gadgetlady

We live in a fallen world. No one's life is perfect. Bitterness and anger in no way compare to dismemberment. Abortion is the ultimate child abuse! I am a big believer in pregnancy prevention, both temporary and permanent. What green went through, not being able to be sterilized because of the law in France -- when she KNEW she didn't want to have kids -- and subsequently ending up with an unplanned pregnancy, is unconscionable (on the part of the government).

It is a bad thing if it mentally helps you oppress someone. There is no correlation between an unwanted pregnancy and child abuse. There have been numerous studies on the subject, and what has been found is that most abused children are wanted and planned. I completely agree. But once the child exists, it becomes a totally different issue.

When that particular brand of religiosity infringe on another's rights. And in the case of abortion, the baby's rights are being infringed upon.

I don't think you're mad at all. I know a lot of people with many kids (two families with 10) and they're incredible people. Personally, if I had been younger when I started having kids I probably would have had more than 2, but I'm too old and tired now. This is a VERY interesting statement. I would submit that this is how many mothers feel when they're planning abortion. They suppress the thought that the unborn child is a human life because if they don't acknowledge it, it's much easier to proceed with the abortion. Pro-life clinics have discovered that if they show mothers an ultrasound of their unborn babies, the incidence of choosing life over abortion increases exponentially. Abortion-minded mothers "can't afford" to let themselves consider what's growing inside of them; they "can't afford to let them be" babies -- like somehow it's their, the mother's, decision that determines what they, the babies, are. That's why the abortion industry comes up with euphemisms like "blob of tissue" or "product of conception". Dehumanization always makes oppression easier. I appreciate your thoughtful posts, Nina.

What if your religious tradition said the baby wasn't a life until age 5? When does science and the law supercede "religious tradition"?

There is no such thing as "potential life". Either it's life or it's not. You can't have a "potential thought". Either you have a thought or you don't. The unborn baby is a life WITH POTENTIAL, not a potential life.

Should people have the right to make that decision for themselves? Yes. For others? Not without their consent, no.

How many disabilities do you have? Was your life worth the cost?

If we determine who lives and who dies based on cost, we ought to start killing off the disabled and the elderly. Social security wouldn't be an issue if, upon retirement, you were euthanized. You've had a good life. Say goodnight, Gracie.

I had mine during surgery and someone advised me not to wear a tampon because it might be difficult to reach to remove it after surgery. I'm glad I had that advice because it would have been. They gave me a pad and mesh underwear and it was fine. Believe me, they see blood all day, every day; a little more won't have any impact.

No issues here! Just that the bars holding you in go down a lot further

Viability is a measure of medical technology, not of human-ness. Did you know scientists are working on artificial placentas so babies can be supported even earlier than they are now? How will this impact your -- can I say arbitrary? -- settlement on 28 weeks? I brought this up a lot earlier in the discussion in a hypothetical question. The issue is that these mothers don't just want to be "not pregnant". They don't want a baby with their heredity running around causing problems for them later in life. They want a dead baby. In that case, we'd be better off killing the old rather than the young. In some places they are. A pregnant mother already HAS a baby. No one (except in the case of rape) forced her to get pregnant. All I'm saying is the law should compel her not to kill that baby once he or she is already there.

The question was asked -- of the ones that survive, what is their outcome. This study doesn't define disability. If you look at the statistics of disabilities that seriously impede one's life (not a disability that's relatively easy to live with), you'll find a significantly different number. Nevertheless, a disability doesn't contraindicate life. As would I. Of course it is always better for the baby to go to full term. I told you there were others that I was looking for that were 18 weeks. If you'd like, I'll hunt some more. You have to remember, these were pre-internet days, so you're not likely to find a news story of them. I remember a while back a woman on this board reported a story of a crime that had been committed against her family. Someone said they googled it and didn't find it, and therefore she must have made it up. As it so happened, it had occurred in the 70's and therefore there was no news story about it. The internet and the articles to be found therein are not comprehensive. My apologies for overlooking gestational vs. fetal age. And again, I am sorry for the losses of your precious children. Many people sob during an abortion, so it might have been par for the course. However, that is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for anyone's treating you poorly. I'm not them but I do apologize on their behalf. You should never have been treated like that. I have friends who have chosen to abort and friends who have chosen to give their children life. Down the the very last one, the ones who have chosen to abort deeply regret their decision. Regardless of their choices, our friendships have endured, and they would have endured if abortion were illegal. Well I'm glad we can come to some consensus. How do you reconcile this belief with a belief in a mother's "right" to choose what to do with "her" body when she's pregnant?

Since you won't -- or can't -- answer the question posed, I can only surmise that you made up the scenario of the woman who "had" to have a partial-birth abortion. If abortion solved the problem of unwanted kids, we wouldn't have any. YOU provided the statistics, the pie-chart. Not me.

I assume, at this hour, that you've already hit the hay. Yet despite your research into where there might be facilities that don't do late term abortions (which doesn't prove that there aren't facilities that DO), and into the history of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (which proved my claim that Doe guaranteed abortion up until birth), and a lovely pie-chart showing that a small percentage of abortions are done after 20 weeks, still no answer to this question. I'll rephrase just in case you missed it. Why is it ever medically necessary to brutally kill a baby that is 3/4 of the way delivered? Why not just finish the delivery and make every effort to assist the baby in survival? The mom's already gone through labor, already had her cervix dilated, already delivered the feet, legs, and torso of the baby. She's going to deliver the head regardless of whether the abortionist sucks the brains out or not. What earthly reason can there be to kill the baby at that point?

1,600,000 abortions in the US per year (approximate number as presented by the abortion industry) x 1.4% of abortions performed 20 weeks or later = 22,400 viable babies killed every year x 34 years since Roe and Doe = 761,600 viable babies killed in the past 34 years in the US alone. 761,600 viable babies killed. And this isn't a holocaust?

I'm not sure why you posted this -- it's a very concise history and actually says what I've been saying all along. I will highlight a few key phrases to demonstrate that abortion was made legal, through Doe v. Bolton, through 9 months of pregnancy. What I said a few posts ago was: I guess I should say thank you for finally agreeing with me, or at least for acknowledging my point.

But that isn't what you said originally. You said, "Abortions are given up until the 4th month, if that...beyond that it HAS to be medically necessary" and accused me of spreading propaganda. Of course there are places that stop at different weeks -- for different reasons. Some may be curtailed by (recent) state law, some may not have the equipment to do late-term abortions, and some abortionists may not have the stomach to do late-term abortions. However, to flatly say abortion is only legal through 4 months and beyond that it has to be medically necessary is incorrect and is, in fact, propaganda in and of itself. You did the same thing with the claim that the Bible approves of and encourages slavery; when I demonstrated that was not the case, you changed your claim, saying that people USED the Bible (incorrectly) to defend slavery. Two very different claims. It's very easy to change your argument when it's done in a dialogue. When it's in black and white for anyone to go back and refer to, it gets a bit more tricky.

He didn't diagnose. Given the information provided: a 5 month pregnant woman with a clot in her lung, is a partial-birth abortion ever a medical necessity? Answer: no. If there's more information you'd like to provide, I can add to the scenario for him. The fact remains, you still won't answer the question. Why not deliver the baby alive?

Didn't take long to find this: Safer Abortion: Safe Second Trimester Abortions to 24 Weeks at Liberty Women's - NYC, NY and Planned Parenthood - Abortion Services - Surgical and Outpatient second-trimester D&E abortion through 24 menstrual weeks’ gestation and Fees I won't continue. It is obvious from the above that you are the one pushing propaganda and spin. Abortion is legal through 9 months of pregnancy, easily found through 6 months. I don't know from where you have received your information, but it is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

I'm not calling you a liar; I'm asking you to clarify what you've stated. I am not "backed into a corner with facts" and I'm not getting personal -- I think the reverse is true. I'm asking you why your friend HAD to kill the baby. But since we're here, I happen to have a friend who is a doctor and I asked him if an abortion would be mandatory in the case of a woman with a clot in her lung. He said absolutely not; they could operate without performing an abortion. But even if there's something we don't know about this situation, the question remains: why KILL the baby and not give him or her a chance to survive? There is no earthly reason why you have to stab the baby at the base of the neck and suck the brains out! Just finish the delivery and see what the survivability of the baby is.

Either you're deliberately lying or you're just plain misinformed. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you're just plain misinformed. Open up the yellow pages and turn to abortion. You will see ads for abortion up to 24 weeks -- that's 6 months. There goes your 4 month theory. These abortions are given with no medical necessity required. In the companion case to Roe v. Wade (Doe v. Bolton), abortion was extended to be available to a woman through all 9 months of pregnancy if it was determined to be necessary for her health -- which was defined as including mental health -- in the determination of one physician, including an abortionist. All a woman has to say is she can't handle having a baby right now and the abortionist marks it down as "medically necessary."

But why did the baby have to die? The procedure is the same - delivery of the baby - the only difference being whether you kill the baby during the course of the delivery or not. Babies survive at 5 months. It doesn't make any sense.

I agree. I just start at the beginning of life, while you choose to start at "birth", which can be arbitrarily anywhere from 19 or 20 weeks to 42 or 43 weeks. I don't believe life has an arbitrary inception.

Can you give details about this? Why couldn't she let the baby live instead? The procedure is the same, just minus the killling part. How would not removing the baby's brains have impacted her medical situation?