I just read this article on the "Quiverfull" movement where the idea is to have as many kids as possible and that "God is the only one who can open or close the womb". Some of these idiots have 12, 18 and 20 kids.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I'll just assume that everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to know the reasons why this is a really bad idea, such as our severely dwindling environmental resources, for one.

On a more mundane level, every time someone complains about a new development going up behind their house, or long lines at the supermarket, or horrible traffic, I feel like screaming "that's because people are having too many *bleeping* kids!

It makes me so mad that people are so dumb.

Tell me please, how can a one month old, three month old, etc.... sustain itselft on its own??? It needs somebody to feed it, change it, clean it, everything for it, does that mean it can still be killed because it could not live without assistance?

The difference is that before viability, only one person can provide what is needed, the woman carrying the fetus.

After that, many others can.

Fetus=ok to abort (kill)

Infant=not ok to kill

Tell me please, how can a one month old, three month old, etc.... sustain itselft on its own??? It needs somebody to feed it, change it, clean it, everything for it, does that mean it can still be killed because it could not live without assistance? Ok, you might be saying that is totally different and I would ask why? Those of you that think that if it can't live w/out machines, it is a-ok to abort, what is the difference with machine assistance until it is strong enough to live w/out them than assistance by feeding, cleaning, clothing???? Please, I really want to know....

My cousin was born sooo early, can't remember the exact # of weeks, but she was so little that 3 of her could fit in the old velveeta box. This was more than 20 years ago and machines kept her alive until she was strong enough to live without them. But guess what, I was born without the need for machines but definately wouldn't have survived on my own if somebody hadn't fed me.

Maybe this is rambling and making no sense to any of you but I get so worked up about this.

Well, that's great that you and your cousin are OK. Still, comparing a living, breathing baby BORN outside the womb to a 10 week old FETUS is down right obsurd! Get as worked up as you want (or don't want to for that matter), but it's NO one else's business to judge others, when you don't know what situation they're in, I don't care who you are. Like I said, how many 10 week old FETUS' are viable? If it ever happened it must have been a medical miracle ripped from the headlines of the National Enquirer.

Thank you for being honest, laurend. I really appreciate it. Most people won't 'fess up to the internal struggle because they're afraid of where it will lead them intellectually.

You are at the crux of the issue. You are anti-smoking and anti-drinking while pregnant, but not anti-scalpel. Please understand, I am not ridiculing you or attacking you. I'm pointing out the dichotomy. And I completely understand why you struggle, because there is inconsistency in many of our belief systems and in the law.

I don't think people are wondering about being ridiculed. My stance is different that Laurend, but I know where she's coming from. I don't think it's right for people to drink or smoke w/they are pregnant either.

Being pro-choice, doesn't necessarily mean that I believe that abortion is right (or the right choice for me). I have heard quite a few people on here say that they wouldn't have an abortion, but they don't think it's right to tell someone else what to do with the body. Being pro-choice is just that, giving someone else the choice. I can't feed the child, take care of it, etc after it's born.

Kindly consider that your desire to cause the behavior of others to align with your beliefs is intrusive and presumptuous and really, really arrogant.

Sue...

They are, in their eyes, preventing the murder of an innocent every time they talk a woman out of having an abortion. That's pretty powerful stuff.

I think we are all in agreement that abortion prevents the birth of a living child (generally speaking). In that sense, ALL abortions are birth control. I think we all agree that in a perfect world, abortion would be unnecessary. Nobody has an abortion for the fun of it, or because it's something she has never experienced before.

Someone compared abortion to "mercy killings" a few pages back. Some people might be surprised to learn that those actually happen quite often. Are they wrong? I don't know. My father had a particularly agonizing form of Cancer and many times he begged us to bring him a loaded gun. We didn't, of course. But if I had been in charge of his meds, I might have given him free access to them.

I don't like the idea of removing feeding tubes or hydration lines (a la Terry Schivo). To me, starving a person to death by withholding nourishment and/or water is not merciful. Same thing with oxygen. If a person is struggling to breathe, give them some air.

A peaceful, painless death is a great blessing. One of the things about abortion that bothers me is the violence. How many on this board would take even a very rudimentary life form - a frog, for example, and tear off its legs? Or jab a pair of scissors into the base of its skull? Not many....but that's how they perform abortions.

Carlene,

I appreciate that they BELIEVE that they are helping. I just continue to point out that--in MY opinion--they are NOT, and they don't even have "standing" in someone else's decision.

I don't suppose this will provide MUCH consolation, but this article discusses the "pain" part of the violence issue for the first two trimesters, anyway:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/StateRequiredCME/PainManagement/tb/3099

In part:

BIRMINGHAM, England, April 14 - Fetuses are physically incapable of feeling pain until the end of the second trimester, and unlike newborn children have not developed the processes that would allow them to recognize pain as a signal of a harmful encounter, a researcher here asserted.

"An absence of pain in the fetus does not resolve the question of whether abortion is morally acceptable or should be legal," wrote Stuart W.G. Derbyshire, Ph.D., a senior psychologist at the University of Birmingham, in the April 15 issue of the BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal. "Nevertheless, proposals to inform women seeking abortions of the potential for pain in fetuses are not supported by evidence."

Thank you for being honest, laurend. I really appreciate it. Most people won't 'fess up to the internal struggle because they're afraid of where it will lead them intellectually.

You are at the crux of the issue. You are anti-smoking and anti-drinking while pregnant, but not anti-scalpel. Please understand, I am not ridiculing you or attacking you. I'm pointing out the dichotomy. And I completely understand why you struggle, because there is inconsistency in many of our belief systems and in the law.

Yes, I struggle with my beliefs and I am honest about that fact. The point I was trying to make is though I personally believe that smoking or drinking while pregnant is wrong, I would never try to pass a law to stop it. It is all about a woman's choice to control her body. But again, until that fetus is able to live outside a woman's body on its own, it is a part of the woman and she can do whatever she wants to her own body.

Fetus=ok to abort (kill)

Infant=not ok to kill

Tell me please, how can a one month old, three month old, etc.... sustain itselft on its own??? It needs somebody to feed it, change it, clean it, everything for it, does that mean it can still be killed because it could not live without assistance?

Machine assistance is completely different from feeding or cleaning. The one month-old and the three month-old can breathe on their own and their hearts can beat without any extra support. They need feeding and cleaning to support their life, yes, but they are already living. They don't need a machine just to breathe or make their heart beat.

I should probably refine my statement on my beliefs on abortion. I personally believe that abortion is allowable up until the fetus is viable. Beyond that point, like someone else said, I think that it should become an early delivery and the fetus put up for adoption. If the fetus is viable, then yes, aborting it would be murder in my opinion. Otherwise, though, IMO, it isn't.

Sue...

I think we are all in agreement that abortion prevents the birth of a living child (generally speaking). In that sense, ALL abortions are birth control. I think we all agree that in a perfect world, abortion would be unnecessary. Nobody has an abortion for the fun of it, or because it's something she has never experienced before.

My father had a particularly agonizing form of Cancer and many times he begged us to bring him a loaded gun. We didn't, of course. But if I had been in charge of his meds, I might have given him free access to them.

I don't like the idea of removing feeding tubes or hydration lines (a la Terry Schivo). To me, starving a person to death by withholding nourishment and/or water is not merciful. Same thing with oxygen. If a person is struggling to breathe, give them some air.

A peaceful, painless death is a great blessing. .

Carlene i agree that technically teminology is correct that birth control is preventing a birth so it does fit here. I think that people have ideas about people that use it as the only method which is where it gets sticky.

I agree about the pill access to. My uncle died teh same way. I wish that all people could have access to a pain free death. I have chronic back pain. I can only image that cancer pain is MUCH WORSE and all the time. How aweful! I think with the Terri thing that they could do it differently. I do think she needed to go, dont get me wrong.. but it needs to be quick and painless. And you shouldnt have to fight for it or leave the living suffering legal consequences for it.

after "Terri" my mother called all the kids and we got explicit directions to pull the plug immediately. Mom left me in charge of it. I am the only one that she KNOWS will pull the plug.:bandit I promised to let the others say good bye first. It isnt that I dont love her, we are very close.

She knows to pull my plug if necessary. So does the hubby. She had to be clear so everyone knew and knew there roles so sisters wouldnt be mad if i "made" the decision.

She is 50, so i dont expect to do it soon, but i know my job if anything bad happened.

So, I'll try again. I don't care about your God...or your Fairy Godmother or your Tooth Fairy or any other belief you have. I don't care about your mega-church--in spite of the fact that they seem to maintain a "classifieds" page where they feel quite free to violate several laws and advertise for Christian employees and Christian work environments and Christian tenants. And, BTW, abortions happened during Christ's time on the planet. How come he took offense at the money-changers in the temple but not at the women having abortions? (Uh...don't ask that one at the mega-church with its $7 million annual budget, okay?)

Oh my goodness, don't even try to suggest that Jesus would agree with abortion! Jesus followed the Word of God (obviously!) and the Bible calls an unborn baby a LIFE. It even says that if someone causes injury to a pregnant women and causes her unborn baby to die, that that person is to be held accountable for that unborn baby's LIFE. If he causes the death of both the mother and her unborn baby, he is to be held accountable for BOTH the life of the mother and the LIFE of the unborn baby that was killed. At no time does the Bible say that that unborn baby had to be "viable" outside her body...or that the unborn baby has to be X number of weeks old...it makes NO distinction between a fetus or a "viable" baby...or even an embryo, for that matter! It simply calls the unborn baby a LIFE.

Euthanasia!

Oh my goodness, don't even try to suggest that Jesus would agree with abortion!

I think it's pretty obvious that Athiests have an easier decision regarding abortion. They don't have the whole God/Bible thing to reconcile. The rest of us have to just do the best we can. To thine own self be true.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Jeremiah1:5

I remember an episode of CSI, where a character quotes Leviticus 17:11, which talks about the life of a creature being in it's blood. And that fetuses are infused with blood on about the 18th day. I thought it an interesting thing to ponder.

Another interesting verse is:

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:22-25

I think it's pretty obvious that Athiests have an easier decision regarding abortion. They don't have the whole God/Bible thing to reconcile. The rest of us have to just do the best we can. To thine own self be true.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Jeremiah1:5

Oh of course! I don't expect someone who compares God to the "Tooth Fairy", to value the Holy Bible. But I almost had a heart attack when I read that someone actually thought that Jesus would condone abortion! I had to set the record straight. I was just floored by the inaccuracy of that statement!

I remember an episode of CSI, where a character quotes Leviticus 17:11, which talks about the life of a creature being in it's blood. And that fetuses are infused with blood on about the 18th day. I thought it an interesting thing to ponder.

VERY interesting point!!!

OK, I'll say it again. My stand on abortion has nothing to do with my religion. I was pro-life before I was a Christian.

There are plenty of pro-life people who are not Christians, and in fact many athiests are pro-life. Ever heard of Nat Hentoff? I'd be surprised if you hadn't, beause he is a very well known defender of civil liberties. He's been a writer for the Village Voice (not exactly a conservative publication LOL!) for many years and has been an outspoken liberal voice on many social issues. He frequently aligns himself with the ACLU (but not on issues of abortion and disabilities). But several years ago he studied the abortion issue and became pro-life. In the late '80s and early '90s, when he first "came out" as a pro-lifer, he was blackballed by liberals. He is an athiest and in no way does his reasoning on his theology, or lack thereof.

It is very easy to disrespect and dismiss what I have to say about abortion by calling it a religious viewpoint. While religious people weigh in on the issue in strong numbers, it is not my religion that persuades me that life begins at conception. It is science.

For those interested in reading more about Nat Hentoff's conversion to pro-life, go to http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/consistent/hentoff.html or, in his own words, http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu/%7Erauch/nvp/consistent/indivisible.html. It's good reading.

Wrong, again. The procedure was developed to prevent having fetal remains left inside the woman's body post-abortion (see the earlier post about the woman with the fetal remains in her body for months...same thing when it's less than an entire fetus) and because it was SAFER for the woman (you know, the "PERSON" in this scenario.)

Sorry, you're wrong. Saline abortions don't result in "fetal remains" (parts of the dead baby) being left in the womb. In saline abortions, the baby is burned from the inside out (from swallowing the poison injected into the amniotic sac) and delivered, entact, just dead (or at least that was the goal; some of them survived). Further, the women having saline abortions felt every flailing movement of the baby as it was dying.

Prostaglandin abortions cause the woman to go into early labor, thus delivering the baby at whatever stage he or she has developed to. In many of these cases, as well, the baby is born alive.

Neither procedure impacted the wholeness of the baby's body, and therefore didn't cause "parts" (again, parts of WHAT? of a PERSON) to be left inside the womb.