Warnings on the dangers of NOT aborting?

[Jerry]

Hey, let's compare mortality rates of non legal vs legal abortions!

Lets not and say we did :2wave:

 

[bandaidwoman]

Lets not and say we did :2wave:

OOps, sorry,must have missed it during my quick peruse through this long thread, thanks. :mrgreen:

 

[Jerry]

OOps, sorry,must have missed it during my quick peruse through this long thread, thanks. :mrgreen:

I believe most of your concerns in that regard have been considered, but don't worry; there will always be another thread.....

 

[OKgrannie]

Gonzalas v. Carhart, section 3b:

:surrender You are right.:Oopsie

 

[dottedmint]

Well, since you care and she doesn't, how about if she removes it from her body and gives it to you? Then you can do whatever you want with it.

And if the fetus could be removed without harming it that would be fine.....

The reason I have a problem with the argument....

'Nobody should be able to tell me what I can or cannot do with MY BODY.'

....is that we are not ONLY talking about the woman's body.

There are two bodies...

 

[Cephus]

I DO care what actions you take on the body INSIDE your body.

Fortunately, it's none of your damn business.

 

[dottedmint]

Fortunately, it's none of your damn business.

Maybe....Maybe not....

But as a voter I can vote in people who will basically 'make it my DAMN business'.

In any case the pro-choicers really shouldn't say that we shouldn't try to tell them what they can or cannot do with THEIR body because as I said before I really don't give a DAMN about what she does with HER BODY.

 

[1069]

Maybe....Maybe not....

But as a voter I can vote in people who will basically 'make it my DAMN business'.

In any case the pro-choicers really shouldn't say that we shouldn't try to tell them what they can or cannot do with THEIR body because as I said before I really don't give a DAMN about what she does with HER BODY.

I don't believe that for a second.
I believe that- like that of most prolifers- your interest in the matter is entirely prurient.
And inappropriate. Very.

 

[Jerry]

I don't believe that for a second.
I believe that- like that of most prolifers- your interest in the matter is entirely prurient.
And inappropriate. Very.

Me personaly I just want to enslave women :mrgreen: :2wave:

 

[1069]

Me personaly I just want to enslave women :mrgreen: :2wave:

It's in your best interest- your direct, personal best interest as a blue-collar male- to promote women's loss of legal control over their own reproductive functions.
Women who are not legally permitted control over their fertility are less competition for you in the job market. They are less valuable employees than men, whereas women with control over their fertility are equally as valuable to their employers as men are.
That makes this joke a little less humorous than it might be.

 

[dottedmint]

I don't believe that for a second.
I believe that- like that of most prolifers- your interest in the matter is entirely prurient.
And inappropriate. Very.

Since you don't know me....

have never met me.....

and....

have no idea what my "interest in the matter is".......

it is VERY FOOLISH and even ARROGANT of you to try to assign your views on me.

 

[Jerry]

It's in your best interest- your direct, personal best interest as a blue-collar male- to promote women's loss of legal control over their own reproductive functions.
Women who are not legally permitted control over their fertility are less competition for you in the job market. They are less valuable employees than men, whereas women with control over their fertility are equally as valuable to their employers as men are.
That makes this joke a little less humorous than it might be.

There aren’t many women in my field to begin with (and I'm talking about hammer-swingers, not pencil pushers). Those that can hang with the construction job are great carpenters, and the only time reproductive anything ever becomes present is the passing sex-joke, so women are not a source of competition for me.

 

[doughgirl]

Rivrrat said, “Oh yes, PP just LOOOOVES doing abortions! They promote them at every corner! They want everyone to be completely ignorant of their reproductive systems JUST so they can coerce women into having abortions. Hell, maybe they can even convince women that they're not even pregnant!"

Yes they do. They count on woman who get pregnant and chose to kill their children. The frosting on the cake for them are the woman who have repeat abortions. For your information they are the largest abortion provider in the country and the world.

“Gimme a break.

Doctors who perform mastectomies don't promote them. They don't try to keep women ill informed about cancer screenings JUST so they can cut off more breasts. The implication that doctors would deliberately try to keep the public ignorant JUST so they could perform more procedures is enough to knock this thread down into the "Conspiracy Theories" section. Want a tin foil hat too?””

I think a mastectomy is a little bit different than an abortion don’t you? Or then maybe you don’t. I believe one kills another human being. A woman gets a mastectomy most likely because it is cancerous and the medical procedure is done to preserve and prolong her life. An abortion is a medical procedure that is done to KILL a life. Big difference between abortion and any other procedure done don’t you think?

“Exactly. It's allhow one views it. You have no right to impose your personal view in order to limit actions I take on MY body.”

And I do not believe that a child is part of the mother. The fetus is NOT A PART OF THE PREGNANT WOMANS BODY. Although it is in the womb every cell of his body is uniquely his, each different than every other cell of his mothers body. So I do not believe any woman has the right to kill a SEPARATE HUMAN BEING, even if its in her body. You will probably say I’m sure that this is only in my opinion which would be false. It is a scientific fact that the mother is one distinctive and self-contained person and the child is another. Being inside something is NOT the same as being part of something is it? Ones body does not belong to another’s body merely because of proximity. Remember Louise Brown the first test tube baby…. She was conceived when sperm and egg were joined in a petri dish. She was no more part of her mothers body when placed there than she had been part of the Petri dish where her life began. A child is not part of the body in which she is carried.

This truth was affirmed in July 2000 by the U.S. House of Representatives when they unanimously passed a bill making it illegal to execute a pregnant woman. The logical reason for this decision is that a pre-born child is an individual person, distinct from his mother and with his own separate right to life.

“No, being anti-choice is about taking away the right of individuals to make reproductive decisions for themselves. It has NOTHING to do with saving lives, and everything to do with imposing someone elses will upon me.’

And who are you giving a death sentence by imposing your will on the unborn child? Every woman knows that if she has sex she can get pregnant. If she does have sex she takes on the responsibility of everything that goes with it, even the consequences.
Being pro-choice, being pro-abortion……….is being ANTI-LIFE. You are killing another human being.

“I am not "for" ANY abortion anymore than I am "for" any medical procedure.”

You are for the womans right to kill her unborn child, IMO that is anti-life.

“Do I think partial birth abortions should be legal? Quite frankly, I don't care how the abortion is done - but I think late term abortions should only be done in efforts to save the mothers life.”

That is so sweet of you. Don’t care that the unborn is dismembered alive, sucked out alive, burned alive….wow the compassion and love you show. You are for the right of every woman to kill. You think I shouldn’t be able to restrict any womans right to do this……but then you turn around and say……….BUT I think late term abortions should only be done in efforts to save the mothers life. ROFLMAO

You restrict her choice. And I don’t understand why you would feel this way. You don’t care that its killed or how its killed, you said that so yourself, but all of a sudden you for some reason think its wrong to abort in later terms to save the life of the mother.

“When the fetus is able to survive independent of the mother, then I believe abortions after that time should be limited to saving the life of the mother.
No one else is responsible for the abortion but the mother and the doctor who performs it.”

Oh gee and when would that be? Think you could come up with a date? I mean if your going to take the life of something I would think you would not want to make an error in judgment.

Some educating facts.

“Here are some examples of viable children: fetuses said to be only parts of their mothers who lived and grew into individual happy healthy people without their mothers:

Marcus Richardson - 19 weeks, 6 days - 780 gm - Jan. '72 - (University Hosp., Cincinnati)
Melissa Cameron - 20 weeks - 450 gm - Dec. '83 - (Sault Ste. Marie Hosp., Cincinnati Enquirer)
Kenya King - 21 weeks - 510 gm - June '85 - (Med. World News, Nov. 11, 1985, p. 119)
Suzanne South - 21 weeks, 2 days - 644 gm - July '71 -(Bethesda Hosp., Cincinnati)
Kelly Thorman - 21 weeks - 596 gm - March '71 - (St. Vincent Hosp., Toledo)
Melissa Murray - 22 weeks - 510 gm - June '83 - (Victoria, Texas - Houston Post)
Tracy LaBranch - 22 weeks, 1 day - 538 gm - March '72 - (Battle Creek Enquirer)
Ernestine Hudgins - 22 weeks - 484 gm - Feb. '83 - (San Diego, Washington Post)
Mimi Faulkner - 23 weeks - 484 gm - Nov. '78 - (San Diego, Boston Herald)
Tascha Hudson - 23 weeks - 580 gm - March '74 - (Brooke Army Hosp.)
Simmonne Jayette - 23 weeks - 595 gm - April '78 - (Montreal Jewish General Hospital)
Alicia Ponce - 24 weeks - 644 gm - April '74 - (Associated Press)


My niece was born at 21 ½ weeks and survived. She like Kelly Thorman was born at St. Vincent Hospital in Toledo, Ohio. One of the best neo-natal units in the country. And that was fourteen years ago.

Abortion is legal today at these gestational ages and its ahrd to believe that people like you believe that these children should and could be aborted if in fact their mothers so wish to do so.

“You are 100% correct. It makes no difference to the fetus AT ALL. NONE. They are incapable of thought, much less discerning the cause of their death. Hell, they're not even aware they're alive. So you are 100% correct.

I asked lever 1 or 2

Neither position protects ALL LIFE. ALL LIFE includes everything living. Nothing we say or do is going to protect ALL LIFE because that would not only be counterproductive, but impossible.”

Spin it anyway you want. It does make a difference to the life you choose to take. They might not be able to express it but how many of them if they could, would agree that they wouldn’t really care if their mothers killed them?

 

[OKgrannie]

Yes they do. They count on woman who get pregnant and chose to kill their children. The frosting on the cake for them are the woman who have repeat abortions. For your information they are the largest abortion provider in the country and the world.

That's so absurd. Abortion is such a SMALL portion of what PP does. And even if abortion were GOOD for PP, why in the sam hill would a repeat abortion be any better than any other?

I think a mastectomy is a little bit different than an abortion don’t you? Or then maybe you don’t. I believe one kills another human being. A woman gets a mastectomy most likely because it is cancerous and the medical procedure is done to preserve and prolong her life. An abortion is a medical procedure that is done to KILL a life. Big difference between abortion and any other procedure done don’t you think?

A mastectomy is different from an abortion, an appendectomy is different from a mastectomy, etc. SO WHAT? The point is that it is the woman's body and therefore her choice.

And I do not believe that a child is part of the mother. The fetus is NOT A PART OF THE PREGNANT WOMANS BODY. Although it is in the womb every cell of his body is uniquely his, each different than every other cell of his mothers body. So I do not believe any woman has the right to kill a SEPARATE HUMAN BEING, even if its in her body. You will probably say I’m sure that this is only in my opinion which would be false. It is a scientific fact that the mother is one distinctive and self-contained person and the child is another. Being inside something is NOT the same as being part of something is it? Ones body does not belong to another’s body merely because of proximity. Remember Louise Brown the first test tube baby…. She was conceived when sperm and egg were joined in a petri dish. She was no more part of her mothers body when placed there than she had been part of the Petri dish where her life began. A child is not part of the body in which she is carried.

This truth was affirmed in July 2000 by the U.S. House of Representatives when they unanimously passed a bill making it illegal to execute a pregnant woman. The logical reason for this decision is that a pre-born child is an individual person, distinct from his mother and with his own separate right to life.

The woman's body recognizes the fetus as a part of her body, otherwise the woman's body would reject the fetus as "foreign". Regardless, a woman should not be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy in HER BODY.

And who are you giving a death sentence by imposing your will on the unborn child? Every woman knows that if she has sex she can get pregnant. If she does have sex she takes on the responsibility of everything that goes with it, even the consequences.
Being pro-choice, being pro-abortion……….is being ANTI-LIFE. You are killing another human being.


You are for the womans right to kill her unborn child, IMO that is anti-life.

A woman does have the responsibility of a pregnancy, wanted or not, and with the responsibility goes the choice of what to do about it.

That is so sweet of you. Don’t care that the unborn is dismembered alive, sucked out alive, burned alive….wow the compassion and love you show. You are for the right of every woman to kill. You think I shouldn’t be able to restrict any womans right to do this……but then you turn around and say……….BUT I think late term abortions should only be done in efforts to save the mothers life. ROFLMAO

You restrict her choice. And I don’t understand why you would feel this way. You don’t care that its killed or how its killed, you said that so yourself, but all of a sudden you for some reason think its wrong to abort in later terms to save the life of the mother.

Everyone has a point beyond which they believe it is wrong to abort. For some that is conception, for some it is 1st trimester, for some it is viability, and for some it is birth. Why is it so difficult to understand that people disagree?

“Here are some examples of viable children: fetuses said to be only parts of their mothers who lived and grew into individual happy healthy people without their mothers:

Marcus Richardson - 19 weeks, 6 days - 780 gm - Jan. '72 - (University Hosp., Cincinnati)
Melissa Cameron - 20 weeks - 450 gm - Dec. '83 - (Sault Ste. Marie Hosp., Cincinnati Enquirer)
Kenya King - 21 weeks - 510 gm - June '85 - (Med. World News, Nov. 11, 1985, p. 119)
Suzanne South - 21 weeks, 2 days - 644 gm - July '71 -(Bethesda Hosp., Cincinnati)
Kelly Thorman - 21 weeks - 596 gm - March '71 - (St. Vincent Hosp., Toledo)
Melissa Murray - 22 weeks - 510 gm - June '83 - (Victoria, Texas - Houston Post)
Tracy LaBranch - 22 weeks, 1 day - 538 gm - March '72 - (Battle Creek Enquirer)
Ernestine Hudgins - 22 weeks - 484 gm - Feb. '83 - (San Diego, Washington Post)
Mimi Faulkner - 23 weeks - 484 gm - Nov. '78 - (San Diego, Boston Herald)
Tascha Hudson - 23 weeks - 580 gm - March '74 - (Brooke Army Hosp.)
Simmonne Jayette - 23 weeks - 595 gm - April '78 - (Montreal Jewish General Hospital)
Alicia Ponce - 24 weeks - 644 gm - April '74 - (Associated Press)


My niece was born at 21 ½ weeks and survived. She like Kelly Thorman was born at St. Vincent Hospital in Toledo, Ohio. One of the best neo-natal units in the country. And that was fourteen years ago.

Abortion is legal today at these gestational ages and its ahrd to believe that people like you believe that these children should and could be aborted if in fact their mothers so wish to do so.

Earliest Preemie's Release Delayed, One Of Smallest Surviving Babies Was To Go Home Tuesday; Doctors Don't Explain Postponement - CBS News

Earliest Preemie's Release Delayed
One Of Smallest Surviving Babies Was To Go Home Tuesday; Doctors Don't Explain Postponement

MIAMI, Feb. 20, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amillia Sonja Taylor is held by a hospital worker shortly after birth in October 2006. (AP)


(CBS/AP) A premature baby who doctors said spent less time in the womb than any other surviving infant will remain in a hospital a few extra days as a precaution, officials said Tuesday.

Amillia Sonja Taylor, born Oct. 24 after just under 22 weeks in the womb, had been expected to be sent home Tuesday.

Spin it anyway you want. It does make a difference to the life you choose to take. They might not be able to express it but how many of them if they could, would agree that they wouldn’t really care if their mothers killed them?

Not only is the fetus unable to EXPRESS it, but they are unable to FEEL it, unable to CARE or know at all.

 

[Cephus]

In any case the pro-choicers really shouldn't say that we shouldn't try to tell them what they can or cannot do with THEIR body because as I said before I really don't give a DAMN about what she does with HER BODY.

Fine, how about we implant it into YOUR BODY, therefore YOU can go through all the expenses and problems of being pregnant and you can make YOUR choice what to do about it?

I don't see a lot of anti-abortionists lining up for that option, do you?

 

[Jerry]

I don't see a lot of anti-abortionists lining up for that option, do you?

I don't see a lot of science for that option, do you?

 

[1069]

I don't see a lot of science for that option, do you?

Probably because the "protection" of unwanted fetuses is not one of the priorities of the scientific community.

 

[Jerry]

Probably because the "protection" of unwanted fetuses is not one of the priorities of the scientific community.

That's so true.
Evidence of bias, that is.

The foolishness of Cephus’s suggestion is exposed in your post: The scientific community has little or not interest in saving unwanted fetuses. As a result there is no means to implant unwanted fetuses into willing male hosts even if dottedmint could show a willingness to do so.

 

[Cephus]

The foolishness of Cephus’s suggestion is exposed in your post: The scientific community has little or not interest in saving unwanted fetuses. As a result there is no means to implant unwanted fetuses into willing male hosts even if dottedmint could show a willingness to do so.

Actually, it's not only possible, it's been done a couple times, although it's really not widely available. See POP! The First Human Male Pregnancy - Mr. Lee Mingwei

The point, however, was not about trotting dottedmint out to get implanted with an unwanted fetus, it was about exposing the hypocracy of the anti-abortion movement. It's amazing how you people can say "here's what we want YOU to do". I don't see an awful lot of anti-abortion activists stepping up to the plate and offering to fully fund a woman's pregnancy and then find an adoptive family for the unwanted fetus, do you? No, it's just 'we don't like abortion so we don't want you to have one'.

 

[Jerry]

Actually, it's not only possible, it's been done a couple times, although it's really not widely available. See POP! The First Human Male Pregnancy - Mr. Lee Mingwei

The point, however, was not about trotting dottedmint out to get implanted with an unwanted fetus, it was about exposing the hypocracy of the anti-abortion movement. It's amazing how you people can say "here's what we want YOU to do". I don't see an awful lot of anti-abortion activists stepping up to the plate and offering to fully fund a woman's pregnancy and then find an adoptive family for the unwanted fetus, do you? No, it's just 'we don't like abortion so we don't want you to have one'.

I hear guys like you claim that we're hypocritical all the time, but using your last post as a case in point, I have yet to see this hypocrisy illustrated.

 

[1069]

Actually, it's not only possible, it's been done a couple times, although it's really not widely available. See POP! The First Human Male Pregnancy - Mr. Lee Mingwei

Sorry, but this is false; Mingwei is a famous artist, and that "male pregnancy" site is- not a hoax, but- an art exhibit he's created.
There has never been an actual male pregnancy to date.

 

[dottedmint]

Fine, how about we implant it into YOUR BODY, therefore YOU can go through all the expenses and problems of being pregnant and you can make YOUR choice what to do about it?

I don't see a lot of anti-abortionists lining up for that option, do you?

Well....I don't know how to say this nicely so I'll just say it.....

I didn't go around spreading my legs now did I?

 

[1069]

Well....I don't know how to say this nicely so I'll just say it.....

I didn't go around spreading my legs now did I?

I thought you were a guy.
Wouldn't it be your arse-cheeks you'd be "spreading"?

 

[dottedmint]

I thought you were a guy.

Yep....that's why I'm not going around spreading my legs....

Wouldn't it be your arse-cheeks you'd be "spreading"?

Nope....

I'm not into spreading my arse-cheeks....

But just for you....

:moon:

 

[debate_junkie]

Actually, it's not only possible, it's been done a couple times, although it's really not widely available. See POP! The First Human Male Pregnancy - Mr. Lee Mingwei

The point, however, was not about trotting dottedmint out to get implanted with an unwanted fetus, it was about exposing the hypocracy of the anti-abortion movement. It's amazing how you people can say "here's what we want YOU to do". I don't see an awful lot of anti-abortion activists stepping up to the plate and offering to fully fund a woman's pregnancy and then find an adoptive family for the unwanted fetus, do you? No, it's just 'we don't like abortion so we don't want you to have one'.

No actually, instead, some of us women who find ourselves with an unwanted pregnancy (myself being the main subject of this post) instead, decided that it was our screw up that caused the pregnancy to begin with, and decided that a life should be allowed to live.

I GOT pregnant at 18, because I didn't use protection. I WENT to a local pregnancy center, who CLEARLY laid out my options, and yes those options included an abortion. I decided the child shouldn't pay the penalty for my being young and dumb. So I went and spent 7 months at a maternity home, that I paid for, I sought out the services of an adoption agency and I experienced the worst pain of my life having to say goodbye to this little boy that took his shape within my womb. But the story does not end here.

Fast forward 17 years, I am now experiencing some of the greatest joy of my life. Because, I had an open adoption. That little boy, is a young man. He knows full well he was adopted, and knows me as his birthmother. There has been communication. I've gotten pictures, but most of all... I got the satisfaction of knowing that this young man has gotten EVERYTHING I couldn't give him.

So, before you make BLANKET assertions that no one is ponying up, remember one thing... if there were not individuals such as myself in this country, there would be no adoptions of babies... period.

People speak of adoption as if it's draconian. Granted in the 40's through 60's, maybe even 70's it was. But then again, at that time, it was shaming to a family for a girl to have a baby out of wedlock. Adoption NOW, isn't adoption then. And I suggest finding out about a subject, before we speak absolute bull***** about it.