But We Abort Them

[blackribbon]

Not to me. Could you please clarify in clear terms what your position on abortion is? It would allow others to have a meaningful discussion with you without having to make assumptions.

Your stance is as clear as mud. I have no idea of what you believe or what...

 

[drjean]

Most everyone's grandparents or g-grandparents were immigrants.

Citation?
I believe the "most" is way overrated.
And the point you are missing on this OT post is "legal". My great-grandparents x5 were LEGAL immigrants.

You have stated your lack of support for life, and we have all read it. Why not go to another thread now and state the same? It's sad that you stayed with a hateful group of "pro-lifers" because truly there are many who are loving caring Christians that want to help a woman through a terrible time in her life, and make the best of a bad situation. Murder is never an option.

If you have documentation to give, then please do so, but by making claims of riotous hate speech/yelling and shaming of women without such is, well, just unfounded or few and far between occurrences. I agree some are quite passionate and aren't trained, and I surmise that is what you ended up in, being untrained in a group of untrained people with opinions.

Dr Carson's comment was about how "we" call those who offered their children up to a false god as a sacrifice "heathen" but now we don't call it murderous action, just "abortion".

We save eagle's eggs. I suppose so many people have no purpose in life, have no hope and therefore believe life is not worth living, and therefore neither is someone else's...namely here, the precious unborn living baby.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Pro-life? people have scores of excuses to not actually help those in need.

As a social justice and political activist, I've witnessed a lot of lip service by many right wing Christians who claim to be pro-life over the years. I have seen these same Christians take little to no action in taking a political stand against abortion or barely any action whatsoever to help poor children and their poverty stricken family in need. Considering my 27 years experience involved in social justice and political activism, I happen to agree with the quote by Sister Jean Chittister in the meme.

 

[aiki]

I guess they both are about imaging a better life for everyone.
But it's not as if Pro-Life groups orchestrate adoptions.
"Too much work" I guess.

What does this have to do with the rightness or wrongness of abortion? Do you think homelessness is bad? If so, do you house homeless people in your home? If you don't, is homelessness good, then? Of course not.

 

[Northbrook]

I'm sure you've all reflected on the fact when a girl is "in trouble," she can only hide it for a few months, until she starts to "show." Now, in the old days, that was a shameful thing for an unmarried girl. But in America today, nobody cares anymore, anything goes! So I can't see why a girl/woman who gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby can't WAIT NINE MONTHS for the child to be born, so it can have life. It's nine months out of her life. That's not that long. And, as I said above, it's not a disgrace to be pregnant out of wedlock anymore. So what is stopping them from bringing the child to term? It's like a song from the 80's I recall, "A girl in trouble is a temporary thing." Only temporary!

 

[Albion]

No one is sacrificing anyone to Moloch. Moreover foetuses are not children.

If a child is fifteen minutes away from birth...and the abortionist holds part of his body inside the mother long enough for him to tear it apart with surgical instruments...

It IS Murder!

Yet not even prohibiting this monstrous act is acceptable to the liberals in the USA (which is why it is still legal).

 

[InterestedApologist]

Your stance is as clear as mud. I have no idea of what you believe or what...

My question was directed at SkyWriting. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[InterestedApologist]

No one is sacrificing anyone to Moloch. Moreover foetuses are not children.

On what do you base this? Do you have a Biblical, moral or scientific foundation for this claim?

 

[kiwimac]

If a child is fifteen minutes away from birth...and the abortionist holds part of his body inside the mother long enough for him to tear it apart with surgical instruments...

It IS Murder!

Yet not even prohibiting this monstrous act is acceptable to the liberals in the USA (which is why it is still legal).

Do you know how rare late-term abortions are? They are always medically-mandated and are performed on non-viable foetuses and no, it is not murder.

 

[kiwimac]

On what do you base this? Do you have a Biblical, moral or scientific foundation for this claim?

Can you prove they are? You lot made the claim, now back it up with proof.

 

[Albion]

Do you know how rare late-term abortions are?

Frequency does not determine whether or not the act is murder. There are relatively few murders committed in this country using chain saws, too, but when they do happen, they are not considered to be something other than murder.

 

[InterestedApologist]

Can you prove they are? You lot made the claim, now back it up with proof.

This is a complete dodge of the question. I am happy to share my views, but you made a declarative statement that fetus’ are not children. I simply asked what you base that on. Since you stated it as factual, surely you have some proof, or at least some evidence that you believe amounts to proof for your statement, right?

 

[InterestedApologist]

Do you know how rare late-term abortions are? They are always medically-mandated and are performed on non-viable foetuses and no, it is not murder.

A quick review of the laws indicate this to be a state by state matter and it does not necessarily agree with your claims.

 

[blackribbon]

My question was directed at SkyWriting. Sorry for the confusion.

I agree. I can't figure out what SkyWriting's stance on abortion is either.

 

[blackribbon]

A quick review of the laws indicate this to be a state by state matter and it does not necessarily agree with your claims.

Give me an example where a late term abortion could EVER be medically necessary. If the mother's life is in danger related to something like pre-eclampsia, then they induce birth or perform a c-section. Whether or not the baby lives depends on God and its gestation age. I can't think of any circumstance where a scheduled late term abortion would be better for the mother than an induced labor or a c-section. I take care of these mother as a primary role of my patient care lately. Every single one of my NICU patients over the last 2 years related to early birth to save a mother's life has lived to to be discharged. This includes little 26 week preemies. The process the mother goes through in a late-term abortion is exactly the same as giving birth to a live baby...and so is the recovery. And if a baby is accidentally born alive in a botched abortion, they call it fetal tissue and just let it die. I have issues with this because if a baby breathes even one breath, they are normally consider "alive" and need both a birth and death certificate.

 

[blackribbon]

Can you prove they are? You lot made the claim, now back it up with proof.

I can. I will take you on the tour of a NICU and show you that they are indeed human beings even if they have to finish their development on the outside of mom. I can also take you on a tour of the adult ICU and show you that "breathing alone" and able to exist without 24 hour care is not a requirement to be considered human. A beating heart, a functioning neurological system, and human DNA makes a human a person even if you take God and the spirit/soul out of the picture.

 

[kiwimac]

This is a complete dodge of the question. I am happy to share my views, but you made a declarative statement that fetus’ are not children. I simply asked what you base that on. Since you stated it as factual, surely you have some proof, or at least some evidence that you believe amounts to proof for your statement, right?

Children refers to a babe ex utero, while it is in utero it is a foetus .

 

[kiwimac]

Give me an example where a late term abortion could EVER be medically necessary. If the mother's life is in danger related to something like pre-eclampsia, then they induce birth or perform a c-section. Whether or not the baby lives depends on God and its gestation age. I can't think of any circumstance where a scheduled late term abortion would be better for the mother than an induced labor or a c-section. I take care of these mother as a primary role of my patient care lately. Every single one of my NICU patients over the last 2 years related to early birth to save a mother's life has lived to to be discharged. This includes little 26 week preemies. The process the mother goes through in a late-term abortion is exactly the same as giving birth to a live baby...and so is the recovery. And if a baby is accidentally born alive in a botched abortion, they call it fetal tissue and just let it die. I have issues with this because if a baby breathes even one breath, they are normally consider "alive" and need both a birth and death certificate.

Foetuses dead in the womb and foetuses suffering a number of mutations making them non-viable outside the womb.

 

[InterestedApologist]

Give me an example where a late term abortion could EVER be medically necessary. If the mother's life is in danger related to something like pre-eclampsia, then they induce birth or perform a c-section. Whether or not the baby lives depends on God and its gestation age. I can't think of any circumstance where a scheduled late term abortion would be better for the mother than an induced labor or a c-section. I take care of these mother as a primary role of my patient care lately. Every single one of my NICU patients over the last 2 years related to early birth to save a mother's life has lived to to be discharged. This includes little 26 week preemies. The process the mother goes through in a late-term abortion is exactly the same as giving birth to a live baby...and so is the recovery. And if a baby is accidentally born alive in a botched abortion, they call it fetal tissue and just let it die. I have issues with this because if a baby breathes even one breath, they are normally consider "alive" and need both a birth and death certificate.

I see precious few (if any) justifications for abortion at any term. Frankly, though, discussion on when abortions are performed has always felt like a distraction from the real issue, is it a human life or not? If so, it ought to have the chance to live. Late term abortion is horrible and widely seen as barbaric by most reasonable people, but the fact that the majority of abortions come down to convenience is almost as horrible, especially when birth control is freely and readily available in multiple forms. How are people still so irresponsible to get pregnant if they don’t want to?

 

[InterestedApologist]

Foetuses dead in the womb and foetuses suffering a number of mutations making them non-viable outside the womb.

This is curious...if a baby is non-viable, they usually don’t make it to full term. Removing a baby dead in the womb is not the same as an abortion. This is so rare a case as to be laughable as a reason for supporting abortion.