Abortion Discussion - spilt from Green Energy Thread

Rick wrote:

homeagain wrote:
I have stated that M.E. DOES NOT have the same set of ethics,that they r tribal and WILL DO ANYTHING TO FURTHER THEIR AGENDA

I and t think you need to step back and look at the party you vote for. Your party is ok with killing fully formed human beings at 9 months (see Colorado abortion law)hey are certainly ok with intentionally raising energy costs which hurt the poorest among us. Democrats will do anything to further their agenda, which always leads to more suffering and death. Great ethics though.

THIS is the post that started the boulder down the mountain. The general thought process /argument is FLAWED....it is purposely phrased to incite ,enrage and convey an erroneous image. The PARTY THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS, IS IMPLEMENTING A PLATFORM OF VIOLENCE AND LIES.....wake up,watch the "whacked: rhetoric and WISE UP.

I'll start with your latest post first. Thank God that late term abortions are rare,
Evidently you think that there should be more late term abortions.

To the best of my knowledge there are is no data base on "instances of a woman who woke up in her 39th week and said, "you know what, I don't want this kid. I'm heading down to the abortionist and getting rid of this thing inside me."
If your intent was sarcasm, you fall woefully short of your goal.
" Come on, show me some women who have had an elective abortion at 39 weeks. Come on. I double dog dare you."
For the above comment I refer you to the "good doctor" Kermit Gosnell.
"A Philadelphia doctor was found guilty Monday of murdering three babies born alive in an abortion clinic, Fox News confirms. He was acquitted in the fourth baby's death, and found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the overdose death of an adult patient."

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, was convicted of first-degree murder and could face execution in the deaths of three babies who authorities say were delivered alive and then killed with scissors at his grimy clinic, in a case that became a flashpoint in the nation's debate over abortion.
On, by the way, one of the mothers died from an overdose of medication during the procedure. But I am sure you have no concern, in that abortion anytime is your mantra, (collateral damage is the phrase used when an innocent is injured.)
One can only surmise how many more of these murders he committed.

As to your earlier post: " I'm sure you see that as protecting a life, but in fact, you are requiring the woman who was raped to give up control of her body."

If you mean murdering a viable infant then, yes, that life should be protected. Here is the basic difference between us , I believe in the sanctity of life and you do not. You support abortion at anytime and deny that it is a life that is taken, with that kind of moral compass, God bless you.

ramage wrote: I'll start with your latest post first. Thank God that late term abortions are rare, Evidently you think that there should be more late term abortions.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

ramage wrote: To the best of my knowledge there are is no data base on "instances of a woman who woke up in her 39th week and said, "you know what, I don't want this kid. I'm heading down to the abortionist and getting rid of this thing inside me."
If your intent was sarcasm, you fall woefully short of your goal.

It was not sarcasm. The statement is valid. I doubt there are any women that want to have an abortion late in their pregnancy. Prove me wrong.

ramage wrote: " Come on, show me some women who have had an elective abortion at 39 weeks. Come on. I double dog dare you."
For the above comment I refer you to the "good doctor" Kermit Gosnell.
"A Philadelphia doctor was found guilty Monday of murdering three babies born alive in an abortion clinic, Fox News confirms. He was acquitted in the fourth baby's death, and found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the overdose death of an adult patient."

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, was convicted of first-degree murder and could face execution in the deaths of three babies who authorities say were delivered alive and then killed with scissors at his grimy clinic, in a case that became a flashpoint in the nation's debate over abortion.
On, by the way, one of the mothers died from an overdose of medication during the procedure. But I am sure you have no concern, in that abortion anytime is your mantra, (collateral damage is the phrase used when an innocent is injured.)
One can only surmise how many more of these murders he committed.

I'm glad he was charged and found guilty. That does not extrapolate to this being the rash of late term "murders" you, and other conservatives, are foaming at the mouth about.

ramage wrote: As to your earlier post: " I'm sure you see that as protecting a life, but in fact, you are requiring the woman who was raped to give up control of her body."

If you mean murdering a viable infant then, yes, that life should be protected. Here is the basic difference between us , I believe in the sanctity of life and you do not. You support abortion at anytime and deny that it is a life that is taken, with that kind of moral compass, God bless you.

From your words, I can see that you do not believe a woman has autonomy over her own body. With that kind of moral compass, you can take your god and stick it.

Your reply was expected. " you can take your god and stick it."

Attached is from USA TODAY, deal with how you may

If your idea of morality is to force a woman to have a child as a result of rape, then you have no morals.

Or empathy.


Your little chart still shows that it is a woman's choice. It is not your choice, it is not the father's choice, it is not a politician's choice, it is the choice of the woman, for whatever reasons are valid to her.

And it is none of your business.

In all of the bantering about abortion, including the stalwart posturing on morality by the anti-abortionists, I have as yet to hear ANYTHING about how to support all of these unwanted children after they are born to make them well-adjusted and productive members of society. I counselled a lot of kids for years--abused kids, poverty kids and even juvenile delinquents for St. Louis County Probation & Parole. I know one thing--there is nothing wrong with any kid that a new set of parents or friends wouldn't have fixed, and the kids' friends are under the control of parents. What kind of life will unwanted children have?

Another fact, is that almost all of the staunch anti-abortionists I meet don't want abortions to be legal, but sure haven't adopted rather than breed. The high horse morality card has no value when there is hypocrisy and short-sightedness as to the life AFTER birth. What's the short-term plan for making these children a valuable part of society? Isn't that the point of breeding in the first place? And don't tell me adoption. It's a long, expensive process that doesn't work and too many kids "age out" of orphanages with little emotional support or education because the system is ineffective, at best. And those potential adoptive parents, want babies, not older children.

And long term, The world cannot handle the continued over-population of mankind. The last figures I saw a few weeks ago by various environmental groups was that, between plants and animals, there are 1000 species A DAY going extinct directly as a result of the over-population of humanity. I'm sure your children and their children will be cursing your name when they are starving and can't breathe because of ego rather than intelligence.

Personally, I'm sick of hearing about the "immorality" of abortion with no long-term plan or morality applied to after the birth, and those who don't follow through by adopting instead of breeding. It just makes them hypocrites with no follow-through on their short-sighted posturing.

ramage wrote: Here is reality, less than 1% of abortions are because of rape or incest.
"Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Yet the battle over exceptions for both has garnered outsized attention in the national abortion debate."
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/...ttention/1211175001/

Apart from the historonics of the abortion anytime, anywhere supporters, let us not forget that it is a human being that is being denied life. The woman (99%) has invited a man into her temple (body) knowing that procreation can result. Which is the purpose of sexual intercourse, that it is an enjoyable experience is a side benefit.
A fetus with brain death is extremely rare, so as to rate a case report in the literature.
Evidently you base your arguments on outliers, but then again you are supportive of abortion at anytime in the pregnancy with no restrictions

LET'S BREAK THIS DOWN....1).did u look at the "tissue issue" under the microscope(my post) THAT IS THE REALITY.....and your statement denied life is dubious,at best 2)THE MAN has EQUAL responsibility of knowing procreation can result....WHERE R THE MALE B.C. PILLS? 3.)THE REAL raw question is.....will the man be a supportive figure to the child,will the man take the "hit" and pay child support or be the mate who co parents ALONGSIDE the birth mother? WHO TAKES THE FINANCIAL HIT FOR 18 YEARS TO GROW THIS CHILD TO BE AN ADULT? YOU,RICK OR ANY OTHER MAN WHO OPPOSES ABORTION.....INQUIRING MINDS WOULD LIKE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS.

GREENWOOD, Miss. (AP) — In Mississippi, where health officials expect 5,000 more births each year as a result of the Supreme Court ruling upending abortion rights, children are more likely to die before their first birthday than in any other state.

Mississippi has the nation’s highest fetal mortality rate, highest infant mortality rate, highest pre-term birth rate and is among the worst states for maternal mortality. Black women are nearly three times more likely to die due to childbirth than white women in Mississippi.

apnews.com/article/abortion-health-tate-...campaign=position_06

More births as a result of the Roe v. Wade ruling means more infant deaths.
Wow. Pro-birth, but not pro-infant.

Ladies, Carrie, Koobookie, HomeAgain, please tell your opinion as to when live begins. Though I note that HA has told us that life begins when the doctor and woman say it does. Is that your opinion, Carrie, Koobookie?
Please recognize, Koobookie that your citation is a projection not actual data. But I suppose that you are also of the persuasion that sea levels will rise, flood Forida, and Texas will be too hot to be livable.
HA I applaud your use of an almost complete sentence.
"THE REAL raw question is.....will the man be a supportive figure to the child,will the man take the "hit" and pay child support or be the mate who co parents ALONGSIDE the birth mother? WHO TAKES THE FINANCIAL HIT FOR 18 YEARS TO GROW THIS CHILD TO BE AN ADULT? YOU,RICK OR ANY OTHER MAN WHO OPPOSES ABORTION.....INQUIRING MINDS WOULD LIKE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS.y killing
Yes that is a real raw question, and it is a social/legal question that should not be answered by killing an innocent individual.
I would respond to this statement, ".1).did u look at the "tissue issue" under the microscope(my post) THAT IS THE REALITY.....and your statement denied life is dubious,at best." but I ask for help from our contributors as to what it means. I do not understand what you mean by the "tissue"issue" under the microscope.
Carrie, your argument is an economic one. As to adoption you disparage " breeding." i don't know whether you have children, nor do I want to. But if you have, do you consider them a product of "breeding"?

I knew from the time I was 17 and began as a psychology major that if I ever got to the point of wanting children, I would adopt. Those children did not have a choice of being born. When do I consider life to begin??--When it is viable on its own. I notice that you did not mention how many children you have, how many are adopted or how to care adequately for unwanted children. You point was economic of "oh, now I have to pay for my night of fun for 18 years!--Boo Hoo". Nor did you address any of the other issues I raised. I heard no answers at all, just economic platitudes and some ego. Care to address care and nurturing of unadopted and/or unwanted children to be productive citizens? Over-population? Sorry, but one of my majors was in logic and ethics. I don't hear any here.