ABORTION.......

Foxfyre,

Yes, I guess we could. But, we have tried very hard not to make judgments about him and his beliefs, guesses, or whatever he chooses to call them.

I find it sad that he would want to advocate a right that would kill a child and try to take away another's right to practice their faith of believing in a loving God because he (IMO) has decided what is right for others.

Though this has been explained to me by Frank to make it a little clearer for me, I still find it a bit contradictory.

Saying the child is a fetus, and therefore, making it less than human, does not make it so. I do not agree with them. It is a growing human being. If there is one iota of a nerve ending at any point of growth, pain is caused when an abortion is formed.

So, just keep posting the way you have been! You have more support than you know!

[Anyhow, even as they get more and more frantic, irrational, and insulting trying to defend the indefensible, we can hope the tides are shifting.

It is an undisputable fact that most Americans do not want abortion outlawed, but it is also an undisputable fact that the huge majority of Americans know the life of a human being is at stake and think abortion should be severely restricted to the most extreme cases at least in mid to late term.

The prolife groups sees the mother and baby as different beings and that the mother has responsibility for her baby within the womb as much as she has responsibility for it outside the womb.Real Life's comparison therefore is quite appropriate. Years ago, our ancesters had to see black people as sub-humans, non persons, dispensable property in order to justify slavery. The pro-abortion people do the same thing with the developing baby within the womb.

Nobody wants to take away a woman's rights.
[size=7]But the prolife group wants the woman who does not want a child to take responsibility to see that she does not become pregnant. If she does, they want her to take responsibility for the child that she carries[/size].

specifically that the foetus is seen as sub-human, non-person, dispensible or whatever.

Foxfyre wrote:

The prolife groups sees the mother and baby as different beings and that the mother has responsibility for her baby within the womb as much as she has responsibility for it outside the womb.Real Life's comparison therefore is quite appropriate. Years ago, our ancesters had to see black people as sub-humans, non persons, dispensable property in order to justify slavery. The pro-abortion people do the same thing with the developing baby within the womb.

Nobody wants to take away a woman's rights.
[size=7]But the prolife group wants the woman who does not want a child to take responsibility to see that she does not become pregnant. If she does, they want her to take responsibility for the child that she carries[/size].

Of course you want to take away a woman's rights. If you didn't, then why would your group also be fighting so hard on the issue of the morning-after pill? Why make difficulties with people trying to privately manage their own birth control?

My group? I haven't even discussed the morning after pill. I don't recall anyone else discussing the morning after pill. Perhaps we could keep the discussion on the pertinent points that have been raised.

Quote:

If the prolife were to go on with their beliefs, then what do they think about masturbation?

I don't know. I haven't asked anyone what they think about masturbation. I don't think about it much. Do you think about it a lot? You must think about it more than I do since you brought it up, so what do you think about it?

Quote:

Please explain where are these potential children of yours, those who are spilled everytime a male gets off, everytime a woman doesn't fully allow herself to be barefoot and pregnant... where are these young souls? Aren't they as potential in your eyes. And, if not, why not?

I don't see a human egg or a human sperm as an issue. These are natural products of the human body that regularly occur from the time of puberty and require no conscious choice on our part. I do see a developing baby within the womb as a living human being deserving of all the consideration we give to any human being.

Quote:

Quote:

specifically that the foetus is seen as sub-human, non-person, dispensible or whatever.

Your words, and lovely they are. Yet how quickly the mother herself becomes sub-human in your eyes. Someone to scorn, who can't make her own decisions. She's a carrier of a foetus, nothing more, a non-person with no rights, whose future is dispensible. What arrogance on your part.

Quite the contrary. I see her as a person who has chosen to risk taking on the responsibility of another life. Once that responsibility is hers, then I see her as a person quite capable of making good choices for the well being of the baby for which she now has responsibility. How arrogant is it to assume that she is incapable of handling the responsibility she has taken on or that the baby's life or anybody's life is of no importance or consequence?

Quote:

Nobody is asking Pro-Lifers to change any of their own beliefs and practices. Based on what their rigidly-held religious beliefs, as staunchly patriarchal as the highest of the high Catholic dogmas, they are more than willing to play fast and loose with the health and well-being of the living women and their familes when these self-same proponents of the living refuse to keep abortion safe and legal.

Could you find me a quote from any of the prolifers in this thread that suggest they are willing to play fast and loose with the health and well-being of the living women and their families? I believe most, if not all, are quite willing to keep abortion safe and legal. But every single one of us is not willing to kill a baby just because it was not wanted or is inconvenient to the adult who took it on.

Quote:

You should know, or I'm telling you now that women (those who do the "dance" and ought to pay the piper) will find other ways to terminate their pregnancies if you close this gap. Those will be unsafe, unregulated ways, outside of a hospital or clinic... procedures that may leave them permanently maimed, their other children facing more difficulties or even left without that "non-human," their Mom.

Remember, after all, how many of these women seeking abortions already have a brood already or are children themselves.

If we "close the gap" of willful destruction of unborn children purely for the convenience of the mother, I think there will be a whole lot less destruction of unborn children. And, as was the case when abortion laws were far less lenient, there will not be an increase in unwanted children. When there are no quick and easy solutions for the consequences of our indiscretions, most people, even women, are quite capable of making better choices and almost certainly will.

The argument that what cannot be done legally will be done illegally is true about just about anything. But fortunately, there are only a few who take that option.

Quote:

Somebody has to make the decision. Who will it be?

The mother who is pregnant and imagining how best to manage her future or the "Compassionate Conservatives" ?

I would hope it is a decision that all Americans will make together. I do not think 'liberal' is synonymous with pro-abortion any more than 'conservative' is synonymous with anti-abortion. The extremists on both sides will not settle for anything other than abortion at any time, any place, for any reason or no abortions at any time, any place, for any reason. The rest of us are capable of accepting a more reasonable policy.

Quote:

I wonder how long those noses are that look down on these fallen women? Will they feed and clothe and school those children? Will they care for them and keep them out of mischief?

You see them as fallen women? How interesting. I see them as adults who are capable of accepting responsibility for the consequences of their choices and who are capable of making good choices given incentive to do so. There are thousands of childless couples out there who are more than eager to take on the responsibility of feeding, clothing, and schooling the few unwanted children that are brought into the world. Every one of us would have preferred that rather than be slaughtered in the womb.

It usually works out though. I was not ready to get pregnant with either of my kids but they came along anyway and both were quite financially straining and most inconvenient for me. Now I can't imagine my life or a world without them.

I was not ready to get pregnant with either of my kids but they came along anyway and both were quite financially straining and most inconvenient for me. Now I can't imagine my life or a world without them.[/b]

For the most part, I believe that the women need to take more responsibility in not becoming pregnant in the first place.

I see all these children having children! Why is that? Is no one teaching them or are they just not listening?

Yes, there are instances where a woman becomes pregnant through no action or choice of her own. But, I would even think that you wouldn't believe that is the majority.

Abortion is getting out of hand. It is all too often an answer to a problem created by someone not being responsible. Why make the child pay by killing it?

We, as human beings need to be more responsible for our own actions.

Would you legalize marijuana too just because they are still going to smoke it whether it's legal or not? What about heroin? What about murder? All these acts will be committed whether they are legal or not. The only deterrent for breaking these laws are the consequences.

I am sorry Piffka, but the rights of an innocent unborn child supersede (to me) the rights of the woman. She will carry the child for nine months, yes. It will effect her life, yes. But, she will be able to continue her life. The child will be given no chance at all if it is aborted.

I am sorry Piffka, but the rights of an innocent unborn child supersede (to me) the rights of the woman.

I am sorry Piffka, but the rights of an innocent unborn child supersede (to me) the rights of the woman.

If it were only so simple as "using abortion as a form of birth control." But, even if that's what a few women will do, that is their choice and none of our business.

MommaAngel wrote:

I am sorry Piffka, but the rights of an innocent unborn child supersede (to me) the rights of the woman.

Wow Momma, that's a pretty strong statement. Might I infer by your statement that since you believe that the rights of the fetus supercedes the mother, that in a medical situation where the doctors have to make a choice about either saving the mother or the fetus, you believe that the fetus should be saved, possibly causing the death of the mother?

Intrepid wrote:

If they want control over their own bodies, why don't they get sterilized to prevent the possibility of pregnancy rather than use abortion as a form of birth control.

Because they don't want to...and they ought to have the right not to want to.

You really do hate women, don't you!