks might as well be an abortion, no child could survive that young outside the womb.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Fetal viability is possible, but still problematic, at just over 21 weeks at present.

reply from: BossMomma

A 20 weeker would likely suffer enormous and most likely fatal issues. I would consider it more inhumane to remove a child that young from the womb alive as I value quality over quantity.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

A 20 weeker would likely suffer enormous and most likely fatal issues. I would consider it more inhumane to remove a child that young from the womb alive as I value quality over quantity.
It's so sad that some people value a painful brief life more than a painless death long before the fetus is anywhere NEAR viability and when there is minimal danger to the mother.
They are concerned about aborting a fetus that MIGHT feel pain (physically impossible in early abortions), yet want a mother to suffer through both the birth and the death of a child who is most PROBABLY suffering. Seems very harsh and without compassion to me.

reply from: scopia19822

How can you say that abortion is a painless death? Are you not aware that all abortions involve stabbing, hacking and dismemberment? How is that a "dignified" death? Would you do that to an animal ? Animals get treated better when they are put down than an unborn child. Are you not aware of the hospice approach when it comes to the terminaly ill? In the case of a child who is going to die shortly after birth, you keep them comfortable, including pain meds. You dont do anything to prolong that child's life, but you let nature take its course. I think dying while being held is much more dignified than stabbing and dismembering then and throwing them into medical waste like common trash.

reply from: yoda

I think she means it's painless for her, scopia.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If said medical problems have a high known maternal mortality rate, I think she should carry as long as is healthy to carry, and then deliver the baby no matter how far along it is. If it's below 20 weeks then I can justify abortion ONLY because it could not survive anyway, so there is no sense in adding the additional risk to the woman's life on top of the child's life that will already be lost. If it is after 20 weeks, the child has a chance and should be given that chance via induce delivery.
It's about finding a balance.
Induced labor is to risky. I say just kill the fetus and protect the woman. Her health is much more important.
You don't care about the child at all, so your opinion is rather worthless.
By the way, do you have ANY proof that induced labor at 20 weeks is more risky than an abortion at that time?
Induced labor at 20 weeks might as well be an abortion, no child could survive that young outside the womb.
1. At least you're not ripping it apart.
2. You're giving it SOME chance at life. Right now our technology can't save it but who knows five years down the line?
3. You're still ending the pregnancy to save the mother's life.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

http://www.priestsforlife.org/.../fig20baby7.jpg
<br ">http://www.priestsforl...rg/.....20baby7.jpg
Fetus at 7 weeks. 1/5" long. Looks like tadpole. Hard to "dismember", isn't it?
Animals can be shot, which is awfully hard to do with something inside a woman. Or they get a lethal injection, which really OUGHT to be a good way to abort.

reply from: scopia19822

Then why is it in 1st trimester abortions whether by vacum extraction or D&C they have to assemble the parts to make sure nothing was left inside the uterus? If it was removed intact their would be no reason to "put the pieces " together.

reply from: Draiocht

I considered myself fairly common and reasonable, until I found this cesspool. Once I was exposed to the naked HATRED towards my gender here, I became a lot more active. Prolife terrorism and prejudice has made me much less tolerant than I was before.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Draiocht, you just act plain insane on here, sorry.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If you know how early term abortions happen then it's not so hard at all. Violently being sucked through a tube is going to pull anyone apart, much less a tiny child who doesn't have solid bones or strong connective tissue.

reply from: Rosalie

Or maybe she's had a really bad experience? I don't know, I don't know her at all but I'm guessing ...
How about you ease up on the judgment and try to get behind all this and find out WHY anyone would feel like that?
And I have a fiancé whom I love dearly and I just can't find this offensive because I think that there's a serious underlying issue. And I'm not going to judge people who are trying to deal with their issues, even though they're doing it in a way that might be considered offensive by others.
Look behind the words of these posts. Look for the actual people there who might've been through terrible things.
Don't be so quick to judge.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

If you know how early term abortions happen then it's not so hard at all. Violently being sucked through a tube is going to pull anyone apart, much less a tiny child who doesn't have solid bones or strong connective tissue.
The cannula is more than 1/5", so the embryo (which it is until 10 weeks) would be expelled intact.

reply from: yoda

And you don't even flinch when you talk about whether or not the HUMAN embryo is torn apart as it is being killed, do you? Means nothing to do, does it?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Or maybe she's had a really bad experience? I don't know, I don't know her at all but I'm guessing ...
How about you ease up on the judgment and try to get behind all this and find out WHY anyone would feel like that?
I would, if she weren't so completely offensive about it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Elementary physics will tell you that the forces insie a tube of rushing liquid can tear a body apart even if it fits in the tube. And it is a very powerful vacume. The unborn at that stage is like wet tissue paper; it doesn't take much to rip its tiny body apart.

reply from: Rosalie

Or maybe she's had a really bad experience? I don't know, I don't know her at all but I'm guessing ...
How about you ease up on the judgment and try to get behind all this and find out WHY anyone would feel like that?
I would, if she weren't so completely offensive about it.
Your approach is completely wrong.
I suggest a psychology class - no snarking here, I seriously do. It would help you see WHY your approach and attitude is wrong.


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