Home - List All Discussions

What's your view on elective abortions?

no discussion of hard cases

by: CharlesD

Since elective abortions make up over 98% of all abortions done, that is all we are discussing here. If you leave out the hard cases, should a woman have the right to abort a pregnancy that did not result from rape or incest and which poses no threat to her life or physical health?

reply from: Rhiannontex

No! Most emphatically No!

reply from: jujujellybean

no.....I mean really its so dumb to just kill an innocent life because you feel like it.

reply from: BossMomma

No, if the fetus is not killing you and it was not forced upon you with rape it should not be sentenced to death for your convenience.

reply from: micah

Just to clarify, are you merely saying it's morally wrong for a woman to have an elective abortion, or are you saying the state should force her to have a kid?

reply from: Banned Member

Yes, though I support certain limitations. I don't think elective late term abortions should be legal.

reply from: BossMomma

I'm speaking from a moral standpoint. I doubt the state will ever remove abortion as an elective, especially with our current pro-choice government.

reply from: micah

Okay, I have always assumed that this forum speaks from a legal standpoint, which can be very different from a moral standpoint. While I support full reproductive rights for people, it does not mean I think every abortion is a moral decision.

reply from: lukesmom

No human being should ever be allowed to take another human being's life no matter what stage of developement.

reply from: BossMomma

Laws are created based on a majority vote, if the majority holds the same view on the subject then the law will be based on their vote. Currently it is the majority opinion that zygotes, embryos and, fetii are not persons and are deserving of no such right to life or protection under the law. Therefore I can only really protest the morality of elective abortion as the law is not on my side.

reply from: 4given

What?! You are on a prolife forum. You are aware that abortion is legal. "Reproductive rights" = abortion. Why do you post here instead of a pro-abort pat on the back forum? Which abortions are the moral ones?

reply from: micah

Well although I believe some abortions are wrong, having the government force a woman to have a baby is always the greater evil. Anyway I'm not trying to debate on this thread, but I just wanted to make sure my position was clear.

reply from: micah

I think you misunderstood me. What I'm saying is just because we think something may be immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. For example, adultery won't land you in jail.

reply from: lukesmom

Adultery of itself does not end a human life. Abortion does 100% of the time. Adultery is not comparable to abortion.

reply from: 4given

Right. Although I have read where women and men blame their spousal infidelity on abortion. The two aren't the same. They may be related as far as morality is concerned, but not equal.

reply from: micah

I wasn't saying they were the same. The point I was trying to show was the not everything that is immoral is illegal.

reply from: SRUW4I5

The exceptions I'd accept in an abortion ban are rape (until 12 weeks), life of the pregnant woman (determined by 3 doctors), physical health of the pregnant woman, (determined by 3 doctors) severe mental health problem caused by being pregnant (as determined by 3 professionals), or if the pregnant woman is age 13 or younger (until 12 weeks). I'd also be okay with abortion if the fetus was already dead, or would die within 10 minutes of being born.
If it would be possible for the child to be born early and survive, that would be done instead of an abortion as long as it wouldn't cause more problems for the pregnant woman.

reply from: 4given

Yet you support the legal slaughter of countless pre-born lives for what reason? Why is abortion an acceptable option to you?

reply from: Teresa18

Of course not. If the mother's life is in danger, I support efforts to save both lives with a primary focus on the mother.

reply from: Rosalie

Yes, of course.
No one has the right to use the body of someone else without their explicit consent.

reply from: yoda

A pregnant woman already has a "kid".

reply from: yoda

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it ought to be.
And not everything that is legal is moral, or ought to be legal.
That's what this forum is about, and you should have known that.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I voted No, though I'd add one more exeption that others may disagree with: mental health. By this, I mean she's going to have to be absolutely bat-***** *****ing insane if she carries to term. Which I don't see happening very often.

reply from: micah

The less extreme anti-choicers on here will at least allow a woman freedom over her body if rape is involved or if pregnancy endangers the woman's physical or mental health. But do you realize that these exceptions are large enough to drive a truck through? If a woman wanted an abortion, all she would have to do is say, "I was raped". If you made her file charges in order to get the abortion, I can guarantee there would be a lot of innocent guys imprisoned for rape.

reply from: faithman

Laws are created based on a majority vote, if the majority holds the same view on the subject then the law will be based on their vote. Currently it is the majority opinion that zygotes, embryos and, fetii are not persons and are deserving of no such right to life or protection under the law. Therefore I can only really protest the morality of elective abortion as the law is not on my side.
Nice sentiment, but you are wrong. There was not one sigle vote cast by the electorate to make abortion on demand legal. Most in america oppose abortion on demand, and the polls prove that out if the right questions are asked. I guarantee that if it were put to a vote tomorrow, our nation would outlaw 98% of abortions preformed in america, and planned parenthood would be out of busisness. Most Americans do want abortion to be restricted to hard cases only. Not this wanton slaughter of innocent healthy womb children.

reply from: micah

Then you must have a hard time understanding how reproductive-freedom has become the law of the land since 1973.

reply from: CharlesD

See, when you throw out the hard cases and just focus on the elective abortions, the arguments get rather weak.
What you said would be applicable in all cases where a child forces its way into the womb of a woman by its own action, not as the result of an act of consensual sex.

reply from: faithman

No I do not at all. It was forced on us by a renegade court. Not one vote was ever cast by the electorate.

reply from: micah

And you actually think the executive and legislative branches have done a good-faith effort to end abortion?

reply from: faithman

No, they have not been people of good faith. So called pro-life politicians are more guilty of this slaughter than the hardest liners of abortion advocacy. All three branches of Government have failed the womb child. A failure that breaches the very constitution they swore to uphold.

reply from: yoda

Wow, I'm agreeing with you too. Hell must be awfully cold today.

reply from: lukesmom

Lib, I am not "absolutely bat-***** *****ing insane" and I carried my dying son to his natural death. I know hundreds of women who carried to term knowing their child was very sick or going to die. NONE of them is insane and not one has ever expressed regret or mental health problems. I also know women who aborted their ill/terminal child. Unfortuantly a couple of them threatened suicide, some never to post again and a few to come back and say they attempted by were found and "saved". Several live with regret and thoughts of "what if". Many say they weren't told of a "choice" by their MD and didn't take time to look at their options.
From what I have seen talking to moms from both sides, everyone grieves the loss of their baby but the moms who have carried to term, in general healed faster than those who aborted. That is my personal observation so don't ask me for proof.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Not if you make them specifics. And yes, some doctors will let women get away with murder. BUT, these restrictions would limit the over all number of abortions. And maybe guys will think twice about asking for sex without a condom on.

reply from: lukesmom

Wow, I'm agreeing with you too. Hell must be awfully cold today.
Brrrrr

reply from: Rosalie

See, when you throw out the hard cases and just focus on the elective abortions, the arguments get rather weak.
What you said would be applicable in all cases where a child forces its way into the womb of a woman by its own action, not as the result of an act of consensual sex.
Not at all. Woman's body is not a free-for-all. It's not to be used without her explicit consent.
Consentual sex is NOT consent to pregnancy.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

See, when you throw out the hard cases and just focus on the elective abortions, the arguments get rather weak.
What you said would be applicable in all cases where a child forces its way into the womb of a woman by its own action, not as the result of an act of consensual sex.
Not at all. Woman's body is not a free-for-all. It's not to be used without her explicit consent.
Consentual sex is NOT consent to pregnancy.
I agree that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. However, which is worse? Letting a baby grow, aka, letting someone use your body, or aborting it, aka KILLING someone? Which is worse? Having your body used for 9 months, or permanently erasing someone's existence FOREVER?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes it is.
Getting into a car is not consenting to crash.
Although I suppose the difference is that crashing isn't the natural way driving is supposed to end, where as the original purpose of sex in all animals was reproduction.

reply from: Rosalie

Letting ANYONE use my body AGAINST MY WILL. I find it absolutely unacceptable and much worse than an abortion.
Yes it is.
If that's how you wish to view sex, then so be it. But it is not the truth.

reply from: scopia19822

"Yes it is"
Nancy I dont think Rosalie and any of the other proaborts realize that when one has sex even with birth control there are risk involved, the simple concept of cause and effect that I learned in elementary school. If you have sex a baby can be the result. It is really just too simple a concept for them to grasp.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Letting ANYONE use my body AGAINST MY WILL. I find it absolutely unacceptable and much worse than an abortion.
I know you consider it worse than abortion, that's why I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about murdering someone. I actually am of course talking about abortion in a roundabout way but I know you don't consider abortion to be killing a person.

reply from: Rosalie

Letting ANYONE use my body AGAINST MY WILL. I find it absolutely unacceptable and much worse than an abortion.
I know you consider it worse than abortion, that's why I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about murdering someone. I actually am of course talking about abortion in a roundabout way but I know you don't consider abortion to be killing a person.
WHY should I give up my body AGAINST MY WILL and let ANYONE AT ALL put my health and life at risk and affect every single thing that happen to me or my family?
My body is not for use by anyone else against my will. Period.
And I have been trying to tell you that even if I concede, for the argument't sake, that the fetus is a person, nothing changes. No human, no person has the right to use my body against my body in any way.

reply from: Rosalie

If every single sexual intercourse resulted in pregnancy, you might have a point. But given that people PREVENT that from happening, you need to realize that what they are saying by that is that they are NOT giving consent to pregnancy.
People have sex for many reasons. They are not consenting to getting pregnant every single time they have sex.
The woman's explicit consent is needed.
Sex is not explicit consent to pregnancy in any way.

reply from: CharlesD

If I invite you into my house and then I kill you, I will go to jail for murder. If I shoot an intruder who is threatening me, I have a good chance of getting acquitted. What's the difference?
The baby is not an intruder. It was invited in.

reply from: faithman

If every single sexual intercourse resulted in pregnancy, you might have a point. But given that people PREVENT that from happening, you need to realize that what they are saying by that is that they are NOT giving consent to pregnancy.
People have sex for many reasons. They are not consenting to getting pregnant every single time they have sex.
The woman's explicit consent is needed.
Sex is not explicit consent to pregnancy in any way.
This is where you are absolutly wrong. It should be taught [and I think that it generally is] that having sex causes pregnancy. It is also generally accepted that most forms of birth controll [except abstaining]have a failure rate. Our so called educational system claims to have been teaching these facts in secular humanist brain washing sex ed indoctrination. Knowing full well that even the best plans fail to prevent the invitation to life from getting thru, it does sometimes get thru. How in the world can you say that a womb child is an intruder? Fact fact fact. Now what you pro-death punks have to live with, is that you were lying about your invite, and you want the right to kill an invited guest, simply because you are a lying piece of dog excretement, and want to cover up what low life trash you are, by killing your invited children, then try to claim they are an intruder. The only crime a womb child is guilty of, is answereing the disengenuous invitation of a killer scanc who cares more about herself, than the child she helped invite into the world.

reply from: scopia19822

You cant convince RoHo of that Fman. She is too deeply indoctrinated with the proabort rhetoric and it has turned her brain all to mush.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I like how specific your exceptions are. I'd say for me the age exception would be until age 13 but that's just a personal opinion. I've never heard of a pregnant 7 year old but I suppose it could happen.
Abortion for a dead fetus is going to be ok with most pro-lifers, though there are some who oppose to any dismemberment of the child no matter what. I think it should be up to the mother and which procedure is safer.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Letting ANYONE use my body AGAINST MY WILL. I find it absolutely unacceptable and much worse than an abortion.
I know you consider it worse than abortion, that's why I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about murdering someone. I actually am of course talking about abortion in a roundabout way but I know you don't consider abortion to be killing a person.
WHY should I give up my body AGAINST MY WILL and let ANYONE AT ALL put my health and life at risk and affect every single thing that happen to me or my family?
You'd better seal yourself inside of a bubble then, because even breathing can endanger you and your entire family. Pregnancy is 100% preventable with abstinence, and 99% preventable with birth control. Abortion is supposed to be 100% lethal to the child. You saw the statistics; pregnancy deaths are extremely rare. You're MUCH more likely to die in a car crash; so if you're actually concerned about your safety, I'd avoid cars if I were you.
Because murder is so much better. I'm sorry, I just don't feel that way. You could have prevent the whole situation from arising. It happened anyway; and now you're going to amputate your broken leg from the car crash because you don't want to wait for it to heal?

reply from: scopia19822

"Abortion for a dead fetus is going to be ok with most pro-lifers, though there are some who oppose to any dismemberment of the child no matter what. I think it should be up to the mother and which procedure is safer."
If it were me in this situation I would prefer to undergo a Csection and have my child removed intact so that I would be able to give him/her a decent Christian burial.

reply from: Skippy

No human being should ever be allowed to take another human being's life no matter what stage of developement.
Really? So you oppose all wars, killing in self-defense, and the death penalty?

reply from: nancyu

Maybe not, but getting into a car allows for the possibility that you could get into a crash. And if that happens you don't have the legal right to undo the crash. It is a fact of life, and you have to deal with the consequences.

reply from: scopia19822

"Really? So you oppose all wars, killing in self-defense, and the death penalty?"
I most certianly oppose the death penalty and unjust wars the last just war was ww2. As far as self defense goes I can understand if the person is threatening my life or my sons life, but I would still feel guilty about taking a human life, but I believe that God forgives. I am opposed to premeditated killing which abortion and the death penalty qualify under.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Maybe not, but getting into a car allows for the possibility that you could get into a crash. And if that happens you don't have the legal right to undo the crash. It is a fact of life, and you have to deal with the consequences.
No, but we're not talking about undoing it, we're talking about consenting to it. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. You still shouldn't have the legal right to "undo" it, but you certainly didn't consent to it either.

reply from: lukesmom

No human being should ever be allowed to take another human being's life no matter what stage of developement.
Really? So you oppose all wars, killing in self-defense, and the death penalty?
Yes.

reply from: lukesmom

Tell the insurance companies that. If you are in your car and it is involved in an accident, even if that accident isn't your fault, you are still partly liable because you WERE there and WERE involved.
You have to be pretty ignorant not to know what the risks of sex are. If you consent to have sex regardless, you are consenting to pregnancy whether you want to admit that or not.

reply from: micah

You all are splitting hairs here. It makes no difference whether or not a woman consents to pregnancy. I don't care if you have 5 sworn statements from her. The state cannot control her body and force her to have a baby.

reply from: nancyu

Letting ANYONE use my body AGAINST MY WILL. I find it absolutely unacceptable and much worse than an abortion.
I know you consider it worse than abortion, that's why I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about murdering someone. I actually am of course talking about abortion in a roundabout way but I know you don't consider abortion to be killing a person.
WHY should I give up my body AGAINST MY WILL and let ANYONE AT ALL put my health and life at risk and affect every single thing that happen to me or my family?
My body is not for use by anyone else against my will. Period.
And I have been trying to tell you that even if I concede, for the argument't sake, that the fetus is a person, nothing changes. No human, no person has the right to use my body against my body in any way.
A fetus is a person. And that changes everything.

reply from: lukesmom

No one here wants to "force" anyone to have a baby. If you don't want to risk having a baby don't have sex. Yea, yea, I know. Sex is pleasureable and blah, blah, blah. Men have all the advantages of having sex and not having to worry, blah, blah, blah. Here are the facts of life:
#1. If you have sex, even with the use of a contraceptive, there is a risk of pregnancy.
#2. Women have the organs to carry a child, men don't
#3. It is always the woman who will become pregnant. As a woman, if you don't like those odds, don't have sex.
#4. Taking charge of your reproductive rights may mean exercising your right not to have sex. That is called being responsible for your own body.
#5. #1-4 can't be changed, that's life. Get over it and take some responsibility for yourself rather than whinning and crying. And don't make your unborn child pay because you ignore #1-4.
Geez, women's rights are NOT about killing their own children or trying to be like sleezy sleep around men (not all are like that). Women's rights are about taking control of your life and your body and acting responsibly...as a woman.

reply from: nancyu

No one here wants to "force" anyone to have a baby. If you don't want to risk having a baby don't have sex. Yea, yea, I know. Sex is pleasureable and blah, blah, blah. Men have all the advantages of having sex and not having to worry, blah, blah, blah. Here are the facts of life:
#1. If you have sex, even with the use of a contraceptive, there is a risk of pregnancy.
#2. Women have the organs to carry a child, men don't
#3. It is always the woman who will become pregnant. As a woman, if you don't like those odds, don't have sex.
#4. Taking charge of your reproductive rights may mean exercising your right not to have sex. That is called being responsible for your own body.
#5. #1-4 can't be changed, that's life. Get over it and take some responsibility for yourself rather than whinning and crying. And don't make your unborn child pay because you ignore #1-4.
Geez, women's rights are NOT about killing their own children or trying to be like sleezy sleep around men (not all are like that). Women's rights are about taking control of your life and your body and acting responsibly...as a woman.
Yeah, WOMAN UP!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Tell the insurance companies that. If you are in your car and it is involved in an accident, even if that accident isn't your fault, you are still partly liable because you WERE there and WERE involved.
Just because the insurance companies behave that way doesn't make them right. Being liable and CONSENTING to something are not the same thing at all.
I still disagree. I do not consent to any injury ir ill doing that happens to me in life, but I still have to face the consequences whether it is my fault or not.

reply from: lukesmom

Tell the insurance companies that. If you are in your car and it is involved in an accident, even if that accident isn't your fault, you are still partly liable because you WERE there and WERE involved.
Just because the insurance companies behave that way doesn't make them right. Being liable and CONSENTING to something are not the same thing at all.
I still disagree. I do not consent to any injury ir ill doing that happens to me in life, but I still have to face the consequences whether it is my fault or not.
I didn't say I agreed with the insurance companies but that is still the way it is. If you know you are liable (part of the contract, insurance wise) and still proceed, you are consenting to the risks. It may not be fair or "right" but not much in life is fair. Same goes with sex. It isn't "fair" men can have all the "fun" and women face the risk of becoming pregnant but those are the facts and knowing the facts we, as women, need to take control of ourselves. That is part of being a responsible woman. We also need to stop blaming men for the way they were made/formed. I rather feel sorry for them in the fact that they will never have the joy and miracle of feeling life within them. Sorry guys but it is true and you sure miss out of the greatest joy of life!

reply from: 4given

I agree. You know these little hypotheticals grow to be quite tiresome. Isn't there an honest pro-abort? All the issues etc.. How about stating "I believe an abortion is acceptable and I will kill my child if I decide to." They are here to divert, spoil and tread on the innocent lives killed by whatever justifications they deem fit. Sickening.

reply from: yoda

If she is pregnant, she ALREADY HAS A BABY!! DUHHHHH!!
And of course, you want it to be convenient for her to KILL THAT BABY.

reply from: yoda

Actually, there are a few, but very few. I have debated some who say exactly that, and there really isn't much more than can be said following that statement. It's the sickening end of the road, because if the public at large will accept that, then there is no hope for this nation.

reply from: faithman

If she is pregnant, she ALREADY HAS A BABY!! DUHHHHH!!
And of course, you want it to be convenient for her to KILL THAT BABY.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: yoda

I think they do understand that, and just don't give a damn.

reply from: faithman

I think they do understand that, and just don't give a damn.
You might have a point....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If she is pregnant, she ALREADY HAS A BABY!! DUHHHHH!!
And of course, you want it to be convenient for her to KILL THAT BABY.
Lol, ding ding ding. That's what I was going to say heh.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Tell the insurance companies that. If you are in your car and it is involved in an accident, even if that accident isn't your fault, you are still partly liable because you WERE there and WERE involved.
Just because the insurance companies behave that way doesn't make them right. Being liable and CONSENTING to something are not the same thing at all.
I still disagree. I do not consent to any injury ir ill doing that happens to me in life, but I still have to face the consequences whether it is my fault or not.
I didn't say I agreed with the insurance companies but that is still the way it is. If you know you are liable (part of the contract, insurance wise) and still proceed, you are consenting to the risks. It may not be fair or "right" but not much in life is fair. Same goes with sex. It isn't "fair" men can have all the "fun" and women face the risk of becoming pregnant but those are the facts and knowing the facts we, as women, need to take control of ourselves. That is part of being a responsible woman. We also need to stop blaming men for the way they were made/formed. I rather feel sorry for them in the fact that they will never have the joy and miracle of feeling life within them. Sorry guys but it is true and you sure miss out of the greatest joy of life!
I just don't like the terminology; I'm sorry I'm having a really tough time with this particular subject right now. It's frustrating me very much. I mean, I understand your concept about consenting to the risks in regards to insurance, and I can also verify that I have consented to risks related to some medications I've taken and most recently the insurance papers I signed for my braces. I just... don't feel it's the same thing as having sex.

reply from: Rosalie

1. Women are not houses. 2. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, it is quite clear that the fetus was not invited in.
When you learn to speak properly without all the insults, I might consider replying to you. Till then, go wash your filthy mouth with a soap and go back to high school English.
RoHo? Ho? Really? So much for the nice, loving pro-lifers. And sorry to spoil your fun but with all these insults you are throwing my way, all you are doing is making my point. You are a horrible person and you keep proving it.
Please don't play stupid, I know you're not. There is danger we can prevent, and there is some we have on control of. If I deem it a risk to my life OR health OR my social situation, it is only my business and my discretion. It is not your place to tell me whether it's okay to risk it or not, based on what YOU think without any knowledge of MY situation and with no respect fo my beliefs.
Well, YOU consider it murder. I don't, at all.
You don't have to tell me that, I'm well aware of that. After all, that's how I ended up having a planned baby at the age of 27.
I tried to tell you that over and over but you're not listening. It's not only death that concern me. It's the effects on woman's health that concern me. It's the effects on the woman and her & her family's quality of life. That matters to me. I know it doesn't to you but it does to me. Life is more than just a functioning body and a heartbeat.
I do not desire to be a slave of my reproductive function just because there was a mistake somewhere.

reply from: Rosalie

That changes nothing.
No person has the right to use my body against my will. My body is not for free use for anyone unless I agree to it.

reply from: scopia19822

"RoHo? Ho? Really? So much for the nice, loving pro-lifers. And sorry to spoil your fun but with all these insults you are throwing my way, all you are doing is making my point. You are a horrible person and you keep proving it."
Just giving you a taste of your own medicine. You can think whatever you want about me I dont care. Actually I think Rojo would be better. It means red in Spanish and I get red faced when I get pissed off. And you certainly have a tendncy to piss alot of people off on this forum. If you think I am horrible than you have the option of using the iggy button.

reply from: Rosalie

I've never called a woman a "ho". That's your forte.

reply from: scopia19822

"I've never called a woman a "ho". That's your forte."
You seem to think that because I dress modestly I think those who dress differently from me are hos and that is not true and I have never said that. Are you saying youre a ho?

reply from: yoda

When I lived in Mexico they sometimes called me "Barba Roja" (Red beard).

reply from: Rosalie

I have tried to explain to you over and over again why I reacted to your comments about your clothes. You refuse to accept any other explanation but yours. Therefore all debate here is useless.
And Scopia, it was YOU who called me RoHo.

reply from: CharlesD

No person has to right to take the life of another innocent person.

reply from: yoda

And the taking of a life is of infinitely more importance than "using your body without your permission".
At least, to those of us with a conscience it is.

reply from: scopia19822

"And Scopia, it was YOU who called me RoHo."
Guilty as charged, but to attack someone who dresses modestly is really immature and childish. But coming from you it was no surprise, I thought it was time you had a taste of your own medicine.

reply from: Rosalie

No person has to right to take the life of another innocent person.
In this unique situation, yes, they do. Again - no person has the right to use my body against my will. My body is not for free use for anyone unless I agree to it

reply from: scopia19822

"In this unique situation, yes, they do. Again - no person has the right to use my body against my will. My body is not for free use for anyone unless I agree to it"
I hope you dont tell this to your child.

reply from: CharlesD

If a baby invades the womb of its own free will, without any action by the mother to put it there, then it may be considered to be there against her will and can be removed. Otherwise, the right of a human being to not be killed without justification trumps any other right.

reply from: Rosalie

If a baby invades the womb of its own free will, without any action by the mother to put it there, then it may be considered to be there against her will and can be removed. Otherwise, the right of a human being to not be killed without justification trumps any other right.
The woman does NOT put it there. She does not reach inside her body to PUT anything in there. Having sex doesn't mean you are putting something in to stay there for 40 weeks against your will. Sorry if your life is so miserable that this is how you view sex.
There is no right to be born. And the "right to life" you are trying to assign to fetus does not override the rights of the HOSTING organism. Ever.

reply from: Rosalie

It's none of your business what I will or won't tell my child. My entire family is pro-choice - BY CHOICE. It's entirely possible that our kids will think the same. We will raise our children to respect women, not to treat them like wombs on legs.

reply from: scopia19822

"It's none of your business what I will or won't tell my child. My entire family is pro-choice - BY CHOICE. It's entirely possible that our kids will think the same. We will raise our children to respect women, not to treat them like wombs on legs."

I will raise my son to respect women, open the door for them, pull out the chair for her all of the other things that are a rarely practiced by men these days. He will understand that a woman is to be loved, cherished and protected. He will also learn that all human life is sacred. He will learn that if he fathers a child to be a man and take care of his child. I know this sounds prudish and asinine to you, but at least I will be able to look at my son with pride knowing that I raised him to be a gentleman and a Godly man who will love his wife and provide for his family.

reply from: Rosalie

That's wholly your prerogative to teach your kid whatever you want.
To me a lot of what you have said are not values we would like to instill in our children - which is why we will do it differently.

reply from: scopia19822

"To me a lot of what you have said are not values we would like to instill in our children - which is why we will do it differently."
That is your perogative, but I have never understood feminist at all. They claim that men respect DONT respect women, yet when a man shows them respect such as holding the door open for them, paying for the date, offer to carry a heavy package etc, they bite the poor mans head off and accusing them of oppressing them. AHHH!! They say they want to be treated with respect than when the man does they get pissed off about that too. Feminist must just love being miserable and they hate men and need an excuse to hate all men even the ones that show them respect.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

This might be a good exception. I would imagine that some of those women are the ones who go on to kill their child(ren) like Andrea Yates and others.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

For one thing, there would have to be enough evidence for an arrest in order to imprison the man. And by the time he would go to trial, the pregnancy would be over, one way or another.

reply from: Rosalie

I have yet to see a feminist who will be offended by having door open to her. My fiancé is very much of a gentleman but he absolutely respects my autonomy and all my rights - just as I respect his. It would never even occur to him to not show me the same respect he shows others just because I'm a woman.
And feminists don't hate men. Those who scream the loudest are not always the best examples of a movement. You should know that. All you have said shows that you know NOTHING about feminism.
Are you willing to listen at all or will you keep repeating what you know now, even though I explain the basis of feminism to you? If you're willing to listen, I'm willing to try to explain what feminism is. Your view of it is screwed by what you were told by others about it, maybe even by your religion. It's not what you think it is, but unless you are willing to listen, I'm not going to bother explaining.

reply from: Rosalie

No. Because life is more than just existing.
And I don't think you actually have a conscience.
You still don't understand why I even brought up there, do you? You actually really, really don't understand, though I have explained it at least three times.
I don't know what to say to you. If your mind is so closed that you cannot accept any other explanation than your own, then it is basically useless.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If a baby invades the womb of its own free will, without any action by the mother to put it there, then it may be considered to be there against her will and can be removed. Otherwise, the right of a human being to not be killed without justification trumps any other right.
Which is obviously nonsense since it is the cilia inside of the fallopian tube which pushes the egg - before and after fertilization - into the uterus.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

This might be a good exception. I would imagine that some of those women are the ones who go on to kill their child(ren) like Andrea Yates and others.
Or themselves. It can be hard to know right off the bat if she's going to suffer like that though. I was sorting thinking more women who are on anti-psychotics and if they get off of them, the damage to their brains/psychological state will be too severe.

reply from: yoda

The "state" cannot impregnate a woman, and thereby "force" her to have a baby.
When pregnant, every woman already has a baby, and the state is perfectly within it's rights to forbid her to kill that baby.

reply from: yoda

What does that mean, really? That women with mental health problems will always be allowed to abort legally, even if elective abortion becomes illegal again?

reply from: Skippy

This is somewhat off-topic, but I do not think you, or anyone, can "explain feminism" to someone, because there are so many kinds of feminists.
I myself am a non-feminist, but I have read materials given to me by radical feminists, liberal feminists, Marxist feminists, and i-feminists. There is quite a bit of difference in some areas between what all of them believe.
They do seem relatively united regarding abortion rights, though.

reply from: yoda

Except for the group "Feminists for Life".

reply from: Rosalie

This is somewhat off-topic, but I do not think you, or anyone, can "explain feminism" to someone, because there are so many kinds of feminists.
I myself am a non-feminist, but I have read materials given to me by radical feminists, liberal feminists, Marxist feminists, and i-feminists. There is quite a bit of difference in some areas between what all of them believe.
They do seem relatively united regarding abortion rights, though.
Basically, you're right, but some things are the same. Like that feminists don't hate men, that they are not ugly, unshaved women, that we don't consider staying at home with kids a lesser job if that's what the woman wants and some other basics.
I wasn't going to get into the more controversial ones, but you can see from Scopia's post that her view of feminism in general is very distorted.

reply from: Banned Member

Opening doors, pulling out chairs, lighting cigarettes (if she smokes)...none of these things shows respect to women. These are all outdated ways for women to show subservience to men during courtship.
I still think it's somewhat sweet on the rare occasion my husband does it for me, mainly because I don't think that most men who do those things now days know that's what it's about, but...I used to get very insulted by it. Anywho....

reply from: Banned Member

So, if a woman asks a man if she can help him with a heavy package, is that showing respect to a man?
I'm always perplexed by women who want to continue the double standard way of living. Is that what you want for your daughters or do you want equality?

reply from: BossMomma

So, if a woman asks a man if she can help him with a heavy package, is that showing respect to a man?
I'm always perplexed by women who want to continue the double standard way of living. Is that what you want for your daughters or do you want equality?
Chivalry should be a two way street IMHO.

reply from: Banned Member

Hey, me too...but every man I've ever tried to light a cigarette for or hold a door open for acted like I was threatening their manhood.

reply from: ProInformed

At what precise point in the life of the innocent child do you think it (magically?) becomes not OK for the mother to kill her child just becasue she 'chooses' to?

reply from: ProInformed

Um, I guess Micah has never heard of contraception, adoption, or just saying not to sex, eh? If a female CHOOSES to participate in sex, knowing full well that pregnancy can result, then she is supposedly being "forced" to have a kid, huh?
Sheesh, and the pro-aborts complain about abstinance info being included in sex ed... obviously since they apparently are SO IGNORANT regarding the FACTS of life related to abstinance and adoption, there should be MORE emphasis on those things in sex ed.

reply from: ProInformed

What are you doing to save the lives of babies who are killed by elective late-term abortions?
Did you vote for Obama?
Have you contacted your 'pro-choice' representatives and the leaders of 'pro-choice' groups to express your objection to them defending abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy?
Or are you content with the fact that there is not a single so-called 'pro-choice' group that represents the POV of citizens like yourself, that the 'pro-choice' groups are really extremely pro-abortion and just abortion industry lobby groups?
Have you written letters to the editor of your local newspaper to inform others about elective late-term abortions, and to object to them being legal on demand?

reply from: ProInformed

So to summarize, Micah, in your opinion, 'reproductive rights' are more important to you than the right to life, eh? In other words (minus the conscience-numbing euphemisms) you think that protecting the fun and irresponsibility of 'free sex' justifies the brutal killing of thousands of innocent humans per day.

reply from: ProInformed

Hmmmm... so let's say you give a male permission to "use your body" for 'free' or 'casual' sex, consensual sex (not rape)...
Then you find out the sexual use you gave permission for impregnated you...
Do you still contend then that the innocent unborn baby somehow imposed themself on you, is using your body without your permission?
And that you are then justified in fatally abusing the baby?
I mean you DO know the facts of life, right?
You DO know where babies come from, right?
And you DO knwo the fatc that there really is no such thing as a 100% safe and 100% effective form of contraception, right?
How can killing an innocent baby be defended by anyone who knows the facts of life, but then willingly (willfully?) chose to have sex anyway even though they lacked the maturity and responsibility to at least refrain from killing the innocent baby their CHOSEN actions might create until a mature, responsible, non-violent couple could adopt the innocent baby?
Sheesh, what DO they teach in sex ed classes?!?!?

reply from: ProInformed

Both naturally and statistically, having sex results in pregnancy MUCH MORE OFTEN than getting into a car results in an automobile crash.
A better analogy would be if you consent to going somewhere in a car, you have to realize that you will be subject to the laws of nature related to acceleration and inertia regarding crash impacts, AND to the civil laws regarding traffic rules.
You can't simply state something silly like, 'Well I gave consent to go in the car but the laws of both nature and mankind should not apply to ME because I gave consent to the car ride only'... Um try telling that to the police officer who pulls you over for speeding... or to the judge or insurance agent when you get in a crash! LOL

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Both naturally and statistically, having sex results in pregnancy MUCH MORE OFTEN than getting into a car results in an automobile crash.
True, but why should frequency make a difference?
I really don't think that's a better example. Those are not things we can control. Car crashes and pregnancy are things we can - to an extent - control.

reply from: BossMomma

Um, I guess Micah has never heard of contraception, adoption, or just saying not to sex, eh? If a female CHOOSES to participate in sex, knowing full well that pregnancy can result, then she is supposedly being "forced" to have a kid, huh?
Sheesh, and the pro-aborts complain about abstinance info being included in sex ed... obviously since they apparently are SO IGNORANT regarding the FACTS of life related to abstinance and adoption, there should be MORE emphasis on those things in sex ed.
You know, I hate it when this is dumped solely on the woman, as if she is the only one involved here. Men could abstain, men could wrap it up before copulating. It's a two way street, if women should keep their legs closed men should keep their pants around their waist instead of around their ankles.

reply from: Faramir

That's how I see it too.
The purpose of driving and the purpose of the vehichle is safe transportation. A crash GOES AGAINST that purpose.
The prupose of reproductive organs is REPRODUCTION. When reproduction occurs after use of the reproductive organs, a pregancy that results should be no surprise.
Another analogy would be that it is like russian roullette. Your intent may be to have the thrill of playing the game and living, but when you play the game you know you have a chance of killing yourself, so you are consenting to death when consenting to play russian roullette.

reply from: BossMomma

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Show me ONE TIME a pro-choice advocate EVER complained about abstinence being included in a sex ed curriculum. One.
Exactly, typically the complaint is that abstinance is the ONLY thing taught by sex ed. curriculum. There is nothing wrong with teaching abstinance so long as the sex ed. is comprehensive and teaches about contraception as well. We all know that kids aren't always going to do what they are told and teen's will have sex, the least we can do is protect them.

reply from: Rosalie

Hmmmm... so let's say you give a male permission to "use your body" for 'free' or 'casual' sex, consensual sex (not rape)...
Have you ever had sex? If you were purely USING someone else's body, you were doing it wrong.
Unless I consent and agree to the fetus staying there for the next 9 months, then yes, it is using my body without my permission.
Why do you have the need to classify them as "innocent"? Are there any guilty babies?
Your pro-fetal-life rhetoric has no impact on me. Other than laughing at your stupidity, that is.
Yes, yes and yes.
None of it is a reason why I should automatically provide my body to a fetus, or a baby if you will. My body is not a free for all.
I am not an uterus on legs who is obligated to breed for other couples. And maybe your sex life is so poor that you only have sex when you want to have kids - that's your prerogative, but stop making it seem like this is the only reason for or objective of having sex.
My reproductive organs do not rule my life. Nor is reproduction the only or the most important reason to have sex. At least in my family.
As long as I have my own mind and heart, I won't allow it to rule my life. Life is more than mindless reproduction.

reply from: scopia19822

"Opening doors, pulling out chairs, lighting cigarettes (if she smokes)...none of these things shows respect to women. These are all outdated ways for women to show subservience to men during courtship."
Oh really? I thought it was about a man showing a woman the respect due her as a woman. I am very flattered when a man opens the door for me or the bag boy at the grocery store offers to help me load my groceries in the car. IMHO its a matter of common courtsey and manners, something alot of people have seem to forgotten. I would rather be a "subserviant" woman and have a man do those things for me.
"I still think it's somewhat sweet on the rare occasion my husband does it for me, mainly because I don't think that most men who do those things now days know that's what it's about, but...I used to get very insulted by it. Anywho...."
Even My grandfather who has sinced passed always told me that it is about RESPECTING the woman. My husband is disabled and will still do those things for me if hes having a good day.

reply from: micah

Yes. A woman is more important than a fetus.

reply from: lukesmom

This might be a good exception. I would imagine that some of those women are the ones who go on to kill their child(ren) like Andrea Yates and others.
RML, that is quite an insult to injury for the thousands of women who have carried to term knowing their child was ill or dying. Show me even one child killer who has killed ANY child after carrying to term in this situation. The hundreds of women I know who have done this are saner than most other women I know and NONE of them would hurt a child EVER. That is exactly why they ctt. Also they grieve a child, why would they hurt another? Your statement in not only wrong but very insulting.

reply from: CharlesD

So basically you're saying that even if the pregnancy is going along quite well with no fetal abnormalities, no threat to the mother's life or health, and did not result from rape or incest, that the woman still retains the right to kill her offspring.
Folks, that is the real crux of this issue. It's not the hard cases; a lot of pro lifers are willing to allow those exceptions, at least initially, in order to get the other ones banned, but the people who still believe that it should be allowed when none of those hard cases apply are the real extremists here. Those are the people who believe that when you throw everything else out, that some human beings are less worthy of life than other human beings. Certain humans are inherently less valuable than others. Hmm...where have we heard that before?

reply from: JRH

So basically you're saying that even if the pregnancy is going along quite well with no fetal abnormalities, no threat to the mother's life or health, and did not result from rape or incest, that the woman still retains the right to kill her offspring.
Folks, that is the real crux of this issue. It's not the hard cases; a lot of pro lifers are willing to allow those exceptions, at least initially, in order to get the other ones banned, Initially? Things like this are the reasons I refuse to even discuss compromise. You just admitted that pro lifers will keep trying to move until all abortions are banned, even the ones for hard cases. Letting them have an inch will lead the way for them to do so. I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable.

reply from: faithman

So basically you're saying that even if the pregnancy is going along quite well with no fetal abnormalities, no threat to the mother's life or health, and did not result from rape or incest, that the woman still retains the right to kill her offspring.
Folks, that is the real crux of this issue. It's not the hard cases; a lot of pro lifers are willing to allow those exceptions, at least initially, in order to get the other ones banned, Initially? Things like this are the reasons I refuse to even discuss compromise. You just admitted that pro lifers will keep trying to move until all abortions are banned, even the ones for hard cases. Letting them have an inch will lead the way for them to do so. I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable.
Maybe in your little prodeath baby killing mind. We have already seen that your blood lust has blinded you to anything else. You are a murderer in heart, and none of your petty intelectualism covers that fact up. You hate life so you hate others who have it, and celebrate it's destruction. If you think abortion is SSSSSSOOOOO wonderful, why don't you go and get your brains sucked out? But maybe none would be found to suck out huh?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

This might be a good exception. I would imagine that some of those women are the ones who go on to kill their child(ren) like Andrea Yates and others.
RML, that is quite an insult to injury for the thousands of women who have carried to term knowing their child was ill or dying. Show me even one child killer who has killed ANY child after carrying to term in this situation. The hundreds of women I know who have done this are saner than most other women I know and NONE of them would hurt a child EVER. That is exactly why they ctt. Also they grieve a child, why would they hurt another? Your statement in not only wrong but very insulting.
If a pregnancy is going to damagea woman's mental state for the rest of her life and leaver her permanently psychologically damaged so that she cannot function in normal society, aka cannot hold a job, is a danfer to herself or others, and is not even mentally capable of caring for herself...
I'm sorry, but that woman should have the right to abort.

reply from: faithman

This might be a good exception. I would imagine that some of those women are the ones who go on to kill their child(ren) like Andrea Yates and others.
RML, that is quite an insult to injury for the thousands of women who have carried to term knowing their child was ill or dying. Show me even one child killer who has killed ANY child after carrying to term in this situation. The hundreds of women I know who have done this are saner than most other women I know and NONE of them would hurt a child EVER. That is exactly why they ctt. Also they grieve a child, why would they hurt another? Your statement in not only wrong but very insulting.
If a pregnancy is going to damagea woman's mental state for the rest of her life and leaver her permanently psychologically damaged so that she cannot function in normal society, aka cannot hold a job, is a danfer to herself or others, and is not even mentally capable of caring for herself...
I'm sorry, but that woman should have the right to abort.
If, if, if, what if. SSSSSOOOOOO what if's trump what is? that is what makes you pro-death. You think mom's what ifs, gives her the right to kill what is, namely a little helpless womb child.

reply from: JRH

So basically you're saying that even if the pregnancy is going along quite well with no fetal abnormalities, no threat to the mother's life or health, and did not result from rape or incest, that the woman still retains the right to kill her offspring.
Folks, that is the real crux of this issue. It's not the hard cases; a lot of pro lifers are willing to allow those exceptions, at least initially, in order to get the other ones banned, Initially? Things like this are the reasons I refuse to even discuss compromise. You just admitted that pro lifers will keep trying to move until all abortions are banned, even the ones for hard cases. Letting them have an inch will lead the way for them to do so. I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable.
Maybe in your little prodeath baby killing mind. We have already seen that your blood lust has blinded you to anything else. You are a murderer in heart, and none of your petty intelectualism covers that fact up. You hate life so you hate others who have it, and celebrate it's destruction. If you think abortion is SSSSSSOOOOO wonderful, why don't you go and get your brains sucked out? But maybe none would be found to suck out huh?Your posts are so funny when you go off the deep end.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

This might be a good exception. I would imagine that some of those women are the ones who go on to kill their child(ren) like Andrea Yates and others.
RML, that is quite an insult to injury for the thousands of women who have carried to term knowing their child was ill or dying. Show me even one child killer who has killed ANY child after carrying to term in this situation. The hundreds of women I know who have done this are saner than most other women I know and NONE of them would hurt a child EVER. That is exactly why they ctt. Also they grieve a child, why would they hurt another? Your statement in not only wrong but very insulting.
If a pregnancy is going to damagea woman's mental state for the rest of her life and leaver her permanently psychologically damaged so that she cannot function in normal society, aka cannot hold a job, is a danfer to herself or others, and is not even mentally capable of caring for herself...
I'm sorry, but that woman should have the right to abort.
If, if, if, what if. SSSSSOOOOOO what if's trump what is? that is what makes you pro-death. You think mom's what ifs, gives her the right to kill what is, namely a little helpless womb child.
You have to prove it. A trained board of doctors and psychologists will know this, as well as the woman's mental health history. If she is on a specific medication needed to maintain her sanity, 9 months off of it will do irreperable harm. That is unacceptable.

reply from: yoda

Women aren't the weather, and future mental health can't be predicted even as well as the weather can be. That's BS. And there are always alternate medications and ways to maintain mental health that don't involve killing a baby. You just find convenience more important than human life.
And who is the authority on how much "psychological damage" it takes to justify an abortion? You? The abortionist? Who, exactly?

reply from: CharlesD

I would think that knowing you killed your offspring would cause psychological damage, but what do I know? I'm just one of those crazy people who is easily offended by murder.

reply from: yoda

Oh no! Now you will have all the crazy rabid proaborts all over you!
You dare to suggest that killing your baby might cause you some "permanent psychological damage"? How dare you??
Lib and the rest will pick you to pieces, you just wait!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yet strangely it doesn't. But what do I know? The majority of women who are just fine after their abortions must be wrong. They must be unconsciously psychologically damaged and only Yoda ranting in their faces calling them baby killers can possibly fix them!

reply from: yoda

That's a typical proabort lie. You are showing your colors again.
I never say a word at the mill. You're just a lying proabort.

reply from: scopia19822

"Yet strangely it doesn't. But what do I know? The majority of women who are just fine after their abortions must be wrong. They must be unconsciously psychologically damaged and only Yoda ranting in their faces calling them baby killers can possibly fix them!"
It depends on how much time has passed since the abortion. Most women do feel relieved immediatly after their abortions, but there is a difference between that and "being just fine" with it. Alot of women take years or decades before they realize the full effects of their choice.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Women aren't the weather, and future mental health can't be predicted even as well as the weather can be. That's BS. And there are always alternate medications and ways to maintain mental health that don't involve killing a baby. You just find convenience more important than human life.
And who is the authority on how much "psychological damage" it takes to justify an abortion? You? The abortionist? Who, exactly?
It's not worth the risk IMO. Just like unprotected sex isn't worth the risk.
There are NOT "always" alternate medications.
Not me, not the abortionist. The team of experienced doctors and psychologists I keep mentioning. Over and over. IF they determine that alternative medications will work then HORRAY, no one has to die, and no one has to be permanently psychologically damaged. That's probably what would happen in most cases, too. You're absolutely right.
But if there is even ONE case where the woman would be permanently, severely mentally harmed, that one woman should be given the OPTION to abort. She should not be FORCED to abort; and she may in fact choose NOT to abort. She may choose to try the alternate medicines even if they're not likely to work, and take her chances to see how far along she can get in the pregnancy.
But no woman should be FORCED to do so if severe psychological damage is a HIGH RISK. Just like no woman should be forced to carry if her death is a HIGH RISK.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's a typical proabort lie. You are showing your colors again.
You do it every single day on here. What am I to think? If you don't want to be called hateful, stop acting that way.
No, I'm exaggerating what you do on here, since you think you're a gift to the disgusting pro-death baby killing "scancs" of the world. You've told me yourself that your hateful speeches on here are "tough love" and that they somehow do convince women to become pro-life.
So I really haven't exaggerated very much at all, have I? You treat women like crap on here, state it's "tough love" and then think it's a stretch for me to say you'd do it to a woman's face in order to stop her from aborting? I don't think that's a stretch at all.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

There is currently no good research out about this (from unbiased sources). So I cannot say whether or not most women grow to regret their abortions.

reply from: scopia19822

"There is currently no good research out about this (from unbiased sources). So I cannot say whether or not most women grow to regret their abortions"
I dont think we will ever get real accurate results on this or on forced/coercion abortions either.

reply from: yoda

Yet another proabort lie. Do you give lessons on lying, or take them?
I've never told you any such thing, and you know quite well you can't get in anyone's "face" online, you were accusing me of doing that at the mill.
I really don't try to convert any of them. I try to defeat them. As Mark Crutcher says "I'm pretty sure we can beat the proaborts, but I'm not sure we can defeat the "prolifers". You are what he was talking about.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yet another proabort lie. Do you give lessons on lying, or take them?
I've never told you any such thing, and you know quite well you can't get in anyone's "face" online, you were accusing me of doing that at the mill.
You told me point blank that your verbal abuse on here was tough love, that sugar coating the truth didn't work. "To my face" is simply a euphamism.
He's another incredibly hateful person so I don't really care WHAT he says.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

We could if pro-choicers and pro-lifers worked together on it.

reply from: yoda

Horse hockey. That's a far cry from claiming that I was being tough on the proaborts to try to convert them, isn't it?
"Euphemism"? My, you still have some of your old habits, don't you?
You aren't fit to say his name.
This is HIS board, so why do you hang around?

reply from: scopia19822

"We could if pro-choicers and pro-lifers worked together on it."
Pro choicers dont want such information to be made available. It would totally bring down the fragile house of cards that holds the abortion agenda and industry together. They knew that if people knew the truth of forced abortions and the conditions of some of those clinics there would be such a public outrage that most abortionist and their minions would be run out of town on a rail. Look at the numerous investigation on PP covering up statutory rape. The abortion lobby claims they were "set up" and maybe they were, but its no different than sending underage decoys to liquor stores to see if they are abiding by the law.

reply from: faithman

We could if pro-choicers and pro-lifers worked together on it.
There is no such thing as an honorable borthead. The very foundation of their house of cards is lies. There is no working with nasty little punks who kill babys for a living. They must be defeated not "worked with".

reply from: 4given

And how might that be determined? And by whom? Who are you sorry to? The unborn in question that you just helped to justify killing?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And how might that be determined? And by whom? Who are you sorry to? The unborn in question that you just helped to justify killing?
By. Trained. Doctors. And. Psychologists. Like I keep saying over and over again. I was sorry to the people who think it's okay to force a woman into permanent psychosis to birth a baby.

reply from: yoda

Sad, isn't it?
To see someone justify killing innocent babies in the name of "prolife".

reply from: 4given

Women aren't the weather, and future mental health can't be predicted even as well as the weather can be. That's BS. And there are always alternate medications and ways to maintain mental health that don't involve killing a baby. You just find convenience more important than human life.
And who is the authority on how much "psychological damage" it takes to justify an abortion? You? The abortionist? Who, exactly?
Okay.. I see this was already covered. And Yoda, I agree.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Not all pro-choicers are extremists. In fact most of them are not. Sometimes, they are just pro-lifers looking for proof.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Women aren't the weather, and future mental health can't be predicted even as well as the weather can be. That's BS. And there are always alternate medications and ways to maintain mental health that don't involve killing a baby. You just find convenience more important than human life.
And who is the authority on how much "psychological damage" it takes to justify an abortion? You? The abortionist? Who, exactly?
Okay.. I see this was already covered. And Yoda, I agree.
I replied to him after that, so yes it was covered and refuted.

reply from: scopia19822

"Not all pro-choicers are extremists. In fact most of them are not. Sometimes, they are just pro-lifers looking for proof."
If they need prrof all they need to do is open a basic high school biology book.

reply from: yoda

Covered, but never answered. Sad, isn't it?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Not that kind of proof; proof that it harms women, which is not in a biology book. Proof like I saw in an abortion video showing the procedure from the very beginning, showing how the clamps and the dialators are harmful to the WOMAN. You have to approach it from the woman's point of view. Telling them it's a baby isn't going to work. Showing them how it harms a woman WILL work - if they are ready.

reply from: 4given

Refuted, huh? Covered maybe. I did read where you said "What do I know?" I happen to agree with that. The rest is your opinion and more justifications to add to your list of who can be aborted in your view.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Refuted, huh? Covered maybe. I did read where you said "What do I know?" I happen to agree with that. The rest is your opinion and more justifications to add to your list of who can be aborted in your view.
No, I'll go get what I posted. You clearly didn't read the right post.
Here you go:
It's not worth the risk IMO. Just like unprotected sex isn't worth the risk.
There are NOT "always" alternate medications.
Not me, not the abortionist. The team of experienced doctors and psychologists I keep mentioning. Over and over. IF they determine that alternative medications will work then HORRAY, no one has to die, and no one has to be permanently psychologically damaged. That's probably what would happen in most cases, too. You're absolutely right.
But if there is even ONE case where the woman would be permanently, severely mentally harmed, that one woman should be given the OPTION to abort. She should not be FORCED to abort; and she may in fact choose NOT to abort. She may choose to try the alternate medicines even if they're not likely to work, and take her chances to see how far along she can get in the pregnancy.
But no woman should be FORCED to do so if severe psychological damage is a HIGH RISK. Just like no woman should be forced to carry if her death is a HIGH RISK.

reply from: lukesmom

And that is one of the biggest reasons I carried to term. I could not kill my own child and was worried about my mental status if I did.
Now according to some, I may be a raving lunitic who is at risk to drown her other children as the Yates mother did.

reply from: faithman

We have proof that it does everytime CM posts here. it is obvious that she aborted her conscience along with three womb children.

reply from: CharlesD

All of the post abortive women who post here regularly are a testimony to the negative impact abortion has on women and they all handle the pain in a different way, but you can't say that the pain isn't there to some degree. I can't imagine what it must be like. Check out this site to see how it affects everyone involved.
http://www.abortionchangesyou.com

reply from: katieargenis01

Okay i'm only 17 Years old so most of you think my opion wont matter....but i know in certain cases people get abortions even though i am strongly against it i feel if the women has been raped that she has the right to get an abortion but i dont think a women should be able to get one if she was in a steady relationship and was haveing a unprotected sex...

reply from: Teresa18

Do you support abortion in rape cases?

reply from: Teresa18

There is no difference in a mother killing her child before birth and after birth.

reply from: Teresa18

If a woman needs a medication to survive, I would not be opposed to giving her that medicine. I would be opposed to directly killing the baby. If the child dies while she is taking the medicine or suffers ill effects from it, that is sad, but the child wouldn't directly be killed.

reply from: Teresa18

Why don't you think abortion should be allowed under "normal" circumstances?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If a woman needs a medication to survive, I would not be opposed to giving her that medicine. I would be opposed to directly killing the baby. If the child dies while she is taking the medicine or suffers ill effects from it, that is sad, but the child wouldn't directly be killed.
I suppose you'd be okay with a woman drinking and smoking during pregnancy too, despite all of the harm that causes as well? That's sickening to me. Even if I was okay with purposely creating horribly disfigured and disabled children (which is what you propose) I would still want the woman's mental state watched very closely, and if she ever came close to going over the edge the pregnancy should be ended immediately.

reply from: yoda

The "right to kill"? What about the baby's rights?
Are you in favor of making the crime of rape punishable by the killing of an innocent bystander? Is that a just "punishment"?

reply from: Faramir

There is no difference in a mother killing her child before birth and after birth.
If there is no difference, then why are there so few women who kill their born children?
If the women who abort are "blood thirsty murderers" why don't they kill their born children too?


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