ABORTION.......

I agree, Phoenix, but I do think someone can determine if they are unable, unwilling, or too immature to raise a child properly in the first trimester. After that I think the reason begins to matter somewhat more. I don't make the quantum leap to 'hard cases only' as defined above on week 14, but 'this isn't what I thought it would be' unless it falls under the health of the mother in the 2nd trimester bothers me. In those cases, I do believe someone should be counseled about riding out the temporary storm before making their final decision (which is still theirs to make). I hope in the cases Fox described they were either first trimester pregnancies, or they recieved some counseling before the procedure.

0 Replies

Quote:

I agree, Phoenix, but I do think someone can determine if they are unable, unwilling, or too immature to raise a child properly in the first trimester. After that I think the reason begins to matter somewhat more.

J_B - I agree, but I think that we differ on the dates. In an ideal situation, the woman should have the abortion ASAP at the very start of the pregnancy.

I am thinking of the 12 year old girl who wears loose clothes for the first few months of her pregnancy, because she is scared to death that he parents would "kill" her if they found out. By the time the pregnancy is obvious, the girl has pobably gone beyond the first trimester.

I am also thinking of the older, but still immature or incapable woman, who vacillates through the first trimester.

Bottom line, the woman should have the final decision as to whether she wants to continue the pregnancy, or not.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

Just curious, Fox. Were these women still in their first trimester?

I don't remember that they said how far along they were. But the point is they, as Phoenix put it, vascillated for a few weeks and then decided that they didn't want to go through it. Their whole point is the same as Phoenix's, apparently: if a woman doesn't want the baby for any reason she should be able to abort it whenever she wants to.

In this case, the women aborted because they didn't feel good. and as far as they were concerned that, or any other reason, was just fine.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Too bad that a pregnant woman who makes a decision because she is not feeling well cannot go back and delete that decision.

You really have no self respect, do you?

What do you mean?

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

Intrepid, you give me more and more the impression
that you don't respect women the way they deserve to be
respected.

It is one thing to be anti-abortion and pro-christian, but
it is another to use such derogative terms towards women
and pregnancy.

I don't think we can change anyone's feeling about abortion,
as everyone has a strong stand on it, and that's perfectly
acceptable, at least to me, but please don't assume women
take decisions like this lightly.

I have respect for women. I don't see where I have indicated otherwise. If questioning motives for abortion is a derogatory term, then I am guilty as charged. It is because I do respect women that I would want them to be fully aware of what they are doing and have all of the facts. If you can prove to me that ALL women make decisions that are not made lightly, then I will apologize.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

Good info, Fox.

Intrepid, I don't see 'because she doesn't feel good' on any of those lists. Your sarcastic inuendo does your cause no benefit.

Does the fact that some women may have abortions for reasons other than what is on the survey negate the fact that it may be true? The reading in of sarcasm is yours, not something intended by me.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

djjd62 wrote:
bottom line, women should be allowed to get abortions

Bottom line, women are allowed, by law to get abortions. The problem are those people who would stick their noses into another person's business, and attempt to change the laws due to their own particular beliefs.

Respectfully... that is how laws get changed.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
djjd62 wrote:
bottom line, women should be allowed to get abortions

Bottom line, women are allowed, by law to get abortions. The problem are those people who would stick their noses into another person's business, and attempt to change the laws due to their own particular beliefs.

Respectfully... that is how laws get changed.

Exactly. What in the world do we base any of our laws from everything to prohibition, rescinding prohibition, slavery, abolishing slavery, civil rights, environmental laws, speed limits and seatbelt laws, and even jaywalking etc. etc. ect. other than on people's beliefs?

0 Replies

Hi Everyone!

I wish everyone would please keep in mind that, at least for me (and I am pretty sure of some others), we are not lobbying to change the laws for the sole purpose of taking away a woman's choice. I, and I believe others, are doing it for the sake of the unborn children.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

djjd62 wrote:
bottom line, women should be allowed to get abortions

Bottom line, women are allowed, by law to get abortions. The problem are those people who would stick their noses into another person's business, and attempt to change the laws due to their own particular beliefs.

i know, but i'm gonna keep posting that, because it's true and should remain that way, in canada we are moving ever closer to a right wing conservative christian backed government and i fear the same problems now plaguing the u.s. are heading our way

0 Replies

I don't have any abortion comments today.

I just wanted to give a smile to Intrepid for posting a poppy today. Smile

0 Replies

djjd62 wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
djjd62 wrote:
bottom line, women should be allowed to get abortions

Bottom line, women are allowed, by law to get abortions. The problem are those people who would stick their noses into another person's business, and attempt to change the laws due to their own particular beliefs.

i know, but i'm gonna keep posting that, because it's true and should remain that way, in canada we are moving ever closer to a right wing conservative christian backed government and i fear the same problems now plaguing the u.s. are heading our way

djjd62,

It may be true to you. It is not true to those that don't believe it.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Hi Everyone!

I wish everyone would please keep in mind that, at least for me (and I am pretty sure of some others), we are not lobbying to change the laws for the sole purpose of taking away a woman's choice. I, and I believe others, are doing it for the sake of the unborn children.

ummm, but then you are taking away a womens choice

worry about saving the people who are already here, plenty of poverty, abuse and a multitude of social ills to cure

0 Replies

djjd62 wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Hi Everyone!

I wish everyone would please keep in mind that, at least for me (and I am pretty sure of some others), we are not lobbying to change the laws for the sole purpose of taking away a woman's choice. I, and I believe others, are doing it for the sake of the unborn children.

ummm, but then you are taking away a womens choice

worry about saving the people who are already here, plenty of poverty, abuse and a multitude of social ills to cure

djjd62,

I do worry about them also. Yes, the woman would lose her choice. I admit that. Would never deny it.

I just believe that the life of the unborn child should take precedence over the convenience of the woman. I realize all abortions are not performed for convenience, but according to statistics, most are.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

djjd62 wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Hi Everyone!

I wish everyone would please keep in mind that, at least for me (and I am pretty sure of some others), we are not lobbying to change the laws for the sole purpose of taking away a woman's choice. I, and I believe others, are doing it for the sake of the unborn children.

ummm, but then you are taking away a womens choice

worry about saving the people who are already here, plenty of poverty, abuse and a multitude of social ills to cure

djjd62,

I do worry about them also. Yes, the woman would lose her choice. I admit that. Would never deny it.

I just believe that the life of the unborn child should take precedence over the convenience of the woman. I realize all abortions are not performed for convenience, but according to statistics, most are.

are you going to personally adopt all these unwanted childern, or would you rather they grow up in households were they are thought of as a burden or nuisance or worse

0 Replies

If only I could. That is not the point. There are alternatives. There are options. If the majority of abortions were performed for medical reasons, etc., I could understand it. But, the statistics show it is for convenience of the woman. To me, that is selfish.

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

I don't have any abortion comments today.

I just wanted to give a smile to Intrepid for posting a poppy today.

:-) Thank you, flushd. We should all be thankful for what the poppy symbolizes today.

0 Replies

djjd62 wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
djjd62 wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
Hi Everyone!

I wish everyone would please keep in mind that, at least for me (and I am pretty sure of some others), we are not lobbying to change the laws for the sole purpose of taking away a woman's choice. I, and I believe others, are doing it for the sake of the unborn children.

ummm, but then you are taking away a womens choice

worry about saving the people who are already here, plenty of poverty, abuse and a multitude of social ills to cure

djjd62,

I do worry about them also. Yes, the woman would lose her choice. I admit that. Would never deny it.

I just believe that the life of the unborn child should take precedence over the convenience of the woman. I realize all abortions are not performed for convenience, but according to statistics, most are.

are you going to personally adopt all these unwanted childern, or would you rather they grow up in households were they are thought of as a burden or nuisance or worse

As previously posted, there are thousands upon thousands of childless couples with love to spare who are on waiting lists to adopt an infant or several infants. The woman who honestly cannot provide for her baby and gives him/her the best possible chance with loving adoptive parents has my admiration. She truly demonstrates the best part of love.

0 Replies

Yes, I like the poppy too!

0 Replies

djjd62 wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
Hi Everyone!

I wish everyone would please keep in mind that, at least for me (and I am pretty sure of some others), we are not lobbying to change the laws for the sole purpose of taking away a woman's choice. I, and I believe others, are doing it for the sake of the unborn children.

ummm, but then you are taking away a womens choice

worry about saving the people who are already here, plenty of poverty, abuse and a multitude of social ills to cure

ummmm, but then abortion is taking away a life

the unborn IS already here, that's kinda the point. she's not a fiction of someone's imagination.

the unborn has flesh and blood, a heartbeat, brainwaves, a distinct DNA pattern that marks her as an individual --NOT a part of the mother's body.

one of the greatest social ills is the lack of respect for life, which shows itself in crimes such as murder, abuse, etc.

poverty is a lousy excuse for abortion. if you can't raise a child you don't kill him. let him be adopted.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know