camodog
|
posted on May 29, 2004 09:57:59 PM new
During an interveiw with Mr. and Mrs Gore during the last election they were asked about abortion rights. To this day I will never forget their reaction. They both got this "agonized" look on their faces and Mrs Gore declared that abortion is a VERY DIFFICULT decision and is one to be made only by the women.
I was shocked!! a "very difficult" decision ?? This didnt make any sense to me. How and why is abortion a difficult decision to a pro-choicer ?? Is not the fetus just a tissue mass to them?? Why would aborting a simple mass of tissue be a "very difficult decision"??
Obviously, if it is a "very difficult decision" it is because it is more than just a tissue mass.......it is a life....otherwise it would be a simple choice.
The next time your discussing the issue with a pro-choicer make them think your on their side and "agonize" the right to choose...and then hit them the lack of logic that this position holds.
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on May 29, 2004 11:47:08 PM new
I can't understand how a woman can kill her own unborn child. I can't think of anything more selfish and cold blooded.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
|
fenix03
|
posted on May 30, 2004 10:20:36 AM new
A couple of real deep thinkers here. Are you so single minded in your condemnation of others that think differently from you thaat you are not capable of seeing the other side of the coin, even if you don't agree with it?
Camo - Why is the decision to or not to have an abortion an agonizing one? Because it's making a single decision that will decide two seperate and vastly different paths for your life. I would hope that everyone would agonize over such things. Parenthood changes everything, wouldn't it be nice if everyone actually took the time to sit back and evaluated their ability to be one and then acted accordingly?
EAG - Ever consider that these are women who already know that they are not in a position to be a fit parent and that with the current status of foster care system that not bringing a child into their life is in fact the most compassionate thing they can do?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Reamond
|
posted on May 31, 2004 07:27:35 AM new
Is not the fetus just a tissue mass to them??
It makes no difference what their view of a fetus is. Being Pro Choice does not mean you have a set definition or any definition of what the moral status of a fetus is.
Being Pro Choice only means that it is the woman's choice to have or not have an abortion and not the governments.
And as I have pointed out before, you folks that want the government to interfere with women's choice miss the Supreme Court's very suttle but real warning in the Roe case. If it is in the government's power to force a woman not to have an abortion, then it is also within the government's power to force woman to have abortions just like in China.
What shall you say when the majority of people agree that the health care system can not afford to treat handicapped babies and so the government forces women to abort ?
The Supreme Court very wisely ruled that there is a zone of privacy in the matter that the government can not enter whether to force a woman to have an abortion or otherwise.
Abortion should never be left to the political passion of the time.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 31, 2004 09:14:17 AM new
Abortion should never be left to the political passion of the time.
But it was...
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 31, 2004 09:32:23 AM new
Because it's making a single decision that will decide two seperate and vastly different paths for your life.
Agreed. That's why they should use birthcontrol UNTIL they make that decision on what they choose to do.
wouldn't it be nice if everyone actually took the time to sit back and evaluated their ability to be one and then acted accordingly?
Sure it would...but we don't live in a perfect world where people actually think before acting.
Ever consider that these are women who already know that they are not in a position to be a fit parent and that with the current status of foster care system that not bringing a child into their life is in fact the most compassionate thing they can do?
If I'm understanding you correctly you're suggesting abortions are the compassionate thing to do? I couldn't disagree more. I think if they truly believe what you have stated they should then choose to have surgery to be sure they don't conceive.
--------------------
What those who are pro-abortion, pro-choice don't want to recognize is that abortions are used as a method of birthcontrol. What anti-abortion supporters believe is that birthcontrol, whether temporary or permanent, should be used BEFORE make 'the choice'. Then the choice doesn't need to be made AFTER the fact.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
fenix03
|
posted on May 31, 2004 09:46:24 AM new
Linda - I'll share this example because I have shared it here before. Eons ago I was I was told I would never be able to concieve. They were wrong and a couple weeks after a two year relationship ended I realized I was pregnant,
Suffice it to say that I am fully aware that there is a very good chance that I would not make a good parent and that I don't think a childs life is something you play the odds with. I ended up not having to have the abortion because I miscarried but had that not been the case, yes, the most compassionate thing I could have done would have been to terminate the pregnancy.
As for elective sterilzation... wow... 1) Not exactly inexpensive or covered by insurance. 2) Just because someone does not want a child at 20 does not mean they won't want one at 30.
BTW- Birth control has been known to fail
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 31, 2004 10:01:30 AM new
fenix - Thank you again for sharing your personal struggle. It's certainly hard to make oneself vulnerable, by posting personal info on these threads.
Your case is a very unusual one - not the 'norm' though. And when we speak of 'choice' you would still have had the option/choice of placing that child up for adoption or re-considering your decision to not raise a child.
Not exactly inexpensive or covered by insurance. No it's not...again, it's not a perfect world.
But it IS a choice for those who have made that decision. A choice to prevent conception...rather than to conceive and then abort.
Just because someone does not want a child at 20 does not mean they won't want one at 30. Agreed again....and that still doesn't discount using birthcontrol before risking the chance of conception....rather than dealing with their 'unwanted' pregnancy after the fact.
Birth control has been known to fail. Especially when it's not even used. 
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on May 31, 2004 11:30:56 AM new
Of course it's a difficult decision. The one thing you seem to think, Camodog, is that pro-choicer's are pro-abortion. This is just anti-abortion garbage aimed at taking away a woman's freedom over her own body.
We've talked about this issue here many times and the one thing that keeps popping up is how many anti-abortionists take in the unwanted children that these woman have had to avoid abortion? How many do you or your anti-abortion friends have?
{{Fenix}} 
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 31, 2004 12:12:28 PM new
the one thing that keeps popping up is how many anti-abortionists take in the unwanted children that these woman have had to avoid abortion?
And the other side of that coin is: There would be no need for these children to be up for adopted IF they were not conceived in the first place. If more preventative measures had been taken.
Many people would like to adopt....notice how many couples have to look to other countries to be able to add a baby to their family because there are so fewer being born here - because of abortion.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
fenix03
|
posted on May 31, 2004 12:24:21 PM new
There are thousands of children out there right now that would give anything to be a part of those families. I'll accept the "there are thousannds of couples out there who would love to adopt" rational as soon every child in foster care has placement. Until then - we are just dealing with people who are not quite as desperate as pro-lifers would have you think otherwise they would welcome a four or eight year old just as enthusiastically as they would a 4 or 8 week old.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on May 31, 2004 12:25:55 PM new
I can't agree with that Linda. Most people that want to adopt want healthy white babies and are willing to go overseas to get what they want. Go look it up. It's the blacks, mixed race, handicapped, etc. that are still waiting to be adopted.
Also, you can't just keep saying if there were no... . There will always be people who have abortions ir use drugs or whatever. It's learning how to deal with these situations in the best way possible that we need to look at. Since abortions will probably always be a fact of life, why don't the anti-abortionists put their money where their mouth is and take in some of these children, or are they so stuck on being fetus-savers that they forget about them after they're born?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on May 31, 2004 01:57:56 PM new
fenix - That's like saying no one can produce more of their own children UNTIL all the children in the world have homes.
Unrealistic...and never going to happen. That's why the pro-abortion, pro-choice side always uses it.
The problem to me, is that abortions on demand have changed our society from one that used to say 'accept responsiblity for your actions [before you have sex] or grow up and accept the responsibility of your careless action' - to one that now says 'hey, anything goes' - and then we're aborting babies needlessly, as if human life means nothing.
The law has been very much abused and that's what saddens me the most.
-----------------------
KD - I don't need to look it up. I know who's looking for what. All parents want healthy babies not just those looking to adopt. But sometimes things don't happen the way we'd like them too...and we deal with it.
But there are exceptions to that also. I know of many religious families that have taken in children [not babies] of different races/cultures/disabilites and given them the love they need.
To me it's that our society has become way to permissive in too many ways. Our morals standards have gone down and we're seeing the results of those behaviors in our society now.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 31, 2004 02:09:23 PM new
"Our morals standards have gone down and we're seeing the results of those behaviors in our society now."
Exactly what moral standards are you referring to, linda?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on May 31, 2004 03:03:00 PM new
"But sometimes things don't happen the way we'd like them too...and we deal with it.'
That's exactly right. Same goes for a woman who chooses to have an abortion.
Helen, she either means God or Bush (same thing to her). 
|
Helenjw
|
posted on May 31, 2004 03:05:24 PM new
Lol!
|
Reamond
|
posted on May 31, 2004 08:07:24 PM new
And when we speak of 'choice' you would still have had the option/choice of placing that child up for adoption or re-considering your decision to not raise a child.
Exactly right, but IT IS THE WOMAN'S CHOICE, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS, OR BUSH'S.
The issue is that women have a choice, not what choice any individual actually makes.
The same government that has the legislative power to make abortion illegal is the same government that can drag you out of your house and force you to have an abortion.
|
Roadsmith
|
posted on May 31, 2004 09:42:04 PM new
Linda, you say that Fenix's experience is not the norm. You would be amazed to learn that it is more the norm than your positing that "women" as a whole use abortion as birth control. It is a painful form of birth control, I must say, and often expensive.
I worked for Planned Parenthood for 3 years (and by the way Planned Parenthood does much more for women than abortions, for all its bad name among the conservative folks). This clinic was in a mountain state with lots of Mormons. One woman came in one day, in her long dress and temple garments underneath, in tears, frightened. She said she'd had 12 children in 16 years, her insides were falling out, and her good husband wanted her to continue having "all the babies God sent her." (Ha, as though God was fathering the babies, not this man!) She had married at 16, was only 32 at the time but looked 50.
Her body was a mess. She asked for a birth control method that wouldn't be detected by her husband and it was given to her. This decision was, for this good, devout church member, every bit as agonizing as an abortion would have been. I dare anybody here to say she shouldn't have been given birth control.
___________________________________
As I've Matured...
1. I've learned that you cannot make someone love you. All you can do is stalk them and hope they panic and give in...
|
cblev65252
|
posted on June 1, 2004 05:12:54 AM new
We've debated this issue countless times on this board and it's really getting old. Pro-choice is not about abortion - it's about a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, mind and spirit. Got it yet? No, of course not because the pro-lifers have made it about God and abortions. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Although abortion is not personally for me, NO ONE has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. I live in it, I work in it, I play in it. It is mine - not yours. Maybe we should, instead, be talking about "fixing" all the pro-life men out there. Just like we take our dogs to be fixed, maybe they need a clinic where we can take the men. What was that you said? It's your body and you don't have to get fixed if you don't want to?
Is it so much better for an unwanted child to be dumped into a garbage can on a cold winter's night that to have had that child aborted? Which is crueler? I believe in re-birth and I also believe that every child that is aborted is re-born to a mother that wants it. I much prefer that.
Cheryl
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 1, 2004 05:39:39 AM new
Excellent answer, Cheryl!
I'm still waiting to find out the meaning of Linda's statement..."Our morals standards have gone down and we're seeing the results of those behaviors in our society now."
The only decline that I can see are the deplorable standards being practiced and promoted by the Bush administration. Can you imagine the horror of such a group controling a choice so personal as parenthood and as Cheryl said, our body, mind and spirit.
Helen
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 1, 2004 06:12:32 AM new
The same government that has the legislative power to make abortion illegal is the same government that can drag you out of your house and force you to have an abortion.
You're being melodramatic by taking this to a new level - such as being dragged away. Putting limits on the abuse of the abortion procedure is not unreasonable to stop/prevent partial birth abortions. Limits are being placed on abortions and it's a good thing and it's long overdue. I hope to see more.
----------------------
roadsmith - No...it is NOT more common that women are told they cannot conceive and then it turns out to be incorrect - and they end up pregnant....and then seek an abortion.
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 1, 2004 06:50 AM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 1, 2004 08:04:11 AM new
So, you can't answer the question, linda?
Maybe you should consider the probability that your moral standards may be as reactionary as your views are on other issues. Morality changes over a period of time as society changes.
Whatever...I'm sorry that I put you on the spot with that question.
Helen
|
Reamond
|
posted on June 1, 2004 03:10:59 PM new
You're being melodramatic by taking this to a new level
You should read Roe v Wade. It is exactly what the USSC meant when it took the government's nose out of women's wombs.
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on June 1, 2004 06:14:05 PM new
I've always wondered what they do to the unborn child after they kill it. Toss it in a dumpster?
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 2, 2004 02:49:53 PM new
Yes - EAG - Most are discarded, some are used for research. The patient signs a consent form that says they can pretty much do whatever they wish to with the dismembered fetus.
----------------------
Here was a short clip from The Federalist today that struck me as a GREAT idea:
"If snapshots and images tell the story better than words, why don't the networks show us a 'partial-birth' abortion? Surely such pictures would add to our understanding." --Jonah Goldberg
And if they could see pictures of the dismembered pieces - more might change their position and be against abortions too. Especially with the 20+ week babies. But you know what? They won't even allow showing the pregnant woman the stage of development her own fetus is in....that might be too upsetting to them, they argue. Yea...might make it a bit more personal and human...and not so easy to discard.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
bigpeepa
|
posted on June 2, 2004 03:33:35 PM new
Can't you see that Bush and Cheney really don't care about abortion. They only use this issue like so many issues to divide the people and get votes. How can people like Bush and Cheney that can kill so many innocent men, women, children and unborn babies really care. Its a very old republican trick to divide the people. Republicans use religion, taxes, guns, abortion, welfare, education, immigration plus many more issues to divide and conquer the people just to make them divided and weak.
|
bigpeepa
|
posted on June 2, 2004 03:40:18 PM new
I am curious, what do the pro lifers think about the death penalty?
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on June 2, 2004 03:56:43 PM new
As a Christian, I'm actually against the death penalty. But I don't lose any sleep over it.
I would instead prefer to see longer jail sentences with little or no privileges. I also think they should be forced to work and earn their keep.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on June 2, 2004 04:04:25 PM new
Linda, although I am totally pro-choice, I agree with your last post. I think the reality of abortions should be part of sex education, including the pictures. I also think slaughterhouses should be shown, autopsies, etc, etc. We like to sterlilize ourselves from the reality of the yucky things which is harmful in the long run.
|
skylite
|
posted on June 2, 2004 04:48:47 PM new
those who are aganist abortions are hypocrits, these church going racists condone murder of babies and women in other countries but having a abortion oh my say it ant'n so...what a bunch of BS...
hey linda, my curse to you, may a ugly foul smelly breath man impreganted you
will you have a abortion.....damn rights you would, and for all those who are aganist abortion may your wives and daughters be in a situation where they also get impreganted, by something you despise .....would you carry that baby...???????
that is what a lot of women go through, when they are raped.....but anti abortions are too shallow minded and ignorant anyway to understand...........
as for ebayauction mouth....you got no clue, and here you are standing on a moral soap box aganist abortion , meanwhile you condone the slaughter of women and children in other countries by your countrymen....what a 2 faced hypocrite
|
