ABORTION.......

thunder_runner32 wrote:

I see your point eorl. But I disagree with your answer. I think that instead of allowing the 14 year old girl an abortion, we should set up a program that will allow her to have the baby, and provide emotional and fiscal help for both her and her family. The program could be used to help tell her parents about the pregnancy....and so on.

non-denom Christian wrote:

For women whom MIGHT choose abortion, ABSTINENCE is the best choice.

One can never justify that the pleasure of sexual intercourse outweighs the negative feelings a woman has after an abortion.

How nice that you guys are willing to make decisions for people you never met, and whose lives you can never understand.

Have either of you ever suffered through months of morning sickness, heartburn, and all of the other physical and mental discomforts of pregnancy, then given birth by Caesarian section? I have, twice, (no abortions), and would not inflict such pain on any woman who did not choose to gestate a fetus.

I just cannot understand the mindset of someone who would require 14-year old child, whether she was a willing partner or was raped, coerced, drugged or seduced, to go through such torment. Few teenagers are emotionally mature enough or financially able to raise a child, we do not need more unwanted children in this overpopulated world, and it makes no sense to add a million babies and their mothers to the welfare rolls each year, solely to avoid offending the sensibilities of people who refuse to acknowledge the realities of sex and nature.

Why should women be denied the pleasures of sex just because they don't want to have a baby? And what about the millions of women who have negative feelings after having children (not just postpartum depression, but serious regrets)? Who are you to determine the relative values of other people's emotions and choices?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

It seems to me that women are largely kept in the dark as to the medical facts of pregnancy by pro -abortion organizations which don't like to talk about the unborn's heartbeat, brainwaves, etc.

It would seem to me that the full medical facts, including an ultrasound so the mother can see the unborn should be required of any medical practitioner who proposes any type of medical procedure that would affect the unborn.

Informed consent should be mandatory IMO . Do you agree that it should be a requirement that these mother's should be shown:

--the heartbeat , and

--the brainwaves , and

--an ultrasound showing the unborn moving around, sucking the thumb in utero, etc beforehand?

Since all of this information is readily available to anyone who wants it, I don't think anyone is being "kept in the dark" by anyone. However, there is a lot of misinformation, disinformation and propaganda being put out by those with a vested interest in foisting their views on others. For instance, non-denom Christian posted:

Quote:

I just heard yesterday on U.S. radio that some abortion clinics are telling their patients about the science based studies that indicate that a fetus can feel pain durring the abortion, and probably more pain than an adult since their pain recptors are developed, but the natural pain blockers are not.

The women are given the facts and asked if they wish first to give the fetus an anesthetic. So far of all the women that were given the option, none chose to abort without the anesthetic and many chose not to abort.

Non-denom Christian, can you give us a link to that study? It is simply not true that a fetus can feel pain in the first trimester, when most abortions are done. Second trimester fetuses probably do not have the ability to experience pain the way we do, since the fetal brain has not developed to the point that feelings are possible. For those very few abortions done in the third trimester, it is ethical to offer an anesthetic.

Quote:

When I was in Junior High, our girls gym class was shown a movie about abortion and were actually shown video taped abortions. One doctor aborted a child that fell into a 5 gallon bucket. The child was crying so the doctor clubbed it and killed it. It never left my memory. That's what happens sometimes durring late term abortions. What do you say to that Phoenix?

I also saw ultrasound video if a fetus being aborted and it squirmed and tried to push the forceps away. How grotesque is that? I guess the doctor giving the abortion didn't inject enough saline into the fetus' brain before trying to tear it into pieces.

Do not believe everything you see. Yes, aborted fetuses that were alive were killed. I don't know if this is still done, or whether more humane methods are used now. But a fetus is not capable of either knowing what is happening to it or deliberately pushing the forceps. Neither is a newborn baby. If you take enough footage, eventually you will get some random movements that look intentional.

I am all for informed consent, but it has to be honest medical information and not anti-abortionist propaganda. If someone wants an abortion at 7 weeks, they should be shown life-sized pictures of a 7-week-old embryo, not of an eight-month-old fetus being subjected to procedures that are not done routinely. Electrical impulses in neurons are not the same as the patterned brain waves, which require 6 months of fetal brain development to form the structures necessary for awareness to even be possible. What does the heartbeat or instinctive thumb sucking have to do with anything?

And to be totally informed, girls should be shown graphic videos of swollen body parts, stretchmarks, prolonged labor with IV pitocin drip, women screaming in pain during "natural" childbirth, spinal anesthetic, episiotomy, a C-section and resultant scars, circumcision, etc. so that she can make an informed choice between abortion and continuing the pregnancy. Now THAT would be honest.

0 Replies

Terry Wrote:

Quote:

I just cannot understand the mindset of someone who would require 14-year old child, whether she was a willing partner or was raped, coerced, drugged or seduced, to go through such torment. Few teenagers are emotionally mature enough or financially able to raise a child, we do not need more unwanted children in this overpopulated world, and it makes no sense to add a million babies and their mothers to the welfare rolls each year, solely to avoid offending the sensibilities of people who refuse to acknowledge the realities of sex and nature.

Ok, now I am going to relate something to you, Terry. I was raped by my father. He said if I ever got pregnant he would punch me in the stomach to abort the baby. I told my mother I was pregnant. I NEVER FOR ONE SECOND considered an abortion. I wasn't a Christian at the time either. But, I knew that I was carrying a child and not just some parasite.

I posted some statistics back a few pages that showed that the majority of abortions in the U.S. WERE performed for convenience, whether it be just not wanting a child, because it interfered with a career, etc. The facts are the facts.

You can call it a potential child or whatever you want. You cannot change the facts anymore than I or anyone else can.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Quote:

Why should women be denied the pleasures of sex just because they don't want to have a baby? And what about the millions of women who have negative feelings after having children (not just postpartum depression, but serious regrets)? Who are you to determine the relative values of other people's emotions and choices?

Am I really seeing this? Contraception is something that has been available for decades. Is it your opinion that all responsibility should be absolved and the the winds blow where they may. Even if it means that a fetus will be destroyed in the process?

0 Replies

Terry Wrote:

Quote:

Why should women be denied the pleasures of sex just because they don't want to have a baby?

Surely you are not really serious? I cannot believe anyone could even ask this question. This is the whole problem! Putting a woman's fleshly desires above that of an innocent child ~ what is so hard to understand about that?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Terry Wrote:

Quote:
Why should women be denied the pleasures of sex just because they don't want to have a baby?

Surely you are not really serious? I cannot believe anyone could even ask this question. This is the whole problem! Putting a woman's fleshly desires above that of an innocent child ~ what is so hard to understand about that?

As has been stated a billion times in this thread already . . .

the "child" part.

0 Replies

Nobody is suggesting a woman raise a child she does not want and cannot love, or even that she should raise a child for which she is unable to care for. There are thousands upon thousands of childless couples out there with blessings of love and material wealth to spare who are eager to adopt and raise an infant as their own - or several infants given that opportunity. Yes, they can adopt older children too, and many do, but if we're allowing people freedom of choice, we have to allow people a preference of starting and getting it right from the beginning.

When a woman does not wish to give an unwanted child up for adoption, we do not give her an option of whether or not she will feed, nurture, or protect that child. Nor do prolifers think there should be an option, as a matter of convenience, of whether or not she will feed, nurture, or protect the child prior to birth.

If the post partum regrets of a woman are the primary concern to justify abortion, why not give her permission to eliminate the child she cannot love? How is that really so different than choosing that option earlier?

You don't like that option? Well neither does anybody else. So maybe informed consent and public approval to give her child the best chance for happiness with a loving family elsewhere really is a valid choice and a genuine act of love. I favor that option for those women who for whatever reason do not wish to be or cannot be mothers.

Those who do not wish to endure the discomfort and pain of pregnancy and childbirth usually do have means to not allow conception to occur in the first place. Once we agree on that fact, then we can have an honest debate on the unusual cases of rape, incest, and health conditions that trigger a very small percentage of abortions that are performed each year.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Phoenix has correctly identified the issue here. The issue is as has been pointed out by others:

1) The pro-abortion right group does not assign human status to the unborn at an early stage, or, since the woman should have complete autonomy over her body, at any stage. This group must see the unborn as subhuman to justify their stance, but are divided over the moralty of abortion at late stages. They are unwilling to tie any abortion policy to issues of morality however or restrict abortion in any way. Further if she doesn't want to know, the woman should not be advised of what the procedure is or the effect on the unborn.

2) The pro-life group believes the unborn are human beings as much as the born are human beings and thus the woman must have consideration for a second life, not just her own. This group believes every child conceived should be loved, properly cared for, and wanted, and if the birth mother is unable to provide that for the child, the option of adoption by loving parents is the reasonable backup plan. All women should be fullly advised of the procedure and the effect on the unborn prior to a procedure being done. This group is divided, however, on the timing or circumstances in which abortion should be legal with some saying never and some conceding some issues as reasonable.

Both groups are pro choice. The first argues that a woman should be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy at any stage and for any reason. The second argues that the woman should choose whether or not to take the risk of pregnancy, but if she chooses to take the risk and pregnancy occurs, then she is responsible for the welfare of her baby both born and unborn. There continues debates within the pro-life groups as to moral decisions to be made in cases where the woman is impregnated against her will.

So long as the debate is at this impasse, there does appear to be no solution that will be completely satisfactory to most, much less everybody. This country has come through difficult debates in the past however, and I trust that good people will be able to come to a reasonable conclusion on this one as well.

Yes, this lays things out very clearly...as it might appear in a Pro-life handout. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Terry Wrote:

Quote:
Why should women be denied the pleasures of sex just because they don't want to have a baby?

Surely you are not really serious? I cannot believe anyone could even ask this question. This is the whole problem! Putting a woman's fleshly desires above that of an innocent child ~ what is so hard to understand about that?

As has been stated a billion times in this thread already . . .

the "child" part.

Change the word to fetus! Does that make it better for you?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Questioner wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Terry Wrote:

Quote:
Why should women be denied the pleasures of sex just because they don't want to have a baby?

Surely you are not really serious? I cannot believe anyone could even ask this question. This is the whole problem! Putting a woman's fleshly desires above that of an innocent child ~ what is so hard to understand about that?

As has been stated a billion times in this thread already . . .

the "child" part.

Change the word to fetus! Does that make it better for you?

Not to me in particular, but to others it obviously does, and this is the ongoing debate. MA asks how PC'ers could put the mother's legal right to choose over an innocent child's life, which is an obvious loaded question since PC'ers don't believe it's a child, nor fully alive.

Confused

0 Replies

Q,

I think I tried quite hard to help the pro-lifers by showing them where the disagreement actually lies...if they want to convert more pro-choicers to the pro-life cause they need to understand that it's all about that definition of what constitutes a human child...but they seem determined to ignore that and return to the more self gratifying , self righteous "child murderer" statements that don't convince us of anything other than their naive idealistic myopia.

If you guys want to win more sympathy to your view..think about this carefully instead of your usual knee jerk....you might actually find it useful.

If you just want to reinforce your own views to yourselves, then carry on as you are.....

0 Replies

Earl, there is absolutely nothing offered by the pro-abortion side that makes us believe that a child is all that much different in the days before birth than it is in the days immediatley after birth. If you can show the precise point at which the developing human being becomes a child, go for it. Until you can prove something different, the pro life group will continue to believe that the child is a child at whatever stage of development. We certainly see it as a child when there is brain activity and a beating heart.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Q,

I think I tried quite hard to help the pro-lifers by showing them where the disagreement actually lies...if they want to convert more pro-choicers to the pro-life cause they need to understand that it's all about that definition of what constitutes a human child...but they seem determined to ignore that and return to the more self gratifying , self righteous "child murderer" statements that don't convince us of anything other than their naive idealistic myopia.

If you guys want to win more sympathy to your view..think about this carefully instead of your usual knee jerk....you might actually find it useful.

Yeah, I've also attempted (much earlier on) to outline how this thread is going nowhere since both sides are relatively stalemated. ProChoice continue espousing the same line about Mother's rights, ProLifers keep espousing the same guilt-laden murderous-bastard labels.

Bottom line is if science positively discovers that the fetus is fully alive and aware 2 weeks after conception most pro-choice would switch sides and admit they were wrong.

If science were determine that the fetus is not alive until it takes it's first breath, the pro-lifers would still cry murderer, throw blood on people and bomb and kill the doctors (who are human, btw) with gusto.

It's stagnate.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

The only problem with what you say is that I don't need to convince you I'm right....you need to convince me you are right if you want the law changed.

That is why you need to understand my way of seeing it and try to change it rather than just drawing the battle line in the sand and calling me the enemy.

But hey...your choice!

(BTW, calling me pro-abortion makes me want to punch you in the face rather than listen to your point of view)

0 Replies

We aren't going to start the name calling thing again, are we?

I, for one, haven't called anyone a child murderer, or any kind of murderer. I, for one, have not bombed any abortion clinics or killed any abortion doctors.

It's just a discussion folks!

0 Replies

Q,

Yeah, seems to be another example of a growing polarization of those who trust faith-based reasoning v science/logic based.

(Please guys don't assume this means I'm saying christians are not capable of logic....it's just an indication that less people sit in the middle...the two opposing poles are getting stronger.)

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

We aren't going to start the name calling thing again, are we?

I truly hope not.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Foxfyre,

The only problem with what you say is that I don't need to convince you I'm right....you need to convince me you are right if you want the law changed.

That is why you need to understand my way of seeing it and try to change it rather than just drawing the battle line in the sand and calling me the enemy.

But hey...your choice!

(BTW, calling me pro-abortion makes me want to punch you in the face rather than listen to your point of view)

But Earl, I have already explained that pro lifers are pro choice. They just think the choice should be prior to conception if the choice is not to have a child. What else can we say besides 'pro abortion' to describe those who advocate a woman's rights to an abortion at any time, any place, and/or for any reason and assign no consideration whatsoever to the unborn?

And the day may come when we can have this debate in a forum in which it will count. And you may have to prove your case that an unborn child is not a human being. I would certainly expect to have to prove my case that it is.

As for Questioners characterization of pro lifers, well, I guess we're all used to that. But it still sounds and looks very much as if consideration of the unborn is something contemptuous in the eyes of those who are advocates for abortion.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
We aren't going to start the name calling thing again, are we?

I truly hope not.

Yep seems we are. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Well, let's all take a deep breath, sit back, relax and please, let's not name call! We are all adults. We can discuss this without tearing at each other.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know