Home - List All Discussions

Ten Reasons Why..

EVERYONE should defend unborn children.

by: nancyu

1.)The unborn child is a person.
2.)The unborn child is a person.
3.)The unborn child is a person.
4.)The unborn child is a person.
5.)The unborn child is a person.
6.)The unborn child is a person.
7.)The unborn child is a person.
8.)The unborn child is a person.
9.)The unborn child is a person.
10.)The unborn child is a person.
11.)The unborn child is a person.
I will never again call myself "pro life." The meaning of the term has been hijacked and distorted to something foggy and unrecognizable--I am pro defense of the unborn child, and pro personhood for all unborn children.
Abortion is illegal according to the United States Constitution handed down for hundreds of years, and according to the Ten Commandments, and according to "do unto others" handed down for thousands of years. To me, these laws trump a ruling, by a misguided, and/or misinformed, and/or power hungry Supreme Court, which has stood for mere decades. Any laws which stemmed from this ruling are unjust laws which should be stricken from the books, or at the least, ignored.
Every woman should take offense at being offered such a hideous choice as killing her own child. What could be more insulting or offensive? I would never offer another woman such a choice, and if anyone ever offered me that choice I would spit in their face.
Okay, so it's a few more than ten. I'll bet we can think of a few more, too.

reply from: yoda

That's what is missing in this discussion, IMO. Where is the sense of outrage that women are being told that "It's okay to kill your own baby before you even see it"? (In more euphemistic terms, of course)
Where is the sense of revulsion at such an act?
In a way, this situation help me a little to understand how the people of Germany could've allowed Hitler to do what he did, and how various other societies have done such incredibly horrific things. People can allow their consciences to become atrophied and impotent. They can be lulled into a sort of a "moral trance".

reply from: BossMomma

That's what is missing in this discussion, IMO. Where is the sense of outrage that women are being told that "It's okay to kill your own baby before you even see it"? (In more euphemistic terms, of course)
Where is the sense of revulsion at such an act?
In a way, this situation help me a little to understand how the people of Germany could've allowed Hitler to do what he did, and how various other societies have done such incredibly horrific things. People can allow their consciences to become atrophied and impotent. They can be lulled into a sort of a "moral trance".
Maybe the outrage is cooled by those with education and compassion rather than raving, ranting lunacy. To save the unborn one must help the woman, if you are not willing to care for both you'd better serve the true pro-lifers out there by shutting up and standing aside so they can do their work in providing the women the resources they need to choose life.

reply from: yoda

Outrage that is justified should never be "cooled". It should be expressed.
It is not necessary to bribe all women to bring them to listen to their own hearts. They are not all consumed by desires for material things, some of them have actual working consciences that will guide them to do the right thing, regardless of the material cost to themselves.
All those who support the slaughter seek the silence of prolifers. They may take on the clothing of the sheep, but the wolf in them always comes through.

reply from: Banned Member

Moral rationalization. I prefer the truth.

reply from: yoda

Moral rationalization. I prefer the truth.
It's strong medicine, but it's the BEST medicine.

reply from: Banned Member

Where is the evidence that pro-life people don't want to help mothers?
There are a host of government programs to help mothers wtih children. Tax breaks are designed to aid people who have children. There are many hundreds of charitable organization across this country to help mothers and children. One need only knock on the door of a Catholic church if they find themselves in need. How many outreach organization are there for teen mothers? There are many!
The sad truth is, is that many women are simply lazy or too consumed with their own lives and lazy boyfriends to have a child interfere with things. They get pregnant and go to some hack in a Planned Parenthood and get the thing taken care of!

reply from: yoda

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

reply from: scopia19822

"It is not necessary to bribe all women to bring them to listen to their own hearts. They are not all consumed by desires for material things, some of them have actual working consciences that will guide them to do the right thing, regardless of the material cost to themselves."
If one is doing sidewalk counsling and is able to get close to the woman the first thing to ask her is WHY she is going in for an abortion. If she cites economic/financial matters than give her a referral sheet of goverment and private agencies that will offer help. If she is in a domestic violence relationship offer to take her to a shelter. The other cases you just need to do the best to talk her out of it, give her information on abortion complications, adoption referrals and fetal development. Armed with that information will go a long way in reducing abortions, while at the same time lobbying for its abolition.

reply from: ChristianLott2

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
- women abort because they don't have enough $$$ support. It's a lie and they believe it because it's a good cover. The real reason is that they don't want to be bothered. They'll tell you so too. They check the 'convenience' box. Canada gives them free health care and they still abort at the same rate.
How much more do you need to give?
Everything. They will take absolutely everything you have to give then tell you no anyway. That's the power hungry nature of the sin. Give it all to me and you get nothing.
I bet if you defunded all the truly charitable organizations that help women with the care of their child it wouldn't change the abortion rate at all.
Practically every local girl I know around here is pro abortion. One even joked a few days ago about chucking a baby into the dumpster if it was too skinny or pale.
Pro aborts will come here and claim how much they care and send us on missions to help women, then joke behind our backs because - they really honestly and truly do not care.
Let's face it - most women are like most men - common, selfish, unethical, sleazy and without conscience.
The world owes them and the ends justify the means. Simply self-centered all the way.

reply from: scopia19822

"I bet if you defunded all the truly charitable organizations that help women with the care of their child it wouldn't change the abortion rate at all. "
We would probably see the rate double.
"Let's face it - most women are like most men - common, selfish, unethical, sleazy and without conscience.
The world owes them and the ends justify the means. Simply self-centered all the way."
I think that is just pure human nature. Its all about me me me me....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I just have this feeling that the caring breed of pro-lifer is winning. Not that there was anything wrong with much of Nancu's post, it just seems to me that caring for the woman is a sin according to people like her. And there are many of us on here who actually give a damn about the woman. Scopia, BossMomma, myself, LukesMom, CharlesD, just to name a few...

reply from: ChristianLott2

I wonder how we could test such a thing...
I KNOW - look at Canada!
How many times do we have to go over this? They have FREE health care and they still abort at the same rate.
Anybody want to verify? Massachusetts has free health care, would you care to look up the abortion statistics for that state?
You can't get cheaper than free.
The people getting abortions are getting them for convenience, pure and simple.
So it's not about being able to afford HAVING the baby, it's about affording to take care of one.
Let's just agree - abortion is simply about selfishness on the woman's part.
Also found this horrifically pro abortion column on WebMD:
http://women.webmd.com/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion

reply from: scopia19822

CL2 we will have to agree to disagree. Both of us agree that abortion must be abolished.

reply from: Rosalie

No person, born or unborn, has the right to override the woman's right to make private decisions regarding her body and reproduction.
I take offense at people telling me that I shouldn't have the right to decide how to use my own reproductive system and people trying to take my fundamental rights to make my own private, medical decisions on my own away. My body does not become anyone else's body when I am pregnant. It's still my body, I still own it, I can still make decisions about it and I always will.

reply from: BossMomma

Moral rationalization. I prefer the truth.
You prefer your version of the truth anyway.

reply from: Rosalie

Projecting your sick fantasies about women who choose abortion does your case no good.
It is NOT selfish not to have children when you don't want them, can't afford them, can't take care good care of them, can't take good care for MORE children than you have right now etc.
And it should never be required for women to become incubators just because their reproductive system is working. It's never okay to do that.
Also - look at Europe. There are countries with free healthcare, free birth control and with programs to help the mothers AFTER the children are born. In Europe, there are countries where women gets months or years of paid maternity leave so she could bond properly with the baby and take good care of her/him. There is so much wrong with our health care system.

reply from: yoda

We never do, because of a permanent injunction in effect.
All good advice.

reply from: yoda

So, even though there was nothing in her post related to that subject, you just had to get in a little shot, didn't you?
Oh, I know, some people "just deserve to get a little shot every chance you get", right?
You're such a putz. You ramble on about peace and love, and throw your hate around like confetti. What a phony.

reply from: ChristianLott2

And they have higher abortion rates then here Funny that. Doesn't help your case much though.

reply from: Rosalie

And they have higher abortion rates then here Funny that. Doesn't help your case much though.
They don't. Preventing unwanted pregnancies = preventing abortions. Which part of that do you not understand?

reply from: ChristianLott2

Where's your stats? Post the link that shows the abortion rate of a European country that does what you say.

reply from: Rosalie

I really have to go, but here are the links you asked for.
http://www.stakes.fi/EN/tilastot/statisticsbytopic/reproduction/nordabortions.htm
For example in Sweden, there's only 35,000 of abortions performed anually. Even if we consider Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland ALL TOGETHER, you get 76,000. The stats for my home state, New York, report 117,944 abortions in 2005. http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/vital_statistics/2005/table25.htm.

reply from: Rosalie

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Here 'ya go-
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.htm
Logic and truth? Now that's unheard of!

reply from: ChristianLott2

Let me try to interpret this...
Abortion/Birth/Pregnancy
US: 15/41/72
Gr: 7/10/16
Fr: 14/ 9/22
Nl: 7/ 4/12
First, abortion + birth should equal pregnancy:
US: 15+41=56 <>72 not even close
Gr: 7+10=17 ~16 fine
Fr: 14+9=23 ~22 fine
Nl: 7+4=11 ~12 fine
So what's the deal with the US stat? An obvious error but we'll let that slide for now...
Abortion/Birth/Pregnancy
US: 15/41/72
Gr: 7/10/16
Fr: 14/ 9/22
Nl: 7/ 4/12
US: 15/41= .36
Gr: 7/10= .70
Fr: 14/ 9= 1.5
Nl: 7/ 4= 1.75
So what this chart is saying is that we have the lowest abortion rate of all the countries...
US: 36%
Gr: 70%
Fr: 150%
Nl: 175%
You're saying you'd rather the US have a 175% abortion rate?
That's weird.

reply from: ChristianLott2

From a pro abort. Did you forget I was the one who had to ask for the stat?

reply from: 4given

Especially amongst your sort.. after all you need to justify the killing of innocent beings. Perhaps when you desire to learn the truth and despite your apathy, something tells you that there isn't a logical explanation to the elective killing of another human.. Am I asking too much?

reply from: ChristianLott2

Pro life is about attempting to reduce the abortion rate, not reduce the pregnancy rate. The teen pregnancy rate could be 100% for all I care as long as there were no abortions.

reply from: BossMomma

Right, who cares how many are struggling with welfare, who cares how many teens leave babies in dumpsters and school trash cans. As long as every pregnancy results in a live birth. You don't give a damn about the kids you "advocate" for.

reply from: yoda

It is about making abortion illegal. None of the other issues change that.

reply from: ChristianLott2

It is about making abortion illegal. None of the other issues change that.
Yes. My mistake.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Spoken like a true member of the Stanek "love the fetus, hate the child" army.
I just retracted that statement. See above.
Oh I see what you're saying, pregnancy is a form of hate. What a wacko!

reply from: yoda

Something is wacko there, you can't love the fetus and hate the child, since they can be the same individual.
But then, the proaborts are the experts on "hate", don't you know?

reply from: Nulono

You can't have an abortion rate higher than 100; The rate is measured against total pregnancies.

reply from: Rosalie

It is LOGICAL that when there are less unwanted pregnancies
By reducing unwanted pregnancies, you will reduce the abortion rate.
Or is this too difficult for you to understand?
Well, at least you show your true colors. What an awful, ignorant, idiotic person you are. You care about nothing but your own control issues you'd like to project on women. Sickening.
From a pro abort. Did you forget I was the one who had to ask for the stat?
No, from most of you "pro-life" people around here.
But don't worry, I don't expect you to be open-minded and see anything else but what you have been blindly repeating.
Same with the stats - both I and Spinwiddy have given you sources and you ignore them altogether or post something in response to them that odes not even make sense.

reply from: carolemarie

Being against things is basically not useful. You can be against all kinds of things but simply being against them changes nothing.
You have to be willing to help the person not do what you oppose.
Their reasons are their reasons, but you have to address those reasons to help that person. Simply saying its a baby is rather worthless. Women know that if they don't do something they will have a baby. IT is why they feel the need to do something that needs to be addressed.
You can run around saying a baby is a person all you like, but that won't stop one abortion.

reply from: ChristianLott2

US: 15/56= 26% or, if we take their original stat 15/72=20%
Gr: 7/16= 43%
Fr: 14/22= 63%
Nl: 7/12= 58%
That look right?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

But the only sensible way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies. So you either have to prevent pregnancy through abstinence and/or birth control, OR, you have to change society to be accepting of pregnant women so much so that it never even occurs to the woman to abort her child.

reply from: ChristianLott2

It is LOGICAL that when there are less unwanted pregnancies
By reducing unwanted pregnancies, you will reduce the abortion rate.
Or is this too difficult for you to understand?
It doesn't reduce the abortion rate, it reduces the number of abortions.
These countries have reduced the number of pregnancies and thus the number of births and abortions. However, as seen above (the corrected version) these countries have a higher abortion rate than the US. Far higher.
Well, at least you show your true colors. What an awful, ignorant, idiotic person you are. You care about nothing but your own control issues you'd like to project on women. Sickening.
Our population is our strength. The more people we have, the faster and better our work gets done It's not sick at all.
Hmmm. I haven't ignored this at all. I've done my best to analyze the stats. In fact, I've been corrected in my analysis and have admitted it. Are you willing to admit that your comment above - about the 'abortion rate' being lower was a false statement? The stats you gave have proved the exact opposite.

reply from: ChristianLott2

So you've given up on the whole illegality thing, huh? It's all about subservience to a woman's each and every whim. You have fun with that.
I agree with the year long maternity leave thing, the free prenatal care thing, the WIC programs already in place but as you can see from the statistics above, women will get abortions no matter what you promise to do for them.
It's wrong to murder babies. It's wrong to allow women the 'right' to murder a baby. It's bad for society and individuals. I don't like spending my days debating this. I already know it's wrong.
Imo women already have and always will have the necessary resources to deliver their children in a clean and health environment whether they've planned their pregnancy or not. All the reasons they give to abort are just bs cop outs. If they don't want the child they can give it up for adoption or they can keep it regardless. Either way they've been given help and society has obligated itself.
It's time to stop making excuses, stop chasing after them and start making some laws that will stop real live actual murder - because if other people don't take murder seriously and treat it as such, why and when will they? They won't. Ever.
It's time to make some laws against murder. Dragging feet and making excuses for another 35 years is not going to change anything.

reply from: yoda

And the only way to reduce murders is to eliminate the motivation for murder, right?

reply from: scopia19822

"wonder how we could test such a thing...
I KNOW - look at Canada!
How many times do we have to go over this? They have FREE health care and they still abort at the same rate.
Anybody want to verify? Massachusetts has free health care, would you care to look up the abortion statistics for that state?
You can't get cheaper than free.
The people getting abortions are getting them for convenience, pure and simple. "
That is because they cover abortions in Canada. The simple solution here would be to refuse to pay for Elective abortions.

reply from: carolemarie

The price of the abortion isn't the only issue, it is the cost to raise and feed and care for a child. It is the finicial cost of feeding and caring for the baby.
If you can't make ends meet now, how can you pay for daycare and all the child's needs and pay your bills?
The ability to get free health care is only one part of not being able to afford a child.

reply from: ChristianLott2

And if you can't afford a child the moral alternative is to kill it?
Wrong.

reply from: carolemarie

And if you can't afford a child the moral alternative is to kill it?
Wrong.
Of course not! But that is WHY abortion is considered, along with other reasons. Add to the mix fear, the rhetoric about it isn't really a baby yet and abortion seems like a way out, which is why people chose it.
You have to know why someone is considering it to be able to help her make a better choice

reply from: ProInformed

While I totally agree that the pro-life movement needs to CONTINUE TO (AND the pro-choice movment needs to START TO!) help the women who do not want to abort, but who are pressured into aborting or who lack the support they and their babies need... It would be naive to ignore the fact that there are also pro-abort women who kill their own babies, not because they are poor or pressured, but just because they are coldhearted. To ignore the evidence of raving, ranting pro-abort lunacy is to ignore the fact that there are women who would still kill their own babies even if they are provided all the resources needed in order to allow their baby to live.
As a pro-lifer I have always been a defender of those women who are pressured into aborting, AND I frequently challenge the so-called 'pro-choicers' to actually be pro-choice instead of just being pro-abortion, to care about the women who do NOT want to abort, instead of just defending the abortion industry. (BTW the pro-lifers are doing TONS more for those women than the so-called 'pro-choicers' have EVER done... so doesn't it make more sense to chastise the 'pro-choicers' for their hypocritical apathy, than to condemn the pro-lifers for not doing even more than they already are doing?)
But what also needs to be done is to challenge those who kill innocent babies just because they don't want the fun of 'free sex' interfered with... or because they literally are making a killing working in the abortion industry.
Do you really think the porn peddlars, pimps, pedophiles, rapists, promiscuous, and prenatal hitmen, who depend on abortion to support their sick lifestyles and/or profits, would stop killing babies if only pro-lifers increased their efforts to help the women who would rather not abort?

reply from: ChristianLott2

That's true. So you would vote for any and all laws that would make abortion illegal?

reply from: BossMomma

While I totally agree that the pro-life movement needs to CONTINUE TO (AND the pro-choice movment needs to START TO!) help the women who do not want to abort, but who are pressured into aborting or who lack the support they and their babies need... It would be naive to ignore the fact that there are also pro-abort women who kill their own babies, not because they are poor or pressured, but just because they are coldhearted. To ignore the evidence of raving, ranting pro-abort lunacy is to ignore the fact that there are women who would still kill their own babies even if they are provided all the resources needed in order to allow their baby to live.
As a pro-lifer I have always been a defender of those women who are pressured into aborting, AND I frequently challenge the so-called 'pro-choicers' to actually be pro-choice instead of just being pro-abortion, to care about the women who do NOT want to abort, instead of just defending the abortion industry. (BTW the pro-lifers are doing TONS more for those women than the so-called 'pro-choicers' have EVER done... so doesn't it make more sense to chastise the 'pro-choicers' for their hypocritical apathy, than to condemn the pro-lifers for not doing even more than they already are doing?)
But what also needs to be done is to challenge those who kill innocent babies just because they don't want the fun of 'free sex' interfered with... or because they literally are making a killing working in the abortion industry.
Do you really think the porn peddlars, pimps, pedophiles, rapists, promiscuous, and prenatal hitmen, who depend on abortion to support their sick lifestyles and/or profits, would stop killing babies if only pro-lifers increased their efforts to help the women who would rather not abort?
No, I do not think that offering help to women will cease all abortions, there will always be those who feel abortion is best. That is why I would support a ban on elective abortion. However that war is better fought in the halls of congress, with the help of elected leaders, not out in the streets in complete disarray.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So you've given up on the whole illegality thing, huh? It's all about subservience to a woman's each and every whim. You have fun with that.
I agree with the year long maternity leave thing, the free prenatal care thing, the WIC programs already in place but as you can see from the statistics above, women will get abortions no matter what you promise to do for them.
It's wrong to murder babies. It's wrong to allow women the 'right' to murder a baby. It's bad for society and individuals. I don't like spending my days debating this. I already know it's wrong.
Imo women already have and always will have the necessary resources to deliver their children in a clean and health environment whether they've planned their pregnancy or not. All the reasons they give to abort are just bs cop outs. If they don't want the child they can give it up for adoption or they can keep it regardless. Either way they've been given help and society has obligated itself.
It's time to stop making excuses, stop chasing after them and start making some laws that will stop real live actual murder - because if other people don't take murder seriously and treat it as such, why and when will they? They won't. Ever.
It's time to make some laws against murder. Dragging feet and making excuses for another 35 years is not going to change anything.
Given it up? It was never really part of my plans. I'd like an eventual push towards it, starting with better regulation of clinics, but I also feel that to truly erradicate abortion we need to change people, not laws.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And the only way to reduce murders is to eliminate the motivation for murder, right?
If murder were legal, I would indeed say yes to that. It still makes sense, in fact. People will still murder because some people are just insane. But if Bobby Sue had enough money to be educated and not stay with her boozing boyfriend in the trailer park, she might not get shot one night.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Given it up? It was never really part of my plans. I'd like an eventual push towards it, starting with better regulation of clinics, but I also feel that to truly erradicate abortion we need to change people, not laws.
pro abort.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Given it up? It was never really part of my plans. I'd like an eventual push towards it, starting with better regulation of clinics, but I also feel that to truly erradicate abortion we need to change people, not laws.
pro abort.
I don't care what you think. Abortion is wrong, it should be illegal. History shows us that it's smarter and has a more positive impact to do these kinds of things slowly.
Pro-life has failed because it's been focusing on the wrong thing all these years: illegalizing abortion outright. Work on regulating it, and you'll get results. Work on caring for women and you'll get results. Not to sound underhanded, but we need to sneak in under the pro-choicer's radars. Smashing them in the face with pictures of aborted fetuses clearly doesn't work.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Given it up? It was never really part of my plans. I'd like an eventual push towards it, starting with better regulation of clinics, but I also feel that to truly erradicate abortion we need to change people, not laws.
pro abort.
I don't care what you think. Abortion is wrong, it should be illegal. History shows us that it's smarter and has a more positive impact to do these kinds of things slowly.
Pro-life has failed because it's been focusing on the wrong thing all these years: illegalizing abortion outright. Work on regulating it, and you'll get results. Work on caring for women and you'll get results. Not to sound underhanded, but we need to sneak in under the pro-choicer's radars. Smashing them in the face with pictures of aborted fetuses clearly doesn't work.
You just flip flopped.
Now you're telling us pro lifer's haven't done EVERYTHING they possibly could do in the last 35 years to stop abortions, like regulating clinics. Lib, those are the only laws that have ever been passed and those have taken huge efforts. All you're saying is you want more of the same.
imo, you're still a pro abort and you better care what I think.

reply from: carolemarie

That's true. So you would vote for any and all laws that would make abortion illegal?
I would vote for a good law. I am for a law banning the performing of abortions.
That would make it against the law for a Dr. to perform one and if they violate that law they would be jailed. I think there would need to be an exception for rape incest and the life of the mother to pass such a bill.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Thinking it should be illegal, and thinking that the process should be instantaneous are two different things. YOU are the person who THOUGHT I said "abortion shouldn't be illegal" so now you're trying to hide your mistake.
Are you threatening me? It didn't work on your ex girlfriend, why on earth do you think I, a total stranger, give a CRAP what you have to say?

reply from: scopia19822

"I would vote for a good law. I am for a law banning the performing of abortions.
That would make it against the law for a Dr. to perform one and if they violate that law they would be jailed. I think there would need to be an exception for rape incest and the life of the mother to pass such a bill."
I would accept the life of the mother only with strict criteria. That "abortion" could only be peformed to remove a ectopic pregnancy, a dead fetus that died inuterto or miscarriage. The only other reason would be if a mother was in an accident where placental abruption occured in the case of a previable fetus, the pregnancy could not be saved and the only way to stop the bleeding is to remove the child that is either dead or will die soon. In the case of a viable fetus, every effort must be made to save it including putting it on life support. I would not support it under any other circumstances. I think to say that is rape/incest should be excpetions is horrfic. Those babies are human beings like the rest of us and deserve the same dignty and protections that those who arent concieved in that manner should have.

reply from: Rosalie

Right, the "babies" are human beings but it's okay to act like an inhuman monster towards the raped women.
Disgusting.

reply from: BossMomma

Right, the "babies" are human beings but it's okay to act like an inhuman monster towards the raped women.
Disgusting.
I feel that a rape victim has the right to the morning after pill, if she didn't concent to the sex she should not have to concent to the pregnancy.

reply from: scopia19822

"Right, the "babies" are human beings but it's okay to act like an inhuman monster towards the raped women.
Disgusting."
Society pressuring women into thinking that abortion is their only option is inhuman. How many times have I heard the children of rape described as monsters and that any woman who refuses to dispose of that child is insane? Rape is not about sex but about power and control. A woman who aborts the child of her rapist is still letting him have that power over her. If she carries the child to term and births it she is conveying the message that he no longer has that power control. Women who have been raped need access to counsling and a good support network of family, friends and clergy. Not these people telling her that abortion is her best option. To me abortion in this case is like giving a mentally distressed person a gun to commit suicide.

reply from: scopia19822

"I feel that a rape victim has the right to the morning after pill, if she didn't concent to the sex she should not have to concent to the pregnancy."
I agree. Any woman that has been raped should present herself to the local ER and get a rape kit done regardless of whether she intends to prosecute or not. She should be able to get the morning after pill, but if she does not go the ER or declines the MAP and then turns up pregnant she does not have the right to kill that unborn child.

reply from: yoda

If murder were legal, I would indeed say yes to that. .
Ah, so you would just spread money around like confetti, and that would stop the murders? Hey, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to talk to you about.....

reply from: yoda

They are two things that would yield the same result, one which you obviously do not want. Why is it so painful for your to admit that you are still prochoice? Lots of prochoicers don't like abortion, would not have one, but still want to preserve it's legality.

reply from: carolemarie

It isn't that easy. Lots of woman are in shock, ashamed, don't want to do the rape exam, etc....if you present for a rape kit, the police press charges, you have no choice. Some are to devastated to cope. The morning after pill is only good so many hours after sexual intercourse occurs.

reply from: BossMomma

It isn't that easy. Lots of woman are in shock, ashamed, don't want to do the rape exam, etc....if you present for a rape kit, the police press charges, you have no choice. Some are to devastated to cope. The morning after pill is only good so many hours after sexual intercourse occurs.
So they should sit on it for a few months, let a baby implant then go abort? The MAP is a safe and viable option that can be attained by an OB/GYN by anyone whose had unprotected sex and is at risk for pregnancy. While I recommend that rape victims get the rape kit and have the pig bastard charged up for his crime, it is not nessesary to get a rape kit to get the MAP.

reply from: nancyu

Babies are good. Why would anyone support killing them, before or after they are born?
Unborn babies are defenseless. Killing them is cowardly.
Babies are innocent. They committed no crime which warrants the death penalty.
Babies grow up to be adults. They will grow up to be better adults if they have siblings to nurture, and to look up to.
Babies don't cost much to shelter, clothe, or feed. They are a good investment. Who else will be around to care for you when you are old?
Babies are fun; they keep you young. You get to play with toys without having people point and laugh at you.
Babies are cuddly. When you comfort them, they comfort you.
Babies need you to care for them.
Unborn babies are fragile. It is a mother's job to do her utmost to protect her child from harm.
An unborn child is a person; and therefore entitled to the same protections by laws against murder that are given to every other person.
There. Ten reasons. Now does everyone understand what this topic is about? Give it a try.
P.S. It's Christmas day. Merry Christmas everyone.

reply from: BossMomma

Uhm, who lied to you and said babies aren't expensive? lol

reply from: scopia19822

"It isn't that easy. Lots of woman are in shock, ashamed, don't want to do the rape exam, etc....if you present for a rape kit, the police press charges, you have no choice. Some are to devastated to cope. The morning after pill is only good so many hours after sexual intercourse occurs."
I know that feeling all too well, however a woman should go to the ER and get checked out to make sure no longterm physical damage was done. It is up the woman on whether or not to prosecute, but she can get a rape kit. In the state of Tennesee the state will pick up the tab as long as she agrees to prosecute. Va is a little different. It is up to the discrestion of each DA on whether or not the victim or the state pays. We finally this year got rid of two antiqauted laws that required a rape victim to pass a lie detector test and there was a loophole that if the victim was between 15-18 the rapist could offer to marry the girl and have the charges dropped. The MAP is good for 72 hours. That is 3 days to present ones self to the ER and ask for it.

reply from: scopia19822

"Babies don't cost much to shelter, clothe, or feed. They are a good investment. Who else will be around to care for you when you are old? "
Raising a child is expensive, there are ways to cut that cost say by buying 2nd hand clothing or accepting handmedowns, which I do all of the time. But it is still expenisve and anyone who thinks other wise needs to wake up and smell the coffee. I thought that when my son got older and out of diapers I would be dishing out less money, not the case at all.

reply from: scopia19822

"Oh... my... god..."
Tell me about it. I was pissed off when I found out about these stupid laws. Also marital rape is no longer considered a "sex" crime instead they moved it to the domestic violence statue which makes it simple assault and battery. So it would be the same as a man slapping the shyte out of his wife. So if a man is convicted of marital rape, he does not have to register as a sex offender.

reply from: BossMomma

No kidding, in Texas if a rapist is found his ass is either dodging police or an angry father's shot gun.

reply from: BossMomma

Well, in the case of marital rape...the piece of shyte has to sleep sometime. Put that cast iron skillet to use!

reply from: carolemarie

It isn't that easy. Lots of woman are in shock, ashamed, don't want to do the rape exam, etc....if you present for a rape kit, the police press charges, you have no choice. Some are to devastated to cope. The morning after pill is only good so many hours after sexual intercourse occurs.
So they should sit on it for a few months, let a baby implant then go abort? The MAP is a safe and viable option that can be attained by an OB/GYN by anyone whose had unprotected sex and is at risk for pregnancy. While I recommend that rape victims get the rape kit and have the pig bastard charged up for his crime, it is not nessesary to get a rape kit to get the MAP.
I think women should report rape and go get treatment. However the reality is that some are to traumatised and don't do it. Espcially young girls

reply from: nancyu

Sheesh. No one understands the idea of following a topic. Try again.
Why EVERYONE SHOULD defend the unborn child:
1. You shouldn't kill someone when you don't even know who it is yet.
2. _____________________________________________________
3. _____________________________________________________
4. _____________________________________________________
5. _____________________________________________________
6. _____________________________________________________
7. _____________________________________________________
8. _____________________________________________________
9. _____________________________________________________
10. _____________________________________________________
Fill in the blanks.

reply from: faithman

It isn't that easy. Lots of woman are in shock, ashamed, don't want to do the rape exam, etc....if you present for a rape kit, the police press charges, you have no choice. Some are to devastated to cope. The morning after pill is only good so many hours after sexual intercourse occurs.
So they should sit on it for a few months, let a baby implant then go abort? The MAP is a safe and viable option that can be attained by an OB/GYN by anyone whose had unprotected sex and is at risk for pregnancy. While I recommend that rape victims get the rape kit and have the pig bastard charged up for his crime, it is not nessesary to get a rape kit to get the MAP.
I think women should report rape and go get treatment. However the reality is that some are to traumatised and don't do it. Espcially young girls
Bad situations make even worse law. That is why our justice system must remain emotionless, and blindfolded to situational ethics. If a child is killed, then that must be prosicuted on that issue alone. Conviction of the crime comes first, then you can deside what is just punishment when sentancing. That should be left up to a jury, not the false mercy of baby killers to deside. If women kill thier children [or pay for it to be done] then they should face the same justice as any other killer. To do anything less is not Pro-life, and devalues the life of the womb child. Only a sick pathetic idiot would allow a killer to go free, based simply on gender and cercumstance. But of course if you killed 3, you have to come up with excuses to justify fellow killers, to help justify your own actions.

reply from: carolemarie

My ten reasons
1. God is against it.
2. There are other less violent options, like adoption!
3. There is help with the medical bills and food.
4. Babies deserve a chance to live, they are the future.
5. Abortion culture teaches that you are all that matters.
6. Life is good
7. Death is bad
8. There is nothing so terrible that having your child killed fixes it.
9. Women are not so weak that they must have abortions to be free and equal in society.
10. Women deserve better than abortion! We need real solutions, help for those in abusive situtations, help with daycare and other issues that keep women and children poor.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

1. There is adoption
2. Two wrongs don't make a right
3. There is money available
4. The unborn are human beings
5. We should not kill each other if there is another solution
6. You had the choice to use protection/abstinence
7. It's not the child's fault
8. If your mistake can create life, why would you kill it!?
9. The unborn is a baby
10. There is care available like safe homes

reply from: 4given

How does this relate to the threatened unborn? IF is what makes abortion justifiable. Help me understand this statement.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How does this relate to the threatened unborn? IF is what makes abortion justifiable. Help me understand this statement.
If someone is about to stab me and I defend myself and they die in the process, then I was justified. That's the same thing as abortion to save the woman's life. If your existence is directly threatening my existence, you unfortunately forefit your right to life.
However, most cases of accidental pregnancy can be solved without anyone dying.

reply from: scopia19822

"If someone is about to stab me and I defend myself and they die in the process, then I was justified. That's the same thing as abortion to save the woman's life. If your existence is directly threatening my existence, you unfortunately forefit your right to life.
However, most cases of accidental pregnancy can be solved without anyone dying."
You are comparing apples and oranges Lib. A person who is stabbing you, INTENDS to kill you. You are entitled legally and morally to defend yourself. An unborn child on the other hand is not INTENDING to kill a woman and even if her life is endanger barring an ectopic pregnancy where death is imminent does not entitle a woman to deliberatly kill her unborn child. Their are many medical options available today to get mom and baby to term or as close as possible.

reply from: ChristianLott2

You keep explaining this to her but she just doesn't want to catch on.

reply from: yoda

This works for me:
Why EVERYONE SHOULD defend the unborn child:
1. You shouldn't kill someone when you don't even know who it is yet.
2. You shouldn't kill someone when you don't even know who it is yet.
3. You shouldn't kill someone when you don't even know who it is yet.
4. You shouldn't kill someone when you don't even know who it is yet.
5. You shouldn't kill someone when you don't even know who it is yet.
6. You shouldn't kill someone when you don't even know who it is yet.
7. You shouldn't kill someone when you don't even know who it is yet.
8. You shouldn't kill someone when you don't even know who it is yet.
9. You shouldn't kill someone when you don't even know who it is yet.
10. You shouldn't kill someone when you don't even know who it is yet.

reply from: carolemarie

Most, not all. And that is why the option if your life is in danger is allowed. You are allowed to have chemo if you are pregnant, even if it kills the baby because the mother is just as important as the child.
Both lives matter and the woman is not required to die to let the baby live.

reply from: lycan

In cases where abortion is necessary to save the mother's life, there's often not much they can do for the baby. Case in point, ectopic pregancy, where the baby is often already dead by the time surgery is done.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If someone is hanging off the edge of a cliff and I am voluntarily holding onto the rope, and suddenly, we both start sliding... if I let go, I will live. Their life is innocently endangering my own.
I can keep making up examples; my point was NOT the guilt of the other person, simply the fact that their existence is endangering my own. I do NOT have to die for someone who is endangering my own life, even if they aren't endangering my life on purpose.

reply from: janefarmington

Since there is always a chance that a pregnancy could result in the death of a woman, do you think that a woman should always have a right to terminate a pregnancy?
I am not trying to be belligerent, just posing a question.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Since driving in a car means I could always end up crashing, does that mean I have the right to kill all other drivers on the road? Of course not!
We cannot preemtively kill someone on the (rare) off chance they MIGHT endanger our life. IF the woman's life becomes endangered, and the only way to save her life is to remove the child, then it should be done in the safest way possible for the woman. This may mean different things depending on the stage of pregnancy; my primary concern at that point would be for the woman's survival and recovery. If the pregnancy was far enough along that both the mother and child could be saved then of course that would be the most ideal situation. Preeclampsia is a life threatening situation that can only be cured via ending the pregnancy. Thankfully it normally presents later on in pregnancy so the child can be delivered alive.

reply from: janefarmington

But sticking with your analogy of driving a car--we cannot kill the other drivers on the road, but we can choose to pull over and get out of the car, thus eliminating our chances of getting in a car crash. In the same sense, should a woman be able to decide that she does not want to forgo the risks of a pregnancy (which may be smaller now than before, but they will always exist), and terminate it? How high does the risk of dying have to be before you say the woman has a right to make that decision?

reply from: 4given

To die or kill? Oh.. when does a woman have a moral right to kill her child. Morally justified homicide? IDK. When do you *think*?

reply from: yoda

That situation accounts for less than 1% of all abortions, and yet takes up probably 25% of all discussions about the reasons for abortion. Not to mention, there is hardly anyone to be found who disagrees with giving the woman the choice to save herself in any such situation. Let's move on to the other 99%.

reply from: yoda

Pulling off to the side of the road is not analagous to an abortion, unless there is someone standing where you are pulling off and you run over them and kill them.

reply from: Rosalie

These are not reasons, these are your opinions.

reply from: Rosalie

No one has the right to live inside anyone's body and off their bodily resources AGAINST THAT PERSON'S WILL. No born or unborn person has the right to do that. Women are more than just living houses for children.
Pregnancy complicates everything - health situation, social situation, everything. It affects the woman in many ways. It makes even the simplest task, like putting on your own shoes, difficult. It compromises the woman's immune system, it puts a great strain on the body and on the mine and it has its risks. No one can predict them and for that very reason, no one can decide for the woman whether the risk is too small for her to take or not. That decision lies only with her because first and foremost, her body, health and life are at stake. Women's body, health and life do not matter much to "pro-lifers" because all you see is quantity over quality; but life is more than just a beating heart and health is of utmost importance to many of us, as well as quality of life.
In the cases of wanted pregnancies, women accept these risks. But no one should be forced to, because we are not mindless wombs on legs. It should be a willful decision, never a duty.
No one is or ever should be obligated to let their body and their bodily resources be used to sustain another person, born or unborn.

reply from: nancyu

If someone is hanging off the edge of a cliff and I am voluntarily holding onto the rope, and suddenly, we both start sliding... if I let go, I will live. Their life is innocently endangering my own.
I can keep making up examples; my point was NOT the guilt of the other person, simply the fact that their existence is endangering my own. I do NOT have to die for someone who is endangering my own life, even if they aren't endangering my life on purpose.
I'm curious, liberal. How would you feel about yourself after letting another die to save yourself, such as in this situation?

reply from: Rosalie

I suggest psychology classes or, at the very least, a shred of decency, empathy and compassion. A woman should never be obligated to continue a pregnancy against her will, and it naturally applies to raped women, too. She's already been violated. The violate and abuse her further by forcing her to make a reproductive decision she's not comfortable with is despicable.
Yes, rape is about power and control. So is what you are advocating.
SOME women consider continuing the pregnancy after they were raped a closure. Some despise that this is what the ultimate abuse of them led to and do not wish to serve as an incubator for something that would never be there if it weren't for the rape. How you can deny this is beyond me. Do you even know what empathy is?
Then again, the entire premise of wanting to force women to remain pregnant against their will is disgusting.

reply from: scopia19822

"I suggest psychology classes or, at the very least, a shred of decency, empathy and compassion. A woman should never be obligated to continue a pregnancy against her will, and it naturally applies to raped women, too. She's already been violated. The violate and abuse her further by forcing her to make a reproductive decision she's not comfortable with is despicable.
Yes, rape is about power and control. So is what you are advocating.
SOME women consider continuing the pregnancy after they were raped a closure. Some despise that this is what the ultimate abuse of them led to and do not wish to serve as an incubator for something that would never be there if it weren't for the rape. How you can deny this is beyond me. Do you even know what empathy is?
Then again, the entire premise of wanting to force women to remain pregnant against their will is disgustin"
I have been raped Rosalie, so I have nothing but empathy and compassion for a woman that has been violated in the worst way a woman can be violated. But I will not advocate the murder of an innocent child who has done nothing wrong and is not deserving of death. If the woman cannot or does not want to parent the child of her rape can surrender that child for adoption. You talk about an unborn child as if it were a commodity to be valued if wanted or disposed of if it isnt wanted. You are the one that needs to learn empathy and compassion, not me. I have compassion for every human life from conception until natural death.

reply from: carolemarie

You don't have the right to force a 9 year old to give birth because you think the baby should live.
Since rape and incest are only 2% of the whole, we need to allow those in the rare cases make a decision after appropriate counseling.
We should concentrate on the rest

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If someone is hanging off the edge of a cliff and I am voluntarily holding onto the rope, and suddenly, we both start sliding... if I let go, I will live. Their life is innocently endangering my own.
I can keep making up examples; my point was NOT the guilt of the other person, simply the fact that their existence is endangering my own. I do NOT have to die for someone who is endangering my own life, even if they aren't endangering my life on purpose.
I'm curious, liberal. How would you feel about yourself after letting another die to save yourself, such as in this situation?
I'd feel bad of course, but I wouldn't feel like a murderer and I wouldn't feel like I deserved punishment. I did what I had to do to preserve my own life. Conversely, if I were the person hanging off the cliff, of course I'd want to be saved if it were possible, but I also wouldn't ever want someone else to die in the attempt to save me.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I agree, I think counseling and the advice of experienced doctors is needed in these cases.

reply from: BossMomma

It's natural to want to preserve one's own life, no one wants to die. Some of us have no problem laying it on the line to save another, but others have a lot to live for. I could not expect someone to die for me anymore than I could be expected to die for someone else and I would likely only die for one of my children as they are part of me, the most precious parts of me.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's natural to want to preserve one's own life, no one wants to die. Some of us have no problem laying it on the line to save another, but others have a lot to live for. I could not expect someone to die for me anymore than I could be expected to die for someone else and I would likely only die for one of my children as they are part of me, the most precious parts of me.
Very well said, Bossy.

reply from: yoda

If it's your child, you do have the moral right to prevent your child from becoming a baby killer. The law be damned in that case.

reply from: carolemarie

If it's your child, you do have the moral right to prevent your child from becoming a baby killer. The law be damned in that case.
Your child would be defending her life in that case. She is the victim.
That is why counseling would be needed for the whole family, including her. If she wants to give birth then she should.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If it's your child, you do have the moral right to prevent your child from becoming a baby killer. The law be damned in that case.
Pregnancy is not healthy for a 9 year old and she is likely to die or have permanent physical and psychological damage... What's the more ethical choice here? Don't just say your knee-jerk reaction of "don't kill babies", and consider it from another point of view.

reply from: yoda

Your post said nothing about a threat to her life. Why are you changing the subject?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If it's your child, you do have the moral right to prevent your child from becoming a baby killer. The law be damned in that case.
Your child would be defending her life in that case. She is the victim.
That is why counseling would be needed for the whole family, including her. If she wants to give birth then she should.
You make a good point here... the whole family needs counseling, not just the girl. That's what I promote in other cases where the woman may possibly need and abortion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Your post said nothing about a threat to her life. Why are you changing the subject?
Pregnancy is not healthy for a 9 year old, that is how she is defending her life.

reply from: yoda

No one of good conscience makes a blanket rule about a medical matter that has exceptions.
Every female, of any age, is entitled to be seen by a physician and evaluated for her fitness to gestate. Some girls that age have done so with no problem, so you can't rule that out.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No one of good conscience makes a blanket rule about a medical matter that has exceptions.
Every female, of any age, is entitled to be seen by a physician and evaluated for her fitness to gestate. Some girls that age have done so with no problem, so you can't rule that out.
Well of course I think she should be examined, haven't you been reading anything that Carole and I have been saying aside from the word abortion?

reply from: yoda

And IF the physician says she is physically able to gestate and deliver her child, do you still insist on an abortion, like Carole?

reply from: BossMomma

And IF the physician says she is physically able to gestate and deliver her child, do you still insist on an abortion, like Carole?
No physician in his right mind would advocate that a 9 year old put her tiny womb to use in carrying a baby.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And IF the physician says she is physically able to gestate and deliver her child, do you still insist on an abortion, like Carole?
If it was determined that carrying to term was physically and mentally safe for both the child and the... child, then no I would not insist on abortion. I never insist on abortion. A woman can choose not to abort her ectopic pregnancy if she wants to try to carry; that is her choice.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And IF the physician says she is physically able to gestate and deliver her child, do you still insist on an abortion, like Carole?
No physician in his right mind would advocate that a 9 year old put her tiny womb to use in carrying a baby.
I highly doubt it would happen either.

reply from: yoda

I take it that if that happened, you'd insist that the physician be committed to an institution? And you'd show them your medical license, too?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I take it that if that happened, you'd insist that the physician be committed to an institution? And you'd show them your medical license, too?
She would certainly have the right to request a second opinion.

reply from: yoda

And that is a "rebuttal" of what I said, in exactly what way.... ?????

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And that is a "rebuttal" of what I said, in exactly what way.... ?????
I'm not saying it's a rebuttal. You are, for some reason... If you disagree with what your doctor says, you may indeed feel as if that person is off their rocker. It's unlikely you'd want them committed to a mental institution however; you would simply go and get a second opinion.
My point was that you took what she said to the extreme and it didn't make a lot of sense.

reply from: yoda

No, I took it literally. Is that what bothered you?

reply from: BossMomma

I take it that if that happened, you'd insist that the physician be committed to an institution? And you'd show them your medical license, too?
LOL let your nine year old get pregnant and then tell her it's perfectly healthy for her prepubescent body to gestate a child. I presented this question to my OB/GYN, Dr. Frey and I have a good relationship and she said that a nine year old gestating a baby and giving birth stood a higher risk of maternal death, miscarriage and, permenant damage to her uterus, cervix and vaginal muscles. I might also add that Dr. Frey is pro-life and works side by side with a pro-life midwife. Where is your professional opinion?

reply from: carolemarie

the point simply was their isn't blanket solution to hard cases!

reply from: yoda

That's the whole point, there can't be a "professional opinion" when there is no patient to evaluate. No one is qualified to say what ALL nine year old's can and cannot do.

reply from: yoda

Exactly. It's a case by case thing.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, I took it literally. Is that what bothered you?
Saying someone is "not in their right mind" does not literally translate to "I want them committed to a mental institution". It is, in fact, more of a colloquialism than a direct comment on someone's state of mind.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Exactly. It's a case by case thing.
Would you let the girl abort if it was shown that she would indeed be facing a high risk of maternal death, highly possible miscarriage and almost certain permenant damage to her uterus, cervix and vaginal muscles? If the doctor determined that she was too small to be carrying a pregnancy, would you let her abort?

reply from: Teresa18

Here is an example of a 5 year old giving birth. She had no medical or psychological damage. As of 2004, she was living in Lima, Peru with her husband.
http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp
I think efforts should always be made to save both the mother and child. If only one can be saved, unless the mother chooses otherwise, then they should work to save the mother

reply from: carolemarie

I am okay with women who were raped, or incest or the mother's life making the best choice for them, but I feel strongly that they need counseling, along with their families. It is a lot of trauma, and the whole family is affected. I don't think legislation that would force her to bear the child would be right. She would be a crime victim who gets to make the best choice, even if I don't approve of it.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Even if the girl can hold the baby until viability, that would be better than just 'discarding' a young pre born. Why is it Lib and boss are always attempting to condone abortion?
Use your imagination... imo the day abortion really becomes against the law is the day they'll reveal themselves - pro choice all along.
Interestingly, once a true artificial womb is developed is the day the abortophiles will openly attack science. They won't be able to use their phony rhetoric as they've done with the meaning of conception and life.
They will call it barbaric and a violation of their privacy.
Possessive murderous control freaks.

reply from: ChristianLott2

The pro abort finally reveals herself.

reply from: ChristianLott2

How easy it is to care for the woman and dismiss the baby as... not equal.

reply from: carolemarie

The pro abort finally reveals herself.
I am prolife, I just think in the few rare cases that pregnancy result from rape, incest or the mothers life, that the mother gets to make the final choices, not strangers who don't have to live with the results.

reply from: BossMomma

Even if the girl can hold the baby until viability, that would be better than just 'discarding' a young pre born. Why is it Lib and boss are always attempting to condone abortion?
Use your imagination... imo the day abortion really becomes against the law is the day they'll reveal themselves - pro choice all along.
Interestingly, once a true artificial womb is developed is the day the abortophiles will openly attack science. They won't be able to use their phony rhetoric as they've done with the meaning of conception and life.
They will call it barbaric and a violation of their privacy.
Possessive murderous control freaks.
Why is it that pro-fetal lifers would so readily discard the well being of a born child in favor of the fetus in her tiny uterus? I do not support abortion for convenience, but the health and safety of the mother (which you obviously don't give a rats ass about) come first.

reply from: 4given

A pro-lifer with exceptions is pro-choice.
*edit* health excluded.. where both lives deserve the chance

reply from: micah

The day may come where doctors will be able to transfer a fetus from one woman to another. If that were possible, it would be possible for a woman who wanted to end a pregnancy to transfer her fetus to another woman. Thus, it would be possible for a woman to prematurely end a pregnancy without killing a fetus. If this day ever comes, I wonder how many pro-lifers will volunteer or encourage their wives and daughters to carry the fetus of another woman.

reply from: 4given

Originally posted by: micah
The day may come where doctors will be able to transfer a fetus from one woman to another. If that were possible, it would be possible for a woman who wanted to end a pregnancy to transfer her fetus to another woman. Thus, it would be possible for a woman to prematurely end a pregnancy without killing a fetus. If this day ever comes, I wonder how many pro-lifers will volunteer or encourage their wives and daughters to carry the fetus of another woman.
I would take on another's child or two or more.. I know other women that would also do the same. What would you do? This hypothetical has been raised already.

reply from: Teresa18

I would carry a child, but even if pro-life women didn't want to, doesn't mean the woman has the right to kill her child. If a parent with a born child didn't wish to care for his/her child and no one else wanted to care for him/her, the parent still wouldn't be permitted to refuse to care for the child or let the child starve to death. It should be the same with unborn children.

reply from: Teresa18

Carole, if you believe the unborn child is a person, how can you not believe that the child has a Constitutional right to life? What crime is the child guilty of that he/she deserves to die for the sins of his/her father?

reply from: SRUW4I5

Theres a big difference though... The fetus can't live outside of the mother, and a born child can be taken care of by anyone (or handed over to the state).

reply from: yoda

Why would you ask that question, unless it was to slander prolifers?

reply from: yoda

No, that is a SMALL and TEMPORARY difference, which in NO WAY justifies the slaughter of an innocent unborn child.
It doesn't take much to justify slaughter in your eyes, does it?

reply from: yoda

Excellent questions. I can't wait to see the answers.

reply from: faithman

Carole, if you believe the unborn child is a person, how can you not believe that the child has a Constitutional right to life? What crime is the child guilty of that he/she deserves to die for the sins of his/her father?
In some cases, children are killed so mommy dearest can beat it back to the street corner to continue the "family business". The gospel according to a john, is have fun, then kill the child.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Even if the girl can hold the baby until viability, that would be better than just 'discarding' a young pre born. Why is it Lib and boss are always attempting to condone abortion?
I feel abortion should be available to these girls because the cases you have brought up are RARE. The majority of young girls cannot safely give birth. I hear the horrors of young teens dying in childbirth in African from impacted fetuses... their hips just aren't big enough to give birth, and then both the girl and the child dies. It sickens me.
Even when I was pro-choice I spoke loudly over my approval of an artificial womb, and stated - even as a pro-choicer - that if such a thing was invented, abortion would be obsolete and no woman would have an excuse to abort. The biggest single argument pro-choicers give is that "the woman has a right to not be pregnant". Well, an artificial womb would fix that for sure!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Pft. As you can tell, having compassion for the woman makes you a pro-choicer. No; what it makes us is truly pro-life, not just pro-fetal-life.

reply from: yoda

? <----------- World's smallest fiddle, playing Hearts and Flowers
Got any more sad stories?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

And IF the physician says she is physically able to gestate and deliver her child, do you still insist on an abortion, like Carole?
If it was determined that carrying to term was physically and mentally safe for both the child and the... child, then no I would not insist on abortion. I never insist on abortion. A woman can choose not to abort her ectopic pregnancy if she wants to try to carry; that is her choice.
A woman who chooses to continue an ectopic pregnancy is committing suicide. The removal of an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion, because the fetus is NOT in the womb, it is either in the fallopian tubes or in the abdomen. It MUST be removed to save the mother's life.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Carole, if you believe the unborn child is a person, how can you not believe that the child has a Constitutional right to life? What crime is the child guilty of that he/she deserves to die for the sins of his/her father?
In some cases, children are killed so mommy dearest can beat it back to the street corner to continue the "family business". The gospel according to a john, is have fun, then kill the child.
Once again, you bring up prostitutes. Why the fascination? Very strange.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And IF the physician says she is physically able to gestate and deliver her child, do you still insist on an abortion, like Carole?
If it was determined that carrying to term was physically and mentally safe for both the child and the... child, then no I would not insist on abortion. I never insist on abortion. A woman can choose not to abort her ectopic pregnancy if she wants to try to carry; that is her choice.
A woman who chooses to continue an ectopic pregnancy is committing suicide. The removal of an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion, because the fetus is NOT in the womb, it is either in the fallopian tubes or in the abdomen. It MUST be removed to save the mother's life.
An abortion is the removal of a pregnancy in a way that kills the unborn child. Period. Yes, ectopic removal is certainly a theraputic and often necessary procedure, but I still consider it an abortion. Also, it is possible to survive and carry an ectopic pregnancy, though rare and very dangerous.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That doesn't make any sense to me... "I don't want it, and I don't want anyone else to have it, so I'm going to kill it"? THAT is the woman who needs therapy.

reply from: CharlesD

That mentality is just plain demented.

reply from: BossMomma

Carole, if you believe the unborn child is a person, how can you not believe that the child has a Constitutional right to life? What crime is the child guilty of that he/she deserves to die for the sins of his/her father?
In some cases, children are killed so mommy dearest can beat it back to the street corner to continue the "family business". The gospel according to a john, is have fun, then kill the child.
Once again, you bring up prostitutes. Why the fascination? Very strange.
He's probably bitter because even a broke hooker with six kids to feed wouldn't screw him.

reply from: CharlesD

Rape doesn't make sense to me either, but that doesn't mean I can't say that it's wrong.
Killing an innocent human being is wrong, no matter what the motive or the location and stage of development of that human being.

reply from: yoda

Yes, and the proaborts will claim that the abortion IS the therapy.

reply from: carolemarie

Carole, if you believe the unborn child is a person, how can you not believe that the child has a Constitutional right to life? What crime is the child guilty of that he/she deserves to die for the sins of his/her father?
I never said the child was guilt of anything.
I simply said that in the 2% of all cases, I am willing to let the woman decide.

reply from: yoda

Why give up on them before the battle even starts? Why not let someone else do the "compromising", when it comes time for that? We haven't even gotten to the starting line yet, it's too early to concede defeat.

reply from: carolemarie

Because that two percent is all the hard cases. I would rather concentrate on the other 98 % and end those abortions.
Not all of the 2% would abort anyways., with counseling it would be lower. But I am willing to conceed the tough cases to win the others. I would rather see the abortion rate cut by 98% than to keep it where it is till I get the perfect ban.

reply from: yoda

We're already concentrating on the other 95%, the "elective" abortions in the debates. But we're nowhere near writing a bill to outlaw abortion, so why make your concession so far in advance? Why not wait until time and see what the public sentiment is then?

reply from: scopia19822

"Because that two percent is all the hard cases. I would rather concentrate on the other 98 % and end those abortions.
Not all of the 2% would abort anyways., with counseling it would be lower. But I am willing to conceed the tough cases to win the others. I would rather see the abortion rate cut by 98% than to keep it where it is till I get the perfect ban."
And that is 2 % too many. One abortion is one too many.

reply from: scopia19822

"Because that two percent is all the hard cases. I would rather concentrate on the other 98 % and end those abortions.
Not all of the 2% would abort anyways., with counseling it would be lower. But I am willing to conceed the tough cases to win the others. I would rather see the abortion rate cut by 98% than to keep it where it is till I get the perfect ban."
And that is 2 % too many. One abortion is one too many.

reply from: nancyu

Excellent questions. I can't wait to see the answers.
I've been waiting for these answers for almost as long as I've been here.

reply from: nancyu

That doesn't make any sense to me... "I don't want it, and I don't want anyone else to have it, so I'm going to kill it"? THAT is the woman who needs therapy.
HellllloH! That is the # 1 reason behind many abortions. Are you really this dense? Remind me not to get "educated" where you did. Where was that again?

reply from: nancyu

This would not stop pro abort women from insisting on the right to kill their child. They already have the option of giving their child for adoption, but they prefer their child being killed to the child being raised by someone else.

reply from: Rosalie

Having been through something as despicable as rape does not automatically mean that you will have compassion for others who've been through the same.
Or maybe you do and just your sense of that word is completely twisted.
If you did indeed possess at least a little bit of empathy, you'd realize that if she doesn't want to continue what she views as the continuation of her abuse, she's got every right to end it. I know many women who were raped. It happens more often than other people who were not raped would care to admit. Their opinions vary. None of them would, however, support continuation of the pregnancy that was a result of the rape against the wish of the raped woman. I don't really know what to make out of the fact that you would.
No woman, raped or not, is not obligated to provide her body, health and resources to a human being against her will.
That's inhuman.

reply from: xLoki

That's inhuman.
Out of curiosity, I wonder what kind of charges could be brought against a parent who forced their child to remain pregnant if that child died as a result of the high-risk pregnancy/childbirth.
If this situation occured, yoda, would YOU then be considered a child killer?

reply from: micah

A fetus is not a full person, but let us say that it is. My right to life does not allow me to forcibly use other people's organs and body to stay alive. If I need a kidney to stay alive, I can't force you to give me one of yours.

reply from: socratease

So, even though there was nothing in her post related to that subject, you just had to get in a little shot, didn't you?
Oh, I know, some people "just deserve to get a little shot every chance you get", right?
You're such a putz. You ramble on about peace and love, and throw your hate around like confetti. What a phony.
Yay! Finally, someone is doing some moderating!
But don't give your buddies too many breaks when they make their cheap shots, ok? It could look like you're playing favorites.

reply from: 4given

Whine spritzer? Listen. You can post on the topics at hand our find your merry way out. Stop with the obsession over moderating the forum. Try to concentrate on the threads Faramir. Pray tell, do you have 10 reasons why the unborn should be defended?

reply from: socratease

Whine spritzer? Listen. You can post on the topics at hand our find your merry way out. Stop with the obsession over moderating the forum. Try to concentrate on the threads Faramir. Pray tell, do you have 10 reasons why the unborn should be defended?
An abortion is the unjust killing of a human person.
No other reasons are necessary, and could infact be distractions.
And thank you for moderating me. I needed it.

reply from: micah

I feel sorry for anyone who tries to moderate these forums. We have pretty much jettisoned civil conversation.

reply from: socratease

It could EASILY be done, but would spoil the fun of three bullies here.

reply from: faithman

That's inhuman.
Out of curiosity, I wonder what kind of charges could be brought against a parent who forced their child to remain pregnant if that child died as a result of the high-risk pregnancy/childbirth.
If this situation occured, yoda, would YOU then be considered a child killer?
No. But you would still be an idiot.

reply from: faithman

There is nothing civil about baby killing, or baby killers.

reply from: carolemarie

Excellent questions. I can't wait to see the answers.
I've been waiting for these answers for almost as long as I've been here.
They are not guilt of any crime.
However, being raped or being the victim on incest is a horrible and degrading experience. Not all women can deal with having to bear a rapist child. It is a continuation of the trauma. If it isn't her choice, it can destroy her. The mother is a victim of a crime, and she has to be the one to decide to have that baby, NOT YOU.
Most people in this country feel that way about it as well. We may admire women who are brave enough to do that, we do acknowledge that not all women would be able to do it.
I don't know if I could. As much as I know how terrible abortion is, I don't know if I could have that child. It would be incredibly hard and almost impossible to stand...

reply from: xLoki

That's inhuman.
Out of curiosity, I wonder what kind of charges could be brought against a parent who forced their child to remain pregnant if that child died as a result of the high-risk pregnancy/childbirth.
If this situation occured, yoda, would YOU then be considered a child killer?
No.
More explanation, please.
Your own lack of self-awareness provides me with much amusement.

reply from: ChristianLott2

We all know how good you are at 'handling' abortion. Some people don't give it a seconds thought.

reply from: yoda

That answer really, really bothers me. You always look at abortion ONLY from the mother's perspective, NEVER from the perspective of the innocent unborn baby. And that really bothers me.

reply from: xLoki

That answer really, really bothers me. You always look at abortion ONLY from the mother's perspective, NEVER from the perspective of the innocent unborn baby. And that really bothers me.
Unborn babies don't have any perspective.

reply from: faithman

That answer really, really bothers me. You always look at abortion ONLY from the mother's perspective, NEVER from the perspective of the innocent unborn baby. And that really bothers me.
Unborn babies don't have any perspective. Niether do scum bag pro death maggot baby killers.

reply from: faithman

Yes... That's lake of fire burn.

reply from: faithman

That's inhuman.
Out of curiosity, I wonder what kind of charges could be brought against a parent who forced their child to remain pregnant if that child died as a result of the high-risk pregnancy/childbirth.
If this situation occured, yoda, would YOU then be considered a child killer?
No.
More explanation, please.
Your own lack of self-awareness provides me with much amusement.
most glad to be of service.


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