Partial Birth Abortions:

[doughgirl]

http://womensissues.about.com/od/partialbirthabortion/
http://home.att.net/~trackitdown/abortion.html#pba
http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/darnfact.htm

All good sites.

And for those of you who think these procedures are rarely done, you are wrong.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact8.html says,

“There are at least 164,000 abortions a year after the first three months of pregnancy, and 13,000 abortions annually after 4 1/2 months, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (New York Times, July 5 and November 6, 1995), which is an arm of Planned Parenthood.”

“These numbers should be regarded as minimums, since they are based on voluntary reporting to the AGI. (The Centers for Disease Control reported that in 1993, over 17,000 abortions were performed at 21 weeks and later-- and the CDC acknowledges that the reports that it receives are incomplete.)

“On March 19, 1996, Dr. William Rashbaum of New York City wrote a letter to Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.), stating that he has performed 19,000 late-term "procedures," and that he has performed the procedure that HR 1833 would ban "routinely since 1979. This procedure is only performed in cases of later gestational age."

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact3.html

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact.html Excellent website and information


Even the name “partial-birth abortion”……… means the child is killed while partially out of the uterus. Anyone who would condone this for any reason, has something wrong with them. Seriously wrong.

 

[vergiss]

The issue with the label of "pro-abortion", as opposed to "pro-choice", makes it seem as if we aren't pro-choice, we're pro-abortion and no other choice. This certainly isn't true, otherwise the pro-choice side would never have children of their own. :lol:

I don't particularly care, though. I have better things to debate about in this issue than desperate attempts by the pro-lifers to divert my attention into something trivial.

 

[Felicity]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15167815&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the relative safety of 2 techniques for surgical abortion late in the second trimester.Study design Retrospective review of patients who underwent surgical abortion at >or=20 weeks' gestation at our hospital from June 1996 through June 2003. Records were reviewed to determine whether the technique used was dilation and evacuation or intact dilation and extraction. Subsequent pregnancies at our hospital were identified, and obstetric outcomes were recorded. ....

you left off this part of the study: "Three hundred eighty-three patients met inclusion criteria. Intact dilation and extraction was performed in 120 cases, and dilation and evacuation was used in 263." That means 54 late term abortions at that one facility every year over a 7 year period.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15229018&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_docsum
...Twelve percent of abortions are performed in the second trimester, the majority of these by dilation and evacuation (D&E) after laminaria dilation of the cervix. Uterine evacuation is accomplished with heavy ovum forceps augmented by 14-16 mm vacuum cannula systems. Cervical injection of dilute vasopressin reduces blood loss. Operative ultrasonography is reported to reduce perforation risk of D&E. Dilation and evacuation procedures have evolved to include intact D&E and combination methods for more advanced gestations....

And on this one you left off this "gem": "Fetal intracardiac injection to reduce multiple pregnancies or selectively abort an anomalous twin is accepted therapy." So killing a fetus because he's unlucky enough to be an "extra" or has some "anomoly"--like what--a cleft pallet? "accepted therapy"....is that like "colateral damage?"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8423969&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Abortions performed after 20 menstrual weeks were effected by instillation of intra-amniotic hyperosmolar urea or induction of fetal death by injection of digoxin and/or hyperosmolar urea into the fetus, followed by artificial rupture of membranes, induction of labor, and assisted expulsion or instrumental extraction of the fetus. At less than 20 weeks, dilation and evacuation following serial multiple laminaria treatment of the cervix was the method of choice

And this one--you forgot to bold the part where it describes the method of "killing" the live fetus--burning and/or poisoning...n.i.i.i.i.c.e

 

[ngdawg]

When fertility treatments are done, depending on what procedure is used, as many as 20 eggs mature and have the potential to be fertilized. Even at half, you're talking 10 zygotes. I'd much rather carry 2-3 healthy babies than risk losing all 10. For those that haven't gone through these treatments, you have no idea the mental work and stress one goes through, so don't be so quick to judge something you have no clue about. Once it has been established how many zygotes are implanted( sonogram done at four weeks after treatment to show how many), the decisions can be made. Voluntary reduction is done very early into the first trimester, usually within the first 8 weeks.

 

[Felicity]

When fertility treatments are done, depending on what procedure is used, as many as 20 eggs mature and have the potential to be fertilized. Even at half, you're talking 10 zygotes. I'd much rather carry 2-3 healthy babies than risk losing all 10. For those that haven't gone through these treatments, you have no idea the mental work and stress one goes through, so don't be so quick to judge something you have no clue about. Once it has been established how many zygotes are implanted( sonogram done at four weeks after treatment to show how many), the decisions can be made. Voluntary reduction is done very early into the first trimester, usually within the first 8 weeks.

You don't have to have more than you are willing to carry put in your womb. It's *cheaper* and *more convenient* to put a bunch in because you have a better odds at successful implantation...but the fetuses aborted to "make room" are aborted due to two reasons: his parents desire to "save money" and "avoid inconvenience." As for the "mental work and stress"--sorry. I don't think that gives you the right to kill any number of humans inside the womb. After all--you put them there only to kill them? It makes no sense. If a person is so desperate that they seek this sort of treatment to HAVE babies--how on earth can she see the rationality of making a bunch of babies and killing some to get what *SHE* wants. To me, that is the most incredibly selfish act--and parenting is all about self-lessness. Do the kids born this way get told they are only here by blind chance--Mum and Daddy eeny mini miney moed their existance? Do they know Mum and Daddy "selectively reduced" their family size--and why? I hope not--yikes! Talk about winning the lottery of life.

 

[ngdawg]

You don't have to have more than you are willing to carry put in your womb. It's *cheaper* and *more convenient* to put a bunch in because you have a better odds at successful implantation...but the fetuses aborted to "make room" are aborted due to two reasons: his parents desire to "save money" and "avoid inconvenience." As for the "mental work and stress"--sorry. I don't think that gives you the right to kill any number of humans inside the womb. After all--you put them there only to kill them? It makes no sense. If a person is so desperate that they seek this sort of treatment to HAVE babies--how on earth can she see the rationality of making a bunch of babies and killing some to get what *SHE* wants. To me, that is the most incredibly selfish act--and parenting is all about self-lessness. Do the kids born this way get told they are only here by blind chance--Mum and Daddy eeny mini miney moed their existance? Do they know Mum and Daddy "selectively reduced" their family size--and why? I hope not--yikes! Talk about winning the lottery of life.

You ARE joking, right??? Do us a favor....don't make these kind of ignorant statements about a situation you know NOTHING about at all.
As about winning the 'lottery of life'-everyone on earth did. Having a slow day, are we?:roll:

 

[Felicity]

You ARE joking, right??? Do us a favor....don't make these kind of ignorant statements about a situation you know NOTHING about at all.
As about winning the 'lottery of life'-everyone on earth did. Having a slow day, are we?:roll:

I KNOW that fertilized human ova are individual human lives. I KNOW that when a woman forces her body to produce 20 eggs at once she is treating her body as a commodity and that is disrespect for the awesome creature she is. I KNOW that the woman's body was not made to support extravagant numbers of fetus' at once and to put herself in that position is using her body as an object of incubation rather than respecting the awesome creature with awesome powers of fertility that she is. I KNOW that the individual lives that are DESTROYED as a result of her disrespecting the awsome creature she is is a trajic injustice to BOTH of them. I KNOW that the children born of such disrespect are awesome in their own right and are just DAMNED lucky they escaped the "selective reduction" with their lives.

You are defensive....why is that? Have some misgivings about something you've done?

 

[ngdawg]

Done?? Spend ten years undergoing fertility treatments? Not at all...YOU just don't have a clue what it entails, but are real quick to judge....
I didn't do selective reduction, but for those that have to make that decision to ensure having healthy babies, it beats having none at all.
And my kids know they're 2 out of 15 who won 'the lottery'. Doesn't bother them at all-in fact it UPS their specialness quotient.
You really should research before you make blanket statements.

 

[Felicity]

Done?? Spend ten years undergoing fertility treatments? Not at all...YOU just don't have a clue what it entails, but are real quick to judge....
I didn't do selective reduction, but for those that have to make that decision to ensure having healthy babies, it beats having none at all.
And my kids know they're 2 out of 15 who won 'the lottery'. Doesn't bother them at all-in fact it UPS their specialness quotient.
You really should research before you make blanket statements.

Just because I haven't raped anyone, doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about the morality of rape. I don't have to have had your experience to look at the issues. In fact--perhaps that makes me MORE objective though less informed on the emotional issues. I don't have to agree with what you have done--I find it immoral. That is my opinion. I do understand that I have not been in your shoes and fertility is not an issue I personaly have a problem with--even so--I believe if I could not have children biologically--I certainly would not do to myself what I consider abuse, nor would I justify killing that which I took such great pains to produce. I don't "judge" YOU--I judge a choice you apparently made. I judge it immoral. Does Felicity rapping a gavel and making a proclamation of "immorality" mean ANYTHING in the big scheme of things? nope. That's the "Big Guy's" domain. What we have here is just my opinion--and I'm entitled to it.

 

[Felicity]

And my kids know they're 2 out of 15 who won 'the lottery'. Doesn't bother them at all-in fact it UPS their specialness quotient.

I have a question and you don't have to answer if it's too personal--have you ever asked your kids what they think about those thirteen that didn't make it? What do they think happened to those that "might have been?"

 

[ngdawg]

Just because I haven't raped anyone, doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about the morality of rape. I don't have to have had your experience to look at the issues. In fact--perhaps that makes me MORE objective though less informed on the emotional issues. I don't have to agree with what you have done--I find it immoral. That is my opinion. I do understand that I have not been in your shoes and fertility is not an issue I personaly have a problem with--even so--I believe if I could not have children biologically--I certainly would not do to myself what I consider abuse, nor would I justify killing that which I took such great pains to produce. I don't "judge" YOU--I judge a choice you apparently made. I judge it immoral. Does Felicity rapping a gavel and making a proclamation of "immorality" mean ANYTHING in the big scheme of things? nope. That's the "Big Guy's" domain. What we have here is just my opinion--and I'm entitled to it.

Opinions are fine and dandy. When they are made without knowing what's involved, then they are worth nothing more than the time you took to voice it. You, I, anyone really, knows rape is immoral, illegal, etc., because we know what it is....that's not the case here.
You would more than likely throw yourself in front of a runaway car if your children were in its path. to save them. Is that not sacrificing your own personal being, knowing full well the implications? And the 'abuse' you speak of to reach a personal goal is small-no different that going through any other medical treatments. My resulting pregnancy did more 'abuse' to my body than the steps I took to get there. Again, look into it. Opinions are like A$$ holes, we all have them.

 

[Felicity]

Opinions are fine and dandy. When they are made without knowing what's involved, then they are worth nothing more than the time you took to voice it. You, I, anyone really, knows rape is immoral, illegal, etc., because we know what it is....that's not the case here.
You would more than likely throw yourself in front of a runaway car if your children were in its path. to save them. Is that not sacrificing your own personal being, knowing full well the implications? And the 'abuse' you speak of to reach a personal goal is small-no different that going through any other medical treatments. My resulting pregnancy did more 'abuse' to my body than the steps I took to get there. Again, look into it. Opinions are like A$$ holes, we all have them.

Despite what you would like to believe--I am quite informed on what IVF entails. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I am ignorant of the facts. Have I presented any medically incorrect information?

You say to save children a mother (or rather you specifically say someone like me) would throw herself in front of moving vehicles--yes--I would...apparently, though, in your estimation, those children have to be of sufficient development for you to consider that action.

 

[ngdawg]

Despite what you would like to believe--I am quite informed on what IVF entails. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I am ignorant of the facts. Have I presented any medically incorrect information?

You say to save children a mother (or rather you specifically say someone like me) would throw herself in front of moving vehicles--yes--I would...apparently, though, in your estimation, those children have to be of sufficient development for you to consider that action.

Actually you haven't provided one thing that lets anyone know you have any information at all on the procedure...:roll: Your other remark is just silly....

 

[Felicity]

Actually you haven't provided one thing that lets anyone know you have any information at all on the procedure...:roll: Your other remark is just silly....

Then how do you know my opinion is "made without knowing what's involved?" Exactly--my point proved. Or would you rather I offer an original paper on the topic to prove my familiarity with the subject...:roll:

 

[ngdawg]

Your opinion smacks of not knowing the procedures(there are several), the choices that have to be made, the emotions involved, the cost in money, time, etc....
No one forces their body to produce 20 eggs, for instance. That is the result of her reaction to the meds.

I KNOW that the woman's body was not made to support extravagant numbers of fetus' at once and to put herself in that position is using her body as an object of incubation rather than respecting the awesome creature with awesome powers of fertility that she is.

Some don't have any awesome powers of fertility. You comment of 'using her body as an object of incubation' flies in the face of everything you profess to abhor.
Choice....it's all about choice. And your abhorations declare women SHOULD be objects of incubation, regardless of the choices out there to be made. So which is it?

 

[Felicity]

No one forces their body to produce 20 eggs, for instance. That is the result of her reaction to the meds.

Uh...yeah...When you inject drugs to stimulate hyper-active egg development--that is "forcing" your body to produce more eggs than is natural. No woman ANYWHERE shoots out 20 eggs at an ovulation without CHEMICAL intervention that makes the body do something UNnatural.

Some don't have any awesome powers of fertility.

"Woman" does--some individual women don't have a functioning fertility system--but they share the nature of "Woman"--it's along the lines of the "personhood" discussion I had with FI concerning the Personhood being a reality of the human species as a result of the nature of mankind.

You comment of 'using her body as an object of incubation' flies in the face of everything you profess to abhor.

In no way do I insist women be incubators--I insist they be personally responsible for their actions. I think Objectifying the body is wrong--and abortion supporter "objectify" fetuses when they dehumanize them and consider them objects to keep or dispose of. Likewise, people who use IVF objectify their own bodies when they seperate their natural functioning from the procreative process. Their bodies become a means of achieving an end--the ovaries, and eggs and fallopian tubes and womb are not a unified "system," They become individual tools to achieve a specific goal. That is objectifying oneself.

Choice....it's all about choice. And your abhorations declare women SHOULD be objects of incubation, regardless of the choices out there to be made. So which is it?

Again ngdawg--I'm as much pro-choice as you are---I just support different choices.

 

[ngdawg]

Uh...yeah...When you inject drugs to stimulate hyper-active egg development--that is "forcing" your body to produce more eggs than is natural. No woman ANYWHERE shoots out 20 eggs at an ovulation without CHEMICAL intervention that makes the body do something UNnatural.

"Woman" does--some individual women don't have a functioning fertility system--but they share the nature of "Woman"--it's along the lines of the "personhood" discussion I had with FI concerning the Personhood being a reality of the human species as a result of the nature of mankind.

In no way do I insist women be incubators--I insist they be personally responsible for their actions. I think Objectifying the body is wrong--and abortion supporter "objectify" fetuses when they dehumanize them and consider them objects to keep or dispose of. Likewise, people who use IVF objectify their own bodies when they seperate their natural functioning from the procreative process. Their bodies become a means of achieving an end--the ovaries, and eggs and fallopian tubes and womb are not a unified "system," They become individual tools to achieve a specific goal. That is objectifying oneself.

Again ngdawg--I'm as much pro-choice as you are---I just support different choices.

How is seeking medical help to achieve what nature can't provide objectifying?
Just like we don't have the ability to always heal ourselves simply by hoping we get better, fertility treatments are no different. Your opinions make you look pretty heartless. "well, if she can't conceive, tough luck?" Being born with parts that don't work perfectly is not a choice. If you were seeing the world through blurry eyes, you'd accept it? If you were in need of a hearing aid, you'd decline? Why objectify your eyes and ears, applying all sorts of devices to them? After all, is not the goal to see and hear better? Sure, you have the choice to remain blind or deaf, maybe both. But medical science is there to fix what nature cannot.
And they ARE a unified system, or else the goal would not be reached-for someone who said they know what's involved, you apparently don't really. One does not go without the other.
Hope your daughter(s), your sisters or whomever never have to go through it-you're a barrel of support, chickie.

 

[vergiss]

You don't have to have more than you are willing to carry put in your womb. It's *cheaper* and *more convenient* to put a bunch in because you have a better odds at successful implantation...but the fetuses aborted to "make room" are aborted due to two reasons: his parents desire to "save money" and "avoid inconvenience." As for the "mental work and stress"--sorry. I don't think that gives you the right to kill any number of humans inside the womb. After all--you put them there only to kill them? It makes no sense. If a person is so desperate that they seek this sort of treatment to HAVE babies--how on earth can she see the rationality of making a bunch of babies and killing some to get what *SHE* wants. To me, that is the most incredibly selfish act--and parenting is all about self-lessness. Do the kids born this way get told they are only here by blind chance--Mum and Daddy eeny mini miney moed their existance? Do they know Mum and Daddy "selectively reduced" their family size--and why? I hope not--yikes! Talk about winning the lottery of life.

Do you even read the kind of crap that comes out of your mouth sometimes? If a woman finds herself pregnant with 8, 10, whatever enormous amount of embryos (which can and DOES happen naturally), removing some or most of those embryos makes an enormous difference in the survival rates of the rest. For once in your life take the time to do a bit of damn research yourself before you jump on your moral high horse. You'd rather all ten die as babies than only 2 or 3 remain, and survive in perfect health? What kind of screwed up priorities do you have?!

 

[Felicity]

Hope your daughter(s), your sisters or whomever never have to go through it-you're a barrel of support, chickie.

"Chickie"...heh...I like that...:mrgreen:

How is seeking medical help to achieve what nature can't provide objectifying? Just like we don't have the ability to always heal ourselves simply by hoping we get better, fertility treatments are no different.

SOME fertility treatments are no different...

Look--when you use your body as a means to an end in an UNNATURAL way--that is "objectifying" it.

For example--and I'm not equating the two actions....If someone uses her sexual organs as a means to make money--such as prostituting herself or renting out her uterus as a surrogate for cash...she turns her sexuality or her reproductive organs into a commodity to be bought and sold. She depersonalizes the unity of who she is as a human person from what she can "get out of" her resources. Similarly--although the exchange that is being made is not "body for money"--when a woman becomes obsessed with what her body can produce--what she can "get out of" her resources--she objectifies herself. Are you going to honestly tell me that going through fertility treatments did not turn the act of reproduction into a business for you--with a business goal in mind--a child? I don't believe you. Otherwise the stress you have already admitted to would not have been and the "ten years of fertility treatments...to reach a personal goal" would not have been. To continue the imperfect comparison...A woman who does that "sells herself" to the acquisition of a child--like a prostitute sells herself to the acquisition of money. That is the objectification that I refer to. That in and of itself is only on small part of the questions of morality that surround IVF. It is not good that a woman should view herself as a reproductive machine--and when making babies becomes the obsession that requires forcing her body into unnatural functioning--that is objectifying herself.

To have laparoscopic surgery to return a woman's system to natural functioning is reasonable. To change diet and chart the natural functioning is reasonable. Even to medicate with hormones to boost the system a little with the goal of a return to NATURAL functioning is reasonable. To bolus dose over a period of time to curb the body into an UNNATURAL functioning is against right reason--it is objectifying the woman's "resources."

Your opinions make you look pretty heartless. "well, if she can't conceive, tough luck?"

I don't think to aim to preserve the dignity of woman against a society that tells them they have to be "perfect " in every way is heartless. I don't think to aim to prevent the creation and destruction of new life in the process of seeking that perfection is heartless.

Being born with parts that don't work perfectly is not a choice.

No it's not and it is regretful that people have difficulty with this system that is so integral to woman's feminine identity. I am not against attempting to get the female body to function NORMALLY--it is the ARTIFICIAL aspect and the UNNATURAL aspect that disturbs me as well as the repercussions that arise as a result of those artificial and unnatural actions--like the creation and killing of human life to achieve the reproductive goal.

If you were seeing the world through blurry eyes, you'd accept it? If you were in need of a hearing aid, you'd decline? Why objectify your eyes and ears, applying all sorts of devices to them? After all, is not the goal to see and hear better? Sure, you have the choice to remain blind or deaf, maybe both. But medical science is there to fix what nature cannot.

To return or repair the systems to NATURAL functioning is reasonable--BIONIC man/woman--super soldier--sci-fi freakshow is not. Inducing 20 eggs to ovulate through hormone manipulation, "harvesting" them, procreation in a Petri dish, sometimes specifically inserting a sperm into an egg rather than the sperm penetrating it itself, reinserting the fertilized egg, waiting for implantation--if you're TOO successful...culling the herd...

THAT is sci-fi freakshow and the only reason it is accepted is because we feel "sorry" for woman who can't have the joy of holding a baby of their own in their arms. And so we brush the moral misgivings and questionable repercussions of the procedure under a rug and look at the "product." I'm sorry--although I feel for women who feels she must resort to unnatural means to achieve motherhood--I do not believe the ends justify the means when the means leave a woman objectified and so many dead human lives in the wake. I do not confirm people in their morally harmful choices because I don't want to hurt their "feelings" or because I might be viewed as "heartless."

 

[Felicity]

Do you even read the kind of crap that comes out of your mouth sometimes? If a woman finds herself pregnant with 8, 10, whatever enormous amount of embryos (which can and DOES happen naturally), removing some or most of those embryos makes an enormous difference in the survival rates of the rest. For once in your life take the time to do a bit of damn research yourself before you jump on your moral high horse. You'd rather all ten die as babies than only 2 or 3 remain, and survive in perfect health? What kind of screwed up priorities do you have?!

There is one case of 12 natural conceptions in a single pregnancy but I don't believe any lived.

Just as a woman can defend her life against her fetus if the fetus threatens her life--she can protect her children from her other children. However--to PUT all those kids in there PURPOSEFULLY makes her an accomplice to the threat to her children--and wouldn't that be abuse? And then to kill her accopmplice--is that covering up her crime against her own children? See--it is all so morally ambiguous and so many don't want to even think about it because...OOOoohhh look at that cute little baby and Momma looks so proud and happy and isn't it just great they could finally have their dream of a family! Ignoring the destruction left in the wake.

 

[ngdawg]

Then I will ask this: What makes me or any other infertile less of a mother? What makes the children conceived this way less of children? If they are supposed to 'naturally conceived', why are you using the rhythm method to prevent having any more? Why are your methods to have your goals met better than mine? They aren't at all. In fact, talk to anyone who has gone through this or adoption-our children are more wanted, more appreciated than any other. Because we fought for them to be in our lives. Anyone can copulate and reproduce-that doesn't make them better parents.
How do you figure this to be like a business? If I want a career, I go to school. If I want a house, I seek one out. If I want a family, I do what I can to acheive it.

 

[Felicity]

Then I will ask this: What makes me or any other infertile less of a mother? What makes the children conceived this way less of children?

I never said that any mother was less a mother for the way in which they obtained their children--nor did I say any child was less a child. Both mother and child are people of infinite worth no matter how they conceived or were conceived. I said I don't agree with unnatural conception. I don't think the ACT itself (or the series of acts) are respectful of the dignity of the woman or the child. It does not effect the dignity of the individual person--but it is a choice that does not do them worthy.

If they are supposed to 'naturally conceived', why are you using the rhythm method to prevent having any more?

Well--first, I don't use the rhythm method--I am attentive to the natural fertility signs of my body--specifically I use the Billings Method primarily. http://www.billings-centre.ab.ca/ And you don't have to have babies to be respectful of your natural fertility.

Why are your methods to have your goals met better than mine?

Because it respects the dignity of the design of my human person. It respects the natural functioning of the female body and does not try to "improve" upon the design or manipulate it into something it is not meant to do.

They aren't at all. In fact, talk to anyone who has gone through this or adoption-our children are more wanted, more appreciated than any other. Because we fought for them to be in our lives. Anyone can copulate and reproduce-that doesn't make them better parents.

How one conceives has nothing to do with how good a parent they are--you are making assumptions about things I have not said.

How do you figure this to be like a business? If I want a career, I go to school. If I want a house, I seek one out. If I want a family, I do what I can to acheive it.

I see you don't deny it.

 

[ngdawg]

Yes I did.
Regardless of your denial that conception that is 'unnatural' doesn't make the children less, you bring off an air of superiority over those that need medical support to do it. Guess you never needed a doctor's intervention for anything. Lucky you.
To quote: Whatever:roll:

 

[vergiss]

Felicity, you're a mother. We all know that, good for you, I'm sure you do well at it. However, that does not give you to march around like you constantly do, judging everyone else's parenting abilities and condeming them for the most minor of things... including things which you have done yourself. You are not God, you are by no means perfect, so desist with the narcissism.

I suggest you shut up, if you don't wish to look like an even bigger fool.

 

[Felicity]

Yes I did.
Regardless of your denial that conception that is 'unnatural' doesn't make the children less, you bring off an air of superiority over those that need medical support to do it. Guess you never needed a doctor's intervention for anything. Lucky you.
To quote: Whatever:roll:

Well...I don't mean to come off "superior"....I just have strong convictions and I'm sure of myself and I absolutely hate the unneeded deaths of immature human beings. Since I do know the joys of motherhood--I absolutely feel terrible for those that have difficulty or cannot have children. It is a burden I can only imagine and I am sure it is a heavy one for those that want kids but struggle with fertility problems. I know I am indeed fortunate. I'm sorry if I made you feel as if I was somehow saying I was "better" for any reason--that was not my intention--the only thing I meant to suggest was "better" was the "better methods" for attempting to resolve fertility issues. Please accept my apology.