There is Everything Wrong with Abortion
Ocean56

AOL

#229050 Apr 12, 2013
Ella wrote:
You did not create it, God is the creator of life. God blesses you with that gift of life for which you are a steward of. If you were capable of creating life you would choose when you would conceive and when you would not. Abortion would not even be a consideration.
You're free to BELIEVE whatever you want. However, I don't consider any of the above to be fact.

The last time I checked, reproduction is a matter of human biology. Religions and gods have nothing to do with it.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Ocean56

AOL

#229051 Apr 12, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
Wow...the audacity! I know lots of people who regret having their children. My brother being one of them. Now, given his reason is because his son didn't turn out the way he expected he would, but nonetheless, he still regrets it. I know of another person who had a child at a very young age. She basically deserted her child and allows the grandmother to care for the child. The only unfortunate thing is that she's pregnant again. Two children by the age of 18 and this one will more than likely end up at grandma's too.
I actually had someone ask me if I felt like I was missing out on life by not having children. I said, "I'm living my life every day - how am I missing it?"
What was that person's reply, if there was any? Now you've got me curious.:-)

A few people asked me similar questions, including how would I answer DS when he wished for a sibling when he got older. They got a bit flustered when I told them I enjoy being a "done after one" mom, and that DS loves being the only kiddo and has never wanted a sibling. He's now a young adult and he has never changed his mind on that. He's going to be childfree (CF) too, which I'm totally cool with.


“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229052 Apr 12, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe on this thread but alot of women feel this way.
A lot in relation to....what? Your limited world?

To quote my grandchildren "bull-honkey."

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229053 Apr 12, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow...the audacity! I know lots of people who regret having their children. My brother being one of them. Now, given his reason is because his son didn't turn out the way he expected he would, but nonetheless, he still regrets it. I know of another person who had a child at a very young age. She basically deserted her child and allows the grandmother to care for the child. The only unfortunate thing is that she's pregnant again. Two children by the age of 18 and this one will more than likely end up at grandma's too.
I actually had someone ask me if I felt like I was missing out on life by not having children. I said, "I'm living my life every day - how am I missing it?" I get to do a lot of great things because I did not have children. I've traveled, been able to move wherever I want, had as many pets as I want and enjoy a lot more time with my friends and doing the things I love to do like workout, freelance, etc. Some people know all along they aren't meant for motherhood. I never saw a baby and felt comfortable. The two people who really had an impact on me when I was little was my cousin's aunt and uncle. They had no children, traveled to France and all over the world, ended up opening this http://www.afinetasteofparis.com/Bienvenue.ht... .
I always found them so interesting and exotic. I wanted to grow up and be just like them. And while I haven't opened my own bed and breakfast in France, I've still gotten to do some pretty cool stuff!
Being a mom is definitely not something that every woman is cut out for. I heartily admire women who are able to say "I don't want children" and are okay with it. That's a damned hard thing to say, because it's supposed to be "our natural inclination." Perhaps because we have the plumbing?

No one questions a man who doesn't wish to have children. Why do they question women?
Ocean56

AOL

#229054 Apr 12, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
Being a mom is definitely not something that every woman is cut out for. I heartily admire women who are able to say "I don't want children" and are okay with it. That's a damned hard thing to say, because it's supposed to be "our natural inclination." Perhaps because we have the plumbing?
No one questions a man who doesn't wish to have children. Why do they question women?
MS, to answer your last question, I personally think it's because women are the ones who biologically CAN reproduce, so the anti-choicers and pronatalists assume that reproduction is what women SHOULD do. Whether some women WANT to have children or not is irrelevant to them. We've all seen their "thinking" on this point, more than once, most of it being archaic nonsense from the 19th century that the regressive imbeciles can't get past.

There seems to be this life script (written by stuck-in-the-past conservatives, naturally) that all people are "supposed to" do certain things. The top three on that list are: getting married, having children, and going to church, at least it seems that way to me. Any deviation from that script, like women who decide they don't want to marry, don't want to have children, and don't choose to go to church, and the regressives go nuts. Even the decision to stop at just ONE child by choice can make some of them go bonkers, as I've personally experienced.

The really funny thing is how many of them deny that such is the case. But of course it IS the case, for them anyway. Otherwise, why would they keep insisting on repeating such nonsense like "God created women to have children" and other stupid beliefs just like it? They can't accept people who think for THEMSELVES and choose a different path than the one they thought they were "supposed to" take. So they get mad at those of us who do just that. As I said before, their attitude comes across to me as "my life sucks, and yours should too."
Ocean56

AOL

#229055 Apr 12, 2013
In his outstanding essay, "The Subjection of Women," John Stuart Mill said this:

"The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be, because, judging from acts -- from the whole of the present condition of society -- one might infer that their opinion was the direct contrary. They might be supposed to think that the alleged natural vocation of women was of all things the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they are free to do anything else -- if any other means of living, or occupation of their time and faculties, is open, which has any chance of appearing desirable to them -- there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them. If this is the real opinion of men in general, it would be well that it should be spoken out. I should like to hear somebody openly enunciating the doctrine (it is already implied in much that is written on the subject)-- "It is necessary to society that women should marry and produce children. They will not do so unless compelled. Therefore it is necessary to compel them."

**********

I think Mill's assessment was 100% accurate. I think that the male policy and law makers of the 18th and 19th centuries, in both church and state, DID believe that it was "necessary" (for THEM, of course) to compel women into being wives, mothers and NOTHING more. To that end, girls received far less education than boys did, and they couldn't attend college. Women were barred from almost all the trades and professions that would allow them to live as financially independent single women. The few occupations that women COULD enter paid far less to women than to men doing the same job. And of course, women weren't allowed to VOTE.

This is exactly the type of injustice and open discrimination against women that the 19th and 20th century feminists fought so hard to eliminate, and, no doubt, what many conservative right-wing guys would like to see women returned to. These guys can't get past the fact that both marriage and motherhood are now CHOICES, which women can REJECT if they don't want to be wives or mothers.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#229056 Apr 12, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
A lot in relation to....what? Your limited world?
To quote my grandchildren "bull-honkey."
Oh shut up,you show your ignorance everytime you post.Remember you are the one who killed your child in the womb.You are a piece of sh*t.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229057 Apr 12, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>Oh shut up,you show your ignorance everytime you post.Remember you are the one who killed your child in the womb.You are a piece of sh*t.
You didn't tell me how I supposedly lied about "when" I "killed my child in the womb" he very phrase which smacks of Victorianism. You may be 150 years old, but you don't have to act it.

And simply throwing ad hominem attacks at me doesn't do anything but show how ignorant and illiterate you are.

You keep making accusations, but no specifics. Why is that LIPpy? You've tried for 8 years now to discredit me, and you've failed to do so yet.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229058 Apr 12, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>Oh shut up,you show your ignorance everytime you post.Remember you are the one who killed your child in the womb.You are a piece of sh*t.
Jesus loves her - why don't you??

Judged:

27

27

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229059 Apr 12, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
In his outstanding essay, "The Subjection of Women," John Stuart Mill said this:
"The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be, because, judging from acts -- from the whole of the present condition of society -- one might infer that their opinion was the direct contrary. They might be supposed to think that the alleged natural vocation of women was of all things the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they are free to do anything else -- if any other means of living, or occupation of their time and faculties, is open, which has any chance of appearing desirable to them -- there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them. If this is the real opinion of men in general, it would be well that it should be spoken out. I should like to hear somebody openly enunciating the doctrine (it is already implied in much that is written on the subject)-- "It is necessary to society that women should marry and produce children. They will not do so unless compelled. Therefore it is necessary to compel them."
**********
I think Mill's assessment was 100% accurate. I think that the male policy and law makers of the 18th and 19th centuries, in both church and state, DID believe that it was "necessary" (for THEM, of course) to compel women into being wives, mothers and NOTHING more. To that end, girls received far less education than boys did, and they couldn't attend college. Women were barred from almost all the trades and professions that would allow them to live as financially independent single women. The few occupations that women COULD enter paid far less to women than to men doing the same job. And of course, women weren't allowed to VOTE.
This is exactly the type of injustice and open discrimination against women that the 19th and 20th century feminists fought so hard to eliminate, and, no doubt, what many conservative right-wing guys would like to see women returned to. These guys can't get past the fact that both marriage and motherhood are now CHOICES, which women can REJECT if they don't want to be wives or mothers.
I think it was because the male was afraid of what women might accomplish, so felt it necessary to subjugate them, just as many males in each race or culture feel the need to subjugate the males in other races or cultures.

My significant other was watching a documentary and talked about how one tribe went to war with another tribe. They only way they could tell the difference between them was the shape of the nose.

Judged:

21

20

20

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229060 Apr 12, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus loves her - why don't you??
I would rather be friendless than have to depend on LIP for anything. She ran off many people on Topix who tried to be her friend (including me) as she used and abused us. Between being a shit-stirrer amongst people, lying to them, fake suicide attempts, and using people to "attack" those she didn't have the cojones to attack herself, she's down to Lawest, even though she used him and lied about him to several people, including me.

She really better stick to cucumbers.

Judged:

23

22

19

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229061 Apr 12, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.
The state should then accept responsibility for the care of the child, if the woman will not. Same as if she had legally dropped it off at the local orphanage, hospital, police station, or another designated 'safe place'.
I don't care if this position seems arbitrary - once born, regardless of the circumstances, one is a person, with the right to life.
I don’t disagree, this sounds like a good moral option when we consider that our own life is also important to us as individuals. We all need to take care of each other without regard to what we see is in it for ourselves. On the other hand, anybody who would kill or abandon their child for selfish reasons, born or unborn, must have no moral consciousness, so there should also be some limit/guidelines as to our ability to disregard a human life after helping to cause that life. Our society today has set itself on a type of foundation in which money, power, and influence rule at the expense of morality, justice and equality, so that’s another major issue we all have to deal with at the same time – but I see the two as inter-related. As I previously said:“by our actions we all take part in shaping the world that we live in. The bottom line is that we need to always try and combat the injustices that we see in our world, but we’ll never accomplish that by committing even more injustices ourselves, or by either setting or building upon an unjust foundation”. Abortion in most circumstances should be illegal, and society hasn’t done us any favors by making it legal. We need to set standards that place an importance on each individual life, and regardless of what stage of life that life is in, because after all we are all individuals who must live in community with each other.

Judged:

23

23

23

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#229062 Apr 12, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
What was that person's reply, if there was any? Now you've got me curious.:-)
A few people asked me similar questions, including how would I answer DS when he wished for a sibling when he got older. They got a bit flustered when I told them I enjoy being a "done after one" mom, and that DS loves being the only kiddo and has never wanted a sibling. He's now a young adult and he has never changed his mind on that. He's going to be childfree (CF) too, which I'm totally cool with.
Followed up with "But children bring so much joy to your life...blah blah blah." I'm quite sure they do. And I'm sure I wouldn't feel any differently if I had a child. But right now, I LOVE my life the way it is. I like not having to answer to anyone, I do what I want, when I want, how I want. If I wanted to go to San Diego this weekend, I could. When I present it to them that way, they usually say, "Yeah, I wish I could do that...wish I could sleep in" and then I say, "Welp, I CAN and DO!"

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#229063 Apr 12, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
Being a mom is definitely not something that every woman is cut out for. I heartily admire women who are able to say "I don't want children" and are okay with it. That's a damned hard thing to say, because it's supposed to be "our natural inclination." Perhaps because we have the plumbing?
No one questions a man who doesn't wish to have children. Why do they question women?
Because we're ALL supposed to be maternal. If you put a baby in front of me, I will mostly likely freeze up and pretend to be invisible. If you put a dog in front of me, I'll be rolling around on the floor with it and talking to it like it's a person...lol. Some people were designed for different things. Just so happens I am an animal person.I feel very maternal toward my pets and there's nothing I wouldn't do for them.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229064 Apr 12, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t disagree, this sounds like a good moral option when we consider that our own life is also important to us as individuals.
That's fairly obvious, yes.
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>there should also be some limit/guidelines as to our ability to disregard a human life after helping to cause that life.
Unless one can completely re-engineer the human race, there is never going to be a limit to a human's ABILITY to disregard a human life, whether or not one helped to create it.

When pregnancy no longer carries the risk of death, and/or permanent damage to one's health or well-being, AND produces no children who are subsequently abandoned, abused, exploited, ignored, molested, neglected, and/or unloved, then, and ONLY then, will the necessity for legal safe abortion be ended.

JMO

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229065 Apr 12, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe on this thread but alot of women feel this way.
And a lot of women don't.

Too bad for you.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#229066 Apr 12, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>And a lot of women don't.
Too bad for you.
It's like they can't believe women would ever dare to make a decision for themselves instead of letting others do that for them...why should they be so surprised?!
Ella

Rockford, MI

#229067 Apr 12, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Next time, try reading for comprehension before you post.
Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her..." So, the men cause the pregnant woman to abort the fetus.
"...and yet no mischief follow..." So, the fetus is a slowly drying wad of goo in the dust, but the woman herself was not harmed.
"...he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." The woman just lost her fetus, aborted,(against her will even) so the husband gets to take them before the judge and he can be paid a few shekels for the loss of a potential child.
But if the WOMAN is hurt, THEN it becomes a serious matter!
"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Lost fetus = a few shekels, just as if a ox broke loose and damaged as field.
Injured woman = eye for an eye retribution for the injured person.
Are you familiar with law of the Firstborn (Exodus 13). The Torah(Shemot 13 vs 12)breaks down this scripture as a full term birth or a miscarriage. The Hebrew law teaches that by virtue of being the first to emerge from the womb they have the status of firstborn. Hebrew law deems that even in the case of miscarriage the sanctification to God is not lost and the blessings given to that child cannot be given to the next child.

As for "the wad of goo"; Luke 1:36 states she "conceived a son", Luke 1:42 states "child in your womb". It is obvious that in biblical times the fetus was viewed as a child.

Judged:

21

21

21

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#229068 Apr 12, 2013
Ella wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you familiar with law of the Firstborn (Exodus 13). The Torah(Shemot 13 vs 12)breaks down this scripture as a full term birth or a miscarriage. The Hebrew law teaches that by virtue of being the first to emerge from the womb they have the status of firstborn. Hebrew law deems that even in the case of miscarriage the sanctification to God is not lost and the blessings given to that child cannot be given to the next child.
As for "the wad of goo"; Luke 1:36 states she "conceived a son", Luke 1:42 states "child in your womb". It is obvious that in biblical times the fetus was viewed as a child.
Are you familiar with the fact that the Torah and the Bible aren't exactly up to date on a whole lotta things? Ye olden peoples didn't really had the same level of expertise on gestation that the 21st century peoples do now. But all you're doing is basically arguing semantics, and we can totally push you over on that because

1) Semantics from yore are not the same as contemporary semantics
2) You forget that there are developmental cycles for a fertilised egg UNTIL it becomes a fully formed baby; before that it's still a fertilised egg that becomes a zygote that becomes a morula that becomes a blastocyst that becomes an embryo that becomes a fetus that becomes a baby.

Basically, not a baby yet, but a baby under construction.

You were the one who wanted to debate semantics, after all...

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#229069 Apr 13, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't tell me how I supposedly lied about "when" I "killed my child in the womb" he very phrase which smacks of Victorianism. You may be 150 years old, but you don't have to act it.
And simply throwing ad hominem attacks at me doesn't do anything but show how ignorant and illiterate you are.
You keep making accusations, but no specifics. Why is that LIPpy? You've tried for 8 years now to discredit me, and you've failed to do so yet.
I haven't even had my computor for 8 years. Stupid.
Liar!

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min Bongo 92,441
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Pixy6362 667,640
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 min Mintz8850 979,333
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 37 min truth 285,990
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Brian_G 445,566
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr Peace_Warrior 619,216
Poll White Men, Would You Have A BABY by a Black Woman (Apr '10) 5 hr Badass white boy 530
More from around the web