Right to Life remembering lives lost ...

Right to Life remembering lives lost to abortion

There are 692 comments on the Greensburg Daily News story from Jan 11, 2013, titled Right to Life remembering lives lost to abortion. In it, Greensburg Daily News reports that:

Greensburg - Nearly 40 years ago, on Jan. 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court proclaimed a mother could legally seek an abortion in the landmark Roe vs.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Greensburg Daily News.

Dan

Omaha, NE

#184 Jan 18, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
If you purposefully have a firecracker go off in your hand, you have zero reasonable expectation that anything but an injury will occur. Thus, that injury is *intended*.
What was wrong with my wider analogy of shooting off fireworks in general?
No-the thing could be a dud and not go off.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#185 Jan 18, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they're not. You haven't provided one example of someone pretending that their choices had no part in the consequence.
<quoted text>
And I have to go to a doctor if I get into a car accident. So?
This may be the discussion where we diverge. Amicably.

I don't think it's an accident if you have sex and get pregnant. I don't think it's possible.

What heppens to a woman RE: sex is within her locus of control until she is impregnanted and says she didn't intend to be so.

Then, the partner is involved to some degree (he wants to keep, he wants her to abort, he wants her to adopt out); it's not his call, but now the locus of control goes outside the woman. She also has to enlist 3rd parties to abort or adopt.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#186 Jan 18, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
If you purposefully have a firecracker go off in your hand, you have zero reasonable expectation that anything but an injury will occur. Thus, that injury is *intended*.
What was wrong with my wider analogy of shooting off fireworks in general?
Nothing wrong with your analogy. I was trying to retain the grave harm factor in the analogy, as pro-choice proponents characterize unwanted pregnancy in those terms.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#187 Jan 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
No-the thing could be a dud and not go off.
That is an event with a nearly negligible likelihood.

Is having sex without getting pregnant an event of nearly negligible likelihood?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#188 Jan 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think it's an accident if you have sex and get pregnant. I don't think it's possible.
Explain to me the difference between that sex (pregnancy) and driving (car accident) or skateboarding (break a bone).

In all of these scenarios, a person engages in an activity for which there are known risks.

In the latter two, I think you'd agree that those consequences are accidents. I am unclear why the first is any different.
Dan wrote:
What heppens to a woman RE: sex is within her locus of control until she is impregnanted and says she didn't intend to be so.
Then, the partner is involved to some degree (he wants to keep, he wants her to abort, he wants her to adopt out); it's not his call, but now the locus of control goes outside the woman. She also has to enlist 3rd parties to abort or adopt.
How is this relevant to the intent of the person having sex?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#189 Jan 18, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing wrong with your analogy. I was trying to retain the grave harm factor in the analogy, as pro-choice proponents characterize unwanted pregnancy in those terms.
But my analogy held the same harm factor as yours did. It just didn't have a person doing something intentionally harmful...which kinda missed the point since we were talking about intent.

It's like positing a woman who starts taking fertility treatments and having unprotected sex thrice daily with her husband. Is that an accident if she gets pregnant? Well...no.
M Jean Johannigman

Batesville, IN

#190 Jan 18, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Elderly people are not comparable to embryos or early term fetuses.
<quoted text>
Terry Schaivo had been dead for 7 years when her body was finally let go.
The right decision was made in that case.
The right decision by who?

You?

Terry?

Her parents?

God?

The Schindler family maintains Terri has consistently exhibited a strong will to live

http://www.wnd.com/2005/03/29516/

also: Rand Paul...whose father as we all know is a doctor is working towards this goal:

Rand Paul Will Stall Congress Until He Gets A Vote On 'Life Begins At Conception'

http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-life...

Apparently Rand and his father think they can show evidence of this not being just an "embryo" or a "fetus" but a life.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#191 Jan 18, 2013
M Jean Johannigman wrote:
<quoted text>
The right decision by who?
By the courts.
M Jean Johannigman wrote:
The Schindler family maintains Terri has consistently exhibited a strong will to live
Tragically, Terri's family was fooling themselves about her condition.

Terri Schaivo's body had no will to do anything. The autopsy conclusively showed that her brain was almost entirely gone.

The issue was not about keeping alive a person who had severe brain damage, it was about keeping alive a shell. A body. There was no person left.
M Jean Johannigman wrote:
Apparently Rand and his father think they can show evidence of this not being just an "embryo" or a "fetus" but a life.
Embryos and fetuses are living. That doesn't make them people.
Kat

Leominster, MA

#192 Jan 18, 2013
oh brother wrote:
i have heard that ol song and dance so many times...
head on over to www.imnotsorry.net
it is not the place for women who can get pregnant and who do not want to go thru 9 months of hells and then the hell of giving birth to have to do that just so YOU can have a brat, if you don't have any more kids, then obviously you need to listen to god and believe it is not meant for you to have kids.
boo hoo somewhere else.
all pro life people will LOVE www.imnotsorry.net
it tells the TRUE TRUTH of abortion in ways never seen before. it is great!!
If you were a pregnant woman, would you rather see your own child come out of your womb dead and severed, or alive and well? Would you rather watch your child's body parts be thrown into a trash can, or nurture your child and watch him grow?
People abort children because it isn't "convienient" for them. If it's really not convenient, then let your child be adopted. I bet later in life that child will thank you for not killing it. There are many ways to have your child be adopted but still be apart of their life.

Woman will claim they have the right to choose if they will have a kid. Well guess what. When you're pregnant, you are responsible for two lives. So don't be an idiot and kill someone. If you are against murder you are against abortion. No arguments around that one. A fetus is alive, and if you kill it you are a murderer. If you have a teenage kid and they get annoying sometimes, you don't kill them because they are now inconvenient for you.

Being pregnant is a gift. You are able to create another human being from virtually nothing, and that human being grows inside of you. It's an amazing thing, and those who don't appreciate that gift need to think about it.

Just because a doctor tells you "woman do this all the time, everything will be okay" before they murder your child, does not mean its okay. Guess how much money that guy is making to "make your life easier". He doesn't give a crap about what he's doing to you.

Abortion is an easy way out. Those who 'hate children' are just ignorant. Children are gifts, and should be treated as such. When someone gives you a new beautiful gift that you don't want at the moment you don't break it.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#193 Jan 18, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That is an event with a nearly negligible likelihood.
Is having sex without getting pregnant an event of nearly negligible likelihood?
No.
Getting pregnant without having sex is an event of less than neglible likelihood.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#194 Jan 18, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain to me the difference between that sex (pregnancy) and driving (car accident) or skateboarding (break a bone).
In all of these scenarios, a person engages in an activity for which there are known risks.
In the latter two, I think you'd agree that those consequences are accidents. I am unclear why the first is any different.
<quoted text>
How is this relevant to the intent of the person having sex?
Again, sex has a unique, primary function of serving as the sole procreative act.

Also again, the spectre of having a child you don't want is portrayed as ruinous/calamitous/etc. for a woman and is to be avoided at all cost. To engage in the sole activity that can produce the calamity and have the calamity occur isn't an accident.

The last part of the post is me simply attempting to lay out why I think abortion is an abdication of presonal responsibility. You asked me for that, I thought.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#195 Jan 18, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
But my analogy held the same harm factor as yours did. It just didn't have a person doing something intentionally harmful...which kinda missed the point since we were talking about intent.
It's like positing a woman who starts taking fertility treatments and having unprotected sex thrice daily with her husband. Is that an accident if she gets pregnant? Well...no.
Well, if having a baby you don't want is a calamity for a woman, then my analogy fits. Dance on the edge and you fall?-not an accident. You intend to do what you want now and dismiss the downside that you later claim are is severe that you cannot contiinue the pregnancy.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#196 Jan 18, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
By the courts.
<quoted text>
Tragically, Terri's family was fooling themselves about her condition.
Terri Schaivo's body had no will to do anything. The autopsy conclusively showed that her brain was almost entirely gone.
The issue was not about keeping alive a person who had severe brain damage, it was about keeping alive a shell. A body. There was no person left.
<quoted text>
Embryos and fetuses are living. That doesn't make them people.
One on this and I gotta hang it up-

Embryos and fetuses are developing........what? People.

They don't start out as as like, fetal pigs and turn human later or something.

Later.
Nopo

Greenwood, IN

#197 Jan 18, 2013
I have to side with Dan on this one.

It is true that every time I've had sex, I didn't go at it with the intent of getting another pregnant. But I always realized that sex is the purposeful act which gets someone pregnant. For that, I have always been willing to shoulder responsibility if that event will occur.

Responsibility is something that can't be handed off, laid down, or cast aside.

People who won't take responsibility for their procreative behavior are moral cowards.
Ocean56

AOL

#198 Jan 19, 2013
lol wrote:
Ocean56, sounds to me like you are a very selfish person only thinking of yourself. Heaven forbid a mother have to make sacrifices for her child, so if I decide one day I need more for myself the answer if to just kill one of my kids, and boom all my problems will be solved...Not hardly. You can justify all you want, the fact is abortion is murder!
You can insult me all you want, it isn't going to make any difference in what I post. Whether YOU like what I post or not is irrelevant. I think far too many girls/women are PRESSURED to have children by family and/or religious community, and these girls/women are deliberately kept in ignorance of these facts about motherhood.

I think it's time that the practice of keeping girls/women in ignorance of motherhood's hardships changed. Girls and women need to be able to make an INFORMED decision about motherhood, even if it means some of them will choose NOT to be mothers. The choice NOT to have children is just as valid and responsible as the choice to have them.

Obviously, preventing unwanted pregnancy by using contraception, including voluntary sterilization (for women who can find doctors willing to do a tubal), is better. However, all contraceptives can and occasionally DO fail, so unintended pregnancies can still happen. If and when BC fails and a pregnancy results, it is EACH woman's decision whether or not to continue it. If it isn't YOUR pregnancy, it isn't your decision.
Ocean56

AOL

#199 Jan 19, 2013
lol wrote:
btw, ever heard of adoption, it's a beautiful thing!!!
Yes, adoption is also a CHOICE, which not every woman will make. It doesn't solve the problem for women who DON'T want to stay pregnant and give birth.

The way I see it, CHOICE is a beautiful thing. I'm thankful women still have it.
Ocean56

AOL

#200 Jan 19, 2013
Matts_girl23 wrote:
Abortion should be illegal. If you don't want the baby there are such things call don't have sex or use birth control. Its that easy.
Thankfully, it's not YOUR call to make, dear. If you believe abortion is wrong, then don't have one. It's that easy.

Furthermore, all contraceptives can and DO fail occasionally, so unintended pregnancies can still happen. When it does, it is still EACH woman's decision whether or not to continue the pregnancy. If it isn't YOUR pregnancy, it isn't your decision, simple as that.
Ocean56

AOL

#201 Jan 19, 2013
M Jean Johannigman wrote:
Procreation cannot happen as you get older (unless it is a miracle). Do you stop having sex?!? I don't think so. Also....the Church teaches abstinence prior to marriage....why would it be acceptable before and not after?
The Catholic Church "teaches" (dictates is a more accurate word) that the ONLY valid purpose of sex is reproduction. That's why it only allows that useless form of "birth control" known as NFP, because it is highly UNreliable in preventing pregnancy long term.

Contrary to what your toxic religious institution wants everyone to believe, there's nothing wrong with having sex WITHOUT the intention to reproduce. Not every woman wants to be a mindless baby factory "for god and church." Personally, I'm very grateful for the availability of reliable contraception that has kept me pregnancy-FREE the last 15+ years. I so love NOT being pregnant.
Ocean56

AOL

#202 Jan 19, 2013
Kat wrote:
1. If you were a pregnant woman, would you rather see your own child come out of your womb dead and severed, or alive and well? Would you rather watch your child's body parts be thrown into a trash can, or nurture your child and watch him grow?
2. People abort children because it isn't "convienient" for them. If it's really not convenient, then let your child be adopted. I bet later in life that child will thank you for not killing it. There are many ways to have your child be adopted but still be apart of their life.
3. Woman will claim they have the right to choose if they will have a kid. Well guess what. When you're pregnant, you are responsible for two lives. So don't be an idiot and kill someone. 4. If you are against murder you are against abortion. No arguments around that one. A fetus is alive, and if you kill it you are a murderer. If you have a teenage kid and they get annoying sometimes, you don't kill them because they are now inconvenient for you.
5. Being pregnant is a gift. You are able to create another human being from virtually nothing, and that human being grows inside of you. It's an amazing thing, and those who don't appreciate that gift need to think about it.
1. If a woman doesn't WANT to be pregnant, odds are that she doesn't want to stay that way and give birth either.

2. Women abort pregnancies when they DON'T want to be pregnant. No matter what a woman's reasons are for doing so, she doesn't have to explain them to you or anyone else.

3. Yes, women DO decide when or IF they will have children, and some women will decide they don't EVER want kids. So what. Motherhood is OPTIONAL, not required, and women can reject it for any reasons they choose.

4. Sure there are "arguments around it." The fact that you don't agree with those arguments doesn't mean there aren't any.

5. Pregnancy is NOT a gift to any woman who never wanted to BE pregnant in the first place. Just because YOU consider pregnancy and motherhood to be beautiful doesn't mean every woman on the planet has to feel the same way. There are plenty of childfree (no kids by choice) women who want nothing to do with having and raising children, and done after one (one child by choice) moms like me who don't want any more kids. Whether you approve of the childfree or done after one choice is irrelevant.
M Jean Johannigman

Greensburg, IN

#203 Jan 19, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, adoption is also a CHOICE, which not every woman will make. It doesn't solve the problem for women who DON'T want to stay pregnant and give birth.
The way I see it, CHOICE is a beautiful thing. I'm thankful women still have it.
If your selfish CHOICE is SO beautiful......why are you not giving that innocent infant his / her CHOICE to live or die?!?!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 34 min June VanDerMark 326,724
News Trump steps to forefront of anti-abortion movement 54 min inbred Genius 14
News The reddest state: Oklahoma's long battle over ... 3 hr katzndawgs 1
News Women will march again with aim to become a pol... 3 hr Trump is a joke 28
News Anti-abortion Tennesseans participate in annual... 6 hr South Knox Hombre 5
News Neo-nazis say they'll protest a Women's March i... 13 hr South Knox Hombre 7
News Too far? Abortion rights advocate says pro-choi... Sun Poster Child for ... 1
More from around the web