I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
C'mon Jackie, this is pure hyperbolic conjecture. This diatribe against Democrats & Hillary Clinton are getting tired. Don't believing the conspiracy theories. No one wants late term abortions! Don't believe everything you read. You're an adult woman after all, at this stage of life, you ought to be more discerning & analytical.
What does conspiracy have to do with this? I know for a fact I heard Hillary Clinton say that no unborn child has any rights before it is born, (although she admits it is a person) at any time. https://youtu.be/OdMWpvvnk2Q
I don't think anyone is selling parts from aborted babies in the United States, though sadly it does happen in some countries.
We agree there are many forms of birth control (though I'm sure more could be found for men) and women's birth control is a Republican fight, it's they who don't want companies to "have to make the moral choice" to pay for birth control. That's just stupidity, like Hobby Lobby.
I think young women are pressured more to have sex than at any time before, and younger. My son is a teacher, and girls as young as 14 ask his advice when boys they date want them to send nude pictures to them on their cell phones. He tells them that's not love, it's sexual harassment.
We both agree adoption is a good solution, especially for an older teen, a young one would be ostracized at school and by her peers.
Very few late term abortions are done. It's just a Republican talking point to make Democrats look evil. Until a few weeks, there is no baby, it's a bunch of cells, and if diseases can be cured by using those cells, I don't see anything wrong with that. Plus some women are advised to abort because of medication they may have taken before they knew they were pregnant.The child could be born with serious birth defects. There is also a large segment of women who are approaching menopause, and their menstrual cycles have gradually been changing, and she thinks she can't get pregnant anymore. I know and can recall several cases of this in my Mom's generation, the women were in their 50's, and too old to safely have a child. Thankfully Roe vs Wade was passed, and I doubt it will ever be returned.
I have to agree with Grace, a lot of this is Republican conspiracy theory. The world is overpopulated anyway. Why do Republicans say they want less government interference, and then want to get involved in the most personal aspects of our lives? Sometimes we make mistakes with family planning. I was 13 years into a relationship before I was pregnant with my son, my only child (I had decided not to have children as I had a hereditary health issue), but he has been such a joy to us, and a help to me now that my husband has passed on. It should be a private matter, not one where abortion clinics, who provide not only birth control, but mammograms and pap smears for cervical cancer. It makes it sound like R men hate women.
Then explain this please. https://youtu.be/rJPLzMIC7CI
Again, abortion ISN'T murder, it is a medical procedure.
a medical procedure which murders an unborn child. Sometimes it can't be helped, but it is actually healthier for the mother's body to go through the entire experience and afterwards give the baby up for adoption. Why not in this day and age????
Exactly and everyone has a right. Even the unborn.
is it so hard to hold a nickel between the knees?
Do any of you honestly believe this piece of unmitigated crap on Youtube that is being used as "proof" here? First off, it's introduced by a commercial for a product that helps women have sex during menopause, a time when a woman is very vulnerable to pregnancy, that's Strike no. 1. Then it's an unprofessional podcast that bills itself as "Louder with Crowder", Strike no. 2. Then loudmouth Crowder spouts off undocumented hate-filled crap about Hillary, Strike no. 3. Three strikes, it's OUT!
We used to call this "Yellow Journalism," but it isn't called that anymore, and you know why? It isn't considered journalism of any kind. Anyone with a computer and no training can go online and spout off a broadcast about anything. I held a 3rd Class broadcasting license until the government no longer issued them. I was a journalist and reporter 35 years ago. I am shocked at the absolute sewage that is on the Internet, but what saddens me is that so-called intelligent people suck this stuff up and believe it. But what is even worse is that they turn around and publish it as the gospel truth.
Maybe you should investigate YouTube to increase your knowledge. I do not lie or make up horror stories for fun. This means much to me. It is real.
If I can't believe what I read why would I believe you? Who are you? Hillary Clinton said no unborn baby (person) has any rights ever. End of story. https://youtu.be/afGV07AhzAk
If, repeat - if, this turns out to be true of Hillary, what do you see as the answer for your country?
If the potential for H. Clinton as President of the United States is so abysmal, what are the chances for such a loser as Mr. Trump? You seem to have a very poor choice selection there. Maybe you could run for Office yourself, Jackie.
Good idea, are you saying you will donate a million dollars to my foundation?
Me? A pensioner living happily, on meager means? Waste of money.
But Wilderness has shown there is more to that video than you have realised.
Please tell me, with the right-leaning people ,(presumably "good church-going people" ), running that untruthful representation of the Democrats, do think they will ultimately be forgiven and get admission to Heaven? If so, I don't really want to meet them....so will volunteer to take my place Downstairs instead.
Except she didn't say that at all. From your video, her remarks were that the constitution grants no rights to an unborn child.
Which may be true - it sounds right for the time that the constitution was written. But whether it is or not (that's up to the SCOTUS) other laws can be, and have been, written.
I googled. Only oped sites had something similar but not exactly. If I don't see it on a reputable site I tend to not believe it.
Thank you, Diane. A woman with some sense.
How about this Diane, do you really think this was made up? https://youtu.be/uozp0Tvyuyo?list=PL40u … kZhM2odoRn
Here is this that says it is true but I suppose they are all lying but then it makes no sense since they are all liberals?
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/22/demo … -20-weeks/
Oh wow abortion is a mortal sin. My gosh. Once a woman conceives, there is already life, precious life. So don't abort. Give the child a chance to live. It is not in your hands to kill one's life. You are not God.
Here it is suggested it is even worse than we thought, PP could be keeping aborted babies alive to sell their hearts!
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/18/plan … e-cut-out/
And they could be cloning them to get more babies to kill. And turning them into zombies with secret drugs they perfected. And selling their souls to demons. And plotting to take over the earth by killing all babies not their own child. They could be kidnapping children off the street to kill and sell their body parts, or maybe to medical colleges, ala the middle ages grave robbers.
There are a lot of things they could be doing.
Fascinating how the demonizing of PP has proceeded to "might be's" and "possibly" because they aren't doing anything that can be used against them?
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.
But, lying Hillary Clinton says that a "unborn person doesn't have Constitutional rights."
Hillary has to be born of the seed of corruption, certainly not of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus with "unalienable rights" by our Creator.
Life begins at conception.
Life begins at conception, yes, whether microbe, animal or plant (adjusting the term "conception as necessary).
But human life begins at a later date.
Hillary believes that a person on its due date just hours before it is born, has no Constitutional rights. Life Begins at Conception NOT at First Breath!
"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote." "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."
* https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti … otes2.html
Scientists say life begins at conception with a burst of fluorescence
* http://liveactionnews.org/scientists-sa … -of-light/
Yep, life begins at conception. I said that.
But human life does not begin there as a zygote is not a human. Human life begins long after that, after many thousands of cell replications.
The definition of human life is not a matter of science and it is not a matter of religion. It is a matter of personal definition and yours is no better than mine. Now, one might argue that society makes that definition, whereupon you are wrong as society has defined the end point of abortion possibilities - where human life thus begins and any abortion would be murder.
In the US the majority is suppose to rule and the majority is not for financing murder but it is done, regardless and it is time the majority does rule!
And yet...laws are supposed to be by the will of the majority, are they not? If over half the voters are against it, how can the law still exist?
So what figures can you give to support the notion that over half the population is against abortion (not murder, for a zygote isn't a person)? Just because they are loud in their insistence that only they can make rules or definitions?
CNN says over 50% oppose. You have never felt or held a baby inside you so I don't get your interest anyway. Here are your facts though since this is a liberal source you may could add to it. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ … s-n1806283
And I'm one of those that want it legal only in certain circumstances. Like in the first trimester, although I will accept the second as a compromise. Or did you fail to notice that the definition of "certain circumstances" was carefully left undefined in the poll and only afterwards modified to such things as rape (although why a child conceived by rape is any less human has always escaped me). It doesn't cast a little doubt on the veracity of a poll when the majority of respondents aren't told what the check box is going to mean until after they've checked it?
No, I haven't had a baby inside me. And neither have the vast majority of women that underwent an abortion, for a handful of cells is not a baby. But my interest is, as is so often the case, in maintaining the freedom guaranteed us by our constitution and throwing roadblocks in the path of those that would seek to control others for no good reason.
I never did understand men who hung around a hen party anyway. Puzzling to say the least.
No, it's not puzzling that men have opinions on abortion.
No more than it is that women who haven't had children have opinions. It's the same reasoning, isn't it? That they've never been through pregnancy?
I'm thankful that there are men out there willing to stick up for women's rights to make up for the women who refuse to.
It's also very telling that you respond to arguments this way. So much deflecting, not even addressing what other people say. It's clear your foundation for your beliefs on this subject are entirely emotional and not backed up by any facts, research, or extensive thought.
Very funny! A useful word comes to mind: Cacophony. Described as a cackling, discordant, wailing sound. Some think it would apply to a bunch of roosters in the bar, but a Hens' Party wins, hands down!
With bi-lateral hearing aids, I would be able to see the waddle and the walk, but unable to hear the squabble and the squawk. .
Oh cool, let's tell men they should have no interest in women's rights. Those approximately 20 million baby girls you want born every year can deal with no family or stability AND folks like yourselves having put feminist movements back a century. Good job, you're such a caring soul.
I have felt and held a baby inside of me so I guess my pro-choice stance is much more valuable than all of those pro-life people who have never had a baby. Right?
Pro-life people have no clue. They talk the talk, but WON'T WALK THAT WALK. My suggestion: give all the unwanted children to each pro-lifer. Since they want the babies, have them take care of the babies. Assign each pro-lifer 4 unwanted children. They will change their nonsensical tune very fast.
That would certainly help the Black race in America , the race that aborts more kids than are killed by ALL OTHER means combined !
Yes , apparently pro-lifers would serve aborted children MUCH better than the REAL parents !
Poorer Black women abort because many don't or are careless regarding the use of contraceptives. They realize that they can't afford these children so they abort. They figure that it is far better to abort than to raise their children in poverty. These women are smart to make that decision not to have children unless they can afford it. Why raise children in poverty? By the way, I am Black.
As to the issue , I don't care what your color is , respectfully ! , Grace , Maybe you should watch a few late term abortions on video and see that the baby isn't just the basic Idea of Pregnancy , Perhaps you can also so easily explain why it so many black children are raised in Fatherless homes , as a matter of proven fact ---- 68 % ? That is atrocious and if you so easily excuse that , there may never be hope for the betterment of your race OR mine my friend .
By the way, murdering defenseless babies is not the answer for stupid women who cannot control themselves. Maybe they should commit suicide? Makes as much sense doesn't it? If not, why not?
How about pro-life? These babies have rights.
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/p … n_2012.pdf
"According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day."
According to the CIA the are 1.03 males/female born.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … /2018.html
Hence my approximation of 20 million extra girls per year that would be born if no one had abortions.
I'm not sure what other proof you'd like me to provide from that post as everything else was my opinion on your logic. But if you want to be specific I would be happy to explain my arguments in greater detail for you.
You've offered no proof or valid videos to defend your position. Just your opinion. We all know what they say about opinions so what makes yours worthy enough to supersede another person's constitutional rights?
The MAJORITY of Americans are pro-choice, only a minority are against abortion, Jackie. No woman should be forced to endure an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. If she doesn't want to continue w/the pregnancy, she should abort it. Abortion is just merely a medical procedure.
Here are numbers to prove you wrong, a liberal source. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/15/cnn- … e-illegal/
Jackie, this isn't working, honey. Stop the charade. Your premise isn't logical. All of us are beyond your league. Give it up, honey, GIVE IT UP.
I thought you were leaving? https://youtu.be/MwFbByjeqwY
Your doing a good job Jackie, but I fear you will never change these creatons minds. They have gone done the rabbit hole too far. Hubpages is a very liberal site which attracts liberal idiots like these pro-abortionists. And we all know liberal idiots do not listen to facts and logic. They want to claim victim status and blameshift their own problems on others...which explains why they will defend killing babies in the womb.
Well said! You have nothing to offer, so will just call anyone disagreeing with your stance a cretin (although you can't spell) and an idiot! Applause!
Thank you for succinctly proving my point. Hate filled rants. That's about all an anti abortion advocate has to offer.
I know, but I am getting a lot of information out there that anyone thinking of abortion might take a look at and change their minds, so really they do me a favor allowing more space for information and only damn themselves.
KNOW WHAT, walk that walk & take care of the unwanted children whom you don't want aborted. Let's give all the unwanted children for you to raise since you're so anti-abortion! If you aren't the woman who HAS NO DESIRE to undergo & endure the unwanted pregnancy, MYOB............ What BUSINESS is it of yours if a woman has an abortion? Live YOUR OWN life. If you live your own life well, you wouldn't have the inclination to mind others' business.........
Sure, personal beliefs and interpretations are just that: personal, private, permitted freely.
It's when individuals promulgate those personal opinions as important for everyone else to take on board, that we hit problems.
It's as if the personal is not complete and justified unless others agree with.
To bolster such personal opinions we often hear the emotive arguments which are intended to trigger our pity, shame, disgust, anger, guilt, etc.
I am happy to receive a different take on a subject, but ask to be allowed my own judgement about it regardless...is this something Jackie finds difficult?
If so, she is in good company with several others here in HP.
Wouldn't it be great if liberals really believed that ?
They would need NO planned parenthood abortion mills .
They wouldn't need everyone ELSE to pay for their abortions , early term or late term .
They would look at the statistics for abortion and realize , its inhuman and yet horribly popular among our youth .
They would realize all of 1% of abortions are from rape or incest , why all the others ?.
They would find more excuses for the birth control method called abortion .
The sad thing is the system is set up against women to not find themselves in the unfortunate situation of being pregnant and totally unprepared for it. Everyone wants to blame the woman. Make insurance companies pay for birth control just like they pay for Viagra. Let's stop, as a society, having the double standard of glorifying male sexual prowess while demonizing female sexual activity. Let's accept that teenagers do things parents don't know about and protect both our male and female teenagers from unwanted pregnancy, instead of ignorantly insisting our kids aren't normal kids.
Let's find realistic solutions to the problem.
It's always interesting to see Viagra compared to birth control. One is used to correct a body malfunction, mostly due to ageing but I suppose there could be other reasons as well, while the other is used to interrupt body functions purely for entertainment purposes.
The first is like getting replacement eye lenses when cataracts destroy the ability to see while the second is more akin to getting cosmetic surgery because you don't like the way you look. Or a kidney transplant when a kidney no longer performs it's task vs. dying your hair.
We don't require insurance to pay for cosmetic surgery or hair dye - why should it pay for a woman's entertainment? Mind you, I'm not entirely against it - there is the matter of implied blackmail in that society will have to pay for an abortion or child if we don't - but to equate it to a drug used to restore functionality to a failed "part" seems out of line. Wouldn't it be more honest to just point out that if we don't, the women refusing to buy it for themselves will just pass on a much greater charge to society later on, just as the men do when they walk away from a pregnant woman after not using birth control themselves? We're being blackmailed; either accept it and pay the Danegeld or don't, but don't pretend it is similar to other medical products/procedures to fix what doesn't work properly.
I'm sorry. I don't consider the failing ability to have sex in a seventy year old as correcting a malfunction. That's part of life. As is sex for a young adult.
I get men demanding products to help them have sex. I don't get them lamenting a woman's need to protect her from the after effects of it. After all, who are men having sex with?
So you are hoping to convince women who need a late term abortions to just wait and see if they die or not instead of getting the best medical care available? The late term abortions you started this thread about are performed for serious medical reasons.
How about a link for your facts GM? That a majority are for abortion? Please.
I have facts & read intelligent, impartial reports. You have NO facts but just aimless hyperbole.......When will YOU learn-you are OUTNUMBERED. Your arguments re: abortion is moot...........
The Clintons have always been for late term abortions, its actually common knowledge.
Proof please! Prove it beyond any doubt.
If someone spread common gossip about yourself, how would you react? ... especially if you knew it was not true?
Apply the standards you would want for yourself.
No. No they didn't vote for that. It's absurd. Just like it's absurd to say that every conservative wants to let their kids own guns or carry automatic rifles in plain view. There's so much mudslinging going on, it's ridiculous.
There are those who thrive on hyperbolic conjectures which is sad indeed.
It's ridiculous how people who can't think for themselves are still talking about this late term abortion issue. Very few people have abortions unless it's within the first few weeks. A late term abortion would most likely kill both the Mother and Child. And what hospital or clinic would abort a baby who was at term? Think. That didn't even make sense, the child would have been put up for adoption.
Many women have abortions because they tell their boyfriends they are pregnant, and the guy takes off. They are left alone, she can't work if nobody watches her child, so abortion becomes the only way out. People only care about the baby if it's aborted, nobody cares how it's fed or housed by a young mother who has nowhere to go and no family to help her. Men don't care if the child has the basic necessities to live. She could give the child up for adoption, but her family usually kicks her out once they find she's pregnant, a shocking amount of families are struggling themselves and can't afford to help. Babies have needs, lots of then, once they are not aborted. Grandmothers work and have lives of their own. It's not the 1950s anymore.
Most Republicans don't support Head Start or (God Forbid!) food stamps, perhaps this young lady and baby's chance not to starve to death.
And why aren't scientists discovering more methods of birth control for men? Women have risked their health long enough. Yet Viagra is paid for by insurance, and I hear idiots complaining that companies shouldn't cover birth control. Republicans like Rick Santorum don't even believe in birth control. Let's take the country back 50 years. I love hearing men say, "I raised five children." I bet he never spent one whole day with all five of them in their whole lives. Or else they are rich, or come from such large families themselves they can push their kids off on anyone.
Babies can be given up for adoption very easily so they are no problem to the mother, safer and no one has to have a hardship or die. More attention should be given to birth control I agree and with the morning after pill it seems ridiculous to me every woman who does not want to go through all this could not have it and there would be no abortions. I think ones against killing and paying for abortions would agree to fund birth control in a minute and everyone gets what they want except those who want body parts.
So who takes care of the mother if she can't work or can't find a job while pregnant? Many people might love to support her with the guarantee they would be able to adopt the baby, but they've learned to "buyer beware". In too many cases the mother is just looking for someone to support her with the promise of giving them the baby, but once the baby is born, she goes on welfare and keeps the child to raise in an unwholesome atmosphere. The couple are out all that money and heartbreak, so the reason for the "buyer beware."
But Jackie, many of the very people who are against abortion are also against birth control for women, and some of them are lawmakers. Some of them are women. Remember how Carly Fioriana made a very impassioned speech about the first thing she would do when she was elected president would be to unfund Planned Parenthood. She actually believed that faked video about PP that was going around at the time.
It was not a fake videos MizB and I believe it too, why did no one go to jail for that video? I do not think Planned Parenthood is needed for what they are doing anyway. I think the two sides could maybe come together if Dems were not so set on killing unborn people. Put more attention on birth control and teaching women what their choices are and giving the baby up is always a choice, always! No one has to be murdered! Please take a look at this planned parenthood leader making a deal over baby parts. It cannot be denied. https://youtu.be/MjCs_gvImyw
I appreciate your concern, but this video you posted is a mish mash of stuff. You can edit a video to say anything you want it to say. He was sued by PP over it, and misdemeanor charges were dropped "because the Harris County Criminal Court did not have the jurisdiction over the case." The story also says:
"The selectively-edited video suggested that Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of contraceptive and abortion services, profits off the sale of "baby parts," which the organization denies. Following the release of the video last summer, twenty states investigated the charges and either cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing or decided to not investigate further. Five congressional committees have also failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing."
but the story goes on to say that he still faces felony charges.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … en-dropped
He also evidentally made another video that was faked:
David Daleiden used a photo he found online of a stillborn baby. The mother posted the photo of the stillborn baby to honor the baby she lost. He took the photo and used it to fake another video. Apparently people can get away with anything except being honest.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/politics/ … od-videos/
Thanks for the sane support ladies.
Jackie, anyone can change and put up a fake video. Abortion and family issues are embarrassing to Establishment Republicans, most of the old guard won't touch the topic with a ten foot pole. John McCain and Lindsey Graham would rather die than have this discussion we are having here. What you see here is doctored.I would love to see Democrats sponsor a bill opposing late term abortions, because we don't support them, and it's a very rare occurrence. It's only an R talking point to get everyone riled up. It's the usual R game, "like Hillary is the Devil." But if it could be agreed upon while Obama is President, the R's would oppose it anyway.
Jackie, I value life and don't want people casually just "getting rid" of babies. They should think before they act. And as we agree, many people want to adopt needy children already born. Don't believe this political nonsense.
Many people don't agree at what point life begins. Most women have at least one miscarriage in their lives, and it just looks like a heavy period. So you may have aborted a fetus and not even known it, in complete innocence. If I was wanting a child, I would consider it a child the minute I knew. But if I didn't, I would use birth control. It's a personal issue. I do also think the earth is overpopulated anyway, as I said before. I had one child because I had a good marriage and it seemed a shame not to have that experience together, but I took the chance of passing on a hereditary health problem, and it was OK.. But once was enough.
These are not doctored, how can you say such a thing? I can see supporting your party but not to the point of total blindness. These are too many people saying the same thing and we know the big money they get and we know someone has to stop them and I hope they have but look at everything else swept under the rug like IRS and Veterans and nothing is ever done about anything so I guess you think those were lies too? I am not Republican but I will never support Democrats again and we all can guess at this minute all they are doing to steal this election so why would we doubt this? They want rid of blacks and poor white trash and to control all about their business. They want to control and it looks like they have all of you I will say that. So believe what you want just don't expect me to believe or trust them. I am not blind to what they are doing nor where it will lead and it will not be that far down the road. I won't help them for sure. No blood will be on my hands of innocent lives.
Jackie, You have to be intelligent enough to realize those videos were faked. They were exposed by respected journalists. I only brought politics into it because it's the R's who say these partial birth abortions are a regular occurrence, and they aren't, Please research this better. I said I would be happy if Democrats passed a law against it, but the R's would oppose it while Obama was in office.That was going against my own party. But you called me blind.
I am not heartless. I told you my personal issue regarding having a child knowing he could have birth defects. I live in the deep woods, and often see dear, bucks who would be shot by hunters i know..I never tell them I see the deer, so I can save them, though I have one neighbor who eats the meat (but he's not starving without it).
Kylyssa and Aime are telling you the truth, an abortion like that is only done if something so horrible is wrong, the child would soon die or live a miserable life.
Carly Fiorina dropped out of the race mostly because of this lie that she stood by. Not that she had a chance anyway, she did poorly as a businesswoman.
The videos were not fake. The case against the men who exposed Planned Patenthood was thrown out of court by a discerning judge. I never ceased to be amazed at how vehemently some women defend the right to destroy a fetus that is 7 to 9 months old.
I work with a woman whose son was born prematurely. He was born the size of a grown man's fist. He made it. He is doing great is is now 3 years old. Thankfully, nobody thought his life wasn't worth fighting for.
Some women have no shame. Spare me the moralizing about lack of food stamps and bad Republicans. At least have the guts to your own willingness to kill. I am not targeting this author. I am speaking in general terms. My point is that the hypocrisy of doing this for "the good" is incredible. And I don't mean that in a good way. Do some research, for god's sake. Babies are killed all the time for no good reason. In fact, late term abortions are actually more harmful than giving birth in all cases. Look it up.
People who are against abortion, are also against contraception. To these people, abortion & birth control are one of the same. They believe that the purpose of sex is procreation & that anything that interferes w/procreation is so-called unnatural. The outcry against abortions by more Conservative, even right wing, reactionary, & regressive elements is against women's reproductive freedoms & rights. They believe that women to be subjected to their anatomy. The great Gloria Steinem proclaimed that a woman's anatomy ISN'T her destiny.
Sure, let's stop abortions and put every fetus that would have been aborted up for adoption instead. Great idea.
That'll be 40-50 million babies needing a home PER YEAR. Do you honestly think 40-50 million couples/people will be looking to adopt every year? Not even close. That's tens of millions of kids born every single year that won't have families or stability. But that doesn't matter to you, does it? You don't care what their life would be like once they're out of the womb, you just want to preach and judge while they're in it.
Maybe everyone who thinks it's okay to force a woman to have an unwanted child should automatically be forced to adopt one.
As for birth control/morning after pill, you seem to be severely underestimating the number of women who get pregnant while on birth control, either because the birth control itself failed or because it was unknowingly being used improperly. A woman who thinks she's safe because she's using birth control isn't going to take a morning after pill.
And where does it stop? Maybe we should do away with old people and those who disagree (and I am sure that is on the agenda!). I am sure glad I have no fear of these ugly people who are more like Hitler as every day goes by and the people who followed him!
Yes, full-blown adult humans are definitely comparable to fetuses. You must be one of those people who thinks that gay marriage will lead to humans marrying animals, too. No ability to sense the logical differences between ridiculous comparisons.
Jean, we know the deal. Parents of large families don't raise their kids. They have built in nannies in their oldest/older children. Now, that is out of way, all this nonsense about late term abortion is pure hysterical histrionic conjecture which has no basis in reality. The typical Republican male want women to be barefoot & pregnant.
So true. My best friend growing up was the 3rd of 8 kids. Both she and her older sister were the built-in nannies for the family. She had very little play time with me after school and during the summer. The last couple of babies even started calling her "Mama", and it made her mother furious, but it was true.
Look at the Duggars (no don't give them the time of day). They admit in interviews that as a new Dugger baby was born, another little Dugger was passed off to an older sister to be responsible for it.
This still is no excuse to kill the baby they created. They would rather kill it than someone know they gave it away is the truth in most cases.
Abortion ISN'T murder, Jackie. It is .....a MEDICAL PROCEDURE. If a woman doesn't want to endure a pregnancy, she shouldn't be forced to do so. No child should be unwanted. I had an aunt who had an unplanned pregnancy. She had the child, had to forego college, & was consigned to a dead end job. She was miserable. She took her misery out on everyone, particularly her daughter. She never raised her daughter but pawned out the daughter on her mother & then my older cousin. So Jackie, please be quiet about women enduring unplanned pregnancies & having unwanted children. It is quite obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Let's see what YOU would do if you had an unplanned pregnancy?
Although I never had an abortion in my life, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY support a woman's right to an abortion. No woman should be forced to endure an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, much less to have an unwanted child. To me, it is far more humane to have an abortion then to have an unwanted child & give it away. To me, to give a child away is totally reprehensible, even callous.
And a D&C is an abortion anyway. Women who are well off or don't think it's anybody's business just call it that. And it isn't anyone else's business.
And nobody does it in a heartless way, I graduated HS in 1973, the year Roe VS Wade was a law. Most of the girls had boys who left them, parents who were still too old fashioned to understand a woman's body belongs to her, and didn't even think women should work. Why do you want to take the country back 50 years? I've seen friends make this difficult decision, and it broke their hearts, but not their spirits. They knew they had nothing to offer as a parent. Should girls go back into alleys and stick coat hangers up inside themselves and die? Or do want them to be punished more, like Donald Trump. This is sick, signing off. You obviously have lived too sheltered a life.
Every living soul has a right to decide, you are right. Because they can't be heard does not mean they don't have rights. Meet a few of them.
@ Jean, Exactly, abortion is necessary. Birth control isn't 100% effective. Why should girls & women be penalized w/an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy? Why should their lives be curtailed? It is far better & more humane to have an abortion than to have an unwanted child that will be unloved, even abused. Unwanted children are more likely to be abused, ever neglected. Pro-lifers never thought of this. OH NO, they would rather stick their intrusive noses into other's lives. Interview unwanted children & ask what they went through- they wish that they were aborted from the cruel treatment they received from their parents. My second youngest aunt had an unplanned & unwanted pregnancy & RESENTED the child. The child NEVER lived w/her once she got married-she had TWO other daughters whom she doted on. The child was raised by my grandmother. My aunt only had a cursory relationship w/the child in question. If she can afford abortion, she would have aborted, went to college, & had a career.
Addendum: smart girls & women if they have unplanned, unwanted pregnancies, have abortions because they know that having an unwanted child is taxing in more ways than one. Only those who don't know better & aren't so intelligent endure unplanned, unwanted pregnancies & have unwanted children, making their situation much worse than it is. Thank God for Roe vs Wade. Proactive, intelligent, educated women want to be in charge of their bodies, only passive, unintelligent, uneducated women refuse to take responsibility for their bodies & let things happen.
P.S. Jean, Jackie didn't lead a sheltered life. She staunchly, even vehemently believes that if a girl &/or woman gets pregnant, she ought to endure the pregnancy whether she wants to or not. Jackie is also from a large family & women from large families, with very few exceptions, aren't about abortion. Some aren't even about contraception. They are also the ones who become pregnant as teens as my two aunts did. In my high school, the girls who became pregnant were the ones from large families. They endured the pregnancy, had the baby, & never finished school. We from small families knew & used birth control & had no teen pregnancies. My 3 cousins who part of a family of 8 children also were pregnant as teens & none aborted. They didn't use birth control either.
Jean, in large family household, sex is equated to procreation only. Any mention of contraception is prohibited. In large families, girls are strongly inculcated to be wives, mothers, & in subordinate roles. They aren't taught to pursue education & to have careers. Jean, girls & women from large families are different entities from us women from small families. I have observed this firsthand. TRUST ME, I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. I read a book about family size 2 decades ago which stated that women from large families have a more passive attitude towards family planning than women from small families who are more proactive. The attitude of women in large families is that if they got pregnant, they will just have the baby. See where I am going Jean.
So you're saying your cousin would have been better off dead than have a bad childhood? Is everyone who experiences a bad childhood better off dead?
Exactly, my oldest aunt had to raise younger siblings. She got tired, left home at 16 & married the first man. She also got no education & was consigned to a job as a domestic. My mother, the oldest, was smart- she left home when she went to high school & only returned sporadically. So the "premise" of parents raising large families is such total BS. We know that in large families, the oldest/older children are THE REAL PARENTS, never the broodmother who continuously pop 'em out. Mothers of large families live the life of Reilly.
The mother was furious as the younger ones called the oldest/older sisters "mama". Well to the children, the oldest/older sisters were their mothers. The real "mother" abdicated her parenting responsibility when she cosigned her children to the oldest/older daughters to raise. Happens all the time in large families. Mothers of large families are mothers in name only, nothing else.
Also, I have found that many women who are from large families for the most part are very anti-abortion, even anti-contraception & extremely pro-life. They are of the mold that even though the children aren't adequately supported, it is a "life" after all. People from large families don't believe in a high quality of life but a quantitative life. Almost every woman I know who is extremely anti-abortion & anti-contraception is from a large family. In large families, there is NO discussion of contraception & abortion, except that these things are wrong & unnatural. Large families teach their daughters that their duties are wives & mothers & that the purpose of marriage are babies & lots of them. They also teach their daughters if they become pregnant, they must endure it. That is the culture & psychology of the large family.
How about a source for your factual knowledge? Besides Snopes....
OH JL, GIVE IT UP.......You are clearly failing in these discussions. First, of all you are conjecturing. Nothing you have presented is based upon reason & logic. You are around intelligent, educated, & savvy people-Jean, Johnny, PrettyPanther, myself, & Aime. JL, just concede that you don't know what you are talking about. That would be the right thing to do...............
I shall give an analogy here. During the last days of World War II in Germany, although the Waffen SS were wrong, they wouldn't concede but insisted in fighting to the death against more superior Allied forces. However, the hell-bent fighting of the Waffen SS was futile. JL, you really have to chance against US. Now, sweetie, GIVE IT UP..........
Late term abortions are mostly performed on women whose fetuses are already dying or dead. Most of the conditions that result in late term abortions would have resulted in deaths for both mother and infant a hundred years ago and all of them would have at least resulted in a stillborn infant or an infant dead within minutes to days, all of it in suffering if they had a developed and functioning brain. They are wanted babies and their deaths are tragedies.
I find it horrific that anyone dares to label such tragedies as convenience abortions.
I would not call anything like that an abortion and I think most would not whatever their beliefs, it in a way is sort of like a D&C. If in fact the baby does have no chance at life or is dead.
But the law calls that a late term abortion. That is what you are trying to make illegal. That is what the vast majority of late term abortions are, when something has gone horribly awry with the baby and there are no better options.
I believe that is medical and not an abortion. My mother had a tubal pregnancy in her 40s before anyone ever heard of abortion and she had D&C and it was not an abortion, that is stupid talk. I had nurses and doctors in my family, I am not ignorant of things like this then or now.
You think nobody heard about abortions until the 1940s? You can't possibly not know this has been going on all through history. Do you read anything besides conspiracy sites? This happens all the time. Tubal pregnancies are dangerous.
Even though it was to save her life, (and I'm glad it did) what your Mom had was a very early term abortion. I give up. I'd hate to go to one of the "doctors" in your family.
You just don't want to face the truth, that sometimes abortions are necessary.
I don't think she's that old that her mom had an ectopic pregnancy in the 1940s. I think she meant her mom was in her forties when she had the medically necessary abortion for her ectopic pregnancy.
Jean, there are some people who are hard to educate. They are in their own world & nothing any intelligent, reasonable person could convince them otherwise. Jackie is against abortion in any form. She doesn't see the logic of abortion. Abortion is very necessary in a modern, humane society. There were always abortions in one form or another, especially among the educated & affluent where birth control methods were rudimentary at best.
Jackie refuses to acknowledge how many women were impoverished because they had unwanted children. She further refuses to learn how many mothers who had to endure unwanted pregnancies & were saddled w/unwanted children. This is what Margaret Sanger was advocating against. She grew up in a very large family where she saw her mother being saddled w/children. She saw poor women under the same conditions. This is why she advocated reproductive choice for women.
As I reiterated Jean, women from large families, for the most part, are against abortion & forms of birth control. They believe that it is preordained that if a woman or girl has sex, she ought to "face the consequences" & endure the pregnancy & subsequently have the child whether it is wanted or not. Girls & women from large families AREN'T taught about birth control. That is not in the large family consciousness, mentality, mindset, outlook, & philosophy. The philosophy of large families is that sex= pregnancy + babies. Anything else in the large family purview is deemed unnatural, even aberrant.
To go further Jean, that is why many girls from large families have teen pregnancies. Two of my aunts were pregnant as teens, 3 of my cousins were pregnant as teens, know of 10 girls from large families who were pregnant as teens. Jean, the large family psychology is diametrically different from ours. I know of no girls from small families who were pregnant teens, they used birth control. Also, girls from small families were inculcated to be educated & have careers while girls from large families were inculcated to be wives & mothers.
P.S. Jean if you want to discuss this, I'll be here. I am currently watching USC Shoah Institute interviews on youtube. I will be going back & forth on HubPages. Jean, although I never had an abortion, I support abortion rights. I once told a woman who was against abortion that she should step up to the plate & raise the unwanted children-she quickly changed her mind on the subject. Many unwanted children wish that they were aborted from the horrendous treatment they received from their "parents". There are some women who have a totally passive attitude toward their reproduction. They feel that if they get pregnant, they will have the child-how STUPID IS THAT?
Yes and I am for those that concern a woman's life. Nothing could have been done to save the baby so that was very different. That was not a decision to kill another human. No one can convince me that women letting sex rule their life and solving all these mistakes by murder will ever be right. It should be clear to all of you here that something more needs to be done to end this. These women and girl at a young age even should be educated about all this. Abortion is not a good thing for women either if anyone would care to look into that. https://youtu.be/P-0M-KyPvQ4
So an abortion to save the health of your mother is fine, but pregnant women with different threats to their life and health can just pray or something?
The point I was trying to make that you are blatantly avoiding is that all legal late term abortions are performed for serious medical reasons. If someone who has a healthy pregnancy goes in to her doctor requesting an abortion after the baby is too far developed, she's going to get turned away because it's not legal. Doctors only risk their lives and careers to perform late term abortions because they save women's lives. A doctor isn't going to risk his or her precious life and career to do late term abortions for someone's convenience.
My sister was at five and a half months pregnant when her baby started dying inside her. Although the baby clearly had only a few hours to days of life left, the doctors still gave her drugs to prevent labor and sent her home to wait for the baby to die inside her. She was given no strong pain killers because it was against hospital policy to prescribe them to pregnant women. After the baby was dead, she could come back and they'd induce labor. In a sane world, she'd have been checked into the hospital, given pain killers and IV fluids, and allowed to go into labor and miscarry her baby. Instead, they turned an already bad situation into one medically much, much worse.
None of it was done to save a baby, but to cover butts where one wrong move could lose a doctor a medical license. I don't hold that against the doctors involved because they couldn't be expected to give up their careers just to avoid putting a patient in greater danger. They must have felt the danger to their careers was greater than the danger to my sister's life, and that isn't their fault. It's the fault of the people who made doctors afraid to do their jobs and afraid to do their best to preserve their patients' health and lives.
If you really do have a bunch of doctors in your family, you'll know how bad it is to have a decaying baby inside your uterus all full of bacteria and toasty warm. I nearly lost my sister. She's a fully human being with hopes and dreams and a love of God who had two other small children at the time. She wanted a child, not an abortion, but the laws against late term abortions could have cost her life. On an emotional level, the paperwork she was made to fill out was heart-wrenching. Among other things (as her wanted child was dying inside her) she had to sign a statement saying she hadn't inserted anything into her cervix.
I am pro-choice because I know that late term abortions are done for serious medical reasons and that losing a baby is no reason to deny a woman the best medical care available. I am pro-choice because other legally performed abortions take place when the fetal brain is incapable of thought or feeling. If you learn a little about the human brain you'll see that it is the seat of the mind and responsible for our thoughts, feelings, and responses to pain. It's the mind that makes a person, not the fingers, toes, or beating heart. A first trimester fetus can't think, feel, or fear. If an adult person had a brain functioning at the same level, it would be legal to detach their life support and allow their body to die and join its mind in death.
Its destiny is to be a human earthling. But who cares about the destiny of earthlings? If not earthlings, No One?
Either your mother had an abortion and she's a bad person or everyone who has abortions to avoid undue risk to their life and health is just as innocent as she is. If your mother's pregnancy had been further along and endangered her life, would you have preferred she get the pregnancy terminated and live or would you have preferred she risk her life instead, knowing the baby had no chance to survive no matter what?
Got it; you believe your mom's life was worth more than her non-viable fetus' life, but don't think my sister's life was worth more than her non-viable fetus' life. Doctors performed an active abortion on your mother, but all doctors had to do was allow my sister to miscarry her dying baby naturally, but they were so afraid of the laws against late term abortions, they didn't.
Imagine this scenario:
Two adult human beings who are unarguably people are in a horrible car accident in the same car together. One of them is unconscious and has been injured beyond the ability of modern medicine to save and the other has suffered survivable injuries, but still needs medical attention to survive. Both are trapped inside the mangled car and the less injured person can be treated for injuries, blood loss, and shock once the car is pried open, but prying open the car will kill the person who is already dying by removing the pressure on an arterial wound. If you are against late term abortion to save the mother's health, your response should be to keep anyone who'd open the car away and wait until the dying person dies and starts to rot to begin opening the car to treat the less injured person, who would then be much more likely to die or to have died already.
I see your little images of fetal development, but any of those stages is worth less than the life or health of the mother if it's so ill it either can't survive gestation or won't survive but moments after birth and that in suffering. If it doesn't have self-awareness, it's not even a person yet, just like the baby your mom had aborted wasn't a person yet. If it isn't a person in early development, it's just a part of the woman's body that she and her doctor should be allowed to remove if they want to or medically need to. After the baby is at a developmental stage potentially viable outside the uterus, abortions are performed for medical reasons.
I don't know what you're on about. My parents were both very much pro-life, my dad pro-life at the scary, mutilated chocolate box sent to the women's shelter and police coming to our home level. Yet my mom still had an abortion to save her life. My parents went through emotional agony, much like your mom probably did, when my mom required an abortion to end a tubal pregnancy.
The late term abortions you wish to have categorized as murder are for medical reasons. I used to be against late term abortions, myself, until I found out they are incredibly regulated, rare, and medically necessary to provide the women who get them with their best chance of survival.
You don't have to be embarrassed over getting caught holding two diametrically opposed beliefs. You can easily enough admit that you either actually believe women should die with their babies if their pregnancies go wrong or that you truly are for saving the mother when a pregnancy goes wrong and thus not actually against late term abortions, all of which are performed for serious medical reasons if they are performed legally. The thing to be embarrassed about is implying your mom was severely mentally deficient rather than just admitting she knew what was happening to her even if she hated it.
Thank you for that honest assessment, Kylyssa. Much of it is new knowledge for me and helps understand the broader picture.
One further thought after reading Jean's post above:
When pro-lifers try to lock us into their "God's" law, insisting we all follow their tenets of morality, they seem to exclude the intellgence of human beings and our ability to work out the best solutions. IMHO.
Actually you are ignorant of the law. Inducing labor when the fetus is at a non-viable stage in development before the baby's heart heart stops beating is considered abortion, even if the baby is already dying or won't survive but moments after birth. That's why my sister was sent home to wait until her baby finished dying inside her before he could be removed. That's something you remember and care about, when other peoples' religious rules traumatize and almost kill your sister when she lost her very wanted baby at five and a half months gestation.
If you knew about abortion, you'd know that people have heard of abortions for thousands of years because people have been performing abortions for thousands of years.
Also, the surgical ending of your doomed sibling's life was an abortion. I can't understand what mental gymnastics you could possibly use to reach the conclusion that surgically ending a fetal life could be anything but an abortion. Doctors call it a procedure to calm down pro-life women like your mother and mine and to convince them to undergo a health-saving and possibly life-saving abortion. My mother fought against getting it done for almost a week because she was smart enough to realize it was killing her embryo and thus an abortion. It was right after Roe vs. Wade made it legal, something my father frequently brought up when examining his beliefs about abortion. It was very hard for both of them because they were very anti-abortion.
Late term aborted baby survives although very damaged. Hear this aborted baby's testimony. https://youtu.be/yHnaQiOxGfg
This thread does not belong here; this particular section of the forums is for discussions related to HubPages.
Please move this thread to the politics and social issues forum. http://hubpages.com/forum/13
Okay... what would you say makes humans different than any other animals? Why do we not blink an eye when someone shoots a deer for funsies but we're horrified by the thought of a fetus being aborted? What makes humans special and would you argue that they possess those qualities as a first trimester fetus (when a vast majority of abortions take place)?
I don't want anyone shooting deer and certainly not cutting out the unborn fawns at any stage! Who would want that?
Oh, so you spend as much time vocally opposing hunting as you do abortion? Do you believe that all animal life is as valuable as human life?
I took up for you. There are people who you can't reason with. As my late father stated, there are some people who are hard to learn. There is no use to discussing this w/Jackie. She will persist in her views. Let's move on the next discussion or thing. No point being here, it is all an exercise in utter futility. There are people who are of certain beliefs & no logical, educated teaching will convince them otherwise.
Aime is a very intelligent woman. She knows the difference between facts & pure hyperbole. You are the one who believes in anything that is thrown before you. Haven't you been taught that one can't believe everything that is in print. I knew this at 11, sad that you, as an "adult" still don't know this.
Have you either heard of Simone Biles? She is a great example of the right to be adopted.
That doesn't change the fact that 40-50 million EXTRA babies needing to find homes on top of the other children currently needing adoption is not at all sustainable. Unless of course as I mentioned you and you the rest of your camp are up for adopting all of them.
Yes because there are so many mistakes these women make they should just squash them like ants. The women shouldn't have to pay, just the innocent babies. Makes a lot of sense. I have nothing more to say to you.
Women have to....PAY. Now, we all see you true colors. You believe that girls & women should be saddled w/a baby because she accidently became pregnant. You are sure the humanitarian of the year. No girl nor woman should be forced to endure a pregnancy nor have a child that she doesn't want. HOW COULD YOU? I'M DONE WITH YOU.
Return to the Middle Ages, you are more suited to that period than to the postmodern 21st century. Abortion is a medical procedure & is here to stay. People like you would make women return to the Dark Ages. I & other Liberal women will fight to the death for a woman's right to have an abortion! Thank God that all of us on this post saw you for what you ACTUALLY are.......
I would never ever want a woman who would murder her child actually try to raise it, no I would not. What hardship is it for her to give away? She has rights yes and so does that living being is what I am saying and no we cannot put up a power sign for them can we? They have no power but a few like me who try to get their rights for them while people like you consider them less than nothing, something to be squashed and flushed. Be humane to all living beings but especially the helpless why don't you? You are a traitor to mankind it looks to me. Do you think these murders will just go unforgotten? No, they will not.
Will your wonders ever cease. Ask any child who is unwanted & abused by his/her parents if h/she wished h/she was born? I'll wait. I would rather have an abortion any day than to have an unwanted child or a child when I wasn't ready for. Use logic & intelligence here, dear. Your argument & your "presentations" are really illogical.
Very strange you mention God gm, when one of His ten commandments is Thou Shall Not Murder. I guess you only mention Him when it suits your purpose. He sent all those souls to earth and they are with Him now as a witness against all who had anything to do with promoting or actually killing them. I did not bring God into this but since you did I assume you are aware of His vengeance and judgement in addition to blessings. If you study you will find out penalties are much worse for those who know Him yet decide to live by their own law not in accordance with His. I thank God too if you have all seen me for what I am. Amen
Oh, does it? I thought it said "Thou shalt not kill." And that, of course, would mean you can't kill anything, because it does not mention humans!
Also, think about the number of times you have killed a mosquito, or a fly, or any other bug that irritates you.
How many times in your life have you ignored the basic survival needs of a down-and-out tramp on the street and probably contributed to his demise? Therein you contribute to his/her killing.
Personally, I am not in favour of convenience abortions, i.e., getting rid of the fetus simply because it's inconvenient to bring that human being to term. Especially if that fetus is healthy and growing normally. Just imagine yourself as a surgeon, cutting up a real human-looking object, with a nose, fingers, legs, arms, head, body, etc. Would that be ok? The answer will show that this subject is far, far more important than just agreeing/disagreeing with each other's point of view. It's basically shocking and horrific. Although I agree with GW on many issues, in this instant I cannot accept that a woman who's body it is, or the father of the fetus, should be treating it as something simply to wash down the drain.....if it's more convenient to do so.
PS, I don't accept the idea that "God" has anything to do with this moral discussion. Even that God is a mental gyration of convenience. We humans have brains. I suggest that most of us who live successfully in our various communities also have feelings, consciences, ideas of what is right. I certainly do.
What do the aborted think? https://youtu.be/vvgLP8Dzbxo
What a compelling argument. You know, I think I might be changing my mind! Thanks for opening my eyes with your random memes that don't actually address anyone's questions or concerns.
Let's just leave it to science, shall we?
If liveaction.org, a pro-life website, says it's science then it must be true.
When one reads data, one must exercise a level of discernment. There are some sites that are partial. When will JL learn this?! Sadly, JL is failing at every argument she has presented thus far. It must be sad to fail this many times. JL, GIVE IT UP, honey- you are WAY OUT of your league here. JUST GIVE IT UP.......Big Mama isn't pleased & SHE'S coming for......YOU!
Yep. I've asked her repeatedly to back up what she's saying - not only when she claims facts but to expand on her own arguments (which you'd think would be easy because she came to those thoughts somehow) but nope, nothing. I don't know how she expects anyone with any critical thinking ability to take her seriously. Maybe she's just used to mindless disapproving sheep commending her for her ability to pull up random memes and YouTube videos that have no substance whatsoever.
Remember Kathleen Cochran's intelligent question regarding people still being intellectually resistant although logical facts are presented. JL is resistant to facts. She is pro-life no matter the illogicality of her premise. Pro-lifers can't be reasoned with. They are against abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, & the life of a mother. They believe that women should endure unwanted & unplanned pregnancies no matter how detrimental it is to women emotionally, mentally, physically, psychologically, & even psychically. They see abortion as murder which it isn't in the earliest, unviable stages. They refuse to realize that abortion is a medical procedure. It is best not to respond to her as she won't listen & learn from conclusive data but will believe in her particular paradigm regarding the subject at hand.
I notice there's nothing but a meme, and a meaningless one at that. No data, no studies, no information at all.
But hey! It's scientific - it has to be true!
JL is an Advanced Master in the art of conjecture & hyperbole. One would say that she has a Ph.D. in these subjects. She is live entertainment.............Please don't encourage her further........She needs.....NO ENCOURAGEMENT.
"It's a picture of a sperm and an egg, that's science-y, right? I bet if we just put the words 'scientific fact' on here people will assume we know what we're talking about, right?"
Says the girl who can't hold a conversation with anyone without posting a picture or a video.
See the last word of Einstein's quote........what comes to......MIND............She's good at putting out quotations & memes. She don't even know WHO Einstein was nor his sociopolitical beliefs. Einstein was a genius & an innovator in addition to thinking outside the box. JL would never understand Einstein. She doesn't think outside the box. I am not going to address her thinking quality because by her responses, it is apparent what her level of "thinking" is.
Many people don't understand the reasons for Roe v. Wade, like the author. One's personal opinion has nothing to do with it. The definition of life has nothing to do with it.
In my perfect world, no woman would need an abortion or want to have an abortion. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. I also do not support abortion for convenience. I think that's repulsive.
That said, the best way to stop abortion is free birth control. My preference would be that the government pay for it because it's a very effective and inexpensive way to stop unwanted pregnancies. Ironically, most anti-abortionists are also against birth control. Assuming opposition to free birth control, I would expect most anti-abortion groups to run campaigns educating people about birth control because it is, by far, proven by science, to be the most effective way to stop unwanted pregnancies.
All that said, abortion must be legal. The reason is simple - all women need equal access to safe medical procedures. Make abortion illegal and upper class and middle class women will still get abortions because they can afford to go to Canada or Mexico or Europe. Poor women will be forced into the back alleys with coat hangers. That's just not something that should happen.
No woman should need an abortion or want one, but if it has to happen, all women should have access to a safe procedure.
THANK YOU, A MULTILLION APPLAUSES.........PREACH! You are so correct in your premise that anti-abortionists are anti-contraception. They don't want women to have reproductive freedom but instead to be controlled by pregnancy.
These should not be called anything but humans or people and maybe it would not be so easy to kill them. https://youtu.be/ogcIGL1kgGE
I see this as a major problem in the abortion debate: a picture of two infants taking a bath accompanied with a statement that they should be called people and it wouldn't be so easy to kill them.
Which has NOTHING to do with abortion - it is nothing but an attempt to divert attention by once more insinuating that abortions are murder.
Of course it is - that's the point. But abortion is not, which is ALSO the point. Something the pro-life group steadfastly refuses to discuss or even think about, instead simply assuming that their opinion overrides that of anyone else and is therefore not to be questioned.
Then why don't you set us straight? You tell us when it is not murder?
I'm willing to accept the legal judgement as to that point. I prefer that it not be into the second trimester, but can accept it as a compromise - it IS just a definition, after all.
Can you give reasons for a zygote to be considered a person? No heart, no brain, no anything - why is it a person?
Is a seed a tree? Do you put pecan trees, leaves and all, into your pie?
No but if I plant a pecan tree I will grow one. No one is that stupid and I won't argue with anyone who acts like they are.
Then why is a zygote a person?
I asked if you could support a zygote being a person and you replied with a question of is a small tree still a tree. The analogy would be more properly put is a child a person, but the question was for a zygote.
And if a zygote is not a person (and it's not, any more than a seed is a tree), when does it become one? When it becomes 2 cells? 4 cells? When it has a heartbeat? A functioning, thinking brain? What point does it happen, and more importantly, what makes that definition a better one than anyone else's?
You're digging too deep. She doesn't like answering questions that require any real thought. She'll probably just send you to YouTube and throw some made up facts in your general direction.
You kill the sapling, you kill the tree. So simple there really is no arguing it. They are one and the same, just at different points in their life. The sapling is as good as a tree but if someone pulls it up or stomps it down they have killed a tree. Elementary really.
And if you kill a child you kill a person.
But if you grind up (kill) a pecan nut you haven't killed a tree...and if you kill a zygote you haven't killed a person. This is your own reasoning even though you continue to insinuate that the sapling equates to a seed.
The sapling equates to a seed unless the seed is killing her mother, in which case it's just some cells and the abortion is just a medical procedure.
No it doesn't (equate to a seed)
Interesting though - what is your take on abortion because of rape or incest? Does it go from killing a person to killing a bundle of cells because the mother was raped? The same cells now carry a different label?
The original poster said her mother's abortion wasn't an abortion because it was done for medical reasons. She equates a cluster of cells with a baby unless that cluster of cells is harming her mother so, yes, she equates the sapling with the seed unless the seed is hurting her mother.
How does that change the seed? How does it suddenly become something else without ever changing?
But medical reasons wasn't the question - rape and incest was.
I see no difference in a cluster of dividing cells planted by rape or by consensual sex. Until it has a thinking, feeling brain, it's not a baby.
The whole thread is about late term abortions, almost all of which are performed for medical reasons.
The original poster mentioned her mom's abortion done for medical reasons and refuses to address the fact that almost all late term abortions are done for medical reasons.
LOL. No one is planting trees inside someone. Your analogy is quite foolish. Think of the number of seeds a tree produces. Think of the number of seeds that turn into trees. Having sex is rarely an attempt to plant anything. Pushing your 'morals' on others is pointless. This type of morality is so mired in hatred that it is not something we should hope our society would aspire to.
"Mired in hatred" , is how I would describe the drift of America's liberal cultures and subcultures conscientiously AWAY from morality , integrity, and godliness away from fathers who remain in the home , away from the collective shame of abortions handed out to liberals like candy to kids in a parade , except the kids are missing at this parade .
While those like you defend a percentage of 70% of black homes with children in them and without a father there too, But .....that's just okay with liberals .
"Mired in hatred " is what's happening in Milwaukee , Ferguson , Baltimore , Chicago .....but hey ...........life is good , it's all okay with liberals .
Your garbled attempt at a response is not indicative of how I think or how I feel. What is does point out is how hatred through smoke colored glasses cannot understand that it is possible to be pro-life and not anti-abortion. Calling anyone who disagrees with you a bleeding heart liberal simply negates any possibility of a positive conversation. Hate breeds hate it doesn't help solve any problem. The only way to effect positive change is to be open-minded to other people's needs and not insist that everyone be just like you, or they be damned.
Jackie Lynnley said, "Then why don't you set us straight? You tell us when it is not murder?"
Well, according to you, it's not murder when it's your mom's abortion.
I don't recall mentioning my mother, but DO recall talking about something else entirely. Can you quote the passage concerning my mother?
Why not look at who I'm replying to? You are replying to my responses to other people. You'll see a little quote box above each reply. That quoted person is the person being addressed. I was addressing the original poster and I even pulled her quote so it was clear.
How was the baby your mom had aborted less human than any other baby at the same point in gestation? What was your unborn sibling's funeral like? Did your mom go to court to prove she murdered him or her in self-defense? No? If your mom's surgical abortion wasn't murder, no abortion before 20 weeks is murder.
Would you have honestly just sat around praying over your mom, letting doctors pump her full of anti-labor drugs, and hoping she wouldn't die if her pregnancy had gone horribly awry at a later point in gestation? Or would you have done what was best for her health and her chances of survival and gotten her to a doctor who would risk his or her life and career to help her survive?
Why are you unwilling to discuss the fact that the vast majority of abortions performed later are for serious medical reasons?
Perhaps when abortion becomes something other than a form of normal birth control for young mothers and fathers , then we might believe in abortion ?
So you believe it's cool to let the women whose pregnancies go awry die? Why are you OK with the OP's mom's abortion, but not abortions for other women whose health depends on it? What does someone else's abortion have to do with a woman's medically necessary abortion?
Why would the world at large even listen to conservative Christians when it comes to abortion? It's like taking diet advice from someone who is themselves morbidly obese and talking through a Twinkie.
You have to be aware that conservative Christian women are more likely to get abortions than women who aren't, right? Something about those beliefs increases the likelihood of a young woman obtaining an abortion, so maybe you ought not to push to get those beliefs made into laws? Why not deal with the Conservative Christian abortion epidemic in your churches so you can have some credibility in the larger world? Once you've shown conservative Christian beliefs have ceased to increase abortions, people would actually listen to you.
If there are any people who use abortion for birth control they need serious mental health care or help escaping the situation responsible. For instance, if a woman's husband won't allow her the use of birth control for religious reasons and her husband refuses abstinence, she might be forced to abort her embryo to avoid trapping a child in her abusive situation with her. Such a woman should be helped to exit the situation. If a woman has repeat abortions outside of a situation where she has no control of her fertility, she should be provided with the birth control education and mental health care she needs. No mentally healthy woman uses abortion for birth control.
Oh my God you are slanted by untruths from the left , most abortions are more than likely in and of lower income social service related origins -- Planned Parenthood for example , "I'm just not ready to settle down and have a family , So let me market these body parts " is far more likely the answer in the clinic than ---"I'm so sick doctor , I 'm going to die if I have this child "
Please , show us the truth about why abortions happen - not the fantasy reasoning of a minimally used medical excuse!
This thread is about late term abortions; the usual broad medical disclaimer does not apply to them. They are indeed generally performed to save the mother.
Try reading the title of the thread. It's not about most abortions, just about late term abortions, the vast majority of which are performed for serious medical reasons. But you didn't read anything I wrote so there's really no point in trying to converse with you since you just see a block of text and start spewing insults.
Unless you're a crazed sociopath, you'd do whatever gave your own wife or other female loved one the best chance of survival and you know it's true. You'd do it even if it meant her baby, who would die if she died anyway, would die earlier, after less prolonged suffering, if it meant she got to live. You would not stand by and just pray she didn't die while you waited for the baby to finish dying inside her; you'd be demanding doctors save her.
A doctor would be insane to risk his life and career to perform a late term abortion if it wasn't to save the health and life of the mother.
Doctors seldom take risks for patients and never take risks they see no extreme benefit to. A big wad of cash might buy a rich woman an illegal late term abortion of a viable baby for no medical reason, but the vast majority of doctors can't be hired to commit murder. Late term abortions aren't particularly profitable compared to other surgeries of equal complexity and seriousness and they carry a significant risk to the doctor's career and a risk to his life and to the lives of people he or she associates with.
Christian terrorists target doctors who perform late term abortions. That doesn't sound like much of a risk until you consider that only four or five doctors in the entire country will perform a late term abortion even to directly prevent an otherwise inevitable death. It doesn't give Christian terrorists many targets to choose from.
Most American women are required to allow their dying babies to die inside them before they can get the medical help they need to survive. Some of them don't survive and some of them suffer other injuries both physical and mental. Waiting for the baby to die and start to rot does not give the mother her best chance of survival. I almost lost my sister to this idiotic bullshit.
Think about it this way. That picture. That fetus would not be able to survive on its own outside of the womb. So, it isn't really a functioning human being by the definition you are attempting to give it.
Is any baby born able to function on its own?
It can breath on its own. It doesn't require life support and critical care to keep it alive.
If it weren't murdered it would be the same as full term. I guess I have no idea what you are talking about. It is OK to murder them if they can't live outside the womb yet? How about the ones that surprise everyone and the ones they dump in the trash alive?
This woman expecting twin aborts them, tell me that is not murder!
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/14/woma … last-week/
The youngest to ever survive outside of the womb was at over 21 weeks gestation - only 1% of abortions happen at that gestation, and the survival of a baby born at that gestation is still exceptionally rare.
I asked you earlier and you decided not to answer me: What makes humans different than any other animal or insect or living being and do you think a fetus possesses those qualities at <13 weeks when a vast majority of abortions take place?
They have lived younger than that and as far as what's the difference I don't see anyone aborting dogs and cats babies or they would bring the house down on you girl and you know it!
A one pound baby here.
Please provide links to babies who have survived being born before 21 weeks gestation.
You are still not answering my question about what makes humans different than other animals/insects/plants. My argument is not about hypothetical cat abortions.
Here you go.
I also found another, 20 weeks but lost it and too late but will find it and put it here soon as I can.
Well of course babies have been born before 21 weeks gestation, my point was that no babies born before 21 weeks gestation have SURVIVED. This baby passed away, or did you not bother to watch the whole video?
You're also going to need to do better than YouTube. Actual documented source or it doesn't count.
Attempting to emotionalize the argument by using the word murder may work for you. I find it to be hateful and judgmental toward your fellow human beings. Which is a curiosity when most anti abortion advocates claim their stand is one of compassion.
I find hurting and killing little unborn babies to be hateful and judgmental. Surely words do not hurt you worse than a knife to the spine or bludgeoned through the whole body. Sorry I have no pity for you.
I have pity for you. And I feel for those who are hurt by words such as yours. I'd be curious why you choose to say you have no pity for me. I've never had an abortion. Do you assume women who stand firmly against hateful rhetoric by anti abortion people have?
Jackie I can understand how such things affect your deep emotions; same as I can see the argument of an unwilling mother being burden by having to care for her un-wanted child for 18+ years.
But regarding anyone who has contrary views to your own as morally lacking does nothing for a decent discussion.
Maybe there is no hard-and-fast rule that can be "right" in every circumstance - unless there's a fundamental religious leaning which prevents a diverse set of opinions.
My own preference is to be kind, understanding and tolerent of difference, while protecting another from harm and pain, whether that other be human or other species.
Which other are you protecting from harm and pain? Not the innocent one with no choice! They both are human, the grown up if not in a life and death situation can give up her child and still allow it to live. There is the problem with many of these mothers, if it lives they think it cannot be wiped from their minds but if it is dead and no one knows it will be like it never existed, but it did.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000; however, as my late father stated -some people ARE VERY HARD to learn. They persist in their old, outdated paradigms...............although intelligent & logic evidence is presented.
There is a suggestion for JL:
Since she is totally against abortion, give all the unwanted children to her to raise. She TALKS that talk so have her really WALK THE WALK. Give all unwanted children to Jackie, she'll GLADLY raise EACH & EVERY one of them.......
Good idea, on the surface. But, no anti abortion advocate would agree to that and if we forced them to do it they would raise another generation of miserable, intolerant, unthinking individuals.
I'm afraid I am of the mind that when people argue a point in hopes of making the lives of others miserably enslaved to the ideals of another that the person arguing in favor of it is miserable. Misery loves company.
She's not totally against abortion; she thinks abortion is OK for the health of people she loves, but not for the health or survival of other women. She doesn't even consider the abortion her mom had as an abortion despite the fact that a baby (as she defines it) was killed by a surgical procedure.
She refuses to admit that there are people who need abortions for medical reasons other than ectopic pregnancies and refuses to even address the fact that almost all late term abortions are done to save the health or life of the mother. Her OP is about her stance against such abortions.
"Every Dem Voted for Late Term Abortion Up to Nine Months?" This is the title of this thread. It's a politically motivated question.
I get the impression (somewhat lately!) that politically motivated people love to use the natural human tendency to fight over dogmatic beliefs.
Obviously every Dem did NOT vote for late term abortions... but it got the argument going and distracted us all from the matter on the table.
Oh, I get it alright. Her beliefs don't apply to her or anyone she loves enough to care about their health. People she loves and fertilized zygotes are human beings, but other women are just walking wombs meant to also maybe die, too, if something goes wrong with their pregnancies.
Conservative Christian women are the most likely to have abortions in the US so if they really cared about the poor little babies, they'd teach their daughters about birth control and let them know that if they did become pregnant, they'd still love, accept, and support them. It's all about appearances and self-serving definitions that allow a beloved mother's abortion to be defined as a medical procedure because it removed a risk to her health, but other abortions to save the health and life of a woman to be defined as murder if they occur any later in gestation.
Every democrat does not get to vote or it would not have passed. Get a clue, I meant in government who vote.
My mother had 7 children and would have never dreamed of having an abortion if she had ever heard of one and if you want to get technical and say that is what it was it was done by doctors without her knowledge because it was not a baby. Now I am sure if it had been big enough to recognize as a baby she would have had a funeral for it, not thrown it in the trash. I know she did not look pregnant and even she had no idea she was but thought it was change of life things.
If my mother were alive and had any idea someone killed her baby I can assure you it would kill her but we all know what it was and what I am talking about and I am not against any woman having something done to save their own life although even there it is up to the mother for many have chosen not to and all turned out OK.
Women who have late term abortions never dream they'd have an abortion either, just like your mom. Their pregnancies with their wanted children go horribly awry, their doctors refer them to one of the four or five surviving doctors who perform late term abortions, they travel to the state that doctor is in and hope they can get to him before any further complications make the situation even more dangerous.
I don't really believe your mother had never heard of abortion and didn't know she was pregnant. I call bullshit on your claim that your mother lacked the mental capacity to understand what had happened because you've never indicated she was severely mentally retarded. Please don't try to defend your mutually exclusive beliefs that abortion is OK to save the health and life of the mother, but that late term abortions, 100% of which are done for medical reasons if performed legally, are wrong by saying your mother was too stupid to know what was going on. You and I both know she was of normal intelligence, knew what happened, was likely deeply emotionally wounded by it, and likely grieved her lost baby in silence as so many women did back then. Please don't bash your own mom's intelligence to make a political point you actually don't even agree with if you really think women deserve to survive their dying fetuses.
Let me repeat, late term abortions are highly regulated and only legally performed for very serious medical reasons. Most women in America actually can't even get one, even if it means her death. Naturally miscarrying women can't even get the medical treatment they need until after the fetal heartbeat stops.
There's also no way a doctor performed a D&C abortion to terminate your mother's ectopic (tubal) pregnancy without ever telling her it was a D&C or that she had a tubal pregnancy. How would you have even known it was a tubal pregnancy if she never did? If the doctor really performed the procedure without telling her she was pregnant and what it was, your family could have owned that hospital.
Of course I do not agree because I believe the lives these women created have rights too but of course birth control is the answer and I believe there are clinics with free birth control about everywhere and if not then yes, there should be. I also think any woman who goes for a 2nd abortion should have to be spade like an animal because these are lives she is creating to have killed and there is no excuse for that. None! If she cannot control her body then someone should take charge and any woman or man who hurts a child of their own should also be fix so they can produce no more. That should have been law years ago. It is appalling what some people do to their own flesh and blood and it is little price to pay!
Oh my God, OOOOH MY GOD, we are finally in agreement re: the last 2 sentences. I am speechless.......COMPLETELY FLOORED.........(makes a loud fainting noise)..............
Well, I am about as pro-choice as they come, but I do believe that there have to be consequences for women who choose to use abortion as some kind of birth control. I think there has to be some kind of discussion about that. However, I think that's exceedingly rare. Too many anti-abortionists think that women who need an abortion do so like they're buying a ticket to a movie or the circus - like it's enjoyable. I think 99% of women who get an abortion have no desire to do so and no desire to ever be in that position again.
One other thing, while I do think a conversation needs to take place about "abortion for convenience", another conversation needs to take place about holding men more responsible for the pregnancies that they cause. If a woman has to go to jail for having an abortion, then the man who got her pregnant needs to be held criminally liable too.
If you're going to do all that to the men, what about their rights to the child they fathered but the mother wants to abort?
I didn't know anyone went to jail. Men should have the baby if the mother doesn't want it, why not? It is half his and if she is giving up her half then it should be his. !00%
Right now, men have no say in whether an abortion occurs. That's a real problem if we're also going to hold them responsible for a pregnancy. Or so I see it.
EXCUSE ME, it's the woman who is pregnant, it is HER body, so SHE decides whether to continue the pregnancy or terminate it, not the man. Since men don't become pregnant, they DON'T decide period! !
EXCUSE ME! Are you discounting the concerns of the father!
I cannot speak from personal experience, never been a father and never will be.
But from interaction in mens groups over the past 25 years I am aware that many fathers feel stomped on, ignored, made to feel like 2nd class citizens when people are discussing pregnancy.
They tell me it is often the woman who drives intercourse; she manipulates the man's libido; she only wants him for his sperm, then tells him where to go!
So the feminist attitude of always blaming the man, and making him the scapegoat for her hot feelings, needs to be considered in this discussion.
When a man knows a woman is carrying a child that is half his, he is entitled to state his concerns.
Naturally each set of circumstances need to be considered on their merits, but fair play is more likely to keep the father on-side with a better outcome for all concerned.
so the men are victims ...
good to know.
Certainly they can be, Kathryn, and not always at fault.
Jonny, a lot of men don't stick around to find out if the woman is pregnant, and a woman in that position usually either can't find him, or he breaks up with her. Obviously, it takes two, and ideally it should be a decision made together.
Jackie, were you ever in love and had sex just because you wanted to demonstrate how deep your love was, and it wasn't just to make a baby? Or maybe maybe forgot to use birth control, or it didn't work, in another scenario. Birth control fails a certain percentage of the time, depending on the type.Or maybe you are still a virgin. You are slut shaming every woman who wants to have a sex life. This is getting beyond the pale.
Once again, as a Democrat, I would love to see a law passed banning late term abortions, because they don't often happen, I'll say it again, it's just a Republican talking point, and you are showing photo shopped videos. And the R's want to cut Head Start, or even basic programs to give a new Mother basic formula if she isn't nursing, or the vitamins she needs to have a healthy pregnancy. Planned Parenthood gives out birth control, vitamins and what a pregnant Mother needs to bring a healthy baby into the world if she can't afford it and becomes pregnant. But woman are afraid to go there because crazy people who don't believe in abortion or birth control are killing women who need these services. And the R's just want to shut them all down, never discussing the good Planned Parenthood does.
Democrats want abortion to be safe, legal and rare. Shaming people who want to have a sex life and actually considering spaying women like animals is really over the top. I'm trying to stop being in this discussion, but you keep coming to worse and worse conclusions when people are trying to teach you the reality. No abortion is an easy decision for a woman. She does it because she doesn't have the means to raise a child, the guy bailed on her, and her family won't help her. None of you pro lifers want to help women who bear these children once they are born. And most of you are against birth control, a complete oxymoron. I truly am giving up.
When a man can have a fetus a woman doesn't want to carry full term transferred into his uterus, so he can give birth, then his concerns will be valid.
Not a valid argument in my view. Obviously if that were a possibility it might be valid.
Yes, the woman's welfare must be considered and caterred for from all aspects. But the politically correct argument these days tends to put most blame on the man. Unfairly to the point of whitewashing the woman's role.
In the legal system the man is often seen as 2nd-class citizen.
If women want their slice of the cake, take it, but don't throw the other bit in the guy's face unless he really is the only one at fault.
I will agree that many are whitewashing the woman's role.
My answer would be to insist that a man be told of a pregnancy during the first trimester and he has the choice to lay claim to the fetus, or deny interest in it. If the woman chooses to go forward with the pregnancy it would be with the full understanding that a man who denies interest is not to be held financially responsible for raising the child. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that 'unwanted' pregnancies would drop dramatically and that abortions would plummet.
Interesting take on the subject. Obviously, my opinion cannot be subjective, so it's important to hear the opinions of those who are intimately involved, which I do respect even if in disagreement.
My own opinion tries to consider 4 individuals:
The mother's - her bodily, maternal, financial and emotional concerns which are naturally complex.
The fetus - what stage of development has it reached? Can one be sure what "feelings" it's aware of?
The Father's - is he concerned or complacent? Does he have and acknowledge his paternal feeling. Is he willing to share the burden of nurturing the child?
The Surgeon's - what is it really like performing a D & C ? In the 1st or 2nd trimester? What is it really like, mutilating something that has human qualities?
Yes, a woman has rights concerning her own body. But there are others who also deserve consideration. If we ignore them, surely that is total selfishness - something we might be accusing men of?
Surgeons are not forced to perform abortions. If they were that would be a valid point. Men, if given the option of choosing to keep a baby, shouldn't be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy full term if they don't want to. I'm all for letting parties discuss the matter but the decision should be firmly in favor of a woman making the choice she can live with.
A difficult question, and one I've never been able to answer for myself.
A woman can obligate a man for 18 years of financial contribution, but a man cannot obligate a woman for 9 months of physical discomfort - discomfort that accompanies every new person in the world? Something is very much skewed here, but I certainly have no answers.
I don't think a woman should be able to obligate a man. Even though she can in our current situation I still don't see how anyone can ask her to carry a baby full term if she doesn't want to. Compare it to you having a medical condition which, if left untreated, could do anything from kill you to ensuring a large portion of your income over the next eighteen years would have to be spent on it, your job prospects became limited for a percentage of that time, your dating prospects would change among probably another hundred changes to your life.
I don't see how we can force a woman to carry to term either, whether the male can be forced to pay or not. Yet...we allow her to murder his child without any recourse from him. That is the claim that will be used one day (if it isn't already) and is just as wrong.
No answers, as I say. Just a feeling that nothing we eventually decide on will be right as there is no "right" here.
It's like a thousand other things we encounter during our lifetime. We have to decide what is 'right' for us and give others the latitude to do the same without rude, judgmental behavior and words when their decisions don't match what we think ours would be.
You'd have a point if pregnancy was merely obligating a woman to 9 months of discomfort and not 9 months of discomfort and physical risk, damage to her body ranging from mild to severe, plus eighteen years of financial support. It's not like the woman isn't expected to care for the child and work to support him. The man can get away with just providing half of the child's financial support for eighteen years without the need to give up anything else or to risk damage to his body or earning potential. He isn't even obligated to stay in the same state or to change a single diaper.
I do believe that a man should be able to sign off on his parental rights to a child and escape the legal requirement to provide support if the woman chooses to keep a baby he doesn't want. I'm surprised you'd want that because one would think you'd admire the woman's choice to keep her baby rather than seeing it as a dirty trick she's playing on some innocent man.
Ok then... let the woman in each and every case take full responsibility - for flerting; for getting into act of copulation; for learning all the facts of life; acquiring sufficient funds to see her through pregnancy; and for the decision to terminate of not. Cease blaming everything on the man. It's all the woman's choice and responsibility.
OR you might change your attitude and realise that only a minority of men are irresponsible, as only a minority of women could be regarded as sluts.
Surely it is better to begin with education, better family communication, better discipline from an early age, so that the young girl and boy get a strong sense of personal responsibility.
Maybe you see me as old fashioned. If so, so be it.
But if she so chooses she can have the baby, go to court and make him pay until the baby is 18-21. So it is half his if she chooses but not if she chooses. Why shouldn't he have it if she doesn't want it. Surely birthing would be safer than abortion?
whats the problem? This chick you are bed romping with will either kill your kid or not in case the sperm and egg get close enough to unite!!!
Keep the egg ~~~~~~~~~~~~> and the sperm FAR away from each other.
Is that SOOO H A R D ???? Watch the olympics you sexually active singles,
and get a clue!!!
I meant it more in the sense that child support laws aren't enforced very well. The economic factors undoubtedly weigh on women who are abandoned by men. Raising a kid on one's own is very, very hard.
Yes, Earthlings have sex to demonstrate "deep love," even though they do not want to conceive a child, and yet this is how their babies are made.
That's funny... I thought they were made with a colon: then"rolleyes" followed by another colon: (3 times if you want triplets of course.)
I'm glad some other sane people are joining the discussion. I was also thinking that as women have higher paying careers, they often wait until they are in their mid 30's or even mid 40's to have a child. She and her husband (or boyfriend) may have been together and childless for so long, they may not want to change their lifestyle. There is still that late menstrual cycle due to stress, or birth control that didn't work. As people get older, there are more possibilities of birth defects. Of course, they have the means to support a child, so I would hope In such a situation, the man's opinion is just as important as hers, or it should be. And they would have the baby. By that age they should be mature and take on some responsibility.
I'm mostly talking about abortions from young couples too immature to be having sex, and not talking about birth control. They start so young now, and still have so much misinformation, even though it's so available. I know this because I always end up giving all the "birds and bees" discussions to everybody in the family and friend group for some reason.
I also agree on another point, God, isn't anybody romantic around here? I feel like I'm talking to Paul of Tarsus. Yes, sex is an expression of love for many people.
Yes, the main emphasis on the abortion issue is young women 13-25 who are misinformed about sex & contraception. If they become pregnant, they should have access to abortion. They shouldn't be penalized because of a mistake.
Would like to interject again, what about the mothers who kill their children because they initially didn't want them. It would have been more humane for the mother to undergo an abortion than to have unwanted children who are later killed because she became stressed regarding raising them or just got sick & tired of being tied down.
It's destiny is to be whatever it becomes. Not every zygote would get born, no matter what our reproductive rights/restrictions were.
What do men need an erection for other than their own "entertainment"?
To have kids?
But whatever you think it is "for", it remains that viagra restores lost function while birth control destroys proper function.
So what? I'm failing to see why that's such an important distinction.
And the desire of a man to have children is more important than the desire of a woman to not have children? Hmm...
I'll also point out that plenty of women use birth control to regulate unusually heavy/long periods, which is more medically relevant than a boner, IMO.
And pills for that regulation of menses should be paid for by insurance. It is certainly medically relevant and helpful. My wife took them after a hysterectomy long before they were considered something compensable and they were paid for then.
But if you can't see a distinction between restoring natural/normal bodily functions and destroying them, I can't help you. The insurance industry has always drug their feet on unnecessary procedures that don't improve the physical fitness of the patient, and rightly so. It is not a vehicle for simply avoiding the costs of changing the body because you don't like what you have, but rather one to spread costs for procedures to correct something wrong. Like the unusual periods you mention.
But it's not really about "not liking what you have." We're not talking about breast implants. We're talking about giving women the opportunity to prevent unwanted pregnancies whether they can afford to pay for birth control out of pocket or not. An unwanted pregnancy cannot be logically compared to just wanting to change something about yourself because you're unhappy with it. I'm not sure if you're seriously implying that birth control is "unnecessary" but if you are then I think we're on entirely different pages of entirely different books at this point.
But they already have that opportunity. It's called "keeping your pants on" and while it's not very popular, it DOES work. And it works better than any birth control on the market, too.
They just want another option, one that allows them to play without paying, and I'm not buying into it. Any woman that can't afford a condom has much bigger problems than wanting free sex.
Yes. Let's forge a society that tells men not to keep their pants on and if they reach the age where their body helps them make that decision let's be gungho about giving them free drugs so that they can not keep their pants on longer than is natural.
Oh. And then let's push some ridiculous argument that women who don't keep their pants on have to pay for their drugs. That makes so much sense. Oh, wait. No it doesn't.
Ohhhh so we can tell women to abstain from sex if they don't want to get pregnant, but not having sex is absolutely out of the question for men whose penises don't work the way they want them to. No, they need to be able to stick it wherever they want to for free. But women keep your pants on.
Apparently I really jumped the gun earlier saying you were interested in sticking up for women's reproductive rights. My oops.
As I said earlier, if you can't differentiate between something designed to repair functionality to the human body from something designed to disrupt functionality, I can't help you. And all the ridiculous assumptions you might make about my personal views isn't going to change that - you choose to not understand the most basic of biology and medicine.
No, no. I am clear on the biological difference. I'm not clear on why that biological difference should be relevant in a discussion about whether men and women have the same right to have sex for free.
To be clear, if you were saying that men should have to pay for their own Viagra then I wouldn't be bothered at all if you were saying women should pay for birth control. But it's a double standard to say that a man's sex life should be encouraged at no cost to himself and then turn around and say that women don't have the same right.
What you are choosing to ignore is that 'basic' functionality is being redefined by you. Basic functionality changes as a person ages. Especially on that appendage. That is normal. You are advocating that men be given free drugs to extend what you define as the 'basic' functionality of that appendage past its normal time.
So no married woman should ever have sex with her husband because something might go wrong with her pregnancy with a wanted child that requires an abortion? This thread is about late term abortions and none of them are ever legally performed for convenience. They are mostly performed on women wealthy enough to afford to travel to another state and to pay for the surgery and hospital stay out of pocket.
I think you are having difficulty with this because you are a man. I get it. Men have a bizarre belief that their ability to perform sexually defines them all the way into their golden years. But, let me ask you this. If a guy isn't interested in procreating how is erectile dysfunction medically relevant...if a woman not wanting to become pregnant isn't?
If a man isn't interested in procreating, I can only assume that he won't be buying (or insurance buying) Viagra.
But it's not about being a man: it's about taking responsibility for yourself, and your own actions. The liberal attitude of money for anything someone wants just isn't a part of my philosophy.
And yes, I understand that you don't consider yourself a liberal, but this is one of the things that really grate on me - I want something, but don't want to pay for it so let my neighbor be forced to buy it for me!
Wilderness said, "If a man isn't interested in procreating, I can only assume that he won't be buying (or insurance buying) Viagra."
I just thought I'd put this by itself where all the guys who sometimes have sex for reasons other than procreation can get a chuckle from it.
Not being a guy it elicited a chortle from me. One in disgust at the complete foolishness of the statement.
You're right again - re-reading it I must agree with you. A most foolish statement.
But foolish though it is, it doesn't change the fact that viagra fixes while contraceptives disrupts. That it is a desired disruption...well, if you wish to disrupt the functioning of a properly performing body don't ask me to help.
Interesting. Have you seen the commercials for the product? It doesn't appear that they are advertising to guys who are looking to have kids.
Oh My Gosh. So, a man who wants Viagra for free makes sense. The insurance companies should pay for that, according to you. But, it isn't a liberal attitude of money for anything someone wants.
It is to me. Viagra and that type of drug is a want. A vanity drug.
You mean, like Viagra?
Sorry, but just don't understand the position. One restores functionality and one destroys it. I KNOW you get that, but have a little trouble why it is shoved into the corner and ignored. Is breast enlargement next on the list? Nose straightening? What else should the public pay for because someone wants it but doesn't want to pay for it even though they could?
Viagra is a vanity drug. An inability to maintain a position does not inhibit a man's ability to work. It does not inhibit his ability to do anything at all except for one teenie weenie thing.
If insurance would only cover it if a man wanted to conceive a child, and only while he wanted to conceive, with the consent of the woman he wanted to conceive the child with and if there was constant monitoring to ensure he wasn't getting some added pleasure by use of the product then I'd agree insurance should cover it even if it doesn't cover birth control.
Are you saying that pleasure is not a part of a correctly functioning body? That if fixing what's wrong provides pleasure it should not be fixed?
Are you an ascetic?
Sex is not the only pleasurable thing in the world. Are you saying I have to pay for my neighbor to have whatever pleasure he deems he should have? Even if the absence of that pleasure does not inhibit his ability to make a living and enjoy life?
No - I'm saying that it is reasonable for you to pay (via a voluntary insurance program) to try and fix whatever is biologically wrong with your neighbor. Or even mentally in most cases.
Are you saying that we have to provide whatever entertainment a woman wants but doesn't want to pay for? A movie, perhaps, or a box of chocolates?
Or do you think a condom will repair a broken, malfunctioning female body? Is it similar to an IOL, implanted in an eye to restore vision? Screws in a broken bone, to hold it together, or a knee replacement to make walking possible? Does a IUD operate like a pacemaker, forcing correct operation of the organ it is put on? Does the pill provide correction to an out-of-whack chemical level like an antidepressant does?
Or do ALL of those things simply disrupt bodily functions so that it cannot operate as it was evolved to? What other such devices/drugs do you think your neighbor should pay for because you want it? Cocaine? Leg lengthening surgeries? Fake fingernails? Hair extensions? Where would you draw the line, once we begin to pay for unnecessary, but desired, medical treatments?
Sorry. I don't think that erectile dysfunction is something I should have to pay for. And it is not something that the insurance company should pay for either, if they don't want to cover birth control.
Why must a medical problem be tied to birth control for women that don't want to pay for it themselves? Because it's also in the reproductive system? Will you deny care for prostate or testicular cancer unless birth control is free? Or is it just a desire to slap all males because women want free optional and unnecessary care for something they can easily pay for themselves?
I don't get it and don't think I ever will. Tell you what - I'll accept that we're being blackmailed by the threat of unwanted children and you go on and think that if we don't provide free contraceptives for women then males can get no insurance for any problems in their reproductive system. Condoms shall be free to anyone wanting one.
It is tied because the two go hand in hand. Men feel compelled. Society does everything it can to praise that, nurture it and medicate to make sure they can act on it. Sure, the side effects may be hellish. We all laugh at the commercials. But, if the condition arises in a man he takes his chances. And to imply that men are simply doing it because they want to have babies is ridiculous.
If we are going to do everything in our power to make sure men can have sex we should do everything we can to allow women to protect themselves. This need in men is clearly protected and subsidized by the insurance industry. I'm not sure why it is assumed women should foot the bill for protecting society from the problems it can create.
I see all these as reasonable questions to be asked.
Yes, actually, it does in women who experience mental health issues due to abnormal hormone levels.
It also helps some women with autoimmune diseases avoid the premenstrual flares of their illnesses. I used to take them, in part, to prevent monthly lupus flares despite the fact that I'm already infertile.
The other part was to control my periods after my uterus was damaged. If the fact that it prevented monthly severe cramps (which were extremely painful after the stabbing) is irrelevant to you, it also cured my anemia. People aren't supposed to bleed without ever stopping.
I wish I had been on them when I was homeless. It wouldn't have prevented any of the rapes, but I'd have never had to wonder if I was pregnant by a rapist. Don't tell me that didn't severely and deeply affect my mental health.
I just thought I should add one thing. Viagra is necessary for psychological well being more so than physical well being.
Yep, a man can still have an orgasm even if he can't get an erection due to ED. Viagra just makes him feel better about it.
Doubt it. Men went for thousands and thousands of generations without it - that would seem that it is not necessary for mental well being. Unless you think all elderly men are mentally ill?
I don't think elderly men are mentally unbalanced. I think men put some bizarre emphasis on their ability to do what we both know we are talking about but I'm not going to say. But elderly men have, since the beginning of time, dealt with the fact that this happens. Why, now, is it so important to medicate it?
People have, since time memorial, lost their eyesight to cataracts, too. Does that mean we shouldn't fix the problem for them if we can? Knees have given out in old age as long as man has survived - should we not fix them because of that? Everyone will develop hemorrhoids if they live long enough, and have since we began to walk upright. Should we not fix them because we've always gotten them as we age?
Think about the severity of the problems you have listed. Think about how much they inhibit one's ability to work or function. How much does erectile dysfunction inhibit one's ability to work? To grocery shop? To drive? You aren't taking these into account. If erectile dysfunction simply alleviates a problem which contributes to the pleasurable nature of life how does that equate to more important of a need than birth control?
Hahaha....I might be...but the plumbing is all good, lol!
Just a note of fact here: Viagra and Cialis only assist in the function of gaining and maintaining an erection. They do little in achieving concern and intimate feelings for your partner. They don't elevate the sense of oneness with your partner.
There are double standards throughout our society..
Mass media, advertising, entertainment, internet pornography, sports, all promote sex and the imperative to "get into it." Especially to the young and virile. Yet another industry is built around the fears which can be exploited - getting pregnant, getting STDs, losing your good looks, losing repectability in the community, losing out on Eternal Bliss with Him up there.....etc.
Hey! Let's get real! Learn to talk with young people honestly about sexual matters, right from an early age, in terms they can fully understand, without embarrassment. Maybe a lack of this is what's driving the increase of rape, unwanted pregnancies, family violence, lack of communication.
I don't know....
It's true that we as a society have a major hang up with sex, both in urging to have and and NOT to have it. I'm with you - frank, open discussion with youth might go a long ways towards relieving this particular neurosis. It certainly can't hurt!
I agree parents need to talk to their kids, be realistic about what kids do and help them make good choices. Kids are going to have sex. There is no way around that. Living in a fantasy world where your daughter is some princess virgin with no knowledge, desire or understanding puts her at a disadvantage from the start.
To be fair I believe that free birth control has much bigger and more positive implications than just women not having to pay for it. I don't think it's so outrageous to think that $50/month on the pill is a lot of money to some women and I don't think it's realistic or fair to tell women who are struggling that they need to just "keep their pants on."
We see a lot of abortions from low-income women that could have likely been prevented by access to free birth control. And for those that don't get abortions, the cycle of poverty continues with the kids they can't support.
Aside from just being all "grumble, grumble, I don't want to have to pay for other people's stuff" I don't really see any logic in being opposed to free, accessible birth control.
I've always believed that if a woman has a child while in poverty and asks for government assistance that it is not unreasonable to ask that she remain on birth control until she has found a way to rise above that poverty. I don't feel that society should have to pay for a woman to have multiple children with no intent to find a way to support them financially.
Just a thought: how many persons have been born into poverty, yet then went on to contribute enormously to society?
Further, can you name someone who was born into riches, yet made a complete ass (donkey! With apologies to that species) of him or her self and left a legacy of failure?
So maybe our discrimination is wanting.
Every side to these debates seems to stretch the truth about the other side to prove their point.
Aborting a pregnancy at 9 months actually has a name, it's called birth or a Ceserean.
This radicalization of the opposition only makes us further torn apart.
To say that "EVERY DEM VOTED FOR LATE TERM ABORTION UP TO NINE MONTHS" is so absolute that it can't possibly be truthful. So why listen to someone who speaks untruths?
Jackie needs to go back to school to learn what "reliable source" means. It's not just whichever website agrees with your point of view or says something you like, unfortunately.
Otherwise I could spam you guys with Tumblr links to prove that Doctor Who is real. Which admittedly would be fun. But not actual proof.
Maybe what Jackie needs to learn is that Abortions , much like free speech , or like any such constitutional right allowed for the sake of freedom itself , is only as free as until it offends someone on the left personally , then they become instantly hypocrites ! For instance , Abortions are legal right ?- I mean why not if it's woman s choice , isn't that what liberals tell us all ? So if , of all things quite probable , that pre-natal DNA test can finally prove that your unborn child is destined to be born maybe ,.....lets say ah .....gay ?
And then any parent can decide to have a free abortion ....right ?........right ?
I man what liberal WANTS to have a gay child if the choice is there ?
Right liberals ?...........................crickets ? .......I thought so .
You wait....day will come when it's the norm to be gay.
Let's have it part of the schools carriculum for all young people to be taught carefully about parenting and parenthood. Taught how to rear children so they have a better quality of life, learning about the pitfalls and how to overcome problems and obstacles.
When qualified, they can pair up and apply for licence to have children. Without the course, unqualified, if they conceive there will be no family/child support.
But gay people will also be educated in looking after children. They will also have a strong anfd loving place in society.
Drop the Liberal and the Conservative. Let's get modern and real!
I personally have No problem at all with gays , I know several and am related to them as well , My problem is with the hypocrisy that accompanies most liberal conversation .
By the way Johnny , ever heard of two gay brothers ? I never had until my cousins announced .
Just asking !
Yes I have, Jean. Not uncommon. They would be as diverse as the general population. Some might have fun together, some would not .... who cares? They can give of themselves to their community, if allowed to do without prejudice and, maybe help a lot more in the support/nurture of children, relieving parents/grand parents of some burden.
Let's use our resources wisely.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-it is not about getting modern-it is about becoming intelligent & enlightened!
As it's not a life or death test I'd assume they'd make it illegal to do the testing before the non-medical abortion cut-off date (which here is 20 weeks). They don't let people find out gender before 20 weeks for that exact reason (some cultures aborting babies just because they're girls).
A woman having freedom to choose doesn't need to be all or nothing. Not providing any superficial information (such as sex or sexual orientation) when women can have abortions ensures that abortions aren't just done willynilly. Isn't that something y'all should be glad about?
For credible sources about this issue look up Jill Stanek or Melody Green.
Kermit Gosnell was convicted for doing very late term abortions--and on babies that came out alive, he snipped their spinal chords to kill them. He was convicted and sent to prison. Other unscrupulous operators have drowned babies in buckets, left them to die of exposure, or strangled them. Never forget abortion is a lucrative business in many places, so greed for profit drives the industry.
Certain methods were and are particularly gruesome, such as D & E, which basically meant tearing a child limb from limb to remove it from the womb. Look up Anthony Levatino and why he stopped doing these. Another practice was to deliver children feet first, then insert scissors in the backs of their necks and suck out their brains, so they could crush the skull prior to pulling it out of the the mother.
There is a modern-day Holocaust occurring and if a woman can claim she is mentally ill or ill-equipped emotionally to give birth, matters can be arranged so she can dispatch her unborn child.
Fortunately, the tide is turning somewhat with recognition that unborn children do feel extreme pain.
Wasn't it just for cases of zika virus? & Didn't Republicans vote for that too?
by LailaK 6 years ago
The 2012 presidential election is approaching! Do you think that the new presidential candidates should support or ban abortion for women of all ages? Why?
by Precious Pearl 9 years ago
Do you believe that abortion is murder or is it just a choice?
by Patricia Scott 4 years ago
Is there ever ta time when abortion is acceptable?I thought I knew my answer to this question until I googled the word abortion and clicked images. Now....not so much.
by Chris Mills 5 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a pro-choice person on this point. I may not agree with this person on anything...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Abortion is THE MOST CONTENTIOUS arena and subject of American politics. Abortion also generates the MOST VISCERAL reaction among people. However, what business and concern it is whether a woman elects to have an abortion. She knows the reason and the circumstances as to why she...
by Phocas Vincent 3 years ago
Do you believe in your opinion that in the topic of abortion, the US Government should regulate the procedure or should it be a left to the discretion of the individuals involved? (Please keep it civil and clean guys.)
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|