Abortion...Her choice

[TimmyBoy]

Some choice -- to subject an unborn child, peacefully growing in the womb, to a sudden and violent death simply because it made its presence known at an inopportune time.

And we dare to call ourselves 'humane'?

That's a problem with today's world, their is very little humanity left.

 

[ngdawg]

Actually, it's not violent at all, it's a rather simple procedure, done in a doctor's office and the patient goes home to rest for a day or two. There are two ways to abort. The first, and I believe, more common way is like a D&C, where the uterus is suctioned and washed. The second, a procedure done less frequently, is by injection of potassium into the fetus' head, but there needs to be a sonogram used so the injection is precise. This procedure is done when the woman is carrying a multiple birth and cannot support a litter growing inside. The embryo cannot feel pain yet as the nerve endings have not yet developed, but the woman will experience some cramping, usually enough to warrant some medication, but, if done correctly, nothing more. Some doctors like to prescribe an antibiotic, just in case.
Children already born to women who cannot in any way support them are over-burdening a badly-handled fostercare system. Caseworkers are overworked, and many times lack the necessary training to offer the type of support these kids and families need. Crackbabies, abused children, children with fetal alcohol syndrome and a host of other maladies are unwanted burdens on society. So...tell ya what...go to your local DFCS, tell them you want half a dozen kids, all previously unwanted. Look through their books (believe me, there'll be a few) and just pick some kids.
Yea....didn't think so....

 

[TimmyBoy]

Actually, it's not violent at all, it's a rather simple procedure, done in a doctor's office and the patient goes home to rest for a day or two. There are two ways to abort. The first, and I believe, more common way is like a D&C, where the uterus is suctioned and washed. The second, a procedure done less frequently, is by injection of potassium into the fetus' head, but there needs to be a sonogram used so the injection is precise. This procedure is done when the woman is carrying a multiple birth and cannot support a litter growing inside. The embryo cannot feel pain yet as the nerve endings have not yet developed, but the woman will experience some cramping, usually enough to warrant some medication, but, if done correctly, nothing more. Some doctors like to prescribe an antibiotic, just in case.
Children already born to women who cannot in any way support them are over-burdening a badly-handled fostercare system. Caseworkers are overworked, and many times lack the necessary training to offer the type of support these kids and families need. Crackbabies, abused children, children with fetal alcohol syndrome and a host of other maladies are unwanted burdens on society. So...tell ya what...go to your local DFCS, tell them you want half a dozen kids, all previously unwanted. Look through their books (believe me, there'll be a few) and just pick some kids.
Yea....didn't think so....

I got no problems adopting unwanted kids, just have to find a wife first. It seems you advocate a Darwinist approach. Kinda like what the Nazis proposed or what the Spartans did to children who were born with defects, which was leave them on the side of the road to rot and die.

 

[ngdawg]

Singles can adopt too, so not having a wife is not an excuse-unless of course in addition to being anti-choice, you're also a raging chauvanist who thinks a woman's place is in the kitchen and washroom. And there's no way of knowing what the kid will be so your comparison is dumb. But since you are so determined that every pregnancy come to its logical and natural end, whether it's born perfectly normal or at 25 weeks gestation shaking from the withdrawal of crack, YOU support it. If you can't, stop with the rhetorical propaganda. You've convinced no one, provided no alternatives and you're trying to back out of doing what YOU think is the answer with some flimsy excuse.

 

[Felicity]

Singles can adopt too, so not having a wife is not an excuse-unless of course in addition to being anti-choice, you're also a raging chauvanist who thinks a woman's place is in the kitchen and washroom. And there's no way of knowing what the kid will be so your comparison is dumb. But since you are so determined that every pregnancy come to its logical and natural end, whether it's born perfectly normal or at 25 weeks gestation shaking from the withdrawal of crack, YOU support it. If you can't, stop with the rhetorical propaganda. You've convinced no one, provided no alternatives and you're trying to back out of doing what YOU think is the answer with some flimsy excuse.

The solution to drug addicted babies ISN'T killing the babies.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

The solution to drug addicted babies ISN'T killing the babies.

Yes! The solution is to let them grow up to be deformed crack adults!

 

[ngdawg]

:2brickwal
No, actually the solution to not having drug addicted babies born is kill the drug addicts....uh, that was sarcasm, by the way.

Actually, not one woman I know who has undergone an abortion was drug-addicted or drunk. One was 13, a couple of them were 16, another used all the protection, but still conceived. Reasons vary, none was a 'method of birth control', as so many anti-choicers like to say it is. All but one are now mothers. (Not one of you has answered the repeated question of whether you are a parent, so I can assume you are not)

For all the rhetoric, for all your false information, not one anti-choice God-fearing person in any of these threads has offered a viable logical solution to reduce or eradicate abortions. They have been around for hundreds of years, will be around after we're all dust and the human race will continue to thrive and fight wars and kill entire forests and their inhabitants and argue about what a woman should do with her own life and yes, it IS her life, her choice, for bringing a child into the world will always affect her life, not yours.

 

[TimmyBoy]

:2brickwal
No, actually the solution to not having drug addicted babies born is kill the drug addicts....uh, that was sarcasm, by the way.

Actually, not one woman I know who has undergone an abortion was drug-addicted or drunk. One was 13, a couple of them were 16, another used all the protection, but still conceived. Reasons vary, none was a 'method of birth control', as so many anti-choicers like to say it is. All but one are now mothers. (Not one of you has answered the repeated question of whether you are a parent, so I can assume you are not)

For all the rhetoric, for all your false information, not one anti-choice God-fearing person in any of these threads has offered a viable logical solution to reduce or eradicate abortions. They have been around for hundreds of years, will be around after we're all dust and the human race will continue to thrive and fight wars and kill entire forests and their inhabitants and argue about what a woman should do with her own life and yes, it IS her life, her choice, for bringing a child into the world will always affect her life, not yours.

Yeah, but the problem is, a woman who chooses to have an abortion denies the the right of the unborn to live and to choose for him/herself. The problem with pro-choicers is that they deny rights to the unborn. They do not value human life as much as they claim. Their is little morality to pro-choicers and would prefer the convient and easy way out of everything. For me, seeing death on the massive scale that I have seen it, made me a pro-life individual. I think population control with all the wars we fight is good enough without abortion. Everybody has the right to live. Life is not a choice, it is a gift.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Native Americans also believed in the right of everybody and everything to live. This goes much deeper than religion.

 

[TimmyBoy]

I had a friend who was pro-abortion until he witnessed the birth of his first child, then he was anti-abortion. Everybody deserves a fair shake, a shot at living. Living is a right in my view and should not be over-rided by the right to choice. The right to live supersedes the right to choose.

 

[ngdawg]

While it exists as a life FORM, it is not a seperate human life endowed with inalienable rights. And do NOT make comments on my or anyone else's morality or respect for life or what choices we make when you have NO idea who you are talking to. That is a line crossing that has no place in intelligent debate.

 

[TimmyBoy]

While it exists as a life FORM, it is not a seperate human life endowed with inalienable rights. And do NOT make comments on my or anyone else's morality or respect for life or what choices we make when you have NO idea who you are talking to. That is a line crossing that has no place in intelligent debate.

Native Americans believed that all life FORMS had inalienable rights. I will make comments on people's morality and respect for life because I have seen the worst in mankind. European American society does not have the respect for life that it pretends to have. Abortion is part of the evil side of mankind. Many people argue that abortion is a good thing but many argued that slavery was a good thing when it existed as well. Evil is good. Wrong is right.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Pro-abortionists view the unborn as things, objects to be discarded in a trash can. Not something that is alive or living. Pro-abortionists, see the world as dead, rather than alive.

 

[Fantasea]

Actually, it's not violent at all, it's a rather simple procedure, done in a doctor's office and the patient goes home to rest for a day or two. There are two ways to abort. The first, and I believe, more common way is like a D&C, where the uterus is suctioned and washed

If the suction is not violent, why is it that the fatality rate is 100%?

The second, a procedure done less frequently, is by injection of potassium into the fetus' head, but there needs to be a sonogram used so the injection is precise.

A lethal injection, you say? Isn't that what's given to those who are convicted of a capital crime? But only after years of appeals? All the aborted child did was to show up at an innoportune time. Is that also a capital offense?

This procedure is done when the woman is carrying a multiple birth and cannot support a litter growing inside. The embryo cannot feel pain yet as the nerve endings have not yet developed, but the woman will experience some cramping, usually enough to warrant some medication, but, if done correctly, nothing more. Some doctors like to prescribe an antibiotic, just in case.

Litter? That clarifies your attitude toward human life.

Children already born to women who cannot in any way support them are over-burdening a badly-handled fostercare system. Caseworkers are overworked, and many times lack the necessary training to offer the type of support these kids and families need. Crackbabies, abused children, children with fetal alcohol syndrome and a host of other maladies are unwanted burdens on society. So...tell ya what...go to your local DFCS, tell them you want half a dozen kids, all previously unwanted. Look through their books (believe me, there'll be a few) and just pick some kids.

You are a victim of politically correct socialist propaganda which glorifies the elimination of the human "burdens" you describe.

Yea....didn't think so....

Then maybe it's time that you started to.

 

[Fantasea]

While it exists as a life FORM, it is not a seperate human life endowed with inalienable rights.

Until 1969, Planned Parenthood disagreed with you. What happened to cause Planned Parenthood to do a flip-flop?

Planned Parenthood, SIECUS admit:
Life begins at conception

..DIANE S. DEW © 1998... ​

The year was 1969 ... Law and politics had not yet "altered medical science."* The terminology of medical texts had not yet been changed to depersonalize life in the womb. (The pregnant woman was "the mother" and the fetus was "the child" or "baby.") McGraw-Hill Inc. was publishing a book on Conception, Birth and Contraception and needed some input from an authority on the subject. It turned to Planned Parenthood and the Sex Information & Education Council of the United States.

"This book provides a solid base for understanding the anatomy of reproduction," wrote Mary S. Calderone, MD, Executive Director of SIECUS, in her Introduction to the 129-page book. "Access to such fine books as this one will assure our young people that ... finally adults are becoming willing to 'tell it like it is.'"

Similarly, "Dr. George Langmyhr of Planned Parenthood Federation of America ... reviewed the material on contraception," state authors Robert J. Demarest and John J. Sciarra, MD, PhD, in their Foreword.

Within the pages of Conception, Birth and Contraception, however, the pro-life position is presented with pictorial and verbal accuracy. The book clearly pushes contraceptives, with some faulty information on the safety of the IUD, etc., but the personhood of the unborn is fully supported throughout the text.

In fact, the book's own glossary definition of the term "fetus" begins with: "An unborn child." Pregnancy, likewise, is defined as: "The condition of being with child."

In the aftermath of Roe v. Wade, of course, today's Planned Parenthood -- largest abortion provider in the world -- would never admit that life begins at conception, or depict the infant in utero, in full-page illustrations, as a person. To do so, would suggest is the ultimate violation of rights in the diabolical Roe v. Wade decision.

No doubt today's SIECUS, as well, would attempt to discredit the pro-life (factual) content of this "fine book" which it's leader in 1969 described so positively.

Some excerpts
Following are some excerpts from the book, approved by Planned Parenthood and SIECUS four years before the legalization of abortion:

"... at least one [sperm] will reach the egg, fertilize it, and conception will take place. A new life will begin." (page 15)

"... the egg which, if fertilized, gives rise to a new life." (page 3)

"From fertilization to delivery, mother and child are as one for approximately 266 days. At the end of the period the mother delivers the infant into the world ..." (page 3)

"It is the female who carries the baby during the nine months of its prenatal life." (page 17)

"However small it may be, the egg is about two thousand times as large as the sperm that must fertilize it. ...it carries the food the growing embryo will use during the first few days of its life." (page 26)

"... to grow within the mother." (page 32)

"The inherited characteristics of the baby to be born ... are determined by material within the egg and sperm ... each mature egg contains genetic material carrying the inheritable characteristics of the mother ... the child receives inherited characteristics from both parents." (page 50)

"The placenta ... transfers nourishment from the mother ...." (page 53)

"... ectopic pregnanc[ies] ... are dangerous to the mother and provide no possibility of a live child." (page 53)

"The growth of the baby within the uterus takes nine calendar months." (page 57)

"The sex ... could also be determined by examining under a microscope cells which are present in the amniotic fluid ... however, the doctor would have to puncture the amniotic cavity. This procedure is not undertaken except under very unusual circumstances having to do with the baby's health. So until the baby is delivered, no one knows whether it is a boy or a girl." (page 61)

"... the bloodstreams of mother and fetus ... never touch, and the blood in each remains separate. Oxygen and nutrients pass through the placenta, from the bloodstream of the mother to the fetus, and waste products from the fetus pass in the reverse direction into the bloodstream of the mother." (page 64) [i.e., the fetus is not part of the mother's body]

"... a doctor examining the mother can hear the fetal heartbeat ... The mother can feel the movement ... its arms and legs ..." (page 65)

"... the doctor may perform an operation called a cesarean section and remove the baby ..." (page 68)

".. its head is well down in the pelvic area of the mother -- the ideal position for it when the birth process begins." (page 68)

"The new life that has been growing within the mother for approximately nine months is now ready to enter the world. The passage of the baby through the birth canal is called delivery, and the process by which this is accomplished by the mother is called labor... Occasionally, a baby is born before thirty-eight weeks ... and the baby's chance of survival depends upon its weight and state of development at birth. When it is time for delivery, the mother begins to experience uterine contractions.... felt by the mother in her back ..." (page 72)

 

[steen]

Yeah, but the problem is, a woman who chooses to have an abortion denies the the right of the unborn to live and to choose for him/herself.

There is no such right, and the claim of its capacity for choosing anything is just further evidence of prolife lies and hyperbole. Your revisionist linguistics merely underscores your lack of honest arguments.

The problem with pro-choicers is that they deny rights to the unborn.

You bet. It has no rights.

They do not value human life as much as they claim.

We value the WOMAN'S human life and her right not to be enslaved by rightwing fundie theocrats who want to relegate her to second-class citizens without the right to control her own bodily resources the way the rest of us can.

Their is little morality to pro-choicers

More lies. It is very amoral to want to enslave women like the prolifers want to.

and would prefer the convient and easy way out of everything. For me, seeing death on the massive scale that I have seen it, made me a pro-life individual. I think population control with all the wars we fight is good enough without abortion.

Yadda, yadda.

Everybody has the right to live.

Not the kidney p[atient who would die without your extra kidney which you are denying him. So you are lying.
[pquote]Life is not a choice, it is a gift.[/QUOTE]But only when it is a fetus or an embryo, at least to prolifer hypocrites.

 

[steen]

Everybody deserves a fair shake, a shot at living. Living is a right in my view and should not be over-rided by the right to choice. The right to live supersedes the right to choose.

So you are for forced organ donations. Otherwise you just spewed a lie.

 

[steen]

If the suction is not violent, why is it that the fatality rate is 100%?

It isn't, your lies none withstanding.

All the aborted child did

There isn't such a thing, your deceptive, hyperbolic, revisionist linguistics none withstanding.

 

[Fantasea]

It isn't, your lies none withstanding.
There isn't such a thing, your deceptive, hyperbolic, revisionist linguistics none withstanding.

The biology books disagree with you.

:rofl . . . . . :spin: . . . . . :violin​

 

[mpg]

Don't get me wrong folks, I'm no feminist. However, that doesn't mean I treat women like ****, and I feel that they should get their own say regarding their bodies. When a baby is still inside the mother's womb, it is not yet concious. Therefore, it is just a "mindless body" until it comes out and has it's mind branded with ideas. It is a part of the woman's body, she should be the one to choose whether to keep it or not. If you were a rape-victim, would you want to have an illegimate child? If you get pregnant on accident when you are only 15, would you like to drop out of school to raise the baby? In our democracy, we obviously have laws and guidelines, but abortion should be a choice made as a human being, a choice on morality and how it may be outweighed by neccessity. Abortion should NOT be illegal in the United States.

That's a totally reasonable point of view, but I respectfully disagree. I believe that life begins at conception.

 

[Fantasea]

Don't get me wrong folks, I'm no feminist. However, that doesn't mean I treat women like ****, and I feel that they should get their own say regarding their bodies. When a baby is still inside the mother's womb, it is not yet concious. Therefore, it is just a "mindless body" until it comes out and has it's mind branded with ideas. It is a part of the woman's body, she should be the one to choose whether to keep it or not. If you were a rape-victim, would you want to have an illegimate child? If you get pregnant on accident when you are only 15, would you like to drop out of school to raise the baby? In our democracy, we obviously have laws and guidelines, but abortion should be a choice made as a human being, a choice on morality and how it may be outweighed by neccessity. Abortion should NOT be illegal in the United States.

This reveals a total lack of understanding of human biology. It is a verbatim regurgitation of the propaganda put forth by the pro-death crowd.

It contains not a single fact but is the standard emotional diatribe.

If you believe there is a biological fact lurking in there somethere, point to it and I'll shoot it full of holes for you.

 

[guns_God_glory]

Don't get me wrong folks, I'm no feminist. However, that doesn't mean I treat women like ****, and I feel that they should get their own say regarding their bodies. When a baby is still inside the mother's womb, it is not yet concious. Therefore, it is just a "mindless body" until it comes out and has it's mind branded with ideas. It is a part of the woman's body, she should be the one to choose whether to keep it or not. If you were a rape-victim, would you want to have an illegimate child? If you get pregnant on accident when you are only 15, would you like to drop out of school to raise the baby? In our democracy, we obviously have laws and guidelines, but abortion should be a choice made as a human being, a choice on morality and how it may be outweighed by neccessity. Abortion should NOT be illegal in the United States.

Now it takes a male and female to make a child. Why then is the female the only one who can choose wether to kill her baby or not. I mean if the dad wants out he gets stuck with child support but all the mom has to do is kill the baby. I'm just saying that it should be left up to the decision of both parents.

 

[Fantasea]

Now it takes a male and female to make a child. Why then is the female the only one who can choose wether to kill her baby or not. I mean if the dad wants out he gets stuck with child support but all the mom has to do is kill the baby. I'm just saying that it should be left up to the decision of both parents.

Why should anyone have the right to decide that an unborn human child cannot live and must die?

 

[nostalgia]

When mother doesn't want to borne the child for some reason,it seems that abortion is the only choice she can choose.Of course abortion is controversial.

 

[Fantasea]

When mother doesn't want to borne the child for some reason,it seems that abortion is the only choice she can choose.Of course abortion is controversial.

So, what you seem to be saying is that if a child makes its presence known at an inopportune time, then it makes sense to simply kill it. Do I have that right?