Home - List All Discussions

Abortion is not a reproductive choice

It is the right to kill your child

by: LiberalChiRo

The unborn is a child. Abortion is the right to kill that child. A reproductive choice is the right to reproduce or NOT to do so. The moment the egg is fertilized, the woman and the man have reproduced. Abortion is not a reproductive right. It is the right to kill a child.

reply from: micah

More specifically, the right to abortion is the right to control your own body.

reply from: lukesmom

No, specifically, it is the right to kill another human's body. And the fact that human is your child, a separate entitiy that is also a part of your own flesh and blood just adds to the horror.

reply from: micah

I like your quote. If we both die and the god is your god, you go to heaven and I go to hell for eternity. But if there is no god, then no loss for you right? You just go to the grave. You're playing the odds right.

reply from: lukesmom

I like your quote. If we both die and the god is your god, you go to heaven and I go to hell for eternity. But if there is no god, then no loss for you right? You just go to the grave. You're playing the odds right.
I don't debate religion because I believe an individuals religious beliefs are up to them. I simply liked the quote. Nice diversion try though.

reply from: 4given

Exactly right. Why do you suppose it is so difficult for many of the choicers to actually call it like it is?

reply from: micah

Yeah, I'm sorry. We've literally been down this road 20000 times before and you added absoletely nothing new, so I figured we might talk about something else.

reply from: 4given

Right. I notice a lot of the men and women that advocate other women's choices to kill their offspring state that they have never, nor would ever abort their own child. Micah is one of them.

reply from: lukesmom

Like I said, nice try at diversion but it was pretty hard to miss. If you want to talk about something other than abortion, why don't you go to a different forum. It is pretty clear what this forum is all about.

reply from: micah

Yes & no. Under most circumstances I wouldn't have an abortion. The only 3 exceptions would be rape, a threat to my life, or if the fetus had extremely serious health issues where it would just die anyway.

reply from: lukesmom

Right. I notice a lot of the men and women that advocate other women's choices to kill their offspring state that they have never, nor would ever abort their own child. Micah is one of them.
Yeah, they all end up saying and believing the same old rhetoric, don't they.

reply from: 4given

Indeed. It gets old. Some are interested in the facts and others are just wasting time. I have some hope that eyes will be opened to the reality of how gruesome and disturbing abortion is. Ignorance can only justify so much. For those that know the truth and advocate the destruction of human life... that is a callousness that only God Himself can reach.

reply from: 4given

Serious health issues like what? By the time many "issues" are discovered, the child is quite far along. Why do you suppose that it would be best to dismember it within the womb as opposed to allowing it to die peacefully as it naturally would?

reply from: micah

As far as the health issues for which I'd abort, that's a much longer topic. I wouldn't abort my kid if I knew he was going to be in a wheelchair, so I hope I didn't offend you there if I implied that. I mean very serious health issues where the kid will die within 3 days. I'm certainly not going to let nature just take its toll on both of us by doing nothing.
Serious health issues like what? By the time many "issues" are discovered, the child is quite far along. Why do you suppose that it would be best to dismember it within the womb as opposed to allowing it to die peacefully as it naturally would?

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes, because a "fetus" is the woman's body, even tho half the time the "fetus" has a PENIS!

reply from: AshMarie88

Serious health issues like what? By the time many "issues" are discovered, the child is quite far along. Why do you suppose that it would be best to dismember it within the womb as opposed to allowing it to die peacefully as it naturally would?
"The kid"? We're not talking about worthless humans that will die, we are talking about your FLESH AND BLOOD whom you should protect til their NATURAL death! You are sickening for believing in murdering a child before it has a chance to take a breath, see its parents, smell the world.

reply from: lukesmom

Is nurturing and keeping your child safe and secure within you, doing nothing? I guess injecting their heart with dig to stop it and forcing a birth or ripping the child apart is more desirable. Maybe you would allow your child to be partially born and have a sissors pushed into his/her brain and then have the brain sucked out would be your humane choice.
Believe me, nature is going to take it's toll regardless.

reply from: micah

There are medical conditions where a fetus will either die before it is born or it will just slowly go within a few days. Natural death in these cases tend to be pretty far from what you would consider "natural".
While I'm not intimated by childish name-calling, I'm reluctant to continue this debate as I understand that some of the posters have had personal connections to topic. You know where I stand, so perhaps we should just drop this issue. There are plenty of other areas of abortion to discuss.

reply from: lukesmom

Who is "name calling"? You brought up this topic and then the 1 person here who has actually not only experienced it but knows and works with hundreds of other women who have encountered every poor or fatal prenatal diagnosis imaginable actually answers you with the facts of aborting, you want to "drop this issue". I am not name calling when I say you are acting like a coward. I would respect you a lot more if you just said, you know nothing about the subject and leave it at that. As for me, I have no problem "debating" this subject as I am an expert in it and nothing you could say hasn't been said to me before by other proaborts who say they "advocate" choice.

reply from: micah

Oh, I'd love to discuss the issue actually. I'm just saying we have two options here. One, we can just drop the issue. The second is we can talk about this issue, but I'm not going to water down my responses. I am going to state things as they are. So while it is not my intention to offend you, it is highly likely that I will.

reply from: lukesmom

I have been told I am a bad mother because I supposedly caused my son and my other children pain. I have been told not killing my child caused a drain on the medical system and the insurance company. I have been told I am crazy because only a psychotic person would carry their child knowing that child was going to die. I have been called a religious fanatic and the only reason I carried to term was because I was making a prolife statement. I was even told I had no right to grieve as my child wasn't human anyway. By your statements here you seem to agree with that one. These are the first that come to mind, I'm sure I'll think of more with a little time.
So much for "choice". You got any more to add?

reply from: micah

Do you want to discuss the issue or your personal life?

reply from: lukesmom

The issue is part of my personal life. How can it not be, the issue has a name for me and that name is Lucas Adam.

reply from: micah

I'm going to turn you down. I'm not interested in discussing your personal life. Try Faithman or one of those guys.

reply from: lukesmom

Fine, I am noticing you would rather not learn by other's experiences. No problem. Why would I talk to fman or "those guys" whoever they are? What does fman have to do with anything? You are confusing me on that one.

reply from: Rosalie

Fine, I am noticing you would rather not learn by other's experiences. No problem. Why would I talk to fman or "those guys" whoever they are? What does fman have to do with anything? You are confusing me on that one.
Faithman, yoda and others like to pick personal lives of the posters here apart and attack them for whatever they've done or been through. Micah is probably not willing to engage in anything that would in any way resemble that - or that's at least how I understood the post.

reply from: Witness

Yes, because a "fetus" is the woman's body, even tho half the time the "fetus" has a PENIS!
(chuckles) Good one!

reply from: Witness

Ahh-h-h, she weaseled out. Better than facing reality any day --- especially when one advocates killing helpless little children.

reply from: Rosalie

Yes, because a "fetus" is the woman's body, even tho half the time the "fetus" has a PENIS!
(chuckles) Good one!
So the fetus is not using the woman's body for survival in any way? It's good on its own?

reply from: micah

Yes, that is exactly how I meant the post.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, because a "fetus" is the woman's body, even tho half the time the "fetus" has a PENIS!
(chuckles) Good one!
So the fetus is not using the woman's body for survival in any way? It's good on its own?
Using and BEING are not the same thing at all. I use a car to drive to work. That does not make me PART of the car, even though I am inside and using it. I am still a unique, individual human being. If I "use" a taller person to reach a book I cannot, that does not make me a PART of them. If I donate a kidney, that does not make ME a part of them; what was a part of me is IN them. But it's not mine anymore.
Similarly, using the analogy of "forced organ donation" to describe pregnancy is silly. The woman's uterus doesn't go anywhere; she does not lose any body parts due to the birth or growing of the child.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

AND the body of another human being, whom you KILL.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Exactly right. Why do you suppose it is so difficult for many of the choicers to actually call it like it is?
Because they do not believe it is a person or a baby. They have good intentions because they focus on the mother and women's rights, but they forget about the other human being in the picture. More accurately, they forcibly shove the child out of the picture.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

A negative image and a correlation to abortion was intended. A "pun" was not:
pun
? ?/p?n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [puhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, punned, pun?ning.
- noun
1. the humorous use of a word or phrase so as to emphasize or suggest its different meanings or applications, or the use of words that are alike or nearly alike in sound but different in meaning; a play on words.

reply from: JRH

Yes, because a "fetus" is the woman's body, even tho half the time the "fetus" has a PENIS!
(chuckles) Good one!
So the fetus is not using the woman's body for survival in any way? It's good on its own?
Using and BEING are not the same thing at all. I use a car to drive to work. That does not make me PART of the car, even though I am inside and using it. I am still a unique, individual human being. If I "use" a taller person to reach a book I cannot, that does not make me a PART of them. If I donate a kidney, that does not make ME a part of them; what was a part of me is IN them. But it's not mine anymore.
Similarly, using the analogy of "forced organ donation" to describe pregnancy is silly. The woman's uterus doesn't go anywhere; she does not lose any body parts due to the birth or growing of the child.
A woman does not lose any body parts during rape either........

reply from: lukesmom

Yes, that is exactly how I meant the post.
Funny, I have been here for a few years, you have been here for a few weeks. Fman, Yoda and the ? "others" have never picked apart my personal life. I can't even imagine why they would at this late date. It has only been those who support CHOICE who have picked apart my private life.One reason why I call 'em like I see 'em-proaborts. None of these choicers respected my CHOICE and only advocate abortion. So much for underhanded and snide remarks about prolifers here. Truthfully, at this point I would take all of them instead of one crude pinheaddy, inhuman JRH or nasty Rosalie.

reply from: micah

There are a lot of pro-choicers and even pro-lifers who would have a problem with the decision you made. They might not respect your decision, but I challenge you to find me a single pro-choicer who would have ever FORCED a decision on you.

reply from: lukesmom

In 5 years on line and personally, I have never met a prolifer who had a problem with my carrying to term.
It is very IRONIC how so called choicers supposably advocate "choice" in the matter but only if that choice is abortion. If that is the case are they really "prochoice" or are they, as I call them, proabortion?
I don't care who "respects" my decision and who doesn't. I DO want people to understand, the unborn are people with the same inalienable rights as born people.
As to wanting to force a decision on me and other women like me, well, have you ever read JRH's psychopathic posts? How about spinwiddy's? Too bad you missed Vexing! LOL!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, because a "fetus" is the woman's body, even tho half the time the "fetus" has a PENIS!
(chuckles) Good one!
So the fetus is not using the woman's body for survival in any way? It's good on its own?
Using and BEING are not the same thing at all. I use a car to drive to work. That does not make me PART of the car, even though I am inside and using it. I am still a unique, individual human being. If I "use" a taller person to reach a book I cannot, that does not make me a PART of them. If I donate a kidney, that does not make ME a part of them; what was a part of me is IN them. But it's not mine anymore.
Similarly, using the analogy of "forced organ donation" to describe pregnancy is silly. The woman's uterus doesn't go anywhere; she does not lose any body parts due to the birth or growing of the child.
A woman does not lose any body parts during rape either........
Pregnancy is completely different from rape.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I think Lukesmom's choice was extremely brave and to not knock her for it at all. I respect her for it, even the first day I was here.

reply from: carolemarie

I think Lukesmom's choice was extremely brave and to not knock her for it at all. I respect her for it, even the first day I was here.
I do too, in fact Micah, check out her website to hear her whole story. even if you don't agree with her, you will understand her POV.

reply from: nancyu

A Poetry Journal ([info]spiderskein) wrote,
@ 2007-04-19 02:22:00
Previous Entry Add to memories! Tell a Friend! Next Entry
What I Never Told You About the Abortion
That it hurt, despite the anesthetic,
which they administered with a long needle, shot straight into the womb.
That they hit the vagus nerve the first time and I fell down when I tried to stand.
That after the second shot my legs snapped shut--
instinctively as any wild mother protecting chick, kit, cub.
That I held the hand of a young Hispanic nurse and wept
when she said, "You know, hon, you don't have to do this."
That I believed I did, though I nearly got up and left.
That the doctor was crude, saying (when he saw me conscious),
"It's always the ones who want to be awake who should be put out."
That dilation and curettage is exactly what it sounds like:
opening, scraping, digging out a scrap of tissue that clings.
That mothers both create and take life. That I crossed a picket line
to get into the clinic. That I wanted to come back another day
but knew if I left then I wouldn't return. That my mind was not,
as I let you believe made up that night at Planned Parenthood,
the positive lab slip shining in my hand like a ticket to heaven.
That this was where the deep root of sadness began to take hold.
That I stood in our bedroom a few days before the "procedure,"
my blouse open and bra undone, looking at my breasts, marveling
at the way they swelled, even at eight weeks, like fruit I'd never seen,
remembering the rise and fall of my mother's body as she nursed my sister.
That I felt inhabited then. Incarnate, the cells of my skin glowing,
bright and scared. That I wished we were married, though it seemed uncool.
That I wished you'd said "A baby? Let's do it!"
instead of "It's your body. You decide."
That it was all surgical and neat, not even
any blood afterward on the Kotex that made me feel fourteen.
That I dreamed of it for weeks. That we married years later, that dream
torn between us. That I had wanted to feel the hard bowl of my belly.
That I believed it was practical--you in grad school,
no health insurance, me the one with a job.
That the table I lay on was cold. That there was a poster
of a kitten dangling from a tree limb, with the words "Hang in there, baby"
on the ceiling above me. That I turned names
over and over in my head like bright stones:
Caitlin, Phoebe, Rebecca, Siobhan.
That the nurse wept with me, like some twentieth-century
Southern Californian fate, midwife to death
in her uniform printed with flowers.
That she wrapped my hands in her navy blue sweater.
That I described the thumb-size embryo inside me in all the obvious ways --
shrimp, peanut, little bud-wanting-to-open.
But not baby, never baby.
That I saved the paperwork as proof I'd been admitted
to the college of mothers. That I told you a good story,
letting you believe I believed I might not be able to write with a child,
that this was the beginning of the end of us.
That though we are kind now, and always cordial when we meet,
a decade after our divorce, it is the one thing I cannot forgive you.
That it has taken me twenty years to find words for this story.
That no matter how many thats I write, there are not--will never be--enough.
-Alison Townsend
http://spiderskein.livejournal.com/59774.html

reply from: lukesmom

How very, very sad and would NEVER have happened if abortion wasn't legal.

reply from: lukesmom

You see, Micah, when you go through any "experience" it is no longer abstract or statistics. It becomes real and has a face and a name and emotions. You have a child and everytime you hear of child abuse or an abduction or any other trauma to a child, you look at your child and hold on tight. And then that child grows and starts driving and everytime you hear a siren, you pray your child is whole and when you hear of another family losing a child that child has your child's face. That is the way it is with a parent. Maybe some day you will have a child and then you will understand.

reply from: nancyu

..what about "widely accepted" "condoned" "available" "protected"...
(Don't get me started on "legal")

reply from: scopia19822

Could it also be Sue that many pro aborts get squemish to hear about such experiences?

reply from: lukesmom

It could be but what they need to realize is our experiences are no different than women who abort. We just don't buy into the politically correct proabort industry rhetoric and refuse to subject our children to their idea of "choice".

reply from: scopia19822

"It could be but what they need to realize is our experiences are no different than women who abort. We just don't buy into the politically correct proabort industry rhetoric and refuse to subject our children to their idea of "choice"."
It might actually make them have to think about people instead of policy and rhetoric. And sadly thats enough to overload their brains.

reply from: lukesmom

My hope is that it will make them think outside of the proabortion rhetoric box.

reply from: micah

I'm not squeamish to hear about experiences. If I go over details about rape, you're a lot more likely to see the need for MAP & abortion in rape cases. In fact, I could easily find more material than you could.
It was just in this particular case I declined to debate because the information involved a particular poster on here. Lukesmom hasn't exactly sat on the couch as a in the abortion debate. She has paid a huge price. That certainly gives her significantly more credibility than your average pro-lifer. (In fact, it appears that most pro-lifers will abort if put in a bad enough situation. Guttmacher says a very high percentage of abortions are done by "born again" Christians.) But the reason I'm kind of squeamish about attacking her is that I feel she has been really manipulated and victimized by the extreme pro-lifers in her personal life.

reply from: Rosalie

Nasty Rosalie! Coming from you, I'm geniunely flattered.
Is it? You seemed to be in agreement with AshMarie in the other thread that they are the same thing.

reply from: Rosalie

Stuff like that always sound so funny when they come from anti-choicers!
I do too, in fact Micah, check out her website to hear her whole story. even if you don't agree with her, you will understand her POV.
Why all this? I personally have checked the website, read her story. I respect her choice as I respect reproductive choices of everyone else, whether I personally agree with them or not. THAT is pro-choice and THAT is what so many of you still fail to grasp.
Is there some kind of a problem for you that maybe not everyone wants to idolize Luke'sMom for the choice she made?

reply from: scopia19822

"Stuff like that always sound so funny when they come from anti-choicers! "
Oh really, then why is it proaborts dont want to hear about experiences like Sues of women who choose not to abort? They do not want to hear stories of women who if raped carry their pregnancies to term. They dont want to hear anything except the rhetoric, they dont want to hear about individauls.

reply from: scopia19822

"Having your body's nutrients and resources usurped by the fetus for the duration of gestation and then more often than not being permanently damaged by childbirth is just as unacceptable to some women as literally losing body parts."
Childbirth often results in permanant body damage? How is that, no more honeymoon vagina? That can be easily remedied with Kegel excercises.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Having your body's nutrients and resources usurped by the fetus for the duration of gestation and then more often than not being permanently damaged by childbirth is just as unacceptable to some women as literally losing body parts.
"Usurped"? Again, you try to imply that the child is a malevolent being FORCIBLY SUCKING the life out of the woman ON PURPOSE.
Lies.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Usurping is a conscious act. If you use that word you are directly implying the unborn child is purposefully doing something, which it is not.

reply from: CharlesD

Once a woman is pregnant, "reproductive choice" has already been exercised. She has already reproduced. It's not that difficult to understand, is it?

reply from: micah

Or if a woman is pregnant and has a 2-year-old and a 5-year old, and someone asks her how many kids she has, she says "2 and I have one on the way", and not "three".

reply from: BossMomma

Every time I went for a prenatal check up my doctor refered to my unborn child as the baby.

reply from: micah

There is one point that pro-lifers make that is both correct and amusing. In our society, the second a pregnant woman goes to a doctor and says she wants the baby, the unborn child is instantly "promoted" from "fetus" to "baby". It makes no difference if she's 2 weeks along or 7 months along.
Every time I went for a prenatal check up my doctor refered to my unborn child as the baby.

reply from: lukesmom

Micah wrote:
Why ever would you think that? Who are the "extreme prolifers"?
There is one very, very important fact you should know. I did not carry my son to term because of any political beliefs or because of my religion or because I am a "strong" woman or for any other reason than the fact that this was my child. A child who was moving and kicking and loved. A child who was alive and would live the life given him before a natural death. A child I could enjoy while he lived, same as my other children. A child who would live for 40 weeks max. 40 weeks is such a short time in my possible 80+ yrs of life. How little for a mother to give to her child.
So, make no mistake. I carried my son to a natural birth and subsequent natual death because he was my son and deserved to continue the live already given to him. Who was I to take that away? I do not take life, especially the life of my own child. I did for him no more and no less than I would do for any of my children.

reply from: lukesmom

If all of this is unacceptable to some women, why do they practice an act that has a risk of creating a fetus to cause all this havic. The answer is simple. If you don't want to become pregnant, don't participate in the activity that has a risk of pregnancy. If you do accept the responsibility of that risk by engaging in intercourse and become pregnant, take responsibility for your own actions. Don't kill the one person who had no choice in this, your unborn child.

reply from: lukesmom

And if a parent has a child who has died for whatever reason and whatever age, and has a 2-year-old and a 5-year old, she will still say 2. Why? Because it is easier than explaining. Oh, and "one on the way", doesn't mean her child is not a human or child or whatever, it just means this one child isn't in her arms yet.

reply from: micah

You want us to celebrate a choice you made that you want to deny every other American woman.

reply from: BossMomma

Every time I went for a prenatal check up my doctor refered to my unborn child as the baby.
My doctor refers to the unborn as a baby before she knows whether or not the woman wants it. She does not perform or advocate abortion.

reply from: Teresa18

An ardent abortion defender on another forum informed me many times that he was pro-life for HIS family and "pro-choice" for everyone else. I asked him why he didn't support abortion for his family if it was only a nonsentient blob of cells being killed. He grew extremely nasty, and the conversation got discontinued. I guess he realized he had negated his own point.

reply from: lukesmom

There is where you are wrong. It was never a choice. You "choicers" want to make it a "choice" but it wasn't and isn't. How absolutely cruel of you to try to make the death of a woman's child; a "choice".
It stops being a "choice" when another separate human life is involved.

reply from: Teresa18

If you found out your born child had a terminal illness and would likely suffer and die, would you advocate killing your born child?

reply from: Teresa18

Indeed. You should see how many of these so-called "choicers" respond to large families like the Duggars. They don't respect their choice to have a large family at all.

reply from: Teresa18

Rape is not a natural process. The body is not designed to be raped.

reply from: Skippy

Indeed. You should see how many of these so-called "choicers" respond to large families like the Duggars. They don't respect their choice to have a large family at all.
I have no problem with the Duggars. They're not on the public dole, so as far as I'm concerned, Mrs. Duggar can squirt out another eighteen kids if she wishes.
That said, I wouldn't want to be one of their kids. Obviously there's too many of them for the parents to handle, so they put the older children in charge of the younger ones. Personally, I'd feel kind of gypped.

reply from: Rosalie

Woman's body is still her body, whether she is pregnant or not. It's never NOT hers. She always has the right to make private, medical decisions about her body and health.
Because they have sex for different purposes than to breed. DUH. It's absolutely nonsensical and ignorant to demand that people do not have sex unless they want to breed.
You don't like the way their take responsibility for their actions - and that's fine, that's your opinion. But that's all it is.

reply from: Rosalie

I have witnessed people having problems with the Duggars. But your post is, as always, ignorant and misleading. No one I know has ever hard problem with them breeding mindlessly. If she's so disrespectful to her own body and if she enjoys having her uterus falling out of her body repeatedly then that's Michelle Duggar's prerogative. I don't give a damn.
There were concerns about their children's well-being and quality of life and about the propaganda that is being pushed on them. About their father saying that he won't allow the girls go to college, the girls not being able to cut their hair or wear pants - basically they are being controlled by patriarchal authority, they have to sign up for a few minutes of private times with their parents - and other misogynistic and fanatical things.
THAT's what the concerns were.

reply from: Rosalie

Oh dear god, you really do NOT get this, do you? That's what pro-choice is about. If you don't want to have abortion - DON'T HAVE ONE.
They've made their choice. Now you are trying to assume that every pro-choicers WANTS or SHOULD have an abortion - it'd probably go well with the propaganda you're spouting out but you're wrong.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

She is "expecing" her child to be born. But the basic biological act of reproduction is finished at the moment of fertilization.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Rape is not a natural process. The body is not designed to be raped.
True. If it was, then it would not be injured in the process.

reply from: CharlesD

No matter how people try to complicate it, an unborn child is still a human being and it is still wrong to take the life of innocent human beings. It really isn't any more complicated than that. Murder is murder, no matter where the victim resides or how developed he is.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Then gestation would not be necessary. Pregnancy is part of the complex reproductive process not matter how you attempt to simplify it.
Reproduction has already taken place. Pregnancy is part of the complex growth process of a human being no matter how you attempt to justify abortion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You can say baby or fetus but that doesn't change the fact that it has unique human DNA not found anywhere else on the planet (unless it has a twin). That is a PERSON, and abortion kills it.

reply from: lukesmom

You can say baby or fetus but that doesn't change the fact that it has unique human DNA not found anywhere else on the planet (unless it has a twin). That is a PERSON, and abortion kills it.
Well there yah go. I'm sure though one of these proaborts will spew the usual "it's my body" lie AGAIN. Boring and so untrue in the case of who's life is being ended...literally.

reply from: scopia19822

"I have no problem with the Duggars. They're not on the public dole, so as far as I'm concerned, Mrs. Duggar can squirt out another eighteen kids if she wishes."
It seems no matter how many times thats pointed out many still think what there doing is wrong. My mom is the youngest of 13 kids (not all from the same set of parents) and my dad is the oldest of 4 (all from the same set of parents) . For me I wanted a larger than average family when I was younger. I wanted 6 kids, I thought that was a good number. However I only have 1 and dont look like I will be having any more.
"That said, I wouldn't want to be one of their kids. Obviously there's too many of them for the parents to handle, so they put the older children in charge of the younger ones. Personally, I'd feel kind of gypped."
I think there parenting is a rather quirky, but I tend to mind my own business and not critasize others parenting, unless its clear that the child is being abused or neglected.

reply from: lukesmom

I am the oldest of 7 and we were considered a small family in our neighborhood. Yes, I was responsible for many things with my younger sibs and that taught responsibility, sharing and sacrifice. It also taught every one of us that we weren't the only person in the word who counted. Unfortunantly, these days there is a shortage of the above. Society says to pleasure yourself and "damn" the consequences. Society tells us "you" are more important than anyone else so take care of not only your needs (no problem there) but also your wants before anybody else. In short, society advocates selfishness and that is what the abortion industry is all about; pushing personal pleasure and selfishness to make money for the industry. Shameful, wasteful and selfish. Give me the Duggers, you can keep the rest of the "me" crowd.

reply from: sk1bianca

re·pro·duc·tion
n.
The act of reproducing or the condition or process of being reproduced.
Something reproduced, especially in the faithfulness of its resemblance to the form and elements of the original: a fine reproduction of a painting by Matisse.
Biology The sexual or asexual process by which organisms generate new individuals of the same kind; procreation.
preg·nant 1
adj.
having a child or other offspring developing in the body; with child or young, as a woman or female mammal.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
a new individual with unique DNA is generated at conception. therefore, after conception, we can say that reproduction has already occured. pregnancy is just a situation caused by reproduction.
or are we going back to saying unborn children don't really exist until birth?

reply from: 4given

Oh dear god, you really do NOT get this, do you? That's what pro-choice is about. If you don't want to have abortion - DON'T HAVE ONE.
They've made their choice. Now you are trying to assume that every pro-choicers WANTS or SHOULD have an abortion - it'd probably go well with the propaganda you're spouting out but you're wrong.
Don't tell me what I am "trying to assume". It says a lot about your character (or lack thereof). What propaganda Rosalie? You are the one chanting pro-abort slogans. Are you afraid of the facts? I have asked you before. What is your history with abortion? Who have you been close to that has aborted their child? What influence, if any have you had in helping a woman choose life or research her options prior to killing her offspring? Any?

reply from: 4given

I have experienced similar conversations with acquaintances and a family member. The sad thing is that they (the two I am thinking of) don't question sentience. They are apathetic to any other life but their own. When discussing the women and men hurt by the abortion industry, one stated that they "should have known when they aborted what to expect." Sad really.

reply from: scopia19822

"Don't tell me what I am "trying to assume". It says a lot about your character (or lack thereof). What propaganda Rosalie? You are the one chanting pro-abort slogans. Are you afraid of the facts? I have asked you before. What is your history with abortion? Who have you been close to that has aborted their child? What influence, if any have you had in helping a woman choose life or research her options prior to killing her offspring? Any?'
Dont hold your breath 4given.

reply from: JRH

You can say baby or fetus but that doesn't change the fact that it has unique human DNA not found anywhere else on the planet (unless it has a twin). That is a PERSON, and abortion kills it.
The pill does the same thing and you want it to remain legal.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You can say baby or fetus but that doesn't change the fact that it has unique human DNA not found anywhere else on the planet (unless it has a twin). That is a PERSON, and abortion kills it.
The pill does the same thing and you want it to remain legal.
Why don't you get to arresting all of the women in the nation who are on their periods, eh? For the same reasons you cannot do that, you cannot make birth control illegal.

reply from: JRH

You can say baby or fetus but that doesn't change the fact that it has unique human DNA not found anywhere else on the planet (unless it has a twin). That is a PERSON, and abortion kills it.
The pill does the same thing and you want it to remain legal.
Why don't you get to arresting all of the women in the nation who are on their periods, eh? For the same reasons you cannot do that, you cannot make birth control illegal.
Protip: During a period woman does not expel a fertilized egg. The pill causes such embryo's to die.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Protip: You can't prove if a woman has a fertilized egg in there or not. When women miscarry before implantation or soon after, it looks just like a period. General sex causes such embryos to die.
So again, get to work arresting all women on their periods. I haven't a clue how the pro-lifers are supposed to prove that the women have or have not expelled an embryo, but I'll leave that up to them. Since those babies are being mercilessly killed!! "Intent" doesn't matter as they say so often. So it doesn't matter if the woman is purposely killing the unborn or not; she's still a murderer.

reply from: JRH

So? We know the pill causes some women to kill the fertilized embryo in a small minority of cases. Secondly, a natural miscarriage is not killing anymore than a man dying of old age is.
If you allow women to take pills that cause them to miscarry you are still a hypocrite. This issue is tangential at best.
Of course it matters what her intent was. She can't stop her body from having a natural miscarriage so she has not guilt there. She CAN stop herself from taking the pill.


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