killing babies??

1. 71

   Shirley Andersonposted 15 years ago

   Okay boys, I want in.  Can you share some of that beer and popcorn?  I'll bring something, I dunno what.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      goldentoadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      just sit in the middle of misha and me and I'll share my beer

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Yep, this will work for me too - unless we scared performers away already - but heck, then we can just have fun together

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Shirley Andersonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Well, we can have our own little party.  If they don't come back, I'll put the music on.

            replyreport
      2. 71

         Shirley Andersonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Awww, thx GT!!  What a sweetie!

         replyreport
2. 68

   cindyvineposted 15 years ago

   I think I'll stick my neck out here and say that whilst I would never consider abortion myself, even if I was raped, I can understand why some women will abort a zygote or whatever up until 12 weeks.  However, what I do condemn and do think is murder, is women who abort foetuses 18 weeks and over.  13-17 weeks is a grey area and that is bordering on murder, but at 18 weeks, all the organs are there and at 18 weeks the sex of the baby can easily be seen.  The foetus is too big to suction out and has to come out the partial birth way - in pieces while that foetus is still alive.  I wrote a hub on this a couple of weeks ago called Trash Can Girl babies and looked at the killing of girl foetuses in India and China, where boys are valued and girls are not wanted.  There is no way that that can get justified, I'm sorry.

   replyreport
3. 0

   Leta Sposted 15 years ago

   From a Religious Tolerance organization in Toronto, CA.  D&X is the medical term for the pro-life coined "partial birth abortion."  Just some interesting facts...  It is also estimated that 90% of all abortions are done in the first trimester.  In fact, partial birth abortions only number in the low 1,000's per year, and are reserved almost exclusively for severe medical cases. They are extremely rare:
   
   
   Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?
   
   This is a topic that is almost never discussed during public debates or on pro-life information sources:
   
   bullet    1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed by suction from the woman's uterus.
   
   bullet    2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:
   
   bullet    She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
   
   bullet    There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
   
   bullet    The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect, like Down's Syndrome. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.
   
   bullet    3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
   
   bullet    The fetus is dead.
   
   bullet    The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
   
   bullet    The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
   
   bullet    The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.
   
   In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.
   
   There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons.
   
   The physician is faced with two main alternatives at this late point in pregnancy:
   
   bullet    a hysterotomy, which is similar to a Cesarean section, or
   
   bullet    a D&X procedure
   
   A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
   
   He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies."
   
   Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill both her and the fetus.
   
   There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. Of course, many physicians lack this level of skill, and so need to resort to the D&X procedure. And, even in te United States, not all women have access to good quality pre-natal care.
   
   The U.S. is the only developed country on Earth that does not have a federal universal health care program. Many pregnant women first seek medical attention when they are about to deliver.
   
   A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) thoroughly studied D&X procedures in 1996. They reported:
   
           "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." They also determined that "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."
   
       Their statement was approved by the ACOG executive board on 1997-JAN-12. 3

   replyreport
4. 79

   Mighty Momposted 15 years ago

   Ok you three, Misha, GT and Shirley. I hope at least one of you's packing protection along with that beer and popcorn! This is exactly what we're talking about. It starts out all innocent, and then before you know it, that popcorn starts "popping." We would hate to have to make an example out of people we actually know and like/respect!

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Shirley Andersonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Awww! 
      
      Don't worry, MM - no babies gonna be planted here.
      
      Thanks for watching out for us! 

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         now hold on there - the audience is becoming more interesting than the players......

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Shirley Andersonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

              We're having a little party on the sidelines, Mark.  Care to join us? 
            
            I'd say we could be living illustrations to prove somebody's point, but that ain't gonna happen unless one of you guys gets pregnant.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               

               replyreport
         2. 63

            Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Shirley is always interesting

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Shirley Andersonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                 Thanks!

               replyreport
5. 79

   Mighty Momposted 15 years ago

   I know, hunh, Mark? That seems to happen a lot around here!

   replyreport
6. 61

   knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

   "Brainwashing. You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means."
   Originally was the intent of communist prisoner of war interrogators to   encourage critical thinking of their American captives, like write a paper on why are you bombing us. So the US propaganda organs began calling it brainwashing.

   replyreport
7. 79

   Mighty Momposted 15 years ago

   What does brainwashing have to do -- anything whatsoever to do -- with this topic?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      goldentoadposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      well I know my brain needs a wash after I go into the forums

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I think it had to do with an insult or something Knol took pages back...
      
      Oh, edit:  I see & am questioning myself now...

      replyreport
8. 79

   Mighty Momposted 15 years ago

   Good point, GT. And some people (not you, of course), need their mouths washed out after coming in here!

   replyreport
9. 63

   Mishaposted 15 years ago

   May be before?

   replyreport
10. 63

    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    If you ask me - it all starts with "my god is the only TRUE one"

    replyreport
11. 61

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "Make  Money wrote:
        As far as her being brainwashed you could say the same for any belief.  Evolution for instance.  That is being taught in schools in the U.S. now, isn't it?  Would you not call that brainwashing?  I would."
    
    "Brainwashing. You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.
    
    /fezzik'd"

    replyreport
12. 0

    Onusonusposted 15 years ago

    If it is so vial to the public to see a doctor on trial who performs late term abortions in the eighth month or so, then it is evident that there is a point where life becomes valuable while it is still inside of the womb. I say the life begins when the little wiggly guy charges at ramming speed into its massive orb like counterpart. Some tewnty three days later a heart begins to beat.

    replyreport
13. 79

    Mighty Momposted 15 years ago

    Yes, I believe Bedazzler's work is positive and powerful. And needed.
    London Girl -- keep singing! I'll do the harmony... "Every sperm is sacred!!!"
    Hey -- maybe we should outlaw jerking off:-). I bet that idea will sit well with those B/W thinking males!!!

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Teresa McGurkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       That is quite possibly the most brilliant song the Monty Python team wrote.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          LondonGirlposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          stiff competition.........

          replyreport
          1. 59

             Teresa McGurkposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             That is quite possibly the most brilliant pun possible in these circumstances.

             replyreport
14. 68

    cindyvineposted 15 years ago

    Lita - in China and India and even in South Korea, abortion of 18 week old foetuses is not rare but quite common, and note for any of the reasons you state.  The abortions are performed just because the doctor has looked at the ultrasound and told the mother it's a girl she's carrying.  There is nothing wrong with the baby or the mother's mental health.  the foetus is perfect, just that it's female.  I live in China and know that on every street corner almost, is an abortion clinic and they say that about 1 million girl foetuses are aborted each year, in India about 500 000 girl foetuses are aborted and in South Korea 30 000 are aborted each year.  These are all aborted after 18 weeks when the sex is determined.  I don't think that those figures make it a rare occurence.
    
    As for brainwashing it first became used in the USA during the Korean War and was a direct translation from the Chinese 'wash brain' which was used by the Communists during their reconstruction period in China.  I think brainwashing has actually been around since the beginning, but then it was called persuasion or coercing.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Cindy-
       
       Well, the info. I provided was relevant to western nations.  I'm also not really sure about your stats for India--I think a couple here, CW and Sidd, may contradict...
       
       But other than that--yes, what you relate is insane.  And a totally different matter.  My main point is that North American pro-life stance people use these inflammatory statements that are completely lacking in fact to make their arguments.  Such obfuscation is akin to lying, as I see it.
       
       My personal convictions--based on cultural historical study and science--would mainly limit abortion to the first trimester.  I have some inside knowledge of the Georgian/former USSR abortion practices, and I feel their perspective was equally insane--they also used abortion, it seems, in some instances, as birth control. Education was basically such--abortions being performed on demand to 6 months or more.  I have a serious issue with that.  I also have a serious issue with the selective aborting of viable foetuses on the basis of sex--or any selective sex abortions for that matter.  It, to me, is an issue of old outdated cultural thinking meeting 'new technology' or something for those people.  All I can say there is--education, education, education.  The point I always make is free choice--with education.
       
       And LG & Teresa & MM--  You guys are so diplomatic...  Perhaps I am less so.  I've got no problem with work such as BDazzlers, at least in terms of me and my rights, as long as they keep such work in their own church community or for women who ask for such help.  Coercion is quite another matter...  I'm not threatened by such counseling--just never have I known anyone to need such help...  And the protesters who harass women at clinics I DO take issue with.
       
       I think the reason some men (none I've been with--guaranteed) have a tendency toward the black and white thinking in regards to abortion is because they don't know/care to know (perhaps because of fundamentalist beliefs) the scientific facts, a, and b, they simply do not relate, or cannot relate to the realities of pregnancy--even perhaps sex.  And then there IS that paternalistic thing--perhaps not relating to women as fully human with rights and freedoms, but with their 'roles' (sorry, but do have to put it out there).
       
       OK, now I'll stop!

       replyreport
15. 81

    LondonGirlposted 15 years ago

    I thank yew....
    
    (it was deliberate, I promise!)

    replyreport
16. 60

    countrywomenposted 15 years ago

    Lita- I am not going to contradict that figure but yes keeping in mind that these countries with population of more than thousand millions would be putting the numbers in a some what better perspective (although it still is a very sad thing since each potential life is equally precious).
    
    Having said that as you rightly point out education indeed is the key and in countries like India the government is trying to create more awareness about better alternative ways of family planning. According to UN report India's population would surpass China's in a very short period of time hence the government is following the policy of persuasion instead of coercion which was once tried by Sanjay Gandhi (and the government got a lot of bad rap) and had to immediately withdraw.  India indeed has huge challenges of meeting the growing needs with the resources available.
    
    And coming to late term abortions  then it is against the law and except for those exceptions(like endangering the life of the mother) those doctors/hospitals performing those abortions face risk of suspension/cancellation of Medical licenses and other punishments as per the laws (some Doctors/Clinics have been held guilty in the past). Having said that it is still a very vast country with a vast population which makes it extremely difficult to implement all the laws.
    
    Coming to selective abortions yes it does exist(although it is illegal) but mostly in poor uneducated sections of the society. Here some understanding of the Indian(especially Hindu) system would help understand the broader picture. In earlier days it was mostly joint family and in Hindu Undivided Family the daughter wouldn't have the right to property as much as the sons hence the daughters got their share of the property at the time of marriage. Hence the often mentioned reason of Dowry (which of course is/was true to a great extent) was meant as a voluntary way for the parents to give there daughter her share out of love and not a forced demand(which it unfortunately became to a certain extent) but slowly that system is being reformed by educated working women (and educated supportive spouse) who are contributing to the family kitty as well.
    
    And even as per the laws even if the daughter is earning well she is not bound by the law unlike a son if he is earning well and doesn't take care of the parents then they can even legally pursue maintenance from there son(s). My father has two younger brothers and six sisters (which was common in those days). He got his second brother educated and 3 sisters educated/married before the second brother got a job and also took care of some of the family responsibilities(sons who take care of there families are highly respected too in the immediate family/society). It is a different country with different expectations(hence an outside lens doesn't give the complete understanding of the ground level realities). Today many girls are highly educated and participation in the work force is equally high but I agree more needs to be done (and hopefully will be done). Nowadays most parents are encouraging there daughters to pursue higher education(even in foreign countries) and pursue career with lesser pressure on getting married.
    
    There are many ills in Indian society as there are some other problems in other societies. Usually the kind of news that percolates to the western media may sometimes even be colored with some hidden agenda i.,e anything wrong with Indian society (implicitly implies wrong with Hindu religion since 80% of the population is Hindus). Usually those who are willing to discuss and form there opinions and ask with an open mind then I do give them my perspective. But those who only chose to believe in there particular source  then there is nothing else I can offer to them. WOW!! That is one big post and since it was you Lita who asked for a post I took this much time.  Have a great week ahead folks

    replyreport
17. 0

    Onusonusposted 15 years ago

    I was recently talking with a sailor who cruised by Somalia and had one of their sea water condenser coils clogged up by a severed babie's arm.

    replyreport
18. 60

    SiddSinghposted 15 years ago

    Abortion has not yet become a matter of debate in India as it is in the Western socities, especially USA. Apparently, it is attached a great importance there. In our societies, it has not YET become a point of debate, which I think is surprising, considering our value systems.
    
    Yet, sadly and shamefully, most of what Cindyvine has said is correct. Abortion in India (I have limited knowledge about China) is never seen in terms of pro-life or pro-choice. As pointed earlier, we are not yet discussing in those terms. Abortion is widely practised though, and overwhelmingly for one purpose: sex-selection of babies. I don't have empirical data, but from what I see around, I guess more than 90% of abortions in India are for this purpose.

    replyreport
19. 68

    cindyvineposted 15 years ago

    Thanks for the info from the Indian contingent.  It's good to hear more information about what is happening in India.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       SiddSinghposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       You're welcome Cindy!
       
       I am not really sure about the age of the fetus, though. The sex-determination is done through two processes: Ultrasound (mostly) and Amniocentesis(rarely). Can anyone tell what is the minimum age of the fetus so that the sex can be determined for these two processes?

       replyreport
20. 68

    cindyvineposted 15 years ago

    minimum age of determining the sex is 18 weeks

    replyreport
21. 61

    Lena M.posted 15 years ago

    I don't understand the "rape/incest" argument.
    Let me say that I am pro-choice, provided that the abortion is done early in the pregnancy. It is my understanding that the primary argument of pro-life is that abortion is murder and murder is wrong. But isn't the child produced from rape still a child? Why is that not murder? ... Well it's okay because it wasn't the woman's fault, right? So in other cases, the child is used as a punishment for his/her mother's actions? Personally, I don't believe that the primary reason for a child coming into this world should be to serve as a punishment and constant reminder of a woman's actions/mistake.

    replyreport
22. 68

    cindyvineposted 15 years ago

    True, Lena, but that is the mother's choice and chances are, she'll abort the baby or zygote the minute she finds out she's preggers.  She won't wait until 18 weeks.

    replyreport
23. 60

    AlexiusComnenusposted 15 years ago

    Where do you all stand on partial-birth abortion?

    replyreport
    1. 65

       aka-djposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Abortion is abortion, at any stage.
       I'm so tired of hearing the rape and incest arguments too, Lena.
       They account for a tiny fraction, (as do deformed invitro development babies) being aborted. The rest are convenience based. No-one seems to care (from the pro-choice side), that all human beings start from the instant fertilisation takes place. Interrupting the ongoing inevitable process (at any stage) "KILLS" any hope of that being/enity having a life and existance.
       For what it's worth, I believe they have a future in Heaven, although there are no clues given as to what form that future takes . If you are a non-believer, I guess to you it doesn't matter, because this life is all there is, and all that happened was a bit of jelly/meat got sucked out and thrown away.

       replyreport
       1. 65

          Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I'm just curious, do you support capital punishment? And what about birth control, i.e., contraception?

          replyreport
24. 61

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "Where do you all stand on partial-birth abortion?"
    I am for partial, half, three-quarters or full.

    replyreport
25. 61

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    Anti abortionists are fascists. I am for mandated abortion. I am a fascist. People who get to make their own choices are not fascists.

    replyreport
26. 0

    Onusonusposted 15 years ago

    When slaves were put on trial they were given sub-human rights. The same begins to apply for unborn babies today.

    replyreport
27. 64

    RKHenryposted 15 years ago

    killing babies.
    
    hm.  You all discuss this situation like it has a chance of change in the near future. 
    You discuss this situation like Americans might have the right to vote on this matter. Soon.  Sorry to say, I don't think that will be the case.  And. There ain't a damn thing you can do about it. If you don't like, I also hate to tell ya, that there is little you can do to change that fact.  If you are for it, don't expect anymore high court decisions, taking away state rights to govern it.  Americans are getting sick of the issue.  Sorry folks, but that's a fact.  It has somehow gotten wrapped up with the whole Christian movement, and well...  Hows that going by the way?
    
    
    
    I can't speak for other nations for I do not live in any other nation, but America.  I wouldn't have a clue to their laws, as to what they are or how they came to exist in the first place.  But, as a student of this great nation's history, I am not afraid to declare that the right to abort will stay. Why am I so sure of myself.  Well, it's like this, it's also been too long and the law is too old.  The Supreme Court is not gullible enough to take this issue on again.  Sorry, ain't gonna happen.  If it ever stood a chance, that chance was with Bush. 
    
    But if your an American, living in America today, complain all you want.  It will have no bearing or weight.  The Supreme Court is not one for overturning another Supreme Court's decision.  Especially nowadays.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Political leaders, whose duty is to serve the good of man, as well as doctors and families, must remember that the deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always bad from the moral point of view, and can never be licit. Love and true compassion embark on another path.
       The request that arises from the heart of man in his supreme confrontation with suffering and death, especially when he feels the temptation to let himself be overcome by desperation, and feels lost to the point of wanting to disappear, is above all a petition for someone to accompany him and a call to greater solidarity and support in this test.
       This call can seem demanding, but it is the only one worthy of the human being, and it opens to new and deeper solidarity, which enriches and fortifies family and social bonds

       replyreport
       1. 64

          RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Yes this is all good and well.  However, Political leaders make amendments in America.  The President signs them or vetoes them and the Supreme Court determines if it is constitutional or not.  It is difficult to change an amendment, but, yes it can be done.
          
          Changing a Supreme Court verdict is entirely different, and, no I don't seeing that being done.  America elects the Reps and the Sen.  We even get to vote on usually two men from opposing sides to see who the 1 winner will be in the end.  But we as a populace do NOT choose our Supreme Court Justices- they do. 
          
          I wish your chances well.  Realistically speaking, however, they do not favor well in the near time future.  Sorry, but that's that.  There isn't a darn thing that can done about it either.  It takes all 3 branches of gov. to make a true difference.

          replyreport
28. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    Agreed, RK.  The courts, new birth control, the neo-con/fundamentalist component, Obama's ameliorating factor, all of the above.  Then there is the science.
    
    That's why I say this is something of an adolescent issue, always...  Though there are enough people here who do seem to still get worked up about it.

    replyreport
29. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    You have a right to this kind of interesting--if rather medieval--philosophy, Onusonus.  You still don't have the right to enforce your beliefs on others.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Is it surprising that today we have become so morally blind that we save the baby whales at great cost, and murder millions of unborn children? Roe Vs. Wade however has imposed its beliefs on the silent masses.

       replyreport
       1. 67

          Nickny79posted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Well said.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Thanks dude!

             replyreport
30. 79

    Mighty Momposted 15 years ago

    Once again, the loudest voices in the "abortion is murder" choir are MEN. If it were your wombs we're talking about, I know you'd sing a different tune.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Thanks, Girl!

       replyreport
       1. 0

          jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Amen to that! Men have no idea how difficult a decision to keep or not to keep a pregnancy. It is cause for debate. I do not judge.

          replyreport
31. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    The analogy suits no purpose but a perceived liberal vs. conservative agenda.  The link between these issues is completely weak for anyone really paying attention.
    
    Silent is the operative word concerning these 'masses.'

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       I'm posative if they could speak there wouldn't be a single one to raise their voice against their own life.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          that is true. No one would want to end their own life before its begun. That is understandable. And from a religious perspective it is thought to be wrong since the time of life is depicted when life is conceived...not born.
          
          But we are in an imperfect world with FREE CHOICE and not to argue who is right or wrong. We must allow the fact to remain that women make the choice be it to have the child or not. And Men have no right to say otherwise.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             I disagree, And rather than argu why i will say that I used to live in Phoenix, and a girl that I knew had an entire immigrant family of five staying in one of the bedrooms. The wife was soon to give birth to what would be one of the most terrifying experiances of my life. One day the husband asked me for a ride to the hospital, five minutes later the wife ran over to the toilet and delivered the kid right into the toilet. I quickly snatched the writhing body out. At that moment all I could think was that I was about to see a dead baby..... This moment was the worst concieved moment I have ever experianced, it is the most horrific thought that has ever entered my mind. We then turned the infant over and gave it back blows untill a faint cry gurgled out, and then another untill it was useing its pipes to the maximum. The parents were so greatfull that I helped save his life that they put my very Irish name right in the middle of a very Mexican name. How greatful I am that this woman decided to keep her child despite their destitute situation.
                  I do not pass judgment on the people who are faced with this decision, I would never protest a "Family planning" clinic it's enough just to go there. But it is imperative in my nature to raise my voice against this evil that plagues our lives.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                good for you. I don't agree with it either but like I said. I do not judge others and I would not be trying to make one feel bad if they have done it. Like I said, it is a hard decision to make. And maybe to some it is not taken seriously. but to others it may bother them for the rest of their lives....either way its not right to talk crap to people about it.
                And as far as what you did. that is wonderful that you saved that babies life. That lady should  not  have gotten pregnant in the first place.!

                replyreport
       2. 0

          Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Weaker analogy than I think anyone here thought. 
          
          A 3-cell zygote is not a baby in any animal kingdom.  Also, I suppose all those spontaneously aborted within the first trimester commit suicide?

          replyreport
          1. 0

             jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             I am not on his side, but I think he means that the fact that the baby or fetus is conceived that he thinks it is alive.

             replyreport
          2. 0

             Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             I will restate what I said earlier; If it is so vial to the public to see a doctor on trial who performs late term abortions in the eighth month or so, then it is evident that there is a point where life becomes valuable while it is still inside of the womb. I say the life begins when the little wiggly guy charges at ramming speed into its massive orb like counterpart. Some tewnty three days later a heart begins to beat.

             replyreport
32. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    There is very little to do with what you witnessed and legal 1st trimester abortion.
    
    My partner delivered a baby from the body of a dead mother in Panama on duty as an army medic.  He's pro-choice.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       You do not think that this homeless mother of three was considering an abortion?

       replyreport
       1. 0

          jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I thought you said they were living in a bedroom where you were staying? So then now they are homeless? So what is it then?

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             They were couch surfing. doesn't exactly qualify them as home owners.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                And this place you were staying at too? housing illegal immigrants?
                It is a shame what she did. and its good what you did. But you cannot base  your logic on what that lady did and categorize us all in that group. Again....free choice/free will. Ain't it grand??
                Even God said he granted it to all, which means he can't control us. So I admire your courage to make a stand but really you are just pissin in the wind on this one....

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                   Who said they were illegal? The husband served in Kuwait.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                      I was asking....you stated immigrant family in Phoenix...it doesn't take much to figure that out. And I am mexican so you cant say crap about me being stereotypical...it was the way you presented it!

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                         Sounds like self hatred to me, just kidding.

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                            yeah you better be kidding....read my profile Loco...I am one proud chica but I do know that within all races there are always people who set the unfair precedent
                            Do you consider Carlos Mencia to have self hatred? he makes fun of us Mexicans all the time.....so If I was you I wouldn't even go there.

                            replyreport
                            1. 0

                               Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                               Do you think he is funny?

                               replyreport
                               1. 0

                                  jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                  hell yeah,,,,and I know he is....He is also a wonderful person. I know from personal experience

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 0

                                     Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                     Thats cool, I've never heard the guy, but people at work quote him often.

                                     replyreport
       2. 0

          Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Uh, just because one is poor one considers abortion?  Women consider abortions for a variety of reasons--both wealthy and poor women.  Throughout a long history.  That's kind of class-ist or something, isn't it, thinking that?
          
          I don't want to get into the whole gory details of this delivery, but you are saying they were going to flush the child down the toilet?  ohhhhhkaay.  I believe that is classified as infanticide, not abortion.  Big difference between using a Morning After Pill and infanticide in my book.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             No it just seemed like it was her natural urge to stand over the toilet when something came out. The kid was big too he wouldn't have fit down the drain, definately a boy though, hugest bean bag I've seen on somone that small.

             replyreport
33. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    She was probably ill!
    
    Anyway, like Jrubio said.  This was one situation & whatever...Free choice does and should encompass many situations.

    replyreport
34. 60

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago

    There will be no baby killing if the respective governments take care of each and every child which is unwanted by the parents.
    In Hitler's Germany, babies born to unwed mothers were taken care of by the Government and a separate hostel took care of them.
    In Tamilnadu, India, there is a "cradle-baby-scheme"  (thottil kulandai thittam) in which the unwanted child will be put into the cradle found in govt. hospitals, etc. In English-India also, the churches put up cradles and brought the children thrown into the cradle. 
    If such schemes are publicised and put in operation, baby killing can be stopped.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Hitler's Germany ALWAYS makes for such an excellent social and political example, doesn't it! 
       That sentence was heavily ironic..
       
       (You know something is highly amiss when such logic is used.)

       replyreport
       1. 64

          RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I think this person have given all logical reasons to day dreaming notions.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Mr.Henry- I hope you don't mind about what I am to say. Mr.Venugopal is an elderly gentleman and they have certain perspectives which we may or may not know/understand at times. I personally didn't know about "Hitler's or Tamil Nadu or Colonial India" schemes. I guess all he wanted to address was the "social stigma" aspect of abortions (which is one of the reasons at least in India). Once again please forgive me if I have been too critical of you my friend.
             
             Mr.Venugopal- Sir, Thanks for informing me(since I didn't know) in particular some things which I wasn't aware earlier. And also I would like to add that although on the surface all these seem as "noble" schemes but I do have certain reservations about them i.e., About Hitler's scheme then it seems to me to be the indoctrination of the next generation of folks who may become soldiers or participate in other ways to strengthen his ideology of a "superior" race(Aryan).
             About the "foster" homes run by the state of TN, India then I am not sure if these kids indeed grow up to be as the "ideal" citizens as those raised with love/care by there own parents.
             About the "Colonial India" scheme I feel maybe they wanted a next generation of educated "clerks" who are "Indian" from outside and "British" from inside to smoothly conduct and extend there rule.
             Sir, I hope you don't feel offended by some reservations of the schemes mentioned by you. Once again I respect your knowledge and I personally feel the analogy wasn't too much aligned with the issue we are presently addressing.
             
             P.S: Mr Henry/Mr.Venugopal I was just expressing my views and please don't consider them of being critical of either of you in anyway. I do respect both of you.

             replyreport
             1. 64

                RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                Countrywomen,  Maybe the age thing explains the differences.  I meant no disrespect to Venugopal.  I'm just saying that day dream notions, unfortunately will not change the logic behind the law and to that of the law.  The Supreme Court doesn't care about making abortion illegal.  What they care about is having to change a former Supreme Court's verdict.  That's the only thing keeping abortion legal and pro lifers out of the loop.  Will their morals get the best of them? Yes.  When they retire.  Unfortunately, as I'm sure Mr. Venugopal would agree, the days of merit have passed us by.
                
                By the way Countrywomen, you can criticize me anytime.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                   Mr.Henry- I knew you meant no disrespect to elders. Yes age can sometimes make a difference in how we see things. I have observed those under 21/above 51 seem to have different ways of looking at things (and by no means the mention of ages is to straight jacket all folks as generalization is pretty inadequate/inaccurate).  Btw thanks for not taking my words too critically my friend(and yes I will keep that open invitation in mind next time around)

                   replyreport
          2. 60

             VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             No day dreaming. Some have happened before. Some are in practice now.
             (However, dreams are plans for the future, whether day or night.)

             replyreport
             1. 64

                RKHenryposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                Nicely done, sir.  Nicely done.  Thank you.  I'll make sure I remember that next time.

                replyreport
       2. 60

          VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I just referred to Hitler's Germany because a country which maintained death chambers to take out the lives of many unwanted souls also maintained creches and hostels to bring up unwanted children. Is this illogical? Or is it inappropriate?

          replyreport
    2. 81

       LondonGirlposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       If by "baby killing" you mean abortion, what about sick mothers? Or sick foetuses?

       replyreport
35. 67

    SparklingJewelposted 15 years ago

    These statements are from someone who is nominated for a legal position in the Obama administration. Below is a segment from a SBA List e-mail notice.
    The "spin" sub-titles are a direct indication of the way conservatives see liberal feminists perceiving the sanctity of the unborn...rather, that they don't perceive sanctity in the unborn.
    
    
    Mothers are Losers
    
    “The argument that women who become pregnant have in some sense consented to the pregnancy belies reality…and others who are the inevitable losers in the contraceptive lottery no more ‘consent’ to pregnancy than pedestrians ‘consent’ to being struck by drunk drivers.’”
    
    Pregnant Women are Fetal Containers
    
    “The woman is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends. Thus, abortion restrictions ‘reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.’”
    
    Pregnancy equals Slavery
    
    “Statutes that curtail her abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.”
    
    All of these  statements were made by Dawn Johnsen, who has been appointed by President Obama to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice.
    
    
    Please support our efforts to defeat Dawn Johnsen and her radical abortion agenda.
    
    I will be sure to keep you updated on this fight and all the other fights we are facing.  With your help, I know we can win this one.
    
    For Life,
    
    Marjorie Dannenfelser
    Susan B. Anthony List President

    replyreport
    1. 65

       Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Sparkling Jewel, You are the one pursuing a "radical abortion agenda." As I'm sure you know abortion was declared legal by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rowe v. Wade in 1973.

       replyreport
       1. 66

          Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          And who was it in this thread that said there is not a pro-abortion movement.
          
          If governments in the west, where there is respect for women (deserved or not), are not going to defend the right of the unborn then it is up to women with the support of their mates.  So this entire topic stems back to what Timothy was quoted as saying in the first post of this thread.

          replyreport
          1. 65

             Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             As I pointed out previously supporting a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion is not the same as being "pro abortion." Pro abortion rights, okay, but not pro abortion. Most of the supporters of the right to choose also support better and more effective ways of reducing the number of abortions, e.g., comprehensive sex education in public schools, improved pre-natal care and adoption services, etc. The same can't be said for many of the anti-abortion groups who oppose comprehensive sex education and even contraception and masturbation as sins.

             replyreport
    2. 0

       Leta Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Let me do some 'liberal' translation of that oddly phrased conservative spin (not like it will make much difference to some people's conceptions (lol) here, but we will try):
       
       
       Mothers are Losers  =  Women are not valued as anything BUT mothers first and foremost.  How medieval is that?
       
       Pregnant Women are Fetal Containers =  If the state has an this much interest in a woman's body and personal choices, essentially all we amount to is--the only 'role' that matters--is as the bearers of said fetuses whose rights outweigh that of the woman.
       
       Pregnancy equals Slavery = For some, indeed, it does.  Or it could be undue hardship, or ruined lives (both the mother and/or the resulting child), force, violence, rape, murder, medical issues, extreme poverty, overpopulation, and maybe lots of those welfare mothers, , conservatives always talk about.
       
       Dawn Johnsen's statements, on the other hand, are erudite and make good sense.
       
       AGAIN.  In your own life or church communities, concerning your own bodies and those body's fetuses or what have you--multiply and divide freely and see yourselves and your daughters, mothers and sisters primarily as breeders & child birthers.  I don't care.  You have the right to that.  "Be perfect."  Be Godly (if that's how you see it.)
       
       Steer clear, however, of me and my sisters' rights.  As the sign I carried a few years ago at a state pro-choice rally read, "Our Bodies--Our Choice."

       replyreport
36. 60

    countrywomenposted 15 years ago

    SJ- The terms like "conservatives see liberal feminists" seems to me again a case of black and white (either with us or against us). There are many folks(like me) who don't like abortion but understand those who do involve in it since they may have had very compelling personal reasons and take to it as the last resort.
    And  "radical abortion agenda" depends on how one wants(chooses) to see it. Since I personally feel motherhood is one of the greatest joys and maternal instinct is something that is absolutely wonderful (not just among humans but also among animals). Having said that "unwanted" pregnancy can be a trauma too to those who are not physically, mentally and socially prepared for it.
    So coming to your petition I am neutral and prefer to see things on a case to case basis. Have a great day my friend. Thanks for informing us about so many perspectives on this touchy issue

    replyreport
37. 66

    Make Moneyposted 15 years ago

    Calling yous pro abortion or not is a matter of opinion.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Hmm - this is what religion gets you - and you wonder why I am against it.
       
       No one is pro abortion Make Money. You keep saying it over and over again will not make it so. Any more than you keep on saying the Pope is not a c*** will make it come true.
       
       I understand that twisting what others say is the christ-like way of doing things, but being in favor of a woman's right to choose is not the same as being pro abortion. Any more than you wanting to have an opinion on what a woman does with her own body is pro life.

       replyreport
38. 61

    goldentoadposted 15 years ago

    I'm just pro shutting my mouth up when it comes to a woman's body and her decision.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       LondonGirlposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Good. In all other circumstances, you opening your mouth, or your fingers on the keyboard, is a Good Thing.

       replyreport
39. 60

    JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years ago

    Ralph,
    
    I am sorry to say that I am disagree with you. What is the difference between an embryo and a child? It is a matter of time only.
    
    A baby can be born immature, there are premature deliveries. Those babies are kept in incubators and developed as a natural child. Can you permit to kill them?
    
    Scientifically embryos are pre matured babies. No doubt!! They have senses, they have pain and they have other emotions as human beings.
    
    Though legal in many countries it is against natural law. we are sentencing one to death without even giving him or her to be listened!! This is the limit of cruelty. And we are supporting these cruelty with shameless arguments.
    
    Are we really civilized? the present civil society must ask this question to themselves. we are killing our own babies and justifying the same.
    
    Shame! Shame!! To all of us!!!
    
    Jyoti Kothari

    replyreport
40. 66

    Make Moneyposted 15 years ago

    You are right Lita.  It isn't the abortion doctors that are doing the killing, they are just the facilitators.  The full responsibility lies with the mother, especially when governments are allowing partial birth abortions.
    
    "Our Bodies--Our Choice--to ____ our ____"
    
    You fill in the blanks.

    replyreport
41. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    I am sorry, MM, but I will never fill in the blanks to such a childish fill-in-the blank 'test.'  And if I did, it would not be to your liking.
    
    In your world view, who is to say that those who HAVE NOT been responsible by bearing unwanted children, burdened themselves with children the product of rape or incest, bearing a child that would never live who dies in pain, etc., etc. will not go to hell?  To be quite frank with you. 
    
    Tell those women in YOUR church community who will listen they are murderers, but not my sisters.
    
    It is impossible to reason with anyone who doesn't do adequate reading and so repeats this 'partial birth abortion' mantra like a ridiculous purple-prose shield (read my posted info. pages back), does not see the very real issues involved in sexual relations and pregnancy throughout history and has no empathy, except in some abstract way for 3-cell zygotes.

    replyreport
42. 66

    Make Moneyposted 15 years ago

    1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
    
    Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%.

    replyreport
43. 0

    Leta Sposted 15 years ago

    Hmmmm.  You know, income levels seem to rise with EDUCATION levels in something of a correlation.  That's very interesting, isn't it?  I didn't go into that part, here, but if you read back, I did.  So did Ralph.  Zygotes and nonviable fetuses are not babies or children. 
    
    The stats are all good and all, but using the 'scare tactic' of partial birth abortions as the face of the pro-choice movement is disingenuous information.

    replyreport
44. 60

    JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years ago

    I do not agree. In India Kerala has the highest literacy rate but it is a middle income state. So no clear relationship can be established between education and income. It is not directly proportionate.
    
    Moreover, only 7 % of the abortion are due to some problem as earlier post suggest. 93% is just a facility. Why not anyone talk about the right of children?
    
    Zygotes are not of 3 cells. Please refer to middle class biology books. In time of abortion, it has hundreds and thousands of cells.
    
    Please do not ridicule at them. Once me and you were at that stage. Please do not forget that.
    
    Think, if my mother or yours, had decided for abortion: what happened? Can we come here to discuss and advocate for abortion? Thanks our mothers who had not decided to do so.
    
    So think again!! think again and again!!!! Only few animals in animal kingdom kills their kids, for instance snakes. what we are advocating for is not even done by the animals. Are we beasts?
    
    Thanks to those decieded not to do abortions and to them who are opposing abortion.
    Thumbs up for them.
    
    Jyoti Kothari

    replyreport
45. 61

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "Thanks to those decieded not to do abortions and to them who are opposing abortion.
    Thumbs up for them."
    And you have how many people in India? You anti abortion
    types can think only of yourselves.

    replyreport
46. 59

    Julahaposted 15 years ago

    It should be left to the mother. After all the burden of pregnancy is being borne by her, and she should have a say whether to go through the ordeal or terminate it.
    
    It is not a question of morality or sin, but that of expediency and convenience. If you are not prepared, either because you are unwilling or because you don't have the resources, both financial and emotional, to bring up a child, then what right do you have to bring it forth into the world?
    
    Child rearing is not a trivial commitment. It keeps you focused on your child for two decades or more. If you can't do that, you will ruin the future of the child. Do you have the right to do that? Or, even better, should you have the right to do that?
    
    I think it is a lesser sin to go for a quick termination of pregnacy than to make the child suffer a lifetime of neglect and emotional incompleteness.
    
    Then there is the environmental aspect too. Each human child that is born, makes a huge claim upon the earth's resouces. With already so many humans around, the less of them entering our race, means that much more chance for th environment.
    
    What do you say?
    
    We need to understand the dual nature of sex to get things into perspective. Sex is there for procreation and for enjoyment. Until recently, these two were so intertwined that you couldn't separate one from the other. But with the discovery of contraception in the 1960s, the two purposes of sex can be easily separated. Abortion can be viewed as just a means of contraception after the act. If done soon after conception, it is less of baby killing as has been pointed out by another poster in this thread.

    replyreport
47. 0

    Onusonusposted 15 years ago

    Since the mid-1940s we have been accustomed to look askance at Germans. They were protagonists of the Second World War and so responsible for fifty million deaths. We say, "How awful," and yet in our country we have, for the most part, allowed the party of death and the court system it has produced to eliminate, since 1973, upwards of forty million of our fellow citizens without allowing them to see the light of day. They have done their best to make ours a true culture of death. No doubt, we will soon outstrip the Nazis in doing human beings to death.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       In your way maybe you can rationalize that comment but I am sorry if you did any real research to see how inhumane that government was to innocent people for so very long. Locking them in prison for no reason and keeping them there for years, starving them, beating them, killing them. Hitlers Regime was one that will be remembered as one of the worst in history. Sorry Onusonus you cannot compare the third reich and gestapo tactics to the USA....although I do not agree with the wars and death of anyone anywhere in the world...death is death and all death is INHUMANE!

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          That is exactly how it is for aborted children.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             jjrubioposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             But as I stated the other day on here...its not up to you or me. FREE WILL...and if it was illegal there would still be people who go against the law and do it anyway.  Plain as day it goes back to the Garden of Eden and the Forbidden Fruit. You tell someone they cannot do something and eventually they will do it. Not that I agree with it.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                True but the numbers would decrease considerably, the ammount of abortions inamerica have tripled the combined death tolls of WWI, WWII and the Korean war.

                replyreport
                1. 58

                   Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                   So - you think that a few week old cluster of cells is more important than a grown adult human being?
                   
                   WW1 - 18,000,000
                   WW2 - 70,000,000
                   Korea -  3,000,000
                   Total - 91,000,000
                   
                   X3 = 273,000,000
                   
                   Assuming some of those would also have bred and the rest would still be alive, we would be about on the third generation by now. What do you think? Tripled over 30 years?
                   
                   An increase in population of 819,000,000
                   
                   Awesome. Guess all you really want is more consumers?
                   
                   And oddly enough - these figures you are pulling out of your ass are nothing like what the CDC counts.
                   
                   If you are going to lie for jesus - at least make it reasonably accurate?

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                      The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports approximately 22 million legal abortions were reported in 1987.
                      It is estimated that between four and nine million were not reported, totaling of 26-31 million legal abortions in 1987 alone..

                      replyreport
                      1. 58

                         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                         Rubbish. The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports an estimated 1.6 million abortions in the United States in 1987. It is also estimated that the extra unreported 4-9 million made up abortions did not change the total whatsoever. In 1987 alone. This is a PDF download showing what Messrs Guttmacher actually reported.
                         
                         http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf
                         
                         If you are going to pull figures out of your ass for jesus, at least get them in the ball park.

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                            Oh did you say for America alone, I was talking about the whole world. My misteak. potty mouth.

                            replyreport
                            1. 58

                               Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                               No you weren't:
                               
                               
                               
                               Still - look at it this way. As far as you are concerned, the amount of abortions in America has now gone down by about 95%.
                               
                               You have single-handedly saved millions of babies from being murdered.

                               replyreport
                               1. 0

                                  Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                  America, the world whatever.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 58

                                     Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                     Ah - so when you are pulling "statistics" out of your ass to make a point for jesus - that is valid. But when some one points out that they are massively inaccurate (a lie) - it is "whatever."

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 0

                                        Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                        Trying to militate against my character with frivilous arguments. There is nothing wrong with debating, it's the anamosity that stems out of control!

                                        report
                                        1. 58

                                           Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                           How is this a frivolous argument? You used a statistic to make a point. Turned out that the statistic was very, very wrong.
                                           
                                           I guess you think that lying is an acceptable way of debating - I do not. So I called you on it - and choose to make fun of you because your "truth" is untrue.

                                           report
                                           1. 0

                                              Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                              Well I deeply apologize for the mixup.

                                              report
                                              1. 58

                                                 Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                                 You have no need to apologize to me. But I heartily suggest you examine your "truth," because you were basing your argument on something that is patently false.

                                                 report
                                                 1. 71

                                                    AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                                    Good Grief, I honestly thought this discussion would be long gone.

                                                    report
                                                 2. 60

                                                    countrywomenposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                                    Mark- Couple of days back we had a couple who came to explain about Amway/Quixtar (and thanks to Eric Graudins ebook/ other websites) I was able to prepare and refute the "truths" which he believed in. By the time the discussion was ending I realized this person (and his innocent wife) actually believed in all those things taught to them (through their tapes/promotional material) and I felt it was a honest mistake on their part. I sometimes feel some folks may not have verified the "facts" and restate it as told to them. It's ok to give them the benefit of doubt once in a while.
                                                    
                                                    P.S: I do respect your knowledge/grasp in so many areas and hope you don't consider this post of mine to be disrespectful of you in anyway. Have a great day

                                                    report
48. 61

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "What do you say?" I say great post.
    
    "No doubt, we will soon outstrip the Nazis in doing human beings to death." I think you are right. Not sure how many killed in Korea. 3 million in Vietnam and another 5 million in Cambodia the result of US bombing. A million in Iran from the US British overthrow there. A million in Iraq from the US illegal invasion. Afghanistan and Pakistan still counting. To say nothing of the Filipines or Central and South America.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       so then you agree, good for you.

       replyreport
49. 59

    Julahaposted 15 years ago

    In India we have a more serious case of abortion which can easily be termed criminal.
    
    This is the selective abortion of girl children. Medical advances have now made it possible to determine the gender of the child to be born. Many parents in India abort the baby as soon as it is know that it is a girl.
    
    This in the view of law, as well as morality, should be strongly frowned upon. It is a clear case of gender discrimination. It has dire social implications too. In many part of India such as Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat, etc., selective abortion of girl children is so rampant, that the male-female ratio is as bad as 1000-700, whereas in most developed countries it is something like 1000-1090, that is there are more women in the population than men. The shortage of women in society leads to several evils such as prostitution, rapes, crimes against women, and pervertedness among men. There are cases in Haryana where young men well into their forties are still unmarried, for there aren't enough women to go around.
    
    So abortion with the intent of killing girl children is crime of the highest order, but abortion because the mother genuinely does not want a child or cannot bring up a child, is a decision that should be left to the mother.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       There should be no selective justification for all our sins.  Killing babies to avoid future hardships...  Even if mother has every right on the child within her, she has no moral right to kill it.  Can she kill it after it is born?
       In ancient times, there were several formalities in fixing marriages and linked ceremonies. We can select the gender of a child by fixing the correct date for nuptials (it is considered as equal to marriage in traditional Indian families).  If you can, you may refer to a Chinese calendar, to know the gender of the child.  With it, we can fix the appropriate date for nuptials and have the desired baby.!  The calendar was published in "Indian Express" dated 4-12-1990., under the title "Choose your child the old wives' way".

       replyreport
50. 61

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    ""What do you say?"
    Did you say that? Was I quoting you? Or are you being cute? The deal might be fine for you but for myself, I do not agree with you. However agreement is not something I am particularly interested in here, for whatawegonna say? That's fabulous my friend. I more interested in the argument.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Onusonusposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Sorry I thought that was what we were doing, taking eachothers words out of context. (wink!)

       replyreport