Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ruthless employer wouldn't allow time to grieve after the death of a loved one? Is that even legal? It shouldn't be.

You get your regular 6 or 8 weeks of STD medical leave if your company provides it. You don't get 12-16 weeks.

12:44 believes her friend was forced to "quickly" return to her job after the death of her child.

Did that mother regret not aborting that child, 12:44? If there had been an abortion, then she would have to live with the torment of wondering, what if... We gave that baby a chance to live as long as possible?

Just because we can terminate a life, doesn't mean we should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they would ban teenage boys from the rally, I might be more inclined to listen. They are the 100% cause of the need for abortions.

No, boys/men are 50% of the cause, and girls/women are the other 50%.

Nope. Two women having sex results in 0 abortions. Teenage boys are the least likely people to use condoms properly and often.

Teenage boys AND girls.

50% of the responsibility lies with the girls.

If girls are equally free to choose to have sex then they are equally responsible for preventing pregnancy and STDs.

Sorry but male contraception (condom) is the only truely effective was to stop transmission of STDs. Does not matter which partner has the STD, the penis needs covering. Men are more responsible for sheathing their organ.

Anonymous wrote:What ruthless employer wouldn't allow time to grieve after the death of a loved one? Is that even legal? It shouldn't be.

You get your regular 6 or 8 weeks of STD medical leave if your company provides it. You don't get 12-16 weeks.

Anonymous wrote:OP, do you believe abortion is acceptable if the mothers life is in serious danger?

If so, then yes even you believe that the mother's rights supersede the unborn.

This is a bad argument. Most people recognize that extraordinary measures are acceptable if a person's life is in serious danger. For example, they may shoot someone if you believe they are putting your live in serious danger, but not if your life isn't in danger. If someone thinks you may shoot another person if your life is in serious danger, it does not mean that person thinks you can go around shooting people at other times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they would ban teenage boys from the rally, I might be more inclined to listen. They are the 100% cause of the need for abortions.

No, boys/men are 50% of the cause, and girls/women are the other 50%.

Nope. Two women having sex results in 0 abortions. Teenage boys are the least likely people to use condoms properly and often.

Teenage boys AND girls.

50% of the responsibility lies with the girls.

If girls are equally free to choose to have sex then they are equally responsible for preventing pregnancy and STDs.

What ruthless employer wouldn't allow time to grieve after the death of a loved one? Is that even legal? It shouldn't be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of marching your self righteousness, how about all you people put word to action and spend the day providing free childcare to single moms? Or driving them to their jobs? Or make them a healthy, home-cooked meal? Or cleanup/revitalize their playgrounds and neighborhoods?

That's something that will actually help women and children during those hours, unlike a parade of selfish pride.

Your suggestion will not only fall on deaf ears, but actually serve to foster more vitriol because you're making it seem like irresponsible single, poor women are having abortions simply because they can't handle a baby.

Instead, suggest that the marchers pitch in and help care for the babies who would be born with genetic conditions incompatible with life. Suggest they visit the nicu while the baby is hooked up to machines for a few hours, days or weeks before passing away. Better yet, suggest they pay for the costly medical bills of months of prenatal care (for a baby who won't live) and the much costlier delivery and nicu charges (for a baby who won't live).

+100000

Maybe they can also spend their time fundraising for funeral costs of those poor babies who are incompatible with life, as well as the psychological services their parents might need after bringing a child into the world only to see her suffer and die.

What if you have to suffer and die? Should your mother have aborted you?

If you are a baby born without most of the brain and are deaf, blind and constantly suffer seizures and will need to live in a medical facility for your entire life because your heart is strong, then yes, you probably should have been aborted. Having witnessed this over the span of 40 years with a family member, I know how this plays out. Fortunately, technology can tell you if your baby is missing most of it's brain.

Have you ever delivered a baby that had a genetic issue incompatible with life? Did you suffer for 20 weeks after the diagnosis but opt to deliver anyways? Then did you hold your baby for a few brief hours and watch her die? Then did you pay for a funeral and have to pull yourself together to get through that experience? And then did you have to quickly grieve and then go back to work and deal with all the congratulations on your new baby? I'm guessing you have never experienced that. Having watched my friend go through this, I'm quite confident that it's not something I could personally handle. You have no clue how this can impact a woman. No clue.

OP, do you believe abortion is acceptable if the mothers life is in serious danger?

If so, then yes even you believe that the mother's rights supersede the unborn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of marching your self righteousness, how about all you people put word to action and spend the day providing free childcare to single moms? Or driving them to their jobs? Or make them a healthy, home-cooked meal? Or cleanup/revitalize their playgrounds and neighborhoods?

That's something that will actually help women and children during those hours, unlike a parade of selfish pride.

Your suggestion will not only fall on deaf ears, but actually serve to foster more vitriol because you're making it seem like irresponsible single, poor women are having abortions simply because they can't handle a baby.

Instead, suggest that the marchers pitch in and help care for the babies who would be born with genetic conditions incompatible with life. Suggest they visit the nicu while the baby is hooked up to machines for a few hours, days or weeks before passing away. Better yet, suggest they pay for the costly medical bills of months of prenatal care (for a baby who won't live) and the much costlier delivery and nicu charges (for a baby who won't live).

+100000

Maybe they can also spend their time fundraising for funeral costs of those poor babies who are incompatible with life, as well as the psychological services their parents might need after bringing a child into the world only to see her suffer and die.

What if you have to suffer and die? Should your mother have aborted you?

Not that poster, but personally, I would much prefer to have been aborted than to have been born a quadriplegic or locked in the hellish prison of low-functioning autism. Or into a household rife with child sexual abuse or torture. Or many other scenarios I can think of. I wouldn't bring a baby into the world if I lived in Syria right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of marching your self righteousness, how about all you people put word to action and spend the day providing free childcare to single moms? Or driving them to their jobs? Or make them a healthy, home-cooked meal? Or cleanup/revitalize their playgrounds and neighborhoods?

That's something that will actually help women and children during those hours, unlike a parade of selfish pride.

Your suggestion will not only fall on deaf ears, but actually serve to foster more vitriol because you're making it seem like irresponsible single, poor women are having abortions simply because they can't handle a baby.

Instead, suggest that the marchers pitch in and help care for the babies who would be born with genetic conditions incompatible with life. Suggest they visit the nicu while the baby is hooked up to machines for a few hours, days or weeks before passing away. Better yet, suggest they pay for the costly medical bills of months of prenatal care (for a baby who won't live) and the much costlier delivery and nicu charges (for a baby who won't live).

+100000

Maybe they can also spend their time fundraising for funeral costs of those poor babies who are incompatible with life, as well as the psychological services their parents might need after bringing a child into the world only to see her suffer and die.

What if you have to suffer and die? Should your mother have aborted you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instead of marching your self righteousness, how about all you people put word to action and spend the day providing free childcare to single moms? Or driving them to their jobs? Or make them a healthy, home-cooked meal? Or cleanup/revitalize their playgrounds and neighborhoods?

That's something that will actually help women and children during those hours, unlike a parade of selfish pride.

Your suggestion will not only fall on deaf ears, but actually serve to foster more vitriol because you're making it seem like irresponsible single, poor women are having abortions simply because they can't handle a baby.

Instead, suggest that the marchers pitch in and help care for the babies who would be born with genetic conditions incompatible with life. Suggest they visit the nicu while the baby is hooked up to machines for a few hours, days or weeks before passing away. Better yet, suggest they pay for the costly medical bills of months of prenatal care (for a baby who won't live) and the much costlier delivery and nicu charges (for a baby who won't live).

+100000

Maybe they can also spend their time fundraising for funeral costs of those poor babies who are incompatible with life, as well as the psychological services their parents might need after bringing a child into the world only to see her suffer and die.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you are disgusting.

Why? Because OP opposes abortion? That is not disgusting. It is actually more humane than those who support abortion.

Not that poster, but the disgust at the pro life position is that it reduces women to mere incubators instead of a human being who has legitimate concerns about being pregnant. Especially OP's stance that says a woman loses all her rights the second she's impregnated.

Seriously. It's only "more humane" if you don't consider women to be humans.

Guess the baby isn’t human either. I suppose it would simply grow into a chicken or something else worth sacrificing.

A baby is not a fetus, a fetus is not an embryo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you are disgusting.

Why? Because OP opposes abortion? That is not disgusting. It is actually more humane than those who support abortion.

Not that poster, but the disgust at the pro life position is that it reduces women to mere incubators instead of a human being who has legitimate concerns about being pregnant. Especially OP's stance that says a woman loses all her rights the second she's impregnated.

Seriously. It's only "more humane" if you don't consider women to be humans.

Guess the baby isn’t human either. I suppose it would simply grow into a chicken or something else worth sacrificing.

The difference is that the pro choice stance allows a woman to consider BOTH her rights and the fetus' rights, and make a decision (choice). The pro life side gives no rights to the woman at all.

How do you consider the baby's rights when it's life is being terminated?

The life hasn't been terminated when the woman is mulling over all her options, her values, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you are disgusting.

Why? Because OP opposes abortion? That is not disgusting. It is actually more humane than those who support abortion.

Not that poster, but the disgust at the pro life position is that it reduces women to mere incubators instead of a human being who has legitimate concerns about being pregnant. Especially OP's stance that says a woman loses all her rights the second she's impregnated.

Seriously. It's only "more humane" if you don't consider women to be humans.

Guess the baby isn’t human either. I suppose it would simply grow into a chicken or something else worth sacrificing.

The difference is that the pro choice stance allows a woman to consider BOTH her rights and the fetus' rights, and make a decision (choice). The pro life side gives no rights to the woman at all.

How do you consider the baby's rights when it's life is being terminated?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you are disgusting.

Why? Because OP opposes abortion? That is not disgusting. It is actually more humane than those who support abortion.

Not that poster, but the disgust at the pro life position is that it reduces women to mere incubators instead of a human being who has legitimate concerns about being pregnant. Especially OP's stance that says a woman loses all her rights the second she's impregnated.

Seriously. It's only "more humane" if you don't consider women to be humans.

Guess the baby isn’t human either. I suppose it would simply grow into a chicken or something else worth sacrificing.

The difference is that the pro choice stance allows a woman to consider BOTH her rights and the fetus' rights, and make a decision (choice). The pro life side gives no rights to the woman at all.

...and condemns a seriously disabled or unwanted baby to a life of hardship.