I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

eletheia

libertytoall

RealWoman

charles1952
reply to post by RealWoman

 

Dear RealWoman,

No, women are not idiots and they know what's best for their lives. And thousands of times a day, what's best is abortion.

But do they know what is best for their children? Apparently not, thousands of times a day.
_javascript:icon('

')
With respect,
Charles1952

I don't even know how to respond to such patriarchal nonsense. Yes, women do know what's best for their children. That's one of the reasons women DO have abortions.

Death is what's best for a child? You're a serial killer.. I honestly can't imagine people like you actually exist. You've shown me today the world is in much worse a state than I previously thought. Disgraceful.. All abortion advocates and planned parenthood should be charged with murder for each innocent child they've murdered. It's indefensible the horrific and evil nature of people who support the killing of babies out of inconvenience.. You read about people like this when they leave babies in dumpsters because it's too much work.

I would love to see a law that requires a name to be given to a child as soon as a person finds out they're pregnant. That way when you go to get an abortion the doctor can ask you to say goodbye to Chris or they might say Jennifer is no longer alive and you're free to go.

edit on 16-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Perhaps if they had, had an abortion when the foetus was still a 'potential baby' there

would have been no need to put the 'real baby' in a dumpster?

How do you figure a fetus is a potential baby vs a real baby?? It's growing therefore it's alive and it's human DNA therefore it's a living human. The fact that you see a difference where one action is acceptable and one isn't when killing a baby in the womb or later in a dumpster simply shows the warped mentality the pro abortion crowd believes in. It doesn't matter at what age you kill a living human it's all unacceptable and criminal. If I were president I would release all nonviolent criminals and imprison anyone who uses abortion as birth control. There's no reason your life can't be inconvenienced for nine months for a healthy child to be provided life and liberty while offering a family with a gift they can't provide themselves. You are a selfish person to think otherwise.

reply to post by libertytoall

There's no reason your life can't be inconvenienced for nine months for a healthy child to be provided life and liberty while offering a family with a gift they can't provide themselves. You are a selfish person to think otherwise.

And, you're a fascist.

Would you outlaw the pill, IUDs and other abortionificiants too?

WHAT OTHER CHOICE DO WE HAVE?
Will someone answer this. My goodness, You all yap on that abortion is so wrong. But you fail to see there will be millions upon millions of orphans and people are not that generous that they would give all these kids a home.

It simply wouldn't happen.

You have to remember we are living in the age where people have multiple partners before marriage or indeed as many partners as they feel like having, so accidents are happening constantly weather we like it or not.

reply to post by libertytoall




A foetus is a 'potential baby' due to the fact that it is totally unable to survive without
the host/mother for up to 24 weeks of development. It is only growing and developing due to the
beneficence of the mother/host.

Life's not fair ... but who are you to volunteer every fertile female to fill the empty nest's of less fortunate women. The adoption system may not be perfect. but there are still a lot of children
out there needing adopting.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles1952,

In response to your last question. Yes, well it all comes down to personal responsibility and honor from both. When I was young and prowling, if I believed every guy who said he "loved me" just to seduce me, that would have been stupid.

eletheia
reply to post by libertytoall

 

A foetus is a 'potential baby' due to the fact that it is totally unable to survive without
the host/mother for up to 24 weeks of development. It is only growing and developing due to the
beneficence of the mother/host.

My two year old can't survive without myself or my wife feeding her and providing for her. Do you think a two year old should be allowed to be killed? Your argument is invalid..

libertytoall

eletheia
reply to post by libertytoall

 

A foetus is a 'potential baby' due to the fact that it is totally unable to survive without
the host/mother for up to 24 weeks of development. It is only growing and developing due to the
beneficence of the mother/host.

My two year old can't survive without myself or my wife feeding her and providing for her. Do you think a two year old should be allowed to be killed? Your argument is invalid..

edit on 16-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

# Your two year old can survive without you and your wife.

# Your one day old can survive without you or your wife

# your premature baby (24 weeks plus) gestation can survive without you or your wife

# But a foetus under 24 weeks WILL NOT SURVIVE with or without you or your wife


Your argument is invalid ... Think about it !!

There are orphanages through out the world full of unwanted children from one day old onwards!

libertytoall

eletheia
reply to post by libertytoall

 

A foetus is a 'potential baby' due to the fact that it is totally unable to survive without
the host/mother for up to 24 weeks of development. It is only growing and developing due to the
beneficence of the mother/host.

My two year old can't survive without myself or my wife feeding her and providing for her. Do you think a two year old should be allowed to be killed? Your argument is invalid..

edit on 16-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Your comparison makes no sense. Your child can survive without the mother. Others *could* take care of it after birth. No one else but the host can feed the potential human.

eletheia

libertytoall

eletheia
reply to post by libertytoall

 

# Your two year old can survive without you and your wife.

# Your one day old can survive without you or your wife

# your premature baby (24 weeks plus) gestation can survive without you or your wife

# But a foetus under 24 weeks WILL NOT SURVIVE with or without you or your wife


Your argument is invalid ... Think about it !!

There are orphanages through out the world full of unwanted children from one day old onwards!

edit on 16-9-2013 by eletheia because: (no reason given)

A two year old can not survive without an adult caring for them, feeding them, keeping them warm and safe. You're suggesting you could leave a two year old alone and it wouldn't die. If that were the case why are there laws against doing such a thing?? BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SURVIVE WITHOUT AN ADULT.. Hopefully you're just trolling..

RealWoman

libertytoall

eletheia
reply to post by libertytoall

 

A foetus is a 'potential baby' due to the fact that it is totally unable to survive without
the host/mother for up to 24 weeks of development. It is only growing and developing due to the
beneficence of the mother/host.

My two year old can't survive without myself or my wife feeding her and providing for her. Do you think a two year old should be allowed to be killed? Your argument is invalid..

edit on 16-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Your comparison makes no sense. Your child can survive without the mother. Others *could* take care of it after birth. No one else but the host can feed the potential human.

It makes perfect sense.. Sure, "others could take care of the baby" but that's not what we're discussing. It was stated previously by another poster that a baby is not a really a baby while it is reliant on it's host. (mother) Well a two year old is just as reliant as a foetus. Should we call all two year olds potential adults and disregard their right to life since they are reliant as well??

reply to post by libertytoall


Anybody can take care of a baby, but only one person can carry a "potential person" to personhood! But maybe someday things will be different.
Making Abortion Obsolete

luciddream
reply to post by RealWoman

 

Why should males even have a voice? As a woman, I do not want a male telling me what to do with my reproductive organs. Not my husband, not my father, not my brother, not my sons and certainly not strangers.

Ok agree.

Then you should also agree if the baby is born(because the mother wanted) but father did not want it. Why is the father dragged into this?

Both decided to have intercourse.

Why is one person's right(mother), affect another(Father)? why aren't these "oppressed mothers" speaking against double standard the law has? oh wait, free money.

Because Males do not want law telling them that they have to pay for the next 18 yrs because the mother decided to carry part of the male's organs.

Blame it all on the woman. Once again, the male has NO accountability. There is NO double standard. The father has every right to seek custody, demand visitation or better yet co-parent 50/50 and not pay ANY child support. The male doesn't want to be a parent at all? Guess he should have thought about that a little harder.

What are you saying free money for?

Do you realise how many men already avoid their responsibilities?

How many men try to persuade a woman to have an abortion? Many successfully and others not.

For goodness sakes its disgusting that you would think a woman would look after a child 24/7 for the rest of its 18yrs and beyond just for money. Yes, if he is rich I see your point but fact is most men aren't that. And most men who have one whom he has abandoned will have more so that money will be divided anyway. Really not worth having a kid for a few $$.

Most men I know can leave their kid and pay a pittance, pennies , pounds per week.

So pull the other one!

I am sure some women do have abortions when the man doesn't want to but the truth of the matter is as others have said the baby is literally TIED to her being. Tied to her body . There is no way that unless she wants it to be born that its going to be born.

Many years ago women used to see backstreet abortionists. They may have had 9 kids and didn't/couldn't care for another one. It was more dangerous then. But it goes to show the lenghs they would go to.

reply to post by libertytoall





If anyone Is trolling ... take a look in the mirror.


The world is full of adults who can and will look after babies/children who need it
There are agencies specifically for this purpose
There are 'foster parents' for this purpose
There are social services
There are couples desperate to adopt


I think I have made myself clear and you are being deliberately obtuse

reply to post by libertytoall





IF a foetus could be looked after and nourished by anyone other than

the host/mother then it would be no more reliant than a two year old.


But we all know that is NOT possible

I have been in 3rd or what I call 2nd world countries where I have seen 6 and 7 year olds taking care of their 1 or 2 year old brother or sister many times the mother had simply abandoned them but sometimes the mother had died for one reason or another. What a wonderful life.....

Anyway point is it isn't even true that a 2 year old is dependent on an adult they are just dependent on someone, anyone.

I would like to sincerely thank those of you who sympathized with Katie's tragedy.

To the rest of you, would you be so kind as to prepare a note to her? I'll print it out. It should say something like "You shouldn't be sorry, you only lost a mass of cells or a potential life. Nothing to worry about. You only thought it was a baby. We are here to tell you that what you lost by accident, we kill by the thousands every day. See? It's no big deal."

To help you personalize it, had the baby been born a boy, it would have been named Josiah Phillip. Had it been a girl, they hadn't decided, but "Miracle" was in the lead.

If you can't tell evil from good, what good are you?

I've got to leave again.

reply to post by charles1952



Charles...

Whilst I did, and do sympathise with Katie and her family. Along with myself there will
be others here on this thread who have suffered too in similar and other ways.

I am disappointed in you using this thread to high light some ones pain when there is
absolutely no connection between a desired pregnancy and an abortion.

If you think I feel guilty for my views - I don't.

There is no connection with this thread concerning abortion and what happened to Katie.
What happened to Katie was as I have been told before natures way (or maybe in your case
Gods will?) when things are not viable, and that would figure, as most expectant parents keep
their fingers crossed and don't announce the 'happy event' till after the first 3 months.

One persons pain, however tragic will not change anything ... and again much as I sympathise
with Katie she will not be alone as this will be happening to many others on a daily basis.

Of course it can't be discussed logically people bring in religion (which has nothing to do with logic).

eletheia
reply to post by charles1952

 

One persons pain, however tragic will not change anything ... and again much as I sympathise
with Katie she will not be alone as this will be happening to many others on a daily basis.

I agree.

The National Institutes of Health report that "around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.

en.wikipedia.org...

Half of all fertilized eggs?? That's a lot of dead "babies" that you can't blame on abortion. Who do you get mad at about that?