# abortion



## JIL (Aug 25, 2007)

this is a 12 yr olds report on abortion: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOR1wUqvJS4&feature=email[/ame]


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Good for her that she has a choice to make..and its for life. Though that is the point...its a CHOICE


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

She did a good job reading her speech.


----------



## viggie (Jul 17, 2009)

That is awesome


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

lilmizlayla said:


> Good for her that she has a choice to make..and its for life. Though that is the point...its a CHOICE


Said thou shelt not Kill (nuff said)


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Always a touchy subject.

I once saw President Bush quoted as saying, in answer to a question on abortion, 'We will never stop abortion until we change the hearts and minds of the American people.

That's truly where the battleground is, not congress or the supreme court. It's a genie that is out of the bottle and I don't know it can ever be put back in the bottle - perhaps, though, we could 'change the hearts and minds' and make it irrelevant if legal.

I don't think it will be changed as long as it is such a political plus for each side of the party. It not only brings in tons of contributions to their offices so they can 'fight' or 'protect a woman's right to choose'. It solidifies people in the 'right' camp. When there is a debate on the subject, you can almost hear the checkbooks being whipped out and checks flying off to each side's political hero. Those politicians know, full well, there isn't going to be an assault on the law for a very long time - so they are safe in their bombastic rhetoric on the subject - both sides.



It's sad it became a political debate. To put it in those terms, polarizes people and makes people on both sides think in those terms and dig in their heels.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

We could greatly reduce the number of abortions in this country and the countries we give foreign aid to by making birth control more accessible. It should be free.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

fishhead said:


> We could greatly reduce the number of abortions in this country and the countries we give foreign aid to by making birth control more accessible. It should be free.


 I don't know, but don't women on medicaid get birth control? How about Planned Parenthood and other such clinics? Just a feeling, but I'm thinking it is available to any woman who wants it.

But what about men? 

You know, though, thinking women can't afford birth control - so they have unprotected sex, but if you can't afford birth control, you surely can't afford children.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Trixie said:


> I don't know, but don't women on medicaid get birth control? How about Planned Parenthood and other such clinics? Just a feeling, but I'm thinking it is available to any woman who wants it.
> 
> But what about men?
> 
> You know, though, thinking women can't afford birth control - so they have unprotected sex, but if you can't afford birth control, you surely can't afford children.


This implies a certain amount of 'cause to effect' thinking that many adults (and almost no teenagers) possess. As we get 'younger and younger' at any given age (because our lives have been made too easy and artificially slowed), this gets worse.

I've often said that I support a person's right to choose_ more strongly than anyone I know_; right up until the act of intercourse. After that, I advocate for the innocent parties.. most often all three involved, but more strongly for the one who cannot yet speak.

R


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

fishhead said:


> We could greatly reduce the number of abortions in this country and the countries we give foreign aid to by making birth control more accessible. It should be free.


I'm pretty sure its been free for quite a while...don't know as it should be free for those who aren't poor enuf for medicaid, tho...


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Birth control is NOT free in the US. Many women cannot afford it.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

fishhead said:


> Birth control is NOT free in the US. Many women cannot afford it.


Neither are children nor abortions.. if one is so poor they cannot afford birth control then they should either practice abstinence or require the partner to pay for it. If they are on medicaid then yes it is free...and they have a wide variety of choices. To conceive and choose to kill an innocent life because you cannot afford a few dollars for a condom is beyond anything I have ever heard...I am fervently hoping that it this is not true.. that a woman would not choose to pay for birth control or require her partner to but would instead choose to pay for and kill an innocent life...


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Got a question for everybody.
It is a well known fact that if a woman chooses to have a child the father of that child will be supporting that child.
What should happen if a woman wants to abort a child and the father wants the child?


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

fishhead said:


> Birth control is NOT free in the US. Many women cannot afford it.


"Birth control" doesn't have to mean the pill. Tell the man to pick up a box of condoms (which they should be using anyway). Or he could pitch in on her prescription. Anyway, I really doubt most people couldn't come up with the money by cutting back on something else. Most people have cable TV and cell phones, go out to eat, etc.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Many years ago, we had health insurance and still felt that we could not afford birth control pills. It was not covered by our insurance. This was almost 20 years ago. At the time, money was tight and we certainly didn't want any more children. The crazy thing is that our insurance would have paid for an abortion, but not birth control.

The type of birth control pills that I used were about $75 per pack a year ago. For some families, that is a lot of money in this tight economy. Condoms are much cheaper but have a higher rate of failure. 

Failed birth control methods can result in an unintended pregnancy. To me, a condom is the method of birth control that you use to prevent disease, moreso than pregnancy. Along that same line of thinking, if you are having sex with someone who may be exposing you to the possibility of disease, then you probably shouldn't be having sex with that person!


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Condoms aren't cheap either.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

fishhead said:


> Condoms aren't cheap either.


Compared to child support for 18-21 years they are a bargain.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

TheMartianChick said:


> Along that same line of thinking, if you are having sex with someone who may be exposing you to the possibility of disease, then you probably shouldn't be having sex with that person!


This is very unrealistic. Unless two people marry as virgins and stay totally faithful, there is always a chance of being exposed to something. And there is no way to know if someone is telling the truth about their past or is staying faithful. Look around at the athletes, politicians, ministers etc. we hear about in the news every day. Don't you think many of their spouses felt pretty secure?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

fishhead said:


> Birth control is NOT free in the US. Many women cannot afford it.


When I was a student & could not afford a lot of things...went to PP for check ups AND free BC.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

fishhead said:


> Condoms aren't cheap either.


Please be serious folks. A box of condoms doesn't cost any more than keeping a baby in diapers for a month. Only with the baby, there will be a lot more expenses than the diapers. That $75/month figure doesn't impress me either, not when compared with the cost of raising a child or paying for an abortion. 

Personally, if my insurance paid for abortions but not birth control, and I couldn't afford birth control, I'd give up sex. And I'm pro-choice. Deliberately creating a situation where you must have an abortion is one of the most selfish things I can imagine.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JanS said:


> Please be serious folks. A box of condoms doesn't cost any more than keeping a baby in diapers for a month. Only with the baby, there will be a lot more expenses than the diapers. That $75/month figure doesn't impress me either, not when compared with the cost of raising a child or paying for an abortion.
> 
> Personally, if my insurance paid for abortions but not birth control, and I couldn't afford birth control, I'd give up sex. And I'm pro-choice. Deliberately creating a situation where you must have an abortion is one of the most selfish things I can imagine.


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

For me, this is an issue of the government's control over my person. Period. 

Whatever you personally decide on the matter, is irrelevant-the government is in womens' reproductive systems. The arguments about legislating morality and so forth, are moot. Women are second or third class citizens in America, imo. Children and the unborn have more rights than a woman of reproductive age. 

If there were some way to do the same to men....well I don't see anyone working that angle at all. Men are allowed to be no more than sperm donors, and the shame and responsibility is placed squarely on the woman. 

Pfft.

As far as birth control...its even worse if you are in your later 30s or older. I could not even get any, so when I became pregnant at 40 it was very "high risk" as they say. No problems and no regrets of course-I have a wonderful son. I am now well past the child bearing age (gosh I hope, lol!) but I still become enraged that MEN decide what control women have over their bodies.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

JanS said:


> Personally, if my insurance paid for abortions but not birth control, and I couldn't afford birth control, I'd give up sex. And I'm pro-choice. Deliberately creating a situation where you must have an abortion is one of the most selfish things I can imagine.


I didn't say anything about deliberately creating a situation where you must have an abortion. I said that our insurance would pay for an abortion and not birth control. I thought that it was CRAZY!!! I don't know how much an abortion costs now, but the last that I heard, they were over a $1000 in my area.

As far as giving up sex goes... Well, I can imagine that some marriages might end in divorce under those conditions.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

TheMartianChick said:


> Many years ago, we had health insurance and still felt that we could not afford birth control pills. It was not covered by our insurance. This was almost 20 years ago. At the time, money was tight and we certainly didn't want any more children. The crazy thing is that our insurance would have paid for an abortion, but not birth control.
> 
> The type of birth control pills that I used were about $75 per pack a year ago. For some families, that is a lot of money in this tight economy. Condoms are much cheaper but have a higher rate of failure.
> 
> Failed birth control methods can result in an unintended pregnancy. To me, a condom is the method of birth control that you use to prevent disease, moreso than pregnancy. Along that same line of thinking, if you are having sex with someone who may be exposing you to the possibility of disease, then you probably shouldn't be having sex with that person!


Did you find a way to pay for them?


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Tricky Grama said:


> When I was a student & could not afford a lot of things...went to PP for check ups AND free BC.


I went to Planned Parenthood twice... I had to pay for every service that I received and they only wanted to prescribe a type of birth control that was inappropriate for me. I was told that I would just have to allow my body to get used to it. (They acted as though there was only one type of birth control pill!) My current doctor thought that was ridiculous and immediately prescribed one that was more appropriate and did not make me so ill.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

TheMartianChick said:


> I didn't say anything about deliberately creating a situation where you must have an abortion. I said that our insurance would pay for an abortion and not birth control. I thought that it was CRAZY!!! I don't know how much an abortion costs now, but the last that I heard, they were over a $1000 in my area.
> 
> As far as giving up sex goes... Well, I can imagine that some marriages might end in divorce under those conditions.


"Deliberately creating a situation where you must have an abortion" wasn't aimed specifically at you.

I'm sure you're right about marriages ending in divorce due to no sex. Divorce isn't free either though. If hubby is willing to make cuts to his beer money to pay for a divorce, he might think about doing the same for birth control.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

This discussion is so ridiculous..really poor people can get birth control through medicaid..poor people can get cheap birth control from health units.. and for everyone else they can give something up to pay for it if they want to have sex.. and NO NO NO... MEN do not decide.. Individually a woman decides whether to buy the BC or not.. to have the sex or not and for the moment if they keep the child or not..I detest it when women act like they are being dictated to by men..Stop playing the girl card...Do not allow it to be so... You make your choices!. For me..a female... I choose to control me...I will not wallow on the ground saying _woe is me.. men are so unfair.. _Get up and make things how you want them to be..if you want control then TAKE IT :grit:


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Did you find a way to pay for them?


Not exactly... We did use condoms, but the anxiety caused by condom failure was immense. I really didn't want anymore children and the mere thought of an unplanned pregnancy caused me to start imagining that I had all of the classic symptoms.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

TheMartianChick said:


> Not exactly... We did use condoms, but the anxiety caused by condom failure was immense. I really didn't want anymore children and the mere thought of an unplanned pregnancy caused me to start imagining that I had all of the classic symptoms.


Not to be personal but would your insurance pay for a tubaligation?


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Not to be personal but would your insurance pay for a tubaligation?


They would have at the time... However, I guess I wasn't sure that I would NEVER want any more children in the future. I was young and kept saying that I might want another one in about 5 years... As the years went by, I realized that no matter how much our financial situation improved, I really didn't want to have any more at all. This period lasted for about two years, so it was before I realized that I absolutely didn't want any more. Once we had better insurance, it was no longer an issue.

Our current insurance pays for birth control and sterilization techniques. I finally did have surgery a year ago, so that I wouldn't have to be reliant on the hormones and chemicals of birth control. Besides, I figured it was like a preparedness thing: I would hate to have an unplanned pregnancy during a SHTF type of situation. I would be considered a high risk pregnancy since I am in my forties.


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

Honey, I don't let any man control what I do in normal every day interactions-except my boss of course.

My point about men having the final say over our internal organs, goes to the government. By taking away one half of the US population's right to determine their own self, they are disenfranchised to that degree. 

What a woman choses to do, is up to her. It infuriates me no end to listen to men go on a rant about women's reproduction. They cannot truly know, they cannot understand, and they cannot grasp the emotional complexities. Mostly, I have a hunch they are genuinely upset that they don't have ultimate control.


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

Pouncer said:


> Honey, I don't let any man control what I do in normal every day interactions-except my boss of course.
> 
> *My point about men having the final say over our internal organs, goes to the government. *By taking away one half of the US population's right to determine their own self, they are disenfranchised to that degree.
> 
> What a woman choses to do, is up to her. It infuriates me no end to listen to men go on a rant about women's reproduction. They cannot truly know, they cannot understand, and they cannot grasp the emotional complexities. Mostly, I have a hunch they are genuinely upset that they don't have ultimate control.


In what way do men have the final say over your internal organs??


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


>


Well, thanks. With our differing politics, this could be the only one I ever get.


----------



## jacqueg (Feb 21, 2010)

"In what way do men have the final say over your internal organs??"

By telling you that you must incubate a fetus.

Take a look at Congress. Is it mostly men, or not?


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

Thank you, jacqueg.

If men were forced to carry a pregnancy to term or any variation of child birth you can imagine, I am quite sure the approach and the law would be quite different. 

Mind you, this is not the same thing as agreeing with other peoples' choices-I just think it's theirs to make.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fishhead said:


> Birth control is NOT free in the US. Many women cannot afford it.


You are joking right? I have never seen a place where a woman could not get free birth control if she wanted it.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

WindowOrMirror said:


> This implies a certain amount of 'cause to effect' thinking that many adults (and almost no teenagers) possess. As we get 'younger and younger' at any given age (because our lives have been made too easy and artificially slowed), this gets worse.
> 
> I've often said that I support a person's right to choose_ more strongly than anyone I know_; right up until the act of intercourse. After that, I advocate for the innocent parties.. most often all three involved, but more strongly for the one who cannot yet speak.
> 
> R


Exactly!


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

If you wish to kill off your own, then so be it.. I won't stop you.. 

Just don't expect me to pay for it!

If I have to pay for your abortion, then why aren't you paying for my next rifle? Mine is at least a Constitutional Right..


----------



## bigfoot2you (Oct 3, 2007)

aintlifegrand said:


> this discussion is so ridiculous..really poor people can get birth control through medicaid..poor people can get cheap birth control from health units.. And for everyone else they can give something up to pay for it if they want to have sex.. And no no no... Men do not decide.. Individually a woman decides whether to buy the bc or not.. To have the sex or not and for the moment if they keep the child or not..i detest it when women act like they are being dictated to by men..stop playing the girl card...do not allow it to be so... You make your choices!. For me..a female... I choose to control me...i will not wallow on the ground saying _woe is me.. Men are so unfair.. _get up and make things how you want them to be..if you want control then take it :grit:


woo hoo :clap: You GO girl!!! :goodjob:


----------



## Tom in TN (Jun 12, 2007)

Oh, brother!

Most of the discussion on this issue has centered on cost. So, just what is the value of a human being? $1.00? $100.00? $1,000.00? How can anyone be heartless enough to equate the value of a baby with the cost of a condom?

It's not a choice - it's a baby. 

And don't give me this baloney about the goofy argument that I'm a man and can't understand. I'm perfectly capable to recognize a baby - and that's what's at risk.

Tom in TN


----------



## FunnyRiverFarm (May 25, 2010)

I find it odd that many of the same folks who oppose a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a baby to term also oppose public assistance measures that provide prenatal care to poor women and provide means to care for children after they're born. Public/government programs also provide funds to care for unwanted children. You don't want your tax dollars spent on public welfare programs but you also don't want any oppourtunity for life to go to waste no matter what the cirumstances are...so what do you want? Unless YOU personally are willing to adopt a child from an unwanted pregnancy and pay all the associated costs then why should you have a say in what a woman choses to do with her body...?


----------



## Tom in TN (Jun 12, 2007)

FunnyRiver,

That's just the point. The baby is NOT the woman's body. Its DNA is NOT the mother's DNA. It's NOT the father's DNA. It is a UNIQUE person, with a UNIQUE DNA. It's a baby.

I read a book one time where some people were encouraging an authority figure to execute a certain person. The authority figure asked them a question that went something like this, "Why? What evil has he done?" I realize full well that the situation is not the same, but I believe that the question, in and of itself is germane as it relates to the baby in question - - "Why, What evil has it done?"

It's a baby.

Tom in TN


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

When I was college age I was pro-choice. As I got older it dawned on me "where does the baby's choice come into play?" Does this unique human being get a choice in any of this?


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

jacqueg said:


> "In what way do men have the final say over your internal organs??"
> 
> By telling you that you must incubate a fetus.
> 
> ...


Congress at the moment is mostly men but those men support abortion... they are liberal democrats at the moment and even when the republicans take over..have they stated they would be chnaging that? Have the indicated that they will not allow you to kill unborn innocent children.. no you will be allowed to carry on at will.. so again.. how are men telling you what to do?


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

The video is a nice piece of propaganda most likely written by a pro-life adult and given to this child to read. She may or may not even understand what the heck she is even talking about. 

Abortion...who cares really? If I am not one of the biological parents it is not my business whether they have a completely LEGAL abortion and terminate the pregnancy or decide to have the baby.

I look at it a couple of different ways. Some have talked about the cost of publicly funded abortions, but not about the costs to the taxpayers for having to pay to raise that child of a welfare mom? Which cost in the end is less? Abortion or 18 years of welfare? The little girl talked about the potential of those aborted fetuses assuming they will all go on to do good in their lives. What if they all go on to do evil and become criminals? What is that cost? That is the problem when you make ludicrous statements about potential without looking at circumstances.

The other is simply this, if you are so anti-abortion put your money where your mouth is and stand outside and abortion clinic and offer to pay all pre-natal care, hospital costs, adoption costs, and the costs of raising that baby to adulthood for one woman. The next woman is offered the same by the next pro-lifer and so on until there is no need for the abortion because someone wants the baby. Unless you are willing to stand up and do something other than restrict someone else's rights you are nothing but a busy body trouble maker. Talk is cheap...

I guess i look at the whole abortion issue as a freedom of choice issue. The pro-abortionists want the freedom to have abortion as an option, this takes nothing away from the pro-lifers who would never consider an abortion for themselves. The pro-lifers on the other hand want to control not only their own lives and choices, but everyone else's too by eliminating abortion as a choice.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

FyredUp said:


> I guess i look at the whole abortion issue as a freedom of choice issue. The pro-abortionists want the freedom to have abortion as an option, this takes nothing away from the pro-lifers who would never consider an abortion for themselves. The pro-lifers on the other hand want to control not only their own lives and choices, but everyone else's too by eliminating abortion as a choice.



What about the baby's freedom of choice?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Wow!!

I guess I just never believed a woman's body was here own - once she got pregnant.

Also, it is true - a woman gets a choice - to have unprotected sex or not. All of us know the possible consequences. 

No, not everyone who opposes abortion is against giving pre-natal care - that's another one of those political sound bites - much like the Republicans are going to starve old people. 

Once a man, I thought was my friend, and I were discussing abortion. He was a Democrat and he said, 'You Republicans (I'm not), want all children to be born, you just want to starve them after they are born.'

It was a cruel thing to say.

I really did want to ask him if he had ever thought about the joy we would have all missed had the birth mother of his adopted son, opted for abortion? I couldn't.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

I just wish that A) men treated women in a loving way across the board, and that B) a woman would be this militant about her body being "her own" _before_ getting pregnant.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

pancho said:


> Got a question for everybody.
> It is a well known fact that if a woman chooses to have a child the father of that child will be supporting that child.
> What should happen if a woman wants to abort a child and the father wants the child?


Abortion.

Edited: I mistook should for would. If the woman wants an abortion there will be an abortion, the man will have no say in the matter.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Trixie said:


> Once a man, I thought was my friend, and I were discussing abortion. He was a Democrat and he said, 'You Republicans (I'm not), want all children to be born, you just want to starve them after they are born.'


Scroll down to any "food stamps"-type thread right here in this forum then tell us again how Republicans are there for poor children after birth.


----------



## jacqueg (Feb 21, 2010)

"I really did want to ask him if he had ever thought about the joy we would have all missed had the birth mother of his adopted son, opted for abortion? "

He would have found joy in whatever child he adopted. Think of all the other children that existed that he didn't adopt...THere is no shortage of children out there needing to be loved and cared for.

In an ideal world, abortion would be safe, legal and rare. So we have two out of three. I am kind of sorry I started participating in this thread, because I think we will all say the things we all always say, and never get anywhere. Just like what happens in the public sphere. How many millions of dollars in money and time have been spent on these arguments?

What would it take to make abortions rare? And I don't mean prohibiting it, I mean what would it take to reduce the demand for them?


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

Wags said:


> What about the baby's freedom of choice?


I can't have a serious debate on a topic with someone making ludicrous statements like this.

A fetus has no freedom of choice of ANYTHING. Why is that so hard to understand?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

jacqueg said:


> "I really did want to ask him if he had ever thought about the joy we would have all missed had the birth mother of his adopted son, opted for abortion? "
> 
> He would have found joy in whatever child he adopted. Think of all the other children that existed that he didn't adopt...THere is no shortage of children out there needing to be loved and cared for.
> 
> ...


Oh my goodness, that gives me chills.

The idea that so what, that child was not born, another will do.
THAT child would not have been born.
Children are - unique - it's a one time deal. 

They are not like trains - you miss this one - another will be along.

I'm not sure what it would take to make abortion rare. As I said, the genie is out of he bottle - the bell can't be unrung.

Just a thought, but maybe some real personal responsibility. In other words, just because you want sex and are physically capable of having sex, doesn't mean you should. If you should decide to have sex and become pregnant - that goes for men and women - then step up to the plate and take responsibility and love that child and raise it.

If I had to talk with a woman considering abortion, I would ask her to give that life a chance. I would tell her I would help her in every way I could. The baby could be adopted. It would only take 9 months of her life to give that baby life. Only 9 months!! 

I could be wrong, I've never talked personally, as in one on one with someone who has had an abortion, but I don't believe they do it without soul searching and thought. I don't believe it is an easy decision for them. 

Also, I think I would tell someone considering it - that whatever road you take, you life is forever changed - keep the baby, put it up for adoption, or abort it - you life is changed.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Tom in TN said:


> Oh, brother!
> 
> Most of the discussion on this issue has centered on cost. So, just what is the value of a human being? $1.00? $100.00? $1,000.00? How can anyone be heartless enough to equate the value of a baby with the cost of a condom?
> 
> ...


I find it strange that when it's a wanted pregnancy people refer to it as a baby, but when it's not wanted, it becomes a fetus. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer can be tried for killing the mother AND the child. I haven't figured out what the difference is. Can't have it both ways, can they?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

FunnyRiverFarm said:


> I find it odd that many of the same folks who oppose a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a baby to term also oppose public assistance measures that provide prenatal care to poor women and provide means to care for children after they're born. Public/government programs also provide funds to care for unwanted children. You don't want your tax dollars spent on public welfare programs but you also don't want any oppourtunity for life to go to waste no matter what the cirumstances are...so what do you want? *Unless YOU personally are willing to adopt a child from an unwanted pregnancy and pay all the associated costs* then why should you have a say in what a woman choses to do with her body...?


I am and I have.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

FyredUp said:


> The video is a nice piece of propaganda most likely written by a pro-life adult and given to this child to read. She may or may not even understand what the heck she is even talking about.
> 
> Abortion...who cares really? If I am not one of the biological parents it is not my business whether they have a completely LEGAL abortion and terminate the pregnancy or decide to have the baby.
> 
> ...


Well, as one who HAS payed the cost, I believe in standing up for the unborn child. Who has a right to kill another? This baby is a living being. There should be no choice. Murder is murder, and that's exactly what abortion is.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

FyredUp said:


> I can't have a serious debate on a topic with someone making ludicrous statements like this.
> 
> A fetus has no freedom of choice of ANYTHING. Why is that so hard to understand?


So you're saying babies have no choice. You're right, and that is so wrong. Why is THAT so hard to understand?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

JanS said:


> Scroll down to any "food stamps"-type thread right here in this forum then tell us again how Republicans are there for poor children after birth.


You know for as long as I can remember - over 60 years, the Democrat side of the party would always say during election time, if you elect the other side of the party, they will cut the old folks pension. After welfare as a way of life, it became, they'll starve your babies and your parents. That's beyond ridiculous - and everyone knows it.

Politicians get money from people and corporations with money - that is all politicians - not just one side.
Elections are won with money, not votes.

Welfare is big business. I'm afraid when people think of welfare, they don't really know how much money is involved = and who really gets it. 

If you are talking food stamps - just think if they were cut out who would suffer - beside the ones getting. 

The thousands of government employees who administer this program.

The farmers, or importers, whose products get purchased.

The freight companies that transport it all over the country.

The gas suppliers to the freight companies.

The processors who process it.

The companies who provide the packing.

The grocery stores who sell it.

I'm sure banks benefit some way. I'm not sure how the food stamp card works.

Some of that would continue - but not in the huge way it is now - thanks to food stamps.

Now these are all BIG business. Does anyone actually think any politician is really going to vote to put the hurt on them. It isn't going to happen.

Just like pretending the government is going to cut out, or serious curtail, the insurance companies, healthcare corporations, or pharmaceuticals if we get government run healthcare - you have to follow the money. 

Personally, I think welfare is a waste of human potential, it keeps them from stepping out to reach for success. They are so afraid of loosing what they have, the don't try. It is not a good thing - except for emergency or extreme situations.

But never fear, the Republican side of the party has no intention nor desire to change the welfare system, just as they have no desire to stop abortion. It's too great a cash cow.


----------



## unregistered65598 (Oct 4, 2010)

I just want to know who drilled this into a mere 12 yr old girl???? I sure don't want my little girl to think about this kind of things at 12. I do feel this is a WOMAN"S choice, not a child's. Do I think it should be used as BC...Heck NO! But there maybe reasons for it, and those are not for us to make, only the one going though it can make that. Abortion for most is not an easy decision and my heart goes out to those who have concluded that they needed to do that. It is something they now have to live with FOREVER.

I asked to have my tubes tied at 22 Already had 1 girl and one boy, now I have 4 kids because they said no. I was to young, mind you I also had 3 miscarriages during the wait till your old enough phase.


----------



## jacqueg (Feb 21, 2010)

"The idea that so what, that child was not born, another will do.
THAT child would not have been born.
Children are - unique - it's a one time deal. "

That is completely true, and I don't mean at all that "another will do". Whatever age we are, we are each unique - even identical twins.

What I am trying to say is that chance plays a huge part in this, right from conception. I exist because untold thousands of other possible children of my parents were never conceived. Are you saying that your ex-friend could love only that particular child you knew? That he would not have loved any other child that he adopted? Of course you're not. 

It's just life on earth that all fertilized eggs don't implant, that all implanted eggs/blastulas don't form embryos, that all embryos don't make it to three months, that all fetuses don't make it to term, and that all children born at term don't make it to their first birthdays. There is nothing we can do to fundamentally change this state of affairs. No matter how good we get, all fertilized eggs will not make it to adulthood. We have the capacity for thousands of potential children, in order to make sure that at least two make it to adulthood. 

As human beings have taken more control over their bodies, we now have to make decisions that people didn't used to have to make. I think it is safe to say that we are still struggling with this one. 

For me, after years of thinking, I still can come to no other conclusion than the decision falls to the woman. Just as I am opposed to forced birth control and abortion, I am opposed to forced childbearing. (Denying the possibility of abortion is a form of forced childbearing.) We all know that birth control is not 100% reliable, even when used correctly and faithfully. Even tubal ligations have been known to fail. I think if a woman says she is not capable of taking care of the child she is carrying, we ought to believe her. And for those who say she ought to go ahead with the pregnancy and then give the child up, aren't you saying that she should be forced into childbearing?


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

Sonshine said:


> So you're saying babies have no choice. You're right, and that is so wrong. Why is THAT so hard to understand?


You want to give freedom of choice to a fetus? Is this what you are really seriously saying? Shall we ask them what they want? Oh wait, that's right, they are a mass of cells that has no logical thought processes.

Come on either talk about this on a serious level, or admit you have nothing other than emotion, and religious teachings, to support your denial of reproductive rights to women.

It is simply not your business to tell a woman that she can't have an abortion. They are LEGAL in this country and have been for decades. Before that women died in back alleys and makeshift illegal clinics having abortions. Making them illegal won't stop abortions, all it will do is lead to desperate women taking even more desperate actions.


----------



## jacqueg (Feb 21, 2010)

"I find it strange that when it's a wanted pregnancy people refer to it as a baby, but when it's not wanted, it becomes a fetus. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer can be tried for killing the mother AND the child. I haven't figured out what the difference is. "

This is a bit disingenuous of you. The laws allowing these prosecutions were proposed by people who want to outlaw abortions. They intend to gain personhood standing for the fetus. That's not me saying it - that's them saying it.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

FyredUp said:


> You want to give freedom of choice to a fetus? Is this what you are really seriously saying? Shall we ask them what they want? Oh wait, that's right, they are a mass of cells that has no logical thought processes.
> 
> Come on either talk about this on a serious level, or admit you have nothing other than emotion, and religious teachings, to support your denial of reproductive rights to women.
> 
> It is simply not your business to tell a woman that she can't have an abortion. They are LEGAL in this country and have been for decades. Before that women died in back alleys and makeshift illegal clinics having abortions. Making them illegal won't stop abortions, all it will do is lead to desperate women taking even more desperate actions.


Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right. To use your analogy, can a woman put a pillow over the head of her 1 month old child and kill it and have no legal action taken against her? After all, at 1 month old it has no logical thought processes.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

jacqueg said:


> "I find it strange that when it's a wanted pregnancy people refer to it as a baby, but when it's not wanted, it becomes a fetus. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer can be tried for killing the mother AND the child. I haven't figured out what the difference is. "
> 
> This is a bit disingenuous of you. The laws allowing these prosecutions were proposed by people who want to outlaw abortions. They intend to gain personhood standing for the fetus. That's not me saying it - that's them saying it.


How is it disingenuous? Either it's a baby or it's a fetus. Can't change that just because one is wanted and the other isn't. How can they put a man on trial for double homicide if he kills a pregnant woman? If it's not a baby, they it wouldn't be double homicide.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

No blobs of flesh here,these were real people.Job said he came out,he couldn't have come out unless he was in to began with.

God told Jeremiah He ordained him a prophet before he was formed or borned.

When Elizabeth's baby(John the Baptist)heard Mary tell Elizabeth she was pregnant with Jesus,the baby leaped in her womb.

Folks what if Mary had decided to abort her baby.The savour of the world,Jesus Christ would have been murdered,and we would have no hope of salvation.He was just as real on the inside as he was on the outside.



*Job 1:21*
And said, Naked came I out of my mother's *womb*, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.


Jer 1::5 .Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the *womb* I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

*Luke 1:41*
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe *leaped* in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

*Luke 1:44*
For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe *leaped* in my womb for joy.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

pancho said:


> Got a question for everybody.
> It is a well known fact that if a woman chooses to have a child the father of that child will be supporting that child.
> What should happen if a woman wants to abort a child and the father wants the child?


he has no vote in the matter. However I find it sickening that when I wanted to have my tubes tied during my marriage my ex husband had to sign a paper agreeing to it.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

SquashNut said:


> Said thou shelt not Kill (nuff said)


 well, then I wouldnt expect you to explore the option of abortion. Point is, you are entitled to your CHOICE in the matter.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

TheMartianChick said:


> I didn't say anything about deliberately creating a situation where you must have an abortion. I said that our insurance would pay for an abortion and not birth control. I thought that it was CRAZY!!! I don't know how much an abortion costs now, but the last that I heard, they were over a $1000 in my area.
> 
> As far as giving up sex goes... Well, I can imagine that some marriages might end in divorce under those conditions.


good luck finding a clinic that will do it. In my area there is ONE..in the next state that offers it for the tristate area. they are cash only. Forget insurance..they dont accept it. Yes, insurance covers, but most clinics dont accept it


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

watcher said:


> You are joking right? I have never seen a place where a woman could not get free birth control if she wanted it.


it isnt. I paid 900 cash for my college age daughters Birth control. NO, it IS NOT FREE.

The doctor may prescribe it for free..but you still must go to the pharmacy.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> I am and I have.



yes, but children adopted from the state foster care system receive free medical care...clothing vouchers and approximately 600-1000 a month until they are out of high school...that doesnt include the college tuition paid after they turn 18 for 4 years. 

Without that carrot..how many children would still be in the foster care system?


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

lilmizlayla said:


> it isnt. I paid 900 cash for my college age daughters Birth control. NO, it IS NOT FREE.
> 
> The doctor may prescribe it for free..but you still must go to the pharmacy.


There are clinics that help with birth control. Maybe you went straight to the doctor without researching it but yes inexpensive birth control exists. It sounds like you chose an expensive option.

My college-age daughter did not go to a clinic. She paid $30/month and that was with our not-very-good insurance.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

lilmizlayla said:


> he has no vote in the matter. However I find it sickening that when I wanted to have my tubes tied during my marriage my ex husband had to sign a paper agreeing to it.


I assume that he was your husband at the time?

I do agree that there's a bit of a disconnect here... okay, a HUGE disconnect. Can't get your tubes tied without his permission; CAN get an abortion against his wishes. Regardless your stance on abortion, these two legal stances are really incompatible.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Tom in TN said:


> Oh, brother!
> 
> Most of the discussion on this issue has centered on cost. So, just what is the value of a human being? $1.00? $100.00? $1,000.00? How can anyone be heartless enough to equate the value of a baby with the cost of a condom?
> 
> ...


Why bother to argue with a liberal about it being a baby, they won't listen or care..

That is why I say fine go for it, but I'm not supporting you or paying for it. The rest has been argued to death and neither side is going to change.. 
So let them kill themselves off and maybe, just maybe they will eliminate themselves from society..
Also know that those of us against it teach our offspring and friends that abortion isn't' a viable option... You know we "practice what we preach"..

So don't mistake "not paying for it" as not caring.. Some of us are just farther down this road then you and we have already passed that stage of the argument..


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Words without deeds are like a garden full of weeds.We need to do things to help women from feeling like they are in a box and need an abortion.Men must be good husbands and fathers.They have to take ownership of their half of the pregnancy.We must be willing to adopt even not perfect children.Support children and pregnant women in your community.Hollering and yelling do not do any good.Don't attack the cause but help take away the feeling of need for an abortion.We need to work at making families stronger.


----------



## JIL (Aug 25, 2007)

*We need to work at making families stronger* that is it!! teach our young ones responsibility. Today it's a fetus , today it's non compatable so divorce, good is called evil and evil is called good, yeap it's getting close.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

lilmizlayla said:


> he has no vote in the matter. However I find it sickening that when I wanted to have my tubes tied during my marriage my ex husband had to sign a paper agreeing to it.


If he has no vote in the matter why does he have to pay child support if he doesn't want the child and the mother does.
Doesn't seem quite fair.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

WindowOrMirror said:


> I assume that he was your husband at the time?


How is that relevant? They are spiritually and legally bound together, he doesn't own her body. I thought that idea went out when we decided marital rape is still rape.

I wonder how long ago that was anyway. I know of several men who had vasectomies without mentioning it to their wives. I don't remember my husband signing anything when I had a tubal in 1993, he was not even at the hospital that day.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

pancho said:


> If he has no vote in the matter why does he have to pay child support if he doesn't want the child and the mother does.
> Doesn't seem quite fair.


He could have made his wishes clear by using a condom.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

JanS said:


> He could have made his wishes clear by using a condom.


Sure, and the woman could have used birth control. After all the law says it is her choice.


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

A female that has been assaulted as a child (or as an adult) might have an entirely different view than some of you.

I would not condemn a child or woman who was the victim of rape or incest for choosing an abortion. The point being-their choice, not mine to make for them-and not mine to insist they carry to term the fruits of that crime either. 

Who pays for what is another matter, imo.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

pancho said:


> Sure, and the woman could have used birth control. After all the law says it is her choice.



Oh I agree. I hold both responsible. But I also feel that a person who is positive they don't want a child should be positive about their method of birth control. If that means they both end up using something, so be it.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

JanS said:


> How is that relevant? They are spiritually and legally bound together, he doesn't own her body. I thought that idea went out when we decided marital rape is still rape.
> 
> I wonder how long ago that was anyway. I know of several men who had vasectomies without mentioning it to their wives. I don't remember my husband signing anything when I had a tubal in 1993, he was not even at the hospital that day.


i had my last son in 2001. The doctor wasnt going to do it because my husband forgot to sign the papers when he left to pick our other children up from school. He had to contact my husband by phone and he asked me to sign a paper that stated that IS what my husband wanted also. It was...


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

JanS said:


> Oh I agree. I hold both responsible. But I also feel that a person who is positive they don't want a child should be positive about their method of birth control. If that means they both end up using something, so be it.


a young girl can be coerced into being lax about birth control.


----------



## whiskeylivewire (May 27, 2009)

A friend of mine had to sign off on her husband's vesectomy in the state of MO. But if she wanted her tubes tied or an abortion, he would have no say. I thought that was a bit of a double standard. 

A friend of mine had an abortion in high school-she didn't tell me about it until after it was over because she said she knew I could talk her out of it. I asked her why she didn't give the baby up for adoption? She said, "oh no, I could never do that". So she had an abortion at 18, she was pressured a lot from the father's parents and they paid for it as well. Now, she can't have kids. One night she asked me "What if I killed the only child I will ever have?" Yes, it was her CHOICE but I do not think that most girls look to the future ramifications of the act. Just like they didn't look to the future ramifications of having sex.


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

Sonshine said:


> Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right. To use your analogy, can a woman put a pillow over the head of her 1 month old child and kill it and have no legal action taken against her? After all, at 1 month old it has no logical thought processes.


The difference is, and it is a quite CLEAR legal difference, the fetus has left the womb and is a viable human being once it is born. To put a pillow over the head of a one month old infant and smother it is clearly, legally, murder.

The problem for you and other pro-lifers is despite having had Ronald Reagan, George Bush 1 and 2, abortion is still legal in this country. Three Republican Presidents, and one of the most conservative Republican Presidents in our history, couldn't or wouldn't get abortion made illegal.

Now I am sure you and the rest of the pro-life crowd have labeled me a die hard liberal, sorry wrong. Neither am I a hard right winger. I am an independent and I vote for those who say they will do what I believe is best. I tend to completely ignore the abortion rhetoric unless someone goes completely off the deep end with anti-or pro-abortion BS. I believe to most people it is really something they spend little time thinking about. they have their own lives to lead and more important personal things to consider.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

lilmizlayla said:


> yes, but children adopted from the state foster care system receive free medical care...clothing vouchers and approximately 600-1000 a month until they are out of high school...that doesnt include the college tuition paid after they turn 18 for 4 years.
> 
> Without that carrot..how many children would still be in the foster care system?


Goodness where on earth are you getting your "facts"?

They only receive a stipend (no clothing vouchers) in special circumstances - i.e. a special needs child or a sibling group placement where there are three or more children being adopted or if it is a group of two at least one sibling is over the age of eight. And they don't get free college tuition in any amount. 

Many teens that age out of the Foster Care system end up being homeless, with no skills to offer a potential employer. http://homelessness.change.org/blog/view/foster_care_fosters_homelessness


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

lilmizlayla said:


> a young girl can be coerced into being lax about birth control.


I know that. I WAS that girl. But we weren't specifically talking about young girls. Pancho said "women" in his original post.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

jacqueg said:


> "I find it strange that when it's a wanted pregnancy people refer to it as a baby, but when it's not wanted, it becomes a fetus. *If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer can be tried for killing the mother AND the child. *I haven't figured out what the difference is. "
> 
> This is a bit disingenuous of you. The laws allowing these prosecutions were proposed by people who want to outlaw abortions. They intend to gain personhood standing for the fetus. That's not me saying it - that's them saying it.


This isn't true in all states. In some states, the murderer would be tried only for the murder of the mother.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

lilmizlayla said:


> i had my last son in 2001. The doctor wasnt going to do it because my husband forgot to sign the papers when he left to pick our other children up from school. He had to contact my husband by phone and he asked me to sign a paper that stated that IS what my husband wanted also. It was...


Wow! It is hard to believe that any state operates like that. My husband signed nothing for me to get my surgery. I'm sure if he had opted for a vasectomy, he wouldn't have needed my permission. It's his body.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

jacqueg said:


> "The idea that so what, that child was not born, another will do.
> THAT child would not have been born.
> Children are - unique - it's a one time deal. "
> 
> ...


When my son was in high school, being a typical teenager and deciding he would be 'different', when discussing abortion in biology class took the side of 'if someone can't support a baby, then they shouldn't have to have it'. 

So I said, 

So we have a pregnancy - 

We have a couple, late 20's, both work, father's job pays less in a month than most people are making in a week. The mother is a secretary/bookkeeper, making above minimum wage - but not much. Both salaries manage to pay the bills, but no frills for eating out, trips, few movies,

The mother in order to have clothing for work, makes all her own from the sale/sale counters at Hancock's etc., and makes most of the clothing for the one child they already have.

There were no garage sales then, thrift stores didn't exist where they lived.

They have no health insurance.

They do not own their home. They have 2 cars, one with payments, the other not - but is a rattle trap pickup the father drives.

One of the reasons they can pay their bills, their babysitting is almost nil. The father keeps the child most of the day, and he is at the babysitters for only 2 hours a day, 3 days a week.

They have almost no furniture - beds, a table, washing machine, no dryer or dishwasher, stove. Nothing extra.

The mother will have to quit working when she is 7 months pregnant - company rule. The chances of working after the baby is born is iffy, as most employers will not hire women with infants - and could they afford the extra baby sitting costs. Can they afford to buy formula, food, clothing, etc., for another baby?

How are they going to afford the medical bills - suppose something goes wrong?

There is no Medicaid, food stamps or WIC to use - no family help available.

Should that woman be allowed to have an abortion?

He, emphatically, said, "Yes'.

"Then you would not have been born'.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

lilmizlayla said:


> yes, but children adopted from the state foster care system receive free medical care...clothing vouchers and approximately 600-1000 a month until they are out of high school...that doesnt include the college tuition paid after they turn 18 for 4 years.
> 
> Without that carrot..how many children would still be in the foster care system?


I did not adopt mine through the foster care program, but through a Christian agency that counsels women who are planning on aborting their children. They offer to help the woman with schooling so she can learn a trade. They offer parenting classes, etc, but if the woman still doesn't believe she's ready to be a Mother they ask if she would be willing to place the child for adoption in a Christian home. I didn't recieve ANY financial aid and didn't ask for any. There are many people just like me, that for whatever reason has decided they want to adopt. People that are waiting for years to be able to adopt. I have a friend who has 11 children, all but 3 have been adopted.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

FyredUp said:


> The difference is, and it is a quite CLEAR legal difference, the fetus has left the womb and is a viable human being once it is born. To put a pillow over the head of a one month old infant and smother it is clearly, legally, murder.
> 
> The problem for you and other pro-lifers is despite having had Ronald Reagan, George Bush 1 and 2, abortion is still legal in this country. Three Republican Presidents, and one of the most conservative Republican Presidents in our history, couldn't or wouldn't get abortion made illegal.
> 
> Now I am sure you and the rest of the pro-life crowd have labeled me a die hard liberal, sorry wrong. Neither am I a hard right winger. I am an independent and I vote for those who say they will do what I believe is best. I tend to completely ignore the abortion rhetoric unless someone goes completely off the deep end with anti-or pro-abortion BS. I believe to most people it is really something they spend little time thinking about. they have their own lives to lead and more important personal things to consider.


I understand it is legal, but as I said, just because it's legal, doesn't make it right. As for spending little time thinking about it, in my case you would be wrong, since I'm raising a child that was going to be aborted.


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

Sonshine said:


> I understand it is legal, but as I said, just because it's legal, doesn't make it right. As for spending little time thinking about it, in my case you would be wrong, since I'm raising a child that was going to be aborted.



I didn't say YOU don't think about it, what I said was MOST people don't spend much time thinking about it. Why? Because it has no personal effect on their lives because MOST women are NOT having abortions. 

I know you and other pro-lifers like to pretend it is the most important thing on every one's mind but frankly you are delusional, because it simply isn't so. The cold hard fact is this, no matter how important something is to you it doesn't mean everyone, or even a majority, give a ---- about it.


----------



## Kazahleenah (Nov 3, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm pretty sure its been free for quite a while...don't know as it should be free for those who aren't poor enuf for medicaid, tho...


MANY hard working folks do not qualify for medicaid. It really doesn't take much money to "not" qualify. (in my state, they even ask if we are a migrant worker as that is an auto accept.... wth???)




fishhead said:


> Birth control is NOT free in the US. Many women cannot afford it.



BINGO!!!



pancho said:


> Got a question for everybody.
> It is a well known fact that if a woman chooses to have a child the father of that child will be supporting that child.
> What should happen if a woman wants to abort a child and the father wants the child?



VERY good question... one I have asked many times. (as well as what if the father does NOt want the baby, and the mom has it... then what?) Goes both ways.



Sonshine said:


> I understand it is legal, but as I said, just because it's legal, doesn't make it right. As for spending little time thinking about it, in my case you would be wrong, since I'm raising a child that was going to be aborted.


Legal... a set of human made standards. Is gay marriage wrong because in many places it's illegal? Legal age? who determines that at 18 a "child" becomes an adult? At 18 they can join the military and die for our country....... but can't have a "legal" drink in it. All human made standards. A set of morals made and dictated by those with the longest and loudest voice. There was a day when blacks weren't allowed in the US Army.... that has changed. The "morals" or whatever have changed. Now we know that was wrong. VERY wrong. There was a day when women had no voice. That to has changed. yet, at one time... to speak out was illegal by a woman. Fact is, times change. I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I have my own beliefs and am grateful for the right TO have a choice. A choice that is NOT dictated by people that are not living my life... let them live their own and stay out of mine.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Trixie said:


> Should that woman be allowed to have an abortion?
> 
> He, emphatically, said, "Yes'.
> 
> "Then you would not have been born'.


It was great up till this point. 

The fact that a woman is ALLOWED to have an abortion doesn't mean she IS going to have an abortion.

Our first child was very unexpected - before our marriage kind of unexpected. I was legally allowed to have an abortion but I did not.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Wags said:


> Goodness where on earth are you getting your "facts"?
> 
> They only receive a stipend (no clothing vouchers) in special circumstances - i.e. a special needs child or a sibling group placement where there are three or more children being adopted or if it is a group of two at least one sibling is over the age of eight. And they don't get free college tuition in any amount.
> 
> Many teens that age out of the Foster Care system end up being homeless, with no skills to offer a potential employer. http://homelessness.change.org/blog/view/foster_care_fosters_homelessness


i know of several adoptive families. If a child ages out (in foster care at age 18) they can sign themselves back in and if they enroll in college at least part time they will receive 600 for an apartment off campus..or if they are in the dorm..they receive 200 living allowance plus clothing voucher and a free computer. They must maintain at least a c average. 
all children adopted or in foster receive medicaid . no, the stipend does not add up to what the cost of raising a child, but it offsets a bit. in maryland I understand it is 1000 a month. here it is 600. 
if a child does not age out and are adopted...an adoptive parent can negotiate chaffey (the program for college here). Most adoptive parents do not know this..but i was told just about anything can be negotiated. The state wants to place children, and honestly..it IS in the childs best interest to receive all the benefits they can.
That is what they offer in this state. True, most kids are so broken from their homelife and by the system to get enough ambition to want better for themselves, however in this state it is offered.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Trixie said:


> "Then you would not have been born".


Trix, I would guess a LOT OF US wouldn't have been

JanS, you're right.. the 'best of both worlds scenario' would be that abortion be legal and that no-one elect to have one. The issue (as I see it in earthly terms) is that people are using them as retroactive birth control. That's irresponsible (just like the behavior that got them there), it's emotionally destructive, and it's physically very taxing. Making "the choice" _before engaging in the act_ is a much better course for everyone.

R


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> I did not adopt mine through the foster care program, but through a Christian agency that counsels women who are planning on aborting their children. They offer to help the woman with schooling so she can learn a trade. They offer parenting classes, etc, but if the woman still doesn't believe she's ready to be a Mother they ask if she would be willing to place the child for adoption in a Christian home. I didn't recieve ANY financial aid and didn't ask for any. There are many people just like me, that for whatever reason has decided they want to adopt. People that are waiting for years to be able to adopt. I have a friend who has 11 children, all but 3 have been adopted.


you are exceptional. The social workers I have spoken to are aghast at how children are discarded like puppys. They want them white and a newborn. They send them back for being the wrong sex...wrong color and for emotional issues. Pre adoptive couples pick and choose what they want..and I personally feel that if thats how they want to be..they dont need to adopt and they should be terminated from adopting PERIOD. The states reply to that was...they need to place them and go along with the PUPPY show. 

i find it sick. Not all adoptive parents are like that..but in my view..there are FAR TOO many that are like that....than not.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

Really miz? You're _really_ surprised by this? You think that people typically adopt kids _to help the kids_? Don't you think it's far more likely that 'most people' adopt for the same reason they bear children by choice? They want 'more like them' and their 'own little family' to show off and love.. and there's nothing wrong with that. Most don't do it for charity reasons. They want one that "matches" that they can 'raise'.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

FyredUp said:


> I didn't say YOU don't think about it, what I said was MOST people don't spend much time thinking about it. Why? Because it has no personal effect on their lives because MOST women are NOT having abortions.
> 
> I know you and other pro-lifers like to pretend it is the most important thing on every one's mind but frankly you are delusional, because it simply isn't so. The cold hard fact is this, no matter how important something is to you it doesn't mean everyone, or even a majority, give a ---- about it.


This will be my last comment to you, since I see no sense in trying to discuss anything with someone who calls me "delusional". If you want to believe killing an unborn child is ok, the government agrees with you. But for those like me, who believe it is murder, we'll never agree with you nor the law. If that makes me delusional, then all I can say is "thank God I'm delusional and there are others like me in the world."

I have not insulted you, nor will I. You will find that people will be more willing to converse with you if you would refrain from that tactic too.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

lilmizlayla said:


> you are exceptional. The social workers I have spoken to are aghast at how children are discarded like puppys. They want them white and a newborn. They send them back for being the wrong sex...wrong color and for emotional issues. Pre adoptive couples pick and choose what they want..and I personally feel that if thats how they want to be..they dont need to adopt and they should be terminated from adopting PERIOD. The states reply to that was...they need to place them and go along with the PUPPY show.
> 
> i find it sick. Not all adoptive parents are like that..but in my view..there are FAR TOO many that are like that....than not.


I don't know if I'm the exception or not, but I do agree that the way you are wording it it's being done wrong. To me, the reason it's not done correctly is because it's being done through the states. Believe me, I've known many women who would adopt these children, regardless of their color, their gender or emotional issues, and not ask for a penny to raise them. I have a friend that has adopted many through the foster care program. While she's a foster parent, she does get help, but once the adoption is finalized she doesn't. She has some children who have been sexually abused. She adopted them and they are recieving therapy covered by her husband's insurance. She's not the only one I know that does this. 

The process should be changed to make sure the kids are placed in homes like my friend's home. BUT, that doesn't change my opinion on abortions.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

WindowOrMirror said:


> Really miz? You're _really_ surprised by this? You think that people typically adopt kids _to help the kids_? Don't you think it's far more likely that 'most people' adopt for the same reason they bear children by choice? They want 'more like them' and their 'own little family' to show off and love.. and there's nothing wrong with that. Most don't do it for charity reasons. They want one that "matches" that they can 'raise'.


Although I agree with you, there are some cases that I am aware of that people have adopted a child and came to realize they couldn't handle him and wanted to give him back. I've always wondered what they would have done if they had given birth to the child. BUT, I personally believe that is the exception rather than the rule. Most people who adopt do so because of their love for children. Not neccesarily so they have more like them. My DS is nothing like me, but he is mine and I love him dearly. I had given birth to 4 children and I can honestly say that my DS is loved just as much as my birthchildren were. I would protect him with everything that is in me.


----------



## jacqueg (Feb 21, 2010)

"I've always wondered what they would have done if they had given birth to the child."

Child abuse comes to mind, unfortunately.

Sonshine, I think what you are doing is completely admirable. A cousin of mine and her husband were "serial adopters", winding up with 11. She is the family hero, I've never known a better person.


----------



## fetch33 (Jan 15, 2010)

TheMartianChick said:


> Not exactly... We did use condoms, but the anxiety caused by condom failure was immense. I really didn't want anymore children and the mere thought of an unplanned pregnancy caused me to start imagining that I had all of the classic symptoms.


I don't know what vasectomy costs now, but our insurance paid for it when my hubby had it done 15 years ago...$450 by the GP in the office.... AND the doc let me watch!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

fetch33 said:


> I don't know what vasectomy costs now, but our insurance paid for it when my hubby had it done 15 years ago...$450 by the GP in the office.... AND the doc let me watch!


Can't remember what mine cost, insurance paid for it all.
I do remember working an 8 hour day the same day I have the operation.


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

Sonshine said:


> This will be my last comment to you, since I see no sense in trying to discuss anything with someone who calls me "delusional". If you want to believe killing an unborn child is ok, the government agrees with you. But for those like me, who believe it is murder, we'll never agree with you nor the law. If that makes me delusional, then all I can say is "thank God I'm delusional and there are others like me in the world."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I most often do have a nice day. You do the same.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

*Originally Posted by Trixie View Post
Should that woman be allowed to have an abortion?

He, emphatically, said, "Yes'.

"Then you would not have been born'.
It was great up till this point.

The fact that a woman is ALLOWED to have an abortion doesn't mean she IS going to have an abortion.

Our first child was very unexpected - before our marriage kind of unexpected. I was legally allowed to have an abortion but I did not.
Reply With Quote*

A matter of words, since the time in history of my story, it was not 'allowed' - so truly I meant it as the same thing.

You know the fact is, we always could have abortions - we have the right of free will.
No one allowed or disallowed you having an abortion. The law just assures you will have no legal consequences.

The fact is, women had abortions, in the hospital, performed by doctors, and they were written up as D&C.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> I asked to have my tubes tied at 22 Already had 1 girl and one boy, now I have 4 kids because they said no.


Just curious. Do you love the last 2 children? I find it sad to read a post where it sounds as if you are almost mad that you had to have 2 more kids. I sure hope they aren't growing up with you making comments about how you wanted your tubes tied after the first 2. 
Why is it, if someone had 10 cars parked in the driveway people would be impressed? If a family has 10 kids, they are made to feel as if they are crazy. Or people try to make them feel bad for having more than the typical 2 kids. 
There is no greater blessing than a baby. No matter the circumstances the life created is innocent. I have 7. If I could have 10 more I would, but age is getting to be a factor. There is nothing more precious than a newborn baby curled on your chest. 
I had twins born at 24 weeks. I often wonder why it would have been legal for me to kill them the day before they were born, but once they are out of the womb, they magically have all these rights. Without intervention, mine would not have survived. Just because a fetus is not viable outside of the womb doesn't make it any less of a human being than you are. You wouldn't survive either if someone withheld food & water from you. 
Too many people look at children as a burden instead of the wonderful miracle they are. If you get a chance, watch the movie called: Fearfully & Wonderfully Made. When you find out just exactly how it all works out, it is amazing that anyone gets pregnant at all. It is truly a miracle. 
Instead of sex being something beautiful between a loving couple, it has turned into just another recreational activity that means nothing to most people but a good time. They are only thinking of themselves & pleasing themselves without really thinking of the love that should go with it. If 2 people love each other enough to have sex than they should love any child that comes from that union. 
If you don't want a baby, than don't have sex. It really is that simple. You do have a choice to do it or not. 
In the case of incest or rape, it is still not the unborn baby's fault. Why compound the problem by killing another human being & commiting another crime? Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Wendy said:


> Just curious. Do you love the last 2 children? I find it sad to read a post where it sounds as if you are almost mad that you had to have 2 more kids. I sure hope they aren't growing up with you making comments about how you wanted your tubes tied after the first 2.
> Why is it, if someone had 10 cars parked in the driveway people would be impressed? If a family has 10 kids, they are made to feel as if they are crazy. Or people try to make them feel bad for having more than the typical 2 kids.
> There is no greater blessing than a baby. No matter the circumstances the life created is innocent. I have 7. If I could have 10 more I would, but age is getting to be a factor. There is nothing more precious than a newborn baby curled on your chest.
> I had twins born at 24 weeks. I often wonder why it would have been legal for me to kill them the day before they were born, but once they are out of the womb, they magically have all these rights. Without intervention, mine would not have survived. Just because a fetus is not viable outside of the womb doesn't make it any less of a human being than you are. You wouldn't survive either if someone withheld food & water from you.
> ...


:bow: :bow: :bow: Very well stated.


----------



## JIL (Aug 25, 2007)

yes extemely well said!!!


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

WindowOrMirror said:


> Really miz? You're _really_ surprised by this? You think that people typically adopt kids _to help the kids_? Don't you think it's far more likely that 'most people' adopt for the same reason they bear children by choice? They want 'more like them' and their 'own little family' to show off and love.. and there's nothing wrong with that. Most don't do it for charity reasons. They want one that "matches" that they can 'raise'.


THERE is something very wrong in it. When I had my children..i didnt get a choice. I took what I was given..and was grateful. Many adoptive parents have unbelievable expectations. no handicapped...they want a certain sex of the child....certain race

It has become a puppy show... 

if I could never bear children..i would be ecstatic to have ANY child to love and raise as my own. It isnt about the child "looking" like you that makes you love them..its just the way it is! You just DO. 

who says "i dont think I could love this child because I want a girl?


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Trixie said:


> *
> 
> A matter of words, since the time in history of my story, it was not 'allowed' - so truly I meant it as the same thing.
> 
> ...


*


It is a matter of words...your words. You said "you WOULD NOT have been born" as though you would have had an abortion if you could. If that's not what you meant, you should have said "MIGHT NOT have been born". But really, if you wouldn't have had an abortion under any circumstances, the story is pointless.*


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Wendy said:


> Just curious. Do you love the last 2 children? I find it sad to read a post where it sounds as if you are almost mad that you had to have 2 more kids. I sure hope they aren't growing up with you making comments about how you wanted your tubes tied after the first 2.
> Why is it, if someone had 10 cars parked in the driveway people would be impressed? If a family has 10 kids, they are made to feel as if they are crazy. Or people try to make them feel bad for having more than the typical 2 kids.
> There is no greater blessing than a baby. No matter the circumstances the life created is innocent. I have 7. If I could have 10 more I would, but age is getting to be a factor. There is nothing more precious than a newborn baby curled on your chest.
> I had twins born at 24 weeks. I often wonder why it would have been legal for me to kill them the day before they were born, but once they are out of the womb, they magically have all these rights. Without intervention, mine would not have survived. Just because a fetus is not viable outside of the womb doesn't make it any less of a human being than you are. You wouldn't survive either if someone withheld food & water from you.
> ...


i dont think the poster is angry for having more than the 2 children, but lets face it..raising children isnt a cakewalk. AND those beautiful newborns that lay so sweetly curled on your chest grow up into free spirited teenagers. Children go astray even under the best parenting skills. Having kids is pretty easy....raising them and keeping several close in age children on the straight and narrow is quite another.


----------



## lilmizlayla (Aug 28, 2008)

Trixie said:


> *Originally Posted by Trixie View Post
> Should that woman be allowed to have an abortion?
> 
> He, emphatically, said, "Yes'.
> ...


 you had very different situation than many women. You married the father of your baby. Many young girls are facing the same dismal financial situation without the father around...and we all know how fathers paying child support works out...PHHHFT
i too, got married because of a pregnancy. would it had been different if i was 18..still in high school and nobody but my alcoholic mother to help? most likely..YES. Can anyone with a straight face tell me that is a good place to be in to have a newborn?


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

Too me this topic is this simple:

Mind your own business. If you aren't the biological mother or father of the fetus then the decision to have an abortion, or allow the pregnancy to go to full term, is simply NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

And Yes, it really is that simple despite your emotional arguments to the contrary.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

lilmizlayla said:


> you had very different situation than many women. You married the father of your baby. Many young girls are facing the same dismal financial situation without the father around...and we all know how fathers paying child support works out...PHHHFT
> i too, got married because of a pregnancy. would it had been different if i was 18..still in high school and nobody but my alcoholic mother to help? most likely..YES. Can anyone with a straight face tell me that is a good place to be in to have a newborn?


No, it's not a good place to be in with a newborn, but many have been through it, myself included. I was married to an abusive alcoholic at the age of 16, by the time I was 17 I gave birth to my first child. We ended up having 3 more kids. Was it an easy life? No, but I would not have aborted the baby because it was hard. The babies had nothing to do with any of it. Bottom line for me, and I know others will disagree, but as a Christian I believe the Bible. The Bible tells us that God knew us while we were being formed in the mother's womb. There are other passages in the Bible that to me, clearly shows that it's a baby, not just a blob of cells. Since I think of it as a baby, then to have an abortion would be murdering that baby. I do not tell others what to do, but this is my beliefs about this topic. The laws of our country say that abortion is ok, even partial birth abortions. But, I believe there is a higher law, the laws of God, and when the laws of man go against the laws of God, then I think I'll follow God's laws.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

JanS said:


> It is a matter of words...your words. You said "you WOULD NOT have been born" as though you would have had an abortion if you could. If that's not what you meant, you should have said "MIGHT NOT have been born". But really, if you wouldn't have had an abortion under any circumstances, the story is pointless.


No, the story isn't pointless. 

I was trying to explain to my son that people can and do have and care for children under less than perfect conditions. 

I'm sorry the way I phrased it, you didn't understand it - the great thing is - my son did!!!!


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> No, it's not a good place to be in with a newborn, but many have been through it, myself included. I was married to an abusive alcoholic at the age of 16, by the time I was 17 I gave birth to my first child. We ended up having 3 more kids. Was it an easy life? No, but I would not have aborted the baby because it was hard. The babies had nothing to do with any of it. Bottom line for me, and I know others will disagree, but as a Christian I believe the Bible. The Bible tells us that God knew us while we were being formed in the mother's womb. There are other passages in the Bible that to me, clearly shows that it's a baby, not just a blob of cells. Since I think of it as a baby, then to have an abortion would be murdering that baby. I do not tell others what to do, but this is my beliefs about this topic. The laws of our country say that abortion is ok, even partial birth abortions. But, I believe there is a higher law, the laws of God, and when the laws of man go against the laws of God, then I think I'll follow God's laws.


I agree totally.

People probably do get upset with me when discussing this and I probably shouldn't. The fact is that I absolutely, with all my being, believe that baby, from conception is a life - a living human being - a defenseless human being.

As for the law, it isn't really about telling someone else what to do - but in a land where it is allowed, we are all a part of it - really. If the government that is supposed to be of, for, and by the people has sanctioned this - we are part of that. 

I will admit even though it was not a great time for us to be having a baby, and I was frightened, I knew we would make it. I knew my husband would be there. Also, I will admit that I just can't and don't want to imagine what it must be like to be in that situation and not have that absolute knowledge.


----------



## WindowOrMirror (Jan 10, 2005)

FyredUp said:


> Too me this topic is this simple:
> 
> Mind your own business. If you aren't the biological mother or father of the fetus then the decision to have an abortion, or allow the pregnancy to go to full term, is simply NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
> 
> And Yes, it really is that simple despite your emotional arguments to the contrary.


Everything should be made as simple as it is, and no simpler - Einstein.

You've made it far too simple. If a child arrives at daycare with bruises, would your response be, "If you aren't the biological father or mother, it's none of your business"? The base issue here - from a secular standpoint - is, and always has been, "When does life begin"?

R


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Trixie said:


> No, the story isn't pointless.
> 
> I was trying to explain to my son that people can and do have and care for children under less than perfect conditions.
> 
> I'm sorry the way I phrased it, you didn't understand it - the great thing is - my son did!!!!


I understood it. You said "you wouldn't have been born" to make a point. But if he knows it isn't true, that negates the point.


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

WindowOrMirror said:


> Everything should be made as simple as it is, and no simpler - Einstein.
> 
> You've made it far too simple. If a child arrives at daycare with bruises, would your response be, "If you aren't the biological father or mother, it's none of your business"? The base issue here - from a secular standpoint - is, and always has been, "When does life begin"?
> 
> R


The problem with all of these pro-life / pro-choice debates is no one on the pro-life side seems to be able to stay on topic. What does child abuse have to do with the right to have an abortion? I can make unrelated contrast and comparisons too. But I simply don't need to. In my profession any sign, or suspected sign, of child abuse MUST BY LAW be reported. As a human being if I suspected child abuse my conscience would mandate I report it. The funniest part about your bringing child abuse into this debate is that IF that child had been aborted instead of being forced to live an abysmal existence with a child abuser he never would have been abused. Now that puts an entirely different spin on your comparison doesn't it?

Life begins at the live birth of a baby. Again, to me, it is that simple.


----------

