WIP Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I pay taxes, like the rest of pro-life supporters, for the education and care of babies and children. And if you're like 99% of conservatives, you're also bitching about welfare moms and demanding cutbacks on social spending, at the same time you are calling for a ramped up increase in birth rates by banning abortion and birth control. Conservative ideology desires a return to the Dickensian world where the lower classes are living squalor and dying in the streets, if we follow the arguments to their logical conclusions. BTW what about those 20,300 children that won't find homes! Are you going to put your shoulder to the wheel and adopt? For "pro life" to be in fact pro life, the movement is morally obligated to take responsibility for all of the extra children their policies are going to bring into this world. But again, you don't ignore scientific facts, and you don't deny human rights to human beings, based on what the level of adoption, or what kind of life they're born into. You're conflating two seperate issues, purposely. Interesting how little concern there is for the "sanctity of life" once it's out of the womb! Again, I could purposely do absolutely nothing to help "breathing" children (btw, third trimester babies breath in utero), it still has nothing to do with whether society should condone the killing of almost full-term babies. You continue to setup a false choice. And those babies in utero are contingent life, since they are dependent on the womb for survival -- which is part of the mother's body. Outside of the abortion issue, there are no situations you can cite of a right to life that depends on someone else's body. Before your movement's aims are taken seriously by outsiders, they need to at least acknowledge that over-ruling a request for an abortion, even a third trimester abortion, is a direct infringement on the woman's right to decide things that affect her body and freedom of movement. The fact that they ignore the incubator who makes life possible shows their total lack of respect for the pregnant woman's desires. Preventing the killing of near full-term babies doesn't have anything to do with burdens. It has to do with right and wrong. This isn't immigration. There's no check list for someone in a government bureaucracy, checking off whether someone meets the qualifications to be born once they reach the third trimester.There is no "right to be born." If a woman doesn't want to give birth, don't get pregnant, and use birth control. And for this "life begins at conception" mythology to be consistent, artificial means of birth control, including oral contraceptives, IUD's, also have to be banned because of their abortifacient properties. So we're back to Catholic World, where virtuous girls protect their virginity -- so the 90% who have sex and get pregnant, have to marry the father, or be labeled sluts......just like in the good old days! If that fails, make a decision before the third trimester. I don't think that's too much to ask. Yes it is too much to ask, since you haven't bothered to read any of the online material about why women seek late term abortions. Most of the reasons are related to discovery of serious birth defects or risks to the mother's health -- so right off the top, you are advocating banning a procedure that could save lives. Earlier, you posted an unlinked quote from a Catholic extremist psychiatrist who was brought in by the former state attorney general to examine some of Dr. Tiller's medical records; and he considered cases of underage girls impregnated through incest, to be unnecessary abortions -- which is why church leaders and politicians should not be able to impose rigid rules that could victimize women and girls who need to have a late term abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 If a woman doesn't want to give birth, don't get pregnant, and use birth control. If that fails, make a decision before the third trimester. I don't think that's too much to ask. Shady, walk a mile in those shoes. If you haven't (or can't), then you don't know a da**ed thing about it; don't have a whisper of a clue what you are asking. Some intrusions are so personal, so HUGE that it boggles the mind that anyone would have the temerity to interfere, and , Godlike, appoint themselves as the person who knows best what should be done, even without knowing what the circumstances actually are, and without any risk at all of being the one who pays the price of their arrogant decrees. FWIW, I had a long talk one day with a woman whose late-term infant died in utero. Doctors figured that it was physically safest for her to just let nature take its course, and nature was darned slow about it. She got to walk around hugely pregnant, physically and emotionally occupied by an already known-to-be-dead baby.... The emotional trauma of that is beyond measuring. It still takes my breath away to think of it. It's just one step greater a horror than carrying an infant that you know will not survive birth. You should take a deep breath, and try to imagine yourself living that situation. Seriously, try. You won't get close, I guarantee, but try anyway. Late-term abortions are rare... extraordinarily rare... and happen under extraordinary circumstances. Describing healthy mother/healthy baby scenarios as the presumptive situation under which they occur is nothing short of a gruesome lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 ....Late-term abortions are rare... extraordinarily rare... and happen under extraordinary circumstances. Describing healthy mother/healthy baby scenarios as the presumptive situation under which they occur is nothing short of a gruesome lie. If only this were so....instead, we know that a portion of "rare" late term abortions are elective, for a myriad of reasons from gender preference to avoiding genetic "defects". The political battlezone belies medical necessity, as any encroachment on the "right" to abort at any time would open the door to regulation and restriction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 If only this were so....instead, we know that a portion of "rare" late term abortions are elective, for a myriad of reasons from gender preference to avoiding genetic "defects". The political battlezone belies medical necessity, as any encroachment on the "right" to abort at any time would open the door to regulation and restriction. BC _ is correct and he is a principled man of good and intelligent morality - These late term killings are no difference than dragging a new born out back and beating it to death with a bat ---what's the difference? And don't me me the crap --- about rights - and situations ...and all that - also take note - the do not toss out the full grown fetal corpse..they squeeze the juice out of it and the essense of life is sold medically - When I hear of a doctor that wants to be an abortion provider, providing he gets to keep the crushed blob...well ---- it's a disgrace ---- this is cannibalism..but we are to stupid to see that...we are eating our own young and calling it care... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 If only this were so....instead, we know that a portion of "rare" late term abortions are elective, for a myriad of reasons from gender preference to avoiding genetic "defects". As long as your religious right friends are using the issue of late term abortion as part of wedge strategy to ban abortion and birth control outright - supporters of a woman's right to choose are going to continue to be suspicious of how the determination will be made that the request for a third trimester abortion is for purposes of sex-selection or minor birth defects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 If only this were so....instead, we know that a portion of "rare" late term abortions are elective, for a myriad of reasons from gender preference to avoiding genetic "defects". That is misleading at best, pure bullshit at worst. Depending on what criteria you use to draw the 'late term' line, it is a fact that the number performed is very small indeed. 1%, .5%. .05%.... and those performed on women who simply don't want a pregnancy/baby are, as a rule, performed very, very shortly past whatever line you use. Beyond perhaps 22 weeks, when viabilty becomes at least a possibility, gender preference isn't even on the list- wouldn't get you in the door- and very serious 'genetic defects' aka dead, dying, or dependent for life babies, or seriously ill mothers account for virtually all of them. The political battlezone belies medical necessity, as any encroachment on the "right" to abort at any time would open the door to regulation and restriction. Of course YOU would be the go-to guy to determine medical necessity. You would OF COURSE know far better than either a row of doctors signing off, or a patient who, either way, pays the price of the decision. Anyone who can even envision that decision being made casually has tossed off all credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 And again, why would somebody get so worked up about these "babies" that do not even exist yet, while there's any number of real actual living babies and children (and adults not to forget - i.e. individuals) who need help, care and protection right here and now. Not to mention any number of possibilites of getting one's own baby (in a variety of ways) to show exemplary care of? Why does it have to be somebody else's choice one has to get so worried about, rather than one's own? Excuse me, but whenever I see those nosy pushy individuals running around with unasked for benefits and advice they simply have to bestow on you (whether you want them or not), I can't help to think that they are trying to sell something of questionnable quality, and I can't care less whether their goods are of physical, or moral nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 That comes even more to the forefront with regard to late-term abortions, the hypocricy even more keen. Who are the unadoptable children? A disproportionate number of them are the very ones that a mother might have mourned, but aborted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) That is misleading at best, pure bullshit at worst. Depending on what criteria you use to draw the 'late term' line, it is a fact that the number performed is very small indeed. 1%, .5%. .05%.... Interesting...an admission that my "bullshit" is true. .... account for virtually all of them. Virtually....one of the favorite words for a weasel. Of course YOU would be the go-to guy to determine medical necessity. You would OF COURSE know far better than either a row of doctors signing off, or a patient who, either way, pays the price of the decision. I have already advertised that price, including mental health issues. You just want those babies dead to preserve the "right" to do so...no matter what. Anyone who can even envision that decision being made casually has tossed off all credibility. It is done every day. Edited June 17, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 That comes even more to the forefront with regard to late-term abortions, the hypocricy even more keen. Who are the unadoptable children? A disproportionate number of them are the very ones that a mother might have mourned, but aborted. The ultimate rationalization....abort them because no one will adopt them. Seniors in nursing homes and the disabled are next.....just retroactive abortions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 The ultimate rationalization....abort them because no one will adopt them. Seniors in nursing homes and the disabled are next.....just retroactive abortions We will not use the classic slippery slope scenario...But once a populace accepts abuse - they no longer feel or in time understand that they are being abused...bring them up as children...and condition them that slavery is freedom - that death though abortion is life - and freedom of "choice" _ If the person is dulled though conditioning from an early age - as are our females and males - then in effect they really have no choice..How can you decide if you do not have all the information? Impossible! Yes - I have seen 90 year old ladies tossed about in hospitals like garbage as they moan in pain - and YES I have seen a nurse who sqirted a hypo full of morphine in the air and said to me with cold humor "This is what we use to get rid of (abort) old people...if there was one such medical person like this - surely there are thousands of these killing robots in our midst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 ...."This is what we use to get rid of (abort) old people...if there was one such medical person like this - surely there are thousands of these killing robots in our midst. We kill a lot of people for a host of reasons....for some reason dead babies can't get in the club! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 BC The ultimate rationalization....abort them because no one will adopt them. Seniors in nursing homes and the disabled are next.....just retroactive abortions Families pay for the services at nursing homes. My family as a whole pays for my Opa's care who has been in a nursing home for almost a year now. Now as a whole, we all pay for the lives of the adoptable, through taxes and such. With the increase of 'saved' lived comes the need for more funds in order to properly take care of these lives. Are you willing to step up to the plate and put the money where the mouth is? Or is it once the kid is out of the womb, they are also on their own? Maybe Pro-Life needs to be redefined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 We kill a lot of people for a host of reasons....for some reason dead babies can't get in the club! That's because - out of sight - out of mind -- If female humans had glass abdomens - people would give it a second thought ---- I imagine if the average duped lefty right wing extrememist abortionist..or supporter..witnessed a cat about to bare kittens and some male cat shows up and starts to yank them out one at a time eating the young like snacks -----there would be outrage over this horror..but - we just turn away and turn a blind eye to this perversity - Just like in Canada - our military turns a blind eye in Afghanistan to boy rape - when a child is tossed out of the warlords tent with his bowels hanging out after being raped ....we don't want to know and we don't want to look at such a horror - so we have an investigation that states - no - it does not happen - but it does - as does the killing of fully formed human beings - some jerk in power somewhere is much like that cannibal cat I described. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Families pay for the services at nursing homes. My family as a whole pays for my Opa's care who has been in a nursing home for almost a year now. Now as a whole, we all pay for the lives of the adoptable, through taxes and such. Some families pay for nursing homes...the bulk of nursing and home care is paid with taxes in the USA. With the increase of 'saved' lived comes the need for more funds in order to properly take care of these lives. Are you willing to step up to the plate and put the money where the mouth is? Or is it once the kid is out of the womb, they are also on their own? I am already paying to keep people alive and kill others. All kid's are on their own once "out of the womb" to different degrees. Maybe Pro-Life needs to be redefined. As does "Pro-Choice". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 That's because - out of sight - out of mind -- If female humans had glass abdomens - people would give it a second thought ---- I imagine if the average duped lefty right wing extrememist abortionist..or supporter..witnessed a cat about to bare kittens and some male cat shows up and starts to yank them out one at a time eating the young like snacks -----there would be outrage over this horror..but - we just turn away and turn a blind eye to this perversity - Just like in Canada - our military turns a blind eye in Afghanistan to boy rape - when a child is tossed out of the warlords tent with his bowels hanging out after being raped ....we don't want to know and we don't want to look at such a horror - so we have an investigation that states - no - it does not happen - but it does - as does the killing of fully formed human beings - some jerk in power somewhere is much like that cannibal cat I described. How about we take care of the neglected lives that already exist on this planet? Toss that in your right wing pipe and take a haul off it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nursing home care...and home care...is paid for by taxes in Manitoba as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nursing home care...and home care...is paid for by taxes in Manitoba as well. Saw this big black "Nurse" entering an old folks facility - he pressed the button and was raging mad --- I imagined that such a person could be abusive ----he was not a patient man - I had to calm him down...we have to manage our nursing homes and make sure we have those to care for the aged that are not just qualified but are motivated for the right reasons...children and old people are not meat..to eat.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Of course it has nothing to do with "caring for life", while everything with power and dominance over another individual. True caring begins with recognising the other for one's equal as a human being, and that includes recognising and respecting their right to make choices even if they're different from what we'd like. Remove that right to make own choices, i.e freedom, and all your "caring" stuff becomes plain and empty bs, an obvious disguise for "do as I like because I know best what's good for you". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 will you step up to the plate and help these poor children? Nope. But it doesn't mean they should have been killed. Again, you contine to conflate two seperate issues. Will you make sure they are clothed, fed and educated? Nope. But it doesn't mean they should have been killed. Again, you contine to conflate two seperate issues. Are you going to put your shoulder to the wheel and adopt? Nope. But it doesn't mean they should have been killed. Again, you contine to conflate two seperate issues. You abortionists are still stuck on stupid. So we're back to Catholic World Nope. I'm not religious. My pro-life views are based on science. Most of the reasons are related to discovery of serious birth defects or risks to the mother's health I've never dismissed the idea that sometimes late term abortions are necessary. If a mother's life is in danger, then obviously certain medical procedures need to be part of the solution. Dr. Tiller preformed late term, and almost full term abortions for very specious reasons. Late-term abortions are rare... extraordinarily rare... and happen under extraordinary circumstances I wish that were the case, but unfortnately it's not. As I've stated before, I understand the need for late term abortoins in certain circumstances, such as the mother's life being in danger. But unfortunately, some women have used the late term abortion service as a means of birth control. And Dr. Tiller aided in that despicable practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Nope. But it doesn't mean they should have been killed. Again, you contine to conflate two seperate issues.Nope. But it doesn't mean they should have been killed. Again, you contine to conflate two seperate issues. Nope. But it doesn't mean they should have been killed. Again, you contine to conflate two seperate issues. You abortionists are still stuck on stupid. This is a problem. I know you think they are separate issues, but if you are going to force someone to bring a child into this world, you better be ready to step up and put your money where your mouth is. If you have no plans of it, then you cannot tell anyone what to do in regards to abortion. It's this action of pro-lifers that will result in even more kids in foster care or orhanages. Since you are not willing to take care of the life after it is out of the womb, and only want to bring that life into existance out of the womb, then you should sit the hell down and shut up. If you are going to continue to talk about Pro-life, then you must have a plan for that life after. If not, why not? And why are they separate issues, when one directly contributes to the other resulting in you getting pissy because your taxes are going up to support these kids. Think about it for a moment or two. Nope. I'm not religious. My pro-life views are based on science. I heard ID and creationism are based on science as well. I know that is another topic altogether. I've never dismissed the idea that sometimes late term abortions are necessary. If a mother's life is in danger, then obviously certain medical procedures need to be part of the solution. Dr. Tiller preformed late term, and almost full term abortions for very specious reasons. No those were specific reasons. I wish that were the case, but unfortnately it's not. As I've stated before, I understand the need for late term abortoins in certain circumstances, such as the mother's life being in danger. But unfortunately, some women have used the late term abortion service as a means of birth control. And Dr. Tiller aided in that despicable practice. Tiller was not found guilty on any of those charges. I am going to use a right-wing tactic here and say, well the law did not find him guilty. So no crime was done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 This is a problem. I know you think they are separate issues, but if you are going to force someone to bring a child into this world, you better be ready to step up and put your money where your mouth is. If you have no plans of it, then you cannot tell anyone what to do in regards to abortion. It's this action of pro-lifers that will result in even more kids in foster care or orhanages. Since you are not willing to take care of the life after it is out of the womb, and only want to bring that life into existance out of the womb, then you should sit the hell down and shut up. And even that is only the secondary issue with (self claimed) "pro life" position. Even if there was a way to "maximize" creation of "new life" by restricting abortions, the fundamental question, can / should a capable adult individual be forced to do something with their own body they do not wish to, still remains to be answered (that question, as I understand it, gave grounds to deeming prohibition of abortion illegal on "privacy" grounds in the US). And if interference by state in the "bodily" matters is considered acceptable, should / why it only be limited to abortions, and not a whole host of other, more essential for public health, issues? (obesity, genetic diseases, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 ....And if interference by state in the "bodily" matters is considered acceptable, should / why it only be limited to abortions, and not a whole host of other, more essential for public health, issues? (obesity, genetic diseases, etc). It already is....public health policies will suspend freedoms and choices in a heartbeat for the sake of public safety.....from quarantines to mandatory vaccinations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 .....from quarantines to mandatory vaccinations. Quarantines aren't really applicable; while restricting freedom of movement, they don't really impose on one's body per se; and I have yet to see a "mandatory vaccination"; though in a case of some super deadly epidemics I concede could be a possibility due to grave threat to public safety. Which abortion in no way could be (no other individual is harmed or affected in any way, other than self appointed affictionadoes, in their psychic ways). So the case is empty, really. Nothing there, but the self appropriated right to make moral choices for others and control their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Public safety is valueless without respect for the singular person - we are not animals to be poked and prodded with vacines or other intrusions unless we so decied individually...Now those that disrespect the personal atonomy and self determination of the INDIVIDUAL --- ARE LIARS! When they say things are for the common good or for "public safety" If you don't care about the single person - then you really don't give a damn about the mass.....Those in power that attempt to over ride personal civil rights are hypocrites when they spew public care......This is still a Christ based society " I have not come to save the whole flock but to save the one sheep that has fallen into the pit" _ once the rights of the individual are gone - the rights of the common mass vanish and in steps grey soviet style communal hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.