Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Her choice to have or not have children takes place before sex, not afterwards. Yeah, don't fight for the unborn fight for irresponsible women who kill out of convenience. Killing should not be a choice. I at least respect women who give birth and give the baby up for adoption instead.
The threshold to choose when to not have kids is up the individual woman. For some it's viability, for others it's first trimester, for others it's celibacy. But regardless of the choice, it's none of your business
And yes, I fight for irresponsible women, you're damn right. I fight for WOMEN who abort for whatever reason they choose. I fight for WOMEN who choose how to handle their reproductive health in ANY WAY they see fit.
Killing should not be a choice? Please, we justify death on the daily. Take that drama elsewhere.
I may differ with you a bit on viability. It's not entirely clear when "clump of cells" becomes 'baby' but your point about death cult was spot on. Especially with that particular poster. Their cavalier attitude was repugnant. Any woman who doesn't want a baby should just get rid of it. They wouldn't even qualify that with a viability threshold ... just get rid of it if you don't want it. Death cult indeed.
Thank you, I am glad the forced birther brigade whom I abhor doesn't approve of my views. Rest assured, I find the utter nerve and overreach of those of want to legally force women to carry out unwanted pregnancies beyond repugnant.
The threshold to choose when to not have kids is up the individual woman. For some it's viability, for others it's first trimester, for others it's celibacy. But regardless of the choice, it's none of your business
And yes, I fight for irresponsible women, you're damn right. I fight for WOMEN who abort for whatever reason they choose. I fight for WOMEN who choose how to handle their reproductive health in ANY WAY they see fit.
Killing should not be a choice? Please, we justify death on the daily. Take that drama elsewhere.
Why have laws at all?
Steal, kill, rape, cause harm and destruction with impunity...
Thank you, I am glad the forced birther brigade whom I abhor doesn't approve of my views. Rest assured, I find the utter nerve and overreach of those of want to legally force women to carry out unwanted pregnancies beyond repugnant.
I made it very clear that religious organizations are the ones helping those who decide to have their babies.
Methodist is a religion, correct? Trot that out in front of liberals and see what names you are called, you "conservative, Christian forced birther zealot." How dare you allow babies to be born!!!
I then asked again, if you could provide a liberal AKA NON religious organization that actually wants to help women with their babies. And your response is that I am somehow ignoring you? Um. No. I heard loud and clear that you PROVED my point.
And if you are fighting for choice, understanding you are fighting for the killing of babies. By their own moms.
And yes, abortion is a no compromise issue. Can a baby be half dead? No, a baby is either alive, or he or she has been killed.
Unless liberal science has changed that along with everything else? Let me know the compromise in the procedure of abortion.
I don't need to trot it out in front of liberals. It's made of liberals! Once again - MANY LIBERALS ARE RELIGIOUS. WE JUST DON"T LIKE YOUR NO COMPROMISE RELIGION.
Another poster offered to share the name of the organization that she volunteers for. But you haven't responded....
No, babies are being not being killed. You're being dramatic again. Majority of abortions are zygotes and embryos. Those are being killed. And they are killed quite frequently in IVF clinics, too. But no sad tears for them. I guess they're not quite human to illicit your NO COMPROMISE stance, amirite?
However, I know if abortion is outlawed, women will still get abortions. I don’t want women to get sick or die because they didn’t make better choices.
You have said you aren’t interested in people’s hearts...but I think that’s the part that must be reached.
As you said, it’s a complex issue and doesn’t just come down to party or religious lines.
Unfortunately, conservative posters prove this to be true right on this board. They are adamant that help should come from charities and if charities can't help, too bad, so sad. This is their stance. No one made it up.
So because you haven't seen something, it doesn't exist?
If you're wondering where all the love for children is from liberals, then you're not paying attention. It's literally in every policy we push to enact, from healthcare, to expanded welfare, to climate change, to paid family leave, to education. Like, are you serious?
And liberal churches do what most institutions cannot - provide affordable daycare. That alone is beyond significant, especially to single mothers.
Sorry, I can't take your last question seriously. You know better.
As for outreach, I found pregnancy assistance in health centers run by the Methodist church and their official statement on abortion states how they minister to all women regardless of choice - those who've aborted, those pregnant and those in crisis.
I'm not religious at all, but I love the United Methodist's stance on the issue. They do not support abortion, but do they ever embrace Christ consciousness in supporting women who make that choice.
At some point, Venice, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that things are not black and white. There are conservatives who are pro-choice and liberals who aren't and religious people who are uber liberal and atheist conservatives.
And abortion is not black and white because you'll never know the countless scenarios in which a woman finds herself that complicates her pregnancy. And because you don't know and politicians don't know, then all options need to be on the table, regardless of how disturbing it is to you. You don't know...
In other words you are commending liberals for providing all kinds of social programs for irresponsible adults just because they have kids? It has to be that or kill the kid in the womb?
Yes you posted them, that's AWESOME, gold star and thumbs up and .... how about answer this question...
How many adopted are babies? How many US couples adopt babies from overseas? How many babies would be adopted IMMEDIATELY if women choose the adoption route instead of abortion?
The argument that you are using about foster care -- which you have backed away from -- was that women should abort because if not, kids would end up in foster care. With parents already and NOT able to be adopted. Still want all foster care kids dead, too?
I've proven you are wrong. You just want the babies DEAD instead of adopted. It's heartless and disgusting.
But ... Carry on with the drum banging for the death cult.
PS. Every pregnancy is about providing for others. It's a BABY. Of course it needs to be provided for. Science is your friend. Every pro abortion fanatic conveniently forgets basic biology class.
I am done with your sneering, condescending attitude and nasty accusations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
It's human what part of that don't you get? Doesn't matter what the adoption statistics are being alive is better than being dead. Obsession with babies? WTH does that even mean? The topic here is the unborn not those already born so why even mention kids waiting to be adopted?
Who said that women are "obligated" to provide infants for others? Oh, it's end of story because you say so? Sure do a lot of twisting and spinning to defend the indefensible, aren't you? Must make you dizzy.
If one doesn't want to carry out a pregnancy then don't take "any" chances to get that way in the first place. Period, end of story!
The suggestion was that pregnant women should carry out pregnancies to provide infants for adoption. But that is likely not what will happen as a result of forced birth. What will happen is that women will feel societal/family pressure to keep the infants they don't want, and these infants won't fare very well. There are many studies comparing offspring of those who wanted abortions and were denied to offspring of those who did not wish to end their pregnancies. HUGE difference in development, rates of depression, life success, and many other factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1
A plum whose heartbeat you've been able to listen to for weeks.
Medical doctors on the TX heartbeat anti abortion law:
The new law defines "fetal heartbeat" as "cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac" and claims that a pregnant woman could use that signal to determine "the likelihood of her unborn child surviving to full-term birth."
But the medical-sounding term "fetal heartbeat" is being used in this law — and others like it — in a misleading way, say physicians who specialize in reproductive health. What we're really detecting is a grouping of cells that are initiating some electrical activity. In no way is this detecting a functional cardiovascular system or a functional heart.
Jennifer Kerns, OB-GYN, University of California, San Francisco
"When I use a stethoscope to listen to an [adult] patient's heart, the sound that I'm hearing is caused by the opening and closing of the cardiac valves," says Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN who specializes in abortion care and works at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
"At six weeks of gestation, those valves don't exist," she explains. "The flickering that we're seeing on the ultrasound that early in the development of the pregnancy is actually electrical activity, and the sound that you 'hear' is actually manufactured by the ultrasound machine." That's why "the term 'fetal heartbeat' is pretty misleading," says Dr. Jennifer Kerns, an OB-GYN and associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco. "What we're really detecting is a grouping of cells that are initiating some electrical activity," she explains. "In no way is this detecting a functional cardiovascular system or a functional heart."
However, I know if abortion is outlawed, women will still get abortions. I don’t want women to get sick or die because they didn’t make better choices.
You have said you aren’t interested in people’s hearts...but I think that’s the part that must be reached.
As you said, it’s a complex issue and doesn’t just come down to party or religious lines.
Has it occurred to you that these woman might act more responsibly if abortion wasn't an option? If they don't then they are just plain stupid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Once again - MANY LIBERALS ARE RELIGIOUS. WE JUST DON"T LIKE YOUR NO COMPROMISE RELIGION. 
