'Health' of the Mother

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: TheVigil @ 10/18/2008 12:13:51 PM

    To anyone supporting a Biblically based set of laws around this...

    We have a First Amendment Establishment Clause in this country that prohibits religiously-based legislation. You can either choose to support your Constitution or your religion here, but not both.

    I tend to get a lot of dead silence when I bring this up to the Christian pro-life contingent.

    I would like to hear whether or not Christian pro-life voters believe their pro-life stances (if they are based on a "because God says it is immoral" argument) violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. If so, what makes the Bible more important than the Constitution in this case? Do you support the repeal of the Establishment Clause? If not, what gives this issue a legal exemption and what prevents that exemption from being used to challenge secular law across the board? If you do support the Establishment Clause, how do you reconcile this with your desire to make a religiously based law?

    I'm eager and curious to see the responses.

    • Posted By: Nins @ 10/18/2008 12:27:08 PM

      You are absolutely right, Vigil.

      What makes America GREAT is separation of church and state.

      Anyone who doesn't think that is true should try living in Iran, a country where the church controls the government and harshly rules the lives of the people.

      I support the Constitution first and my church second. I do this because I know that if any one church group was allowed to control the government, all the other churches would suddenly become illegal. That would be a tragic end to the greatest nation on earth.

      • Posted By: TheVigil @ 10/18/2008 12:31:55 PM

        To be honest, I'm not trying to make any particular point here.

        I'm genuinely interested in the responses here, and I don't want to scare people by the implication that my post means "I think you all are unconstitutional" or something similar, which it doesn't. I really do want to hear what people think of the Establishment Clause.

  • Posted By: DavidHouston @ 10/18/2008 2:38:07 AM

    In the third presidential debate Senator Obama made the claim that he would ban Partial Birth abortions if protection was given with regards to the health of the mother. This is an empty argument since the baby is killed after it has been 90% delivered and only its head is still in the womb. The mother's health is not in jeopardy for that last second it takes to deliver the baby. He is just being dishonest. Take a look at this video which goes into detail of this hideous procedure.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5qu87aXc20

    • Posted By: Nins @ 10/18/2008 12:07:01 PM

      DavidHouston, you are misinformed about this. In a late term abortion it is the last few minutes of the delivery that harm the mother. Here are the medical facts:

      Partial birth abortion was developed to decrease damage to the mother during a late term abortion. In an abortion of a fetus greater than 18-20 weeks, the baby's head is so large and the mother's body so unready for induced labor, that extracting the fetus routinely tore the mother's cervix and caused massive bleeding. Usually the mother survived the hemorrhage, but often these women were unable to ever carry another baby to term after their cervix was lacerated.

      Think of how heartbreaking it would be for a woman who wants a child but for a medical reason can not carry the current baby to term. Perhaps her baby died inside of her, and inducing labor failed, then the abortion tears her cervix and she will have to remain childless. Or her baby had severe hydrocephalus, a 100% fatal birth defect that even most pro-lifers agree is a reason for a late term abortion. Or she had a hormone sensitive cancer such the the cancer would kill her if she continued the pregnancy, but if she aborts then does chemo she could have another child, but her cervix tears during the abortion and she will have to remain childless. As a doctor, I have had patients with all of these tragic problems. Because of cases like this, obstetricians came up with a way to abort late term fetuses without the baby's head tearing the cervix. The baby is partially delivered feet first, a small hole is made at the base of the skull and the brain is suctioned out, causing the soft skull to deflate and allow the delivery without tearing the cervix. Disgusting, yes, but it does protect the mother and allow her to have more children.

      Partial birth abortions are very rare. In Virginia where they keep track of this, a series of 25,000 abortions had only 60 partial birth procedures done.

      Personally I agree that late term abortions should be illegal except in the case of medical harm to the mother or severe birth defects. I think that I would put the gestational deadline for normal (not medically necessary) abortions at 16 weeks though, not 12.

      The reason Obama voted against the 2007 bill banning partial birth abortions is because that bill did not contain a clause protecting the rights of women who needed medically necessary abortions and the victims of rape and incest. Obama is NOT in favor of late term abortions, but he does believe that in some extreme cases they should be allowed.

  • Posted By: shorty22 @ 10/17/2008 6:26:38 PM

    What happened to America, separation of church and state? How about the constitution? I am constantly amazed how people rationalize to themselves that there way is the right way and everyone else is wrong and yet still claim they are preserving the constitution and the foundations of this country. Laws were designed to protect people and individual rights. Laws in this country were not written to protect one way of thinking. Abortion is not the issue!! If you think abortion is wrong then DONT HAVE ONE it???s your CHOICE. But what gives you or me the right to tell some what they HAVE to do with there body. Let???s flip the scenario. If you were going to die from child birth and the state made you abort your child because letting you kill yourself was illegal and you would rather die than abort, how would you feel? If I have cancer are you going to tell me I have to undergo treatment? No.... So take a step back and think Just because you don???t agree for religious reasons you cant outlaw some one else from doing it. I don???t like abortion one bit but I would NEVER tell you what you could and could not do with your body because I don???t agree with it. Your rights are just as sacred as mine. Get over it and move on or get out of the US you are not really an American.

    • Posted By: jochebed1 @ 10/17/2008 11:23:51 PM

      America was founded on God. Not on your opinions.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/18/2008 10:56:28 AM

        Actually the US was not founded on god or religion. Learn your history,

        Although god may have been important to some of the founding fathers most of them were adamant that religion was NOT to be part government. And their views of god might not meet your views of said man-made entity.

        And actually it was foundnd on choice. Freedom to CHOOSE ones religion (or not even believe in one), Freedom to CHOOSE your politcal party, Fredom to CHOOSE your speech, etc.

  • Posted By: lisadiane40 @ 10/17/2008 8:19:13 PM

    I have three children and had to abort one. My life was on the line. I was told if I carried the baby to term, I could possibly have a stroke or heart attack. I chose to abort. I do not regret it. If I had carried the baby to term and died my children and husband would be left without a Mother and wife. I was 5 months pregnant, and had been in the hospital for 20 days. It was the hardest thing to do, but my family sat down with our doctor and made a private life saving choice. John McCain is wrong on this matter.

    • Posted By: hojo81 @ 10/17/2008 8:42:03 PM

      At 4mo a baby is viable, your baby had a chance. Why abort. When I was 3mos pregnant my water broke because of the risk of infection the docs said abort. I chose to lay in a hospital bed for 3mos and I had my baby 2ms early I now have a wonderful and perfect 7yr old boy. I would have laid in that bed for 9ms if that is what it would have taken to give him at least a chance.

      • Posted By: Donna42990 @ 10/17/2008 9:27:41 PM

        Enter Your CommentWell, obviously your number was not up yet. How dare you tell the other lady she should have had the baby????? What if HER number would have been up????? Would you have been willing to suggest to her heartbroken husband and living kids that it was meant to be?? Good grief!!!!

        • Posted By: Margaret40 @ 10/17/2008 11:00:54 PM

          I second that.

          • Posted By: hojo81 @ 10/18/2008 10:42:15 AM

            I did not say she needed to do what I did. The baby is viable - that means with assistance it can survive outside of the womb. Induce labor is what I said there was no need to abort.

    • Posted By: Margaret40 @ 10/17/2008 11:14:46 PM

      I support you. My sister had toxemia in her 20s, had an emergency C-section to save her life, her baby died after 24 hours because he was too small and she ended up having a stroke. If the pregnancy would have been terminated, she would not have arrived to that danger zone. She never got her blood pressure to normal and had a major stroke 2 years ago at age 39. I had toxemia too but I was fortunate to carry a bit longer before having an emergency C-section. I had my baby 2 months early and she survived. I support abortion for women who are in danger of losing their life. People need to educate themselves on the different health conditions that may occur during pregnancy. It is good that you made this decision and that you are there for your family who needs you.

    • Posted By: hojo81 @ 10/17/2008 8:37:01 PM

      At 4 mo a baby is "viable", your baby had a chance why not just induce. Give the kid a chance. At 3 mo's my water broke the docs told me I had a high risk of infection and both the baby and I could die, some suggested abort. But I laid in a hospital bed for close to 3 mo and now I have a beautiful and smart 7 yr old boy. I would have laid in that hospital bed for 9mo if that would have given him more of a chance.

  • Posted By: polchat @ 10/18/2008 2:48:35 AM

    I've got the Solution......IF YOU THINK ABORTION IS WRONG...THEN """"DON'T HAVE ANY"""!!!!! If you think your soul is safe from "god" then have all the abortions your conscience can handle. PROBLEM SOLVED !!!

    • Posted By: hojo81 @ 10/18/2008 9:57:41 AM

      If I believe abortion is wrong I can not stand aside and be quiet. It's like not calling the police or helping when you know a child is getting abused or a woman is beaten. If you will not help in those instances then you may as well be the one doing the abusing. Didn't your mother ever tell you "if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything".

  • Posted By: smittypaws5 @ 10/17/2008 9:24:14 PM


    that`s why the USA economic syustem STINKS because of the PRO-CHOICE MOVEMENT and that`s
    the USA ECONOMIC system is being PUNISHED for this mistake by the HOLY TRINTY , FATHER
    SON AND HOLY SPIRIT and US pro abortion is to blame for it !

    • Posted By: jebachman @ 10/17/2008 9:34:31 PM

      You are absolutely correct to equate the recent ecomomic events with our country's position on abortion. After all, Warren Buffet is pro-choice.

      • Posted By: benkrapf @ 10/18/2008 4:01:27 AM

        Yes, and Warren Buffet and his vicious offspring will sup at the poisonous font of the Dark Betrayer for all of eternity, in Jesus name we pray.

        • Posted By: jebachman @ 10/18/2008 8:39:27 AM

          I know this reply will be far beyond your ability to comprehend, but I simply can not resist. Since the economy has tanked under George Bush's leadership (who is pro-life) and during this time Warren Buffett's net worth has increased (he is pro-choice), using the logic of the original post, it must mean God is pro-choice. Admittedly, I do not know Mr. Buffett, but I do not think he is really concerned with your opinion of his afterlife. After all, he is the majority shareholder of the Washington Post, which owns Newsweek, and Newsweek is providing you with this forum for your rather jaded views.

  • Posted By: Qidisrupt @ 10/18/2008 1:05:20 AM

    King David was guilty of adultery and murder, yet according to the Bible...he was a man "after God's own heart." Can anyone remember the woman who was caught by the angry mob in the act of adultery? Jesus told the mob that if anyone is without sin, let him cast the first stone...the angry dropped their stones and left. Jesus spoke to the woman one on one and forgave her. So cut out the self-righteous rants and express your personal convictions and explain why. There is no need to judge.

    • Posted By: lofaho @ 10/18/2008 7:40:36 AM

      You forgot to add that Jesus then told her to go and sin no more

  • Posted By: debradebra @ 10/18/2008 7:02:17 AM

    No one is going to choose for me - whether it be abortion, religion,sexuality, job choice, etc. This country is beyond beautiful BECAUSE of the individual choice we each have. Each and every one of us has the choice to live as we choose. I love America.

  • Posted By: rdaffron @ 10/17/2008 5:54:12 PM

    I think it's highly ironic, as well as insulting, that the ones who seem to be protesting the loudest over a woman's ABSOLUTE RIGHT to choose are men! No MAN has the right to tell me, my daughter, or any other WOMAN what she can and cannot do regarding HER BODY. We are NOT CHATTEL OR PROPERTY. No MAN has that right. It IS my CHOICE and the CHOICE of every woman alive.

    Now, having said that, I don't necessarily like abortion. To me, it is the absolute last resort. However, I would much rather have it LEGAL AND CHOICE than have women going to backrooms. Whether you like it or not, abortion has been around since the dawn of time. Study your ancient history and you'll find that even the ancient Egyptians practiced it, as well as various methods of birth control (i.e. crocodile dung - yuck!). In addition, to deny abortions to victims of rape and incest is not only stupid, it's ABSOLUTELY STUPID. MEN do NOT have that right!

    • Posted By: lgustafson @ 10/17/2008 6:09:41 PM

      Sorry toots, your "rights" were given to you by men, and they too can be taken away ;)

      • Posted By: rdaffron @ 10/17/2008 6:13:34 PM

        Honey, our rights are God given. Men "thought" they were right, but they've been proven wrong time after time. Guess what? There's more women than men in this world and when you get some sense, you'll understand why.

        • Posted By: nwsjnkie @ 10/18/2008 2:49:53 AM

          Simmer down now ; ) God made Adam was given the honor of being the first person on earth, but woman was saved for last. I'll bet when Adam saw her he said, "Whoah! Man! She's glorious!" And he couldn't stop calling her "woman" after that.

          • Posted By: rdaffron @ 10/18/2008 5:58:48 AM

            Nope, God made Adam and then realized he could improve the model and She did.

  • Posted By: ShellOKC @ 10/18/2008 5:04:37 AM

    McCain's behavior was appalling. And Palin's position that only life of mother should be allowed on ALL abortions is even worse. How dare anyone tell a young woman that she MUST carry a child to term after she's been raped or the victim of incest? Women are not incubators and a pregnancy isn't something that just sits there for 40 weeks in the background. It should be entirely between a woman and her doctor.



  • Posted By: jebachman @ 10/17/2008 8:23:43 PM

    I am curious, how many "pro-life" individuals have ever read Roe v. Wade. The decision was based upon Griswold (check the spelling, I am sorry I do not have my con-law book handy) v. Connecticut. In this decision, the state banned birth control except for married couples. Is this the type of society we want to live in? I know many persons believe life begins at conception. Fine. What do we do then about rape? Is there and exception? I am the proud father of 2 daughters. I hope there is and I pray to God it is never, ever necessary. But what if it is? Obviously, the trial of the alleged rapist will occur many months after the abortion. If the alleged rapist is found not guitly, do we bring murder charges against the woman? So the answer is, there should not be an exception for rape. Please tell that to the woman. Unfortunately, God did not give us all of the answers. I know, I know someone will start quoting the Bible. Please spare me and show me the passage involving abortion and rape. So please stop the name calling and alleging that a woman who is 8 1/2 months pregnant decides to terminate a pregancy because of a hang nail and the doctor who is trained to save lives is so desperate for money, he performs an abortion. You may believe this, but you will find out in November, you are in the minority.

    • Posted By: SomeChick1234 @ 10/17/2008 10:39:01 PM

      The circumstances surrounding conception... they devalue life? I don't like that thought of being impregnated as a result of rape but to be 100% honest here, 50% of that person came from you and that baby is no more at fault of being conceived as you are of getting pregnant. Two wrongs don't make a right, however. Murder is worse than rape. I'm sorry. I don't like it but following along with the reason we are against abortion still applies in this situation.

      • Posted By: jebachman @ 10/17/2008 11:12:51 PM

        Truly, you are not serious? You really believe a rape victim who becomes pregnant must carry to term. That is really, really brave. I just hope and pray it never happens to someone you love.

        • Posted By: SomeChick1234 @ 10/18/2008 12:03:40 AM

          I am really, really brave to state that an unborn child is innocent? I am really, really brave to state that an unborn child is just as much a product of its mother as it is its father? I am really, really brave to state that as people in this world we must endure anguish. I would never wish this on anyone but having seen families of murder victims forgive the murderers I know with God anything is possible. God has helped many through hardships much greater than giving birth to a child conceived of rape. Rape is the atrocity. A child is a blessing. The child is not the rape. Aborting it will not undo the crime. Please, tell me where my logic is wrong.

          • Posted By: benkrapf @ 10/18/2008 4:20:21 AM

            Looking into the eyes of your child and seeing your rapist. Always, every time you see your child. Would that affect how you raise that child?

    • Posted By: Nixmummy @ 10/17/2008 9:28:07 PM

      Thank you for your thoughtful, factual post. I have read Griswold and Roe. I suggest others read Jack Balkin's book on Roe instead of arguing from emotion. Where do you draw the lines? Who is charged with murder if abortion is criminalized? The doctor? The patient? The father? I have seen people recently argue that RU 486 is abortion. Where does this stop? How does one explain medical care that will not cover birth control, but covers Viagra? Really think about it. I think the vast majority of late term abortions are tragedies that are thrust upon women, rather than an issue of someone exercising choice.

    • Posted By: youngandhopeful @ 10/17/2008 8:25:07 PM

      Well Said!!!

  • Posted By: lmgctg @ 10/17/2008 8:49:57 PM

    What strikes me as incongrous is that the same people who are screaming about soldiers being in danger of getting killed doing a job for which they volunteered are the same people who want to kill the children that did not have anything to do with their conception.

    • Posted By: artemis8 @ 10/17/2008 9:00:17 PM

      So the soldier is responsible for his/her own death? It's sad that someone had to die to allow you to have the freedoms that you use, but the fact that you don't even care about their sacrifice is appalling.

      • Posted By: lmgctg @ 10/17/2008 9:21:46 PM

        Artemis, read carefully: the soldier is in a position where he/she may die because that's what soldiers understand when they decide to become soldiers. The unborn children do NOT sign up for their fate, whether in the hands of people who take responsibility for their decisions or in those of irresponsible hypocrites who refuse to accept the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, what's the difference to you if a soldier fights for you to live when you take your freedom and usurp those rights away from others?!? You can not have it both ways. I will say it again--it's about RESPONSIBILITY. You seem to want all of the freedoms and none of the responsibility that comes with it. Please grow up!! Soldiers are doing a job they chose with risks they are aware of. Children are not.

        • Posted By: benkrapf @ 10/18/2008 4:15:27 AM

          Buttmunch, loads of National Guardsmen have been called up to active duty. Active, meaning overseas getting blown up by IEDs active. Do you seriously think that someone who signs up for the National Guard signs up for the same duty an Army recruit enlists for? What if you enlisted in the National Guard because you wanted to help flood victims and to help guard our nation's borders, and instead you get sent to a hot war for which you have been ill-equipped emotionally and skill-wise. Wouldn't you want out?

        • Posted By: artemis8 @ 10/18/2008 1:21:34 AM

          wow you are truly dumb. you seem to be under the impression that i support abortion, which is not the case at all. based on your logic, the woman has no right at all, but what she carries in the womb does. take away the rights of women. you use the word hypocrite and yet you are one yourself. get real. many soldiers did not choose to be thrown into a useless war. of course, the current state of the military will shortly lead to the draft being reinstated anyway, but you'd be ok with that. according to you, it's ok for innocent people to die as long as they know their death may be imminent.

  • Posted By: goodsys @ 10/17/2008 9:16:31 PM

    How many people actually read this in the article??

    "According to Centers for Disease Control statistics, only 1.4 percent of abortions took place after 21 weeks in 2004, the latest year for which data are available."

    The fact of the matter is that it is estimated that over 95% of the abortions performed are NOT because of cases of rape, incest, or danger to the health of the mother. It's being used as birth control.

    Traditional birth control methods aren't foolproof, of course, but they have a high success rate when used appropriately. THAT is a choice.

    Or choosing not to have sex with someone if you're not prepared for the consequence of having a child... THAT is a choice.

    Not getting drunk and falling into bed with someone you hardly know... THAT is a choice.

    The idea that pro-lifers are anti-choice is ridiculous. But must one of the choices have to be the death of a baby?

    Many pro-lifers believe as they do about abortion not based on "wanting women to be traumatized," but on the value GOD places on human life. His creation. To say that pro-lifers are brutal or cruel is a strange rationalization when they are trying to save the lives of truly innocent people!

    I am a woman of child-bearing years. Even so, I do NOT believe I should have the right to kill another human being just for convenience. Does any man have that right? Yes, it affects my body, but if I made one of the poor choices listed earlier, then it would be a natural consequence that I COULD live with! I don't believe I have ever met a woman who has wished she had aborted her child. Every one of them admits it was hard, at times, but they wouldn't change a thing.

    When are we, as a people, going to start valuing LIFE again, over convenience?

    I repeat, from the article: According to Centers for Disease Control statistics, only 1.4 percent of abortions took place after 21 weeks in 2004, the latest year for which data are available.

    Health of the mother is NOT the reason the abortion debate is so hot. It's because women (and men!!) want the convenience of getting rid of a child that would be a drain on their precious time and finances, in order to continue their lives with as little responsibility as possible. That's the sad fact.

    • Posted By: jochebed1 @ 10/17/2008 9:50:04 PM

      You are completely and utterly right. We all have choices to make in life and if we make mistakes then don't make that defenseless baby suffer on account of it. Even in rape, the baby deserves to live. They did not committ the crime so why do they have to pay. The baby is still your flesh and blood. Besides that matter, whoever said we can save ourselves from death even in childbearing. If God decrees it is your last breath then there will be nothing to retract that. There is nothing, I believe, that is a valid argument for murdering an innnocent baby. If my body can not take it and I am pregnant then the baby must live and not I. However, I can take measures not to become pregnant if I know that it is risky. Since when did babies become a burden and not a blessing?

      • Posted By: SomeChick1234 @ 10/17/2008 10:08:01 PM

        YES! This is the heart of the matter. "Choice" is a facade to justify murder for the sake convenience.

        • Posted By: benkrapf @ 10/18/2008 4:06:45 AM

          Since when do religious wackos have a monopoly on loving their kids?

          I suppose it goes hand in hand with "All democrats are terrorists."

  • Posted By: youngandhopeful @ 10/17/2008 9:31:22 PM

    If you are calling me a Nazi I find that very off base and quite honestly disrespectful to me. I'm not at all sure where you are coming from to be honest. I'm guessing it is because I stated that Biden has to look past his personal opinion and think of entire country. Not sure where Nazi's comes in ???? Sounds to me like you are stretching to make your point and are quite possibly a bitter person. I read your response to disciplineisfreedome and I want to say that I am very sorry for your friend and the loss of your friend. It is true that there is more support needed for women/families who choose abortion whether it is early on it he pregnancy for whatever reason or later on for health reasons. I doubt that people make the decision lightly or find it easy to cope afterwards. Who is to say though that for ever woman not having an abortion is the best case? Having abortion is defnitely not for every woman either but banning it all together would not stop abortion it would just make the practice worse. Once again sorry about your friend- I can tell you are very hurt and bitter about it-perhaps you should seek someone to talk about this with and work through your grief.

    • Posted By: AlexParsnips @ 10/17/2008 10:52:29 PM

      The connection between the pro-choice movement and Nazis stems from the fact that both of them shamelessly and casually promoted the mass murder of a minority group of people, by pretending they aren't people, and anyone who dares to speak out for the victims is shouted down in a fascist manner, because they are "not allowed" to use their "opinions" as a basis for stopping the genocide. Since when did it become a bad thing to use your "opinion" to put an end to legal mass murder? I thought we were disappointed in the German people for not doing that about the Holocaust, but now we're to be shamed for trying to do the same for babies? I am an Independent and not a Republican and even I can see how transparent the pro-choice movement is. How over 90% of America apparently got brainwashed into accepting such an incredibly shallow argument for genocide is beyond me.

      • Posted By: benkrapf @ 10/18/2008 3:59:08 AM

        You claim that Democrats as a function of the pro-choice agenda want to commit genocide against infants?

        Last I checked, Democrats were the planners and hopers for the future.

        It's kind of hard to have a future when you want to kill all of your children, doofus.

      • Posted By: eastercat @ 10/17/2008 11:11:53 PM

        The Nazis were an example of an anti-choice (or pro-life if you prefer that innacurate term) government. Dictatorships restrict women's rights, with regards to the reproductive system. A modern example of anti-choice is China. Because the woman is not allowed to decide if she wants to maintain the pregnancy or terminate it (after the first child), China is very anti-choice.

      • Posted By: eastercat @ 10/17/2008 11:05:57 PM

        To be more accurate, the Nazi's were anti-choice (or pro-life if you prefer that term). Dictatorships don't give women freedom of choice in reproductive matters. A modern example would be China, which is an example of an anti-choice country. If China were pro-choice, the women in that country wouldn't feel forced to have an abortion.

  • Posted By: alc684 @ 10/17/2008 9:37:26 PM

    If the woman did not want to have a baby then she should CHOOSE to not have sex. That unborn baby did not CHOOSE to be conceived nor are they given the CHOICE to live. If you are going to have sex then that should mean you are adult enough and responsible enough to deal with the consequences of that act. Wake up America...Save the trees??? And kill our children??? No wonder our country is going to Hell in a handbasket...we might as well be handing the Devil our souls on a platter. THOU SHALT NOT MURDER...Remember that? God has been the cornerstone of our country since long before our constitution was drafted and it is interesting to me how as we turn our faces from HIM, His face turns away from us. God won't push in where he isn't wanted...but don't blame Him when this country falls apart. We are the ones who have run away...but He will be there to catch us when we realize we can't do it alone. He is faithful. GOD BLESS AMERICA...and God forgive us for sacrificing whole generations on the altars of greed and selfishness...

    • Posted By: benkrapf @ 10/18/2008 3:56:17 AM

      Are you referring to the Bush foreign policy with that last line?

    • Posted By: youngandhopeful @ 10/17/2008 9:45:24 PM

      Not every woman Chooses to have sex - If she has been raped she certainly didn't choose to be now did she. Are you blaming her for becoming pregnant? Have you ever been raped and had to live through that or become pregnant because of that and have to make a choice about it? I'm guessing no you probably haven't... but feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

      • Posted By: alc684 @ 10/17/2008 10:16:25 PM

        No, a woman who has been raped did not choose to become pregnant, but I have yet to hear of a woman who aborted a child conceived as a result of rape that felt better after she did. We cannot undo one act of violence with another act of unspeakable violence. I know that a woman who is raped does not have a choice in the matter...but that child, that perfect baby, did not ask for his "father"...I use that term loosely...to rape someone. That baby did not ask to be conceived...when do two wrongs make a right. I am not saying it would be easy, but getting rid of the baby is not the answer. My heart goes out to all women who have had to make that choice, and know that I do not judge you. I am only stating what I have learned through my life. If this has happened to you and your heart is broken...know that Jesus is right there ready to offer healing and forgiveness. Just ask at your local church...if they are a true body of Christ you'll not be rejected, but loved and directed toward The Healer. I pray you will all find the peace you seek.

      • Posted By: rartho @ 10/17/2008 9:49:21 PM

        Unfortunately, that can happen, but a very small percentage of preganancies occur in that way. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but I have heard that women who are raped and have an abortion suffer more mentally than those who carry the baby to term.

        • Posted By: youngandhopeful @ 10/17/2008 9:55:55 PM

          rartho- I agree that not a large majority of cases occur b/c of that but banning aborition or making it too strict could make it much harder for women with legit reason for abortion. Also remember that not all of these women who become pregnant b/c of rape report it.

  • Posted By: baxcy @ 10/17/2008 9:44:57 PM

    I find it very curious that people who are such staunch pro-lifers who have such strong opinons about abortion at even the earliest of stages, never give a rats ass about animal rights. Most prolifers will expend tremendous amounts of energy in hatred and action towards anything antiabortion to save even the smallest mass of human cells but wouldn't lift a finger to stand up for animals who suffer daily in unimaginable ways.

    • Posted By: Volfan1 @ 10/17/2008 9:59:08 PM

      Comment: I find it very curious that people who are such staunch pro-lifers who have such strong opinons about abortion at even the earliest of stages, never give a rats ass about animal rights. Most prolifers will expend tremendous amounts of energy in hatred and action towards anything antiabortion to save even the smallest mass of human cells but wouldn't lift a finger to stand up for animals who suffer daily in unimaginable ways.

      I agree... it is also curious that the same pro-lifers also seem to agree with the DEATH PENALTY. Funny how that works. We can't "play God" with a fetus, yet we can with a living breathing human.

      • Posted By: rartho @ 10/17/2008 10:07:09 PM

        You cannot compare the two. The death penalty is enforced on those who have taken the lives of others. An unborn child is always innocent. Ideally, no one would be killed under the death penalty. In a perfect world, they would sit in prison and reflect on their actions until they die a natural death. However, you cannot compare the death penalty to abortion. No comparison. And the comment about animals... I love animals too. Where did that come from?

        • Posted By: benkrapf @ 10/18/2008 3:55:29 AM

          A life is a life, by your estimation.

        • Posted By: ProMomOf6 @ 10/18/2008 12:16:17 AM

          Ohhh yes, let's leave the evil man who killed innocent children sit in prison while we pay for his food, shelter and education. Good choice there. I work hard to take care of my family, I don't want to have to pay taxes to have "Mr Serial Killer" sitting in a nice cozy cell for the rest of his life so I have to work even harder for what little pay I do get to bring home.

      • Posted By: halifax@gmail.com @ 10/18/2008 12:36:27 AM

        There is a big difference in death penalty and abortion. A child in the womb is the most innocent of human life. It is not guilty of anything. Not even guilty of being concieved by two people fulfilling their lust most of the time.

    • Posted By: alc684 @ 10/17/2008 10:01:09 PM

      I respect animals and their rights to humane treatment as much as the next person and I AM one of those pro-lifers of whom you are speaking. My heart breaks for animals who suffer unspeakable treatment at the hands of people too cruel to care. I adopted my cat from the humane society and she WAS abused as a kitten. It took almost two years before she would trust us and even now she only likes family. She is a part of my family so I think your mindless comment about the attitude of pro-lifers is insulting and completely disingenuous. But, I will say that I do believe that life begins at conception and contained within those cells is an almost infinite amount of information that has the possibility of becoming a fantastic member of society. What kind of society discards their children as so much unwanted trash! If someone is so set against having a child that they must abort the ones that they are blessed with then my suggestion is get your tubes tied or some other form of permanent birth control...but don't use an abortion to discard the innocent who didn't ask for your irresponsibility.

  • Posted By: hello998 @ 10/17/2008 9:48:41 PM

    Abortion is a very hot topic and is bitterly held as a pinacle to the womens rights movement. It is not fair that men can sleep around and women cannot or at least not without the consequence of "baggage" for the rest of her life. Abortion is the great equalizer and the solution to sex/life without consequence.

    If abortion were really for the health of a mother then what is a C-Section for? Abortion is only for the unwanted children. What situation could you ever run into that an abortion would have to be performed instead of a C-section?

    • Posted By: SomeChick1234 @ 10/17/2008 9:56:20 PM

      Then theft is the great equalizer for those who have very little money with those who have lots!

      • Posted By: hello998 @ 10/17/2008 10:02:37 PM

        We call that socialism... ;-) Take from the rich and give to the poor. Sounds alot like Democrat Dogma.

        • Posted By: benkrapf @ 10/18/2008 3:53:44 AM

          And how is supporting our middle class bad, exactly? I'd say nearly all of the people posting here will gain from Obama more than they lose in these angst-filled social issue debates.

          I vote against my personal finances by voting Obama, but it's what this country needs. We can't max out all of our credit cards and expect it all to be okay.

          Just like we can't keep pandering to the religious right and expect our nation to be balanced and lawful.

  • Posted By: ELL1982 @ 10/17/2008 9:54:58 PM

    Are any of you actually serious? If you are pro-life, then you will never ever have to worry that you or your daughters will have an abortion, because that is where you stand- and I am sure that you have taught them that Abortion is not something that you beleive in. For the peiople that may need or use it as an option, who gives you the right to tell them they can't? Simply said, It is a decision that a Woman and her Doctor make. Pro-Choice believers aren't taking pregnant women into back alleys and forcing them into abortions, so pro-lifers need to sit back, not take away the constitutioanl rights of others, and if you believe that they are all going to hell, get over it. The reason anyone has the right to sit here and write your opinions is because of the right to free speech. If you have a problem with the rights of Women, then move to somewhere that doesn't give them any. You may find, however, that your right to free speech has been taken away too....

    • Posted By: *Straighttalker* @ 10/17/2008 11:22:14 PM

      I'd rather have free speech taken away, then to see one more child become the victim of an abortion. You see, it's called caring about others more than yourself.

      • Posted By: artemis8 @ 10/18/2008 1:08:23 AM

        except when they are an american soldier

        • Posted By: benkrapf @ 10/18/2008 3:50:52 AM

          Who's counting? The Republican administration sure isn't.

          And *Straighttalker*:

          The glories of free speech are why we can have forums such as this one. You cherish the right to your words and seek to deny another the right to the sanctity of their body.

          If you really cared about others as you say, then you would find a way to accept the fact that sometimes, the process of labor can be lethal to the mother. Also, would you prefer to have a child brought to term and thrown out of the family because it is the product of a rape?

  • Posted By: lutheranwoman @ 10/17/2008 10:17:50 PM

    To Luridmoon:
    Obviously you are not Christian. If you were you would know that God does form us in the womb and that he did intend for everyone to be "beautiful & perfect". We screwed that up ourselves when Adam & Eve sinned for the first time in the Garden. All of the "natural calamities", as you put it, are our own fault. We have no one to blame but our own sinful nature and satan. God does not cause these things but He does allow them to happen just like He allows us to have free will. Before you start criticizing God, I recommend you get a bible and read it in it's entirety. Then maybe you will have a clue what you are talking about.

    • Posted By: benkrapf @ 10/18/2008 3:44:07 AM

      Martin Luther himself sought to divorce the interpretation of the Bible from strict canon. It has been proven time and again through many different arguments that the Bible is rife with contradictions and vagaries, i.e. it will support nearly any claim it's readers make in some form or another. Swinging a Bible at people is disingenuous, especially when you should hold dear the PERSONAL interpretation of the Bible and the PERSONAL relationship with God.

      Humanity practices moral relativism. Get over it, and keep the Bible out of it, because Biblical arguments always swing both ways.

  • Posted By: jebachman @ 10/17/2008 10:50:18 PM

    I really must go, but one final thought. When it comes time to meet my maker, and He says I did not make the grade because I supported my wife's decision to terminate her pregnancy we both cherished with all of our heart due to a serious, and I mean serious threat to her health, I will not be afraid for one instant. You see, I will not know anyone there anyway.

    • Posted By: benkrapf @ 10/18/2008 3:39:24 AM

      And if that really happened, then you have more backbone than 99% of the people in these stupid chatrooms.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse