Why Abortion should never be Outlawed!! (an honest, personal eperience) TRUTH!!!!

[mpok1519]

Doctors are often wrong. I see stories every day from people who said "the doctors said i would never live! And look at me now!" or "The doctors told us he would be a vegetable...today he graduates high school!"

Thats great. Now have you ever read the stories of doctors telling the parents that their child will not be healthy, and will infact live in pain, suffering, misery and agony which words can only simply describe, but those words never bring to justice the actual feeling of said pain because its that excruciating, but the parents decided to give the child "a chance", in which the child did infact live, but by live I mean be literally a husk of a human where no feelings of happiness, joy, comfort existed, only raw, unadulterated suffering through torment, something no child should ever ever ever have to live through, eeking out every painful second by second until they are finally blessed with death so as to be released from the nightmare from which there was no waking up? Followed up by the pain of the family, who not only had to suffer through the death of a child, but also their own slow torment and agony in poverty because they couldn't afford the medical bills tacked onto keeping that child alive and suffering until God graced the child with a release from the pain?

Yeah, you don't read those stories do you?

And why would you? They depress the heck out of me.

We shouldn't terminate life based upon a scenario that MIGHT take place. We shouldn't abort babies based on the fact that they have a good chance of being criminal, we shouldn't kill babies that might have medical issues. This sort of thing is not allowed in our courts of law, where people don't get to second guess or make judgements based upon heresay or conjecture...we won't execute CRIMINALS on such flimsy stuff, why on earth should we execute babies?

A) since when was there ever a medical condition, or fact base din medical research that determines the probability that an unborn fetus will become a criminal?
B) we don't execute people because they're criminals. Everyone purports some crime in their lifetime and we don't execute them.
C) youre suggesting that if a child has absolutely zero chance of living a happy, healthy life, we should make it suffer through its own existence?

 

[ShaolinWarrior27]

Let me start off by saying I don't think that abortion is a human "right" or that it is a "privilege" for those who can afford it... and those that abuse the system to abort a perfectly healthy child just because it is going to derail their life plan are making a terrible decision that i hope one day they will be held responsible

HOWEVER.... please let me explain, through a recent personal experience, why I suddenly have what i feel is an objectively correct stance on the issue of abortion

first of all... my stance...

To argue that abortion should be made illegal for any reason (religous or non-religous), or to argue that abortion is a "sin" is completely foolish and obliviously ignorant to the facts of Life.

now.. my story....

About eight months ago, my Sister (who is 24 years old) was impregnated by her future husband to be (they were engaged at the time and are now happily married.) Everything was going smoothly for the first month and they were ecstatic to be having their first child. My sister has been in the child-care business her whole life, and she was thrilled that she was going to get the chance to raise a child of her own. About a month and a half into the pregnancy the first problems started to be seen by her Doctor. I don't remember the name of the disorder, but the fetus was failing to develop the main valve in it's heart. The doctor let her know that it was sitll early on and that there was a chance it was just not developing yet, but around the 2 month mark it was clear that the babie's heart was not developing properly. The doctors informed my sister that this is a life threatning disorder, because the brain of the fetus would not be able to develope without the proper circulation provided via the heart. The doctors informed her that when she gave birth to the child it would be likely that either

a) the child would already be dead from a lack of oxygen and circulation during the stages of developement
b) the child would be born alive but would die almost instantly
c) the child would have to be rushed into heart surgery immediately and the lack of oxygen supplied to the brain would have caused numerous mental and physical challenges for the remainder of the childs life

overall, they gave the child a 20% chance of being born alive, and a practically 0% chance of living a healthy life.

So my sister was forced to make a decision.

She made the decision that it was in the best interest of the child's well being as well as her own well being to have an abortion.

To this day she says it will forever be the hardest thing she has ever had to do.

To make matter's worse, because of all of the political debates surrounding the issue, the health insurance companies do not cover abortion as a necessary medical procedure. My sister had to get a $10,000 loan which she will be paying back for years (she is currently getting her masters degree and her loans are starting to pile up) in order to have the child aborted.

Now.... for all of you "abortion is the devils act" people, and all of you Rick Perry supporters...

What do you have to say for your argument?

Do you honestly believe that my Sister should have been forced to risk her life to give birth to a dead or dying child?

Do you honestly believe that her acts were a "sin"?

please, enlighten me.


*For the Record*

I was a christian until i was 12 years old, went to church every sunday and wednesday and had faith in the religion....

But i started to learn how to think for myself and decided a long time ago that christianity, like most religions, is a private business built to prey on the weak and the willing. Also, i believe that the objective occurrences related to religion all around the world (not just christianity) have spread much more harm than good.

I still believe in God, but not some God defined in a million different contradictions in ancient text.

We are mere animals, there is no reason why we should believe that we have the power to define God. To think otherwise is childish.

< staff edit > < staff edit >
If you have a good argument to rebuddle an honest and personal experience...

please, enlighten me.

Otherwise, stop fighting to outlaw abortion, because you are ignorant to the experiences of many like my Sister.

please, enlighten me.

For what it's worth, which probably isn't much, I think your sister made the right decision. I can't imagine how hard that must have been for her and her husband. I hope she's doing well. To me personally, it doesn't make any sense for a woman to risk her life for a fetus/baby that has a near guarantee of dying before or soon after birth. I don't know if she's a Christian, but I from what I've seen having spent my existence in the Christian subculture, we've put too much emphasis on unborn rights to life at the expense of the mother's right to life/well being. Pregnancy and childbirth are still extremely dangerous and it's all too easy to forget that in the 21st century West. Her choice wasn't a sin; it was common sense and the bravery to put her own life and the quality of the child's life ahead of the fetus'.
On the first page, I think, somebody made a reference that the "Christian" thing to do is sacrifice yourself for your fetus. I hope they were being sarcastic, but that seems to be the view many Christians hold - from personal experience. It's ridiculous!
As to losing your faith in religion, as a practicing Christian, I have to apologize. I'm not gunna pretend I understand exactly how you feel cuz that's impossible, but I can relate. I grew up in church and it's taken me a number of years to figure out Jesus has nothing to do with religion or the established church. The more I've thought and questioned everything I was told growing up, and even now from the general subculture, the more illogical and ludicrous I find most of it. Thanks for saying/admitting what most won't.

 

[mpok1519]

I was under the impression that we're supposed to minister to those people, not wipe them off the face of the earth.

One could contend that euthanasia is ministering to the sick and needy.

If one is in indescribale, insufferable pain and agony, every second of their life, for which there is no cure, treatment or relief, death is often the best choice. If one has absolutely zero happiness, and a hundredpercent pain, do you actually they should have to suffer through it?

One could call that torture. From what you're saying, it looks like you believe torture is valid.

 

[good brother]

You're suggesting that a baby born with absolutely zero chance of living a healthy comfortable life would say "Hey, please, I'd rather live a terrible, life devoid of any happiness, dignity, comfort, joy, etc. I want to live in pain, and suffering for as long as possible, costing my mother financial ruin and the exact same pain and suffering after I inevitabely die anyway!"?

Have some common sense, will ya? Please.

Life difficult? Try insufferably impossible and miserable. Difficult is an understatement. You obviously don't know anything about true pain.

If you were in the position of pain, agony, suffering and constant non-stop misery, you'd want to die too. And don't say you wouldn't. You would. Unless you are inhuman.

You really have no idea of how happy some people can be even though they are in pain or severely handicapped. I have had the privilege to work with a group of people who some have severe handicaps (mentally and physically) and they are far more happy than you or I are on a day to day basis. They understand the things to take pleasure in instead of being distracted like you and I are by meaningless things. When they sing to Jesus, THEY REALLY SING!

You would be good off to spend some time with the people who you think wouldn't want to live. I think you'll find they are happier than you think.


In Christ, GB

 

[mpok1519]

I'm not saying all handicaps are impossible to live with.

Some are, however. Because the pain is unbearable.

 

[Ar Cosc]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that all pregnancies pose a risk to the mother. My girlfriend's mum nearly bled out giving birth to her third child, with no prior indication that anything might go wrong.

 

[SithDoughnut]

You would be good off to spend some time with the people who you think wouldn't want to live. I think you'll find they are happier than you think

You'll also find that a lot of them are not. Most of the push for the legalisation of euthanasia comes from those who want it, or know they will. Some people don't want it, and that their right and their choice.

That's the point of the whole argument, in the end. Abortion is a tricky subject because two lives are involved, but euthanasia only involves one. It's simple really: do we give people control over their own lives or not? There are plenty of people who want to die, and plenty who don't. There are people who think they want it but then change their mind. I support all of these people and all of their decisions, because no one else has the right to tell them to live or die.

Terry Pratchett and the BBC did a brilliant documentary which is available on Vimeo, although I'm not sure for how long. A warning, though: it features an actual case of euthanasia happening in real(ish) time. It's near the end, though, and there's plenty of warning so the rest of the documentary is fine to watch.

 

[AllieBaba2012]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that all pregnancies pose a risk to the mother. My girlfriend's mum nearly bled out giving birth to her third child, with no prior indication that anything might go wrong.

This is absolutely true.

Abortion poses the same risk.

 

[AllieBaba2012]

You'll also find that a lot of them are not. Most of the push for the legalisation of euthanasia comes from those who want it, or know they will. Some people don't want it, and that their right and their choice.

That's the point of the whole argument, in the end. Abortion is a tricky subject because two lives are involved, but euthanasia only involves one. It's simple really: do we give people control over their own lives or not? There are plenty of people who want to die, and plenty who don't. There are people who think they want it but then change their mind. I support all of these people and all of their decisions, because no one else has the right to tell them to live or die.

Terry Pratchett and the BBC did a brilliant documentary which is available on Vimeo, although I'm not sure for how long. A warning, though: it features an actual case of euthanasia happening in real(ish) time. It's near the end, though, and there's plenty of warning so the rest of the documentary is fine to watch.

No. There is assisted suicide, and then there's euthanasia. Two different things. Sort of.

People should not support legalized death when they don't even know what they are supporting. The people who want it to be legal will LIE to you to get your support. Be discerning and educate yourself.

Nobody has the right to tell someone to live or die. Nobody has the right to take another's life, either. Regardless of whether that person asks for it or not.

 

[AllieBaba2012]

I'm not saying all handicaps are impossible to live with.

Some are, however. Because the pain is unbearable.

then push for better pain management.

Death is not the only alternative to pain.

Keep in mind, there's a difference between EUTHANASIA and ceasing treatment that maintains life. And doctors already provide patients with the means to commit suicide on their own on a regular basis. Morphine drips that are controlled by the patient, drugs that are provided to the patient that are lethal if the patient over doses or takes with alcohol....

That is NOT euthanasia. Euthanasia is a doctor or loved one actually KILLING a person who would not die otherwise, and who will not kill themselves...either because they can't or because they don't want to. It is choosing to kill a person for convenience sake.

 

[AllieBaba2012]

I really, really doubt that's how it works in the Netherlands. Could you support that with any sources other than this slanted "national right to live" site?


... the criminals

I generally agree. Although it should be possible to choose a dignfied death for yourself over slow, painful process of fading away.

It is possible to choose a dignified death for yourself, and it doesn't involve requiring somebody else to kill you. But sometimes DEATH ISN'T DIGNIFIED. Killing off people doesn't change that. Kevorkian's methods were NOT dignified and involved dropping a terminally ill woman 2x, once on the sidewalk, and once in the house, as she was on her way to her "dignified" death.

I provided more than one link, but here you go:

Dutch Hospital Euthanizing Gravely Ill Babies - U.S. &amp; World - FOXNews.com

"As things are, people are doing this secretly and that's wrong," said Eduard Verhagen, head of Groningen's children's clinic. "In the Netherlands we want to expose everything, to let everything be subjected to vetting."
According to the Justice Ministry, four cases of child euthanasia were reported to prosecutors in 2003. Two were reported in 2002, seven in 2001 and five in 2000. All the cases in 2003 were reported by Groningen, but some of the cases in other years were from other hospitals. "

"There have been several professional studies conducted into Dutch euthanasia practice. Most have reported that approximately 2,700 deaths are caused each year in the Netherlands by either euthanasia or assisted suicide&#8212;approximately 3 percent of all Dutch deaths. Proponents claim this relatively low figure rebuts opponent's fears that euthanasia will become a relatively routine event. Opponents counter that this figure is horrifying: if the same percentage of Americans died with the direct assistance of doctors, it would amount to approximately sixty-eight thousand annual deaths, more than tripling the U.S. suicide rate.
Opponents also claim that the number of people actually killed by Dutch doctors is significantly understated in these studies. They note that the term "euthanasia" is very narrowly defined by the Dutch government, with the effect if not the design of undercounting the actual number of euthanasia deaths. If a doctor kills a patient with barbiturates and a curare-like poison at the patient's request, the Dutch classify the death as "euthanasia." However, if the patient is killed by an intentional overdose of morphine administered with the primary intention of ending the patient's life, it is not considered euthanasia because morphine is a palliative agent. Yet, intentional morphine overdoses may exceed "euthanasia" deaths. In 1990, according to a Dutch government report, 8,100 patients died through the intentional morphine-overdose method of mercy killing. A latter study found that about 1,500 die annually through the intentional morphine-overdose method of killing. Whatever the actual annual figure, if intentional morphine-overdose deaths are counted as euthanasia, the statistical mercy killing rate in the Netherlands significantly exceeds the published statistics.​

"
Another disturbing statistic that is found consistently in studies into Dutch euthanasia practices demonstrates to opponents the ultimate danger of euthanasia: approximately one thousand Dutch patients are euthanized each year by their doctors "without request or consent," in other words, involuntary or nonvoluntary euthanasia. Since euthanasia is only supposed to be allowed for people who consistently ask to be killed, the fact of involuntary killing demonstrates the unworkability of guidelines. Proponents counter that the number, while too high, has been relatively constant over several years, thus belying fears of the slippery slope.
Pediatric euthanasia has also become a part of Dutch euthanasia practice. Opponents point with alarm to a 1997 study published in the British medical journal The Lancet indicating that about 8 percent of all infants who die in the Netherlands are euthanized&#8212;approximately 80 per year. Pediatric euthanasia, they claim, is a human rights abuse and a proof that guidelines do not protect vulnerable patients."​

"
In 1999 the Dutch government announced its intention to formally legalize euthanasia. As with anything having to do with euthanasia, the announcement was extremely controversial: the proposed law would permit the euthanasia of children as young as twelve at the request of the child, even if the parents object.​

Read more: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - Euthanasia In The Netherlands - Dutch, Patient, Deaths, Guidelines, Opponents, and Suffering http://law.jrank.org/pages/1100/Eut...-Euthanasia-in-Netherlands.html#ixzz1Wc9A2CYs

And here is a collection of studies (very good site):

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:12907005​

 

[SithDoughnut]

No. There is assisted suicide, and then there's euthanasia. Two different things. Sort of.

Depends on where you live. Sometimes they count as different things, sometimes they don't. Generally they're grouped together, and as such they are usually treated as part of the same group.

People should not support legalized death when they don't even know what they are supporting. The people who want it to be legal will LIE to you to get your support. Be discerning and educate yourself.

I have. I'm one of the people you're accusing of lying. Assisted suicide shouldn't be an issue, and I don't understand how someone can feel comfortable condemning people to suffer unwillingly. The other stuff is a bigger issue, and one that needs more study. Assisted suicide needs to come first, then we'd have a better opportunity to study and debate anything further.

Nobody has the right to tell someone to live or die. Nobody has the right to take another's life, either. Regardless of whether that person asks for it or not.

So removing people from life support is always wrong? The whole "Do Not Resuscitate" thing done regularly in hospitals should be banned? As far as I can tell, you're arguing that we keep people on life support indefinitely (and that is possible in quite a lot of cases) because no one has the right to take it away, as that would be directly causing the death of the patient.

 

[Ar Cosc]

This makes sense though. What if you're a twelve year old with an incurable condition that causes you horrific pain, near-total paralysis, and will eventually kill you? Your parents are ultra-religious, and would never give consent to euthanise you, but your life is completely unbearable. They shouldn't have the right to keep their child in such suffering when the child wants out.

And when a person is unconscious, or brain dead, their family should be free to choose for them to die, instead of pumping money into keeping their heart beating, and not much more.

The descriptions in your article look horrifying at first glance, but when you examine them more closely, they are far more sensible and humane than was initially made out.

 

[AllieBaba2012]

Euthanasia has nothing to do with genetics. If you're going to level false accusations the least you could do is stick to the realm of the logically possible.

When it's INVOLUNTARY "euthanasia" being used for defective babies, yes, it's eugenics.

I read the article. It claims "study after study" and then doesn't even name them, let alone quote them, cite them or give any reason why their position should be considered true. Nor do they give any details as to why this happened. Turning off life support is a type of involuntary euthanasia which is accepted worldwide, and these "involuntary killings" sound suspiciously like that, considering the only detail given is that these patients are practically dead.

Turning off life support is ceasing treatment, and is not the same as euthanasia.


Of course we do. Euthanasia doesn't work like that, however. It's not a quick or easy option.

It's about making things easier, that's all it's about.

Almost. In the Netherlands, the option is there, if the person is in a state of incurable suffering, they show a persistent desire for euthanasia free of external influences, they fully and completely understand the consequences of their action and multiple doctors agree that the patient fulfils the former three criteria. Then, and only then, is euthanasia an option. Not a guaranteed process, but an option.

Wrong. In the netherlands involuntary euthanasia is COMMON, particularly among babies. But they've also gotten rapped for knocking off demntia patients, the mentally ill, and depressed underaged children.

Even then, this process merely means that doctors will not be prosecuted. It's neither encouraged nor supported by the law.

You say you understand euthanasia and then demonstrate that you don't. I'd advise you move beyond the right to life groups and look at the actual situation, rather than the opinions of those who have no respect for the suffering.

Yawn.

It's not remotely close to murder. The only reason you'd even try to make that comparison is for a baseless emotional argument.


Of course it's murder, particularly when it operates even outside the liberal euthanasia laws of Netherlands, which many, many doctors in study after study admit to doing. Which you would know if you researched the topic or any of the studies.

Where in the Bible does it say you're supposed to force Christian values upon everyone else? And where is killing being advocated? Euthanasia is not encouraged, just provided as a final option for those who don't want to suffer any longer. Contrary to whatever leaps to conclusions you've made, we who support euthanasia as an option are not going to start running around old people's homes killing the inhabitants. Last time I checked, God gave humanity free-will; it's interesting how many people want to try to take that away.

So standing against murder is a Christian-only value?

And refusing to kill people is "forcing" Christianity upon people?

Lol..I suggest you look up the meaning of "force".

And people do have free will...which is why doctors are slaughtering people without their permission. If killing somebody who is incapable of making a choice isn't denying them free will, I don't know what is.

Tepid argument for killing off people you think should hurry up and die, btw. If you're going to take the smug road, you might want to brush up on your research, and provide some back up to your vapidity.

 

[SithDoughnut]

When it's INVOLUNTARY "euthanasia" being used for defective babies, yes, it's eugenics.

No, no it's not. I'm not sure what you think eugenics is but it's specifically aimed at "improving" (by whatever standards are named) the genetics of a population. Euthanasia has nothing to do with genetics, it's about ending suffering.

Turning off life support is ceasing treatment, and is not the same as euthanasia.

Is it? Both end a life. Turning off life support is causing the death of a person, quite possibly involuntarily.

It's about making things easier, that's all it's about.

Yes, but not in the way you're thinking. It's about making things easier for the patient. A slow and painful death does not have to be the only option, sometimes it's easier for them to speed up the process. Note that this isn't killing otherwise healthy people, it's about ending suffering.

Wrong. In the netherlands involuntary euthanasia is COMMON, particularly among babies. But they've also gotten rapped for knocking off demntia patients, the mentally ill, and depressed underaged children.

It's not common. Don't even begin to start spreading that sort of nonsense. I'll agree, however, that the Dutch system is on the more extreme end of things. I don't see how this is an issue for euthanasia in general though. The Dutch system is not the only method.

Of course it's murder, particularly when it operates even outside the liberal euthanasia laws of Netherlands, which many, many doctors in study after study admit to doing. Which you would know if you researched the topic or any of the studies.

No it's not. Why do you insist on using words in places that make no sense? It's not murder unless it is illegal. It is quite possible that some of the killings are murder, for which the doctors should be prosecuted.

So standing against murder is a Christian-only value?

And refusing to kill people is "forcing" Christianity upon people?

It's not about refusing to kill people. It's about forcing people to suffer who don't want to suffer. It's about forcing life upon those who do not want it. If you don't want to kill or die, fine, just don't tell the man dying in pain that he has to see it through to the horrific, undignified end. At least give him the choice of an escape.

Lol..I suggest you look up the meaning of "force".

Force

18.to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something: to force a suspect to confess.
19.to drive or propel against resistance: He forced his way through the crowd. They forced air into his lungs.
20.to bring about or effect by force.
21.to bring about of necessity or as a necessary result: to force a smile.
22.to put or impose (something or someone) forcibly on or upon a person: to force one's opinions on others.

Now, in what way is banning voluntary euthanasia not forcing people to continue living and suffering when they don't want to?

And people do have free will...which is why doctors are slaughtering people without their permission. If killing somebody who is incapable of making a choice isn't denying them free will, I don't know what is.

If they can't make a choice, what aspect free will is being denied?

Tepid argument for killing off people you think should hurry up and die, btw.

If you're just going to lie then there's really no point in continuing. The least you could do is be polite, instead of trying to demonise me. People should be able to die when they want to. That's my position, and you know it is, because I've repeatedly stated it.

If you're going to take the smug road, you might want to brush up on your research, and provide some back up to your vapidity.

Perhaps you want to brush up on your arguments. You follow all of the standard fallacies - you mis-define words such as murder and eugenics to give more emotional impact to your points, even though they are incorrrect; you point to one case (the dutch - which I'm not sure if I agree with) and use that as a strawman to attack the concept of euthanasia in general; you make unfounded assumptions about the people who would die from euthanasia and you purposefully mis-interpret what I say and lie about my position.

I'm not taking the smug road. I'm taking the road that I think will help those who are suffering and want to end it. If people don't want to end it then it doesn't matter - no one will kill them. Involuntary euthanasia is an issue that still needs to be looked at (so stop trying to provide "counter-arguments" for a point I haven't made), but there is no rational reason why voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide shouldn't be legal.

 

[99percentatheism]

Oh stop, of course she had a choice! The "good" and "Christianly" thing to do is to martyr yourself for your fetus.

You mean like Jesus did?

 

[Autumnleaf]

Young woman gets pregnant from 'some guy' and she doesn't think she wants to commit to raising 'some guy's' kid so she gets an abortion...

Hey, that is just plain irresponsible and a very poor reason to kill someone.

But, what if she has an incurable illness or would die if she gave birth or what if the baby had something wrong with it? Well, what do you think about that?

Er, ah I guess.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Also, someone earlier mentioned that people who genuinely want to die can just kill themselves, and have no need for euthanasia. Well, even setting aside those people who are too ill or weak to do the deed themselves, killing yourself is not an exact science, especially in a considerate way. If I was ever going to do myself in, I'd want to do it in such a way that ensures I don't live through it in even worse agony than before, like destroying my insides with an attempted drug overdose, or paralyzing myself with a botched hanging. Jumping in front of a train or bus is out, think of the poor driver. Jumping from a tall building? What if I hit someone? And somebody has to clean up the mess. If I'm ever in the position of wanting to end it all, for whatever reason, and it is a possibility if I'm very sick and in pain, with little chance of recovery, I want it done by a professional, who knows what drugs to use, and in the right quantities, and who can make it quick, peaceful, and as painless as possible.

 

[99percentatheism]

Let me start off by saying I don't think that abortion is a human "right" or that it is a "privilege" for those who can afford it... and those that abuse the system to abort a perfectly healthy child just because it is going to derail their life plan are making a terrible decision that i hope one day they will be held responsible

HOWEVER.... please let me explain, through a recent personal experience, why I suddenly have what i feel is an objectively correct stance on the issue of abortion

first of all... my stance...

To argue that abortion should be made illegal for any reason (religous or non-religous), or to argue that abortion is a "sin" is completely foolish and obliviously ignorant to the facts of Life.

now.. my story....

About eight months ago, my Sister (who is 24 years old) was impregnated by her future husband to be (they were engaged at the time and are now happily married.) Everything was going smoothly for the first month and they were ecstatic to be having their first child. My sister has been in the child-care business her whole life, and she was thrilled that she was going to get the chance to raise a child of her own. About a month and a half into the pregnancy the first problems started to be seen by her Doctor. I don't remember the name of the disorder, but the fetus was failing to develop the main valve in it's heart. The doctor let her know that it was sitll early on and that there was a chance it was just not developing yet, but around the 2 month mark it was clear that the babie's heart was not developing properly. The doctors informed my sister that this is a life threatning disorder, because the brain of the fetus would not be able to develope without the proper circulation provided via the heart. The doctors informed her that when she gave birth to the child it would be likely that either

a) the child would already be dead from a lack of oxygen and circulation during the stages of developement
b) the child would be born alive but would die almost instantly
c) the child would have to be rushed into heart surgery immediately and the lack of oxygen supplied to the brain would have caused numerous mental and physical challenges for the remainder of the childs life

overall, they gave the child a 20% chance of being born alive, and a practically 0% chance of living a healthy life.

So my sister was forced to make a decision.

She made the decision that it was in the best interest of the child's well being as well as her own well being to have an abortion.

To this day she says it will forever be the hardest thing she has ever had to do.

To make matter's worse, because of all of the political debates surrounding the issue, the health insurance companies do not cover abortion as a necessary medical procedure. My sister had to get a $10,000 loan which she will be paying back for years (she is currently getting her masters degree and her loans are starting to pile up) in order to have the child aborted.

Now.... for all of you "abortion is the devils act" people, and all of you Rick Perry supporters...

What do you have to say for your argument?

I'm not a Perry supporter, what ever that insult is supposed to mean, but . . .

Let me start off by saying I don't think that abortion is a human "right" or that it is a "privilege" for those who can afford it... and those that abuse the system to abort a perfectly healthy child just because it is going to derail their life plan are making a terrible decision that i hope one day they will be held responsible

So, it's OK to kill a sick child if he or she is going to derail your life plan.

Interesting set of ethics. The sick are not worth anything. Only the well.

Got it.

Do you honestly believe that my Sister should have been forced to risk her life to give birth to a dead or dying child?

You never presenteed a life threatening situation for your sister. The life threattening was from your sister and her doctor towards the sick child to be born.

Do you honestly believe that her acts were a "sin"?

Not with her ethics. no. People that believe in abortion have no thoughts about sin do they?

please, enlighten me.

Do you feel the sick are worthless? Actually, it appears you do from your story.

*For the Record*

I was a christian until i was 12 years old, went to church every sunday and wednesday and had faith in the religion....

Blahblahblah. More proof of the freedom of Christianity.

But i started to learn how to think for myself and decided a long time ago that christianity, like most religions, is a private business built to prey on the weak and the willing. Also, i believe that the objective occurrences related to religion all around the world (not just christianity) have spread much more harm than good.

Opinions are like . . .

I still believe in God, but not some God defined in a million different contradictions in ancient text.

You believe in a god that only values healthy good looking people. Hollywood god. The most practiced religion of all time. Contradictions you put into writing quite well reading your storyline.

We are mere animals, there is no reason why we should believe that we have the power to define God. To think otherwise is childish.

You just described a scenario where your sister and a doctor defined god as their own needs.

< staff edit > < staff edit >
If you have a good argument to rebuddle an honest and personal experience...

please, enlighten me.

Otherwise, stop fighting to outlaw abortion, because you are ignorant to the experiences of many like my Sister.

please, enlighten me.

"Let me start off by saying I don't think that abortion is a human "right" or that it is a "privilege" for those who can afford it... and those that abuse the system to abort a perfectly healthy child just because it is going to derail their life plan are making a terrible decision that i hope one day they will be held responsible." - MyrokRolles

By what? Held responsible how? Hollywood god loves only attractive healthy babies that will grow up to be hot looking healthy young people who have lots of affairs with other attractive healthy babies that were allowed to get all grown up. Of course there is the nastiness of aging that makes the process a bit sticky, but, I'm sure Ageicide will be legalized soon. I'm mean it already is in some secular nations huh.

Enlighten me now.

Has a human ever had a fetus within HER that was not a human being that was birthed from her (including via caesarean)? Please use scientiifc facts and not some mythology OK?

 

[Ar Cosc]

Wow, the strawmen in that post must constitute a fire hazard!