“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229832 Apr 30, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>I understand there are women out there who regret being pregnant and having children but and this is just my opinion,once born be responsible and love them and nuture them.Thats all I am saying really.
Men should be responsible for their children too, but they don't.

It's been happening as long as people have been having children.

You cannot force anyone to be responsible for something as simple as brushing their teeth every day,let alone taking care of children.

If they know they can't be responsible, then be responsible and prevent the birth of an unwanted child.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229833 Apr 30, 2013
sorry, that was a really convoluted post! I think I need some caffeine. I'll try again later.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#229834 Apr 30, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
sorry, that was a really convoluted post! I think I need some caffeine. I'll try again later.
Don't bother. I know your feelings on killing a baby in the womb. Save your breath.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229835 Apr 30, 2013
Men should be responsible for their born children, as should the women who bear those children. For whatever reason, though, the onus of caring for children seems to fall more heavily on women.

No one can be forced to be responsible for anything. To expect a woman with no maternal instinct to suddenly develop enough to care for an infant is ridiculous.

An infant is helpless and needs care 24/7, yet the Pro-Fetus league doesn't take that into consideration. They use that helpless infant as a tool to subjugate women and to push their own agenda of male chauvinism.

If they CARED about the infant, any infant, they'd want children to be loved and wanted from conception. Instead, they focus on the 9 months prior to birth, and never consider the needs, or the condition of the infant AFTER birth.

They would insist no child be born unwanted or unloved, and would spend their energy and money on BORN, EXISTING children who desperately need help today. Instead, they spend their energy berating women for having sex, and insisting they retain a pregnancy, without considering if that woman is equipped mentally, emotionally, or financially to care for a child.
Ocean56

AOL

#229836 Apr 30, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
I understand there are women out there who regret being pregnant and having children but and this is just my opinion,once born be responsible and love them and nuture them.Thats all I am saying really.
No, you have ALSO said that having an abortion, long before there's any baby or child involved, is somehow a "bad" thing. That is also your OPINION, not fact, and it's an opinion I don't agree with.

Given the choice between an abortion of a clearly unwanted pregnancy to a woman who doesn't like or want children, and forcing such a woman to have a child she never wanted, I'll choose the abortion every time. Not YOUR pregnancy? Not your decision. Deal with it.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229837 Apr 30, 2013
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>They aren't children. I am against the unlawful killing of living breathing human beings.
You, on the other hand, don't give a fig about them once they're born, you only care about forcing women to gestate whether they want to or not.
Ignorant pile of waste, just like lippy.
But if it was legal it would be OK?

What would make you think that I want to force a woman to gestate if I never even forced her to have sex or not? The truth is that you just don’t want to give the child a choice to live. You’re anti-choice - I’m pro-choice.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#229838 Apr 30, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
Men should be responsible for their born children, as should the women who bear those children. For whatever reason, though, the onus of caring for children seems to fall more heavily on women.
No one can be forced to be responsible for anything. To expect a woman with no maternal instinct to suddenly develop enough to care for an infant is ridiculous.
An infant is helpless and needs care 24/7, yet the Pro-Fetus league doesn't take that into consideration. They use that helpless infant as a tool to subjugate women and to push their own agenda of male chauvinism.
If they CARED about the infant, any infant, they'd want children to be loved and wanted from conception. Instead, they focus on the 9 months prior to birth, and never consider the needs, or the condition of the infant AFTER birth.
They would insist no child be born unwanted or unloved, and would spend their energy and money on BORN, EXISTING children who desperately need help today. Instead, they spend their energy berating women for having sex, and insisting they retain a pregnancy, without considering if that woman is equipped mentally, emotionally, or financially to care for a child.
Well I have to say some of the stuff you say makes sense but some doesn't. I don't just care about the nine months. I care very much about the needs of that baby after born. But I will also say many women who think they don't want that child fall in love with that baby after born. Maybe it is rough for them but there is lots of help out there. But I will also say not all men say they don't want the responsibility,some step up to the plate and are very responsible. I will never in my life say abortion is the most loving thing you could do. And yes I will bring God into it. God created that little baby and knew from the moment of conception what his plans were for that baby.For a woman to interfere with his plan is IMO just pure selfish.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#229839 Apr 30, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>Well I have to say some of the stuff you say makes sense but some doesn't. I don't just care about the nine months. I care very much about the needs of that baby after born. But I will also say many women who think they don't want that child fall in love with that baby after born. Maybe it is rough for them but there is lots of help out there. But I will also say not all men say they don't want the responsibility,some step up to the plate and are very responsible. I will never in my life say abortion is the most loving thing you could do. And yes I will bring God into it. God created that little baby and knew from the moment of conception what his plans were for that baby.For a woman to interfere with his plan is IMO just pure selfish.
I didn't say ALL women, nor did I say ALL men. Re-read the post for comprehension.

And those women who think they might fall in love with that baby, more power to them for having the baby.

But just because SOME might, does NOT mean every woman should carry EVERY pregnancy to term. There ARE women with no maternal instinct, and should they fall pregnant, they have to do the most responsible thing for them AND for any possible child. If that is giving it up for adoption, then do that. IF it's having an abortion, then do that.

God is your belief. It applies only to you.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229840 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, let’s see how your commentary compares with somebody who spent most of their life studying the Bible – John Gill.
Naah. Let's not, and say we did.

Liam is right, you're wrong, and so is Gill.

End of story.

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#229841 Apr 30, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>Well I have to say some of the stuff you say makes sense but some doesn't. I don't just care about the nine months. I care very much about the needs of that baby after born. But I will also say many women who think they don't want that child fall in love with that baby after born. Maybe it is rough for them but there is lots of help out there. But I will also say not all men say they don't want the responsibility,some step up to the plate and are very responsible. I will never in my life say abortion is the most loving thing you could do. And yes I will bring God into it. God created that little baby and knew from the moment of conception what his plans were for that baby.For a woman to interfere with his plan is IMO just pure selfish.
How are you to know that 'his plan' doesn't include abortion?

After all, can mere humans, pitiful creatures that we are, actually THWART the plans of an omniscient omnipresent GOD???

"Interfere with God's plan" sounds like an impossible concept, to me - He's GOD. We can only carry out HIS PLAN...and we do.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#229842 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
So your saying that your own personal rights don't matter?
In some cases they don't.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#229843 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
How many people is "we"?
However many it takes.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#229844 Apr 30, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>It isn't yours either.
But none of the pro choicers are trying to threaten women with damnation or tell them what they HAVE to do when they find themselves unexpectedly pregnant.
That is ALL on you and yours. YOU are the ones condemning women for their choices and insulting them for what they chose. YOU are the ones who think you have the right to tell them what to do.
WE only want them to have a choice in what they do, you want them to only make the choice YOU would make.
You're a hypocrite of the lowest sort.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#229845 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
But if it was legal it would be OK?
What would make you think that I want to force a woman to gestate if I never even forced her to have sex or not? The truth is that you just don’t want to give the child a choice to live. You’re anti-choice - I’m pro-choice.
Nice try imbecile, but no. The truth is you are only pro fetus, and pro forced birth. You've said so time and again.
Again, I have attempted to bring EVERY pregnancy I've had to term. That was MY CHOICE. You don't want women to have choice.
Wads of goo are not children, they are not babies. They are incomplete and not persons. Just wads of goo.
Ocean56

AOL

#229846 Apr 30, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
Well I have to say some of the stuff you say makes sense but some doesn't. I don't just care about the nine months. I care very much about the needs of that baby after born. But I will also say many women who think they don't want that child fall in love with that baby after born.
Yeah, and many women DON'T want the child any more after he/she was born than they did before. I guess it's just tough luck for THOSE kids who got stuck with a mother who might be angry and resentful enough to neglect or abuse them, huh?

Women who have a strong DISlike of children before they are unlucky enough to get pregnant aren't too likely to change their minds and "fall in love" with a child that they were FORCED to give birth to. Being born a woman doesn't necessarily make that woman maternal.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#229847 Apr 30, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, let’s see how your commentary compares with somebody who spent most of their life studying the Bible – John Gill.
If men strive
Quarrel and fight with one another.
and hurt a woman with child;
who being the wife of one of them, tries to part them, or help her husband; but the other, instead of striking his antagonist as he intended, gives her a blow.
so that her fruit depart from her;
or, "her children go forth", out of her womb, as she may have more than one; through the fright of the quarrel, and fear of her husband being hurt, and the blow she received by interposing, might miscarry, or, falling into labor, come before her time, and bring forth her offspring sooner than expected.
and yet no mischief follow:
to her, but it may refer both to the woman and her offspring, and not only to the death of them, but to any hurt or damage to either of them, though now there is none of any sort,
he shall surely be punished;
that is, be fined for striking the woman, and hastening the childbirth.
As you can see, we cannot make any assertions based on these scriptures alone. But when we compare it with other scriptures from the Bible, we see that the preborn child is viewed as having great value.
I want to point out though, that this is not a religious debate, but a debate about the killing of millions of children each year, and the reasons for it. So I’d rather stay on topic, but I still hate to see such false statements just thrown out here without at least saying something.
You may claim that John Gill has spend a long time studying the Bible, yet he has not grasped the simple point that changing the words or adding new words will change the meaning. That analysis was garbage, he added all sorts of things that are NOT part of the text. There is nothing in the rest of the Bible that changes what it says here in Exodus.

In point of fact, Numbers shows that infants were not considered people until after they were EIGHT days old. Logical. Harsh logic, to be sure, but logical since the likelihood of death decreases rapidly, the longer an infant manages to live under the circumstances available back then. Premature infants would never survive, even full term infants had a serious struggle just to finish that first week.

If you hate false statements, then YOU need to stop making them. No children are murdered in abortions.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#229848 Apr 30, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>Well I have to say some of the stuff you say makes sense but some doesn't. I don't just care about the nine months. I care very much about the needs of that baby after born. But I will also say many women who think they don't want that child fall in love with that baby after born. Maybe it is rough for them but there is lots of help out there. But I will also say not all men say they don't want the responsibility,some step up to the plate and are very responsible. I will never in my life say abortion is the most loving thing you could do. And yes I will bring God into it. God created that little baby and knew from the moment of conception what his plans were for that baby.For a woman to interfere with his plan is IMO just pure selfish.
Since the VAST MAJORITY of fertilized eggs NEVER make it to live birth, obviously there is no Divine plan for fetuses. Abortion is not different from miscarriage in any moral sense.

Do you really want to say that God is so feeble that His plans can be thwarted so easily?
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229849 Apr 30, 2013
MURDER/LEGAL ABORTION FOR HIRE: The jury in the Kermit Gosnell murder trial has retired for the day and has not delivered a verdict related to the babies he killed in grisly abortion-infanticides.

Gosnell is charged with four counts of first-degree murder for killing babies following delivery in an abortion process that involved “snipping” their necks and spinal cords. He also faces a third-degree murder charge related to the death of a woman, Karnamaya Mongar, 41, of Virginia, from a botched legal abortion. Gosnell, who has been in jail since his January 2011 arrest.

The grand jury report indicated one baby was “moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times.”

FOR MORE: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/30/kermit-gos...
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229850 Apr 30, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Numbers shows that infants were not considered people until after they were EIGHT days old.
Just show me what you're talking about here. Show me the verses.
LightForce

Warren, MI

#229851 Apr 30, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
You may claim that John Gill has spend a long time studying the Bible, yet he has not grasped the simple point that changing the words or adding new words will change the meaning. That analysis was garbage, he added all sorts of things that are NOT part of the text. There is nothing in the rest of the Bible that changes what it says here in Exodus.
In point of fact, Numbers shows that infants were not considered people until after they were EIGHT days old. Logical. Harsh logic, to be sure, but logical since the likelihood of death decreases rapidly, the longer an infant manages to live under the circumstances available back then. Premature infants would never survive, even full term infants had a serious struggle just to finish that first week.
If you hate false statements, then YOU need to stop making them. No children are murdered in abortions.
Looked to me like he used the same version you did, but was less subjective in his observation of it. There is no shame in admitting you are wrong.

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
Electric Shaver for head 15 min skullshaver 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 26 min ChristineM 794,331
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 34 min truth 567,672
Dubai massage Body To Body full service 0559... (Mar '14) 1 hr max 176
Dead Trigger 2 cheats android 1 hr kanha panda 1
Nimble Quest Hack Android [ + iOS ] 1 hr kanha panda 1
Boom Beach Hack 2015 1 hr kanha panda 1
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr AntiqueAnnie 607,103
Scientific proof for God's existence 4 hr lightbeamrider 514
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr MUQ2 267,338
More from around the web