posted on August 28, 2004 04:42:26 PM new
Oh linda, give me a break!
You don't give a damn if poor kids have enough food and you certainly believe in child torture so NOW you're the kind hearted little sweetie who cares so much about those innocent little fetuses ?????????
Ya, Right!
And, no, pro-choice is the correct word.
No one is pro-abortion.
Everyone SHOULD be pro-choice.
To give government control of a woman's body is just what the old Nazi's and you new nazi's want but it's still wrong.
Linda, this doesn't affect you at all but like neonazicons everywhere you want shove your beliefs down everyone's throat.
It's funny ....you don't mind poverty and war because THAT doesn't affect you.....why bother with this?
posted on August 28, 2004 05:09:44 PM new
Nice try Linda. I agree with Crow - nobody is pro-abortion. It's just a term used to denigrate the people who believe in pro-choice.
posted on August 28, 2004 06:33:04 PM new
Why should we adopt a child from a woman who should not of gotten pregnant in the first place?
Pro-Abortion people seem to be forgetting that it doesn't teach anyone anything... get pregnant, erase, get pregnant, erase... sorry but it should not be that simple...
posted on August 28, 2004 07:22:10 PM new
I partly agree Twelve. Women who use abortion as a means of birth control (more than one abortion) are extremely stupid. It's hard to believe in this day & age there are people who don't realize that screwing could lead to pregnancy. What do you do? Do you force a woman to have a child she can't afford? She's already shown she's irresponsible so what kind of life would the child have?
When an anti-abortionist can come up with a better solution, I'd love to hear it. Prof's idea is a good one - how many of these people adopt these "children of God"? Anyone here?
posted on August 28, 2004 09:39:47 PM newAn interesting study would be :"Anti-abortion activists who have adopted a child". I'd like to know what percentage have put their money where their mouths are.
There are thousands of infertile couples who have to go to third world countries to adopt newborns because they can't adopt one here. As for "putting my money where my mouth is," I don't want kids. But if I could save an unborn baby from being killed, you bet I'd adopt it. And as many others as I could. I'd open a damn orphanage if necessary.
We need to stop candy coating it and start calling abortion what it really is: baby killing.
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Aug 28, 2004 09:42 PM ]
posted on August 28, 2004 10:00:55 PM new But if I could save an unborn baby from being killed, you bet I'd adopt it. And as many others as I could. I'd open a damn orphanage if necessary.
I'll bet there are plenty of pro-choice groups out there with funds who'd help you. And I'll be there are lots of girls who'd rather not go through abortions, even if they are legal.I think you ought to put your money where your mouth is and get out there and save some babies, instead of just flapping your jaw about it on web boards.
___________________________________
Our `neoconservatives' are neither new nor conservative, but old as Bablyon
and evil as Hell." --Edward Abbey
posted on August 29, 2004 05:16:05 AM new
If democrats cared as much for unborn human babies as they do for 'Bears Against Bush' and applied those exact same statements to saving human life I could more understand their stated concerns for animals.
But what I see are people who don't want animals slaughtered for our food source because they're treated inhumanly. Don't want any limits set on just how late in a pregnancy a child can be aborted...oh...that's a whole different matter to them.
It saddens me greatly that they care more about animals and how they are cared for than they do for human life.
Now we have Planned Parenthood t-shirts that say 'I had an abortion'....bragging about taking a life. Oh yes, that shows just how very difficult it is to make that decision...when you're proud enough to wear one of those. It's called advertizing the destruction of humans....so PC now-a-days.
----------
Fertility clinics are and have been doing a booming business. A very expensive procedure to go though in order to conceive. Why? Because there aren't as many adoptable babies, that's why. And with the waiting lists of couples who do wish to adopt.....it's a falsehood that abortion is okay/need/necessary because there wouldn't be enough adoptive parents. It's just used as one of the many excuses to approve, and make taking human lives more acceptable. More PC correct.
posted on August 29, 2004 05:43:19 AM new
Linda:"It saddens me greatly that they care more about animals and how they are cared for than they do for human life. "
Oh you little passive aggressive drama queen. Good grief..."it saddens me greatly"......I can just see her now, in swoon on the fainting couch, one hand thrown back across her face as tears roll down her cheeks...and the audience applauds.
""Now we have Planned Parenthood t-shirts that say 'I had an abortion'....bragging about taking a life. Oh yes, that shows just how very difficult it is to make that decision...when you're proud enough to wear one of those. It's called advertizing the destruction of humans....so PC now-a-days.""
Linda, you know damn well everybody who has an abortion doesn't wear one of those T-shirts. In your passive/aggresive manner you make it sound like just EVERYBODY'S wearing them.
----------
"Fertility clinics are and have been doing a booming business. A very expensive procedure to go though in order to conceive. Why? Because there aren't as many adoptable babies, that's why."
One of the biggest lies you have ever told.
People go to fertility clinics because no baby is good enough for them except one they squirt out themselves.
""And with the waiting lists of couples who do wish to adopt.....it's a falsehood that abortion is okay/need/necessary because there wouldn't be enough adoptive parents. It's just used as one of the many excuses to approve, and make taking human lives more acceptable. More PC correct.""
George Busgh used a whole string of phony excuses to kill people in Iraq and you didn't seem to mind!!!
And again Linda your concern for unborn babies rings very hollow when you are pro child rape and torture and don't believe in even feeding hungry children.
posted on August 29, 2004 06:19:37 AM new
crowfarm - I'm sorry that you woke up, again, in your usual angry, aggressive, mean spirited mood this morning. How sad for you that each day you sprew your hatred....and post your false assumptions about my thoughts/feelings/statements.
But then....maybe it's some sick game you enjoy. Whatever it is...I hope someday you'll be able to get rid of all your negativity and hatred.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those are only two reasons why we need to:
lindak, Some people believe that life begins at conception. Some people believe that life begins with the birth of a baby able to function outside the mother's body. Who are you, lindak to define when life begins for everyone? Who are you to propose to force those who do not want to give birth to do so? The answer is that it's none of your business.
No matter what my personal feelings are, I would never propose to make that decision for someone else. It would be wonderful to see a world in which all were physically and emotionally healthy, educated and able to provide for children but that's not the case. Today there are thirty six million Americans living in poverty, forty four million without health insurance and millions of unemployed and underpaid workers.
We should be sensitive to those mothers who choose for whatever reason not to have another child. Instead, you want to force women to give birth to children that they may be unable to care for while at the same time, you support welfare for corporate and elite interests to the exclusion of the poor and middle class.
posted on August 29, 2004 06:32:48 AM new
Sorry, Linda, there are your posts to prove my point about how you approve raping and torturing children...too late to back pedal now!
And YOU talk about spewing hate ?
Why don't you "google" passive aggressive...or look in a mirror.
Evil like yours doesn't come in a tornado, that wouldn't work too well....it slithers and creeps in on tender words and false sympathy.
All your posts show a totally ego-centric, self centered, mentally narrow, shallow, cold blooded hater of anyone who isn't you.
Aggresive? You bet I'm aggresive !
But it's right out there, honestly, openly.
Mean-spirited...only against the mean like you.
Hatred...I've never hated anyone in my life but you seem to enjoy hating just about everyone.
Alone and lonely.....oh, you didn't mention THAT but ...I will...I'M not.
posted on August 29, 2004 07:27:50 AM newWho are you, lindak to define when life begins for everyone?
I have the same voting rights as those who say all forms of abortions on demand should be allowed. As much right to say what I believe our laws should or shouldn't be, just as much right as you do helen. Who are you, helen, to tell me I don't? You think your life view is the only one that should matter - should be applied?
Who are you to propose to force those who do not want to give birth to do so?
Those who wish to not become pregnant have a choice to not become pregnant. The babies whose lives are taken do not.
Remember the animals we should all take care of - be so concerned about? But you, and others, don't believe the unborn babies should be given AT LEAST that same consideration. I do. I feel we need limits on these procedures...and most people are against late-term abortion. It's just that the money from groups [like PP] who are in the business of taking lives...profit so much from it they have formed very strong lobbies to fight any restrictions.
Funny how women used to just take responsibility for their 'actions' when there was no birthcontrol. When the choice wasn't to just abort their child because they didn't 'feel' like dealing with it. Now....it's 'whatever' 'whenever' and just because I want to....no restrictions.
Most appear to me to think this is between a woman and her doctor. Usually the woman doesn't even see the doctor until the procedure is ready to begin. Used to be that a patient had to see a doctor to discuss this decision and then it went to a panel of doctors. That was eliminated very early on in the then 'new' abortion game. Now just make a call, come in to schedule an appointment...and that's it - abortion scheduled that day or done that same day...according to the circumstances. Imo, it should not be so easy...not taken so lightly.
The answer is that it's none of your business. Sure it's my business - to fight for 'life' not death to the unborn - to work to set limits on these 'abortions on demand'. All laws that are passed or passed and then ruled against are ALL American's business. To think otherwise is pure sillyness....or pure arrogance of those who think only THEY should have a say in how our laws are formed.
posted on August 29, 2004 07:37:53 AM new
I agree, Teriann, but how about:
Offshore companies who get government (we pay) contracts from Bush and they never pay a dime in income taxes...YOU pay twice, once for the contract and then YOU have to make up the lost taxes.
Makes paying for abortions look like chicken feed.
If my taxes are going to abortions for unwanted children, that's fine BUT if a woman is using this as birth control, on the second one she should have to have her tubes tied. She could have all the abortions she wants if she pays herself but to expect others to pay for it is wrong.
Another thing, anti-choice people(neocons) are again targeting the poor. Remember they need a steady supply of work animals to clean their houses, clerk at Walmart, etc.
If abortions are banned it only hurts the poor.....wealthy women(or women with wealthy boyfriends) can simply fly to Europe, have a nice, clean, safe abortion....spend a few days shopping and fly home! How easy life is for them. Easy for them to be anti-abortion, anti-choice!
"You think your life view is the only one that should matter - should be applied?"
I could turn that question to you, lindak. My answer is no, absolutely no. I believe that every woman should have the choice. On the other hand, by forcing women to give birth it's clear that according to you, only your "life view" is the one that should matter, and the only one that should be "applied". That is the crux of this debate.
posted on August 29, 2004 11:15:22 AM new
If these unborn fetus' are so precious, you'd think the born ones are even more precious, but when a woman, who's against abortion, has 5 or 6 kids she can't afford, what then? Do the anti-abortionists make house calls? Do they make sure these precious children have food to eat or warm clothes, or are they ALL TALK?
posted on August 29, 2004 11:42:54 AM new
Why limit child killing to only during pregnancies? Why not give parents the choice to "terminate a childhood." Why not give parents the choice to "abort" any child under the age of 18.
posted on August 29, 2004 11:54:49 AM new
"I did not post this as a loaded question. I posted it for the unborn that are brutally killed in the 3rd trimester. Imagine crushing a skull, piercing the skull of a baby that is alive, then gone....
But there is someone who is in favor of abortion and this type of abortion."
Here is a clue, The title alone is loaded. In fact, the term, "Partial-Birth" is an oxymoron. There is nothing partial about it. It is simply another abortion method. Partial Birth is a term created by the anti-abortionists as a marketing tool to promote their anti-abortion agenda. Hence the loaded question.
My answer to the question is that this topic should be between the woman and medical provider. I am a male, and I personally am against the idea of abortion, but I don't feel it is my right to push my personal belief onto someone else, especially when every circumstance is different.
posted on August 29, 2004 01:10:40 PM new"Why limit child killing to only during pregnancies? Why not give parents the choice to "terminate a childhood." Why not give parents the choice to "abort" any child under the age of 18."
Are you mental EAG? You regularly choose extremes to try and make your point, which is usually in left field. BTW, how many non-aborted babies have you supported or adopted? Or are you all talk as well?
posted on August 29, 2004 01:49:31 PM new
Why not what Twelve? "Abort" your 18 year old child? Shouldn't something make sense before it's discussed?
Like I said, I do agree with some of what you say. IF there were enough money and enough care given to unwanted born babies, abortion wouldn't be as prevalent. You can't MAKE someone be responsible, unfortunately, so you have to deal with reality. There will be women who will continue to have children they can't afford and teenagers that have "accidental" pregnancies. What's best? Do you make these women have these children even though the chances are great that their lives will be miserable, or do you abort a fetus the size of a grape before you ruin a child's life? It's up to a woman to make this decision and the responsibilities of that decision will remain with that woman for life. If an abortion(s) doesn't affect her then it convinces me even more she shouldn't have gone though with the pregnancy.
posted on August 29, 2004 02:05:17 PM newAre you mental EAG? You regularly choose extremes to try and make your point, which is usually in left field.
I just try to call it like it is. I object to using sugar coated terms like "abortion," "terminating a pregnancy," and "partial birth abortion" that try to make these sick and barbaric procedures seem normal and ok.
posted on August 29, 2004 02:41:57 PM new
Thanks for that reply EAG. You're right. No matter how much you sugar coat it, abortion will always be graphic, just like war, disease, starvation, etc.
posted on August 29, 2004 03:01:47 PM new
Partial Birth Abortion is just that. The baby is partially born and then the physician kills it.
If women have to spread their legs at any moment because of their urges then they should be aware of pregnancy. If they don't want a preganacy then either keep their legs closed or take birth control pills or suffer the consequences. It's as easy as that. Planned parenthood does provide birth control pills.
There are people that are in favor of this type of an abortion. Read the OP. The ACLU is, the judge is, attornies and mothers. It doesn't say anything about the father of the baby. as they are kept in the dark when they shouldn't be.
posted on August 29, 2004 03:20:42 PM new
Putting all the blame on the woman while the men and unborn babies are in the dark, is absurd Libra. Read Crow's last post. How many non-aborted babies do you support/adopted?
posted on August 29, 2004 06:23:15 PM new
I have helped support a total of 6 unaborted children, since I never had an abortion and Mark's ex never had an abortion. (We had custody for a number of years, so I'm counting step-children as well.)
posted on August 29, 2004 06:47:42 PM new
Waiting lists for adoption of new born babies are very long. To suggest that women would be glad to adopt their babies instead of an abortion is plain dumb. Women have abortions because they can.. It gives them the power of life and death. Over 35 million children have killed since Row VS Wade. That is The population of Iraq.
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Aug 28, 2004 09:42 PM ]