US Becoming Pro-Life

[top gun]

In vitriol bothers me, why can’t they just fertilize one egg and if it does not take then try again? They do it to so many eggs then freeze them, give them to scientists to slice and dice. I would never do that. I have no problem with fertilizing the egg you want to have implanted but I don’t like cloning eggs for experiments or to just save time/money. And what I find very sick is some women will have several fertilized eggs implanted in them and select and abort the ones they don’t want later. That is sad and disgusting.

You know... I know you absolutely have no idea just how ridiculous you sound.

You are actually whining about frozen eggs, FROZEN EGGS!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you wonder why NOBODY with half a mind would ever for one split second back off the fight to keep safe, sterile, medical abortion legal!

The "I want to run your bedroom and your body crazies" so quick it would make everyone's head snap would be pushing for making it illegal to freeze and save eggs that might not be used, make it illegal to have multiple eggs implanted if not all were to be carried to term and then they'd go after today's safe and effective Birth Control Pill because it contaminates the womb so an already fertilized egg can't implant & grow causing the body to flush (abort) it.

All anyone has to do is listen and they know why things are as they are and why women can never go backwards again.

 

[top gun]

Just received an important e-mail from my wife's neice who's a protection volunteer at a woman's clinic. She volunteers on her days off and is often on the front lines of keeping the Lunatic Right Wing Domestic Terrorist stalker clinic creepers away from women wanting to legally enter a women's clinic.

My wife is off to the national conferance of the National Organization of Women (NOW) this Thursday and will be attending with her sister and the afore mentioned neice hence this message.

I'll paste her e-mail we just recieved from her...

Good news! Dr filling in for Tiller

LeRoy Carhart, Nebraska Doctor, Plans To Offer 3rd-Term Abortions In Kansas
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/10/leroy-carhart-nebraska-do_n_213970.html


The next question we need to ask is, how can we protect this doctor and his staff more effectively?? I hope this is a topic discussed at the National NOW conference!

M.

 

[PLC1]

Could we reach some sort of concensus that abortion is Ok in the the first and second trimesters? And then limit this discussion to when it might or might not be Ok, after that point, life of mother in danger, dead baby, severe birth defects, et al?

I think that's pretty much what the current law is, except that it's easy to get around the restrictions on late term abortion.

Do you think that consensus came about due to what is best, what is right, or simply what compromise could be reached?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Pandora from the land of the 'LOLLYPOP GUILD': Yes I would, if I could impose my views on late term abortion after the 7th month when its clear the child is viable. I would not say a woman can not deliver early if she had health issues, I just don’t think killing a child is the answer. Deliver the baby put it in an incubator and adopt it out if the mother does not want it.

Yep...pretty simplistic for such a complex problem! Let's review...
A. who's going to pay for that enormous neonatal hospital bill???
B. since children with medical needs are hard to place...where do you propose to send these children, with highly complex medical needs???
C. How many would you and your 'religious right wing crowd' be willing to house and raise???
D. Did you read that cold/sterile solution that you just typed up???
E. Not so easy when you have to answer the 'what would you be willing to do to support those same said medical needy babies'!!!
F. what institution is equipped to sustain them and provide for them, meet all of their emotional/medical needs??? Any place open that you know of???

Standing on the 'Righteous Soap Box' makes the realistic view hard to see until you have to come down and face the 'day to day expense' of caring for those same said children...then the 'FACTS' get real blurry and no one has the answer!!!

 

[Pandora]

Actually, most late term abortions would not have to happen, regardless of the health of the mother. Once the fetus is viable outside of the womb, the great majority of them could be saved through a c section. When you look at medical science, there would be very few cases in which a late term abortion would be justified, The procedure is legal under certain circumstances because of political compromises, not because of any logical need.

OK, all of that is consistent. If a fetus is old enough to be viable, then there should be no difference between killing it and killing a newborn. Therefore, the procedure should be outlawed. However....

If life begins at conception, as you contend, then why is an early abortion any different from a late term abortion?

You are right that most, and probably all late term abortions do not have to happen, you can deliver by C section or just have a normal deliver instead of a breech and choose not to stab it in the back of the head and instead choose an incubator and adoptive family. That problem is that is not the choice made, stabbing the baby in the head is and it’s the wrong choice.

I agree killing a baby at the 7th month of gestation is the same as killing a new born, both are viable.

I do not think you are killing less of a person at the 2d month of pregnancy as you are at the 7th month of pregnancy. I think both are equally human and both should have the right to life.

Abortion in either case for conveniences sake is equally wrong but in the case of a woman 3 months pregnant the child is not viable and as horrible as it is to let her kill her baby, its not like we can do early delivery and adopt the baby out.

If there has to be compromise then I think I have compromised. I do not see the abortion on demand for any reason crowd compromising at all

Don’t get me wrong I do not think early abortion is ok, it’s a compromise. I can not bring myself to consider a compromise on killing viable children though. There I draw the line that its flat wrong, flat murder, flat sick and disgusting.

 

[Pandora]

Could we reach some sort of concensus that abortion is Ok in the the first and second trimesters? And then limit this discussion to when it might or might not be Ok, after that point, life of mother in danger, dead baby, severe birth defects, et al?

I would not mind going back to the row vs wade

that was at least only till the child is viable but I will never agree its ok to kill our children at any point unless they pose a threat to the life of the pregnant woman.

It should always be a debate and the various views should always be talked about. Though a compromise back to RvW would at least be some kind of compromise on the abortion on demand for any reason group

 

[PLC1]

Yep...pretty simplistic for such a complex problem! Let's review...
A. who's going to pay for that enormous neonatal hospital bill???

Unless there are severe health problems, why would there be an enormous bill?

Who pays the bills when a baby who has already been born needs extensive medical care? Are you ready to kill the already born if they become expensive?

B. since children with medical needs are hard to place...where do you propose to send these children, with highly complex medical needs???

Again, you're assuming that they have highly complex medical needs. Why would that be? Just because they are unwanted doesn't make them ill, does it?

C. How many would you and your 'religious right wing crowd' be willing to house and raise???

There is a ready supply of willing adoptive parents, especially of newborns.

D. Did you read that cold/sterile solution that you just typed up???
E. Not so easy when you have to answer the 'what would you be willing to do to support those same said medical needy babies'!!!
F. what institution is equipped to sustain them and provide for them, meet all of their emotional/medical needs??? Any place open that you know of???

Same arguments, same answers.

Standing on the 'Righteous Soap Box' makes the realistic view hard to see until you have to come down and face the 'day to day expense' of caring for those same said children...then the 'FACTS' get real blurry and no one has the answer!!!

The answers are there. Now, let's examine the argument against killing off young children who develop, say, leukemia or some other form of childhood cancer for example:

Who is going to pay the enormous medical bills?
Face the facts, the day to day expense of caring for a child who needs chemo, who might die anyway, is just not realistic.

And, as for children whose parents can't or won't raise them, let's kill them off too. Who's going to care for them, after all? They have been abused, and so are difficult to deal with. Are the right wing religious types going to care for them, or should we just line them up and shoot them? After all, let's face facts here, folks. No one wants them, they cost money, let's just off them while we can.

Same argument, isn't it?

 

[Pandora]

Unless there are severe health problems, why would there be an enormous bill?

Who pays the bills when a baby who has already been born needs extensive medical care? Are you ready to kill the already born if they become expensive?



Again, you're assuming that they have highly complex medical needs. Why would that be? Just because they are unwanted doesn't make them ill, does it?



There is a ready supply of willing adoptive parents, especially of newborns.



Same arguments, same answers.



The answers are there. Now, let's examine the argument against killing off young children who develop, say, leukemia or some other form of childhood cancer for example:

Who is going to pay the enormous medical bills?
Face the facts, the day to day expense of caring for a child who needs chemo, who might die anyway, is just not realistic.

And, as for children whose parents can't or won't raise them, let's kill them off too. Who's going to care for them, after all? They have been abused, and so are difficult to deal with. Are the right wing religious types going to care for them, or should we just line them up and shoot them? After all, let's face facts here, folks. No one wants them, they cost money, let's just off them while we can.

Same argument, isn't it?

Careful, dont give any ideas... this is what will come next after obama care starts

This and offing our grandparents

 

[Pandora]

Unless there are severe health problems, why would there be an enormous bill?

Who pays the bills when a baby who has already been born needs extensive medical care? Are you ready to kill the already born if they become expensive?



Again, you're assuming that they have highly complex medical needs. Why would that be? Just because they are unwanted doesn't make them ill, does it?



There is a ready supply of willing adoptive parents, especially of newborns.



Same arguments, same answers.



The answers are there. Now, let's examine the argument against killing off young children who develop, say, leukemia or some other form of childhood cancer for example:

Who is going to pay the enormous medical bills?
Face the facts, the day to day expense of caring for a child who needs chemo, who might die anyway, is just not realistic.

And, as for children whose parents can't or won't raise them, let's kill them off too. Who's going to care for them, after all? They have been abused, and so are difficult to deal with. Are the right wing religious types going to care for them, or should we just line them up and shoot them? After all, let's face facts here, folks. No one wants them, they cost money, let's just off them while we can.

Same argument, isn't it?

I would adopt in a heart beat at least two babies. I have friends who adopted three kids from Korea because it was the only way they could get infants. It was not because they had some extra special love for Korea, its just that those babies at birth are easier to get than babies in the United States. After more than 6 years on a waiting list here, they gave up and adopted from Korea. Any baby coming out of Russia is adopted by Americans quickly but even in Russia there is a waiting list. Americans would not go outside America to adopt if there were babies here.

After the two (and I only say two because thats all I could afford right now) grew up I would adopt again till I was too old to adopt. And there are many more like me.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I would not mind going back to the row vs wade

that was at least only till the child is viable but I will never agree its ok to kill our children at any point unless they pose a threat to the life of the pregnant woman.

OMG...a concession about late term abortions!!! I thought you were the all knowledgeable one for stating that these were 'not a threat to the life of the mother'...what records have you read 'now' to change your mind???

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I think that's pretty much what the current law is, except that it's easy to get around the restrictions on late term abortion.

Do you think that consensus came about due to what is best, what is right, or simply what compromise could be reached?

HOW SO??? For so many of these statements to be processed, as though you all have had visual/hands on facts about the 'late term' abortion issue...how are you validating/substantiating this statement?

 

[Pandora]

OMG...a concession about late term abortions!!! I thought you were the all knowledgeable one for stating that these were 'not a threat to the life of the mother'...what records have you read 'now' to change your mind???

Nope, I am just a girl in Oregon. I have never claimed to be all knowing, its you who screams that I am.

and I am not changing my mind on anything. If you read my posts you would know that. I have said the exact same thing on other threads before.

I dont agree with abortion at all except if it would kill the mother to have the baby but I also dont feel its right to make a woman carry a baby.

If the mother will die when she is 7 months pregnant from carying, I think it should be a c section or normal birth minus the stabbing the baby in the head part and let the baby be adopted.

That is not a new stand for me, neither is the fact I would not ban early abortions I just dont think states who dont want to do them should be forced and I dont think tax payers should be forced to pay for someones abortion.

Not wanting to ban early abortions does not mean someone agrees with it, but I would not cry if someone else banned it and women could not kill the baby.

I would also find it very cute if a law was passed that men could opt out of responsibility for a baby as their version of abortion instead of being stuck with the bill if a woman chooses not to kill the baby. At least it would make a point!

on a side note,

You are the most rude and mean spirited person I have come across on this forum to anyone who does not agree with you, and I have seen a number of meanies come and go.

 

[GenSeneca]

Nope, I am just a girl in Oregon. I have never claimed to be all knowing, its you who screams that I am.

and I am not changing my mind on anything. If you read my posts you would know that. I have said the exact same thing on other threads before.

I dont agree with abortion at all except if it would kill the mother to have the baby but I also dont feel its right to make a woman carry a baby.

If the mother will die when she is 7 months pregnant from carying, I think it should be a c section or normal birth minus the stabbing the baby in the head part and let the baby be adopted.

That is not a new stand for me, neither is the fact I would not ban early abortions I just dont think states who dont want to do them should be forced and I dont think tax payers should be forced to pay for someones abortion.

Not wanting to ban early abortions does not mean someone agrees with it, but I would not cry if someone else banned it and women could not kill the baby.

I would also find it very cute if a law was passed that men could opt out of responsibility for a baby as their version of abortion instead of being stuck with the bill if a woman chooses not to kill the baby. At least it would make a point!

Bravo! [applause]

I especially like the idea for men to be able to 'abort' their responsibility. Mens rights groups should get all over that one... "Its a Mans right to choose!"

on a side note,

You are the most rude and mean spirited person I have come across on this forum to anyone who does not agree with you, and I have seen a number of meanies come and go.

Hey! What about me? ...guess I'll have to try harder.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Unless there are severe health problems, why would there be an enormous bill?

This entire thread is about: 'PRO-LIFE'/'PRO-CHOICE'/Late Term Abortions, I don't think, nor have I ever said that the healthy babies were in this discussion {not from my posts anyway...some of the other hysterical posts you'll need a interpreter for, can't stay on point and becomes incensed when pushed for a response}. The abnormalities in the birth process is the reason for late term abortions...regardless of the 'crying/whining/hysteria' from the Pandora's in the group!

Who pays the bills when a baby who has already been born needs extensive medical care? Are you ready to kill the already born if they become expensive?

Exactly...who do you think pays for all of those costly medical bills??? The tooth fairy?

Again, you're assuming that they have highly complex medical needs. Why would that be? Just because they are unwanted doesn't make them ill, does it?

And your 'assuming' that they do not...once again the discussion centered around the reason(s) for a late term abortion...(not the hysterical rantings of Pandora who makes stuff up without any proof from medical records!!!)

There is a ready supply of willing adoptive parents, especially of newborns.

Really, and you've read and have seen the stats on that??? Yes, many a anxious adoptive parent want babies {perfectly shaped, perfect medical records...perfect/perfect/perfect} Better check with some adoption agencies/foster care programs before stepping off of that bridge...cause it just isn't so...wish it was otherwise, but sadly it is not!

Same arguments, same answers.

DITTO

The answers are there. Now, let's examine the argument against killing off young children who develop, say, leukemia or some other form of childhood cancer for example:
Who is going to pay the enormous medical bills?

APPLES AND ORANGES...we're discussing late term abortions due to the medical needs of the mother...are you following Pandora continual derailing of topic/subject matter?

Face the facts, the day to day expense of caring for a child who needs chemo, who might die anyway, is just not realistic.

Yawn...

And, as for children whose parents can't or won't raise them, let's kill them off too. Who's going to care for them, after all? They have been abused, and so are difficult to deal with. Are the right wing religious types going to care for them, or should we just line them up and shoot them? After all, let's face facts here, folks. No one wants them, they cost money, let's just off them while we can.

Now that sure ties right into the topic...JEEZE LOUISE But your point about the 'right wing religious types' is basically what I was asking: they don't want to allow a woman the right to abort her baby but they sure as sh!t don't want to fund the institutional places that it will take to provide long term care of all those 'problem babies either'.

Same argument, isn't it?

Seems as though you've chased that statement right back around to my points that I was asking Pandora for some serious thought process about...but all it did was make her 'CRY' and say what a 'MEANY I AM'!!! LMAO

Do Not ask the HARD questions...it just makes them cry louder!!!

 

[GenSeneca]

they don't want to allow a woman the right to abort her baby

First off, we don't agree that its a right. But if it is a right, then there need to be equal rights for the father and unborn child.
Secondly, neither Panda or myself have said we should ban all abortions, so try really hard to deal with the things we've actually said on the topic rather than attacking strawmen.
Lastly, I do believe we have all agreed that in a legitimate case of a womans health being at risk, then an abortion is understandable. Rape, incest and health of the mother were all "concessions" on our part that you just as soon pretend we hadn't made.

Do Not ask the HARD questions...it just makes them cry louder!!!

With your constant use of caps lock, you seem to by the one crying the loudest.