100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Simple Abortion Question | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Starsailor2851
on
Mon 01/21/08 07:45 PM
|
|
Now those who are pro-abortion say human life does not begin until birth. Okay, make that point, but then how can you justify our court system giving double murder to those who kill a pregnant woman? I even heard a pro-abortionist person saying that someone who murders a pregnant woman should be tried for both murders. WHAT? That makes absolutely no sense at all. She went on to say it is different because the woman wanted to keep the fetus. I asked her "How can you murder a 'human' that you don't consider a living human being?" She then went on to argue again and again that it is different because the pregnant woman wanted to keep the fetus. What screwy logic. I think the legistics to this discussion is only if the unborn could have lived outside the woman's body at the time of the murder can it be a double murder. Which means that she would have had to have been 6-7 months pregnant. No abortions are allowed at this point in a pregnancy. So get the facts right first and then discuss. A woman should have the choice of what to do with her body until the child is born and becomes an entity unto itself. I have already said this to all pro-lifers and I will say it again if it bothers you so badly go to the abortion clinic catch the girl before she enters and offer her $100,000 or so not to have the abortion and keep the baby, if she takes the money and raises the kid you have then saved a life, but if you are not willing to do that then stay out of other peoples business. That is wrong, like I pointed out in another post. A man was charged when the fetus was only 3 months. And, it is a COULD, not a 100% definite. But yeah, you just admitted in your own post that you believe a woman should have a choice to murder her own entity inside her, that pesky parasite. We aren't the ones who lack responsibility, you are the ones who want to maintain a 'baby' scoiety where there is no such thing as personal responsibility for your choices. When someone goes wrong you simply don't kill it, you grow with it, live, and adapt to the new environment. Plus, you want us to buy her off for her own choices and pay her $100,000 to keep the baby? Socialism 101, baby the part of the society that doesn't want to grow up and can't take the responsibility of their lives in their own hands. And you say capital murder is cruel. Not granting the life of a new human that could save millions with cures, discover a new technology, or maybe become a mass murderer. However, what a foolish game to play executioner of a life growing inside you. How childish, how selfish. Hey go out and adopt all those unwanted children in the world and then tell me about an abortion, okay? And it is the woman's choice, it is her body, if you pay her she may keep the baby and you are the savior, right?? Since you want to save them all save them all. Pay her what it is going to cost her to raise the child about 100 grnad or so and then you are the great savior. Do it, action speaks louder than sad words. Until all the unwanted children in the world are cared for and there is a shortage of unwanted children, I personally don't want to hear a pitiful word about abortion. Do you know how many men walk out on a pregnant woman, abandoning her and the children?? I bet not. So keep it, really. Go to the abortion clinics and support the children 100% and then preach to me okay? How many times are you going to repeat your own justification to the murder of living beings? Well, just because raising a child is too hard, guess you outta rip out that freakin' parasite. I don't want that responsibility. You argue that the responsible should be punished for those of us who lack responsibility and choices? You argue that because these people think it is too much responsibility, will have to actually work hard in life to provide for their choices that they should cut out the little parasite before it can say mommy? Sad words? You are the one who justified the killing of a living being so young and promising in growth, however simply because it is a parasite and needs its mother to grow it isn't human enough yet. All new life is worthy life! And yet, I'm the pitiful one, the one who has hopes and cannot wait to know the dreams and possibilities of those who have not yet been born. You simply want to give up on them, cut them out you say, snuff out the young lives of the innocents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now those who are pro-abortion say human life does not begin until birth. Okay, make that point, but then how can you justify our court system giving double murder to those who kill a pregnant woman? I even heard a pro-abortionist person saying that someone who murders a pregnant woman should be tried for both murders. WHAT? That makes absolutely no sense at all. She went on to say it is different because the woman wanted to keep the fetus. I asked her "How can you murder a 'human' that you don't consider a living human being?" She then went on to argue again and again that it is different because the pregnant woman wanted to keep the fetus. What screwy logic. I think the legistics to this discussion is only if the unborn could have lived outside the woman's body at the time of the murder can it be a double murder. Which means that she would have had to have been 6-7 months pregnant. No abortions are allowed at this point in a pregnancy. So get the facts right first and then discuss. A woman should have the choice of what to do with her body until the child is born and becomes an entity unto itself. I have already said this to all pro-lifers and I will say it again if it bothers you so badly go to the abortion clinic catch the girl before she enters and offer her $100,000 or so not to have the abortion and keep the baby, if she takes the money and raises the kid you have then saved a life, but if you are not willing to do that then stay out of other peoples business. That is wrong, like I pointed out in another post. A man was charged when the fetus was only 3 months. And, it is a COULD, not a 100% definite. But yeah, you just admitted in your own post that you believe a woman should have a choice to murder her own entity inside her, that pesky parasite. We aren't the ones who lack responsibility, you are the ones who want to maintain a 'baby' scoiety where there is no such thing as personal responsibility for your choices. When someone goes wrong you simply don't kill it, you grow with it, live, and adapt to the new environment. Plus, you want us to buy her off for her own choices and pay her $100,000 to keep the baby? Socialism 101, baby the part of the society that doesn't want to grow up and can't take the responsibility of their lives in their own hands. And you say capital murder is cruel. Not granting the life of a new human that could save millions with cures, discover a new technology, or maybe become a mass murderer. However, what a foolish game to play executioner of a life growing inside you. How childish, how selfish. Hey go out and adopt all those unwanted children in the world and then tell me about an abortion, okay? And it is the woman's choice, it is her body, if you pay her she may keep the baby and you are the savior, right?? Since you want to save them all save them all. Pay her what it is going to cost her to raise the child about 100 grnad or so and then you are the great savior. Do it, action speaks louder than sad words. Until all the unwanted children in the world are cared for and there is a shortage of unwanted children, I personally don't want to hear a pitiful word about abortion. Do you know how many men walk out on a pregnant woman, abandoning her and the children?? I bet not. So keep it, really. Go to the abortion clinics and support the children 100% and then preach to me okay? How many times are you going to repeat your own justification to the murder of living beings? Well, just because raising a child is too hard, guess you outta rip out that freakin' parasite. I don't want that responsibility. You argue that the responsible should be punished for those of us who lack responsibility and choices? You argue that because these people think it is too much responsibility, will have to actually work hard in life to provide for their choices that they should cut out the little parasite before it can say mommy? Sad words? You are the one who justified the killing of a living being so young and promising in growth, however simply because it is a parasite and needs its mother to grow it isn't human enough yet. All new life is worthy life! And yet, I'm the pitiful one, the one who has hopes and cannot wait to know the dreams and possibilities of those who have not yet been born. You simply want to give up on them, cut them out you say, snuff out the young lives of the innocents. I already told you go save them, your sad words do nothing to save them. Go to the clinic put up a flyer and offer to take in all the children born. Or pay the mother the amount it will take to support the child for life and then you will be the great savior of life, right??? Actions speak louder than words, go save them, hurry!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will say this again, just because you are a good F@ck, doesn't mean your a good parent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goes both ways. Sometimes just because you're a good parent doesn't mean you're a good f*ck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
true!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MarsNeverSleeps
on
Tue 01/22/08 01:18 AM
|
|
...It's pretty simple really. It doesn't matter when the baby officially "becomes a human being."
Define murder. The intentional, conscious cessation of another human being's life without consent? We humans are constantly making choices...every second you make multiple choices, many of which you're not even fully aware of. Regardless of your religion or philosophies or beliefs, one can hardly deny that a fundamental part of being human is that constant stream of choices. Life is POTENTIAL. Murder is taking that choice, that potential from someone in a very final, very permanent way. That's a part of why we as a species usually consider murder such a grave sin. Who cares whether or not the baby is truly "alive" and when? The fact is that the moment a sperm cell's 12 chromosomes fuse with an egg's 12, the *potential* for human life is created...billions of choices, experiences, emotions lay ahead for that new set of DNA. Even if I knew my son were to be born with a fatal illness, I wouldn't deprive him of the experience of this world we live in. I'd make sure he has a full, rich experience, filled with as much joy, laugher, peace and love as I can possibly endeavor to cram into his short, blessed lifespan, and then do my best to help him leave this world as painlessly and peacefully as possible when the time comes. :) What if the baby you're carrying grows up to become the president of the US? Or a great minister? Or a doctor? All the people she'll help...even if she's not yet "officially human," are you content with deciding her fate for her before she even has a chance? Neither is the challenge of raising a child an excuse. The demand for children for adoption has consistently been greater than "supply" for god-knows-how-long, and isn't likely to go away any time soon. My two cents. I'm done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see this as a dichotomy involving perception and intent. For instance -- a woman is having an abortion. She does not see this as murder, she sees this as a medical procedure. In her mind, there is no intent to murder, or to commit any crime at all. Abortion is legal; there are no legal repercussions to be accrued from the act. As Jeffrey Zaslow, a reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times wrote many years ago: "If abortion is murder, then why aren't abortion doctors arrested and charged with murder?" Now, take the case of a man who murders a pregnant woman. Here we see a clear intent to harm, at the very least; an intent to commit a crime. He may not even know she is pregnant. He may know and not care. But he has an intent to harm. If he kills her, and the unborn child is also killed, there is an argument to be made that this child's life (or potential life, if you choose to see it that way) has been taken away by someone NOT sanctioned to make such a decision (whereas the mother, under the current law, DOES have such a right). So, I would see the difference as simply one of perception (under the law) and intent -- the mother does not perceive her action as a negative behavior, and she has no deliberate intention of harming anyone (working from a basic assumption that she's having the abortion willingly, and not through any sort of manipulation or coercion, which, of course, does happen, but isn't especially useful for this simplistic example) -- whereas an attacker/murderer should see his own actions as harmful AND decidedly criminal (barring some sort of mental issues). The law, as it currently stands, allows a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy, in many instances. It does NOT allow another person to terminate her pregnancy without her consent. It's not a perfect distinction, and one can argue that it does exhibit a root contradiction, i.e., is the unborn baby a "person" or not? There is an inconsistency here, in that there may be no other instance where "personhood" is defined by who does the actual termination. But that, ostensibly, is why we have laws....I suppose.... Thank you for clearing that up for me. I see now that it is the intent not the action that determines whether a crime has occurred. I guess if I operate my car in a risky manner, hit and kill someone, as long as I didn't "intend" to do any harm, no crime has been committed. The original question exemplifies the double standard that exists. It is a matter of laws and convenience. When it is convenient to have an abortion as a means of birth control the law says the fetus is not a person and may be killed. When it is convenient to prosecute a monster for a heinous crime the law says that same fetus is a living person. Here are a couple of hypothetical questions for you. If a pregnant woman decides to have an abortion and as she is about to enter the clinic a pro lifer sets off a bomb and kills her and her unborn fetus has he committed one murder or two? And, if he intended no harm but only to attract attention has he committed any crime at all? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I already told you go save them, your sad words do nothing to save them. Go to the clinic put up a flyer and offer to take in all the children born. Or pay the mother the amount it will take to support the child for life and then you will be the great savior of life, right??? Actions speak louder than words, go save them, hurry!!!!!! Adoption agencys will pay for the mother's medical bills and all of the legal paperwork for a child to be adopted by a family who wants a child. That work is already done. Abortions are almost always done because of the convience. His sad words will do nothing when hearts are so cold as to call a child a parasite. His sad words will do nothing while so many are willing to encourage a desperate woman to kill her own child. In a desperate situation, when emotions overwhelm good sense, some see the easy option to be the best option. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I see now that it is the intent not the action that determines whether a crime has occurred. In many cases, it is. Have you seen MSNBC's shows where they go after internet sex predators and Nigerian scammers? Those people are prosecuted solely on intent, because there are NO actual children in the house, and there are NO actual victims of the scammers. These are sting operations, and the "crimes" never actually occurred -- the prosecution is based on the perceived intent of the perpetrators to commit a crime. I guess if I operate my car in a risky manner, hit and kill someone, as long as I didn't "intend" to do any harm, no crime has been committed. Killing someone with your car is never a legal option. Abortion is. I would hope you could come up with a better comparison than that! The original question exemplifies the double standard that exists. It is a matter of laws and convenience. When it is convenient to have an abortion as a means of birth control the law says the fetus is not a person and may be killed. When it is convenient to prosecute a monster for a heinous crime the law says that same fetus is a living person. Here are a couple of hypothetical questions for you. If a pregnant woman decides to have an abortion and as she is about to enter the clinic a pro lifer sets off a bomb and kills her and her unborn fetus has he committed one murder or two? And, if he intended no harm but only to attract attention has he committed any crime at all? Well, unlike some here, I never claimed to have all the answers. I was just expressing an opinion -- right or wrong, whatever; it really makes no difference to me either way. I have no ox to be gored here -- abortion has never been something that has or will have any impact on me personally. If it amuses you to make up obscure, it-will-probably-never-happen legal scenarios about people with explosive devices, more power to you. Really not my bailiwick, though -- leave it to the legal system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see this as a dichotomy involving perception and intent. For instance -- a woman is having an abortion. She does not see this as murder, she sees this as a medical procedure. In her mind, there is no intent to murder, or to commit any crime at all. Abortion is legal; there are no legal repercussions to be accrued from the act. As Jeffrey Zaslow, a reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times wrote many years ago: "If abortion is murder, then why aren't abortion doctors arrested and charged with murder?" Now, take the case of a man who murders a pregnant woman. Here we see a clear intent to harm, at the very least; an intent to commit a crime. He may not even know she is pregnant. He may know and not care. But he has an intent to harm. If he kills her, and the unborn child is also killed, there is an argument to be made that this child's life (or potential life, if you choose to see it that way) has been taken away by someone NOT sanctioned to make such a decision (whereas the mother, under the current law, DOES have such a right). So, I would see the difference as simply one of perception (under the law) and intent -- the mother does not perceive her action as a negative behavior, and she has no deliberate intention of harming anyone (working from a basic assumption that she's having the abortion willingly, and not through any sort of manipulation or coercion, which, of course, does happen, but isn't especially useful for this simplistic example) -- whereas an attacker/murderer should see his own actions as harmful AND decidedly criminal (barring some sort of mental issues). The law, as it currently stands, allows a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy, in many instances. It does NOT allow another person to terminate her pregnancy without her consent. It's not a perfect distinction, and one can argue that it does exhibit a root contradiction, i.e., is the unborn baby a "person" or not? There is an inconsistency here, in that there may be no other instance where "personhood" is defined by who does the actual termination. But that, ostensibly, is why we have laws....I suppose.... Thank you for clearing that up for me. I see now that it is the intent not the action that determines whether a crime has occurred. I guess if I operate my car in a risky manner, hit and kill someone, as long as I didn't "intend" to do any harm, no crime has been committed. The original question exemplifies the double standard that exists. It is a matter of laws and convenience. When it is convenient to have an abortion as a means of birth control the law says the fetus is not a person and may be killed. When it is convenient to prosecute a monster for a heinous crime the law says that same fetus is a living person. Here are a couple of hypothetical questions for you. If a pregnant woman decides to have an abortion and as she is about to enter the clinic a pro lifer sets off a bomb and kills her and her unborn fetus has he committed one murder or two? And, if he intended no harm but only to attract attention has he committed any crime at all? One thing all you men are missing here is that a woman does not use this method as a form of birth control. One the cost is high, I imagine it is about 500.00 for the procedure now and no federal or state funds can be used for that amount at all. Second, they give a class prior describing the procedure of the abortion, giving the lady or girl time to think after to make sure she is still wanting to do it. Thirdly, it is an awful procedure to endure. I can tell you that she will not be back for it after going through it once. So your assumptions are all wrong from get. Lastly, a woman is the one stuck with the child all by herself after birth. Noone jumps up to help her. There are millions of unwanted children already in the world, here they have the foster care system strapped to the limits, in other parts of the world they just die from noone to care for them. Lets worry about those that are here before we worry about the possible children to be born. Once all the unwanted children have steady homes and the adoption system is in dire need of children then we can discuss the need for all the unborn children. As for your analogy of the abortion clinic bomber. Any person who sets off an explosive device regardless to intention is potentially going to murder people. There is no comparison there. Whether the lady going into the abortion clinic is killed or not, she may have chosen not to abort after seeing the video of the procedure, many do change their minds. Abortion clinics do not promote or try to influence a woman to make the choice as they know how serious it is to a woman and her unborn. I have been there and they will even give you information on adoption if you want it. They do not sell abortion as portrayed. You guys are not getting the full brunt of what a woman goes through to make these choices as you cannot get pregnant. So to judge for you is easy but not accurate at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You guys are not getting the full brunt of what a woman goes through to make these choices as you cannot get pregnant. So to judge for you is easy but not accurate at all. Dragoness -- My position on this has always been that I, as a man, have no business whatsoever telling any woman what to do with her own body. You're right, there is no way a man can fully understand the ramifications of this procedure; and that's why I have always felt it has to be the woman's choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You guys are not getting the full brunt of what a woman goes through to make these choices as you cannot get pregnant. So to judge for you is easy but not accurate at all. Dragoness -- My position on this has always been that I, as a man, have no business whatsoever telling any woman what to do with her own body. You're right, there is no way a man can fully understand the ramifications of this procedure; and that's why I have always felt it has to be the woman's choice. Thank you lex, I did notice in your earlier post that you are staying nuetral on this. I appreciate your position. When I said men, I just did not list those that are making judgements with no background to go on. Since some men seem to have a problem with it, I surely do hope they are wrapping it up when they have sex to stop from the perpetuation of the problem. If not that maybe some salt peter would do so there won't be any pregnant girls to have abortions, hmmmmmmmm?????? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You guys are not getting the full brunt of what a woman goes through to make these choices as you cannot get pregnant. So to judge for you is easy but not accurate at all. Dragoness -- My position on this has always been that I, as a man, have no business whatsoever telling any woman what to do with her own body. You're right, there is no way a man can fully understand the ramifications of this procedure; and that's why I have always felt it has to be the woman's choice. Thank you lex, I did notice in your earlier post that you are staying nuetral on this. I appreciate your position. When I said men, I just did not list those that are making judgements with no background to go on. Since some men seem to have a problem with it, I surely do hope they are wrapping it up when they have sex to stop from the perpetuation of the problem. If not that maybe some salt peter would do so there won't be any pregnant girls to have abortions, hmmmmmmmm?????? Ugh. Since when is the baby the same thing as the woman's body? This is a separate human life we're talking about, not a decision on whether or not to lose weight or get a tan. "Pro choice" is a pretty term for justifying exactly the opposite: stealing the choice..in fact, all choices..from a precious human-being-to-be. Neither do I lack personal connection to the issue. My oldest brother was aborted years before I was born...it would have been nice to know him. And my mom, though she's since healed from the mistake, still greatly regrets that decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this thread has " bad idea" written all over it. Here is your friend, now he's following you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ugh. Since when is the baby the same thing as the woman's body? This is a separate human life we're talking about, not a decision on whether or not to lose weight or get a tan. "Pro choice" is a pretty term for justifying exactly the opposite: stealing the choice..in fact, all choices..from a precious human-being-to-be. Neither do I lack personal connection to the issue. My oldest brother was aborted years before I was born...it would have been nice to know him. And my mom, though she's since healed from the mistake, still greatly regrets that decision. Thank you, you said that perfectly. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You guys are not getting the full brunt of what a woman goes through to make these choices as you cannot get pregnant. So to judge for you is easy but not accurate at all. Dragoness -- My position on this has always been that I, as a man, have no business whatsoever telling any woman what to do with her own body. You're right, there is no way a man can fully understand the ramifications of this procedure; and that's why I have always felt it has to be the woman's choice. Thank you lex, I did notice in your earlier post that you are staying nuetral on this. I appreciate your position. When I said men, I just did not list those that are making judgements with no background to go on. Since some men seem to have a problem with it, I surely do hope they are wrapping it up when they have sex to stop from the perpetuation of the problem. If not that maybe some salt peter would do so there won't be any pregnant girls to have abortions, hmmmmmmmm?????? Ugh. Since when is the baby the same thing as the woman's body? This is a separate human life we're talking about, not a decision on whether or not to lose weight or get a tan. "Pro choice" is a pretty term for justifying exactly the opposite: stealing the choice..in fact, all choices..from a precious human-being-to-be. Neither do I lack personal connection to the issue. My oldest brother was aborted years before I was born...it would have been nice to know him. And my mom, though she's since healed from the mistake, still greatly regrets that decision. It is still a woman's body regardless to your wanting to make it more. She has the choice. Once children can be carried and birthed by men then they to will know the joy and pain involved. Until then, a woman has a right to chose to bring a life into the world or not. Men have all these grandiose ideas, not all men, lex, but some men and you don't know what the hell you are talking about but steady passing judgement. I sure hope you wrap that bad boy up and make dam sure you are not making unwanted children who then have to live a life of hell, no dad, sometimes no mom, foster care, abuse, etc..... all because some man thought he was not responsible if she got pregnant and made the child and the woman chose to bring it here and then the child goes through life unwanted and uncared for. You cannot justify your judgement. You have a fairy tale view of reality, WAKE UP! See the real world. As for your mom, bless her poor heart. She made a choice and has regretted it. Alot of women have this same problem. They forget afterwards what drove them to do it in the first place. Choices are hard to deal with in life that is the reality of choices. No one is exempt from the folly of a bad choice. She learned and you are here because of that lesson. Be glad of that. Instead of claiming some larger than life understanding of the issue of abortion. You still will never see it from a womans perspective. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, some people are gonna be angery about this. My belief is that the 'baby' is alive at the moment of conception. Abortion should only be allowed if the mother is going to die if the pregancy is carried out to full term. If the mother AND the father does not want the child it should be placed for adoption. Personal note: My wife and I wanted to adopt a child because she was not able to have one. One of those aborted fetusus could have been our child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, some people are gonna be angery about this. My belief is that the 'baby' is alive at the moment of conception. Abortion should only be allowed if the mother is going to die if the pregancy is carried out to full term. If the mother AND the father does not want the child it should be placed for adoption. Personal note: My wife and I wanted to adopt a child because she was not able to have one. One of those aborted fetusus could have been our child. Believe me there are plenty of kids out there that need adopting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Tue 01/22/08 12:45 PM
|
|
I'm sorry, some people are gonna be angery about this. My belief is that the 'baby' is alive at the moment of conception. Abortion should only be allowed if the mother is going to die if the pregancy is carried out to full term. If the mother AND the father does not want the child it should be placed for adoption. Personal note: My wife and I wanted to adopt a child because she was not able to have one. One of those aborted fetusus could have been our child. You have the right to feel how you do, just do not force it on others. As a woman, if another woman choses to bring the child into the world with all that entails then good for her, but if she choses not to bring the child into the world, she has a right to chose that also. Noone should tell a woman whether or not to have or not have an abortion. If you have a problem with it go to the abortion clinic and offer to take the child off her hands and pay her hospital bills and care she needs while pregnant and then adopt the child from her. Then you have saved one of these lives you go on about. If you are not willing to care for the child for the rest of it's life then stay out of it. Also another thing this woman does decide not to have an abortion and gets on assistance and all these (except lex)men on here will be screaming about the welfare and how their tax dollars are raising all these welfare kids, mom's just keep having more kids, etc........LOL it is crazy. Don't want em aborted but don't want em pinching your taxes either. LOL Just stupid it is, no offense of course. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, some people are gonna be angery about this. My belief is that the 'baby' is alive at the moment of conception. Abortion should only be allowed if the mother is going to die if the pregancy is carried out to full term. If the mother AND the father does not want the child it should be placed for adoption. Personal note: My wife and I wanted to adopt a child because she was not able to have one. One of those aborted fetusus could have been our child. You have the right to feel how you do, just do not force it on others. As a woman, if another woman choses to bring the child into the world with all that entails then good for her, but if she choses not to bring the child into the world, she has a right to chose that also. Noone should tell a woman whether or not to have or not have an abortion. If you have a problem with it go to the abortion clinic and offer to take the child off her hands and pay her hospital bills and care she needs while pregnant and then adopt the child from her. Then you have saved one of these lives you go on about. If you are not willing to care for the child for the rest of it's life then stay out of it. Also another thing this woman does decide not to have an abortion and gets on assistance and all these (except lex)men on here will be screaming about the welfare and how their tax dollars are raising all these welfare kids, mom's just keep having more kids, etc........LOL it is crazy. Don't want em aborted but don't want em pinching your taxes either. LOL Just stupid it is, no offense of course. Isn't it sad that our society doesn't considered the murder of a child "everyone's" business? Isn't it sad that adoption agencys and couples already agree to take care of the mother's medical bills, but some pretend that isn't the case? Isn't it sad that so many couples must adopt from foreign countries to get healthy newborns, when so many children are murdered in the USA every year? |
|
|
|
|
