Posted on 08/07/2004 6:42:40 PM PDT by naturalman1975
Leaving aside the greater moral issue for the moment (which I see other responders already have addressed)... I'd just ask, isn't she also entitled to see and to know the full ramifications of what she is doing? In what other medical procedure is the right not to understand what you are doing so enshrined? Why is it that those in favor of abortion seem always to want to withhold the information of what actually occurs? If, as you argue, a woman has the right to make this choice, then surely she has the responsibility and indeed the obligation to be educated about what she is doing, doesn't she? What is the pro-abortion lobby afraid of? Why shouldn't women see the actual procedure before they submit themselves to it? In medicine, that concept is called "informed consent."
Why?
have you ever known someone who's had an abortion?
Yes. Several.
i'm asking anyone on this thread for their opinion of how you felt about this person.
Some of them still attempt to justify their horrid crime. I find that repulsive. Others are repentant. I find that admirable.
i appreciate your honest reponses, even those i disagree with.
thank you.
Blacks vote democratic 90 percent of the time. Democrats support the aborting of 1000 black babies every single day. Bush won by 587 votes in Florida.
Keyes will say it better and Obama will feel the pain.
Ask a friend how many abortion there are every year in America. Ask them how many there have been since 1973?
How about someone who's sick or injured and must be hooked up to "the machines" to survive, unable to survive on their own (at least temporarily).
Would a "post-birth abortion" (to coin a phrase) be acceptable there?
LG,
Eternity!, they will have hellacious nightmares for eternity. The Good Lord will see to that.
Count me pINg
Ping.
In Darwin, a 22-week-old fetus - a girl - was aborted, still alive, and left to die in a steel dish. That took 80 minutes, and nurses later told a coroner they could hear her cry and cry, but no one held or helped her.
In Darwin, a 22-week-old fetus - a girl - was aborted, still alive, and left to die in a steel dish. That took 80 minutes, and nurses later told a coroner they could hear her cry and cry, but no one held or helped her.
Does that rule apply to piles of skeletal Jewish bodies in Auschwitz, or starving children in Ethopia, Bangladesh, Somalia, or the dead women and children in My Lai, or the people jumping out of the World Trade Center; or does only apply to things you want to make money off of that might sicken people into cutting off a source of income for your union of death? What's it like to have a union to protect and support people who kill babies?
I've thought about the issue of televised abortions. If you pose the question to staunch pro-abortion rights types, they will react in horror that you even had such a thought, but then I always say, "but if the fetus is just a bunch of tissue not a life why should it matter to anyone, and what is the horror of televising it?" In fact, all types of surgeries are televised today, so what would be so different about televising an abortion if is simply a procedure that does not involve the the termination of a life? I was watching "Nip and Tuck" last night and plenty of tissue was being removed in that program, so pro-abortion rights types should feel no different watching an abortion if they truly believe what they say. The identity of the mother could also be confidential if people cried "invasion of privacy".
I've always been a little confused by this statement. does this mean that its OK to abort one of a pair of identical twins since there's still gonna be a baby with that unique DNA?
That was an incredible picture when I first saw it years ago. Glad to see Samuel is doing well.
When people actually see what "it" is that is being killed, they must be a monster to go through with the killing.
I pray every day for those killed.
"After a few more years, technology will have educated people to the truth and abortion will fade away as an issue. Abortion will simply ban itself."
Man I sure hope you are correct, because the politicans (both parties) sure as heck will NEVER ban it.
Thanks for posting your opinion in a polite and well thought out manner. The problem with discussions on abortion is they all to often end up in name calling. So, let me respond with why your post convinces me even more that abortion is wrong.
You say a woman has a right to her own fertility, and I couldn't agree more. I think that is what birth control and abstinence are about. Once you are pregnant then your choice is no longer just about you, it's about you and another living being. You say you are uncomfortable aborting a fetus over 13 weeks. Why that particular time frame? What happens at 12 weeks, 6 days 23 hours, and 59 minutes that suddenly makes it human? And while that point may seem absurd, when it comes to human life I don't think we should be in the position of just making arbitrary value judgements about when something becomes a life. If we can't point to the exact moment a baby become human, then we should give it the benefit of the doubt. 13 weeks is not a exact moment, it's a "maybe it's a baby, maybe it isn't a baby."
You said you would terminate that baby if you found out it was mentally retarded. I'd hope you will think about that statement some more in the future. What you are suggesting is that you will decide what constitutes a decent human life and then make a determination as to whether it should live or die. What if you found out your baby had club foot, or a cleft palete, or a some other "defect" that some of us might find unacceptable? Or God forbid, you want a boy and you find out your baby is a girl. Would that be an ok reason to have an abortion, or is that the point at which a woman's right to choose is no longer valid? You also said you didn't want to be burdened with a retarded baby for the rest of your life. I can't imagine being confronted with that situation and I certainly don't want to make light of the burden that might be. But frankly, we have millions of abortions every year and I venture to say that only a handful are aborted because they are retarded, so for me that is a straw dog. The same goes for children conceived as a result of rape or incest . Those constitute a minute fraction of the babies aborted. Furthermore, how is it the baby's fault it was conceived that way. Giving it up for adoption seems reasonable.
You also are troubled by young teenagers sacrificing their chances in life by being forced to carry a child to term. Perhaps the lesson of easy fixes for terrible judgement is a worse burden to lay on a teenage girl. I know several adult woman who are haunted by the abortions they had as teenagers. It's not as cut and dry as people make it.
You don't seem to believe adoption is much of an option. In fact, there are wonderful couples waiting in line to adopt "unwanted babies." Is not the better choice to give a baby a wonderful life with two good parents who desperately want to raise children, than to just abort it because it is inconvenient or might be a bother for the pregnant mother?
I can't speak for Australia, but in American being a single mother has sadly almost become a trend. I would never encourage a woman or a man to have a child without a partner to help raise that child. I think it is the height of selfishness to deliberately have a baby when there is no intent of raising it with both parents. However, if the event happens unexpectedly to a single mother then I commend her if she chooses to take responsibility and raise it, or put it up for adoption. It certainly seems a better choice than destruction.
Please don't assume that being pro life is strictly a religious issue, because it is not. Many religious people are pro life because the morality they derive from their faith dictate it. I come from a different perspective. I think once we as humans begin to place our own value on the lives of other and decide ending that life is ok for whatever reason we choose, we have given up a huge part of what seperates us from animals. You have a life inside you that I assume you think of as a human being waiting to be born and become the individual he or she was destined to become. Does it not bother you that the baby inside you has absolutely no protection? If you decided, you could end it's life without a second thought? What does that say about us and how does that seperate us from the Nazis who thought is was perfectly ok to put mentaly disabled children to death because they were of no value to anyone, and a "burden" on society. Until recently you could, in the United States, wait till your baby had come to full term, and then had what is commonly called a late term abortion. The doctor would deliver the baby by breech, and before removing the head from the mother, stick a pair of scissors in the back of the head and suck out it's brains. It was, technically, an abortion, although many of us called it exactly what it was, murder. This is what you get when you begin going down the path of believing it is ok to decide that some life deserves to live and others are a burden.
Is it terribly inconvenient to have a baby when you don't want it? Of course it is, but I don't think killing it is the answer. My mother has alzheimers and no longer functions like much of a human being, but it would never occur to me that ending her life is the right thing to do. I can make the same exact arguments for ending her life that all the pro choice people make for justifying abortion. In fact, in some places in the world they have already made that leap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.