gadgetlady

and yet Nothing personal about "There's no reasoning with you." Oh, sorry, was that too sarcastic for you?

I never said I don't respect people who believe in abortion. I said I don't respect the pro-abortion position. I believe I was quite clear in saying I respected the person and their right to have that opinion. As to being decent to people with whom one disagrees, in my opinion offering an apology when one is wrong is something that reflects that decency and respect.

Hey Melissa, Boarding time will be on those edocs I emailed you. I can't access them right now because I'm not at home. But let me tell you a little secret: you can arrive earlier than they say, usually by an hour or so. If you do arrive early, you miss a lot of the check-in lines. Enjoy!

Not out of context at all. Slave owners DEFINED slaves as 3/5 of a person despite the fact that the slaves were human beings with their own DNA. People in favor of abortion DEFINE the unborn baby as a blob of tissue, a product of conception, etc. despite the fact that they babies are human beings with their own DNA. It's very easy to withhold rights when the thing we're withholding from is DEFINED as something other than fully human. The only reason you don't see it is because you're doing the defining as less than a person. Just like the slave owners didn't see it.

I'm not beating around the bush. I'm clarifying your statements for those that are not well informed on fetal development. I've also answered this question previously in this thread and others, so I'm not afraid of it. Once fertilization occurs, a human being with different DNA from the mother is created. That is when human life begins. Abortion is certainly more ghastly when it involves ripping the baby apart limb from limb, but at any point it is the deliberate taking of a human life.

The baby's heart is beating before most women know they're pregnant. The heart begins beating at about 22 days. The classic dating timeline of a pregnancy begins at the time of the woman's last menstrual period, which as you know is approximately 2 weeks before pregnancy occurs (or maybe you didn't know). So at 22 days, or roughly 3 weeks, + the original 2 weeks that happened before fertilization, is when the heart begins to beat. Most women don't know they're pregnant until they've missed a period, which is very close to the time the heart starts beating.

It's only grossly out of context if you don't believe the unborn baby is deserving of basic human rights. If you believe the baby is somehow less than human (hmmm . . . just like the slave owners believed a black man was 3/5 of a person), then you're likely to be blind to the parallel.

Neither did the slaves. Neither do modern-day sex slaves. Neither do the victims of genocide or oppressed peoples everywhere. What's the problem here? "If you don't like slavery, just don't own a slave." The problem is you're dealing with another human being's life. If you want to do something with your own body, get a tattoo, amputate your arm, get your tubes tied, heck even become a prostitute, that's YOUR decision with YOUR body. But in an abortion, another person's body is involved.

You think an unborn baby is dead? Ever seen an ultrasound? Photos of what goes on in the womb? Heard the beating heart?

First of all, I have NEVER quoted the Bible to justify my position on abortion. I do not believe abortion is a religious issue. I believe it is a human rights issue. Second of all, I'm not Catholic. Not everyone believes human beings have souls. And personhood is not contingent on the existence of a soul. I base my position on abortion on science, on the fact that abortion stops a beating heart, on the fact that the unborn baby is a human being with separate DNA, a separate circulatory system, separate organs, two arms, two legs, a head, and a torso. Our choices should be limited when they infringe on the choices of another person. Where's the baby's vote in all this?

If you don't believe you owe someone an apology for accusing them of something they haven't done and then slamming them for what you presume to be their position, that's your business. I had hoped an apology would be forthcoming, but to no avail. And I guess that's consistent with the attack position you always take.

I never said there was only one issue in the world, Butch. But you're right. If we all just hold hands and sing Kumbaya it'll make it all better. Unfortunately, in the real world, 1/2 of the people who go into an abortion clinic don't come out alive. And because I choose to speak up for that silent 1/2 doesn't make me a bad person or immune to (or worse yet, complicit in) the evils of the world. If you don't think making something illegal reduces the incidence of that act (doesn't eliminate but reduces), I don't know what you're smoking.

Not judging, just commenting here. It sounds like you are more of a Universalist (many paths, one destiny) than a Catholic. The Catholic church, to my knowledge, doesn't teach anything other than John 14:6 (Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.). Again, I'm not judging, I'm just commenting. I also believe everyone has the right to whatever faith, or lack of faith, they want.

How about this? How about if we look up the number of LEGAL abortions the year after Roe? Then compare that to today? Would you hold that the number of ILLEGAL abortions before abortion was decriminilized was higher than the number of abortions the year after? Would that be fair to you, or would that be a huge exaggeration as well?

The friend is a he. Actually, it's a married couple but I know the husband better. The baby is 4 months old and they'll have her at least until November, until the state can re-evaluate the mom. This couple is one of the friends I've talked about in the past. They had an abortion before they were married and very much regret it. They have 3 daughters but feel a hole in their hearts from the baby they aborted. He feels like they aborted their son. They are now, of course, pro-life. These "rabid pro-lifers" are giving something back, caring for those who society tells us don't deserve to be alive. But of course, pro-lifers never do that. They're just pro-life because they are fetus-lovers, and after the babies are born they're not around to help take care of them.

Nope, didn't think so. Accusing someone of something they haven't done, or of a position they do not hold, and then slamming them for that position (that they don't hold) repeatedly doesn't deserve an apology. No, ma'am. Didn't really expect any apologies from you.

BTW, sorry I couldn't figure out how to post the picture. It's asking for an URL address but the photo is on my desktop and the path isn't working. If anyone knows how to do it please let me know.

Because I hear it all the time. "What about the crack babies? Who's going to take care of the crack babies? Don't you think we should abort the crack babies?" Well, the answer is no. I don't think any babies should be aborted, regardless of circumstance.

There certainly weren't more than 1,500,000 abortions per year in the US when abortion was illegal. Even if you accept the number of illegal abortions that the pro-abortion movement touts as gospel truth, you are still looking at a dramatically high percentage increase, well over 1000%. So it's only 1300% or even only 1000%? It's still a huge number.

I'm posting a picture of a beautiful baby girl (being held by MY beautiful baby girl). Her name is Gaby. She was brought over to our house today by a dear, dear friend who is a foster parent for her. She is a crack baby. Yes, the dreaded crack baby that everyone talks about. She is a total sweetheart, an adorable, precious little girl. Better that she would have been killed?

what a sweet way to start a post I disagree. I know a lot of women who wouldn't have had abortions if they were illegal. Abortions have increased 1500% since abortion was decriminalized. How do you know I'm only looking at one aspect? That's awfully presumptuous of you. Very true. But the sooner we stop abortion, the sooner we stop the murder of innocent human beings. Yes, the rest is important, but I think the most important thing for the baby that's about to be slaughtered is stopping the slaughter.

I guess that's an apology?

Nope, once again you're wrong. Perhaps you're writing too quickly. How about here: I DID say early on I wasn't for capital punishment, but I never said it was because it was or wasn't a deterrent. What a joke. "What I want you to THINK I believe." Like I said, if I post it, you find something wrong with it. Now you're accusing me of being disingenuous. I have said all along that I am against capital punishment, in this and other threads. That doesn't mean that studies about the potential deterrent effect of capital punishment should be suppressed. I thought the new study was an interesting read, regardless of my position on the matter. I don't believe in only reading or posting studies that only support my position. Next time you decide to go accusing me of something just because I'm me, or because you ASSUME you know what I believe, why don't you read what I've said about it first. http://www.lapbandtalk.com/479781-post50.html

I have never, ever said I was against capital punishment because it wasn't a deterrent. In fact, that's not why I'm against it -- so I wouldn't have said it. You're putting words in my mouth and then assuming from there that I must have an agenda. I do NOT have an agenda and I do NOT base my feelings about capital punishment on the presence or lack of a deterrent effect. Show me where I said I'm against capital punishment because of the lack of a deterrent effect, please. If you don't want to waste your time, don't go back and look because you will not find it. What's happening here is you're being just plain contrary: if I post it, you find something wrong with it. Period.

LOL! It's your logic I don't follow. I posted an article I thought was an interesting read because it applied to this subject. You said there was nothing in the article that said the death penalty was a deterrent. I posted some things that did. You said there were rebuttal arguments. I said there always are rebuttal arguments, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to the original article or the studies represented therein. Throughout the whole thing, you accused me of having an agenda, which I don't. But I guess when it comes to you, everything I do is agenda-based. So be it. I'm sure I must have had some sort of agenda which is even news to me.