Interesting view on Abortion - Please Participate (FOR EVERY MEMBERS OF THE FORUM)

MooTipping · Oct 29, 2004

abortion itself is wrong (morally), but I am all pro-choice.

flicka · Oct 29, 2004

aimejl said:
abortion is wrong no matter the reason!

But even from a Christian standpoint you have to admit its a forgivable sin. Wrong dosen't mean it's not going to ever happen because wrong often dosen't factor into a decision made out of desperation.

apenman · Oct 29, 2004

Abortion is a violation of the law of Christ, however I don't see it as being an eternal sin, but it could contribute to landing one among the goats.

aimejl · Oct 29, 2004

flicka said:
But even from a Christian standpoint you have to admit its a forgivable sin. Wrong dosen't mean it's not going to ever happen because wrong often dosen't factor into a decision made out of desperation.

It is also a sick act.

kissybug27 · Oct 30, 2004

If I were pregnant as the result of a rape - my wanting an abortion would not be about punishing the child. It would be about survival and choices. I could not survive carrying that child - it is more than I am capable of - more than I am willing to subject myself to. So I would have a choice - either the child dies or I do (in which case the child would still die).[/QUOTE]

Ok I have to say this ...that is so selfish. I don't mean to be rude or offend you but it is selfish. I hope that you are on some kind of birth control or something to prevent pregnancy if you are sexual active or maybe live in an area where the rape rate is high. Did God not tell us somewhere in the bible that we should be willing to lay our lives down for our brother. Sweetie God can heal you of the pain of what happen to you but you have to be willing to let it go. You have to realize that even if a woman is raped and gets pregnant that is still a life she is carrying. I have told my husband that if it ever happens to me and as a result I do get pregnant I will keep the baby. I like to talk about these things in case it was to happen so he knows where I stand before hand. I guess being that I am a mother it's hard for me to see why someone would not want a child. The first time you hold that child in your harms you can't even remember what yesterday was about. I'm sorry like i said I don't mean to be rude but abortion is selfish. Sorry.

This debate is slightly depressing me so this may be my last post in here.







pthalomarie · Oct 30, 2004

Monica02 said:
I said horrified, not affected. Of course the children are affected.

If one has acknowledged that they're consciously traumatizing children (or, at the very least, indifferent to those kids whom they traumatize), then don't you think there's some moral accountability for causing trauma?

In many states, a parent who deliberately exposes their child to pornography can have their child taken away from them, even if there is no evidence of any kind of sexual assault or trauma.

I think most people would agree that exposing kids to gratutious violence is far worse than exposing them to sexual vulgarity.

I never said that children were unfazed. I said some were very interested and sympathetic and some simply did not seem at all interested.

Children's minds are not the same as adults'. They cannot process these images in the ways you assume they can. Most kids cannot fully grasp the concept of death until they reach age nine. Psychologically, they're largely egocentric. If they see a dead or injured child or infant, they will fear that someone will do the same to them.

I find it sad that, even though protestors care so much about getting those children born, there doesn't seem to be any concern for a child's emotional health, or their right to simply live carefree lives shielded from things that they can't understand, or even do anything about.

There's a reason why news boardcasts warn viewers to shield their children or change the channel when a scene of graphic violence is about to be shown on the broadcast.

Just as a parent should have a reasonable expectation to shield their child from sexual vulgarity (remember how many parents complained about having to explain the lurid details of the Monica Lewinsky affair to kids?), so too should they have a reasonable expectation to shield their child from gory photographs.

I said that I have never seen a child horrified. I suppose it is possible that they would later be affected. Hopefully they will remember the photo when they are older and decide not to have an abortion.

And if what if they're tormented by nightmares for the next ten years? And what if they're boys?

What scares me is that it sounds like many in the pro-life movement have never even considered the emotional and psychological consequences of their indifference.

The same good it does to show everybody else the truth of what abortion is.

So it's just as effective to show a five year old boy those photos, as it is to show a 21 year old woman? Do you really believe that?

Besides, kids can't grasp the concept of abortion, if they don't understand sex or pregnancy. Again, this approach violates a parents' right to explain these things to their children when they want to do it, and when they know that their kids are ready for it.

I said ABOUT 1/4. According to stats from the pro-aborts about 1 in 3 pregnancies end in abortion. Alot of these are repeat abortions so a good guess would be that about 1 in 4 women have had abortions. Anyhow, ask alot of the women you know and see how many have aborted. Not a scientific poll by any stretch, but it should be interesting to see the results.

You're off by a few zeros.

According to the CDC, the total rate for abortions in 1996 was 2 out of every 100 women. It's never been higher than about 27 for every 1000 women.

I and the law would blame the person who rear-ended the driver who was killed.

So the folks who put up the billboard would have no moral accountability in the accident? Would you give the same answer if the driver was a pregnant woman who miscarried as a result of the accident?

Bottom line: Pro-aborts do not want the photos shown because it exposes the truth of what an abortion is.

Plenty of pro-life people don't want them shown, either. There's a difference between standing up for what one believes in, and being crude or vulgar about it. Pro-life people should respect parent's rights, too.

Monica02 · Oct 30, 2004

If one has acknowledged that they're consciously traumatizing children (or, at the very least, indifferent to those kids whom they traumatize), then don't you think there's some moral accountability for causing trauma?

I wrote affected, not traumatized. As I stated earlier, the parents are the ones who get upset. Do you know of any children who have been traumatized by a photograph? Don't you think the pro-abortion powers that be would have milked that one to the max by now? To answer your hypothetical question, if indeed a a child was traumatized then, yes the pro-lifer might have some moral accountability. However, the alternative, allowing abortion to continue without trying to educate people about the actual act and not trying to eliminate it is morally much worse. At least the traumatized child was not ripped apart in his/her mother's womb. Perhaps the child thinks of that.

In many states, a parent who deliberately exposes their child to pornography can have their child taken away from them, even if there is no evidence of any kind of sexual assault or trauma.

I think most people would agree that exposing kids to gratutious violence is far worse than exposing them to sexual vulgarity

.

People might or might not agree with this. I think all people need to see the truth of what an abortion is. I will say again, we get all kinds of reactions and most of them are positive. For every person who plays the "children might see that" angle, there are one or two who agree that what we are doing is right and good.

Children's minds are not the same as adults'. They cannot process these images in the ways you assume they can. Most kids cannot fully grasp the concept of death until they reach age nine. Psychologically, they're largely egocentric. If they see a dead or injured child or infant, they will fear that someone will do the same to them.

Perhaps when the kids reach the age of nine and they start hearing the pro-abortion lies then they will grasp the concept of death by abortion better than children who have not seen the pictures. These children will know the truth because they will remember the photo.
The small ones (of the very few that say anything) usually just want to help the baby. I talked to a little three year old for about ten minutes once while holding a sign. It was outside of the Cathedral after Mass. The little tyke and his older brother just played ,talked ,asked questions,and laughed
while they ran on the steps. Their father did not seem to have any issues with his happy boys seeing the sign. Another time a Mom started to freak out while her daughter kept trying to pull her back to look at the sign.
The poor girl was prabably more confused by her mothers over-reaction than by the sign. Sometimes kids ask questions and their parents just tell them the truth. Again, I have seen all kinds of reactions but one I have NEVER seen is a child horrified, crying or screaming. I have seen adults horrified, crying and/or screaming.

I find it sad that, even though protestors care so much about getting those children born, there doesn't seem to be any concern for a child's emotional health, or their right to simply live carefree lives shielded from things that they can't understand, or even do anything about.

You can find it sad if you wish. What makes you think we do not care about a child's emotional health? A childs right to not be slaughtered in his mother's womb is the foundation of any other right. Children can understand abortion to some extent. It depends on the age. Children and everyone else who view abortion photos can do something about it. Adults can vote, children will eventually be adults (that is if they survive the womb). Adults can sidewalk council and aid parents. Children can join protests or do school projects on abortion.
You should read "Won By Love" by Norma McCorvey. It is the story of how a little girl spoke the heart of Norma (Roe) and changed the Roe in Roe V. Wade from being an abortion clinic employee to a pro-life advocate. See what children can do.

There's a reason why news boardcasts warn viewers to shield their children or change the channel when a scene of graphic violence is about to be shown on the broadcast.

Just as a parent should have a reasonable expectation to shield their child from sexual vulgarity (remember how many parents complained about having to explain the lurid details of the Monica Lewinsky affair to kids?), so too should they have a reasonable expectation to shield their child from gory photographs

.

Parents might have complained about explaining the President's actions but so what? Just explain it to them. Do kids live in a bubble? How many kids watch the news anyhow?

And if what if they're tormented by nightmares for the next ten years? And what if they're boys?

I doubt if any child is tormented by nightmares because he saw a sign. I am sure many men and women who have shose to kill thier unborn child have been tormented for years. Gee-well maybe the boys will not try to talk their girlfriend/ souse into having an abortion. Or they will try and talk them out of one.

What scares me is that it sounds like many in the pro-life movement have never even considered the emotional and psychological consequences of their indifference.

We have considered it and determined that the "A child might see that" cry is an unfounded concern. Whatever consequences theremight be trumped by the fact that abortion is legal at any stage of pregnancy in this country. The pictures show the abortion for what it is-the violent killing of an unborn human being. Not a blood clot of a blob of tissue as so many children will be told. Not a potential human being . One of the most telling thigs about the demonstrations is that even the littlest of children always recognize the picture as a hurt or dead BABY, whatever the term. Not a blood clot or tissue but a BABY. Kids are smarter than you give them credit for being.

So it's just as effective to show a five year old boy those photos, as it is to show a 21 year old woman? Do you really believe that?

I think both will see it as a horrible injustice to the unborn baby. Both will see it as a picture of torn apart baby. How it affects them is hard to say.

Besides, kids can't grasp the concept of abortion, if they don't understand sex or pregnancy. Again, this approach violates a parents' right to explain these things to their children when they want to do it, and when they know that their kids are ready for it.

Kids can understand that a baby is in mommy's tummy. Parents tell their kids that all the time. They can understand that a woman is pregnant. I have seen parents explain the abortion signs to their children and they just say something like "sometimes women/men so not want their baby so they have an abortion and this is what it is. It is very sad." The kids ask another question sometimes nd the parent answers it according to the childs age.

You're off by a few zeros.

According to the CDC, the total rate for abortions in 1996 was 2 out of every 100 women. It's never been higher than about 27 for every 1000 women.

I have never heard anyone claim it was that low. Pro-life or pro-death sources. Reread whatever source you got that CDC info from.

So the folks who put up the billboard would have no moral accountability in the accident? Would you give the same answer if the driver was a pregnant woman who miscarried as a result of the accident?

Lets do this again. The person who hits the car is responsible for the accident, regardless of who the driver is or who is in the car in front. Drive defensively.

Plenty of pro-life people don't want them shown, either. There's a difference between standing up for what one believes in, and being crude or vulgar about it. Pro-life people should respect parent's rights, too.

Gee-I know that some pro-lifers do not like the signs. I said that pro-aborts do not like the signs BECAUSE they show the truth of abortion. That is not the reason pro-lifers do not like the signs, they do not think they are effective and that they could be seen as offensive. The signs are offensive and they should be offensive because abortion is offensive.

I have never seen a child horrified by the signs.

flicka · Oct 30, 2004

Monica02 said:
I have never seen a child horrified by the signs.

It dosen't matter what you personally have seen. People are telling you it is the case and thats what you have to deal with. This kind of thing cuts both ways...including things you may not like to see (ie: public nudity and sex, offensive language, etc). It's easy to ignore things when they work to your benefit tho. That one of the problems with people (including christians)

jesusfreak3786 · Oct 31, 2004

Seeking... said:
You and your coworker have equal rights by nature of the fact that she is not dependent upon your body to survive. A woman and her unborn child do not have equal rights and shouldn't. The child is a human being who is intimately dependent on the woman's body processes to survive - the woman has a right to discontinue service.

This is discusting! When did nature of anything inform you that in order to have equal rights, that you have to not be dependent on the mothers body. I know the word nature wasn't to be taken litiraly but think of this. Under that very same assumtion you are worth nothing, and I should have the right to impregnate you and use you as a baby making factory as many times as a want, if I have more power, and strength than you, since you depend on nature itself to survive, even as long as a minute. So therfore you have no value and are disposable morraly. How about if the counry discontinues service to provide gas for your car, It's there right isn't it? How many poeple would die of starvation as a result? This must not matter either.

jesusfreak3786 · Oct 31, 2004

pthalomarie said:
If one has acknowledged that they're consciously traumatizing children (or, at the very least, indifferent to those kids whom they traumatize), then don't you think there's some moral accountability for causing trauma?

In many states, a parent who deliberately exposes their child to pornography can have their child taken away from them, even if there is no evidence of any kind of sexual assault or trauma.

I think most people would agree that exposing kids to gratutious violence is far worse than exposing them to sexual vulgarity.

Children's minds are not the same as adults'. They cannot process these images in the ways you assume they can. Most kids cannot fully grasp the concept of death until they reach age nine. Psychologically, they're largely egocentric. If they see a dead or injured child or infant, they will fear that someone will do the same to them.

I find it sad that, even though protestors care so much about getting those children born, there doesn't seem to be any concern for a child's emotional health, or their right to simply live carefree lives shielded from things that they can't understand, or even do anything about.

There's a reason why news boardcasts warn viewers to shield their children or change the channel when a scene of graphic violence is about to be shown on the broadcast.

Just as a parent should have a reasonable expectation to shield their child from sexual vulgarity (remember how many parents complained about having to explain the lurid details of the Monica Lewinsky affair to kids?), so too should they have a reasonable expectation to shield their child from gory photographs.

And if what if they're tormented by nightmares for the next ten years? And what if they're boys?

What scares me is that it sounds like many in the pro-life movement have never even considered the emotional and psychological consequences of their indifference.

So it's just as effective to show a five year old boy those photos, as it is to show a 21 year old woman? Do you really believe that?

Besides, kids can't grasp the concept of abortion, if they don't understand sex or pregnancy. Again, this approach violates a parents' right to explain these things to their children when they want to do it, and when they know that their kids are ready for it.

You're off by a few zeros.

According to the CDC, the total rate for abortions in 1996 was 2 out of every 100 women. It's never been higher than about 27 for every 1000 women.

So the folks who put up the billboard would have no moral accountability in the accident? Would you give the same answer if the driver was a pregnant woman who miscarried as a result of the accident?

Plenty of pro-life people don't want them shown, either. There's a difference between standing up for what one believes in, and being crude or vulgar about it. Pro-life people should respect parent's rights, too.

I strongly dissagree with this since I was one of the children who saw gory pictures. My parents wern't pro-life actavists, but they were not afriad to show me and my brothers the truth of the world, even the unpleasant truth. I was by no means horrifyed, and I don't believe you give kids enough credit I knew what death, sex, rape, and abortion was at a very young age (like 5). I am not twisted or deranged, I never had night mares. Niether did my brothers. Who would as far as I can imagen try to convince a woman not to abort thier baby. Like idunno said you tell your children about the ugly fact that a stranger can kidnapp you, and do very unpleasen't things to you and kill you. Why do we tell our kids about that reality? Because we want them to be aware of it. So they won't be hurt by it. My mom is agianst abortion, but when she was younger she was convinced to have one, it has affected her for many years, I've seen her sobb uncontrolably because she was thinking about her baby. I think it is aid to an abortion revalation in the future, to make our future congress gov. and possably presedent aware of the large scale slaughter. It may be legal today, but I hope to God that it is illegal tommorrow.

MooTipping · Oct 31, 2004

Ok I have to say this ...that is so selfish. I don't mean to be rude or offend you but it is selfish. I hope that you are on some kind of birth control or something to prevent pregnancy if you are sexual active or maybe live in an area where the rape rate is high. Did God not tell us somewhere in the bible that we should be willing to lay our lives down for our brother. Sweetie God can heal you of the pain of what happen to you but you have to be willing to let it go. You have to realize that even if a woman is raped and gets pregnant that is still a life she is carrying. I have told my husband that if it ever happens to me and as a result I do get pregnant I will keep the baby. I like to talk about these things in case it was to happen so he knows where I stand before hand. I guess being that I am a mother it's hard for me to see why someone would not want a child. The first time you hold that child in your harms you can't even remember what yesterday was about. I'm sorry like i said I don't mean to be rude but abortion is selfish. Sorry.
If she was rapped doesn't mean she's 'sexually active'. it just meant some guy came up to her and rapped her! I mean, think about how hard it is to raise and love a child whose father rapped you? It must be really really hard.

HRE · Oct 31, 2004

Lots of talk with no evidence. Lots of appeals to drippy sentimentality.

"It's just wrong and horrid and awful and sinful and "

Does anyone have anythign reasonable to say?

AdJesumPerMariam · Oct 31, 2004

reasonable? Hmmmm.....I assume you think it's OK?
Your mom didn't

Broken Doll · Oct 31, 2004

dede10 said:
reasonable? Hmmmm.....I assume you think it's OK?
Your mom didn't

Huh? What do you mean?

Broken Doll

kissybug27 · Oct 31, 2004

If she was rapped doesn't mean she's 'sexually active'. it just meant some guy came up to her and rapped her! I mean, think about how hard it is to raise and love a child whose father rapped you? It must be really really hard.

Ok I'm for a bit. Now to respond and explain.. You miss read me. I didn't mean that because she was raped that she was sexually active. Raped isn't sex. Atleast not for the person being assulted. There is no sin in being the victim but when you commit a sin because you are the victim are you any different then the person who committed the sin against you.

God bless !

pthalomarie · Nov 1, 2004

Monica02 said:
I wrote affected, not traumatized. As I stated earlier, the parents are the ones who get upset.

How many kids have enough nerve to approach a stranger and explain exactly what it is that bothers them?

I remember seeing a commercial for a horror movie when I was eight years old. In the commercial, there was a skull that popped out of nowhere. That skull freaked me out; I had a hard time sleeping for days. It gave me nightmares off and on for weeks.

When my brother was five, he was deeply upset by the Wicked Witch from the Wizard of Oz. He could not sit through the movie.

Psychologically and biologically, kids today are just like kids from past generations. They go through the same stages, and when they're young, they spook easily. The only reason people wouldn't notice this is if they didn't have enough interest to take notice.

Do you know of any children who have been traumatized by a photograph?

From an article on violence in media:

"The AMA, the APA, NIMH, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Surgeon General, and the United Nations (UNESCO) have all made definitive statements about the relationship between childhood exposure to visual violent images and later manifestation of real world aggression and violent criminal acts.

The impact of visual, violent imagery on children has been identified as the key variable responsible for an explosion of violent crime around the world. The per capita aggravated assault rate in the U.S. increased almost sevenfold between the mid-1950s and the middle of this decade. In Canada per capita assaults increased almost fivefold between 1964 and 1993. Between 1977 and 1993, the per capita assault rate increased nearly fivefold in Norway and Greece. In Australia and New Zealand the per capita assault rate increased approximately fourfold, tripled in Sweden, and approximately doubled in: Belgium, Denmark, England-Wales, France, Hungary, Netherlands, and Scotland. The common denominator in all these nations is the influence of media violence on children."

Perhaps one photo may not do the trick (although even that's debatable - remember how strongly people reacted to photographic images from the Oklahoma City bombing, or the infamous photo of a Viet Cong spy seconds before he was about to be shot in the head?). But studies have shown that constant exposure to violent imagery is psychologically harmful. By regularly exposing children to these images, people are sowing the seeds for kids who will grow up to be dysfunctional.

Don't you think the pro-abortion powers that be would have milked that one to the max by now?

If you search on the web, you can find plenty of anecdotal comments from mothers who were outraged because they had to deal with a very upset child who saw those photos at a demonstration. There are also plenty of pro-life people who consistently respond to this issue by saying that they don't care how little kids react. For them, the ends always justifies the means.

Perhaps this quote would carry a bit more weight for you:

"Thereve been no scientific studies that show using graphic photos can change anybodys mind, says Kent Peters, director of social ministry for the Catholic Diocese of San Diego. I dont want to violate anybodys right to free speech. But if someone wanted to do this under the name of the diocese, we would recommend they not do it because of the children.

To answer your hypothetical question, if indeed a a child was traumatized then, yes the pro-lifer might have some moral accountability.

Alright, then. If a parent could provide satisfactory evidence that their child was traumatized, what do you think the pro-lifer carrying the sign should do?

At least the traumatized child was not ripped apart in his/her mother's womb. Perhaps the child thinks of that.

Please, pick up a book and learn about child psychology. Children under ten are basically incapable of the kind of abstract thought you're expecting of them. They can't truly envision the womb. They can't fully grasp the notions of heaven or hell. Study after study has shown that young children who are taught about places like "the womb", heaven, or hell have difficulty grasping them, and distinguishing them from one another. It's one reason why most Christian children's cirriculums don't discuss Satan or hell in detail. The risk of kids confusing Jesus with Satan is too great.

Plus, these photos force parents to teach their kids about ugly matters that they may not even want to get into yet. It's compelling them to explain abortion before they explain pregnancy. Immediately, children's sense of hope and delight about the notion of babies and pregancy will be stolen from them. The central image in their association with pregnancy and babies will be one of murder and death. It deprives kids of being able to associate babies with love and joy. Before parents explain love, and before parents explain sex and conception, they will have to explain murder and abortion.

Now, maybe pro-life parents have no problem giving their kids the ugly side of life first. But that's their private choice. They should respect that fact that other parents will want to address such matters on their own time table. In terms of the invasiveness of the act, there is no difference between standing in a demonstration holding blown-up pics of dead babies and Janet Jackson suprising the world at the Super Bowl with her exposed breast.

People might or might not agree with this. I think all people need to see the truth of what an abortion is.

People need to see the truth about venereal disease, too. But parents are wise enough to hold off showing them the nasty herpes or gonorrhea photos until the kid can process them. Most kids first learn about the holocaust by reading about it. They're not shown the photos first.

I will say again, we get all kinds of reactions and most of them are positive.

Perhaps it's because most people display better manners towards the protestors than the protestors do towards the general public. Most people are taught to always try to be polite, and put another persons' feelings first. It's too bad that the protestors don't seem to take these biblical concepts into consideration.

Another time a Mom started to freak out while her daughter kept trying to pull her back to look at the sign.The poor girl was prabably more confused by her mothers over-reaction than by the sign.

This, to me, is the most intriguing statement so far. If the goal is to get people to see an unspeakable sin and do something about it, then how can one "overreact" to the image?

If the correct reaction by kids is to simply laugh and play and pay no mind to the carnage writ large above them, then what does that say about how seriously people should take the cause? Seems to me as though you've just offered concrete reasons why the photos aren't neccessary.

What makes you think we do not care about a child's emotional health?

There is no indication that any protestor has even wondered how these photos may affect kids, and once the issue has been presented (here and elsewhere online), the reaction seems to be indifference.

And logic says that behaviour tends to be patterned. If parents are always trying to ensure that their kids are emotionally healthy, one will see evidence of the parent working diligently towards that end. If parents indicate disinterest in the possibility that they may be causing emotional harm, odds are, that indifference will make appearances elsewhere.

That's one reason why authorities will take away a child who has been exposed to pornography by their parents. Even if the child seems fine, it's an implied slippery slope argument: "if we caught the father showing his daughter porn, what else has he done with her that no one knows about? What will he do in the future?"

Children can understand abortion to some extent. It depends on the age. Children and everyone else who view abortion photos can do something about it. Adults can vote, children will eventually be adults

You just proved my point. Kids can't do anything about it while they're kids.

Parents might have complained about explaining the President's actions but so what? Just explain it to them. Do kids live in a bubble? How many kids watch the news anyhow?

So no one talked about Clinton's affair outside of news shows.....

We have considered it and determined that the "A child might see that" cry is an unfounded concern.

And on what psychological research do you base that conclusion?

Whatever consequences theremight be trumped by the fact that abortion is legal at any stage of pregnancy in this country.

= the ends justify the means. Whatever consequences there may be are of no interest to the protestors, even if those who pay the price are their own kids.

One of the most telling thigs about the demonstrations is that even the littlest of children always recognize the picture as a hurt or dead BABY,

Again, you've made my point for me.

Kids can understand that a baby is in mommy's tummy. Parents tell their kids that all the time. They can understand that a woman is pregnant. I have seen parents explain the abortion signs to their children and they just say something like "sometimes women/men so not want their baby so they have an abortion and this is what it is. It is very sad."

Introducing young children to the notion that babies may be unwanted or that parents are willing to kill their children can be traumatic for them. Even if the parents are loving, these concepts are frightening. Kids process everything in terms of their little life. That's why toddlers cry when mommy goes away for an hour or so. They have an instinctive fear that mommy might not come back.Now, you're introducing the possibility - even if it's just a momrntary fear - that when mommy gets angry, she might do more than just spank the kid.

I have never heard anyone claim it was that low. Pro-life or pro-death sources. Reread whatever source you got that CDC info from.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/surv_abort.htm

" The abortion ratio for 2000 has approximately returned to the levels reported in 1974. The ratio was 246 legal induced abortions per 1,000 live births, compared to 256 in 1999. The abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 1544 years"

I imagine that you've confused the ratio of abortions to live births with the total rate of abortions per 1000. I mean, think about it: do you really think that your average 2000-member church in Des Moines, Iowa has 250 mothers who've aborted?

jesusfreak3786 · Nov 1, 2004

pthalomarie said:
Introducing young children to the notion that babies may be unwanted or that parents are willing to kill their children can be traumatic for them. Even if the parents are loving, these concepts are frightening. Kids process everything in terms of their little life. That's why toddlers cry when mommy goes away for an hour or so. They have an instinctive fear that mommy might not come back.Now, you're introducing the possibility - even if it's just a momrntary fear - that when mommy gets angry, she might do more than just spank the kid.

It's not a notion its the truth. You are not giving children enough credit, maybe you don't have children. Chilren react according to how they are raised. If you, right from the beginning don't hide the truth from them, even the ugly truth. Then this supposedly truamatic image becomes a fact of life in it's true form. I saw the street children of Kenya on a feed the children program, and when the mother was giving a 15 month old a bath, she splashed the soapy water in his face and rubbed it on his eyes and face pretty firmly, but to the baby this was just his every day bath he didn't even flinch. If you were even to sprinkle water on the face of most of the kids in amarica they would cry to no end. Now you may be wondering how this has anything to do with the pictures. Well your kids can handel what you equipt them to handle, if you shelter them, what do expect? I was raised differently, and my kids are riased differently, they are not sheltered and the truth is not hidden from them. If a parent does they should expect thier kids to freak out at the ugly parts of the world.

jesusfreak3786 · Nov 1, 2004

HRE said:
Lots of talk with no evidence. Lots of appeals to drippy sentimentality.

"It's just wrong and horrid and awful and sinful and "

Does anyone have anythign reasonable to say?

The dead bodys of the babys. How can you reason with killing babys.

kissybug27 · Nov 1, 2004

At least the traumatized child was not ripped apart in his/her mother's womb. Perhaps the child thinks of that.

This statement bothers me. I do agree with the fact that people should see what abortion is and looks like. I am against abortion in all degrees. But this statement makes me wonder if the person who wrote it has or has ever had small children. I have a five year old daughter and a three year old son. On occassion they have seen things on tv, commericals and when I'm watching a scary movie and they come in the livingroom before I have the chance to change the channel. I don't like my children seeing bad things. I remember one movie, Jaws, where the shark was gobbling up a man and blood was spurring from his mouth, my children both popped in the livingroom at the same time, I really think they have a radar, they asked what it was and I told them that it was fake, those people are acting and that is just something kinda like paint that its not real. The both understand that people on tv wear makeup and the red stuff isnt blood and it doesn't bother them. Because I don't lie to my children it would be very hard for me to explain to them pictures of an aborted baby. McKenzie my daughter lately has been asking about death and why children die, it really bothers her that some children get sick or get in an accident and die. She doesn't understand. So how would I go about explaining pictures to her like that. These pictures should be censored just like everything else. You don't drive down the road and see nude pictures of people on billboards or in shop windows, you don't see pictures of car accident victims that were drunk or going to fast. Why, to me it seems like that would be more effective to get people to slow down seeing what might happen to them if they don't. But that is too disturbing. So are pictures of aborted children. We must protect our children from these horrible sights. They see enough as it is. How am I suppose to keep my children from seeing things like that if the public puts it out there for them on the streets. I don't want to keep my kids in the house or go around with my hands over their little eyes. I feel that everytime a child sees something like that it takes a little bit more of there security away. Children are suppose to feel like the world is a wonderful place not a place of horror and mayhem. Let them be kids.

As for the statistic of aborted children out of 1000, it is very sad that that many children lost their lives because someone didn't want them. I find it funny that our troops are half way around the world trying to save people that we don't know and who are mostly against us but we are killing our own right here in the states. I don't mean that ha ha funny.

Murmur · Nov 1, 2004

I feel that it becomes a "baby" as soon as the cord is cut and it can breathe on its own. Until then, it's just an extension of the carrier's body.

Regarding the pictures of aborted fetuses... Don't let your kids see them. Problem solved.

Interesting view on Abortion - Please Participate (FOR EVERY MEMBERS OF THE FORUM)

Active Member

Contributor

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Active Member

American Aquarium Drinker

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

HRE

Guest

To Jesus through Mary

Member

Active Member

American Aquarium Drinker

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Thought Criminal

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency