US Becoming Pro-Life

[PLC1]

You parroted obama’s words exactly "that heart wrenching decision"

what exactly is heart wrenching about it? If there is nothing wrong with abortion then why should it be heart wrenching? If you are not killing a person then I don’t see why any one would consider it heart wrenching and why in fact try to reduce them if there is nothing wrong with doing it.

if abortion is liberty and freedom to choose then why reduce a woman’s right to choose?

It can’t be both ways, legal, moral, right, ok, fine but also
heart wrenching and it needs to be reduced.


you tell me who is getting the abortions that he plans to reduce if you don’t think its women who don’t want to be punished or burdened with a pregnancy?

it is a difficult and heart wrenching decision, not to be taken lightly. It is a decision to be made by the people involved, not by the government.

Outlawing it will just drive it underground, where it was before Roe v. Wade. It will not end it.

 

[Pandora]

it is a difficult and heart wrenching decision, not to be taken lightly. It is a decision to be made by the people involved, not by the government.

Outlawing it will just drive it underground, where it was before Roe v. Wade. It will not end it.

I know a lady who is proud of the fact she has had 17 abortions

I have seen women with their tee shirts on that say

I had and abortion
and Im proud!

Its heart wrenching I am sure for someone who was raped, someone who has a pregnancy in their tubes or someone who has a kidney that can not handle a pregnancy

but what in the hell is heart wrenching about an operation that removes a tumor? many women who believe in abortion consider the pregnancy a tumor, why would that be heart wrenching?

 

[PLC1]

I know a lady who is proud of the fact she has had 17 abortions

I have seen women with their tee shirts on that say

I had and abortion
and Im proud!

Its heart wrenching I am sure for someone who was raped, someone who has a pregnancy in their tubes or someone who has a kidney that can not handle a pregnancy

but what in the hell is heart wrenching about an operation that removes a tumor? many women who believe in abortion consider the pregnancy a tumor, why would that be heart wrenching?

How sad.

But what are the rest of us to do about such people?

Can you imagine what kind of mothers they would be?

 

[Pandora]

How sad.

But what are the rest of us to do about such people?

Can you imagine what kind of mothers they would be?

Thats why God invented adoption

That woman who had 17 abortions had two daughters in between the abortions, she was actually a good mom for the most part. Uber liberal and was ok with sex even when they were 11 and 12 but except for that was actually a good mom.

Most women who consider the baby a tumor I would hope would give the baby up for adoption as soon as the baby was born, then we wouldnt have to go to China, Korea exc. to adopt though there is nothing wrong with flying half way around the world to adopt.

You seem to assume if a woman has to carry a baby to term they have to keep the baby, no one is suggesting that.

 

[Popeye]

Thats why God invented adoption

That woman who had 17 abortions had two daughters in between the abortions, she was actually a good mom for the most part. Uber liberal and was ok with sex even when they were 11 and 12 but except for that was actually a good mom.

Most women who consider the baby a tumor I would hope would give the baby up for adoption as soon as the baby was born, then we wouldnt have to go to China, Korea exc. to adopt though there is nothing wrong with flying half way around the world to adopt.

You seem to assume if a woman has to carry a baby to term they have to keep the baby, no one is suggesting that.

I don't notice religious nuts like Randall Terry giving a damn about unwanted children being adopted. The only thing the leaders of the pro life movement care about is using abortion as a political football.

I've got an idea..why doesn't everybody mind their own business? If you don't support abortion, don't have one...but don't try to legislate interference in another woman's reproductive rights.

Abortion=legal medical procedure

 

[Pandora]

I don't notice religious nuts like Randall Terry giving a damn about unwanted children being adopted. The only thing the leaders of the pro life movement care about is using abortion as a political football.

I've got an idea..why doesn't everybody mind their own business? If you don't support abortion, don't have one...but don't try to legislate interference in another woman's reproductive rights.

Abortion=legal medical procedure

Then you must be against the great one because he wants to reduce those medical procedures.

Why do you figure he said it was "heart wrenching" ? do you know of another medical procedure that is Heart Wrenching?

 

[PLC1]

Thats why God invented adoption

That woman who had 17 abortions had two daughters in between the abortions, she was actually a good mom for the most part. Uber liberal and was ok with sex even when they were 11 and 12 but except for that was actually a good mom.

Most women who consider the baby a tumor I would hope would give the baby up for adoption as soon as the baby was born, then we wouldnt have to go to China, Korea exc. to adopt though there is nothing wrong with flying half way around the world to adopt.

You seem to assume if a woman has to carry a baby to term they have to keep the baby, no one is suggesting that.

OK, so how do you convince a woman who thinks a baby is a "tumor" to carry it to term, and give it up for adoption? Is passing a law going to achieve that, or is it just going to drive the woman to have an illegal procedure?

 

[GenSeneca]

I've got an idea..why doesn't everybody mind their own business? If you don't support abortion, don't have one...but don't try to legislate interference in another woman's reproductive rights.

If you don't support slavery, don't own a slave... That slave isn't an individual that deserves rights, its property that can be kept, or destroyed, at the owners whim. Don't try to legislate interference in a slave owners rights to property.

 

[PLC1]

Then you must be against the great one because he wants to reduce those medical procedures.

Why do you figure he said it was "heart wrenching" ? do you know of another medical procedure that is Heart Wrenching?

How about the choice between taking a loved one off of life support, or allowing him/her to be kept "alive" by machines indefinitely?

How about deciding whether to remove a breast, or take a chance that the cancer might come back?

How about a choice between prostate surgery, and possible impotence, or a slow growing cancer?

Or, how about the choice between spending millions to save one medically fragile child, or using those same millions to provide life saving vaccines to thousands of children, thus saving hundreds?

There are a lot of heart wrenching medical decisions, none of which have easy answers.

 

[Pandora]

OK, so how do you convince a woman who thinks a baby is a "tumor" to carry it to term, and give it up for adoption? Is passing a law going to achieve that, or is it just going to drive the woman to have an illegal procedure?

If you have ever paid attention to my posts, I have never said I thought abortion should be banned. I think its wrong, I think its murder and I do think late term, partial birth abortions should be banned and for Gods sake I am against obama 100% when it comes to killing living babies outside the womb!

But I don’t think they should be made illegal in the first 3 months. Here is what I do think.

I think states have a right to decide if they want to have abortions in their state

I think no tax payer should EVER have to pay for someone to kill a child

I think more should be done to educate women on what exactly they are doing when they seek an abortion

And I think we should work harder to help women who want to carry the baby to term and adopt or even carry the baby to term and keep the baby.

 

[Pandora]

How about the choice between taking a loved one off of life support, or allowing him/her to be kept "alive" by machines indefinitely?

If it’s like Terri then no but if it’s someone who wrote out or clearly told someone (who didn’t have a lot to gain by her death) that she or he did not want to live on life support then sure, why not. It’s their body and no other body is affected.

How about deciding whether to remove a breast, or take a chance that the cancer might come back?

again its your own body and no other living person would be effected, cut off both your tits and your butt too! It might be heart wrenching because you now wont look good without your top but comparing a persons boobs to a living child is kind of … disgusting?

How about a choice between prostate surgery, and possible impotence, or a slow growing cancer?

what kind of questions are these? You are equating a living person being killed because another person finds them inconvenient to removing ones own breast.

Or, how about the choice between spending millions to save one medically fragile child, or using those same millions to provide life saving vaccines to thousands of children, thus saving hundreds?

if a person has millions to spend on their child its their right or if they would rather spend it one something else its their right, what has this to do with killing another person because you don’t want to be burdened with them?

There are a lot of heart wrenching medical decisions, none of which have easy answers.

every one of these you described has nothing to do with the killing of another person because you wont want to be bothered with them. At the age of 24 I had a radical total hysterectomy because I was in the 3d stage of cancer. It was not heart wrenching to lose my female organs. Why would it be? Had I been pregnant when it happened it would be, but then again I know that I am killing another person with what I am about to do. Of course its heart wrenching if you know you are about to kill another person… but why would it be heart wrenching when I know it’s just another surgery?

 

[PLC1]

If you have ever paid attention to my posts, I have never said I thought abortion should be banned. I think its wrong, I think its murder and I do think late term, partial birth abortions should be banned and for Gods sake I am against obama 100% when it comes to killing living babies outside the womb!

But I don’t think they should be made illegal in the first 3 months. Here is what I do think.

I think states have a right to decide if they want to have abortions in their state

I think no tax payer should EVER have to pay for someone to kill a child

I think more should be done to educate women on what exactly they are doing when they seek an abortion

And I think we should work harder to help women who want to carry the baby to term and adopt or even carry the baby to term and keep the baby.

When you call abortion murder, it's hard not to think that you want to see it banned.

Actually, your position and mine are very close. Abortion is a terrible thing, it is a "heart wrenching decision", even if Obama did say so, and we as a society should make more of an effort to limit it.

I think more should be done to educate women on what exactly they are doing when they seek an abortion

Absolutely, as well as educating women in how to prevent unwanted pregnancy to begin with.

I think no tax payer should EVER have to pay for someone to kill a child

There are more implications than you seem to realize to that statement.

Is it wrong for a taxpayer to be forced to pay for something that they don't agree with?

If so, how could we ever fund a war, unless there is 100% support for said war?

How could that be achieved?

Is abortion "killing a child"? If it is, how could we ever allow anyone to kill a child? Isn't that an absolute wrong every time?

 

[PLC1]

If it’s like Terri then no but if it’s someone who wrote out or clearly told someone (who didn’t have a lot to gain by her death) that she or he did not want to live on life support then sure, why not. It’s their body and no other body is affected.

again its your own body and no other living person would be effected, cut off both your tits and your butt too! It might be heart wrenching because you now wont look good without your top but comparing a persons boobs to a living child is kind of … disgusting?

what kind of questions are these? You are equating a living person being killed because another person finds them inconvenient to removing ones own breast.

if a person has millions to spend on their child its their right or if they would rather spend it one something else its their right, what has this to do with killing another person because you don’t want to be burdened with them?



every one of these you described has nothing to do with the killing of another person because you wont want to be bothered with them. At the age of 24 I had a radical total hysterectomy because I was in the 3d stage of cancer. It was not heart wrenching to lose my female organs. Why would it be? Had I been pregnant when it happened it would be, but then again I know that I am killing another person with what I am about to do. Of course its heart wrenching if you know you are about to kill another person… but why would it be heart wrenching when I know it’s just another surgery?

The decision of taking someone off of life support has something to do with killing another person, if you believe that said person is still alive.

I submit that a decision that only affects the person making that decision is still heart wrenching, to that person and to his/her family. Having a radical total hysterectomy, for example, has a profound effect on the woman involved, and on her husband.

Also, is spending millions on one child, instead of spending those same millions to save a hundred children, not tantamount to killing 99? Sure, if the millions belong to the parents of the one child, then it is their decision. Usually, that is not the case, but, sure, they should be allowed to spend their own money however they see fit.

Just as a pregnant woman can use her body however she sees fit, either to carry the fetus to term, or not.

But, neither decision should be taken lightly.

 

[Pandora]

When you call abortion murder, it's hard not to think that you want to see it banned.

Actually, your position and mine are very close. Abortion is a terrible thing, it is a "heart wrenching decision", even if Obama did say so, and we as a society should make more of an effort to limit it.



Absolutely, as well as educating women in how to prevent unwanted pregnancy to begin with.



There are more implications than you seem to realize to that statement.

Is it wrong for a taxpayer to be forced to pay for something that they don't agree with?

If so, how could we ever fund a war, unless there is 100% support for said war?

How could that be achieved?

Is abortion "killing a child"? If it is, how could we ever allow anyone to kill a child? Isn't that an absolute wrong every time?

You seem pretty smart so I don’t get it


If there is a spider crawling on my floor and I step on it and smash it and rub my foot right and left to make sure its dead, did I not just kill a spider?

Killing something is when you make something that is alive not alive anymore, what on earth do you think happens when a baby who has a DNA of its own a heart of its own a life of its own is snuffed out? It was alive now its dead, its of course killed. A baby who dies on its own is called a Miscarriage or still born. When we purposefully target said baby and make it die there is no other word than kill or murder.

You are right some don’t think we should have any war, lay down and die instead of fight. Those people should get tax payer paid one way bus or plane tickets to France or any other country of their choice.

You can’t see the difference in forcing tax payers to participate in killing children to the defense of our country? Really ?

 

[PLC1]

You seem pretty smart so I don’t get it


If there is a spider crawling on my floor and I step on it and smash it and rub my foot right and left to make sure its dead, did I not just kill a spider?

Killing something is when you make something that is alive not alive anymore, what on earth do you think happens when a baby who has a DNA of its own a heart of its own a life of its own is snuffed out? It was alive now its dead, its of course killed. A baby who dies on its own is called a Miscarriage or still born. When we purposefully target said baby and make it die there is no other word than kill or murder.

You are right some don’t think we should have any war, lay down and die instead of fight. Those people should get tax payer paid one way bus or plane tickets to France or any other country of their choice.

You can’t see the difference in forcing tax payers to participate in killing children to the defense of our country? Really ?

It is your word "murder" that puzzles me.

If you step on a spider, have you murdered the spider?

If abortion is murder, then why should the murderer be treated differently from any other murderer?

The argument boils down to when a human being becomes a human being. If it is at conception, then any abortion is no different from infantacide, and so must be treated as such.

If a human being become so at birth, then any abortion up to that moment is OK.

It seems to me that abortion actually occupies a gray zone, somewhere between murder and removing a tumor.