There is Everything Wrong with Abortion

“IMAGINE no religion!”

Since: Feb 09

usa

#231471 Nov 16, 2013
Life s Precious wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, but you are so crazy. Yes it is a heartbeat. Idiot.Much more on this link. I still say and always will if a pregnant mother wants the baby then she will call it a baby and if she doesn't then she will call it anything but that.To ease her guilt on killing that baby.
Week 6
By week six of pregnancy, your baby's heart is pumping blood. His heartbeat may be visible on a vaginal ultrasound as small blinking light, and will have a regular rhythm sometime between weeks six and seven. If a vaginal ultrasound during the sixth week does not reveal a fetal heartbeat, your doctor may schedule you for an ultrasound in three to seven days to check the baby's heart development.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/219801-when...
wrong again as usual, oh deluded one.

i wanted all of my pregnancies. even those that ended in miscarriage.

the 4 that went full term and resulted in 4 beautiful boys........ i called it what it was..........fetus!

but unlike you, i am educated!

“IMAGINE no religion!”

Since: Feb 09

usa

#231472 Nov 16, 2013
lilaclady wrote:
We as people/humans do not have the right to make that decision.
We are owned by God and we should obey him.
If not, we get a good whipping when we meet him in heaven.
If of course you don't believe in him --- You too will meet him one day but your whipping will be a bit more intense and lasting through eternity.
How long is eternity you ask? It never ends.
I don't have to see him, I know he's there. Faith! That's all I need.
<quoted text>
how is christina? the child you wanted sooooooooo badly, when not born perfect, tossed aside by a worthless mother. tossed away like day old garbage?

visited her lately??????
That Geek 5410

Clarksburg, WV

#231475 Nov 17, 2013
I would also like to point out that while the due process clause cited under the 14th amendment does specifically state those born in the US or those naturalized do have protection under our laws and may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property w/o due process.

This amendment was written in the mid 1800's shortly after the Dredd Scott case and is a reflection of that. Otherwise cases of deaths of undocumented citizens (illegal aliens) through either negligence or homicide would not be tried citing the roe v wade case law.

Either way you look at it this ruling falls short in both common sense and constitutionality.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#231476 Nov 18, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
I would also like to point out that while the due process clause cited under the 14th amendment does specifically state those born in the US or those naturalized do have protection under our laws and may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property w/o due process.
This amendment was written in the mid 1800's shortly after the Dredd Scott case and is a reflection of that. Otherwise cases of deaths of undocumented citizens (illegal aliens) through either negligence or homicide would not be tried citing the roe v wade case law.
Either way you look at it this ruling falls short in both common sense and constitutionality.
The rights of a sentient human being take precedence over forcing her to carry a non-sentient, non-viable being in her uterus.
Life s Precious

South Bend, IN

#231477 Nov 18, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
The rights of a sentient human being take precedence over forcing her to carry a non-sentient, non-viable being in her uterus.
And look at this as she goes on to justify killing her unborn child in the womb.

Typical!
That Geek 5410

Saint Albans, WV

#231478 Nov 18, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
The rights of a sentient human being take precedence over forcing her to carry a non-sentient, non-viable being in her uterus.
Ma'am as I said before, the due process clause of the 14th amendment says nothing about a right to privacy nor is it enumerated anywhere else in the Constitution or the bill of rights therefore Roe v Wade was heard in an improper venue and is a violation of the 10th amendment. The SCOTUS should have realized that and kicked it back to the states to rule on.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#231479 Nov 18, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ma'am as I said before, the due process clause of the 14th amendment says nothing about a right to privacy nor is it enumerated anywhere else in the Constitution or the bill of rights therefore Roe v Wade was heard in an improper venue and is a violation of the 10th amendment. The SCOTUS should have realized that and kicked it back to the states to rule on.
Many states DO rule on it individually. South Dakota for example. Other states have stringent rulings on when a woman may or may not have an abortion.

The "privacy" clause has to do with a woman not having to reveal whether or not she's had sex, or gotten pregnant.

You may not agree with it, and I respect your right to do so. People with degrees in law and vast experience with the law said it was appropriate. It works for me.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#231480 Nov 18, 2013
Life s Precious wrote:
<quoted text>And look at this as she goes on to justify killing her unborn child in the womb.
Typical!
I'm not justifying anything.

I shared my private story to explain why a woman might make this decision. I'm not asking for agreement, forgiveness, or anything else from anyone.

You are apparently too ignorant and stupid to understand that fact.
That Geek 5410

Saint Albans, WV

#231481 Nov 18, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not justifying anything.
I shared my private story to explain why a woman might make this decision. I'm not asking for agreement, forgiveness, or anything else from anyone.
You are apparently too ignorant and stupid to understand that fact.
Sometimes people have to agree to disagree on these topics especially when it comes to these hot button issues.

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#231482 Nov 18, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes people have to agree to disagree on these topics especially when it comes to these hot button issues.
I'm fine with that statement, and I do that with many posters.

LIP is a mean, vindictive, ignorant, embittered woman who takes joy in making the cruelest, most thoughtless, most hateful statements she possibly can.

Not because she even cares about babies; but because she is a miserably unhappy excuse for a human being and is determined to make everyone she comes in contact as unhappy as she is. She simply uses innocent children as an excuse to vent her spleen.

Fortunately, I'm immune :)
That Geek 5410

Fairmont, WV

#231483 Nov 18, 2013
I'm pro life to the extent that if I was a woman I would never get an abortion, I would also exlain my reasons if asked and I'll never advocate it. I guess you could say I'm passive pro life.
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm fine with that statement, and I do that with many posters.
LIP is a mean, vindictive, ignorant, embittered woman who takes joy in making the cruelest, most thoughtless, most hateful statements she possibly can.
Not because she even cares about babies; but because she is a miserably unhappy excuse for a human being and is determined to make everyone she comes in contact as unhappy as she is. She simply uses innocent children as an excuse to vent her spleen.
Fortunately, I'm immune :)
That Geek 5410

Fairmont, WV

#231484 Nov 18, 2013
I've seen people debate to try to argue their views to persuade either the person they are debating and/or an audiance. I've even participated in debates and I know you can't persuade anyone by being mean to them. You treat them with respect and use informative statements. If you and I were debating about fried green tomatoes (for instance) I would point out aspects of their taste or possible nutritional benefits. I wouldn't say you have poor taste in foods or anything to that effect.
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm fine with that statement, and I do that with many posters.
LIP is a mean, vindictive, ignorant, embittered woman who takes joy in making the cruelest, most thoughtless, most hateful statements she possibly can.
Not because she even cares about babies; but because she is a miserably unhappy excuse for a human being and is determined to make everyone she comes in contact as unhappy as she is. She simply uses innocent children as an excuse to vent her spleen.
Fortunately, I'm immune :)

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#231485 Nov 18, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
I'm pro life to the extent that if I was a woman I would never get an abortion, I would also exlain my reasons if asked and I'll never advocate it. I guess you could say I'm passive pro life.
<quoted text>
I respect that. I'd never tell anyone they MUST have a child or MUST have an abortion.

When a woman is pregnant, she has three options:

Have the child and raise it
Have the child and give it up for adoption
Have an abortion

It is no one's business but hers as to what decision she makes. I'll respect and support anyone with any decision they make.

If a woman is pregnant and realizes she cannot be the mother that child deserves, and knows she cannot give it up for adoption, then she's making a responsible choice by having an abortion. If it's right for her.

Do we agree on that?
That Geek 5410

Saint Albans, WV

#231486 Nov 18, 2013
Maybe it's a guy thing (as in I'm not a woman so I'll never understand it) or maybe it's a legal issue I'm not aware of but why would she not be able to place the child for adoption. Forgive my ignorance here but I really don't understand the scenario you're presenting.
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
I respect that. I'd never tell anyone they MUST have a child or MUST have an abortion.
When a woman is pregnant, she has three options:
Have the child and raise it
Have the child and give it up for adoption
Have an abortion
It is no one's business but hers as to what decision she makes. I'll respect and support anyone with any decision they make.
If a woman is pregnant and realizes she cannot be the mother that child deserves, and knows she cannot give it up for adoption, then she's making a responsible choice by having an abortion. If it's right for her.
Do we agree on that?

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#231487 Nov 18, 2013
Apparently, I need to repeat myself...
That Geek 5410 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ma'am as I said before, the due process clause of the 14th amendment says nothing about a right to privacy nor is it enumerated anywhere else in the Constitution or the bill of rights therefore Roe v Wade was heard in an improper venue and is a violation of the 10th amendment. The SCOTUS should have realized that and kicked it back to the states to rule on.
What a foolsih and wrong thing to say.

Behold the right to privacy:
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"Secure in their persons..."

What a foolsih and wrong thing to say.

Behold the right to privacy:
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"Secure in their persons..."

What a foolsih and wrong thing to say.

Behold the right to privacy:
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"Secure in their persons..."

What a foolsih and wrong thing to say.

Behold the right to privacy:
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"Secure in their persons..."

Catch it that time?

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#231488 Nov 18, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
Maybe it's a guy thing (as in I'm not a woman so I'll never understand it) or maybe it's a legal issue I'm not aware of but why would she not be able to place the child for adoption. Forgive my ignorance here but I really don't understand the scenario you're presenting.
<quoted text>
It cannot be a gender thing, since I know many men who would feel the same way about relinquishing a child for adoption.
For some, they simply could not go through those months of pregnancy, risking their health and life, feeling it grow and move and become viable, just to hand over the baby to strangers. Others (like myself) know first hand what a crapshoot adoptions are, and would NEVER EVER risk their baby falling into the hands of a couple who would spend the following years abusing the child.
Top all of that off with the very real possibility that one can go through nine months of pregnancy only to find the foetus has died in the womb, or at birth, or the woman dies. Here in the good old USA that is a VERY real possibility. Right now our rates of maternal and infant mortality are unacceptably high.
Not your body, not your pregnancy, and none of your business, ever.

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#231489 Nov 18, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
Maybe it's a guy thing (as in I'm not a woman so I'll never understand it) or maybe it's a legal issue I'm not aware of but why would she not be able to place the child for adoption. Forgive my ignorance here but I really don't understand the scenario you're presenting.
<quoted text>
Oh yeah, I forgot the legal angle. In many states (if not all) BOTH parents must sign off on adoption. Another reason it cannot be a gender thing, because MANY women who wanted to give up a child for adoption have found themselves blocked by the man that got them pregnant. So really, perhaps you should make more of an effort to empathize with the situation, since you obviously don't get the "can't give it up" and it's NOT just the mothers who feel that way.
That Geek 5410

Fairmont, WV

#231490 Nov 18, 2013
NWmoon wrote:
<quoted text>Oh yeah, I forgot the legal angle. In many states (if not all) BOTH parents must sign off on adoption. Another reason it cannot be a gender thing, because MANY women who wanted to give up a child for adoption have found themselves blocked by the man that got them pregnant. So really, perhaps you should make more of an effort to empathize with the situation, since you obviously don't get the "can't give it up" and it's NOT just the mothers who feel that way.
In that scenario couldn't the mother make use of the safe haven laws of the given state?
That Geek 5410

Fairmont, WV

#231491 Nov 18, 2013
I don't believe it's foolish or wrong sir. The 4th amendment is a shall not clause governing the states interaction with the citizen in that it protects them from unreasonable searches and seizures. Now if some state or the federal government tried to pass a law mandating an abortion then it very well become a 4th amendment issue (as well as other civil liberties) however this does not appear to be one if those cases.
Liam R wrote:
Apparently, I need to repeat myself...
<quoted text>
What a foolsih and wrong thing to say.
Behold the right to privacy:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Secure in their persons..."
What a foolsih and wrong thing to say.
Behold the right to privacy:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Secure in their persons..."
What a foolsih and wrong thing to say.
Behold the right to privacy:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Secure in their persons..."
What a foolsih and wrong thing to say.
Behold the right to privacy:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"Secure in their persons..."
Catch it that time?

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#231492 Nov 18, 2013
That Geek 5410 wrote:
<quoted text>
In that scenario couldn't the mother make use of the safe haven laws of the given state?
Only if she could be absolutely sure that the male wouldn't seek out and make a claim on the baby. You really haven't thought this through, have you? Those of us who have faced this problem DO THINK IT THROUGH. All of the possibilities and problems.
Some choose to attempt to bring the pregnancy to term. Of those, some succeed, some do not.
Of those that do, some choose to relinquish the child, as my mother did.
Some choose to keep and raise the child, as I did.
Some choose to terminate the pregnancy, as many do. When they do, it's THEIR choice, and THEIR decision, and nobody's business if they do.
Then there are those who find themselves pregnant, or plan a pregnancy, only to be told by their doctor that to continue the pregnancy could kill them, or that it WILL kill them, or that they will deliver a dead body or one that cannot survive or live any sort of normal life off of mechanical support.
They don't really have a choice.
Or those who tell the man they're pregnant, and the man takes the choice away by either beating them until they're not pregnant, or they're dead. Murder is a leading cause of death for pregnant women.

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
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min Shadowman 71,800
Black/White mindsets, relations, and fears in A... 10 min Johnny 2
James Comey's conflicted TWO FACES 15 min Johnny 131
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 24 min Big Al 995,077
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 48 min Wisdom of Ages 699,452
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Big Al 447,425
How to help others save MONEY 3 hr Am I rght 4