Pro-Lifers

[QueenCityHillbilly]

While, I consider myself a christian, I ain't a crazy christian, and if a womern wants to abort her unborn baby, I'm all for it as long as she's okay with it. So this is what I'm getting at, I'm fixin' to go to a big pro-life rally. Anything vulgar ya'll want me to holler at them?

[gridfaniker]

Ask 'em why they think it's so wrong for a doctor to take a baby by the head, pull it halfway out the birth canal and then use a sharp object to puncture the base of its skull. Tell 'em to lighten the fuck up.

[Fro]

Jesus saves.

or


Go home and make babies, you buncha fuckin femi-nazi bastards!

[QueenCityHillbilly]

Maybe one of ya'll can call my cell phone in the middle of the press conference, and I'll answer loudly......"Zorro Abortion Clinic, you rape 'em, we scrape 'em....no fetus can beat us."

[vpkozel]

Next on News 14 carolina....

A riot broke out today at an anti-abortion rally. No one knows the cause but sources say a cameraman from this station was involved.....

[QueenCityHillbilly]

Ya'll can watch it live 'round 11:30

[meatpile]

Hand out detailed academic pamphlets on the benefits of going top shelf in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

[Puttingood]

A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body. Don't mean I agree with it but she has the right. She will have to live with her decision either way.

What I don't understand is all the fems ( that have a snowballs chance in hell of getting fucked , much less pregnant) that show up at these protests screaming and hollering about rights. Only reason they there is to recruit.;)

[Boo]

Situation:
A man and a woman have sex. End result is that the woman gets pregnant. She decides not to have the baby. The man wants the kid. He wants to have a son or daughter. However, the woman decides to get the abortion, thereby terminating her parental duties. And there's nothing that the man can do. All well and good in the eyes of the law, right? If I'm missing something crucial anywhere along the way here, please point it out to me.

Second situation:
A man and a woman have sex. End result is that the woman gets pregnant. The man wants her to have an abortion, because he doesn't want the responsibilities (any of them) of having a child of his. She sees it otherwise, and has the kid anyway. So now, he's stuck with a kid that he doesn't want.

My question is...why does the woman get to make all of the decision in this case? Is that child only hers? Doesn't it also belong to the father? Reproductive rights and choice, but only for the woman in the equation?

Comments, counterpoints, opinions are all, of course, welcomed.

[Shrapnel]

Can you give me a few more details on the whole "A man and a woman have sex" thing?

[mathmajors]

Abstinence.

[chipshot]

A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body.

I doubt many abortions are self performed.

[builder]

Originally posted by mathmajors
Abstinence.

Better yet...homosexuality. I don't think I'll ever be wondering if the kid is mine.

[Puttingood]

All well and good in the eyes of the law, right? If I'm missing something crucial anywhere along the way here, please point it out to me.

The alternative would be what? Make a law that says a woman has to carry your baby because you want one? What about the men that don't want one? Would they have the right to make her abort the baby? If she had the baby, would they be liable for support?
It ain't a law I like but it's the only one in town right now.

[muff_spelunker]

Originally posted by QueenCityHillbilly
Anything vulgar ya'll want me to holler at them?

It's not vulgar, but I once saw a bumper sticker that echoed my sentiments on the whole abortion debate. It stated, "If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one."

[Boo]

Originally posted by Puttingood
All well and good in the eyes of the law, right? If I'm missing something crucial anywhere along the way here, please point it out to me.

The alternative would be what? Make a law that says a woman has to carry your baby because you want one? What about the men that don't want one? Would they have the right to make her abort the baby? If she had the baby, would they be liable for support?
It ain't a law I like but it's the only one in town right now.

My question is...why does the woman get to make all of the decision in this case? Is that child only hers? Doesn't it also belong to the father? Reproductive rights and choice, but only for the woman in the equation?

[Puttingood]

I see your point Boo and I grant that it is a very good one. I just don't see an answer to it. I don't see how you could logically enforce the mans "right to" unless you enforced his "right not to".

[mathmajors]

Originally posted by Boo
My question is...why does the woman get to make all of the decision in this case? Is that child only hers? Doesn't it also belong to the father? Reproductive rights and choice, but only for the woman in the equation?

In a purely logical sense, it doesn't jive with me either. I don't like the idea of taking the right away from her, however.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by muff_spelunker


It's not vulgar, but I once saw a bumper sticker that echoed my sentiments on the whole abortion debate. It stated, "If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one."

That's a good one Muff. Try this one on for size. "You have the right to choose, so choose not to get pregnant."

[spud]

Too bad there weren't some "crazy" Christians around when Hitler was killing Jews!

[gridfaniker]

A woman should have the right to an abortion only if having the baby would jeopardize her own life or the baby's life.

[Puttingood]

Too bad there weren't some "crazy" Christians around when Hitler was killing Jews!

There was ! Some of my kin people . They kicked his ass and put a stop to it. Then they dropped a bomb on Japan just in case they decided to start.

[builder]

Originally posted by gridfaniker
A woman should have the right to an abortion only if having the baby would jeopardize her own life or the baby's life.

Doesn't an abortion jeopardize a fetus' life?

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by builder


Doesn't an abortion jeopardize a fetus' life?

Don't be gay.

[slydevl]

I used to be pro-choice. Then i read an article about a doctor that needed to perform inter-uterus surgery on an unborn child. This child would have still been eligible for an abortion. The doctor made the incision and before he started to operate (I dont remember if they were going to put the baby under) the baby reached out of the incision and grabbed the doctors finger. It was then I realized that abortion is murder.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by slydevl
I used to be pro-choice. Then i read an article about a doctor that needed to perform inter-uterus surgery on an unborn child. This child would have still been eligible for an abortion. The doctor made the incision and before he started to operate (I dont remember if they were going to put the baby under) the baby reached out of the incision and grabbed the doctors finger. It was then I realized that abortion is murder.

Didn't that happen in "It's Alive II"? Except the baby pulled the doctor's hand into the incision and bit it off.

[gutter]

I used to be pro-life as well. But then I realized a 14 year old boy has no idea what the fuck he's talking about. I am pro-choice. It's a neccessary evil.

Boo has an argument as well, but I agree with putt. What do you do?

[slydevl]

What do you do?

You make the people invovled live with the consequences of their actions. To me, that is better than murdering an innocent.

That is the problem with todays society. There is absolutely no personal responsibility.

[flyfisher]

To have an abortion or decide to keep a child is a moral question not a governmental one. We each must decide what is right as an individual. I find the abortion too personal to discuss.

A friend adopted two children and he is prolife and I can understand his feelings. If he wasn't married and young, he probably would feel the opposite.

Boo's question is what the government has to answer- who has rights; the woman? The father? or the fetus?

A prolife guy killed a doctor. Was that his right?

[slydevl]

Originally posted by flyfisher
To have an abortion or decide to keep a child is a moral question not a governmental one. We each must decide what is right as an individual. I find the abortion too personal to discuss.

A friend adopted two children and he is prolife and I can understand his feelings. If he wasn't married and young, he probably would feel the opposite.

Boo's question is what the government has to answer- who has rights; the woman? The father? or the fetus?

A prolife guy killed a doctor. Was that his right?

You are absolutely right when you say the decision to have an abortion or not is a personal moral decision. Just as my making the decision to kill my neighbor is a personal moral decision. However, the government has laws which protect my neighbor in case i do decide i can live with murdering him. Why does a baby not have those same rights? Abortions are allowed to occur in instances when c-sections would produce a viable child. This is murder plain and simple.

What do you do? Prevent the pregnancy. I would much rather my tax money go to making free birth control available than paying for abortions.

[Boo]

just for the sake of debate...what of the woman was raped? what if the condom broke?

[builder]

Originally posted by slydevl
What do you do?

You make the people invovled live with the consequences of their actions. To me, that is better than murdering an innocent.

So the poor ignorant 14 year old girl is doomed to a life like her single mother's while producing a bastard child that will end up probably repeating all the same mistakes and so it goes?

Smart thinking there Sly...keep the poor, poor.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Boo
just for the sake of debate...what of the woman was raped? what if the condom broke?

RU-48 or large doses of birth control pills safely prevent conception after an occurance such as this.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by builder


So the poor ignorant 14 year old girl is doomed to a life like her single mother's while producing a bastard child that will end up probably repeating all the same mistakes and so it goes?

Smart thinking there Sly...keep the poor, poor.

This might be an intelligent post if adoption didn't exist. Wish i could say smart thinking builder.

[flyfisher]

I agree, however you'll probably find that the prolife movement doesn't support this either. Now that statement is off the cuff because I haven't sought info on the prolife movement.
I am turned off by the prolife advocates that I have encountered because they refuse to be rathional in their debates. The van that drives around with dead fetus pictures on the sides is an example. I guess I prefer less shouting to make a point. Their methods turn me off. No one wants an abortion. But I do believe it is the mothers decision based upon our primal past. Birth control is a benefit of modern medicine and should be available for all.

[slydevl]

If you haven't heard yelling from the pro-choice side then you are not listening.

Choice the right of the mother? Doesn't the baby get a choice?

[SemperFi]

Originally posted by gridfaniker
A woman should have the right to an abortion only if having the baby would jeopardize her own life or the baby's life.

So the woman that is gang raped repeatly and beat and sodimized should be made to carry the baby to term? Most people would consider that cruel and unusual punishment.

Another scenerio, a woman who is addicted to drugs and is a prostitute gets pregnant and wants an abortion. If she's denied do you really think she is going to stop using drugs so the baby won't be adversely affected?

I am for letting the women decide as well.

[flyfisher]

Originally posted by flyfisher
it is the mothers decision based upon our primal past.


key words--------------------------------------------------^^

Keith, I don't disagree with your opinion..

[builder]

You know what I wonder....

All the Pro-lifers out there, what are you hoping for? Jesus? The Second Coming? Stop trying to tell people how to life and mind your own damn business. (Yes Sly, I understand I just told you how to live your life)

[spud]

So we KILL MILLIONS of babies because a few women were raped?
Don't think most abortions are the results of rape. Most abortions are the result of selfish people. We want what we want, when we want it. We don't want to be inconvienced or put out.
And that is the bottom line of abortion!

[vpkozel]

I am pro-choice because of one reason. I believe that going back to the way things were is a very slippery slope. If we say abortion is illegal and thereby grant rights to a fetus, what is next? Arresting a woman because she doesn't eat right? Or stop smoking? Or stop drinking? But on the other hand, I do believe that at some point a fetus becomes a person. I don't know that exact moment, but it seems to me that after that point abotrion should be illegal and punished very severely. As with all polarizing arguements both sides have painted themselves into a corner. The prolife cannot support the reasonable alternative of RU486 because they say that life begins at conception. The pro choice crowd has to support partial birth abortion because they say that as long as the baby is in the womb, the woman controls the choices. Both sides are wrong. And I wish THEY would start excercising some of their personal responsibility and find a solution to this so that innocent beings can stop being kiled and vacuumed out of the uterus.

[builder]

Originally posted by spud
We want what we want, when we want it. We don't want to be inconvienced or put out.

WHAT IS SO FUCKING WRONG WITH THAT?

[slydevl]

Originally posted by builder
You know what I wonder....

All the Pro-lifers out there, what are you hoping for? Jesus? The Second Coming? Stop trying to tell people how to life and mind your own damn business. (Yes Sly, I understand I just told you how to live your life)

What an idiotic post. I guess we should all live in a state of anarchy. I should be able to kill anyone who cuts me off in traffic because I don't have a problem with it. What? The government has a right to tell me i can't do that? Why? They shouldn't be able to tell me how to live my life. Oh! It protects the people i want to kill. I see. Why can't we protect innocent babies?

[slydevl]

Originally posted by vpkozel
Arresting a woman because she doesn't eat right? Or stop smoking? Or stop drinking?

BUT WE HAVE THAT NOW!

What irony and hypocrisy!

[spud]

Builder if you don't know what is WRONG with that, then I feel sorry for you.

[builder]

Originally posted by slydevl
Why can't we protect innocent babies?

Because the innocents go directly to heaven.

[SemperFi]

Originally posted by slydevl

Abortions are allowed to occur in instances when c-sections would produce a viable child. This is murder plain and simple.


I don't think that is a viable child. It would be in intensive care for months while trying to develop and would most likely not survive. What's the cut off, 3 months maybe?

[slydevl]

So if i kill an innocent adult that is fine?

[builder]

Originally posted by slydevl
So if i kill an innocent adult that is fine?

There's no such thing as an innocent adult in the Christian world. We're all sinners. Sinners should be punished.

[vpkozel]

Originally posted by slydevl


BUT WE HAVE THAT NOW!

What irony and hypocrisy!

No, we don't have that now. There was a case in SC where a crack addict wsa repeatedly warned to either stop using or abort her pregnancy. She did neither and was arrested. The pro choice side argued that she had the right to do whatever she wanted but lost. I believe that the fact that crack was illegal had something to do with the decision. Not if an overweight woman was prosecuted because she kept going to McD's and eating cheeseburgers and ended up giving the kid diabetes or something, then I missed that one.

[flyfisher]

Originally posted by builder


Because the innocents go directly to heaven.

This really is a question coming from you, right?

[builder]

Originally posted by flyfisher


This really is a question coming from you, right?

No...it's what I've been taught by certain Baptist preachers that I have encountered. I don't believe in heaven.

[vpkozel]

Originally posted by builder


Because the innocents go directly to heaven.

so you can kill infants then? What is the cut off line for sinning? I missed that one.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by SemperFi


I don't think that is a viable child. It would be in intensive care for months while trying to develop and would most likely not survive. What's the cut off, 3 months maybe?

3000-4000 third term abortions occur every year

[sadic1]

I don't see how RU-486 or even normal birth control pills are any different than abortion. They do the same thing at earlier stages. To me, if you want to make abortion illegal, you should want these to be illegal.

I'm against abortion, but I don't want it to be illegal. Legislating morality is ultimately faith weakening. I'd like people to not choose abortions because of their faith, feelings, or convictions, and not because the law says they can't, a law that can easily be circumvented by people with enough money to do so. Sometimes people need to learn their lessons first hand to truly change and learn, and since what constitutes the beginning of life is so controversial, I think the law should stay out of it.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by vpkozel


No, we don't have that now. There was a case in SC where a crack addict wsa repeatedly warned to either stop using or abort her pregnancy. She did neither and was arrested. The pro choice side argued that she had the right to do whatever she wanted but lost. I believe that the fact that crack was illegal had something to do with the decision. Not if an overweight woman was prosecuted because she kept going to McD's and eating cheeseburgers and ended up giving the kid diabetes or something, then I missed that one.

You are correct. I was simply stating there have been cases where a mother has been convicted of harming her unborn fetus.

[flyfisher]

Originally posted by builder


I don't believe in heaven.

That's what I thought. Sorry. It's your right, though.

[builder]

Originally posted by sadic1
Legislating morality is ultimately faith weakening.

The Christians are scared.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by sadic1
I don't see how RU-486 or even normal birth control pills are any different than abortion. They do the same thing at earlier stages. To me, if you want to make abortion illegal, you should want these to be illegal.

I'm against abortion, but I don't want it to be illegal. Legislating morality is ultimately faith weakening. I'd like people to not choose abortions because of their faith, feelings, or convictions, and not because the law says they can't, a law that can easily be circumvented by people with enough money to do so. Sometimes people need to learn their lessons first hand to truly change and learn, and since what constitutes the beginning of life is so controversial, I think the law should stay out of it.

You may be correct with RU-486 i do believe that spontaneously aborts the baby. But i am pretty sure a large dose of birth control within up to 48 hours of the sex act actually prevents conception not aborts.

[flyfisher]

Originally posted by sadic1
I don't see how RU-486 or even normal birth control pills are any different than abortion.

Oh shit.
Do you drive a van?

[Boo]

1) When is it a life? Seems like a bad question. It's always alive. The sperm and egg are alive. The fused product is alive. The blastocyst is alive, etc.

2) When is it human? When it has 46 chromosomes? Is it based on it's potential to grow into a baby? Does that mean that embryos in cold storage are just as human?
What about when the stem cell "holy grail" is reached and we learn how to grow any tissue (or even a whole human) from adult stem cells. Are your bone marrow cells morally individual humans?

3) Some successful cloining techniques are basically taking a body cell and exchanging the cytoplasm with an egg cell's cytoplasm. Is killing the cell after the cytoplasmic exchange murder, or abortion, or what?

4) What makes killing a human embryo/fetal bundle of cells in the shape of a ball, or a fish, or a pig (ontologically speaking) better than killing a bundle in the shape of a baby? Is it the complexity? The lack of resemblance to an adult? Is it the ick factor of dismembering a little body?

[vpkozel]

Originally posted by sadic1
I don't see how RU-486 or even normal birth control pills are any different than abortion. They do the same thing at earlier stages. To me, if you want to make abortion illegal, you should want these to be illegal.

I'm against abortion, but I don't want it to be illegal. Legislating morality is ultimately faith weakening. I'd like people to not choose abortions because of their faith, feelings, or convictions, and not because the law says they can't, a law that can easily be circumvented by people with enough money to do so. Sometimes people need to learn their lessons first hand to truly change and learn, and since what constitutes the beginning of life is so controversial, I think the law should stay out of it.

That is the kind of thinking that has painted us in this box. You are saying that there is no middle ground, and I just do not believe that. Are you telling me that you think that 8 cells is the same as a 8 month old baby in the womb?

[slydevl]

Originally posted by builder


The Christians are scared.

Scared that innocent children are being murdered? Absolutely. Scared of anything else? Hardly.

[Puttingood]

You guys seem to have a lot of opinions considering there ain't a pussy amongst you. Well, builder, but he don't count.

[builder]

One more thing....Don't cry to me about abortion if you're planning a nice meaty dinner tonight. Thank you. Life is life is life is life.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by builder
One more thing....Don't cry to me about abortion if you're planning a nice meaty dinner tonight. Thank you. Life is life is life is life.

Your idiocy knows no bounds.

The whole Cheraw school system should immediately be disbanded.

[Puttingood]

Thank you. Life is life is life is life.

And another thing--Don't ever eat nothing you can fuck.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Puttingood
You guys seem to have a lot of opinions considering there ain't a pussy amongst you. Well, builder, but he don't count.

Does it take a pussy to know that killing a baby is wrong? I guess all judges and juries should be women.

[builder]

Originally posted by slydevl


Your idiocy knows no bounds.

Honestly, how is it any different killing a child, a man, a woman, or a cow? In my eyes and my beliefs (which have nothing to do with what I didn't learn in Cheraw) it's no different. True, there are emotional attachments to people. But someone kill one of your doggies and I bet you'd cry.

[Rob]

I think it boils down to a question of moral truth verses relative truth. I think it is wrong to murder period. The relative causes or whatever is right in an individuals mind makes no difference.

By the way I have been in that situation where an abortion was performed by the women of my child without my knowledge. That women I later married and she is my wife of 18 years now. That decision still haunts her and I still harbor some resentment. The next time she was pregnant she had a miscarriage. The third time our child died within 48 hours after a full term delivery to a Beta Strep infection. It was years before she was willing to try again. That's why I am 45 years old with an 8 year old. There are always strings attached. Many of those who choose the abortion rout don't think about the scars they will face in the future. I have seen it front row center.

[Shrapnel]

Originally posted by builder


Honestly, how is it any different killing a child, a man, a woman, or a cow?

Does sucking dick really make you that stupid?

[slydevl]

Originally posted by builder


Honestly, how is it any different killing a child, a man, a woman, or a cow? In my eyes and my beliefs (which have nothing to do with what I didn't learn in Cheraw) it's no different. True, there are emotional attachments to people. But someone kill one of your doggies and I bet you'd cry.

So, being a meat eater, you think it ok to kill any human for any reason?

[sadic1]

Originally posted by vpkozel


That is the kind of thinking that has painted us in this box. You are saying that there is no middle ground, and I just do not believe that. Are you telling me that you think that 8 cells is the same as a 8 month old baby in the womb?

The pill, RU-486, and abortion all do the same thing - shed the uterine lining along with whatever egg or embryonic content is contained in it. To my knowledge, not even the Bible defines when a baby is "official", so there's no way to intelligently legislate that.
As a Christian, I believe that it's a sin not because it's "murder" (since we don't know when it's an official life), but because having an abortion is an act of faithlessness. You're sort of telling God that He fucked up by allowing you to be pregnant, and that you're smart enough to rewrite the script. To that end, the pill and other birth control is doing the same thing.

[builder]

Originally posted by slydevl
So, being a meat eater, you think it ok to kill any human for any reason?

I didn't say for no reason. I'm sure women don't just run out and have abortions for no reasons.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by builder


I didn't say for no reason. I'm sure women don't just run out and have abortions for no reasons.

So, you think it ok to kill and eat a human if you are really, really hungry?

[slydevl]

Originally posted by sadic1


The pill, RU-486, and abortion all do the same thing - shed the uterine lining along with whatever egg or embryonic content is contained in it. To my knowledge, not even the Bible defines when a baby is "official", so there's no way to intelligently legislate that.
As a Christian, I believe that it's a sin not because it's "murder" (since we don't know when it's an official life), but because having an abortion is an act of faithlessness. You're sort of telling God that He fucked up by allowing you to be pregnant, and that you're smart enough to rewrite the script. To that end, the pill and other birth control is doing the same thing.

I am not a doctor and am only speaking from questions i have asked my wife. But i thought the pill fooled the body into thinking it was pregnant thereby keeping the eggs from allowing sperm to penetrate. Kinda like after the first sperm penetrates the egg, that egg and the rest of the eggs will not permit other sperm to penetrate.

[jana]

After watching my daughter go through having a pregnancy induced in the 22nd week because she had NO CHOICE, (her life was at stake) and seeing that little tiny baby born dead, I have to say that anyone who is PRO-CHOICE is just wrong. You are killing a living breathing thing. And I find a big difference in a baby and a cow!

If you don't want babies, get your tubes tied.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by slydevl


I am not a doctor and am only speaking from questions i have asked my wife. But i thought the pill fooled the body into thinking it was pregnant thereby keeping the eggs from allowing sperm to penetrate. Kinda like after the first sperm penetrates the egg, that egg and the rest of the eggs will not permit other sperm to penetrate.

Well, I don't know jack shit, but I heard it was the uterine lining thing, which was why you could imitate RU-486 by taking a few birth control pills the morning after. Boo should know this. He's practically a biologist.

[vpkozel]

Originally posted by sadic1


The pill, RU-486, and abortion all do the same thing - shed the uterine lining along with whatever egg or embryonic content is contained in it. To my knowledge, not even the Bible defines when a baby is "official", so there's no way to intelligently legislate that.
As a Christian, I believe that it's a sin not because it's "murder" (since we don't know when it's an official life), but because having an abortion is an act of faithlessness. You're sort of telling God that He fucked up by allowing you to be pregnant, and that you're smart enough to rewrite the script. To that end, the pill and other birth control is doing the same thing.

Actually I believe that they are 2 very different cases. RU486 does shed the lining as you describe, but an abortion is much more than that. That is why there are time restrictions on when RU486 will still be effective. An abortion destroys and sucks out the fetus, then lets nature take its course as if a natural miscarriage had occured. At least I believe that is the case with these 2.

As to your last point, I assume you are Catholic. I have no problem with those beliefs, but there are many different accepted relegions. Am I also sinning because I do not believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth? Or that I must confess my sins to a priest? Those are theological, not legal questions.

[kshead]

Originally posted by slydevl


So, you think it ok to kill and eat a human if you are really, really hungry?

It depends. If that person is hurt, pretty bad off and isn't going to make it like in the movies? Sure. Put 'em out of their misery and let's get cooking. Eat em while their fresh.

But I wonder if it ever really happens that way. Y'know the part about being alive but going to die? Except in the movies. It always happens in the movies that way. So maybe it's just ok to eat that person in the movies. That's it though. And for Builder. He'd probably say it's ok and get munching. And maybe for Meatpile. I mean, his name IS Meatpile....

Wait, I'm getting off subject. What's for dinner again?

[builder]

Originally posted by jana
If you don't want babies, get your tubes tied.

Jana, I'm sorry your daughter had to go through that. Just as sorry as I'd be if LJ43's cow got hit by a train. It's a matter of beliefs. You have no right to tell me what I can and cannot belief and think. Abortion is just today's version.

[meatpile]

I'm a libertarian.

Abortion is an awful fucking choice, and that's my opinion. Good thing I won't have one.

Anybody else? Not my fucking problem.

One thing I have a HUGE problem with - tax dollars paying for abortions. How dare the government seize the assets of those who oppose abortion to pay for abortion.

But hey - that's what government does. They decide what's right and wrong, and then take your money to pay for it.

[Shrapnel]

Originally posted by builder


Jana, I'm sorry your daughter had to go through that. Just as sorry as I'd be if LJ43's cow got hit by a train.

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more stupid, you keep talking.

[jana]

"You have no right to tell me what I can and cannot belief and think"

Builder,
I did not tell you what you could or could not believe. Please show me where I said that.

And it's still wrong.

[SilverSurfer]

I am pro choice but don't ever mention it unless asked. This issue is split pretty much down the middle, about 50-50. Don't bring it up at a party unless you feel like arguing all night or getting in a fight. I speak from experience. :(

[builder]

Originally posted by Shrapnel
Just when I thought you couldn't get any more stupid, you keep talking.

I know...It's a shame I outlasted Sly.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by vpkozel


Actually I believe that they are 2 very different cases. RU486 does shed the lining as you describe, but an abortion is much more than that. That is why there are time restrictions on when RU486 will still be effective. An abortion destroys and sucks out the fetus, then lets nature take its course as if a natural miscarriage had occured. At least I believe that is the case with these 2.

As to your last point, I assume you are Catholic. I have no problem with those beliefs, but there are many different accepted relegions. Am I also sinning because I do not believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth? Or that I must confess my sins to a priest? Those are theological, not legal questions.

Certainly, an abortion is a much more traumatic event, but it seems to me that the only difference is the amount of material being removed and by what means. RU486 is a drug-induced abortion, whereas having a drug induce a miscarriage/abortion would be too dangerous for the patient. Like I said, I don't know all the biology and could be wrong.

While I am a Catholic, my view of why abortion is a sin is a product of what I consider to be Christian logic, and not Catholic doctrine. Manipulating people or your own body for perceived personal gain indicates a tremendous lack of humility and faith in God. We all talk about how we have to have faith, but the first chance we get to manipulate something to work for us, we jump at. To me, people going so far out of their way to HAVE children is an almost equal sin to abortion. Harvesting eggs, artificial insemination, all that crap. The child becomes a possession that people want to acquire, and not a simple blessing. They want one to be like the neighbors just like they want a new car. They want to make sure they're not "missing out" on any possession that others may be envious of. In reality, they should want for themselves what God wants for them, even if that includes no children. The more people fuck with things in the world, the more fucked up things get, and the less faith is a factor.

[Piper]

Originally posted by meatpile
I'm a libertarian.

Abortion is an awful fucking choice, and that's my opinion. Good thing I won't have one.

Anybody else? Not my fucking problem.

One thing I have a HUGE problem with - tax dollars paying for abortions. How dare the government seize the assets of those who oppose abortion to pay for abortion.



I thought they cut that out, or at least at the individual level. I guess the clinics still get some support.

Anyway, I agree 100 percent with meat. I don’t like abortion, I won’t have one. If the wife’s pills stopped working, I think she’d want to have it, as would I.

If someone else makes a different choice, I don’t rightly care, as long as they pay for their choice.

[builder]

You're right Piper. It should be privately funded. But it should still be an option.

[vpkozel]

Originally posted by sadic1


Certainly, an abortion is a much more traumatic event, but it seems to me that the only difference is the amount of material being removed and by what means. RU486 is a drug-induced abortion, whereas having a drug induce a miscarriage/abortion would be too dangerous for the patient. Like I said, I don't know all the biology and could be wrong.


First off, I totally agree with you about those people who want to have children as an accessory. That really sickens me.

Now to where we disagree. You believe that RU486 is a sin in all cases except where the mother's life is in danger. To use it otherwise is to impose your will upon God's. But are you not imposing your will upon God's in your case too? Why draw the line where you have? The logical extension of your thinking are those groups who use prayer instead of doctors. I may not agree withthem, but at least they are consistent. You are trying to have the best of both worlds.

Edit - I edited this to include sadic's post

[Heavensent_7]

Ok - the 'pussy' as you put it has turned up!

Builder - you are intitled to your opinion it is a shame however that you have to put your opinion so abusively.

I am pro-life, I am not a feminist that hasn't had sex and couldn't get it. I have five living children and I have given birth to seven.

I gave birth to a child at 21 weeks (still abortion material) Children are not fetus's they are babies, living people that can not protect themselves and need someone to do it for them. We don't have the right to murder anybody either born or unborn.

People that have unprotected sex and don't want a baby should have thought about that before.

Abortions under a certain term of pregnancy involve cutting and sucking the child out of the womb without any pain killers, later abortions as mentioned the child is dragged out and the head is punchered to remove it. Abortion IS murder!

It kills a baby and affects the mother too.

A mother has the right (by law) to choose abortion or otherwise because she is the one having to carry the child.

If children were born within loving and caring relationships none of these arguments would be an issue - and before you slate me for that one, I am a single parent!

Murder is Murder and I do hope that someone with a conscience comes along and makes it illegal to murder a child - they too have rights

[builder]

Originally posted by Heavensent_7
Builder - you are intitled to your opinion it is a shame however that you have to put your opinion so abusively.

Abusive? Lady you don't know abusive. I do.

[Sally]

Someone said it earlier, you can't legislate morality.

The only pro-choice I believe in is my own and I choose to have my babies.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by vpkozel


First off, I totally agree with you about those people who want to have children as an accessory. That really sickens me.

Now to where we disagree. You believe that RU486 is a sin in all cases except where the mother's life is in danger. To use it otherwise is to impose your will upon God's. But are you not imposing your will upon God's in your case too? Why draw the line where you have? The logical extension of your thinking are those groups who use prayer instead of doctors. I may not agree withthem, but at least they are consistent. You are trying to have the best of both worlds.

Edit - I edited this to include sadic's post

You're right that there's all sorts of room for conflict in my view, but that's again why I would stress that to legislate this would be difficult and possibly more harmful than anything else. Remember, while I think abortion is a sin, I also think it should remain legal. I believe that sin boils down to your heart's intentions more than your literal actions, though the 2 are usually very closely related. So, I'll have to leave the possibility open that it is not categorically wrong in God's eyes to have an abortion or use birth control. But if the underlying motive for any action is self over others or God, I believe it's a sin.
So far, I've been lucky enough to not have to figure out where I stand on doctors saving lives and how that relates to God's will. In reality, other than accidents, there aren't all that many things that will kill you without a doctor's intervention that won't with. Other than stopping the bleeding, doctor's aren't capable of all that much in the way of serious cures, though tremendous advances are always being made in the area of non-life threatening ailments. Of course, medical technology does save lives, but the major killers have remained the same despite all of our "advances". Rampant abuse of antibiotics creating stronger viruses is a classic example of peoples' selfishness fucking up God's world. Poor Joe Schmo doesn't want the flu for 3 days, so he creates superviruses for his grandchildren to contend with. For my wife or kids, I'd always do whatever possible to have them saved by medicine. For myself, I'd have them making that decision. However, the major distinction between that situation and the "choice" of havng or not having kids is normally the underlying motivation. I can't tell you how many people I know who have wanted to possess kids so much that they used fertility drugs or invitro fertilization, only to have serious problems with the babies. I know of few people these days who have kids "when they come", versus, "when they want them", and to me, that's a faith issue (but not a legal one).

[vpkozel]

OK - it seems to me that we agree on this then. The original point of my post is that both sides have gotten into a box where each has to defend what I believe to be indefensible arguments. Thi is because neither side, in my opinio, is arguing logically. But when the the gov't is concerned, I have found that logic generally does not come into play.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by vpkozel
OK - it seems to me that we agree on this then. The original point of my post is that both sides have gotten into a box where each has to defend what I believe to be indefensible arguments. Thi is because neither side, in my opinio, is arguing logically. But when the the gov't is concerned, I have found that logic generally does not come into play.
Yes, I think we agree. I prefer to keep morality and spirituality seperate from government. The government fucks up everything it touches, and this is an issue that's easy to fuck up anyway. I'm glad to see that abortion rates are down, and I hope that's a product of people listening to their hearts, and not o the door to the abortion clinic being blocked by protesters.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by Sally
Someone said it earlier, you can't legislate morality.

Would it be considered immoral for an adult man to have sex with a 12-year-old girl, even if she said it was OK? Yeah, that would be pretty damned immoral. Of course, it's against the law, so for most people their moral fiber doesn't come into question, only their willingness (or unwillingness) to abide by the law. Now if there were no laws in place to prevent this type of behavior, how many grown men would you have out there having sex with fifth- and sixth-graders? See there, you can legislate morality.

[builder]

Originally posted by gridfaniker
See there, you can legislate morality.

Or was it legislated because someone considered it immoral?

[vpkozel]

Originally posted by gridfaniker


Would it be considered immoral for an adult man to have sex with a 12-year-old girl, even if she said it was OK?

Is she hot?

[Sally]

Originally posted by builder


Or was it legislated because someone considered it immoral?

Touche'.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by gridfaniker


Would it be considered immoral for an adult man to have sex with a 12-year-old girl, even if she said it was OK? Yeah, that would be pretty damned immoral. Of course, it's against the law, so for most people their moral fiber doesn't come into question, only their willingness (or unwillingness) to abide by the law. Now if there were no laws in place to prevent this type of behavior, how many grown men would you have out there having sex with fifth- and sixth-graders? See there, you can legislate morality.

I'd argue that the legislation didn't exist because it was an immoral act, but because we consider it to be psychologically and/or physicaly dangerous to kids. The moral ramifications are a byproduct. People who are immoral enuogh to do this would still be just as immoral. Some of them just might not do it, while others would. The law would not change the morality, only some of the behavior.

[Sportsgirl]

I am pro-choice - in that I choose to have or not have sex, who to have it with, and to use or not use birth control. With sex comes responsibility and possible unpleasant consequences. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should make sure that she and/or her partner is using protection. It's just that simple.

[SilverSurfer]

If anybody's mind is changed from their opinion from this thread today, let me know! I want to know what argument convinced you they were right. :rolleyes:

[kakia]

Originally posted by boo just for the sake of debate...what of the woman was raped? what if the condom broke?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by slydevl
RU-48 or large doses of birth control pills safely prevent conception after an occurance such as this.

actually, it is Preven, also know as Plan B. A woman has 72 hours to take this medication in order to prevent a pregnancy. Of course, the sooner one takes it, the higher the percentage it is of not becoming pregnant.

RU-486 is another method of terminating a pregancy. It's a series of pills that cause a woman to miscarry in approx 2 days in the privacy of her own home.

[gridfaniker]

Originally posted by sadic1


I'd argue that the legislation didn't exist because it was an immoral act, but because we consider it to be psychologically and/or physicaly dangerous to kids. The moral ramifications are a byproduct. People who are immoral enuogh to do this would still be just as immoral. Some of them just might not do it, while others would. The law would not change the morality, only some of the behavior.

Fair enough. Change the 12-year-old girl to a Holstein heiffer or a Suffolk ewe.

[Boo]

Originally posted by sadic1


Well, I don't know jack shit, but I heard it was the uterine lining thing, which was why you could imitate RU-486 by taking a few birth control pills the morning after. Boo should know this. He's practically a biologist.

i've just read a lot of articles on cloning....no where near a biologist.

[Boo]

Originally posted by meatpile
I'm a libertarian.

Abortion is an awful fucking choice, and that's my opinion. Good thing I won't have one.

Anybody else? Not my fucking problem.

One thing I have a HUGE problem with - tax dollars paying for abortions. How dare the government seize the assets of those who oppose abortion to pay for abortion.

But hey - that's what government does. They decide what's right and wrong, and then take your money to pay for it.

The US Libertarian Party platform states as follows:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Doesn't the inclusion of that last, line actually constitute taking a position for pro-choice/pro-abortion and against pro-life/anti-abortion? Shouldn't it say, rather, that "we therefore take no party stand on the issue."

The libertarian philosophy seems to dictate different, diametrically opposing views on abortion, given different, diametrically opposed premises (suprise, surprise):

1) If the fetus is not[i] a human life, libertarian philosophy would seem to dicate a pro-choice position (since the mothers rights would carry the day over non-existent rights of a body part or a non-human-life mass of tissue).

2) If the fetus [i]is a human life, libertarian philosophy would seem to dictate an anti-abortion position (since an innocent's right to life trumps a more responsible party's right to convenience, and in consensual sex situations the mother certainly played more of a role in creating the situation than the baby did, and regardless of the situation of conception, as a society we typically let tortious injuries remain where they fall if they cannot be transferred to a more responsible party, and we certainly do not arbitrarily transfer the injury from a tort victim mother to an innocent party baby, which would be an aggression in violation of libertarian philosophy).

Since the libertarian philosophy cannot determine which premise is correct, and therefore which political outcome is dictated by the libertarian philosophy, why does the libertarian party take a stand? Keeping the government "out of the question" seems to support pro-choice. It would seem to be more consistent for the party to allow their candidates to have mixed views on the topic, rather than have a platform plank addressing the topic.

So, is there an inconsistency in the libertarian party platform? Or, am I misunderstanding something fundamental regarding libertarianism?

[builder]

Originally posted by SilverSurfer
I want to know what argument convinced you they were right. :rolleyes:

Sally touche-d me. :D

[Piper]

I don’t think so boo.

They do have a stand, the way I read it. Government should be out. Don’t make it illegal, and don’t try to support the industry

[sadic1]

Originally posted by gridfaniker


Fair enough. Change the 12-year-old girl to a Holstein heiffer or a Suffolk ewe.

I'm going to state right now that I do not think it should be illegal and am not prepared to state categorically that it is immoral to engage in sexual relations with livestock. That said, such activities are usually not my cup of tea. Anyway, I believe laws that exist only to enforce morality and not to literally protect the citizenry are misguided, and ultimately produce affects counter to the law's intent.

[SemperFi]

Sadic I am pro-choice but how can you be pro-choice and argue so adamantly about capital punishment? Seems like a conflict to me.

[vpkozel]

Originally posted by builder


Sally douche-d me. :D

Gotta date tonight builder? :D

[meatpile]

Originally posted by Piper
I don’t think so boo.

They do have a stand, the way I read it. Government should be out. Don’t make it illegal, and don’t try to support the industry

Yeah, I think I fit right in. I think abortion is fucked. Great for me. Some other libertarians might think it's neat. I think those libertarians are fucked. What we both agree on is that the government should have nothing to do with it.

And that's my point. This whole thread is essentially arguing the role of government. I think the role of government should be ZERO.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by SemperFi
Sadic I am pro-choice but how can you be pro-choice and argue so adamantly about capital punishment? Seems like a conflict to me.
I am against people having abortions, but I think people should make that choice for the right reasons, and that legislating that hurts peoples' ability to identify and consciously make that choice. I'm not committed to the idea that abortion is murder or at what point birth control becomes abortion. I don't need to think abortion is murder to believe it's a sin.
I would, of course, be very against the government forcing women to have abortions, and am against government funding for abortions.

[slydevl]

Originally posted by meatpile


Yeah, I think I fit right in. I think abortion is fucked. Great for me. Some other libertarians might think it's neat. I think those libertarians are fucked. What we both agree on is that the government should have nothing to do with it.

And that's my point. This whole thread is essentially arguing the role of government. I think the role of government should be ZERO.

Ok MEat,

Hypothetical question:

6 days before Jack is born someone walks up to Janelle and punches her in the stomach. Jack is born dead. You think the only charges that person should face is assault on Janelle?

[Piper]

I have this discussion with people in my church.

Instead of using money to go protest this or that, which my church doesn't do but some people in it would like to, its better served IMO to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Churches have a role. It's not persuading politics. It's persuading behavior.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by Piper
I have this discussion with people in my church.

Instead of using money to go protest this or that, which my church doesn't do but some people in it would like to, its better served IMO to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Churches have a role. It's not persuading politics. It's persuading behavior.
I agree 100%.

[muff_spelunker]

Originally posted by Sportsgirl
If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should make sure that she and/or her partner is using protection. It's just that simple.

Sorry SG, but it's not that simple. Not all sex between men and women takes place between consenting adults. There are many young girls sexually abused by family members or Uncle So-and-So. What if the little girl were to get impregnated by her father and thereby raising the risk of the baby being born defected? Can the little girl raise the baby? Would the little girl's mother want to raise the baby? No one can give the blanket statement that abortion is wrong. It has to be decided case by case. It may be wrong for you, but not for someone else.

I think if a woman uses abortion as birth control, she should be sterilized.

[muff_spelunker]

Originally posted by slydevl
I am not a doctor and am only speaking from questions i have asked my wife. But i thought the pill fooled the body into thinking it was pregnant thereby keeping the eggs from allowing sperm to penetrate. Kinda like after the first sperm penetrates the egg, that egg and the rest of the eggs will not permit other sperm to penetrate.

:saywhat: As Putt said, go grow a pussy and then come back and argue this point. The birth control pill stops the egg from implanting in the uterine lining. It does not make the body think it's pregnant because the woman still has a menstrual cycle and the egg is flushed out at that time or it is re-absorbed into the body.

[sadic1]

Originally posted by muff_spelunker


:saywhat: As Putt said, go grow a pussy and then come back and argue this point. The birth control pill stops the egg from implanting in the uterine lining. It does not make the body think it's pregnant because the woman still has a menstrual cycle and the egg is flushed out at that time or it is re-absorbed into the body.
In all fairness, Douchebag was not really trying to argue a point here. We were both speculating as to how similar or dissimilar using the pill is to a very early abortion, and both admitting up front that we weren't sure how it worked.

[Sally]

Originally posted by builder


Sally touche-d me. :D

Damn, I'm sorry builder. I hope it didn't hurt you.

[Stargazer]

Looks to me like he enjoyed it. That builder is an odd one. ;)

[Maria]

I've never had an abortion, but I've had two close friends and two relatives that have had them. In each instance, they were in their teens & were at risk of jeopordizing their futures if they kept the pregnancies. In my opinion, they did the right thing.

The reason why men don't "have as much say" in this issue is that they are not the ones that are risking their lives by carrying and delivering a child. They aren't the ones that have to give up going to college & face the possibility of staying at home with the kid for years on end...or worse yet, having the father not acknowledge the pregnancy and facing abject poverty. It's time for pro lifers to put up or shut up. If you don't want a woman to abort a baby, fine; how about agreeing to pay it's way from birth through college?

And if you're pissed about taxpayers paying for abortions, just wait until your tax dollars go to women who weren't allowed to abort, and subsequently are on welfare. And later, when the unwanted, abused kid grows up to be a deliquent, you can foot the bill for their incarceration.

I know this isn't a very soft and fuzzy point of view, but lets face the truth: if the pregnancy was an accident because of rape/ broken condom/etc., a girl shouldn't have to lose out on her entire future over that. And if the person was simply too dimwitted to use protection, goodness knows she may not be the best at parenting either... thus perpetuating the cycle.

[VOR]

Originally posted by Maria
I've never had an abortion, but I've had two close friends and two relatives that have had them. In each instance, they were in their teens & were at risk of jeopordizing their futures if they kept the pregnancies. In my opinion, they did the right thing.

The reason why men don't "have as much say" in this issue is that they are not the ones that are risking their lives by carrying and delivering a child. They aren't the ones that have to give up going to college & face the possibility of staying at home with the kid for years on end...or worse yet, having the father not acknowledge the pregnancy and facing abject poverty. It's time for pro lifers to put up or shut up. If you don't want a woman to abort a baby, fine; how about agreeing to pay it's way from birth through college?

And if you're pissed about taxpayers paying for abortions, just wait until your tax dollars go to women who weren't allowed to abort, and subsequently are on welfare. And later, when the unwanted, abused kid grows up to be a deliquent, you can foot the bill for their incarceration.

I know this isn't a very soft and fuzzy point of view, but lets face the truth: if the pregnancy was an accident because of rape/ broken condom/etc., a girl shouldn't have to lose out on her entire future over that. And if the person was simply too dimwitted to use protection, goodness knows she may not be the best at parenting either... thus perpetuating the cycle.

You assume an awful lot. Who says there will be welfare? The country needs chauffer/maid pairs for 100bucks a week and the republican party is committed to provided them. So then are you also for selective culling of the population to rid it of the dimwitted and not well funcitioning citizens?

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Maria
I've never had an abortion, but I've had two close friends and two relatives that have had them. In each instance, they were in their teens & were at risk of jeopordizing their futures if they kept the pregnancies. In my opinion, they did the right thing.

The reason why men don't "have as much say" in this issue is that they are not the ones that are risking their lives by carrying and delivering a child. They aren't the ones that have to give up going to college & face the possibility of staying at home with the kid for years on end...or worse yet, having the father not acknowledge the pregnancy and facing abject poverty. It's time for pro lifers to put up or shut up. If you don't want a woman to abort a baby, fine; how about agreeing to pay it's way from birth through college?

And if you're pissed about taxpayers paying for abortions, just wait until your tax dollars go to women who weren't allowed to abort, and subsequently are on welfare. And later, when the unwanted, abused kid grows up to be a deliquent, you can foot the bill for their incarceration.

I know this isn't a very soft and fuzzy point of view, but lets face the truth: if the pregnancy was an accident because of rape/ broken condom/etc., a girl shouldn't have to lose out on her entire future over that. And if the person was simply too dimwitted to use protection, goodness knows she may not be the best at parenting either... thus perpetuating the cycle.

You also act like adoption doesnt exist. And I am sure a society that accepts abortions would be happy to accept unwed teens carrying babies to term. Maybe in the 50's it would destroy their lives but not today.

[Ignatowski]

Damn, there are some great one-liners in this thread.

[Stargazer]

There have been some excellent points posted in this thread. I am so terribly torn on this issue that I seldom discuss it. I do have a question if anyone knows the answer...maybe someone in the medical profession will know.

At what point in its development does a fetus feel pain? Is there a general concensus as to when a fetus can live on its own with the aid of an incubator?

[Maria]

Originally posted by VOR


So then are you also for selective culling of the population to rid it of the dimwitted and not well funcitioning citizens?

Who wants to be surrounded by a bunch of dumbasses? Unfortunately, that's what's happening. Educated, middle & upper class people are choosing to be breed less or not at all. Meanwhile, illiterate dullards are popping them out like rabbits. Look around....do you want to live amongst that? I say if they're smart enough to waddle down to the clinic, let them in.

[gutter]

I like Maria. She don't fuckin play.:)

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by builder
The Christians are scared.

This Christian ain't skeered. :wink2:

[meatpile]

Originally posted by slydevl


Ok MEat,

Hypothetical question:

6 days before Jack is born someone walks up to Janelle and punches her in the stomach. Jack is born dead. You think the only charges that person should face is assault on Janelle?

That's a tough hypothetical Sly. Of course not. The sad thing is that I'd get the death penalty, because that guy would die.

But a good question. Much different than abortion, but definitely opens up the slippery slope of attempting to legislate the legal rights of the unborn fetus, and the legal rights of the mother of the unborn fetus. I'd imagine these issues could be ligislated seperately initially, but somewhere along the line they'd get dragged together.

And I don't think they're the same. Janelle, the mother, who is the only one with a choice - the fetus has none - did not choose to terminate the pregnancy. This can be legislted to death, but to me, the distinction is clear.

As far as the government is concerned, at least. But also, I'd kill the fucker. He'd be dead and so would I. Sad day.:(

[Patti]

Originally posted by Piper


Churches have a role. It's not persuading politics. It's persuading behavior.


Piper, I have to disagree with you on this. To me a churches' role is to bring the unsaved to Christ. Let God take it from there.

I think that churches trying to persuade behavior is the biggest problem with churches.

[McFly41]

Originally posted by Boo


My question is...why does the woman get to make all of the decision in this case? Is that child only hers? Doesn't it also belong to the father? Reproductive rights and choice, but only for the woman in the equation?

Comments, counterpoints, opinions are all, of course, welcomed.

Simple answer...she doesn't have a penis. Thus, she gets to make the decision for him. Ya know how the penis creates a lack of credibility and all.

Penis= No Rights

[lj4three]

pretty simple with me- i dont believe that abortion is the moral thing to do- past actions and slips of ones mind and focus cause one to get into events that circumvent their lives. live life in a simple manner, live life minding your business, and live life respecting the right of everyone around you to live. if your right to live is infringed, then you have the right to protect/defend yourself- either in this life or the next. you reap what you sow, and thats how i lead my life.

and i do feel that killing an animal is just as bad as killing a fetus. thats just my opinion. yet, i will not dare tell someone that is not concerned with me about what to do with an unbirthed child.

[McFly41]

Originally posted by lj4three
pretty simple with me- i dont believe that abortion is the moral thing to do- past actions and slips of ones mind and focus cause one to get into events that circumvent their lives. live life in a simple manner, live life minding your business, and live life respecting the right of everyone around you to live. if your right to live is infringed, then you have the right to protect/defend yourself- either in this life or the next. you reap what you sow, and thats how i lead my life.

and i do feel that killing an animal is just as bad as killing a fetus. thats just my opinion. yet, i will not dare tell someone that is not concerned with me about what to do with an unbirthed child.

Tree huggin' Hippy!:D

[PantherMills]

Originally posted by slydevl
I used to be pro-choice. Then i read an article about a doctor that needed to perform inter-uterus surgery on an unborn child. This child would have still been eligible for an abortion. The doctor made the incision and before he started to operate (I dont remember if they were going to put the baby under) the baby reached out of the incision and grabbed the doctors finger. It was then I realized that abortion is murder. .


Here's a pic.

[Maria]

Please tell me that no one actually believes that.

[gutter]

Where's the guy from the WTC?

[jbghostrat]

Originally posted by gutter
Where's the guy from the WTC?

isn't that him in your avatar gutter? :p

[voyergirl]

tomorrow night i promise i'll read this whole thread. i need to just post a small drawing of a baby(fetus) at 5 weeks. look closely at it. he or she has eyes and a head with tiny little limbs already. i am posting just what has developed on the baby already(at 5 weeks gestation). those of you who have children look at your childs arms and into their eyes and think of what may have happened to them if you were in a different place in your life when you conceived them. we all have the right to our own opinions, but we can all think of a time when our lives were different. i also know women on both side of the abortion fence. those who would lay down without a thought and abort the child later, they feel they made the right decision. i also know others who wonder everyday 'what if?'. adoption is one avenue most young girls are not looking into because of the guilt that is involved. why is it that we should not feel guilt for killing the child we created.

*****************************
[I]the size of the embryo is now (approximately) 3.5-4.0mm.
cranial and caudal neuropores have recently closed(head and tail are closed), and the buccal (oropharyngeal) membrane is opening(mouth is open). upper and lower limb buds are present(arms and legs have started formation). lower limb buds (legs) appear around day 28. somite (group of cells needed for vertebrae structure)formation is ending at their final # of 38-44 pairs. right now in the last half of the embryonic period(from 4 to 8 weeks) when most of the organs are formed. it is in this period that teratogens ( anything like a foreign chemical, or a virus) have the most damaging effect on the embryo (or in my mind the BABY).


***************************************

[Fred]

Originally posted by Boo
My question is...why does the woman get to make all of the decision in this case? Is that child only hers? Doesn't it also belong to the father? Reproductive rights and choice, but only for the woman in the equation?


Could it be something to do with the fact that it is her body that will be changing. And her life that will be the one that is the danger during childbirth. All he did was make a deposit.

If i were a woman, I don't think I could do it, but she has that right to choose.

[hasbeen99]

As those of you who know me might imagine, I have a fair amount to say about this topic, and about the responses on this thread to date. But as I cannot be up half the night, I will post my response beginning tomorrow morning. Good night all. :)

[Sportsgirl]

Originally posted by muff_spelunker


Sorry SG, but it's not that simple. Not all sex between men and women takes place between consenting adults. There are many young girls sexually abused by family members or Uncle So-and-So. What if the little girl were to get impregnated by her father and thereby raising the risk of the baby being born defected? Can the little girl raise the baby? Would the little girl's mother want to raise the baby? No one can give the blanket statement that abortion is wrong. It has to be decided case by case. It may be wrong for you, but not for someone else.

I think if a woman uses abortion as birth control, she should be sterilized.

It is that simple for me. I would not have an abortion. Period. And I would not urge others to have one either.

As for your example, why is adoption not an option?

Keep in mind that an abortion is a dangerous medical procedure. The abortion pill has dangerous consequences as well, severe cramping and even death. I can't tell you how many women have come through the ER at the hospital where I work with complications from abortions. A lot of these women experience hemorrhaging and cramping from products of conception still in the uterus. It's just awful. At least two women I know that have had abortions have had consecutive miscarriages. One of my best friends has not been able to make it past the first trimester ever since she had an abortion years ago. It is major trauma to the uterus, nothing to play with.

[plutosgirl]

Originally posted by hasbeen99
I will post my response beginning tomorrow morning. Good night all. :)

Bring in the bandwidth!!!...........;) j/k hasbeens, I always enjoy reading your view:)

[Couz]

I don't believe in abortion and would not opt for it. However, I don't believe in laws that force people to live their lives the way other people feel is right.

I've known several people (some women and some men) that have opted to abort their child. In all cases they are haunted by the decision. It may take a few years and they may still be able to give all the reasons and logic behind their decision but it haunts them and you can see the pain in their eyes.

As for Boo's hypothetical situation I agree with him to some extent. If the woman can opt to terminate the child and thereby her parental responsibilites then why can't the man? I'm not saying force her into an abortion. In that case when the woman chooses to have it and the man doesn't why can't he give her the amount of money the abortion would cost and be release from the financial responsibilities?? In that case the woman's decision is forcing the man into at least 18 years of child support for a child he didn't want. I feel if the woman decides to have it then she goes it alone.

Basically, if the woman has the right to terminate the child then give the man the right to terminate his responsibilities.

[Maria]

Originally posted by Couz

As for Boo's hypothetical situation I agree with him to some extent. If the woman can opt to terminate the child and thereby her parental responsibilites then why can't the man? I'm not saying force her into an abortion. In that case when the woman chooses to have it and the man doesn't why can't he give her the amount of money the abortion would cost and be release from the financial responsibilities?? In that case the woman's decision is forcing the man into at least 18 years of child support for a child he didn't want. I feel if the woman decides to have it then she goes it alone.

Basically, if the woman has the right to terminate the child then give the man the right to terminate his responsibilities.

Interesting outlook, but it omits the fact that abortions occur due to unfortunate, extenuating circumstances. Women don't do cartwheels after deciding to have an abortion. Because men don't go through the excrutiating pain of labor, the chance of physical complications, or bear the burden of doing the majority child rearing, they cannot, and never will, have as much say in this as a woman. What if some woman told you that you had to force a grapefruit out of your peehole, and you had no say whatsoever about it?

By giving all men the option of having sex with a woman, possibly impregnating her, and then the added option of writing her a check for an abortion if he so chose......Well, I'm not so sure my dad would be around and a lot of others might not be either. What it boils down to is that a man's role in all of this is to be supportive and understanding of any choice the woman makes.

[WilliamJ]

From the thread in news....

Originally posted by Superfluous_Nut
I guess the issue boils down to when you consider the embryo/fetus/baby to be alive. Up till then, everybody is in charge of their own body. I'm totally pro-choice. I think late term abortions are wrong, tho. I think a decent rule would be the age at which a baby could survive on its own is the age at which you may no longer have an abortion unless there's SERIOUS health risks to the mother and then other options must be explored first.




So according to your logic a heartbeat does not count. This is the part about the pro-choicers I don't get. Ever seen a fetal heartbeat at say 8 or 10 weeks? Ever seen the dissapointment in a woman who finds out there is no heartbeat at 10 or 12 weeks? The problem with Roe/Wade is that abortion has become a legitimate form of birth control and the pro-choicers love that this is so. It's funny, Roe/Wade has killed the same amout of our citizens as Mao or Stalin killed of theirs. Gratefuly I am lucky that I have never been put in the position to where I had aid in the decision of whether or not I was going euthanize a fetus I helped create. Maybe it wasn't luck but instead I practiced another form of birth control.

But back to the main point. Roe/Wade is an illegal law. Where in the constitution does the bench have the authority to enact law?


Here is the real kicker IMO....We have killed around 40,000,000 babies in 30 years. That's alot of tax payers.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by WilliamJ

Here is the real kicker IMO....We have killed around 40,000,000 babies in 30 years. That's alot of tax payers.

Or welfare recipients.

[builder]

Originally posted by Stargazer


Or welfare recipients.

A-FUCKING-MEN
:applause:

[Couz]

Originally posted by Maria


Interesting outlook, but it omits the fact that abortions occur due to unfortunate, extenuating circumstances. Women don't do cartwheels after deciding to have an abortion. Because men don't go through the excrutiating pain of labor, the chance of physical complications, or bear the burden of doing the majority child rearing, they cannot, and never will, have as much say in this as a woman. What if some woman told you that you had to force a grapefruit out of your peehole, and you had no say whatsoever about it?

By giving all men the option of having sex with a woman, possibly impregnating her, and then the added option of writing her a check for an abortion if he so chose......Well, I'm not so sure my dad would be around and a lot of others might not be either. What it boils down to is that a man's role in all of this is to be supportive and understanding of any choice the woman makes.

Last time I checked it took two people to have sex. The woman has the right to have sex with a man and get pregnant. The woman has the option to abort or to have the baby.

The man has no option after orgasm. He's at the mercy of the woman and the courts.

My point is not about being supportive or whether a vagina is made to expand to push the grapefruit and my penis isn't.

My point is that two people make the choice to have sex and possibly get pregnant. Only person has the option to decide to have it or not have it. IF the woman chooses to have the child, over the father's objections, why can't the man have the option to terminate his parental obligations? Not the option to kill the child but the option not to be forced to support a child he doesn't want.

If most men would write a check and disappear then maybe there is something wrong with our society and morals then just the issue of abortion.

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by Stargazer


Or welfare recipients. that is a great reason to promote abortion.

A question for all you pro abortion folks....

How many of you are terribly upset with the euthinizing of dogs at the pound?

[Ignatowski]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
that is a great reason to promote abortion.

A question for all you pro abortion folks....

How many of you are terribly upset with the euthinizing of dogs at the pound?

It's a shitty solution to an even shittier problem....but as of yet, no one can come up with the plan that will save every dog, or every baby , from an early death.

And if any of you think that making abortion illegal will stop babies from being aborted, you all seem more intelligent than that.

I would rather see abortions being done in the most controlled environment possible, rather than done in secrecy, where sterilization and proper care are lacking.

The bottom line for me is this....having an avortion is a tough decision...if I was a woman, I sure as hell would not want that decision to be made for me, by anyone.

I think Surfer said it best, has this thread really changed anyones mind? We all know what the arguments are, have heard them over and over again, and both sides think they are right. Shall we discuss the death openalty anyone?

[vpkozel]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
How many of you are terribly upset with the euthinizing of dogs at the pound?

For me, that is not a good analogy for the specific reason that the dog or cat is already a living being able to function on its on.

[wossa]

Originally posted by slydevl
[B]

You are absolutely right when you say the decision to have an abortion or not is a personal moral decision. Just as my making the decision to kill my neighbor is a personal moral decision. However, the government has laws which protect my neighbor in case i do decide i can live with murdering him. Why does a baby not have those same rights? /B]

Because the baby can't retain counsel.

I'll sign in just long enough to say that I'm pro-choice. Not sure what "choice" I would make if faced with it but it's a choice people should have the right to make.

I also agree with what Surfer said - this issue is split about 50-50 and everybody can spend the next five years on here arguing back and forth and its doubtful anyone's opinion on the matter will change.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
that is a great reason to promote abortion.

A question for all you pro abortion folks....

How many of you are terribly upset with the euthinizing of dogs at the pound?

I was not attempting to promote abortion, just pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by Couz


My point is that two people make the choice to have sex and possibly get pregnant. Only person has the option to decide to have it or not have it. IF the woman chooses to have the child, over the father's objections, why can't the man have the option to terminate his parental obligations? Not the option to kill the child but the option not to be forced to support a child he doesn't want.
I understand and sympathize with your point of view. It isn't "fair" that men have no choice, but you are trying to compare the physical dangers and pain of having an abortion, not to mention a possible lifetime of guilt over the decision, with writing a check. I honestly feel that this would have the effect of forcing some women who would not otherwise abort, into the very decision you wish to discourage.

Originally posted by Couz


If most men would write a check and disappear then maybe there is something wrong with our society and morals then just the issue of abortion.

I'm afraid you have hit on the truth with this one. :(

[WilliamJ]

I think the analogy of dogs at the pound is valid in that these same people that wanna hug trees and bunnies are all for the wholesale for profit slaughter of our unborn children. Fuck them and their reasoning, that dog won't hunt.

My whole problem with the abortion issue is that the current law is illegal. This needs to be a state by state law as to whether or not abortion will be legal in each state. Each state needs to have a referendum deciding this.

Me I am stridently pro-life, maybe because I see it as murder. Here is what sickens me. Abortionists are making an awsome living as fetal hitmen.

If we are going to legalize this sort of murder let's widen the demograph to include, kids born with chronic disease, severe birth defects, or any form of retardation. A simple ice pick to the top of the spinal column into the brain will do the trick. I think that will drasticly improve the gene pool in this country.

Yes all that pure obsurdity but it is just garrying the pro-abortion argument to the next step.

Do I think that this debate changes opinion, nope.

[plutosgirl]

William or any of you that are pro life with children... have you always felt this way or did you change your mind when you had children? I'm just curious......

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by plutosgirl
William or any of you that are pro life with children... have you always felt this way or did you change your mind when you had children? I'm just curious...... I was pro-abortion until several women that are very close to me had abortions. That was when I realized it was wholesale slaughter. Right around this time I delivered take out to the clinic by CMC and saw about 30 women in there getting ready to terminate their babies, one of which was my roommates ex-fiance. That was the moment that I became pro-lofe. Having my daughter solidified my stance. I was 21 when the first incedents occured. Like meatpile stated, I too do not believe the Fed Gov't has the right to dictate this is law such as Roe vs. Wade. It is a states right issue.

[Piper]

Will, that kind of reminds me of a story a pregnant female once told me after she had the baby. She was in school at the time, and would go to the clinic then and again. They happened to perform abortions at that clinic. Anyway, they were protesting, yelling and screaming at most of the women going in Except most of the women weren't their for abortions. Some were there for treatment, some for birth control.

Anyway, to me, it's not Federal or State issue. It's an individual issue. I don't care a thing about Roe v Wade. I feel the same way about stem cell, and the same thing about, oh, solar energy. Medical issues, scientific research, new technology, these are things I'd rather any government agency making any sort of decisions about. Let the market, doctors, and scientists decide.

[muff_spelunker]

Originally posted by Sportsgirl
It is that simple for me. I would not have an abortion. Period. And I would not urge others to have one either.

As for your example, why is adoption not an option?

Keep in mind that an abortion is a dangerous medical procedure. The abortion pill has dangerous consequences as well, severe cramping and even death. I can't tell you how many women have come through the ER at the hospital where I work with complications from abortions. A lot of these women experience hemorrhaging and cramping from products of conception still in the uterus. It's just awful. At least two women I know that have had abortions have had consecutive miscarriages. One of my best friends has not been able to make it past the first trimester ever since she had an abortion years ago. It is major trauma to the uterus, nothing to play with.

Okay, it's that simple for you, but not for everyone.

In the example I mentioned birth defects. Would you option to adopt a baby with birth defects over a healthy one? I don't think you would as would many other hopeful parents.

I'm well aware that abortions are dangerous and unhealthy for the woman. It's unnatural as are birth control pills which abort the egg on a monthly basis. But I guess that abortion is okay, yes?

[Maria]

Originally posted by muff_spelunker


Okay, it's that simple for you, but not for everyone.



Exactly. And I think it's bullshit that people can't place themselves in another's shoes and understand that sometimes you just have to do unpleasant things to get by in life.

My best friend was adamantly pro life until she became pregnant at 17 (and so were her Catholic parents), but in the end she decided to go through with the procedure and they supported it. She has no regrets about her decision, is about to graduate from college, and wants to become a counselor in abortion clinics (not to influence women either way, but to help them deal with their emotions).

You really can't judge a situation until you're actually in it, which is why it irks me when men of all people are ferverently prolife. Men will never have to face the vaccuum that LLG mentioned up above, so I have a hard time with them dictating what women should do in these instances.

[Sportsgirl]

Originally posted by muff_spelunker


Okay, it's that simple for you, but not for everyone.

Well, some women make life complicated themselves by having unprotected sex, then opting for abortion as casual birth control. I think it's irresponsible and wrong.

In the example I mentioned birth defects. Would you option to adopt a baby with birth defects over a healthy one? I don't think you would as would many other hopeful parents.

Well, you're wrong. Doctors aren't always right about predicting whether babies will be born with defects. My cousin was in her 40s when she unexpectedly conceived. Her gynecologist told her that possibility was strong that the baby would have Down's syndrome and urged her to have an abortion. She refused, and lo and behold, she gave birth to a healthy, bouncing baby boy...not a thing wrong with him.

Who's to say that a baby with a birth defect is worthless and unwanted. Dateline NBC profiled a couple a few months ago who knew their child would be born with birth defects, yet they opted to have the baby anyway. They found they made the right decision. Though the little girl was born with slight mental retardation, she is a beautiful, precious child who her family adores. That's the beauty of life, any life. It is precious and sweet.

I'm well aware that abortions are dangerous and unhealthy for the woman. It's unnatural as are birth control pills which abort the egg on a monthly basis. But I guess that abortion is okay, yes?

FYI, birth control pills prevent ovulation. Eggs are not released from the ovaries or discarded. I've been on BC for a few years for medicinal reasons, mainly to control painful endometriosis.

[articulatekitten]

Obviously, this has remained a hot topic for decades . . . .

And oh how amazing that more males than females--STILL!--feel compelled to share their "wisdom" on the subject. No disrespect intended to those who try to give the topic serious & fair consideration; but let me tell you, being faced with having no say in what a woman decides about the child you fathered is NOTHING compared to being faced with the prospect of carrying, giving birth to, & raising a child with no support--financial, moral, or otherwise--from anyone. Especially if that child may be "high risk" in one way or another.

As has been stated by others before, choosing whether to abort a child--and yes, it IS a child, not just some conglomeration of cells--is no easy, casual choice. Individual circumstances come into play that no one else, outside of the pregnant woman, has the right to dictate about. It is simply nature that she bears almost all the consequences; so the choice must be hers, & the aftermath of her choice. Not fair, but that's real life.

I've encountered a lot of so-called "pro-lifers," including some in my own family. Haven't yet met a single one that was willing to support a girl or woman through her pregnancy, then adopt the child REGARDLESS OF ANY BIRTH DEFECTS OR PROBLEMS. These folks tend to want healthy, usually WHITE babies for themselves.

A young girl I knew years ago was having an abortion because her husband was abusive, & she already had one child. She felt she was stretched to the limit to protect this one child, & thought that if she could someday escape, she might not be able to save & protect more than that one child. Who was I, or anyone else, to call her a murderer??? Know what she said to me? "Even if I had the legal right to let this child be adopted without his [her husband's] permission, how could I trust anyone else to love him as I would? I'm sacrificing my soul for him, aren't I?"

Not entirely fair, but it has to be an individual choice.

[Rob]

Originally posted by articulatekitten
Obviously, this has remained a hot topic for decades . . . .

And oh how amazing that more males than females--STILL!--feel compelled to share their "wisdom" on the subject. No disrespect intended to those who try to give the topic serious & fair consideration; but let me tell you, being faced with having no say in what a woman decides about the child you fathered is NOTHING compared to being faced with the prospect of carrying, giving birth to, & raising a child with no support--financial, moral, or otherwise--from anyone. Especially if that child may be "high risk" in one way or another.

As has been stated by others before, choosing whether to abort a child--and yes, it IS a child, not just some conglomeration of cells--is no easy, casual choice. Individual circumstances come into play that no one else, outside of the pregnant woman, has the right to dictate about. It is simply nature that she bears almost all the consequences; so the choice must be hers, & the aftermath of her choice. Not fair, but that's real life.

I've encountered a lot of so-called "pro-lifers," including some in my own family. Haven't yet met a single one that was willing to support a girl or woman through her pregnancy, then adopt the child REGARDLESS OF ANY BIRTH DEFECTS OR PROBLEMS. These folks tend to want healthy, usually WHITE babies for themselves.



I believe as it stands now the Choice has to and always will belong to the women. You cant legislate abortion away anymore than you can legislate away drug abuse. Those who want it will find a way.

I do wish my girlfriend/future wife had told me about her pregnancy before aborting it years ago. At that point in my life I probably would have gone along with what she did. Had she decided to have the baby I probably would have married her. I was very selfish, young and stupid as was she. I still think I had a right to know.

As a Christian I also believe that there are moral truths. Things arent right and wrong based on our circumstances or the opinions of the culture. Abortion is wrong. Just MHO

[slydevl]

Originally posted by Ignatowski


It's a shitty solution to an even shittier problem....but as of yet, no one can come up with the plan that will save every dog, or every baby , from an early death.

And if any of you think that making abortion illegal will stop babies from being aborted, you all seem more intelligent than that.

I would rather see abortions being done in the most controlled environment possible, rather than done in secrecy, where sterilization and proper care are lacking.

The bottom line for me is this....having an avortion is a tough decision...if I was a woman, I sure as hell would not want that decision to be made for me, by anyone.

I think Surfer said it best, has this thread really changed anyones mind? We all know what the arguments are, have heard them over and over again, and both sides think they are right. Shall we discuss the death openalty anyone?

And laws against murder haven't stopped murder. Does this mean I should be able to hire a professional hit man to kill my neighbor cleanly so that I don't botch the job and have them suffer needlessly?

[plutosgirl]

Our Western society upbringing gives us the freedom to make these decisions and mirco manage such issues that shouldn't be ours to manage. The reasons people list for abortion are ludicrous. The question I struggle with so is... when is it EVER ok to kill an innocent human being? The answer is never. Not morally, religiously, civally, legally. We all agree on that. However, abortions WILL happen if it isn't legal. Do we just let the chips fall where they lie in that instance? 14 year old girls, who have no idea they could die from the procedure, having abortions from greedy midwives or worse? I don't know the answer to that question. I have a very hard time convincing myself it should be illegal for those reasons, but do we legalize everything that people do anyway -such as drugs just because it will still be done?

The things I do know are this. A babies heart starts beating within 20 days of conception. I see 16 week old babies sucking their thumb and what looks to be waving on ultrasound all the time. They are little live humans, not tissue. I can't think of one single sane reason to abort that child. The mother has too many kids? adoption The mother is too young? adoption The child is deformed, deaf, blind? - I compare this to hitler killing the jews to form a perfect nation. The child won't have a social chance due to the parents situation? I call bullshit on that one as well. Who are we to determine what or who that child will be and if he's no one, still who are we? Rape? It's a very low percentage of women who get pregnant this way, and if they do still ...adoption. I'm against long term welfare and people living off of my tax dollars who are able bodied, yet murder isn't the answer...again with our western thinking on that. We try to educate our kids about sex, protection, planning, abstinance. We give free birth control at the clinic and hospitals nationwide, we spend millions of dollars a year advertising planned parenthood yet it's only making a dent.

I don't know how I feel socially on the subject for sure....for me, I'm pro life. There's a lot of reasons to think about not having kids beforehand, but once you are pregnant , it's a gift. I have never heard or heard tell of a mother after giving birth to her child say, I wish I had aborted you.
My mother was 46 when I was born, I'm sure the doctor expressed his concerns for me and for her health at the time. But I KNOW it wasn't a choice with her, it was a gift and she gladly accepted. ( not so sure she's saying that now hee hee):D

[hasbeen99]

The reality of Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. The United States government has given the women of this country the freedom to choose abortion legally. We cannot argue that it is illegal, because it is not.

However we, as Christians live by and under a different standard, created by our God, enforced by His Son, Jesus. We Christians have made a commitment to follow God's leading whether we understand it or not. That is not to say we always do -- not by a long stretch (myself definitely included), but that is our goal, because in Him is where our trust lies.

God's view of abortion is clear. He calls it murder, plain and simple. And like any other form of murder, like any other sin, it is and shall remain a personal choice. That is part of the free will God has given every human who has ever walked the planet. Whether evil or good, accidental or justified, the choice is still ours to make. And we must all deal with the consequences of those choices, good and bad.

But God promises that He allows bad things to happen to bring good from them. Sometimes it is very difficult to see, and sometimes we never get to see it. I have witnessed the people I love most go through physical hell, and seen His abundant blessings pour out the other side. My second argument is this: Even if the pregnancy is the result of a hideous crime, what purpose could eliminating the blessing of a child serve? I am not claiming that delivering the baby makes it all better. What I'm saying is that even among the best of circumstances surrounding an unwanted pregnancy, there are serious difficulties. But if the mother decides to carry to term and keep the baby, she has the opportunity to enjoy an intimate loving relationship with that child for the rest of her life. If she gives the child up for adoption, she may still see her child grow up and even have contact with him. She can still see the good pour out through the life of that child. But if she aborts, not only does she have to deal with the grief (or guilt) of the incident, now she has to deal with the emotional scarring of the procedure, which will probably last much longer than the physical consequences. And there is absolutely zero upside, other than the knowledge that the baby at least will spend the remainder of his life in heaven, only knowing that one instance of pain and suffering. If the mother is not a believer, there is no peace to be found.

That is not to say that we are to judge those who choose the option of abortion. Christ is their judge, as He is ours. Our duty as Christians is to show those women His unconditional love, and tell them the truth of what they are doing. The choice is still theirs to make, and they will have to live with the consequences, not us. We are to encourage, not condemn. Show them the hope that remains in the blessings God has promised to those who will seek it.

[lj4three]

great post, hasbeens. i agree personally with everything you say.


except the general sentiment that not only you but many christians export:

However we, as Christians live by and under a different standard, created by our God, enforced by His Son Jesus. We Christians have made a commitment to follow God's leading whether we understand it or not. That is not to say we always do -- not by a long stretch (myself definitely included), but that is our goal, because in Him is where our trust lies.

your message is good, your heart i can tell is pure, but personally, it screams arrogance to me that christians ARE better than any other religious folk. i'm not denouncing christianity, but just a little irritated b/c i get the same stuff from everyone i meet when i get into a religious discussion. sorry, but just had to say this.

[hasbeen99]

I separated these two responses because there are two sets of arguments in support of the Pro-Life movement. The spiritual argument is lost on those who have not chosen to submit themselves to it, so I will not go there with you. It is pointless. Here are the common arguments I've seen in this thread and elsewhere:

You cannot legislate morality.
This is a fallacy. What is the law, if not the moral structure of our elected representatives, enforced by our government? If this was true, there would be no law at all. The law IS the moral structure of this country. If you want the morals changed, you have the power to change it through your elected representatives. The government does have the right to enforce its morals on each and every one of us, because our predecessors gave them that right.

Having a baby will destroy a teenage girl's life.
There is no argument that pregnancy is a life-changing event in a woman's life, even under the best of circumstances. A pregnancy at 13 is enough to radically change a young woman's life, but how bad it gets will be influenced by many factors -- family support, finances, support of the father, maturity of the mother, etc. But no matter how bad it is for her, there are options and ways to turn a horrible situation into one that will bring years of joy and happiness for both her, and the child. The catch is that the mother must decide to put her baby's needs above her own desires. It does not necessarily equate to lifelong poverty, either. If that does occur, it is the result of a long series of bad life choices by the mother, not the fault of the child.

Abortion is justified if the mother is raped, and especially the victim of incest.
I know women who have dealt with this issue. I cannot say I know how hard it is, but I know carrying the weight of it can be excruciating. I think the main point of this argument is that every time the mother looks at the child, she will be haunted by the event that concieved him. While that is true and there is no possible way short of amnesia that the mother can ever forget that horrible crime, the mother does have the option to look at her child and see the beauty of the child himself, not the hate of her attacker. I do not pretend it's easy. But I will stand firmly on my belief it's very possible, and more beneficial to the mother than destroying the result of it, consequently adding more pain and grief to an already painful experience.

If abortion is made illegal, women seeking abortions will be at much higher physical risk.
Absolutely. You cannot argue that they won't. But I would argue that if it is made illegal, 1) fewer women will seek them and 2) the danger to the child is even greater. Even the unsavory idea of 'back alley' procedures would act as an additional deterrent to abortion, further reducing the number of women who would be desperate enough to seek it.

A baby is not really alive until it is self-sufficient.
Self-sufficiency or functionality is a more encompassing argument than many people realize. By that argument, both my father and my wife's lives are expendible. Both are reliant upon outside help to survive.

A baby is not really alive until it is fully developed. A human being is not fully developed until he or she reaches adulthood. The process of development begins at conception and continues for approximately the next 15 to 18 years. Is a human life less human before it reaches physical maturity?

The damage a teen birth does to the mother's future is too great.
There is no question that having a baby as a teenager will be a setback, and if the mother chooses to keep the child rather than give him up for adoption, the hole she must crawl back out of can put her years behind her peers, professionally. However, once a child enters the picture, there are other things to be considered. Those of you who are parents can verify this, but there are enormous benefits to being a parent that I defy anyone to put a price tag on. And even if the mother gives the child up for adoption, in most cases she has the option of watching the child grow up in a good environment and see the happiness adoption can bring to two people who cannot have any of their own. There are even instances where adoptive parents have allowed the birthmother to be involved in the child's life, as part of the whole family. Even that can be an unforseen benefit to a teenage mother.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by lj4three
your message is good, your heart i can tell is pure, but personally, it screams arrogance to me that christians ARE better than any other religious folk. i'm not denouncing christianity, but just a little irritated b/c i get the same stuff from everyone i meet when i get into a religious discussion. sorry, but just had to say this.

No offense taken, LJ, and if that was your impression of what I was trying to communicate then I apologize to you. That was most certainly not my intent. My point was that Christians have committed their lives to a lifestyle that is unique and different from that of our government. I never said it was necessarily superior to the ethics of other belief systems. As a Christian, I have an obligation to bring breaches of that shared commitment to the attention of those who have made it, albeit with as much gentleness and respect as I can. But that obligation does not extend to those who do not share that commitment, which is why I placed the "To TBR Christians" header on that post.

Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Just out of curiosity, LJ, what is the Hindu stance on this?

[lj4three]

Originally posted by hasbeen99


No offense taken, LJ, and if that was your impression of what I was trying to communicate then I apologize to you. That was most certainly not my intent. My point was that Christians have committed their lives to a lifestyle that is unique and different from that of our government. I never said it was necessarily superior to the ethics of other belief systems. As a Christian, I have an obligation to bring breaches of that shared commitment to the attention of those who have made it, albeit with as much gentleness and respect as I can. But that obligation does not extend to those who do not share that commitment, which is why I placed the "To TBR Christians" header on that post.

Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Just out of curiosity, LJ, what is the Hindu stance on this?

naw, its my fault. i have many friends and acquaintances, though, that echo what i said. you're not one of 'em, thats my mistake- i apologize for casting you.

anyway, the "hindu" stance on it is that there is no "stance." hinduism is not a religion of mandate or a solidified set of views- hinduism is a realization of one's actions and one's role in the world and the ultimate goal of any hindu, is to learn, treat others with respect, and live your life in the best way possible- until our "purity" can be attained, our cycle of birth and rebirth will conitnue. you know, like balancing a check book- each positive and negative that we committ will have an end result. that being said, i've yet to know of a hindu that condones abortion. yet, i've yet to really hear hindus outspoken on the issue- our actions will determine our future.. heaven and hell is on earth, and we'll have to live with what we commit to. i know this dont answer your question fully, but thats all i got.

personally- i dont agree with abortion at all, i feel as if its murder. however, as few have stated, making abortion illegal could produce serious consequences. i guess the hindu answer would be to catch the problem before it happens- abortion shouldnt be endorsed, abortion should be a do-or-die issue.

[WilliamJ]

the more i think about the less the illegal abortion will cause greater harm theory doesn't wash.

i wonder if there is any hard data showing how often a legal and clean abortion causes ireparable damage to the uterus. i wonder what percent of women have trouble concieving after having an abortion.

i think hasbeen is onto something in his line of thinking regarding how the number of those seeking abortion will decrease.

i'm not good at researching stuff, does anyone wanna help find out if this data exists?

[plutosgirl]

Jer. 1:5.... "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you."

That's one to think about.

[plutosgirl]

Originally posted by WilliamJ

i wonder if there is any hard data showing how often a legal and clean abortion causes ireparable damage to the uterus. i wonder what percent of women have trouble concieving after having an abortion.i'm not good at researching stuff, does anyone wanna help find out if this data exists?

A LIST OF MAJOR PHYSICAL SEQUELAE RELATED TO ABORTION 1


DEATH: The leading causes of abortion related deaths are hemorrhage, infection, embolism, anesthesia, and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies. Legal abortion is reported as the fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States, though in fact it is recognized that most abortion related deaths are not officially reported as such.(2)

BREAST CANCER: The risk of breast cancer almost doubles after one abortion, and rises even further with two or more abortions.(3)

CERVICAL, OVARIAN, AND LIVER CANCER: Women with one abortion face a 2.3 relative risk of cervical cancer, compared to non-aborted women, and women with two or more abortions face a 4.92 relative risk. Similar elevated risks of ovarian and liver cancer have also been linked to single and multiple abortions. These increased cancer rates for post-aborted women are apparently linked to the unnatural disruption of the hormonal changes which accompany pregnancy and untreated cervical damage.(4)

UTERINE PERFORATION: Between 2 and 3% of all abortion patients may suffer perforation of their uterus, yet most of these injuries will remain undiagnosed and untreated unless laparoscopic visualization is performed.(5) Such an examination may be useful when beginning an abortion malpractice suit. The risk of uterine perforation is increased for women who have previously given birth and for those who receive general anesthesia at the time of the abortion.(6) Uterine damage may result in complications in later pregnancies and may eventually evolve into problems which require a hysterectomy, which itself may result in a number of additional complications and injuries including osteoporosis.

CERVICAL LACERATIONS: Significant cervical lacerations requiring sutures occur in at least one percent of first trimester abortions. Lesser lacerations, or micro fractures, which would normally not be treated may also result in long term reproductive damage. Latent post-abortion cervical damage may result in subsequent cervical incompetence, premature delivery, and complications of labor. The risk of cervical damage is greater for teenagers, for second trimester abortions, and when practitioners fail to use laminaria for dilation of the cervix.(7)

PLACENTA PREVIA: Abortion increases the risk of placenta previa in later pregnancies (a life threatening condition for both the mother and her wanted pregnancy) by seven to fifteen fold. Abnormal development of the placenta due to uterine damage increases the risk of fetal malformation, perinatal death, and excessive bleeding during labor.(8)


HANDICAPPED NEWBORNS IN LATER PREGNANCIES: Abortion is associated with cervical and uterine damage which may increase the risk of premature delivery, complications of labor and abnormal development of the placenta in later pregnancies. These reproductive complications are the leading causes of handicaps among newborns.(9)

ECTOPIC PREGNANCY: Abortion is significantly related to an increased risk of subsequent ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies, in turn, are life threatening and may result in reduced fertility.(10)

PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE (PID): PID is a potentially life threatening disease which can lead to an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and reduced fertility. Of patients who have a chlamydia infection at the time of the abortion, 23% will develop PID within 4 weeks. Studies have found that 20 to 27% of patients seeking abortion have a chlamydia infection. Approximately 5% of patients who are not infected by chlamydia develop PID within 4 weeks after a first trimester abortion. It is therefore reasonable to expect that abortion providers should screen for and treat such infections prior to an abortion.(11)

ENDOMETRITIS: Endometritis is a post-abortion risk for all women, but especially for teenagers, who are 2.5 times more likely than women 20-29 to acquire endometritis following abortion.(12)

IMMEDIATE COMPLICATIONS: Approximately 10% of women undergoing elective abortion will suffer immediate complications, of which approximately one-fifth (2%) are considered life threatening. The nine most common major complications which can occur at the time of an abortion are: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock. The most common "minor" complications include: infection, bleeding, fever, second degree burns, chronic abdominal pain, vomiting, gastro-intestinal disturbances, and Rh sensitization.(13)

INCREASED RISKS FOR WOMEN SEEKING MULTIPLE ABORTIONS: In general, most of the studies cited above reflect risk factors for women who undergo a single abortion. These same studies show that women who have multiple abortions face a much greater risk of experiencing these complications. This point is especially noteworthy since approximately 45% of all abortions are for repeat aborters.

INCREASED RISKS FOR TEENAGERS: Teenagers, who account for about 30 percent of all abortions, are also at much high risk of suffering many abortion related complications. This is true of both immediate complications, and of long-term reproductive damage.(14)

LOWER GENERAL HEALTH: In a survey of 1428 women researchers found that pregnancy loss, and particularly losses due to induced abortion, was significantly associated with an overall lower health. Multiple abortions correlated to an even lower evaluation of "present health." While miscarriage was detrimental to health, abortion was found to have a greater correlation to poor health. These findings support previous research which reported that during the year following an abortion women visited their family doctors 80% more for all reasons and 180% more for psychosocial reasons. The authors also found that "if a partner is present and not supportive, the miscarriage rate is more than double and the abortion rate is four times greater than if he is present and supportive. If the partner is absent the abortion rate is six times greater." (15)


INCREASED RISK FOR CONTRIBUTING HEALTH RISK FACTORS: Abortion is significantly linked to behavioral changes such as promiscuity, smoking, drug abuse, and eating disorders which all contribute to increased risks of health problems. For example, promiscuity and abortion are each linked to increased rates of PID and ectopic pregnancies. Which contributes most is unclear, but apportionment may be irrelevant if the promiscuity is itself a reaction to post- abortion trauma or loss of self esteem.

From abortionfacts.com

[WilliamJ]

wow

[Ignatowski]

Originally posted by slydevl


And laws against murder haven't stopped murder. Does this mean I should be able to hire a professional hit man to kill my neighbor cleanly so that I don't botch the job and have them suffer needlessly?

Does this mean you'd rather have abortion made illegal so you feel better , and you don't care how many are done illegally and dangerously?

See, I can play the question game too.

[Maria]

I wish I could abort this thread. A lot of bullshit fallacies are being spewed up in here.

[plutosgirl]

Originally posted by Maria
I wish I could abort this thread. A lot of bullshit fallacies are being spewed up in here.

I think they are lobbying as we speak to make it illegal to abort threads:D

[Honeygirl]

Originally posted by WilliamJ the more i think about the less the illegal abortion will cause greater harm theory doesn't wash. Bill, am I reading this right? Are you suggesting that we should return to the `back street' abortion days? Where women actually bled to death more often, than survived the proceedure? Whether you like it or not, abortion has been around for thousands of years - and will continue to be around for many years to come. I for one am damn thankful that should I require one, I don't have to sneak off to some back street hovel, or resort to inserting a coathanger into my uterus to perform the deed myself.

I've got more to add on this - but my dinner's burning. :)

[plutosgirl]

Hey Honey!:wavey: I know you're stirring like a mad woman to get back to finish what you were saying. I just wanted to say hi, I gotta hit the bed. I hate I have to go when things are just getting good.. hope you are doing ok;)

[Honeygirl]

Originally posted by plutosgirl
Hey Honey!:wavey: I know you're stirring like a mad woman to get back to finish what you were saying. I just wanted to say hi, I gotta hit the bed. I hate I have to go when things are just getting good.. hope you are doing ok;) Hey Pluto! :wavey: Yea - sorry about the post and run thing, but I had a boiling pot on the stove and it was on the verge of setting off the smoke alarms! :D

Right - I just wanted to add another five cents to this thread and continue what I wanted to say earlier. I know we're all not going to agree on this issue - but I just wanted to share an experience I had at a day clinic a few years ago. I have this friend, who for the most part of her life, has had major kidney problems. She had one removed when she was eleven, and (despite careful contraceptive use), she became pregnant. It was one of those horrid moments, because while she ached to be a mother, the strain on the remaining kidney would have most likely killed her in the end. To cut a very long story short, she was advised to have a termination, because it would endanger her life if she went through with the pregnancy. She asked me, and I went with her to the day stay clinic. As you can appreciate, it was a terribly emotional time for her. She was emotionally drained, physically wobbly and had this to face. The next part of this - I'm afraid I'm just going to let rip on - because it still angers me so bloody much. I will never forget walking from the car to the clinic and having to put up with a group of fucking assholes, chanting "murderer...abortion is murder...killing for convienience is wrong" and all this shit. I recall them shoving signs in our faces - and it's my eternal regret that I didn't king hit the ringleader in this poxy group of arrogant bastards that were protesting that day. We got inside and she was distraught. Every feeling imaginable was going through her - guilt, anxiety - the whole nine yards. She had the termination and by the time she was ready to be released, the protesters had called it a day (regrettably, because I was prepared for the second onslaught). Her condition deteriorated several months after this and fortunately, a kidney became available and she had a successful transplant. It's unlikely that she will ever be a mother, as the damage and strain put on the original kidney is such that it will never function 100% and her transplanted kidney is still on the wobbly side.

I just wanted to add - that with every issue as controversial as this, there will be extreme examples for and against. As far as the issue of birth control goes, I've known several people who have practiced very safe birth control and have still managed to get pregnant. Nothing is 100% `safe', and I don't know of anyone who would chose an abortion over practicing safe sex. It must be one of the most heart wrenching, painful things to have to go through. I'm just glad that I live in a society that values my choice enough to provide me with a clean, safe and hygienic environment, so that I'm not bleeding to death in a back street alley somewhere. If that's what some of you would prefer - if that's what you would rather see happen - then you've truly left me gobsmacked. Regardless of the legalities of it - abortions will happen - they have always been around - and always will.

[WilliamJ]

I just wanted to add - that with every issue as controversial as this, there will be extreme examples for and against. As far as the issue of birth control goes, I've known several people who have practiced very safe birth control and have still managed to get pregnant. Nothing is 100% `safe', and I don't know of anyone who would chose an abortion over practicing safe sex. It must be one of the most heart wrenching, painful things to have to go through. I'm just glad that I live in a society that values my choice enough to provide me with a clean, safe and hygienic environment, so that I'm not bleeding to death in a back street alley somewhere. If that's what some of you would prefer - if that's what you would rather see happen - then you've truly left me gobsmacked. Regardless of the legalities of it - abortions will happen - they have always been around - and always will.

The example you citied IMO is where the abortion issue gets gray, I agree with this particular instance in favor of abortion. I will also ad that if wholesale convienience abortion were made illegal her Dr would be ethically bound to save "his" patient, thus having an abortion at a hospitol not a clinic performed by a surgeon not an abortionist. Your story is so far the norm it is not even a valid point in the abortion arguement. I hope I didn't minimize the trauma your friend experienced by a: the proceedure and b: the racical protesters, was not my intention.

The paragraph I quoted however show the falicy in the pro-choice movement. Abstinance works every time, and the percentages of those who get pregnant while using the safe forms of birth control pail in comparrison to those that don't. I wonder if there is data showing this percentile.

The bottom line for all this is the driving question....Is abortion murder? If it is, we as a world society have performed wholesale genocide that makes all the atrocities of the last 100 years minimal in lives lost.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
The bottom line for all this is the driving question....Is abortion murder?

That is, indeed, the $64,000 question, isn't it?

The word "murder" has such a negative connotation that I think often times we overcompensate to get away from it, by which I mean we'll start changing definitions of what we know to be true to avoid the label.

In the case of Honeygirl's friend, no matter how you break it down or spin it, she was faced with a terrible decision which was the result of a personal choice she made to be sexually active. She had to choose between carrying the child at the risk of losing her own life, or killing the child to eliminate that risk. Either decision would've brought serious consequences. In the end, she chose her own life over that of her child. Had she chose the other option, perhaps both she AND the baby would've died. Or perhaps the doctors could have saved the baby and she would've died, leaving a brand new baby orphan behind.

I do not say this to judge her. I'm stating the facts as Honeygirl has told them. The fact is that the only method of birth control that is 100% active is abstinence. In America, there is almost no excuse for ignorance in this matter. Every public school teaches this fact, and that warning is printed on every form of birth control I've ever seen or heard about. I cannot say whether the same holds true in other countries.

I am truly sorry for the decision your friend faced, Honeygirl, for the harrassment she suffered, and for the aftermath she went through. But had she chosen to be abstinent, she never would've had to go through any of it. My only hope in saying this is that perhaps others may learn from her experience.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by WilliamJ
The example you citied IMO is where the abortion issue gets gray...

From a secular (or non-Christian) standpoint, yes -- it gets VERY gray. It would be a far reach for society to mandate the mother risk her own life to save that of her child.

From the Christian view, however, the standard remains. It just gets a lot more difficult to follow. That may be oversimplifying it a bit, but it's true.

[Piper]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hasbeen99
[B]

>>That is, indeed, the $64,000 question, isn't it?

Certainly. It is the dividing line.

Even in the day when abortion was illegal in most of the country, women weren't charged with murder for aborting their child.


>>But had she chosen to be abstinent, she never would've had to go through any of it.

And if everyone choose that, we wouldn't last too long on the planet.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading honey's post, that could happen to anyone. I didn't read anywhere that said whether her friend was married, or in a committed relationship. Regardless, that could happen to anyone.

If it were to happen to me and my wife, it would be her decision I suppose, but I'd would strongly wish that if faced with such a terrible choice that my wife would abort. My guilt would nominal and far ourweighed by the relief I'd feel knowing my wife was ok. We could always try again, or adopt.

If that would make me a murderer, so be it.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by Piper
And if everyone chose (abstinence), we wouldn't last too long on the planet.

Obviously, if no one on the planet ever engaged in sex again, the human race would die out in a generation. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not about to advocate that sex is inherently evil and destructive, and no one should ever have it again. That's stupid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading honey's post, that could happen to anyone. I didn't read anywhere that said whether her friend was married, or in a committed relationship. Regardless, that could happen to anyone.

Yes, it could happen to anyone with a severe kidney problem, who had already had one removed and knew beforehand that getting pregnant would threaten her life. I would think that would add a bit more motivation to at least consider abstinence in her particular case.

If it were to happen to me and my wife, it would be her decision I suppose, but I'd would strongly wish that if faced with such a terrible choice that my wife would abort. My guilt would nominal and far ourweighed by the relief I'd feel knowing my wife was ok. We could always try again, or adopt.

If that would make me a murderer, so be it.

Again, the label of 'murderer' provides much of the volatility to this argument. It can be avoided, but the simple fact remains that if faced with this particular scenario, you have stated you would choose your wife's life over your child's. The choice is yours (and your wife's, obviously) by law, but all I'm asking is to call it what it is.

[Honeygirl]

Originally posted by WilliamJ


...I will also ad that if wholesale convienience abortion were made illegal her Dr would be ethically bound to save "his" patient, thus having an abortion at a hospitol not a clinic performed by a surgeon not an abortionist. Your story is so far the norm it is not even a valid point in the abortion arguement. I hope I didn't minimize the trauma your friend experienced by a: the proceedure and b: the racical protesters, was not my intention.

The paragraph I quoted however show the falicy in the pro-choice movement. Abstinance works every time, and the percentages of those who get pregnant while using the safe forms of birth control pail in comparrison to those that don't. I wonder if there is data showing this percentile.
Just to be clear, I told this story to "share my experience" - and if it doesn't fit into your idea of what a "valid point" in an argument is, then cry me a river. It was mearly my intention to suggest to people that circumstances aren't always black and white when it comes to abortion. This was one of those times. I also wanted to say what it was like to be on the receiving end of protesters, especially under those circumstances. Second point - the abortion was carried out at a day stay clinic due to a number of reasons. The fact that she was in the very early stages of pregnancy was one of them (the complications would have been minimal) and this was the most practicable (in terms of cost effectiveness). In this country, there are waiting lists in our hospitals. To have it performed in a public hospital would have meant a wait - of God knows how long. Given the circumstances, the termination needed to be carried out as swiftly as possible due to her health condition. Third point - Yes, abstinence would have been better. Of course it would have. However, here is a young woman (who at the time was in her late twenties), who had had this condition for so many years... she'd grown up with it. She is my role model in the "bugger this - I'm living my life" stance that she takes with her health problems. Let me be clear on this issue too - I do not believe that the serious implications to her health if she were to get pregnant, were fully appreciated by anyone at that time. She had been unwell for so long that she conquered most obstacles and it wasn't until just prior to her getting pregnant that she had an episode with her remaining kidney that left her really poorly. She was living her life - and yes, sex was part of her life. As someone who is living with an ongoing disease, I won't stop having sex because I might get pregnant, and it might put a strain on my organs...hell no. There comes a time when you have an illness that is so chronic it takes over a massive portion of your life - that you have to find normality and take calculated risks to continue living that life. Otherwise you may as well go out and buy a big box and go live in that.

Hasbeens, you've surprised me a little in your stance about abstinence - especially given that you've mentioned your wife's chronic illness and your attempts at having a baby. I just find that odd - given what you've written about "I would think that would add a bit more motivation to at least consider abstinence in her particular case."

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by Honeygirl
She was living her life - and yes, sex was part of her life. As someone who is living with an ongoing disease, I won't stop having sex because I might get pregnant, and it might put a strain on my organs...hell no. There comes a time when you have an illness that is so chronic it takes over a massive portion of your life - that you have to find normality and take calculated risks to continue living that life. Otherwise you may as well go out and buy a big box and go live in that.

Hasbeens, you've surprised me a little in your stance about abstinence - especially given that you've mentioned your wife's chronic illness and your attempts at having a baby. I just find that odd - given what you've written about "I would think that would add a bit more motivation to at least consider abstinence in her particular case."

Honeygirl, I understand your point about "bugger this, I'm living my life". You know I do. My wife feels the same way. And while in the beginning it drove me crazy, now I cherish her for it.

But here's the difference. Even if Leslie were to have gotten pregnant somehow there is no question she would have tried to see it through. She is not afraid to die, and neither of us is willing to sacrifice the life of what would have been our baby to buy her more time. In short, she was willing to risk her own life in that way to enjoy that level of intimacy in our marriage, but not our potential child's.

Now if your friend lived in America, I'd encourage her to consider a procedure to ensure she wouldn't get pregnant. That would make her choice to be sexually active more liveable. But it sounds like that option isn't so easy in New Zealand.

That, in a roundabout way, is what happened to Leslie. She had a concurrent medical problem that only sterilization would cure. As her Lupus was such a threat to her if she did get pregnant, the procedure ended up being a blessing of sorts. It removed the danger that pregnancy held, and solved her other problem as well.

I'm all for living your life to the fullest. But the question in those circumstances becomes, "Are you willing to live your life to the fullest, even at the risk of ending another innocent life?"

[WilliamJ]

Originally posted by Honeygirl

Just to be clear, I told this story to "share my experience" - and if it doesn't fit into your idea of what a "valid point" in an argument is, then cry me a river. It was mearly my intention to suggest to people that circumstances aren't always black and white when it comes to abortion.
If I missed something here please clarify....You have made the point I made in my above statement....This is an extraordinary situation like I said and not "normal" where abortion is concerned.

But to reiterate....A consequence of sex is pregnancy, one needs to be willing to pay the tab should they choose to have sex.

[Honeygirl]

Originally posted by hasbeen99
Now if your friend lived in America, I'd encourage her to consider a procedure to ensure she wouldn't get pregnant. That would make her choice to be sexually active more liveable. But it sounds like that option isn't so easy in New Zealand./QUOTE]HB - we do have sterilization facilities available here - but as I stated earlier - no one fully appreciated how risky and dangerous pregnancy would be for her. Because sterilization is such a major decision, she was holding out I guess for her condition to improve (there had, up until that point been some hope that it would).
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WilliamJ If I missed something here please clarify....You have made the point I made in my above statement....This is an extraordinary situation like I said and not "normal" where abortion is concerned.
Bill - here's what I'm referring to...Originally posted by WilliamJ ...Your story is so far the norm it is not even a valid point in the abortion arguement. Hence my response.

[Patti]

One of my mother's best friend died in a back alley abortion. It still haunts my mother today, and that was over 50 years ago.

[hasbeen99]

Originally posted by Honeygirl
HB - we do have sterilization facilities available here - but as I stated earlier - no one fully appreciated how risky and dangerous pregnancy would be for her. Because sterilization is such a major decision, she was holding out I guess for her condition to improve (there had, up until that point been some hope that it would).


My apologies, Honeygirl. I was under the assumption she knew from the first kidney removal how dangerous pregnancy would be for her. If the docs didn't tell her until she was already pregnant, that changes the context significantly.

Unfortunately she was still faced with the same horrid decision, and like I said before, either way she would have had to live (or die) with the consequences, as would her child.

[Honeygirl]

No need to apologise matey :)...I guess because she'd overcome so many obsticles in the past - everyone figured that this one would be no different. Also, there are instances where people have breed with only one kidney - however, in her case - it wasn't going to be a goer. :(