Will you call them children now?

Jump to Last Post 1-12 of 12 discussions (99 posts)

0
Brenda Durhamposted 11 years ago
After two years, this abortionist is finally on trial for murdering newborns that didn't die during the "proper" abortion procedure, and for providing abortion service to women whose child was past the legal limit for abortion.

To me, it's murder no matter what the age of the fetus. And I'm wondering how the legal system is gonna handle this case.
What do you think?

Especially you liberals who are for abortion----------- are you willing to call those newborn fetuses that this Doctor killed....."children" now? Or do you still maintain that they were simply the result of a legal botched abortion procedure and therefore had to be killed anyway?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1293130
reply report
0
Brenda Durhamposted 11 years ago
Well?
Anyone?

Are they still just "fetuses" or "zygotes" or "parasites"?
Or are they dead babies?

Is that Doctor a murderer?
Or just an accessory to murder, since the women came to him to have their children killed?
Is one of the cases "statutory murder" only, since the Mom-to-be was only 14 years old?
And is he just a scapegoat for the abortion movement?
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously a born child is a baby and that's why he is being charged with murder.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Would it have been murder 5 minutes before that if it had died in the womb?
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yup I believe the limit set by the Supreme Court is between 22 and 24 weeks in gestation.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So, at 24 weeks, instead of 28 or 30, it's just a thing, and therefore okay to kill; is that what you're saying?
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  At 24 weeks is about when the baby becomes able to live independently, at that point it is no longer dependent. It also allows plenty of time for the mother to discover she is pregnant and have an abortion if she chooses rather than being forced to give birth.
  reply report
  85
  gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!
  reply report
94
peeplesposted 11 years ago
There is a huge difference between pulling a crying baby out of a mother's womb and an abortion at say 8 weeks. It is not apples and apples no matter how hard people want to act like it is.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What is the difference?
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  At 8 weeks the fetus is not capable of thought, it's inert and has nothing that we would call a consciousness.
  reply report
  85
  gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  + a multillion percent. Totally concur.
  reply report
  61
  janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So it is ok to kill people who are unconscious?
  reply report
  87
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The unconscious is part of our consciousness. The opposite of consciousness is mindlessness, a.k.a. viruses and zombies and zombie viruses. So, no.
  reply report
  94
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  One is capable of life outside of another person. It's quite simple. The moment life is viable outside the mother abortion becomes murder.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How is a newborn capable of life outside the mother?
  For how long?
  A newborn can breathe, yes, but for how long without being fed by someone? Can it choose to walk and go find food? How long will it live by itself?
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The point is not that it does not need care but that it does not need care by the mother specifically, at that point others are able to do so, previously the mother had to and thus had the right to choose on her own basis.
  reply report
  94
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Can you put a fetus on the boob? Hold it? Rock it to sleep? Change it's diaper? Does it cry? Does it breathe? Does it feel emotions? Does it have any resemblance to a baby at all? Apples and oranges. What do you suppose we do with all these unwanted children if you had a way and mothers were forced to deliver them?
  reply report
  59
  Superkevposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe we should find a way to stop them from breeding all these unwanted babies in the first place? Perhaps teach them to keep their legs shut and their zippers too?
  
  Every bit of genetic code and material that makes you who you are or will be is present at the moment of conception. Would you agree or disagree with that?
  reply report
  94
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The genetics are there but meaningless at the time. I agree, more education could help greatly. However what about all the moms who get pregnant when they aren't suppose to be able to? The antibiotic makes the birth control fail? The doctor who tells the woman they aren't suppose to be able to get pregnant? The man who has been snipped yet still gets his wife pregnant? Many women who get abortions are educated adults.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If you got a drop of blood from both parents and put them in the same place you have all the genetic material that makes you who you are, that does not make it a baby.
  reply report
  59
  Superkevposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You would have the mother's and father's DNA yes, but not the unique DNA and genetic code that makes a person a person until the moment of conception.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  
  Awesome reply.
  
  Conception is such a unique, interesting, thing! I don't think some adults even consider what it is, if they even realize the facts about it or the unique beauty and intricacies of it scientifically and biologically, not to meantion humanly.
  
  I found the following video online, and it illustrates how human life itself begins! I wonder if pro-abortionists like to ignore facts, including the fact that a human life can only be formed by the union of a man's sperm and a woman's egg, making the whole "women's rights" concept invalid from the start. Not only is there a child involved, there's a man, a father, somewhere whose body helped form that baby.
  
  And even the sperm and egg are mobile; they move; they are alive even before the joining together that forms a baby. It simply follows that I can't imagine how anyone can treat the product of that union, an actual child, as though they weren't even a living thing.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFrVmDgh4v4
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Movement is not the requirement of life, neither a zygote nor spermatozoa, nor an egg meets the scientific requirements of being alive. No respiration, no response to stimuli and in the spermatozoa's case no ability to reproduce others of itself.
  reply report
  85
  gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Only when a baby is viable OUTSIDE of the womb, no more, no less.
  reply report
  76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda, I'm with you. No one cared about the baby before it was born. Why do they care about it so much after it's born. It's pathetic to not regard the baby as a baby destined at any stage to be a human being. It is murder and killing as soon as the will of the soul is prevented from having its body.
  See it this way: The soul's WILL is not allowed to continue its urge toward manifestation in/as a body/mind on the earth plane. Why would it have entered the fertilized egg, if it did not WANT to come to earth to operate through a human body....
  soul = will.
  That understanding clarifies everything.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The belief in a soul is a religious and personal one, as the founding fathers defined through their separation of church and state religious beliefs cannot be the basis for law, therefore it is ridiculous for the belief in a "soul" to be the basis for the crime of murder.
  reply report
  76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well, the founding fathers understood Soul. Only the really ignorant do not.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ignorant like all the believers in non soul based faiths, all the agnostics and all the atheists of the world, as in most of the worlds population? That seems like the utmost arrogance to me.
  report
  76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You have a soul. Prove you don't.
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No but I would have that in a drop of my blood, it still does not make the drop of blood a baby.
  reply report
  64
  tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The debate over when a fetus has human rights or where to draw the line as to whether it is murder or not to abort a fetus is a non starter for one obvious but always ignored fact - there can be no human being without a fertilized egg and the fetus it develops into. There is no"age" or "time" requirement for human life - a human is a human from conception and you can't show me any living (or dead) human being who became a human being without being a fetus. The argument that it is not murder to destroy a fetus, in or outside the woomb, is ludicrous. Pro abotionists by their reasoning would condone murdering not just 8 week old fetuses but any human if he/she is "incapable of thought and has nothing that we would call a consciousness" and there are such people in instuitutions. Why aren't they "not human?" What about anyone in a coma - why are they considered human but a fetus is not? It is a Ludicrous argument to say "At 8 weeks the fetus is not capable of thought, it's inert and has nothing that we would call a consciousness" as reasoning to justify murder.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed and people on life support, in comas, with no brain process are often disconnected from the machines with the consent of their family and their doctor.
  
  Ultimately one cannot believe in forcing anyone to give birth against their will using the power of the state and claim to believe in freedom or liberty.
  
  Not to mention that life cannot occur without a spermatozoa or an "egg" and yet we don't consider those sacred, indeed everyone was at some point just a cell, the regressive argument of "everyone was at some point" then is irrelevant.
  reply report
  64
  tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So you believe killing a fetus is no different than removing someone from life support? We are not talking about a patient with massive brain damage due to lack of oxygen or is in a vegetative state. No one would pull the plug on someone if they knew they could guarantee in less than nine months they would be normal again (let alone have a whole 60-80 more years to live). That is what a fetus is, a far cry from a brain dead adult. Go on dig your hole deeper.
  reply report
76
Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago
- we all have souls. Try to prove you don't.
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  On the contrary you are making the claim i do you have to prove it, on assuming the basis of a fact the non existence of the supernatural must always come first, if I say "look a magic unicorn" I have to show you it you don't have to prove I did not see it, that would be ridiculous.
  reply report
2. 87
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  If your soul is tied to your body, what happens when you transplant your brain into another body?
  reply report
76
Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago
- as soon as a sperm is united with a sperm we (as souls) enter the zygote
(of our choice) and direct the unfolding of the genetic codes/RNA/DNA according to the light blueprint we carry with us from life time to life time. This is how we end up with similar facial features each lifetime.
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  HAHAHAHAH OMG the "soul" is an STI
  reply report
  76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  - nothing funny about it. It is indeed miraculous. Our consciousness is a true gift.
  As I see it.
  Peace.
  reply report
94
peeplesposted 11 years ago
"What do you suppose we do with all these unwanted children if you had your way and mothers were forced to deliver them?
A question almost always ignored by anti abortion people. Scream and hollar about protecting some cells but no real solutions for what to do with them once they are actually here.
reply report
1. 60
  Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well you've really thought this through haven't you...I don't think so. There is an enormous amount of couples ready to adopt and can't find babies here in the US. Did it ever occur to you that if abortion was illegal people would have an incentive to avoid getting pregnant and getting abotions especially for the frivolous reasons given by the majority of those who get abortions. On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion:
  3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about
  3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and
  1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).
  Only 12% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF).
  One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF). http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/u … tatistics/
  These statistics clearly demonstrate that because abortion has been made easily accessible murdering a living human being in the womb is viewed as nothing but an economic convenience. To change that we need to make it an economic and/or legal inconvenience and I guarantee the abortion rate will drop and adoptions will rise. If there were an abundance of adoptions available society would find ways to meet the need. Besides pro abortionists don't care one iota about unwanted babies - their argument is totally based on the mother's right to kill her baby. Without that there is no justification for abortion. If your arguement is that becasue babies are unwanted they should be killed then you are right up there with the likes of Hitler, congratulations!
  reply report
  94
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Since you are obviously clueless to adoption in the states here are some facts for you:
  There are 423,773 children in the U.S. foster care system; 114,556 of these children are available for adoption. Their birth parent’s legal rights have been permanently terminated and children are left without a family.
  More children become available for adoption each year than are adopted. In 2009, 69,947 children had parental rights terminated by the courts, yet only 57,466 were adopted.
  Children often wait three years or more to be adopted.
  "their argument is totally based on the mother's right to kill her baby"
  My argument is based on being one of those adoptable foster children who never got adopted.Knowing we simply do not have enough homes for the adoptable children we already have out there, and knowing it makes NO sense to add to that already high number!
  "Did it ever occur to you that if abortion was illegal people would have an incentive to avoid getting pregnant"
  Yeah because we all know making things illegal works. Sure we have no crime whatsoever! After all there was only about a million illegal abortions known about each year before it was legal so that clearly shows how effective it being illegal is! You have thought no where outside your limited views. Get out and actually get invloved with the world, see what women suffer through, see the suffering the children go through. Then again I guess you prefer torture of a child than an abortion to some cells.
  reply report
  59
  Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Kind of getting the picture on gun control now. If 69,947 children were available for adoption and 57,466 were actually adopted I would say that is pretty damn good.
  
  "Yeah because we all know making things illegal works. Sure we have no crime whatsoever!"
  reply report
  94
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "I would say that is pretty damn good." Of course you would if you weren't one of the 12000 left behind each year..
  reply report
  59
  Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Its pretty obvious you do not understand that the statistic you supplied on adoption is a huge success.
  reply report
  94
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are right it is a sucess for those actually adopted. It is also a HUGE failure to those who got left in the system to bounce around from home to home.
  reply report
  59
  Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So your answer would be to abort them all? I was indifferent to abortion up to the time I read the post you originally responded to and now I see that abortion is merely a convenience for about 88% of women. That is a sad commentary on women.
  reply report
  94
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Abortion statistics are all over the place and half aren't accurate. In a quick search I found multiple different statistics.
  Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
  - Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
  - Feels she can't afford baby 23%
  - Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
  - Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
  - Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
  - Interference with education/career plans 4%
  - Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%
  - Other reasons <6.5%
  This just being one. My answer is not to abort them all. My answer is not to add to an already troubled problem when not needed.
  reply report
  59
  Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Using your numbers 87% use frivolous reasons for abortion, what exactly is your point? It must be to agree with what the original poster said.
  reply report
  94
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Unready and unable to afford are hardly frivolous in my opinion.
  reply report
  59
  Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Then why engage in an act that might result in an unwanted pregnancy? Yes, frivolous is the correct word.
  reply report
  94
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are completely failing to understand that many women get pregnant when they are not suppose to be able to. Birth Control, tubal failure, condom broke, told inable to concieve by doctors, vasectomy failure. I'm not saying some reasons aren't frivolous. I'm saying that a complete stranger shouldn't get to decide what is frivolous to another complete stranger.
  report
  59
  Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I will concede that point, but what are the statistics of those situations occurring? It still doesn't remove the fact that they are engaging in a risky behavior that could potentially end with an unwanted pregnancy.
  report
  94
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Clint, we all engage in risky behavior. I'll leave it at this, millions of people own guns for what I consider frivolous reasons, but I don't think we should start taking those guns away. Also millions of people own guns that could potentially hurt someone, again that doesn't mean we should start taking away guns. Millions of people are killed by guns every year, yet I believe the majority agrees taking them away will do little. We shouldn't dictate what others get to do with their own rights or bodies.
  report
  59
  Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Millions of people are killed by guns every year where? We can only concern ourselves with the guns in our country and millions are not being killed in the United States. As for what we do with our bodies I agree but the people who are on your side are the ones dictating what we can and cannot do with our bodies.
  report
  87
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wait, what?
  report
  59
  Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You disagree?
  report
  87
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well, yeah. The loss of human life isn't an issue that can be divided by arbitrary imaginary lines drawn up by ignorant historical figures. The loss of human life is an issue that concerns all humans everywhere.
  report
  59
  Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, we will send our politicians to Mexico so they can straighten everything out. My point is we have no say in what Britain does as to their laws.
  report
  60
  Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No matter what the source of polls or statistics sighted none of them indicate the majority of reasons given aren't frivolous. Hitler would be proud of these statistics, he'd say after all these babies are almost entirely from inferior races. Is that one of your other considerations to support abortion? Sounds like where you are headed.
  reply report
  91
  jenb0128posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I have only one thing to say in this thread:
  
  Godwin.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
  reply report
  94
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "he'd say after all these babies are almost entirely from inferior races. Is that one of your other considerations to support abortion?" Makes no sense at all and have no clue what you were even attempting to say.
  reply report
  60
  Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The point is since you think that having too many unwanted babies is justification for abortion (a rationalization that coincides with Hitler's view of killing unwanted people) your logic is leading to the thought that most abortions are performed by races considered inferior by people like you (and Hitler) as a rationalization to support abortion .
  reply report
  94
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "your logic is heading to the fact that most abortions are performed by races considered inferior by people like you" First you confused me with a conservative, second I am a minority so again, far off. Curious Do you assume I'm white?
  report
0
Onusonusposted 11 years ago
From a scientific standpoint at the early stages of pregnancy we are talking about a living human with unique DNA. Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, or speak. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature. At 8 weeks the fetus has developed a functioning heart, eyelids, a brain, hands and legs and many other human features.
This is a video of a living person in the womb at 8 weeks, it is very apparent that it is more than a simple mass of cells:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkLeBnSHY3k

When liberals say they prefer the term "pro-choice" over "pro-abortion" they do very little to justify that assertion. If in fact they did dislike abortion they would not vehemently attack any argument to reduce the outstanding numbers of abortions in the country. Instead they breed a culture that treats abortion as a widespread form of birth control for irresponsible teenagers.
Sorry to say, but liberals are not just pro-choice, they are pro-abortion. Otherwise they would not be asking taxpayers to provide millions of dollars to Margaret Sangers "Negro project" ironically renamed planned parenthood.
reply report
1. 60
  Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So true Onusonus - you hit the naill on the head - pro choice is just a term, like all liberal labels, designed to deceive. This doctor who killed multiple babies after botched abortions gets absolutely no coverage by the main stream (liberal) media who only reports on events they can spin to promote an agenda like gun control. You know if this doctor shot 8 babies with a gun it would be all over the news day in and day out with calls for more gun control but because it is associated with abortion - not a peep.
  reply report
2. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  On the contrary it IS liberals who have instituted the successful plans to reduce abortions, blue states have much lower abortion rates than red states, what we understand is you don't achieve that by making things illegal and forcing women to give birth against their will, you achieve it by providing education, contraception and support for pregnant women.
  
  The results speak for themselves, it is conservatives whose policies lead to abortions and if those abortions were not made safe and legal by liberals they would lead to unsafe coat hanger abortions in back rooms.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Actually it is liberals who insist that laws be made to ensure that abortions are common place in our society. Liberals create the culture of lax morality, or moral relativism, or whatever the spin doctors choose to call it. Liberals insist on forcing everyone to pay for their sexual misconduct, and just because a state is blue or red does not mean that there presence is not there.
  
  Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.
  According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion
  On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States. I bring up this statistic because the bulk of minorities get duped into believing that conservatives are racist, by the very party that systematically destroys their neighborhoods, weakens their families, steals their rights, destroys their morals, and kills their children.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes we know the poorer you are the more likely you are to get pregnant (and at a younger age) and therefore it is no surprise that black women have more abortions, that does not mean they should not have the right to do so. Letting people choose what they want to do is never discrimination.
  reply report
  69
  Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Talking points much?
  reply report
  60
  Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Josak summed it nicely - "forcing women to give birth against their will" as if women don't make choises that get them pregnant. So to liberals preserving life by making murder of infants illegal is "forcing women to give birth against their will" - can't get more sick or twisted than that sort of reasoning.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Pretty backwards.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  #1 Often women did not choose, an estimated 3% of abortions are from the product of rape.
  
  #2 Non criminal acts do not deprive one of rights, and sex is not a criminal act therefore having sex does not then mean you can be forced to give birth against your will.
  reply report
  60
  Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  #1 - I don't think 3% qualifies as often (except to a liberal trying to force an absurd point)
  #2 - makes no sense what so ever, but then neither does any of your arguements so no surprise there.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  3% can hardly be described as "often". the overwhelming majority of reasons for offing ones child is because Johnny didn't want to wear a condom.
  I understand why you would use that path of reasoning though since liberals tend to want to do things like ban AR-15's when more deaths are caused by angry people with hammers.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And Johnny not wanting to wear a condom is very dumb but it is not a crime so one cannot be forced to give birth because of it.
  
  I don't want to ban anything, that would be you wanting to ban abortion.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I never said I wanted to ban abortion.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So you think abortion should be legal? What are we even discussing then?
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No, I don't think it should be legal. But I was talking about defunding the abortion industry. I'm saying to let the free market take care of it so we can see just how much demand there really is for it. After all if there is less availability of it, people might actually think about the consequences before they act.
  I always hear liberals saying that if guns are made less available there would be less deaths. Yet you guys can't seem to wrap your brains around the same logic to stop abortions, or at least slow them down. And that is why most Liberals are pro-abortion and not even close to being "pro-choice".
  reply report
  59
  Clint Wardposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Abortion is legal and should continue to be legal, my reasons for posting on this doesn't have anything to do with legality but rather the reasons behind getting an abortion. As you said it shouldn't be easy and all avenues should be explored before the abortion is done. We should see that as few abortion occur as possible but there are organizations like planned parenthood who don't see it that way. I'll bet if bacteria were found on Mars these same organizations would hurt themselves to make sure that life was protected.
  reply report
  60
  Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you Clint. Although I do believe with all my heart abortion is murder and should be illegal in most cases, the approach should not be to make abortion illegal with one fell swoop but to make it (what it really is) an unattractive choice. This can be done and would be done if those who say they are pro-choice but don't recommend abortion really meant it. Eventually society could, if they really wanted to, reduce the numbers of abortions dramatically enough to put pressure on stopping the barbaric practice of abortion by making alternatives more attractive, more doable and more accessible. There are alternatives to abortion, to start with there are measures that can be taken to prevent unwanted pregnancies. These include just for example:
  Education: Abortion (in the vast majority of cases) is nothing but legalized murder (if adolescents were educated as to the truth that abortion is murder, that in this country the only reason they are even alive is that their mother didn't "choose" (legally) to abort them, they would begin to think differently about sex).
  Voluntary (and mandatory in some cases) tubal ligation for females who don't want a baby and vasectomy for men who don't. Free sterlization (and mandatory in some cases) for anyone who chooses to give an unwanted baby up for adoption. The government could enroll the help of private sectror churches, charities and hospitals to this end and I'm sure the massive government waste could be cut to direct funds to this end.
  
  The point is we don't need a law to end abortion, we need a desire and resolve by society to end it by making it the least favorable choice.. so you might say I am pro choice. I'm for you choosing anything that is directed to avoid murdering your child.
  reply report
  69
  Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Forced sterilization for someone who gives a child up for adoption?
  
  Awesome.....
  reply report
  60
  Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, if it is someone who repeatedly tries to murder their baby or are you OK with that. There are people who know they don't want a baby but repeatedly get pregnant and abort - people like that don't deserve to have the right to reproduce but I guess you also would feel serial rapists or repeat pedofiles should not be sterilized either. I happen to think stopping serial murder by sterilization is more important than just looking the other way while you know someone is going to murder their babies.
  reply report
  69
  Cody Hodge5posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Way to use sweeping generalizations and words I never said to make your counter-argument....
  report
76
Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago
PS ...and if you don't want to kill or murder, don't conceive.
Only you can prevent abortions.
Step away from the eggs.
Have some compassion for the souls who are sleeping peacefully in the arms of the angels.
Don't bring 'em in to kill em.
Sex is not a joke...
ask Eve.
reply report
59
Superkevposted 11 years ago
I've always wondered why a woman can opt-out of being a parent but a man doesn't get that option.

Should the father be able to force an abortion if he doesn't want to be a parent the same way a woman can? Or conversely should he be able to make her carry to term if he wants to be a parent even though she does not? After all, he will be held responsible for that child if it is born, right? So the man has just as much stake in that child's life as the mother.

Why the gender bias when it comes to this? Aren't we all supposed to be about equal rights?
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Because the father does not have to carry the child or give birth to it, once the child is an independent being (defined by the supreme court as 22 to 24 weeks in) able to live without the direct sustenance of it's mother then both partners should have equal rights and responsibilities but until then the mother gets to choose what happens in and to her body.
  
  No one gets to tell anyone "you have to risk your life to have a baby because we think that is right" no one has the right to gamble with an independent person's life.
  reply report
  59
  Superkevposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  But killing a baby with a partial birth abortion IS a right huh?
  
  Don't the mass killings committed by Dr. Gosnell prove that we need tighter controls on abortions?
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well I don't think it is a right.
  
  Obviously what Dr Gosnell did is pretty horrific and now he is being charged with serial murder, it would have been better if he was caught sooner but it would be better if all serial killers were caught sooner.
  
  I don't think you can take enough precautions with abortion myself, show them a scan of the fetus, discuss adoption, make sure they really want to do it and have a professional witnessing doctor or nurse in the room to ensure the procedure is followed so long as you don't take away people's liberties by banning it, making it hard to get to or prohibitively expensive.
  reply report
  0
  Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think so.
  If we were talking about a crazed veterinarian severing the spinal chords of new born puppies we would be hearing about it on the news from here to kingdom come. But because there is a political agenda with buckets of money on the line we get a media blackout from all the liberal news channels.
  
  Planned parenthood is nothing more than a butcher factory. Just listen to this lobbyist try to come up with a politically correct way of asking permission to let living, breathing, babies die.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uax-FrhOioY
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I really doubt there would be three threads going on the issue right now if it was a veterinarian killing animals.
  reply report
  59
  Superkevposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Seems to me they made a bigger deal in the MSM about Michael Vick than they are with this story. In fact, it's barely been covered at all. Now that they have been publicly shamed the networks are saying they are going to send reporters. But you have to ask yourself why they didn't in the first place.
  
  Maybe if he had killed those babies with an AR-15 they would have found it newsworthy then, ya think?
  reply report
  60
  Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I saw a picture of the seats reserved for reporters during the trial - they were empty - Nobody even sent a reporter to cover the trial. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism … -Coverage.
  reply report
  60
  Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting how the liberal totally ignores commenting on this post (because it is already proven to be true): "This doctor who killed multiple babies after botched abortions gets absolutely no coverage by the main stream (liberal) media who only reports on events they can spin to promote an agenda like gun control. You know if this doctor shot 8 babies with a gun it would be all over the news day in and day out with calls for more gun control but because it is associated with abortion - not a peep."
  but jumps to comment on a hypothetical like "a crazed veterinarian severing the spinal chords of new born puppies" Just more evidence of how manipulative and disingenuous liberals are in discussing an issue.
  reply report
87
Zelkiiroposted 11 years ago
ATTN: Onusonus. I found some required viewing for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w15OS2PdCKo

Once you accept the truth, you'll feel better.
reply report
60
Disappearingheadposted 11 years ago
Abortion is not a black or white subject. The point is women get pregnant and there are occasions where she does not wish to continue the pregnancy for all sorts of reasons. So let's assume abotion is illegal; where does she go? Back street coat hanger botched abortion holes run by organised criminals? Is that the solution? Force her against her will to give birth resulting in a life of resentment and emotional/mental issues? Another child added to dysfunctional state care systems?

So to ensure that women are properrly cared for in a medically safe environment, away from criminals, abortion is legalised. It is the lesser of two evils. Now we have to define a gestation period where we draw the line of legality. Too late and viable babies unnecesarily die which I'm sure that 'liberals' would also find distastefull. Too early and the pregnancg is discovered too late. Its not ideal, it is a fudge, but a line must be drawn somewhere and there is no point in being irrational about it..

Now I'm no doctor, but a statistic I heard on the radio recently was the 50% of pregnancies fail naturally. So if we are going to rant at those who assist in the manmade ending of a pregnancy, who are we going to rant at for those that end naturally?

For those that oppose abortion for all circumstances what say you about the hundreds of thousands of babies/fetuses that just aren't made properly? Is it right to insist a pregnancy goes full term where the child's chance of survival in or out of the womb is on a knife edge and only can survive if 21st century healthcare is available and affordable?
reply report
1. 60
  Dont Taze Me Broposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Here is where your logic falls apart.
  1) OK not black and white? Then why is murder not black and white? I can think of many better reasons to kill another person than abortion mother's give to kill their baby ...why don't we allow murder in general for those reasons? Once you establish (the truth) that a fetus is a human being and cannot be murdered then there is no reason for that murder and to compare murder to death by natural causes is just plain illogical and over the top by any standard.
  Society would adjust and if illegal abortions were to occur...well look at it this way - if someone tried to murder you would you care what their outcome would be? Would the government? I think the penalty for murder is death or life imprisonment -should be the same for anyone trying to abort their baby and if it was, I guarantee you babies would be born and given for adoption instead of risking a murder conviction. Probably women who really don't want a baby would choose to tie their tubes. Whatever excuse you offer to justify abortion, it doesn't wash because it is murder and there is no consequence of preventing a murder that can't be dealt with by a society that values human life...we don't. Just like abortion has become an accepted part of daily living (by some) in society so would adoption and/or other measures that respect the unborn life become the accepted norm.
  reply report
0
Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago
I'm still waiting to hear the outcome of this man's trial.............
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Will you call them children now?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Will you call them children now?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies