Official Abortion Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Abortion is an act of violence.
Why perpetrate violence on women?

Even more violent is pushing a full term child out of your vagina. Have you ever done it?

My child’s birth actually wasn’t violent. She literally came out smiling, according to our midwife.

Well you're certainly luckier than all the women who died in the past year. Here, read about the maternal mortality rate in the US and learn something about the reality of childbirth's dangers.

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-new-us-maternal-mortality-rate-fails-to-capture-many-deaths?utm_content=buffer71c42&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=ProPublica+Main+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

[Anonymous]

Just curious but if you are a serious pro-lifer are you also actively involved in gun control measures in this country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

The decision to kill a baby simply because you don't want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

The decision to kill a baby simply because you don't want it.

Do you honestly believe that women have abortions because everything is hunky-dory in their lives and they just don't want the baby?

And if so, would you want someone that disengaged from the fetus carrying it to term?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crime will increase as unwanted children are born, according to the Freakonomics guys. There are many more societal ills than benefits when you force women to have a baby.

Then why not kill all the unwanted kids too? Heck, let’s include the useless adults too. I mean as long as it’s their mom deciding, it’d be ok, right? Round ‘em up and crush their heads and throw ‘me in the bio-disposal can. It’d all be very convenient for the rest of us now wouldn’t it, unless of course you were one of the useless ones ...

Anyhow, to me it is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of when (scientifically) a human life begins. Before then, destroy the zygote or fetus or whatever it is at your convenience, but after that point, whether the child is still in the womb or not, it is murder. Period. Take the religious, emotional and “woman” rights arguments away and base the law upon science.

You can actually physically separate a child from its mother; you cannot physically separate a fetus from the mother. If a mother does not want a child she can hand him over to authorities. If she does not want a fetus in her body and it is not viable; that life is dependent on her and is inside her body and it is her right to decide whether she wants that.

Pregnancy is still dangerous. Many women still die giving birth. If a woman does not want to carry a baby; that’s where the line is regarding whose rights matter more. Mind you fetuses are becoming viable earlier and earlier due to technology. It’s not that complicated of a concept.

The life is still dependent upon the parents, even after it is born. It can't give itself nutrition after it is born.

A baby who has been born does not need either of its biological parents to be the ones giving it nutrition. You’d think the people who are always beating the drum that adoption is the solution to unplanned pregnancy wouldn’t need that explained to them.

Then don't use "the baby is dependent upon her" as a justification for the right to end it's life.

THE FETUS IS DEPENDENT ON HER. Are you daft?

NO. I am not daft. My point is that the fetus is also dependent on her AFTER it is born. ALSO.

The is fetus is dependent on the particular woman in whose uterus it resides. A baby is dependent on any adult that takes care of it.

If and when a fetal transplant is possible I would expect you to be the first to sign up to receive one.

I'd rather do that, than end it's life.

Really? How many children have you adopted?

One. Any other questions?

And did you adopt that child because it was unwanted or because YOU wanted it?

Obviously, both.

Why not adopt more than 1? Why not adopt a set of siblings? Or 5, or 6, or 7 children?

It depends upon how many other people's responsibilities I can take on.

How do YOU know that? How do you know what you can handle and why should I trust your judgement of that? I think you can take care of 7 children just fine. I mean, you already have at least one, and you are advocating for more unwanted children to be available. Besides, millions of children are in the foster care system, I’m sure you can make it work since so many are in need!

You don't want anyone to question your judgement on your choices regarding abortion, yet you want to question my judgement? I see.

Of course I am questioning your judgment! Why shouldn’t I? You are advocating for millions of unwanted children to be born!

Why don’t you want to take any responsibility for your choices? Why aren’t you adopting more unwanted children?

1) For the same reason you don't want me questioning yours.

2) I've taken responsibility for every one of my own children, plus someone else's.

So, are you saying it would be unfair to judge a woman for having an abortion and that it is something between her doctor and her?

The law allows it, so I am in no position to judge. However, that doesn't mean I agree with it.

Well, I judge you for your inconsistency. You literally just said you would be willing to carry someone else’s fetus, and then you backed out with this nonsense about how many children you can handle.

I don’t think hypocrites like you have a right to decide! You want all those unwanted babies brought to term, you take care of them!

No inconsistency. I said I'd RATHER carry it, than kill it.

Then, you asked how MANY I'd be willing to adopt. Not WHETHER I'd be willing to adopt. That's NOT backing out.

It's hysterical people like you who think that I think I have a "right to decide". I didn't say I was deciding for anyone. I said that I DON'T AGREE. Big difference. Nice try.

You don't agree with what, exactly?

The decision to kill a baby simply because you don't want it.

Why is it good to have a baby when you don’t want it?

[Anonymous]

They are only pro-life when the fetus is in the womb, once born, all bets are off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are only pro-life when the fetus is in the womb, once born, all bets are off.

The extreme people on both sides of this argument are equally awful and annoying. This is such a difficult topic; to say that abortion is no big deal or to say all abortions should be outlawed are both crazy things to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Abortion is an act of violence.
Why perpetrate violence on women?

Even more violent is pushing a full term child out of your vagina. Have you ever done it?

My child’s birth actually wasn’t violent. She literally came out smiling, according to our midwife.

My friend died giving birth, at age 28.

My pelvis cracked giving birth and I’m still feeling the effects of it 10 year later.

Another friend almost bled to death.

You're awfully smug aren’t you.

DP. For heaven's sake, I'm sorry those things happened to you and your friends, but the PP wasn't smug. People like you and other people talking about birth always being violent are just as wrong as anyone who says it is always no big deal. There is a full range of experience. Her experience doesn't negate yours and yours doesn't negate hers.

Again, sorry you had such a hard time, but seek therapy instead of venting your bile on anonymous posters who just share their experiences.

PP was dismissing the notion that childbirth had consequences for women's bodies with her comment. Pregnancy and childbirth used to be the #1 cause of death in women. Any woman who decides to go through pregnancy is still taking a chance, even if it's a small one, of bodily harm to herself. And even if it doesn't kill most women pregnancy is hard on their bodies. The government does not have the right to force a woman to go through a potentially hazardous situation against her will.

https://slate.com/technology/2013/09/death-in-childbirth-doctors-increased-maternal-mortality-in-the-20th-century-are-midwives-better.html

The real reason women give birth when they do, Dunsworth says, is that it would take too much energy to feed a fetus for any longer. This is the “metabolic hypothesis” and it’s based on the finding that the maximum metabolic rate people can sustain is about 2 or 2.5 times their standard rate of using energy. During the third trimester, that’s exactly how much metabolic activity the pregnancy demands. Carrying a fetus for those final few months “is like being an incredibly good athlete,” Dunsworth says. No wonder it’s so exhausting.

By the late stages of pregnancy and during childbirth, almost anything can go wrong. Pregnant women are sapped of energy. They are susceptible to infectious disease. The baby’s head is enormous. Labor takes much longer in humans than in other primates; women often pushed for days. Historically, women died of puerperal fever (also called childbed fever, or postpartum sepsis, an infection usually contracted during childbirth), hemorrhage, eclampsia