# Is this a human being ?



## Guest (Dec 13, 2014)




----------



## SJSFarm (Jun 13, 2012)

It's not a real baby. It's plastic of some sort, created with the exact details of a real baby and actual size.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm not the one carrying it, so it's not my decision to make...

and I second SJS. Not real. Here's a real 12 week.. 

http://auntienataleducationalservices.weebly.com/uploads/1/5/2/3/15237962/8610281_orig.jpeg?0

I posted the link so people can decide their self if they want to view the link or not.


----------



## secuono (Sep 28, 2011)

It's fake. Waaaaay too much detail for such a young fetus.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Closer to the 15-18 week range where they move and hear. Can't tell whether that is a child or not, but you can google pictures of human fetus from week to week. Those who choose to kill will deny its humanity rather than admit to themselves that they kill.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

Oxankle said:


> Closer to the 15-18 week range where they move and hear. Can't tell whether that is a child or not, but you can google pictures of human fetus from week to week. Those who choose to kill will deny its humanity rather than admit to themselves that they kill.


And the assassin "doctors" do it for profit.


----------



## myheaven (Apr 14, 2006)

My baby boy I lost at 14 weeks looked like that. everything on him was perfect. I could even see his taste buds. his fingers feet hands knees. he had the sweetest ears. his nose his chin. I sat there holding his hand. he was totally formed and perfect in every way. I personally believe live starts from conception and yes I have had an unwanted pregnancy from a man I didn't know and who took over my life and beat me. I am pro life. not everyone is.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

simi-steading said:


> I'm not the one carrying it, so it's not my decision to make...


I'm glad that nobody thought that little of me when I was a 12wk baby-to-be.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm glad of the same too, but only the person carrying can decide what is right in their mind... You never know the things they may know

I don't like people telling me how to live, so why should I force my thoughts on others how they should live?

If I wanted that, I'd embrace my government...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

myheaven said:


> My baby boy I lost at 14 weeks looked like that. everything on him was perfect. I could even see his taste buds. his fingers feet hands knees. he had the sweetest ears. his nose his chin. I sat there holding his hand. he was totally formed and perfect in every way. I personally believe live starts from conception and yes I have had an unwanted pregnancy from a man I didn't know and who took over my life and beat me. I am pro life. not everyone is.


I'm so sorry for your loss.
Patty
Pretty soon it won't just be 14 weeks in-the-womb that die. The far left is pushing for up to a month after birth. What difference does it make? Maybe since its "your body"...wait, that doesn't look like 'someone's body' who is carrying him, its another human body! How does one rectify that??? Oh, 'it's just a blob of cells'...hmmm, that wasn't true either.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

Most societies down through the ages have found killing another human offensive, and most governments have outlawed it. 

If it's what a woman does with her body kinda argument then why does society want to control narcotic drug use? Because that kind of action could impact others????

That baby that is being murdered is being impacted.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I just wonder why we keep revisiting subjects that everyone knows is a personal belief kind of thing and ends up being nothing more than a slug fest before it's over?


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

Yea let's have some regulation on this, kinda like a government would do.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

I agree with Simi Standing in one aspect, it isn't his body.
But, when abortion is in question, I don't see it that simple. It isnt the mothers body in question, its baby.
What's funny with the legal system, if there is a tenant in your house that you no longer want, it can take up to a year to evicted them. But one in your body can be done immediatly.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I only question the humanity of those who agree to kill them.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

I am not sure how showing a photo of a fake human baby is going to save lives. I do understand your desire to show off the photo. I personally feel posting the photo was cruel and disrespectful to anyone who views it. Myself included. sis


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Cruel and disrespectful? How cruel and disrespectful is it to the babies that are murdered? The photo might be fake but the reality it represents is real.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Some consider it murder.. others don't. Some believe a level of conscienceless, or a breath of air is what denotes life. Others believe conception... 

What good is forcing your beliefs onto others?


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

Do what you believe, that could get interesting, pedophiles like that idea, many others in a civilized society would not agree with that and choose to force their beliefs on them. 

I believe that the unborn has the same God given rights that I do, and I find it wrong that these rights are taken from them. A terrorist should have due process but an innocent baby can be slaughtered, that is a sick society, Hitler could only dream of such atrocities.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm not gonna argue with you any more K9... You seem to have some reason to try baiting me into arguments... 

I get tired of seeing threads where people seem to just be trying to stir the pot... How many times can we hash out pro-choice, or pro-life? We can argue until we're green, but that won't change a thing the courts have decided... 

All threads like this do is work to divide us... One more thing our government seems to enjoy doing. We seem to be taking their cue.

And as far as a terrorist having due process... That is what courts are for. To decide if someone is guilty or not. Without due process, the government can whisk you off and claim you are a terrorist just because you said something on these forums they didn't approve of.. Due process protects you from the government....


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

Guess i enjoy the freedom to post if i choose to do so, and i do object to a society that feels it's ok to deny rights to an individual. A baby dies because adults either man or woman or both are irresponsible and create a life that is an "inconvienence" to them and choose to kill a human being because of it? 

Someone driving down the road drunk and crosses the centerline and kills another motorist, an irresponsible act that society will not tolerate because it could happen to any of us, our rights and safety need to be protected. Guess if you are an unborn baby few care about their rights. Maybe if abortion could happen to adults there would be some reconsideration of how some feel about it.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

So a raped woman is irresponsible? A woman facing a still birth, or death by having the baby is irresponsible?

There is the problem, NO ONE can consider ALL the reasons a person may decide an abortion is right for their situation.

As far as freedom, thank due process, because if it wasn't for that, you could be whisked off at any moment by your government... Ask the people that lived in the Eastern Block... That fear was the motivator for them to keep their mouths shut.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

The man is irresponsible, that is what is said, the baby still dies. I don't have the statistics handy for how many abortions are due to rape, or true health reasons but of total abortions they are probably small, in every case the baby dies 100% of the time, the babies are always denied their rights. It's a slippery slope when society and government cheapens life.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

So let me get this straight.. A guy rapes a woman, he's being irresponsible. In the mean time, the woman is forced to have a child she probably doesn't want... That's probably worse than the rape... Mentally raped by her government that is supposedly there to protect her.. 

It's an even more slippery slope when the government rules every aspect of our lives... 

If the government makes up laws saying well in this instance, or in that instance, It's OK, but if you just don't want a kid, it's not OK... .Well what happens is they don't think of every logical reason and people get trapped, and caught up in the system. It could cost someone their life.. Or it could cost us all supporting a neglected or abused child.. Or it could create the next mentally ill mass shooter.... ORRRRRR... Heck, NOTHING about our government is logical... 

Nothing about our society is logical if you really want to get into splitting hairs... My morals are different from the morals of every other person in this world, as are yours, and as are every other poster in this thread... So why force our morals onto others? Morals really are what has created a mess of this country... 

We're so close to the bottom of the hill with a cliff at the end it's not even funny..


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

k9 said:


> The man is irresponsible, that is what is said, the baby still dies. I don't have the statistics handy for how many abortions are due to rape, or true health reasons but of total abortions they are probably small, in every case the baby dies 100% of the time, the babies are always denied their rights. It's a slippery slope when society and government cheapens life.


You have two perfectly fine kidneys. Your neighbor is going to die from kidney failure. So, since you assume the others have the right to chose to save the life of the baby at the risk to the mother's health, you should also support the forcible taking of your kidney to save the life of your neighbor. Your opinion about the risk and burden imposed on you is equally irrelevant- a life is a life.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the United States Declaration of Independence doesn't apply to the unborn i guess because the government has expressly taken those rights away from them by failing to protect them, our government doesn't protect them because people don't get involved because it doesn't involve them. The same people that howl about their rights and want them protected could not care less about the unborn as it does not affect them. The right to life is implied until taken away by the government. Aparently the pro choice people agree with the government on this, taking away ones rights. 

Statistics are used by rascals to impress fools but a quick check of abortion reasons shows .3% rape, depending on where you check, good reason to kill the other 99.7%


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)




----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

myheaven said:


> My baby boy I lost at 14 weeks looked like that. everything on him was perfect. I could even see his taste buds. his fingers feet hands knees. he had the sweetest ears. his nose his chin. I sat there holding his hand. he was totally formed and perfect in every way. I personally believe live starts from conception and yes I have had an unwanted pregnancy from a man I didn't know and who took over my life and beat me. I am pro life. not everyone is.


family says i am a weirdo cause i say our birthday is day of conception like you...not when we pop out....i start pointing out certain things to them then they start getting this weird look of a person thinking on their faces.....lol


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

k9 said:


> Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the United States Declaration of Independence doesn't apply to the unborn i guess because the government has expressly taken those rights away from them by failing to protect them, our government doesn't protect them because people don't get involved because it doesn't involve them. The same people that howl about their rights and want them protected could not care less about the unborn as it does not affect them. The right to life is implied until taken away by the government. Aparently the pro choice people agree with the government on this, taking away ones rights.
> 
> Statistics are used by rascals to impress fools but a quick check of abortion reasons shows .3% rape, depending on where you check, good reason to kill the other 99.7%


It is not that the life of the unborn are trivial. It's that others should not choose to force someone else to take the risk and bear the burden. It's too convenient to shift the burden to others then wash hands of the resulting misery.

I have always had this fantasy that everyone who chooses to demand a woman automatically carry a baby to full term should pony up the living expenses for this involuntary burden for the woman's lifetime at the median income. Also, they should be forced to picket in front of the father's work place and current residence to force him to support the child and mother, if they are not doing it, and if the number of children being raised proves to be impossible for the father to support well, then they should pony up the extra too.

They should provide the mother with retirement benefits too, to cover the time she had to take off for bearing and raising children. We do this for military service in recompense for the involuntary sacrifice demanded by others- seems it should be an obligation for taking a risk and accepting a burden at other's insistence.

However, the reality is to demand the woman bear all responsibility forever and be subject to criticism, poor health and poverty forever all by herself. And God help her if she fails to meet those demands. A fate that many, many women risked their lives to avoid by using back street abortionists for centuries.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Simi: When I was a boy we jailed abortionists. Men did not sire children unless they married, or intended to marry the mother. Sometimes they were persuaded to take responsibility when they realized what might happen to them if they did not.

Along came the hippie years and the women's liberation movement. Now we have what we have---millions of women who have borne children out of wedlock, or killed them, because they shacked up with a man who had no intention of taking responsibility for his sex slave. Generally the woman in the case kept house, fed the man, even is many cases worked to support him, and tried to rear his children; simple stupidity on the part of the woman and total lack of honor and character on the part of the man. 

Does anyone other than me think that women's liberation liberated men more than women?

At any rate, we went thru that movement and Roe vs Wade became law. Now the pendulum is swinging back and one day we will again jail abortionists and shame those who bear children out of wedlock. 

Both abortion and bastardy are destructive of human lives. The rich, the ruling classes, have always taken advantage of women. Today we have made it easy for the masses.
Ox


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

Sooo it's about the money????? Its ok to kill them to save some money???


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Ya wanna know the REAL funny thing I see about this? Men arguing over this, wanting to make laws for women, and we have no clue what it's like to be pregnant, much less raise a kid the other parent ran out on... (ok, a few men have had to support and raise a kid the mother ran out on, but that's not many, but during that time they didn't have screwed up hormones making matters even worse)


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

where I want to... my life would have a lot less burden and be so much easier if we just killed all the people in prison and on welfare to save me a tax burden... i would live better and with more money. So i guess by your logic it should be ok to do so right???? I mean most of those adults have made poor choices to get them where they are, the unborn are totally innocent and yet sentenced to death.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

simi-steading said:


> Ya wanna know the REAL funny thing I see about this? Men arguing over this, wanting to make laws for women, and we have no clue what it's like to be pregnant, much less raise a kid the other parent ran out on... (ok, a few men have had to support and raise a kid the mother ran out on, but that's not many, but during that time they didn't have screwed up hormones making matters even worse)


Men or women, it does not matter. Someone needs to stand up for the helpless.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

No, the real easy way to save us money is do away with the government to save us the tax burden.. Or at least make it as small as possible to do what the constitution allows them to and what the founding fathers intended it to be.. Instead of raking us over the coals and taking all of our rights as they have.. 

Tax was never supposed to be a permanent deal.. but we have let the government tax us into debtors prison... 

Ruling our day to day lives was never the intention of the founding fathers either.. but look where we are...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

k9 said:


> where I want to... my life would have a lot less burden and be so much easier if we just killed all the people in prison and on welfare to save me a tax burden... i would live better and with more money. So i guess by your logic it should be ok to do so right???? I mean most of those adults have made poor choices to get them where they are, the unborn are totally innocent and yet sentenced to death.


You leave the woman out of this equation totally. I'm not saying it's all about money for me. I'm saying that people who demand others put their life and future at risk then wash their hands of the result are not to be taken seriously. If you object to an abortion, then provide for the child. If you demand she keep and raise the child, provide for her and the child. How can I take seriously the beliefs of someone who won't put their money into it, freely and without complaint and fully recompense the woman for adhering to your demands.

I'm not sentencing a woman for getting pregnant- you are. Then walking away. You declare the baby innocent but the woman guilty without knowing or understanding her.

The easy answer is putting all the burden on the woman for getting pregnant, demand she not disturb your sensabilities by aborting, then insist she live a poorer life to pay for her sin of getting pregnant. 

I agree that abortion is ugly. It woukd be better for it never to happen. But life is not so neat. 

I just say it is not for you to convict and sentence this woman from a safe distance without bothering to even learn about her.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Possum Belly said:


> Men or women, it does not matter. Someone needs to stand up for the helpless.


Stand up- yes. Carp from the safety of an armchair- that is not standing up.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

where I want to said:


> Stand up- yes. Carp from the safety of an armchair- that is not standing up.


In some ways you are correct. I have stood up and spoken up while out of the safety of my armchair but realize that I and and many others are going to be held accountable for not standing and protesting at abortion clinics. I could and should do more. IMO, we are all guilty and I am chief.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

k9 said:


> Sooo it's about the money????? Its ok to kill them to save some money???


No- it's about a person demanding another pay the price while refusing them any options. You want women to be unable to get an abortion and simultaneously you refuse to support them when they get pregnant. At least you have not mentioned anything about ponying up. 

Me- I shudder at the thought of having to making such a decision for myself, much less imposing it on others.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

I wasn't going to make another post in this thread, so please excuse me, but,


> Ruling our day to day lives was never the intention of the founding fathers either.. but look where we are...


You cant exactly push the degredation of society on the government, especially in this case

Irresponsible people who don't know how to respect themselves or others, with little to no regard for human life started killing babies. The government only got involved after more people found out about abortions and saw it as an easy way out of their mistakes.
Lawmakers with good, dare I say, Christian, morals chose to outlaw the barbaric act. Then selfish people chose to fight the government over it and make it legalized murder.

99% of all abortions are the choice of the mother because she doesnt want to or cant care for her child. Maybe those women should have thought of that before spreading her legs.

Killing an unborn child is murder, but because the victim can't defend itself, it is legal.
It is disgusting, it is selfish, it is immoral, it is wrong.

Here is a question for those who say it is all about the woman and her rights....
When I was 19, I was engaged to my first love. We lived together, planned to marry.
One day out of the blue, she tells me its over and asks me to leave.
Close to four months later, I get a phone call, it was her mom. She asked me if I knew my now ex fiance was pregnant. I was shocked, first thing out of my mouth was, So, im going to be a dad?
She replies, No, she WAS pregnant. I was like, oh, oh no, what happened?
The day after she had me move out, she went and had an abortion.
She knew I was pro life, that is why she broke off the engagement and split up with me. Being pregnant and having a baby would have gotten in the way of her partying too much.

So, women's rights? What about the rights of the baby, my baby, and me as the father.
Someone was able to legally murder my child. Who was standing up for my rights and the right to live of my child?
My son or daughter would be 17 years old right now. But now I will never know how talented, smart, beautiful and successful he or she could have, would have been.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

I've made poor choices and paid for them. You make poor choices and you pay for them, i don't want to be a part of an easy answer that says it's ok to kill an innocent human being to provide comfort for someone that doesn't want to be inconvenienced. Be responsible for your own actions and take care of you own life and stop trying to dump everything on the collective we. Killing innocent human beings is not right no matter how you try to paint it, or how you try to spread the quilt around. I have never made a baby that i did not take care of, and i have taken care of children that are not mine so don't preach to me how i should spend my money supporting the cause because I have. Killing innocent will never be rilght or justified.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Possum Belly said:


> In some ways you are correct. I have stood up and spoken up while out of the safety of my armchair but realize that I and and many others are going to be held accountable for not standing and protesting at abortion clinics. I could and should do more. IMO, we are all guilty and I am chief.


Protesting is one thing, not too useful for the mothers, but supporting the resulting child fully and compensating the mother by a lots of other things is one of the few things that would make a difference. And recognizing that motherhood is honorable and difficult. As it stands now, mostly the woman who bears a child, especially if she can't support it, is berated for being a burden, as if fathers weren't there, if the father doesn't want the burden himself, and yet faces the abuse if she takes the only way out.

When was the last time you hear a man tell another man that he has no respect for a father who won't support his children? And how many times have you heard a seperated father complain about giving money to the mother and not said anything?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

OK.. so here's my question.. How can something that has never taken a breath, never made a decision, never had a thought be called a human with rights?

They are called embryos... not humans.. 

I'm going to point to a very recent case where they were trying to say a chimp has rights, and were trying to get it set free.. 

The court ruled something that can very easily be applied to an embryo.. 

*"So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties," the judges wrote. "Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."*

An embryo can not bear legal duties, nor can it submit to societal responsibilities, or be held responsible for it's actions.

Due to this decision, an embryo is not a human, which makes calling an abortion murder a moot point.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

where I want to said:


> No- it's about a person demanding another pay the price while refusing them any options. You want women to be unable to get an abortion and simultaneously you refuse to support them when they get pregnant. At least you have not mentioned anything about ponying up.
> 
> Me- I shudder at the thought of having to making such a decision for myself, much less imposing it on others.


 
Don't preach at me about spending money, i have never created a baby that i did not support, i have supported children that are not mine. The easy answer of killing the innocent is repugnet and NEVER right. An easy answer for a sick, lazy, morally bankrupt,self centered society.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

k9 said:


> I've made poor choices and paid for them. You make poor choices and you pay for them, i don't want to be a part of an easy answer that says it's ok to kill an innocent human being to provide comfort for someone that doesn't want to be inconvenienced. Be responsible for your own actions and take care of you own life and stop trying to dump everything on the collective we. Killing innocent human beings is not right no matter how you try to paint it, or how you try to spread the quilt around. I have never made a baby that i did not take care of, and i have taken care of children that are not mine so don't preach to me how i should spend my money supporting the cause because I have. Killing innocent will never be rilght or justified.


Then good for you. But you again assume that getting pregnant was a choice for which the woman must pay. I agree that celibacy would reduce the pregnancies that end up in abortion but that is so unrealistic and one sided and historically a flawed idea.
When was the last time you reamed out a man for not supporting his pregnant girlfriend, or picketed outside a school warning the students about having casual sex or picketed a movie or broadcaster glorifying free wheeling sex? Or frankly even avoided laughing at a "pregnancy scare" in a sitcom?
I suspect that most people would be more afraid of being laughed at for doing that than in preventing a future abortion.
It comes down always to a person ragging on a woman for having an abortion, which is a safe but patently useless activity.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

where I want to said:


> Protesting is one thing, not too useful for the mothers, but supporting the resulting child fully and compensating the mother by a lots of other things is one of the few things that would make a difference. And recognizing that motherhood is honorable and difficult. As it stands now, mostly the woman who bears a child, especially if she can't support it, is berated for being a burden, as if fathers weren't there, if the father doesn't want the burden himself, and yet faces the abuse if she takes the only way out.
> 
> When was the last time you hear a man tell another man that he has no respect for a father who won't support his children? And how many times have you heard a seperated father complain about giving money to the mother and not said anything?



Trust me, I do stand up and say what I think about the innocent whether it be to a mother or father whether it be a small child or unborn.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

simi-steading said:


> I'm glad of the same too, but only the person carrying can decide what is right in their mind... You never know the things they may know
> 
> I don't like people telling me how to live, so why should I force my thoughts on others how they should live?
> 
> If I wanted that, I'd embrace my government...


Because we don't just allow murder. If we won't enforce not killing for convenience then I want to be able to 'abort' a person aggravating me by not following traffic rules, they are inconveniencing me. Edge cases involving potential death of the mother are medical decisions for a patient and doctor. Abortion for convenience is a social issue, not medical. It's a human because it's a human sperm meeting a human egg forming a human zygote.

I don't want to hear any complaints about people abusing children or murdering their elderly parents so they don't have to carry the burden any longer if you are going to be okay with letting a woman murder her child simply because 'it's not you carrying it'. It's not you caring for the autistic child thrown off a bridge to drown either.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> OK.. so here's my question.. How can something that has never taken a breath, never made a decision, never had a thought be called a human with rights?
> 
> They are called embryos... not humans..
> 
> ...


So I guess at anytime we can kill a 2 or 3 yr old child then??? They can not bear legal duties, nor be socially responsible, or be responsible for their actions. In time like the unborn they may, but not at 1, or 2, or3, or 4...... guess all the mentally handicapped can be killed too as they are not a human. Romans 1:22


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Possum Belly said:


> Trust me, I do stand up and say what I think about the innocent whether it be to a mother or father whether it be a small child or unborn.


I have only seen that once in my life. And it brought tears to my eyes. I have said to more that one parent complaining about child support that it wasn't the child's fault. But it is so rare. And so awkward.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

k9 said:


> So I guess at anytime we can kill a 2 or 3 yr old child then??? They can not bear legal duties, nor be socially responsible, or be responsible for their actions. In time like the unborn they may, but not at 1, or 2, or3, or 4...... guess all the mentally handicapped can be killed too as they are not a human. Romans 1:22


I'm just the messenger here.. I am just pointing out what some judges have ruled... I am also pointing out how this decision can easily be applied to this whole discussion... It's only a matter of time before a decent lawyer (what ever the definition of that is) can and will eventually use that argument... 

Here again, I am pointing out how this whole discussion is all strictly based on morals and loose interpretations of what a human is and when rights begin.

.....and once again, I am asking, why should you be able to force your morals on others, when at the same time, you don't like the morals of others that you don't agree with forced on you?

I've still not gotten an answer to that...

OH, and to say a 2 year old is not responsible for their actions????? COME ON... you punish or reprimand even a 1 year old when they "do wrong" correct? Isn't that teaching and holding them to responsibilities and consequences?


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

It puzzles me that in a nation where the government pays unwed women to have childern that someone would say it is a finacial hardship and so murder is justified. Really???? Translation, now i can't aford that BMW, so just kill the baby. I love that new car smell.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> So a raped woman is irresponsible? A woman facing a still birth, or death by having the baby is irresponsible?



Those cases are a low, low percentage. Most abortions are for convenience.

I had twins born at 24 weeks. Does that mean they aren't human since they weren't full term??


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

*Psalm 139:13Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)*

13 For it was You who created my inward parts;[a]
You knit me together in my mother&#8217;s womb.



YHWH/god gave samson the nazarite vow in the womb.....this should be very telling about how he views the unborn...he would have never given such a serious designation unless he viewed the unborn as a human

john the baptist kicked for joy in the womb when mary announced she was pregnant with yeshua/jesus.could you have imagined a doc trying to do her an abortion....he probably melted on the spot or turned to a pillar of salt...i mean after yeshua/jesus was an adult and went out teaching his torah people just touching the zitzit of his garmet healed sick folks.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> I don't want to hear any complaints about people abusing children or murdering their elderly parents so they don't have to carry the burden any longer if you are going to be okay with letting a woman murder her child simply because 'it's not you carrying it'. It's not you caring for the autistic child thrown off a bridge to drown either.


If that statement doesn't give pause to those demanding every woman dig up the fortitude to bear and raise every child, I don't know what would. Making a woman carry every child, against her wishes, would be a responsibility that would scare me to my core. Because by refusing her options, you have also accepted responsibility too.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> I'm just the messenger here.. I am just pointing out what some judges have ruled... I am also pointing out how this decision can easily be applied to this whole discussion... It's only a matter of time before a decent lawyer (what ever the definition of that is) can and will eventually use that argument...
> 
> Here again, I am pointing out how this whole discussion is all strictly based on morals and loose interpretations of what a human is and when rights begin.
> 
> ...


 Under the law they are not responsible....go figure. I didn't say that the law does. Reconcile that.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

John 11:35
Seeing how humanity is treating his children, even those not yet born, I'm sure he is again weeping.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm sorry Elkhound, I'm not religious, so those words are nothing more to me than stories that have been interpreted, and re-interpreted for centuries, and have also been twisted by those that have done the interpretations. You have your right to believe those words, and I do not fault you for how you believe... 

I'm pointing to biological facts, and legal rulings that decide our laws.

Wendy, I have no idea about your situation so that's why I feel it's not the governments job, nor mine to petition them, to meddle in your business. I don't know if your babies survived or not. Only you can decide what is right in your world for you if you knew there was going to be problems with your pregnancy. I feel only the person in the situation they are in are the only ones well enough informed to make a life changing decision. By life changing, I mean the mother's life, not what they are carrying..


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

So, Simi, I am just assuming you have children???
If your wife had chosen to kill those babies, you would have been perfectly fine with that?
After all, it wasn't you carrying them within your body, so if your wife had chosen to abort them that would have been perfectly acceptable to you?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Again and again and again, the woman who is wanting an abortion is presumed to be selfish and that's that as far as most here seem to be concerned. But it is not so neat. And not so easy to keep a woman from having an abortion for convenience without denying those who are desperate too.
Anyone who has read of the horrors, deaths and mutilations of back street abortions would not be so clear about it all being for convenience. Like in convenience store. No one would risk such without a better reason. 

Denying legal abortions means going back to those days. And thinking otherwise is a fantasy.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

k9 said:


> Under the law they are not responsible....go figure. I didn't say that the law does. Reconcile that.


Re-read this... notice the use of the word OR... You have to understand how attorneys and judges think when describing something... 

_"cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."_

A 2 year old child being reprimanded by a parent in a store is submitting to societal responsibilities.....

Again, I am only pointing out a ruling here as to what decides who/what is human or not... I don't make the laws, I don't make the rulings, I can only interpret what is being said, and apply that.

In Row v wade, they call an embryo "potentiality of human life" They also ruled a fetus does not have a right to life.. They also ruled a fetus is not a person when the 14th amendment is applied.

Again, I am not making up the rules, I am pointing out legal decisions. Because of these decisions, calling abortion murder is a personal opinion.. Not a legal opinion.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

No, I have no children by choice.. My wife does. My wife made her decisions about the children she carried, and she believes as I do, only a woman can decide what is best for her life... Nothing fires her up more than to see a state sponsored pro-life license plate, yet you can not order a pro-choice license plate... I agree.. pretty hypocritical..

If I would have ever gotten anyone pregnant, I would have not made the choice for them as to what they wanted to do... I would have accepted their decision. I can not decide for others what they do with their body. I would have either been in that child's life, or I would have lived with the fact it never came to fruition.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> Re-read this... notice the use of the word OR... You have to understand how attorneys and judges think when describing something...
> 
> _"cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."_
> 
> ...


No, no they don't have to submit, many times they don't poor parenting leads more and more of them to NOT submit, and they become self centered little children that look for an easy way out. Try to prosecute a 4yr old sometime. The parents often submit to the child. Get real. What about the mentally handicapped? It's not murder then to kill them?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

If you don't like the laws an rulings K9, then become a judge and make the rules yourself.. Other wise, calling someone who gets an abortion a murderer is bordering on slander. 

The courts have ruled a fetus or embryo is a "potential life", and with this newest ruling, it will more than likely be applied by some wise lawyer, thus further enforcing it's not a human.

In the mean time, calling abortion murder is not a fact. It's a belief.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> Re-read this... notice the use of the word OR... You have to understand how attorneys and judges think when describing something...
> 
> _"cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."_
> 
> ...


My neighbor has a little boy that has Downs syndrome he has no clue of social conventions, laws or responsibilites, killing him would not be murder? 

And AGAIN i say the government has stripped the rights, natural rights of the unborn, they have TAKEN AWAY those rights. When will they strip the rights of the uninsured? The elderly? Those with no moral foundation will go whatever the wind blows and make it easy on themselves.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> Re-read this... notice the use of the word OR... You have to understand how attorneys and judges think when describing something...
> 
> _"cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."_
> 
> ...





simi-steading said:


> If you don't like the laws an rulings K9, then become a judge and make the rules yourself.. Other wise, calling someone who gets an abortion a murderer is bordering on slander.
> 
> The courts have ruled a fetus or embryo is a "potential life", and with this newest ruling, it will more than likely be applied by some wise lawyer, thus further enforcing it's not a human.
> 
> In the mean time, calling abortion murder is not a fact. It's a belief.


 According to your government it isn't. 

According to the Creator of the Universe it is. Romans 14:11 Matthew 7:6 Commandment 6.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

where I want to said:


> If that statement doesn't give pause to those demanding every woman dig up the fortitude to bear and raise every child, I don't know what would. Making a woman carry every child, against her wishes, would be a responsibility that would scare me to my core. Because by refusing her options, you have also accepted responsibility too.


How about asking her to realize she could be that person, broken by her own mind and circumstances and thus behave more responsibly. I don't want to hear about rape and medical reasons--- those are separate issues from abortion for convenience. And its some real old school religious BS to visit the sins of the parent onto the children. 

I consider myself a nihilist and I find these things highly offensive. 

There are options from abstinence to birthcontrol be it chemical, or surgical in nature to _prevent_ conception. There is no excuse not to accept the responsibility of the life you helped create in your own foolishness. Every time you have sexual intercourse in a manner that could result in pregnancy you need to realize that you could, despite all other measures create a life. Also, every life you create has the potential of being less than perfect. If you don't care for the gamble then step away from the wheel.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Seems odd hearing Simi defending absurd laws.....


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

They have stripped my rights to be uninsured... that's a whole different argument.. 

I won't get started on the Elderly... rights taken there too.. .

As far as someone with Downs, I can't answer your question. yes, they are considered a life, although, depending on the severity of disability, some could meet the criteria of what is considered human.. 

I keep trying to point out, that you can not start calling something murder if there are rulings that point out it's not. You are throwing your personal opinion into the mix, and if you do that, it take a lot of credibility from your argument. It shows you are acting on emotion, and not logical thought... 

Our laws and rules are based on the morals of the times. At one time, our morals didn't give two whits what happened to the mentally disabled. Now they do. Maybe some time in the very distant future, they will call it mercy euthanasia. Who knows.. 

At this moment, the laws are what they are. Murder has a very defined legal description, and abortion does not fit into the description. At least not now... Maybe some day it will, but until then, you're wrong.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

k9 said:


> According to the Creator of the Universe it is.


Got any proof there is such a being?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

simi-steading said:


> T
> 
> Murder has a very defined legal description, and abortion does not fit into the description. At least not now... Maybe some day it will, but until then, you're wrong.


Until then, the law is wrong.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Seems odd hearing Simi defending absurd laws.....


I'm not defending them... I feel there are WAY too many laws.. What I'm pointing out to those that believe in laws that rule every aspect of their life, and want more, they need to live with the laws that are out there. They need to abide by them, instead of forcing their morals to ostrazise others that live within the laws of the times..


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

CraterCove said:


> Until then, the law is wrong.


In your mind.. In the eyes of the legal system and government, they are right.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Just think, Hawking is considered by many to be one of the most brilliant men alive.
Yet, without the assistance of machinery and human helpers, he is as worthless as nipples on a boar.
No motor skills, no verbal function, he can't even keep from crapping himself.

Until a few years ago, when technology reached a point that he could comunicate his thoughts and ideals through a computer, he would have been useless to humanity.
So, if said technology were to be advanced to the point it could be used to communicate emotions, thoughts, and feelings of an unborn child into understandable language, how would you feel at that point?

Please, please don't kill me. I want to live, I want to love, I want to experience all that life has to offer. Please mommy, please daddy, don't kill me. I love you.

Shut up kid, you will inconvenience us too much. Do it, doctor, kill the little embryo.

As absurd as that sounds, it really isn't.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm going to end my say with this.. and it's something I see around this forum so much that just chaps me raw... 

If you don't like the laws, go flex your right to vote, and put the people in office that will change the laws to your liking.. 

Until then, calling someone following the law a murderer is slander, judging others, and imposing your morals....


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

simi-steading said:


> I'm going to end my say with this.. and it's something I see around this forum so much that just chaps me raw...
> 
> If you don't like the laws, go flex your right to vote, and put the people in office that will change the laws to your liking..
> 
> Until then, calling someone following the law a murderer is slander, judging others, and imposing your morals....


Yeah, some of us have been trying to do that. And the sheep believe the propaganda about people like Herman Cain and you end up with the same old same old. I doubt that votes are going to do anything about the state of things at this point.

'Cause you know, that whole mid term election shake up sure has worked like gangbusters so far...


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Slander is only slander if it is untrue.
Durring the California gold rush, people, Mexican and American Indian had thee property stolen from them. Many were enslaved. If they worked a claim and produced any gold they were taxed at such a high amount they couldn't afford to pay so they just gave up and left.
But, no big deal, the law at the time made that legal. It can't be wrong because the laws said it was ok.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Every time you have sexual intercourse in a manner that could result in pregnancy you need to realize that you could, despite all other measures create a life. Also, every life you create has the potential of being less than perfect. If you don't care for the gamble then step away from the wheel.


It cracks me up whenever I hear someone advance the idea that people who aren't willing to become parents ought to forgo sex altogether. I mean, can you imagine how many marriage would end if all the wives who were satisfied with the size of their families suddenly announced to their husbands that there would be no more nookie, ever? ound:

Me, I'll take my chances with a very reliable form of birth control and the option of a safe, legal abortion in the unlikely event of conception at this late date. That plan has served me well for 30 years now.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Slander is only slander if it is untrue.


AURGH..... I said I was done, but I can't let this one go.... 

Calling a person a murderer when they are not committing murder by the letter of the law is slander.. 

You are purposely trying to do their name harm. You are trying to damage their reputation by judging them with your morals, and not within the confines of the law.

You may not like the law, and the morals of the law do not fit your morals... but it is the law, and that makes it right to society. If society doesn't like it, they change it, as has happened over time.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

I'm sure, if abortion were to be deemed illegal, and it was determined by law, that life begins at conception, I'm sure Simi would change his opinion and gladly accept it.
Because we now all know, his opinions are only guided by what our fine government deems to be right and wrong.
Just like if for some reason the government passed a law to confiscate all properties owned by anyone who ever posted on this forum, and cut off their feet, that would be ok too.
Most people would fight it, and complain, etc, but we all know Simi would stand up for the govt and gladly turn over his property and roll up his pant legs. It has to be ok, the govt passed a law that says it is.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> It cracks me up whenever I hear someone advance the idea that people who aren't willing to become parents ought to forgo sex altogether. *I mean, can you imagine how many marriage would end if all the wives who were satisfied with the size of their families suddenly announced to their husbands that there would be no more nookie, ever? *ound:
> 
> Me, I'll take my chances with a very reliable form of birth control and the option of a safe, legal abortion in the unlikely event of conception at this late date. That plan has served me well for 30 years now.


Of course, that's why Bill Cosby and his wife have an open marriage. She's Catholic and won't accept any more children.

Or there are sensible things like birth control. When used correctly most forms of Birth control are upwards of 97% dependable. Maybe if you get knocked up beyond that the universe is telling you something.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm only going to rebutt that because I'm not saying why I think abortion is right or wrong.. 

I would feel the government got it wrong, but the big deal is, I would have that much more proof that all the government wants to do is rule our lives.. because we know, those fat cats can't even run their own lives very well.. 

Some people just can't stand to let others live as they see fit... They feel until their morals are thrust on others, their beliefs aren't justified.. 

I HATE when people come knocking on m door and try to talk to me about god... Why do they feel they have to talk me into believing like they do? To justify their beliefs in their own mind. They aren't comfortable thinking they may think different than others. The more others think like them, the more they feel they are normal.. 

When they come knocking on my door, I ask them why the feel the need to do this. I tell them I do not come knocking on their doors asking them to come to the nudie bars with me... I LOVE the look on their face when I tell them that. My wife watched me do that one day and she was rolling on the floor... 

You believe how you want.. I believe how I want, but I don't go around trying to get you all to believe that you should all go to the nudie bars to admire the female forum... 

I do however point out that when people start to change other's thinking to their way by falsely calling others murders, they''re in the wrong... 

I do try and get people to wake up and think about how overbearing our government is,... But then again, I guess sadly with some people, it's not feasible, because some people love being told how to live, because they just can't seem to figure it out on their own.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> Simi: When I was a boy we jailed abortionists. Men did not sire children unless they married, or intended to marry the mother. Sometimes they were persuaded to take responsibility when they realized what might happen to them if they did not.
> 
> Along came the hippie years and the women's liberation movement. Now we have what we have---millions of women who have borne children out of wedlock, or killed them, because they shacked up with a man who had no intention of taking responsibility for his sex slave. Generally the woman in the case kept house, fed the man, even is many cases worked to support him, and tried to rear his children; simple stupidity on the part of the woman and total lack of honor and character on the part of the man.
> 
> ...


As I was reading I was thinking those same people that shamed those who bore children out of wedlock also shamed the innocent children who had no part in the circumstances of their conception. I got to the last paragraph and you didn't disappoint. Why all the concern for the unborn right up until they are born? The same people that oppose abortion rights quite often also oppose food stamp programs designed to help children and single mothers. How do you feel about those programs?

Jim


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

If you can't feed em, don't breed em. Pretty simple concept really.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

simi-steading said:


> I'm going to end my say with this.. and it's something I see around this forum so much that just chaps me raw...
> 
> If you don't like the laws, go flex your right to vote, and put the people in office that will change the laws to your liking..
> 
> Until then, calling someone following the law a murderer is slander, judging others, and imposing your morals....


Hmmm, so, by voting we can change this? Because people we vote for will do what we want?

Hmmm, yet in another thread, in response to a congressional decision, you said,


simi-steading said:


> They don't care... As proof, 61% of the city in DC voted for legal weed... Those critters (such a polite term for the leeches they are) are not listening to the will of the people they don't even represent, and have defunded it so that the will of the people can not be done...


?????


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

And now you see why I said it chaps me so much to see people say go vote and make a difference... and thus I had to say it too so maybe others see the cynicism I see when I hear others say it...


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

If Bill Cosby's wife is as old as he is I doubt that she is worried about having more children. Shucks, if BILL COSBY is as old as he is I doubt if she's worried about having more children.
Ox


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Bunton; I did not shame the children--what I said was that bastardy had a destructive effect on their lives. 

How many illegitimate children do you know who have the easy and productive lives that come to those children who have a loving set of BOTH parents? That destructive effect is the reason we adopt children. It is the reason we contribute to unwed mothers homes. 

Go read the social statistics and learn what happens to children with no father in the house. Perhaps you will change your mind about bastardy. I say the man who sires children without the intent to be a father to them is lower than a snake's belly, totally without honor. Foolish woman perhaps, but bad man. It is not a new problem; the English were passing laws to support children without fathers back in the middle ages. Look it up (bastardy) in Wikipedia.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> Some consider it murder.. others don't. Some believe a level of conscienceless, or a breath of air is what denotes life. Others believe conception...
> 
> What good is forcing your beliefs onto others?


Gosh, I dunno, I believe murder of an innocent is wrong & MOST of our laws do too. So if the left gets thru OKs to off your child even at 2, 3 days old, you'll be ok b/c you don't want to force your beliefs on anyone else?

As far as FORCING it seems to me all conservatives have done is submit some finally needed education. Of course the left is totally against that. NO sonograms b/4 abortions!! We sure don't want anyone to see what their baby looks like b/4 he's killed.

Wendy Davis, last contender for TX gov, filibustered for hrs against a law to restrict abortions after 20 wks gestation. Know why the law was enacted? B/c SCIENCE has determined babies at that gestation CAN FEEL PAIN. 
So gee, you'd think someone would want to curtail that. Not the left. I'm wondering just how something that is only a blob of cells can feel pain. Something that is not yet a human can feel pain. I guess it's a kitty cat then.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

k9 said:


> Guess i enjoy the freedom to post if i choose to do so, and i do object to a society that feels it's ok to deny rights to an individual. A baby dies because adults either man or woman or both are irresponsible and create a life that is an "inconvienence" to them and choose to kill a human being because of it?
> 
> Someone driving down the road drunk and crosses the centerline and kills another motorist, an irresponsible act that society will not tolerate because it could happen to any of us, our rights and safety need to be protected. Guess if you are an unborn baby few care about their rights. Maybe if abortion could happen to adults there would be some reconsideration of how some feel about it.


Here's the thing, k, if they do not believe the unborn are human, then any argument we make is moot. They don't care if the unborn feels pain after 20 wks gestation, can suck their thumb at 10 wks, can hear inside the womb, etc. Not human til it breathes air I guess...


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

Tricky Grandma because a man that will not protect his own flesh and blood certainly won't care about anothers


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> So a raped woman is irresponsible? A woman facing a still birth, or death by having the baby is irresponsible?
> 
> There is the problem, NO ONE can consider ALL the reasons a person may decide an abortion is right for their situation.
> 
> As far as freedom, thank due process, because if it wasn't for that, you could be whisked off at any moment by your government... Ask the people that lived in the Eastern Block... That fear was the motivator for them to keep their mouths shut.


Those scenarios have ALWAYS been exceptions. But carry on, you're perpetuation more left lies.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I always vote and I always advocate whom I think will be a benefit to their office. I don't believe it has the power it used to, but I don't just give up. All avenues should be pursued.

Rape and life and death situations are edge cases. Life and death means it's a medical situation not a social one. Rape is a social issue... but I'd like to think if it happened to me I would have the child. Whether or not we could keep the child in our household would depend on conversation between myself and my husband. I don't believe in 'original sin' (mostly because if the bible stories are true then I think Eve and Adam passed the test, not failed) and I don't believe in blood taint. I don't believe in murdering children because one or both of their parents are evil. And having had people in my family who were mentally or physically disabled from birth I don't believe that it's a good excuse to deny a human life a chance. 

But people who don't care aren't going to care. And people who are vested in the practice being accepted because they have participated in it should just come to grips with their decisions and accept them instead of trying to normalize what should never be normal. Some things should have a stigma attached to them... beating up little old ladies, drowning puppies, and murdering unborn humans amongst those things.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

where I want to said:


> Then good for you. But you again assume that getting pregnant was a choice for which the woman must pay. I agree that celibacy would reduce the pregnancies that end up in abortion but that is so unrealistic and one sided and historically a flawed idea.
> When was the last time you reamed out a man for not supporting his pregnant girlfriend, or picketed outside a school warning the students about having casual sex or picketed a movie or broadcaster glorifying free wheeling sex? Or frankly even avoided laughing at a "pregnancy scare" in a sitcom?
> I suspect that most people would be more afraid of being laughed at for doing that than in preventing a future abortion.
> It comes down always to a person ragging on a woman for having an
> abortion, which is a safe but patently useless activity.


Great post, thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of the pro lifers. Let he without sin cast the first stone. Anyway, I don't buy for a second that this is a right-left issue. Trying to make it that only uncovers more of the double standards we all have.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> Great post, thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of the pro lifers. Let he without sin cast the first stone. Anyway, I don't buy for a second that this is a right-left issue. Trying to make it that only uncovers more of the double standards we all have.


 
Right great post, we are all sinners so lets further it by the barbaric act of scraficing an innocent unborn child who has not sinned.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

k9 said:


> Right great post, we are all sinners so lets further it by the barbaric act of scraficing an innocent unborn child who has not sinned.


If that's how you want to justify it, go for it. I happen to be prolife by the
way. I find it somewhat distressing how shrill and savage the prolife side can be. You will never get anywhere with the holier than thou image either. A different tact is in order.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

Abortionist like to use nice sounding terms like pro-choice, sounds nice and positive doesn't it? And avoid the words death, kill, or murder, it's always good to avoid any indication that the baby has feelings or life, refer to "it" as a fetus, never give it more stature than that. You should find the act of abortion as savage, ever study any of the techniques used?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> How about asking her to realize she could be that person, broken by her own mind and circumstances and thus behave more responsibly. I don't want to hear about rape and medical reasons--- those are separate issues from abortion for convenience. And its some real old school religious BS to visit the sins of the parent onto the children.
> 
> I consider myself a nihilist and I find these things highly offensive.
> 
> There are options from abstinence to birthcontrol be it chemical, or surgical in nature to _prevent_ conception. There is no excuse not to accept the responsibility of the life you helped create in your own foolishness. Every time you have sexual intercourse in a manner that could result in pregnancy you need to realize that you could, despite all other measures create a life. Also, every life you create has the potential of being less than perfect. If you don't care for the gamble then step away from the wheel.


Now back to reality......... All those things are true yet have never, ever prevented either the unwanted pregnancy or resulting misery. The problem is the assuming of authority over other people's lives, without understanding or information. It's assuming that every person is a simply in control of everything, that their health is never effected by birth control or it never fails or their partner exerts never exerts power over them or that they make never make an error in judgement. Or were never in a position of having no control. Just forget the details- make all women the same.
Yes- it comes down to believing that because it is the only way you can conveniently dismiss all the complications of life to arrive a simple, satisfactory to yourself rule. You have to dismiss all the other party's concerns. And, once the child is safely born, they then get dismissed too.
To have your way of no abortions, without the burden of any responsibility for making deeply complex and personal choices for others in all cases, you condemn any number of women to death, disability or poverty. And you do so by saying it was their fault.

I say fine- you demand no access to abortions, then your demands must also be paid for. You must replace the lost income, health, freedom of involved women for their lifetime. This is the exchange. But it seems that you want to demand but not pay. And that shows the exact level of commitment to women and children-as long as you don't pay for the resulting problems. In fact, that seems to be the point. That sinful women, not the men, must pay for their sin of pregnancy. 
I'll believe the sincerity of a commitment to unborn children when I see a willingness to pay for them and respect for the women who bear them. When you demand adequately maternity leave, a guarantee of job return, demand adequate child care and fund retirement of women who raise children, etc. If you wish not to return to back street abortion slaughter, that kills the mothers and their unborn children, and seriously restrict abortion access, then that will actually get somewhere. Otherwise it is just a bunch of uninformed people mobbing a woman to stone her to death. They refuse to recognise her humanity in the name of the humanity of the unborn. A serious conflict of flawed judgement.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

If you want to have abortion with no questions and no stigma then repeal all child abuse, neglect and murder laws. No homicide can me ruled a murder and prosecuted if the person killed caused loss of freedom, health (mental or physical), or monetary loss to the killer. Problem solved.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> If you want to have abortion with no questions and no stigma then repeal all child abuse, neglect and murder laws. No homicide can me ruled a murder and prosecuted if the person killed caused loss of freedom, health (mental or physical), or monetary loss to the killer. Problem solved.


If you want to really stop abortion, remove the pressures of motherhood you can. If women did not fear the consequences of pregnancy, then it might be easier to assume that convenience is the issue. Until then abortions will happen- much worse if abortions are back street. 
Until then you rail against reality only, not changing anything, even the ones you can.

Of course your accusation is that I demand what you paint as unreal absurdity, assigning statements to me I never made. I just think that, if you really find the unborn life as sacrosanct as you say, you would also want to be effective rather than just vendictive. If you can not support things that actually would work, then I find it hard to believe that the unborn child is really the point.

I guess for me, the bottom line is I do not have certainty of justice in injuring a mother to save the child without specific and personal information. And since a trial of each proposed abortion is impossible, I can not make such a blanket statement. It's too complex and difficult- at least for those unwilling to assume there are no other factors than the carrying to term of each unborn child involved.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I don't see anything you've said that's reasonable. The only reasonable solution is to accept your responsibilities and the consequences of your actions.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

k9 said:


> Abortionist like to use nice sounding terms like pro-choice, sounds nice and positive doesn't it? And avoid the words death, kill, or murder, it's always good to avoid any indication that the baby has feelings or life, refer to "it" as a fetus, never give it more stature than that. You should find the act of abortion as savage, ever study any of the techniques used?


Yes I have, it's beyond anything I could imagine. Maybe we should start calling it what it is. Call that woman who had an abortion a murderer. Use a little spine and get right in her face. And do it in front of her Dad while your at it, after all he raised the killer. What's wrong with him eh? The "prolife" cause needs a different approach. Believe me I've racked my brain trying to think of one, but alas I've only drawn a blank. I think maybe addressing the root causes? Impossible?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> I don't see anything you've said that's reasonable. The only reasonable solution is to accept your responsibilities and the consequences of your actions.


Except for that pesky reality where the woman insists on considering herself too. That you don't find reality reasonable is a problem for any opinion you hold. Holding an opinion that won't ever have a chance of working out is a waste of time and dangerous. Like closing your eyes when crossing the street because there is a law about running over pedestrians. Some of the time you might be effectively cross the street. But, drivers being human, it would not be safe for long.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> Yes I have, it's beyond anything I could imagine. Maybe we should start calling it what it is. Call that woman who had an abortion a murderer. Use a little spine and get right in her face. And do it in front of her Dad while your at it, after all he raised the killer. What's wrong with him eh? The "prolife" cause needs a different approach. Believe me I've racked my brain trying to think of one, but alas I've only drawn a blank. I think maybe addressing the root causes? Impossible?


Well, spending more in public capital to ease the financial burden of children is one thing. Being active is supporting the conditions that create respect for women, families and bearing children might be another. It's amazing the number of people who hold simultaneously that carrying through with a pregnancy is required all the while berating the woman for getting pregnant in the first place. Who love Romeo and Juliet while being horrified if they got pregnant and Romeo couldn't support the kids. Nope- they think that double suicide is the best answer to that moral dilemma.
Nothing would be perfect but reducing the burden of raising children would help. Holding fathers responsible period would help, rather than accepting the common belief that it's the woman's sole responsibility in getting pregnant. How many fathers' sole help to a woman who got pregnant is to help get an abortion, at which point they are relieved to wash their hands of the mess?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Consider the female involved? In what capacity? To allow her to feel warm and fuzzy about murdering someone? I mean my life is negatively impacted by a need for money in order to purchase sustenance and maintain a roof over my head where is my consideration? Where is my relief, are you going to provide it? Or do you think I should be responsible for doing what's necessary to keep the lifestyle I am accustomed to my own self?

She should consider herself. I see no reason to make murder an easy option, mentally or by ease of obtaining the procedure. To you the 'female' considering herself seems to mean that she should just be cool with ripping living tissue from herself that is the beginnings of a human child. I am not seeing why that should be easy and condoned.

You want it to be okay but it's not, plain and simple. Don't want a child? Ovaries are optional aren't they? I'd be all for subsidizing their removal for those who want it. You want me to care about murderers, their feelings and their complex reasons for needing to murder. I don't recall Jeffrey Dahmer getting special consideration for his complex reasons to murder, nor Charles Mansion for supposedly convincing other people to murder in his name.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> Consider the female involved? In what capacity? To allow her to feel warm and fuzzy about murdering someone? I mean my life is negatively impacted by a need for money in order to purchase sustenance and maintain a roof over my head where is my consideration? Where is my relief, are you going to provide it? Or do you think I should be responsible for doing what's necessary to keep the lifestyle I am accustomed to my own self?
> 
> She should consider herself. I see no reason to make murder an easy option, mentally or by ease of obtaining the procedure. To you the 'female' considering herself seems to mean that she should just be cool with ripping living tissue from herself that is the beginnings of a human child. I am not seeing why that should be easy and condoned.
> 
> You want it to be okay but it's not, plain and simple. Don't want a child? Ovaries are optional aren't they? I'd be all for subsidizing their removal for those who want it. You want me to care about murderers, their feelings and their complex reasons for needing to murder. I don't recall Jeffrey Dahmer getting special consideration for his complex reasons to murder, nor Charles Mansion for supposedly convincing other people to murder in his name.


Magic words those- it's not that plain and simple. No, it's not. And those should be the watch words. Whenever you find yourself saying that it is, and yet so many others are not finding it so, that is a warning to think further, however difficult that might be.

As for the warm and fuzzy murdering thing, you created that yourself and it has nothing to do with anything I say. Might as well say that if you forced a complete, unnuanced abortion ban, and a woman dies in pregnancy or through a botched back alley abortion, you are a murderer too. Neither of those would be anything but baiting.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Nope, because I have nothing against medical procedures that are deemed necessary by a medical professional in order to save a life in danger. And if you choose to take a life then it should acceptable that you risk your life.

I have thought further. The matter of murdering innocents is still the same. It is wrong because in the vast majority of cases there were other options. You want funding to lower the burden of motherhood? It's called WIC and Welfare and any of us who pay taxes are already supporting it. 

And as for a male's responsibility in this transaction? Right now a male cannot protest and prevent a female he impregnated from getting an abortion. Neither can he force her to have one or be allowed to be forgiven his responsibility and rights to a child he doesn't want. If he has none of the say he has none of the responsibility. Oh wait... all you need to do to attach yourself to a male is put his name on the birth certificate and laugh while collecting his checks and watching him scramble to prove he's not responsible for your child.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> And as for a male's responsibility in this transaction? Right now a male cannot protest and prevent a female he impregnated from getting an abortion. Neither can he force her to have one or be allowed to be forgiven his responsibility and rights to a child he doesn't want. If he has none of the say he has none of the responsibility. Oh wait... all you need to do to attach yourself to a male is put his name on the birth certificate and laugh while collecting his checks and watching him scramble to prove he's not responsible for your child.


A scramble meaning he gets a DNA test for himself and the baby? In the face of abortion, that is not so much. 

And by support, I don't mean food for the child but taking into consideration the job prospects of the mother, the time she spends in raising the child, the retirement she can achieve, the value you publicly give to the importance of motherhood despite the belittling of those who don't choose that. 
If the burdens to the mother were reduced, don't you think that more women would choose to avoid abortions? That both parents are responsible for the unpleasant aspects of parenting would mean that women are less fearful of it? That if men took the same care , and more importantly, were expected to take the same responsibility for pregnancy, there would be less unwanted to face abortion?

If you will not agree to this things, but insist on what didn't work before as the only way, then you will be having this argument forever because, right or wrong, it simply does not do what you want it to do. Legal or not, abortions happen. To say, so what, it's not my problem at that result means nothing to the aborted.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

That if men took the same care , and more importantly, were expected to take the same responsibility for pregnancy, there would be less unwanted to face abortion?


I couldn't agree more with this.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

It is more complicated in many states than just running to get a paternity test. In some places (more other countries though, I think) even if the child is proved not yours but you were married at the time you still get to foot the bill.

I don't think what you are thinking would decrease the burdens would do anything of the sort. It just increases everyone else's burdens. 

I have made a career of being a farm wife and mother. I have three and one on the way. I don't see how I can be more publicly supportive of motherhood than by walking the walk myself. I homeschool and work continuously to reach a goal of raising all of our own meat and the majority of our vegetables in order to be certain of the quality of food I feed my children. I'm not special nor unique, if I can manage not to be over-burdened I have trouble feeling sorry for those that do. I am glad to have more people opt out of the gene pool. That's awesome. But abortion has been and is used as a way to oppress people and promote eugenics. I find the practice, beyond my basic objections to it, to be highly racist and classist.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

"It's called WIC and Welfare and any of us who pay taxes are already supporting it. "
The rich support their illegitimate children: Sometimes the father pays (Swarzenegger) and sometimes the mother or her family have money of their own. 

Sometimes "Family" kicks in, as in most middle class families where the once unthinkable happens.

For all those others there is only the community, the tax payer. First there was the church and the monastery or convent. Then the cities began to levy taxes for the support of fatherless children. Now we have removed the stigma and encouraged the practice with unlimited welfare, housing and sympathy for the poor mother. We are to the point where welfare queens are sending their teenage daughters out to get pregnant.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Oxankle said:


> "It's called WIC and Welfare and any of us who pay taxes are already supporting it. "
> The rich support their illegitimate children: Sometimes the father pays (Swarzenegger) and sometimes the mother or her family have money of their own.
> 
> Sometimes "Family" kicks in, as in most middle class families where the once unthinkable happens.
> ...


And what a wonderful thing, another child is born, rather than aborted.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

And so you advocate abortion as cure to our social ills? Would you abort all of them or as Margaret Sanger advocated, only the blacks and imbeciles? 

Just suppose that we went back to the 1940's and 50's model, where people got married and THEN had children? Where fathers worked and supported their children?
Where only the lowest of the low abandoned their children, and abortionists were jailed? Where being on welfare was shameful, and people would take in washing, work as servants or work in the fields rather than be "on relief".


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Oxankle said:


> And so you advocate abortion as cure to our social ills? Would you abort all of them or as Margaret Sanger advocated, only the blacks and imbeciles?
> 
> Just suppose that we went back to the 1940's and 50's model, where people got married and THEN had children? Where fathers worked and supported their children?
> Where only the lowest of the low abandoned their children, and abortionists were jailed? Where being on welfare was shameful, and people would take in washing, work as servants or work in the fields rather than be "on relief".


I never said that. You do have some excellent ideas about loking to the past for a better family model.I kind of think along those lines too. I just don't know how to get mainstream society to accept them. :shrug:


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

I have always been an advocate of better counselors for those considering abortion. Some will say, what will that do? In my opinion many counselors in the abortion clinics are pro-choice perhaps a better choice would be pro-life with understanding would help with the decision. I am not speaking of someone who is hard core prolife and it's my way of no way attitude. No one needs that. That just scares them more. I know there are some that have abortions for convenience but many times it is desperation. Fear that they can't raise this child, etc. I know this because I have been there. I was married and had a brand new baby (2 mo. old). The medical bills had piled up and we had cancelled our insurance to try to keep up and catch up. We were young and dumb IMO. I was breastfeeding and thought I couldn't get pregnant that fast. All of a sudden I was. I was terrified.........the money, the need to work, the diapers, the fact that we had some serious issues with our first daughter as she was a dry birth. They almost waited too long because my physician was out of town. We were told because of this she could be born with disabilities and no one knew what they would be. It was crazy scary. I didn't know what to do. My DH just said it will be ok but he always says that and it wasn't exactly what I wanted to hear. I needed to hear how it was going to be ok. Although I was a Christian and I knew it was wrong for me I was that afraid. I called the abortion clinic and they just acted like it was no big deal...bring this and this and this. I hung up horrified. What was I thinking...how could this even enter my mind. I needed someone to talk to me about things and that we could work this out. There was no one except me. I cried and cried and went up and down but abortion was out of the equation. Maybe it was just my religious beliefs kicking in but I was disgusted with myself for even considering. Eight months later my beautiful perfect son was born just like his older sister. He was momma's baby. He never took his eyes off of me. It is like he was looking at me thanking me for letting him have his life. He is still momma's baby and he is 28 years old. I still cry as I type this for all to read. I only wish there would have been someone in that clinic to talk to me. Someone who would have helped me find the answers I needed just to help me know it would be ok. It was ok! We were all OK and my DH and I went on to have another child a few years later. I just think some folks are seriously afraid and need the counseling that helps them map out a plan. Many judge one way or another. What good does that do? Instead of doing that HELP! Show them that there are ways and people who really do care.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Great post grandma and excellent thoughts about counselors.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Oxankle said:


> And so you advocate abortion as cure to our social ills? Would you abort all of them or as Margaret Sanger advocated, only the blacks and imbeciles?
> 
> Just suppose that we went back to the 1940's and 50's model, where people got married and THEN had children? Where fathers worked and supported their children?
> Where only the lowest of the low abandoned their children, and abortionists were jailed? Where being on welfare was shameful, and people would take in washing, work as servants or work in the fields rather than be "on relief".


People think that was true of the past but it wasn't. People did not talk about their divorces, kids ended up in orphanages, and had abortions performed clandestinely. Plenty of fathers abandoned their children- just up and left. Many a "deceased" father was one who had disappeared. Children lived their whole life in mental hospitals with unaware siblings. Or simply had children born full term too soon after a marriage ceremony.
The difference is they were ashamed of such things and didn't talk about it to family or friends, much less broadcast it as people do on social websites. And they were not the pictured in the movies or literature. That was censored- literally.
That was one of the benefits of working with social security- actual records, leading to questions about prior names or dates, were obtained. It's surprising how often a parent's prior marital (or lack of it) history or that there are siblings or cousins they never heard about.


----------



## k9 (Feb 6, 2008)

where I want to- are you trying to insinuate that the family unit was as rare in the 40's and 50's as it is today???? That there was the flood of childern born outside of a family unit as it is today?


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

I wonder with all the multiple types of birth control available now and that has been available for the last 40 years, and the increasing sex ed, why has America aborted millions of babies? 

I think one reason is that abortion has been projected by the media, women's rights groups and individuals as an acceptable alternative to having a child at a difficult time in the woman's life. I think also that abortion is big business. The doctors get paid. The counselors get paid. The medical tools and the chemicals are also a big business. I assume real estate for the abortion clinics is expensive. The multitude of professional writers in all types of media get paid from the act of abortion. $$$

Still, I don't understand why women/men have not been able to prevent conception with all the means available to them??? 

I was thinking while reading all the posts questioning when an embryo is a child, that one of the scientific/medical criteria for death is the cessation of brain waves. With our rapidly advancing technology it shouldn't be too far in the future that we will be able to remotely monitor a baby's in utero brain waves. That will not help the millions who have been discarded but it may help educate us to accept the truth.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Then good for you. But you again assume that getting pregnant was a choice for which the woman must pay. I agree that celibacy would reduce the pregnancies that end up in abortion but that is so unrealistic and one sided and historically a flawed idea.
> When was the last time you reamed out a man for not supporting his pregnant girlfriend, or picketed outside a school warning the students about having casual sex or picketed a movie or broadcaster glorifying free wheeling sex? Or frankly even avoided laughing at a "pregnancy scare" in a sitcom?
> I suspect that most people would be more afraid of being laughed at for doing that than in preventing a future abortion.
> It comes down always to a person ragging on a woman for having an abortion, which is a safe but patently useless activity.


I guess you don't know that stats on conservatives & giving. We GIVE more $$ time AND blood, that includes fostering, helping w/adoptions, etc. FAR far more than do the whiney libs.
And we are the ones who support education & b/c of this there's far fewer folks who are 'pro-choice' now than a decade ago. Trying to pass laws that prohibit abortion on demand after 20 wks is an example.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> I'm just the messenger here.. I am just pointing out what some judges have ruled... I am also pointing out how this decision can easily be applied to this whole discussion... It's only a matter of time before a decent lawyer (what ever the definition of that is) can and will eventually use that argument...
> 
> Here again, I am pointing out how this whole discussion is all strictly based on morals and loose interpretations of what a human is and when rights begin.
> 
> ...


So, if the left is successful in getting the ok to 'do away' w/babies up to 2 mo old you'd be ok w/that too? B/c after all, its the law. And who are you to judge, after all. Not your body, not your decision.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Again and again and again, the woman who is wanting an abortion is presumed to be selfish and that's that as far as most here seem to be concerned. But it is not so neat. And not so easy to keep a woman from having an abortion for convenience without denying those who are desperate too.
> Anyone who has read of the horrors, deaths and mutilations of back street abortions would not be so clear about it all being for convenience. Like in convenience store. No one would risk such without a better reason.
> 
> Denying legal abortions means going back to those days. And thinking otherwise is a fantasy.


When 'back alley abortions' equal the # of killed babies, I'll be concerned.
There was ALWAYS legal abortion. Always. Just had to be a very good reason. now, if you decide at 38 weeks you don't want to be bothered after all, you can have baby's head crushed w/o a thought.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> How about asking her to realize she could be that person, broken by her own mind and circumstances and thus behave more responsibly. I don't want to hear about rape and medical reasons--- those are separate issues from abortion for convenience. And its some real old school religious BS to visit the sins of the parent onto the children.
> 
> I consider myself a nihilist and I find these things highly offensive.
> 
> There are options from abstinence to birthcontrol be it chemical, or surgical in nature to _prevent_ conception. There is no excuse not to accept the responsibility of the life you helped create in your own foolishness. Every time you have sexual intercourse in a manner that could result in pregnancy you need to realize that you could, despite all other measures create a life. Also, every life you create has the potential of being less than perfect. If you don't care for the gamble then step away from the wheel.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Just think, Hawking is considered by many to be one of the most brilliant men alive.
> Yet, without the assistance of machinery and human helpers, he is as worthless as nipples on a boar.
> No motor skills, no verbal function, he can't even keep from crapping himself.
> 
> ...


So far, science has told us that the unborn feels pain as early as 20 weeks gestation. That is one reason conservatives are trying to get the law passed to prohibit abortions after that long.
There are surgeons who operate on the unborn. Curing defects, etc. Gosh, why would they do that to a non-human?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> I'm going to end my say with this.. and it's something I see around this forum so much that just chaps me raw...
> 
> If you don't like the laws, go flex your right to vote, and put the people in office that will change the laws to your liking..
> 
> Until then, calling someone following the law a murderer is slander, judging others, and imposing your morals....


We ARE doing this!! And met w/opposition every step of the way! Have you not heard of Wendy Davis?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

grandma12703 said:


> I have always been an advocate of better counselors for those considering abortion. Some will say, what will that do? In my opinion many counselors in the abortion clinics are pro-choice perhaps a better choice would be pro-life with understanding would help with the decision. I am not speaking of someone who is hard core prolife and it's my way of no way attitude. No one needs that. That just scares them more. I know there are some that have abortions for convenience but many times it is desperation. Fear that they can't raise this child, etc. I know this because I have been there. I was married and had a brand new baby (2 mo. old). The medical bills had piled up and we had cancelled our insurance to try to keep up and catch up. We were young and dumb IMO. I was breastfeeding and thought I couldn't get pregnant that fast. All of a sudden I was. I was terrified.........the money, the need to work, the diapers, the fact that we had some serious issues with our first daughter as she was a dry birth. They almost waited too long because my physician was out of town. We were told because of this she could be born with disabilities and no one knew what they would be. It was crazy scary. I didn't know what to do. My DH just said it will be ok but he always says that and it wasn't exactly what I wanted to hear. I needed to hear how it was going to be ok. Although I was a Christian and I knew it was wrong for me I was that afraid. I called the abortion clinic and they just acted like it was no big deal...bring this and this and this. I hung up horrified. What was I thinking...how could this even enter my mind. I needed someone to talk to me about things and that we could work this out. There was no one except me. I cried and cried and went up and down but abortion was out of the equation. Maybe it was just my religious beliefs kicking in but I was disgusted with myself for even considering. Eight months later my beautiful perfect son was born just like his older sister. He was momma's baby. He never took his eyes off of me. It is like he was looking at me thanking me for letting him have his life. He is still momma's baby and he is 28 years old. I still cry as I type this for all to read. I only wish there would have been someone in that clinic to talk to me. Someone who would have helped me find the answers I needed just to help me know it would be ok. It was ok! We were all OK and my DH and I went on to have another child a few years later. I just think some folks are seriously afraid and need the counseling that helps them map out a plan. Many judge one way or another. What good does that do? Instead of doing that HELP! Show them that there are ways and people who really do care.


Your story could have been mine, just change a few details.
I, too, have a wonderful son b/c the scarey stuff only lasted a few moments. 
This is another avenue conservatives are trying to put in place. If frightened pregnant women had another place to turn...instead of PP who just pushes them into aborting.


----------



## okiemom (May 12, 2002)

maybe guys need to also be taught to be more careful where their sperm goes. When there is sex a guy needs to think of the girl as the future mother of his child as birth control is only 97% correct. Now how many guys sleep with only women with whom he would take as his wife and mother of his children??? How many on here can say they never had "fun" just to have fun?? Birth control is half your problem and even more as it is stated father rights before the birth is slim. You had better know who you are making deposits with. Be more selective or abstain... yeah right. guys are great at abstaining. 

Every time a guy has sex he is playing Russian roulette with his sperm. so maybe he should be more careful with where he parks his car or find a knothole. Because screaming when you play toy is up against a wall is cheap. Why are there not more male virgins at the wedding night?? It is just as important for a male to be pure going to his new wife male whores are not attractive. and hypocritical one even less so. 

males can help reduce abortions. Don't make babies yourself. You are half the problem. You can be ALL the solution if you don't have sex without a married partner.


----------

