Home - List All Discussions

pro-aborts use the mentally disabled

by: ProInformed

Pro-aborts use the plight of mentally disabled citizens to excuse abortion-on-demand, AND use them to get more votes for obama, but don't care about the right to life of those same citizens.
http://politicalvindication.com/?p=2787

Not that I'd expect anything better from pro-aborts - typical disregard for those they fake concern for.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Are you insinuating that the mentally challenged should be denied the right to vote? In your world, does everyone have to present proof of IQ, education or something else to prove they are capable of making an informed decision?
If Trig Palin was 18 instead of several months old, should he not be able to vote for his own mother? What exactly are you advocating? Or are you simply slinging slime?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I never agreed with aborting the mentally handicapped even when I was pro-choice, though I was wishy-wasy in some cases. Now I'm firm on my stance: Every child deserves life!
As for this nonsense, it doesn't matter. It's well known that Democratic policies are better for those who are in need, rather than the "I won't pay taxes for you to live" policies of the Republicans.

reply from: Rosalie

There's no such thing as deserving life, deserving to be born.
I believe that every child deserves to be wanted.

reply from: CharlesD

There goes the basis for our system of laws. Humans don't deserve life. Will I be prosecuted if I shoot you in the head? If there is no such thing as deserving life, then there is no grounds for saying that I did anything wrong. I can't be prosecuted for murder then, because there is no such thing as murder. How liberating.
Just because a child isn't wanted by his/her biological mother does not mean it is not wanted. It's really a pretty simple concept.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There's no such thing as deserving life, deserving to be born.
Why?
So that applies to unborn children too; and I agree. I think every child deserves to be wanted; and pregnant women who don't want the child can find adoptive couples who do.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Would you still have a problem with it if they were doing that for McCain or another republican or pro-life candidate?

reply from: Rosalie

I was talking about the right to be BORN. Pay attention.
The biological woman's wishes always take precedent. She is the one risking everything and she's not an incubator.

reply from: Rosalie

Because there is no reason anyone should ever have that right automatically. Especially as long as there is even a minuscule chance that the pregnancy will in any way harm the woman, her body, health or career.
Pregnant women are not obligated to be human incubators.
There are still plenty unwanted kids waiting to be adopted. When there are NONE, I will agree with you that it would be nice if a woman who doesn't want to be a mother decided to give the child up for an adoption. But I will never agree that women are somehow obligated to give birth.

reply from: ProInformed

Stop pretending to not understand the point of the post.
Granting mentally handicapped citizens the right to vote is not the same thing as coercing them to vote a particular way.

reply from: ProInformed

It doesn't matter if liberals take mentally challenged citizens to a polling place without the proper familial permission/notification?
It doesn't matter if a liberal makes a mentally handicapped person vote for the obama when they really wanted to vote for McCain?
I have no problem paying taxes for those who truly are in need, who actually need the money to "live"... I do not see the need to keep taking more and more money from workers/earners/savers/and yes, GIVERS, just because some think they are owed a free ride without having to contribute to their own support, let alone to society.
I know mentally and physically handicapped citizens that do more to support themselves and to volunteer and give to charities, than some of the healthy/abled people I've met who simply refuse to work and expect a hand-out.
There would be enough help and support for those who truly need it if their weren't so many slackers selfishly and shamelessly taking resources from the needy.
The people I've met who do the MOST for helping others are also the ones who are conservative taxpayers. When they are taxed more their ability to give to charities is decreased, and is NOT typically replaced by liberals giving more to the sort of charities that support the needy. That money diverted AWAY from helping the needy is not as efficiently or effectively helpful for the needy when it has to go through the greedy hands of the politicians.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

For all you know, Republicans did the same thing, but no one's making a stink because they didn't win.

reply from: ChristianLott2

I doubt that. From the same people who brought you abortion on demand come the many and varied attempts to destroy the system. Why should it be hard to believe those who deny a child's right to life would also do other things just as despicable?

reply from: ChristianLott2

That's the only way rml will be able to say anything, by pretending. Logic can only follow from a true premise so she pretends you did not say what you said and launches into her own attack on her misrepresentation of you that she created.
In other words, she's being an a-hole.

reply from: CharlesD

The rights of an individual only go so far as they don't threaten the life of another individual.

reply from: scopia19822

"The rights of an individual only go so far as they don't threaten the life of another individual."
I agree Charles, I just hope the proaborts will not twist your words around to justify their stance on abortion.

reply from: JRH

Right, so a fetus can be aborted because it has no right to use the woman just because it needs her, anymore than I can take your kidney if I need it for a transplant. Good idea CharlesD.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

A child that is living and growing inside a woman the way nature intended and someone THREATENING another's very life are two totally different things, JRH. I'm sorry you can't see that.
If I hold a knife to your neck, I am threatening your life. If I am a fetus growing inside a woman as a healthy pregnancy, I am a threat to no one - except those who fear responsibility.

reply from: CharlesD

That's never happened before, why would they start now?

reply from: Hosea

There's no such thing as deserving life, deserving to be born.
I believe that every child deserves to be wanted.
So should any child who is not wanted be killed?
Is this referring to born , unborn, or both.
This is s Susan Smith mentality. She commented after killing her children that she had reecently had an abortion and if she had the right to lill one why no tthe others?

reply from: JRH

Nature also intended men to force women into sex. Read up on rape during human evolution. We used to just toss em into a cave. Want to go back to that?
Your rights do not include the right to use another human against their wishes. Even if it is to live.
You change the womans body and use it. Rape is a similar violation. Sex is a natural process which the rapist forces the woman to undergo. A forced pregnancy is a perfect analogy.

reply from: Danima

There's no such thing as deserving life, deserving to be born.
I believe that every child deserves to be wanted.
If one deserves to be wanted but does not deserve life, then when will both be satisfied? They cannot. The dead cannot be wanted in the way you mean, only the living. Therefore, deserving to be wanted presupposes deserving life.

reply from: Danima

Right, so a fetus can be aborted because it has no right to use the woman just because it needs her, anymore than I can take your kidney if I need it for a transplant. Good idea CharlesD.
Again, taking my kidney could threaten my life, so your right to life would be threatening mine. It is therefore not comparable. And yes, there are two kidneys in the body, but what if you just chose one who happens to have only one?
One does not have the right of removing a person from interfering with their life or career (of course, since this is in discussion of abortion and roe v. wade, the right to abortion is hitherto challenged), even with the context of the right to the pursuit of happiness. Why? Take a survey of every woman who exits the Planned Parenthood in your area who has just had an abortion, and ask if they are happy.

reply from: Rosalie

No, but thanks for twisting my statement.
I believe that in a perfect world, all children would be wanted. That is not possible, but aiming towards as few accidental/unwanted pregnancies as possible is a good thing. Or do you think it's not?

reply from: CharlesD

A healthy pregnancy DOES NOT threaten the life of the mother. The kidney analogy is not comparable. The child is not using the mother's resources against her will since it was by an act of her will that the child is there to start with.

reply from: Rosalie

There is ALWAYS a risk. You can never be 100% sure that nothing will happen.
Not to mention that there are many, many complications that may occur. They mave have temporary or lasting effect on the woman's health or body. And they are NOT that rare. I honestly do not know a woman who hasn't had some complications.
If she chooses that she will go through it and take the risks - then fine. If she chooses that the risk is so high - then fine. It's her call. It's her body, it's her health, it's her call. It is always her call.
If the woman does not want to continue a pregnancy and she is forced to by a third party, then yes, her body and resources are being used against her will. It is really simple but no wonder you don't want to admit it, it's really monstrous.

reply from: JRH

Most likely not. Just like a pregnancy is usually safe, so is this.
No, it would me just using you.
So when they have two it should be allowed?
Are you crazy? Of course I have the right to stop them from effecting my job. I can quit if I work for someone else. I can fire them if I am someone else. If I choose to stay in that job then I am consenting to letting the effect it. Though your analogy is bad anyway because we are talking about someone using your body , and not doing something which indirectly effects you.

reply from: JRH

Neither does the removal of one kidney threaten the life of an adult human in most cases. Should we allow it?
So in cases of rape abortion is therefore acceptable? In any case, consent to sex does not mean you consent to pregnancy. You are having sex for pleasure, and if you get pregnant as an accident you surely did not consent to it anymore than you consent to a car wreck when you drive your car. In both cases bad things can happen (pregnancy and a car wreck), which you then fix using the resources available to you (an abortion or a car mechanic). Even if you disagree with that if you force her to be pregnant it is against her will and to claim otherwise is living in a dream world.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Exactly. If one is so mentally disabled that they can be made to vote for one candidate, they most certainly can be made to vote for another. How many Republican parents or caregivers took their children or charges to the polls and told them to vote for McCain?
I actually doubt the verity of the report anyway. The votes require the filling in of a box on a written form. How can one who cannot read understand the form? How does he or she "know" which boxes to darken?
As you said, LCR, it could have been done by all sorts of people with an agenda of getting the most votes possible for anyone. It reminds me of all the fuss and nonsense about ACORN - there were illegal registrations FOUND and DISCARDED, but nobody who is against Obama is willing to read or admit the truth about the DISCARDED registrations. And oddly enough, one registration was for "Duran Duran" - who turned out to be a REAL PERSON!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Nature also intended men to force women into sex. Read up on rape during human evolution. We used to just toss em into a cave. Want to go back to that
That I don't believe you at all, since no primates I know of are fans of raping each other for normal procreation. In fact some species, namely the Bonobos, use sex in a gentle and very social way.
Your rights do not include the right to use another human against their wishes. Even if it is to live.
Your rights do not include the right to KILL SOMEONE because they are inconveniencing you. So we are at the same impass this debate always comes to.
Who took an action to place the child in the womb? Normally, the woman and the man. So if anyone at all is at fault, it is them, not the child who was put there against its wishes. To use the ever so common pro-death example, imagine you agree to participate in a new study. You could potentially end up attached to a baby via IV, and be that child's sole mean of life, but you know of that risk and do the study anyway. One day, a scientists running the study drugs both you and a baby you've never met. You wake up to find yourself attached to that baby. Now you knew this could happen, so you don't really have ANY excuse to kill this child. It's basically your fault they are now depending on you for life.
You change the womans body and use it.
Not really; her body changes itself. Let's remember who made the egg in the first place: the woman. Let's remember who created a warm welcoming home for the child: the woman, in her uterus. Let's remember who had sex: the woman. A changing body is not a threat to LIFE. Stretch marks are not a death sentence.
Not at all, since I have yet to ever hear any proof of rape being natural. Trust me, pro-choicers use that example all the time but they never manage to support it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There is ALWAYS a risk. You can never be 100% sure that nothing will happen.
If there is a risk, it is NOT a healthy pregnancy. Duh. Charles isn't talking about ANY of that.

reply from: Danima

Sex is a biological function. Its purpose is procreation. Yes, it is pleasurable when you do it, when you choose the person to do it with. Eating is a biological function. Its purpose is to bring nutrients to the body. Yes, it is pleasurable when you do it, when you choose your favorite foods. You can choke on the food by accident, but you cant nourish your body by accident. Likewise, you can have a miscarriage by accident, but you cannot become pregnant by accident.

reply from: JRH

Yet they still use rape.
This does not negate my example.
If said inconvenience is using my body, then yes I certainly do.
Yes
I actually think that this example is flawed in several key ways. The first way is that you are not biologically compelled to take place in a study as you are to have sex. Since your body is sending you much stronger signals in the sexual sense your decision must be judged in a different light. Also, a fetus is not worth as much as a baby in my book. Not to mention that the body of the individual will not undergo serious changes as it would during a pregnancy.
Either way, in the example above I think you are perfectly justified to remove the baby from yourself and go on about your life, as heartless as that may sound.
Such changes do not have to threaten life to be bad.
look up pre history and examine human evolution.
Support it how?

reply from: JRH

This is no way addresses my post.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I do agree on this, but I also simultaneously feel that it does NOT give the woman the right to kill her child.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yet they still use rape.
So what? Your post seemed to imply that rape is how ALL babies should be made, and that ALL sex should be rape since consentual sex is somehow unnatural. And you're wrong. And even when monkeys rape each other, it is still bad. They are still violating the rights (monkey rights?) of the other. I'm pretty sure the monkey being raped doesn't like it any more than a woman does.
Look, just because some people are freaks and rape people doesn't make rape right. It also doesn't make rape natural, or acceptable. I don't even know why I'm arguing this, since I don't feel there is any corrolation between rape and accidental pregnancy.
If said inconvenience is using my body, then yes I certainly do.
Why? Just because it's using your body? You shouldn't have participated in an activity that would place it there in the first place. You should have worn a seatbelt; now your leg is in a cast for 9 months. I view abortion as chopping off your leg instead of waiting for it to heal - except to make it worse, you're killing an entirely different human being!
Yes

I actually think that this example is flawed in several key ways. The first way is that you are not biologically compelled to take place in a study as you are to have sex.
Biologically compelled!? So what? You do NOT have to have sex. And if you want to have sex, you do not have to do it unprotected. I think your objection is senseless.
So now people have monetary values? I believed that lie too when I was pro-choice, in fact I said those exat same words I'm sure.
Let's pretend for the sake of arguing that it will, in my example.
But WHY? What is your justification for murder in this case?
Such changes do not have to threaten life to be bad.
"Bad" is an inconvenience, and you cannot murder someone just because they are inconvenient to you. Unless your life is being directly threatened, you do not have the right to kill someone else, and that is LAW.
look up pre history and examine human evolution.
You're the one claiming it exists; burden of proof lies on you.
Support it how?
With evidence.

reply from: Cecilia

Sex is an act of will.
Pregnancy is not.
smoking is an act of will.
Lung cancer is not.
Be prolife but be logical.

reply from: scopia19822

Sex and smoking are choice actions and every action we choose has a consequence. If a person has sex they know that pregnancy can be a consequence of that choice, everytime I light up a cigarette I know that there is a chance I will develop lung cancer or other pulmonary disorders.

reply from: nancyu

There's no such thing as deserving life, deserving to be born.
I believe that every child deserves to be wanted.
So should any child who is not wanted be killed?
Is this referring to born , unborn, or both.
This is s Susan Smith mentality. She commented after killing her children that she had reecently had an abortion and if she had the right to lill one why no tthe others?
That's a question that deserves an answer. I think Mother Teresa asked a similar question.
"And if we can accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
http://www.iol.ie/~hlii/theresa.html

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Some insight into the "Susan Smith" mentality:
http://www.trutv.com/library/c...th/index_1.html
<br ">http://www.trutv.com/l...y/c.....ndex_1.html
The woman was a psychological mess long before she had an abortion. Her biological father committed suicide at the age of 37, when Susan was a teenager. She was repeatedly molested by her own stepfather, a prominent Republican and a member of the advisory board of the Christian Coalition.
Susan tried to commit suicide several times. She married the father of her two children after becoming pregnant because NEITHER of them wanted her to have another abortion. (Her husband's father attempted suicide and was hospitalized for treatment of depression; his mother was a devout Jehovah's Witness who sheltered her son as a child. Neither Susan nor her husband seem to have been grounded in reality.)
Hosea, I would like to have the source of the alleged statement that you attributed to Susan Smith: "This is s Susan Smith mentality. She commented after killing her children that she had reecently had an abortion and if she had the right to lill one why no tthe others?" Where did you find this information?
Am I the only one here who thinks that Susan Smith probably had an abortion because of deep-seated mental problems caused by her molestation and other issues, and that the murder of her children was also caused by those same problems and more? Or are you simply willing to call her a pro-abort and post questionable quotations for the sake of your cause?
Devotion to a cause should never be based on lies and deceptions, and your cause cannot be furthered by the dissemination of lies and deceptions.

reply from: yoda

And your point would be.........?????
How does her mental status make abortion more moral for other people?
Or do you automatically think of all abortions as moral, no matter what?
(Hint: now is the time for you to try to smear my character with some nasty little comment on my past.)

reply from: RiverMoonLady

And your point would be.........?????
How does her mental status make abortion more moral for other people?
Or do you automatically think of all abortions as moral, no matter what?
(Hint: now is the time for you to try to smear my character with some nasty little comment on my past.)
If you cannot figure out my point, you are hopeless. I said absolutely nothing about the morality of abortion, not for Susan Smith, not for ANYONE.
I do not think of ANYTHING "automatically" except that maybe, possibly, you don't read thoroughly.
Your PRESENT is more concerning to me than your past, as you seem unable to post anything of value.

reply from: scopia19822

"Am I the only one here who thinks that Susan Smith probably had an abortion because of deep-seated mental problems caused by her molestation and other issues, and that the murder of her children was also caused by those same problems and more? Or are you simply willing to call her a pro-abort and post questionable quotations for the sake of your cause? "
It would seem to me that if laws required women to have an indepth psyc evaluation from an independent shrink before being able to have an abortion. Maybe Susan Smith would have been too much of a psyc risk for an abortion and instead either would have been committed or referred to an outpatient mental health center for treatment for her problems. I think the abortion just compounded her problems and sent her over the edge. Maybe if she had been screened before the abortion her children that she killed as well as her unborn child might have been alive today.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Very well put, Scopia.

reply from: Rosalie

Can you PREDICT a healthy pregnancy?
No, you can't. And that is just another reason why this is not your decisions, never was, never will be. You are not risking anything therefore you have no say whatsoever.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Very well put, Scopia.
I would go much further than that and require that ALL WOMEN have several in-depth psychiatric evaluations before they are allowed to GET PREGNANT! And a license (complete with written, oral and hands-on testing) should be required to give birth to a child and keep it.
You can't get married without a license - why do we allow anyone and everyone to have babies? Is there anything deserving of more oversight than parenthood?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Can you PREDICT a healthy pregnancy?
We are not talking about that.
A pregnancy is healthy until proven unhealthy, not the other way around. Women shouldn't go around assuming the worst, and I feel that's something pro-choice preaches. You risk something by having sex in the first place. Don't blame the child and punish it with death.

reply from: yoda

That's because you CHANGED THE SUBJECT.......
WHAT....... you're going to stop smearing me and trying to drag me through your nasty opinion of my past experiences concerning some very personal matters?
WOW, WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE???????

reply from: scopia19822

"I would go much further than that and require that ALL WOMEN have several in-depth psychiatric evaluations before they are allowed to GET PREGNANT! And a license (complete with written, oral and hands-on testing) should be required to give birth to a child and keep it. "
If you want to be a country like China then sure why not. The right to procreate is a God given right sadly some of those do procreate should not have.

reply from: Rosalie

Except we are.
NO ONE is assuming the worst, but there's a risk to absolutely everything.
It may be a risk YOU are willing to take. But others may feel different - and it's their right. You do not get to decide whether someone is willing to risk potential harm to their body, health or life.
Also abortion is not about punishment at all. It's sad that you claim to have been pro-choice but you don't seem to understand the stance at all.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Except we are.
Maybe YOU are, but I'm not.
NO ONE is assuming the worst, but there's a risk to absolutely everything.
Oh get real; half of every pro-choice argument is "but what if she dies, what if she is in danger, what if she becomes debilitated?" Pro-choicers are some of the most depressed people you'll ever meet when it comes to their views on pregnancy.
Don't breathe. Don't drink the water, don't drive, don't have sex. There is a risk to everything, and one of the risks of sex is pregnancy. If you don't want to become pregnant, don't have sex - or do your best to prevent it. If it happens anyway, too bad so sad. There is a new person involved now, and YOU made him/her. Can you even grasp the incredible responsibility behind that? You just created a new LIFE; this is a serious issue that shouldn't be taken lightly. You have created a person who could potentially live in our world for 70+ years. They have their entire lives ahead of them.
It is for the child. It is the ultimate punishment. We only reserve that punishment for serial killers and child mass rapist murders.

reply from: Rosalie

Do you read my posts at all?
I said that there is a risk to everything. Do you want to deny that?
Again, you are proving that you completely misunderstood the entire pro-choice movement. It is a fact that pregnancy MAY cause temporary or permanent damage to a woman's body, health or life. DO YOU DENY THAT? If that's not true, REFUTE that. With facts.
That's not being depressed, that's being realistic. When you have something in your life you care about, you usually weight all the pros and cons before making a decision that is going to turn all your life upsed down forever and before you take any risks. That's what people usually do. Maybe you don't, but I do, and it is important to me.
You really need to start reading my posts. That's a huge non-sequitur right there.
Yes. Luckily, no one is or should be forced or obligated to continue a pregnancy they don't want to continue, so while there are risks, we can do something about it when it happens. And that's great.
HOW MANY TIMES WILL I HAVE TO REPLY TO THIS NONSENSE?
Fact: it is not up to you to say who should or should not have sex
Fact: sex is not for procreative purposes only
Fact: not everyone is educated enough about birth control
Fact: birth control is not available to everyone
Fact: birth control can fail
Fact:*****happens, people sometimes make irresposnible choics
- It STILL doesn't mean they should be punished with being forced to remain pregnant for 40 weeks. A pregnancy should never be an obligation. It should always be a choice.
And? My body is still involved, too, and I get to keep my rights. YOU don't get to take them away fro me.
Oh I see. You REALLY cannot discuss without being insulting or trying to be condescending. What a shame.
I know FIRST HAND what responsibilites pregnancy and parenthood brings. And if anything it only soldified my pro-choice beliefs. If someone doesn't want to do that, they shouldn't be forced to. It is not for everyone. And it is too serious, too much responsibility to be forced upon people who do not want to be pregnant or have babies.
AND? It still doesn't mean this new life has a right to be born.
That's how you see it. I don't see it that way at all. It is incapable of thought, pain, anything. It is not being punished. It is being aborted. It will never be born. So what? I care about babies and children who are actually hurting. Who are being hurt, who are being punished, who are being treated in a terrible manner and who can feel and perceive it all. That's the true horror. And it is incomparable with an abortion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Everything in life MAY cause death or injury! Go lock yourself alone in a room already! That's not a viable excuse to kill someone else!

reply from: Rosalie

Yes, it may - which is why we have to make decisions for US, based on what we are willing to risk. And yes, that's a viable excuse to have an abortion.
But I see you do not want to debate, you just want to attack and insult. But you are "pro-life" so that's to be expected.

reply from: Cecilia

Yes well said Rosalie. LCR seems very immature thinker as shown in other threads and this one and really should concentrate on herself isntead of what others are doing with their reproductive organs. I am thinking about the thread where she said that if someone chronically ill asked for help to die she would turn her back on them and tattle to the police. Very immature and self centered.
I would not ask LCR for help, i think she would consider "what's in it for me" or 'what's in my best interests' instead of thinking of others.
Another prolifer on this board you could not ask for help from. That's LCR, sweet, Augustine, Faithman and Godslaw. Judgemental and hateful people. I would rather ask RML, spinwiddy, Rosalie. It is obvious what kind of people "prolifers" are.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Killing someone else is never the logical choice, especially when if you just wait 9 months, the pregnancy will be over anyway. Your comments about me being "immature" make me laugh, since I'm a full grown adult. Go insult a real child.

reply from: Cecilia

Your thought processes are immature; you could be ninety and still immature. The fact that you think adult in age equals mature shows just how immature your thinking is. Nothing I said was false, you would turn your back on someone who asked for your help and tattle to police. You put yourself first. Those are not insults they are your own feelings. if you ashamed you should consider your actions.
I do not know if you saw on other thread but if you know of student whose mother is doing drugs you need to report that. mandatory reporting laws -please see the other thread, I think it is the one "in my situation". I am very serious about this and please set differences aside but you need to call protective services about this now and not wait!!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Immaturity is thinking that killing a child is a good choice.
The student is my mother's student, and she does not know for a fact the mother is doing drugs. I am aware that as a public servant I am obligated to report such things. All we have are the students words that "my mom's diabetes was acting up and she gets all crazy when that happens, so I stayed with my relative." Diabetes does not make people act crazy. My mother has called on these cases before and nothing happens because there isn't enough proof. She's thinking of calling, but she's just not sure.

reply from: scopia19822

"Yes well said Rosalie. LCR seems very immature thinker as shown in other threads and this one and really should concentrate on herself isntead of what others are doing with their reproductive organs. I am thinking about the thread where she said that if someone chronically ill asked for help to die she would turn her back on them and tattle to the police. Very immature and self centered."
Abortion and suicide are very simular as they are permanant solutions to a temporary problems. In the case of someone who mentally distrubed threatening suicide I would try to talk them out of it. If they had a gun or are threatening to jump I would call the police. In some states you can be prosecuted for not calling the police in those sitautions. If it was someone close to me like a friend or family member I would tell their parents/spouse that this person is talking suicide please watch them closely and get them the help they need. However in the case of a chronically ill person asking for help to die that is wrong. I would not tattle to the police, once again I would try and talk them out of it, however I do see the difference between a termanially ill person desiring to die vs someone who is mentally ill. But I would refuse to assist in anyway in their deaths. If they get pain/sleeping pills and stock pile them and OD is one thing, but they have no right to ask a 3rd party person to be a party to it, it then in most states becomes a homicide. If it was a close family member like say my husband , mom , sister I would tell their doctor they were suicidal, in those cases I could not keep silent, but once again I would not tattle to the police.

reply from: Cecilia

The fact that you think adult in age equals mature shows just how immature your thinking is. Having an abortion is a choice. It can be a good choice; it was good choice for me, but you can not understand because you are limited in cognition so I cannot be irritated with you.
BTW I think it pertinent to state that you speak of the 'right to life' your students have who have MR diagnoses and other problems but you know frequently MR people live off welfare, so according to you in other thread they would be "trailer trash" or "culturally poor".
I am not saying that they should be aborted of course, but I am pointing out hypocrisy.
I think this is the right thing to do.

reply from: lukesmom

Everyone has the right NOT to have sex and become pregnant in the first place. So, if someone doesn't want to risk an unhealthy pregnacy or "potential harm the their body, health or life" the answer is pretty simple...don't get pregnant.

reply from: lukesmom

Now you are putting "words" in my mouth. Nowhere did I say to only "screw when the females are in heat" or to only have sex to procreate. What I did say was if you do not want to face the "risks" of pregnancy, don't have sex. If you don't want to risk being hit by a train, don't stand on train tracks.
Now I have to go fold some animal skins so the kids have something to wear this week.

reply from: Cecilia

Everyone has the right NOT to have sex and become pregnant in the first place. So, if someone doesn't want to risk an unhealthy pregnacy or "potential harm the their body, health or life" the answer is pretty simple...don't get pregnant.
Having sex does not mean you make allowance for having a baby. Get real.

reply from: lukesmom

You are psychic that you "know" what I was thinking? I can assure you that I was not "insinuating" anything and my words where directly what I was thinking.
That is very nice but you are consenting to the risk and no one but you will be hurt by your concenting to the risk of white water rafting. If you said you didn't like the risks of white water rafting, I would tell you not to do it same as I would tell someone who didn't want the risk of becoming pregnant and all that it entails to not have sex.
Agreed. I have been pregnant a couple times accidentally and wanted NOT to be pregnant.
No more ridiculous than the white water rafting comparison.
Not if it is a defunked track and/or is never used. In that case you could stand there all your life and never get hit. You could also go white water rafting and never get hurt. So, as with rafting or standing on train tracks or pregnancy, if you don't want to accept the risks, don't engage in the activity. I will say again, very simple and I guess, too simple for some to understand. No insinuation, just an observation.
At what? White water rafting?

reply from: lukesmom

Everyone has the right NOT to have sex and become pregnant in the first place. So, if someone doesn't want to risk an unhealthy pregnacy or "potential harm the their body, health or life" the answer is pretty simple...don't get pregnant.
Having sex does not mean you make allowance for having a baby. Get real.
I am real and so are the natual "risks" of intercourse. You are the one who mentions risks. If you don't want to accept the risks don't engage in the behavior that may lead to the consequence.

reply from: lukesmom

Don't be such a f**kwit.
It's clearly implied in your comparison that you WILL be hit by a train, meaning the track is in use.
Stop being such a petty little moron to try and weasel out of your crappy analogy.
Making excuses still won't make it fly.
Yes!
You're being a git again.
Where is the danger in standing on a track that isn't in use?
You can take precautions with both rafting and sex - physical protection, like helmets or condoms.
What are you going to do on a train track? Activate your Cylon forcefield? LMAO!
If the activity doesn't go the way you planned, always have a backout contingency.
Clearly you've never worked in any large business dealing with important projects.
You ALWAYS have a backout plan in case of failure.
Lucky you are not in my industry; you wouldn't last very long when a critical system was about to fall over and you say "Oh, just let all the servers burn out, we can build new ones over the next 9 months."
Tsk, tsk. You really aren't psychic. I never implied any such thing. Where I live there are many tracks that aren't used and if you don't know the train sched you have no idea what your risk is, same as with pregnancy. Now I know all about risks and consequences and see these consequences everyday as a nurse. I don't care what kind of precautions you take or what "backout contigency" you may have, you still may become a victem your actions and become hurt. You naitivity makes me laugh and so does you desperation in dodging. Gotta get to bed, I have several pts to see and deal with the consequences of their choices in life.

reply from: lukesmom

The world is jam-packed with risks.
So everyone should stay in their bed and never get out of it.
Nope, just take responsibility for their actions. Actually there are just as many health risks if you never get out of bed.

reply from: Danima

This is no way addresses my post.
In layman's terms, pregnancy is not an accident, it is made to be that way. Just because you tried to change the way its meant to be and failed does not make it an accident.
Let's look at another example: You see a car on a street, and you do not want it to be able to move. You take a knife (or a gun, etc.) to the tires, and then wait for the owner to see whether or not you failed in stopping the car, even though you successfully used your weapon in destroying the tires. The car will still move, although it is not recommended to do so. Therefore, it is not an accident that the car moved, since it is made to do that.

reply from: lukesmom

Well anyone with half a brain would not take a risk like standing on a train track, so the same as with sex, if you don't want to be hit by a train, don't stand on the tracks and if you don't want to become pregnant and encounter the risks of pregnancy, you don't have sex. Very basic, very simple but most chose to accept the risk of pregnancy and cry about it later saying they had no choice.
LOL! You are a drama queen and make me laugh. There are times I have to get tough and tell pts the "truths" of their illness to help them change their behaviors but I have never told anyone not to breath. That's funny, I'll have to share that one with my coworkers.
Nah, just my rotton spelling again.
Hehehe...I'll have to do that. With some, it will make their day!

reply from: lukesmom

Well anyone with half a brain would not take a risk like standing on a train track, so the same as with sex, if you don't want to be hit by a train, don't stand on the tracks and if you don't want to become pregnant and encounter the risks of pregnancy, you don't have sex. Very basic, very simple but most chose to accept the risk of pregnancy and cry about it later saying they had no choice.
You're still not getting it.
When you have sex, you can take a lot of precautions to avoid pregnancy:
- condoms
- spermicides
- the pill
- a diaphragm
- an IUD
When standing on a train track, you don't have any such precautionary measures.
You can wear a bicycle helmet if you like, but it isn't going to do any good.
Do you understand now?
- condoms
- spermicides
- the pill
- a diaphragm
- an IUD: None of these are 100% effective in preventing pregnancy so there is still a risk. Most of us know this little fact.
Do YOU understand now?

reply from: lukesmom

Poor Vexing, needing to not only pick at the details but reinvent them too. Too bad you can't or won't? stop and actually think about the original point. If the possible consequence of a behaviour is considered a negative by a specific person the way to avoid this consequence is to avoid the behaviour. How is that so hard for you to understand? Now go ahead and twist and dodge and change what I said all you want. I can't make it any more clear for you so I am done, there is no way I can make this any simpler for you.

reply from: teddybearhamster

actually i think she understands our species better than you do. she understands when life begins

reply from: lycan

This thread seems to have started on a discussion of the mentally disabled but has veered from it considerably. I'd like to put it back on track with an article that there are http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/health?articleid=4722957

reply from: 4given

I read that. It is encouraging that women are accepting their children- especially Down's. Many truly aren't educated about what *may* be in store. I love the DS men, women and children in my life. We even met a beautiful 4 year old that we were willing to adopt.

reply from: Danima

But it is uncomparable, since homosexual sex cannot result in pregnancy, and was not made to be able to result in pregnancy. Heterosexual sex is different, because its purpose is pregnancy. Whether or not couples accept that purpose is irrelevant. Of course, I am also not saying that not conceiving is an accident. You can expect to either lose or win at Blackjack or Poker; though neither are accidents, you can improve your chances for one by counting cards, etc. (ie. contraceptives)

reply from: scopia19822

"46% of adults males have had anal sex with a female partner, for one. "
OUCH!! the only man I tried this with willing was my husband when we 1st got together... I didnt like it. In the past I had guys ask me if I would and I always told them when they were willing to take in the ass then I would. Many of them lets say wouldnt take it that way.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

That's really good news about the DS babies. I would attribute the increase to greater societal acceptance of those with "differences" and the fact that there is a much better support system for those with Down's and their parents. At one time, people with mental disabilities were "warehoused" or kept at home. Now, they are mainstreamed into schools, hired for jobs and treated so much better.

reply from: nancyu

Since Palin's candidacy we are hearing and seeing more stories like this one. This shows me what an effective leader Sarah Palin is. And she doesn't have to be VP to be one.

reply from: Danima

Ok Vexter. I see your point here, but lets keep in mind the context: pregnancy is an accident. I disagreed. Obviously, since you cant get pregnant having oral or anal sex, or homosexual sex, then these are not pertinent to pregnancy. Again, vaginal sexual intercourse has the purpose of pregnancy, and therefore it cannot be an accident if you get pregnant, even if you failed in preventing the pregnancy.
Do we understand each other now?

reply from: ProInformed

Vexer, if you have no interest in the topic of this thread at least have the courtesy to leave this thread.
IMHO your obesessive interest in sexual perversions is a clear indication that you are in need of some sort of mental health therapy (and that you are quite boring).
I once worked with a person who was afflicted with the same sort of problem you have - she turned EVERY conversation at work into talking about sex. It was sad and sick. All her coworkers tried to tell her she had a problem and that what she was doing was not normal or appropriate for workplace conversation... to no avail.
If it wasn't for the strong workplace union and her seniority there she woulld have been fired.
It is obvious you lack the courage and intellect to discuss the topic of this forum without being nasty, hateful, and immature. You're making a fool of yourself.
Why don't you just take some time off form posting and ask yourself why you feel such a strong compulsion to post here in such a filthy and hostile manner? Exactly what has happened to you that you want to get a uterus just so you can become pregnant so you can have an abortion to kill your baby? What was it that set you on this sick and destructive course of vengance against an innocent baby? Ask YOURSELF those questions, and NO I am not interested in you answers, not in this thread anyway.
If you don't care, don't know, and don't have anything to say about this thread's topic, then stay out of this thread.

reply from: Danima

You misunderstand.
Sex has been far more than just an act of procreation for several thousand years.
The other primary purpose of sex is bonding.
Context, context, context. We began by talking about how pregnancy is not an accident, remember? The other primary function of a car is to protect you from the elements while you are it it, but the point was on the moving. Do you have anything left to debate on why pregnancy is not an accident?

reply from: Rosalie

False.
Heterosexuals have sex for many reasons. Granted, one of them might be trying to conceive, but it's neither the only one nor the best or most important one.

reply from: Danima

The difference, again, with your comparison is that getting hit is not a primary result of crossing the street, but a possibility. Therefore getting hit by a car is an accident. It can be likened to a miscarriage. No one tries to get a miscarriage, just as no one tries to get hit by a car (with the exception of the despairing - suicide).
Yes, there are two reasons for sex - conception and bonding. However, this discussion is focusing on conception because bonding does not necessitate pregnancy, but conception does. Therefore, to remain pertinent to the subject at hand is to argue either for or against the argument that pregnancy is accidental.
And as for best or most important, those words are strictly opinionated.

reply from: Nulono

And every unwanted child deserves to die, right?

reply from: Cecilia

The difference, again, with your comparison is that getting hit is not a primary result of crossing the street, but a possibility. Therefore getting hit by a car is an accident. It can be likened to a miscarriage. No one tries to get a miscarriage, just as no one tries to get hit by a car (with the exception of the despairing - suicide).
Yes, there are two reasons for sex - conception and bonding. However, this discussion is focusing on conception because bonding does not necessitate pregnancy, but conception does. Therefore, to remain pertinent to the subject at hand is to argue either for or against the argument that pregnancy is accidental.
And as for best or most important, those words are strictly opinionated.
Three reasons, sex feels good.

reply from: Rosalie

And every unwanted child deserves to die, right?
No, but it doesn't surprise me that this stupidity came from the "pro-life"side.

reply from: scopia19822

He was doing it wrong.
Nope, we did it right plenty of lube... I just dont like the idea of things going in that orfice, it didnt feel natural or right for me. Some people like it, some dont. To each their own.

reply from: Danima

Let's correct that: If you don't intend for something to happen, take measures to prevent it from happening, and yet it still happens, it is a failure on your part!

reply from: BossMomma

He was doing it wrong.
Nope, we did it right plenty of lube... I just dont like the idea of things going in that orfice, it didnt feel natural or right for me. Some people like it, some dont. To each their own.
Feels a lot like taking a really big shyte in reverse.

reply from: yoda

That poster's whole purpose in posting here seems to be to change the subject away from abortion as often as possible. Many of the regulars here keep him/her on iggy.

reply from: yoda

And every unwanted child deserves to die, right?
Yes, logically that is the only way to achieve the stated goal.

reply from: Danima

So if I take all the correct swimming precautions and I'm killed by a freak tsunami...
That is somehow a failure or my part?
Seriously, get a grip.
I'll let you to take that statement back, since obviously you didn't take precautions on tsunamis, and on top of that, your example has nothing to do with our discussion either.

reply from: Yuuki

Old post is old. Vexer is long, long gone.

reply from: ProInformed

Actually the Democrats (with the exception of the pro-life democrats that the old biased media prefers to ignore) are the ones who FORCE taxpayers to pay for the KILLING of innocent babies who aren't 'perfect'.
KILLING the differently abled is a "better" policy?!?
I'm sure Hitler would have agreed with you!

reply from: Yuuki

Actually the Democrats (with the exception of the pro-life democrats that the old biased media prefers to ignore) are the ones who FORCE taxpayers to pay for the KILLING of innocent babies who aren't 'perfect'.
KILLING the differently abled is a "better" policy?!?
I'm sure Hitler would have agreed with you!
Where exactly does it say that your taxes pay for abortions? Also, old post is STILL OLD.

reply from: BossMomma

There goes the basis for our system of laws. Humans don't deserve life. Will I be prosecuted if I shoot you in the head? If there is no such thing as deserving life, then there is no grounds for saying that I did anything wrong. I can't be prosecuted for murder then, because there is no such thing as murder. How liberating.
Just because a child isn't wanted by his/her biological mother does not mean it is not wanted. It's really a pretty simple concept.
Sadly there ARE unwanted children, there just aren't any unwanted white newborns. There are thousands of teens, disabled children, minority children and, severely abused children languishing in the foster care system.
Abortion however is not the answer, open minded adoptive parents are. Sure it's easier to bring home that problem free perfectly cute newborn baby but it is my opinion that no child outgrows the need for loving parents.

reply from: BossMomma

I was talking about the right to be BORN. Pay attention.
The biological woman's wishes always take precedent. She is the one risking everything and she's not an incubator.
And her unborn child is not expendable on a whim either, if the baby wont kill you don't kill the baby.

reply from: kd78

rosalie-aren't you violating your own statement by being here alive then? you should just go and get a hysterectomy then. that way you've got an almost 0% chance of ever having a child.


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