Planned Parenthood

[tommyjones]

I was intimating that I was raped at 13. 'Nuff said.

I don't foster children because I'm not in the position currently to actually help them. You can make fun of it like Wenchy if you like, but I'm doing more about abortion and its subsequent situations than you or she are.


Now, with that having been said, I'm bowing out of this thread. It would seem the pro-choice advocates are becoming vicious, I've made my points well enough, and I do my best to avoid mudslinging, so have at it without me.

well it sucks that you were raped.


But as FYI said, i was asking about abortion. I am guessing that you lack of addressing that issue means that you did indeed have one. Maybe you felt bad about it after, but thats no reason another woman in a similar situation shouldn't be able to make that same choice for herself.

 

[ItalianScallion]

You could be. Plenty of foster kids out there looking for permanent homes.

As you know I work with many teens during the week, plus I'm single. I really wouldn't want to adopt any kids without my being married. I know it happens everyday but it's not for me. Plus I'd hope that if I had any kids, their Mom would have let me know by now.

I was married and financially stable. :shrug:

Ok but I still, honestly, don't know His reason for it. One passage is in Isaiah 57 verse 1 & 2. I'd look at it that way and know that they are much better off now. Just a thought.

My tubes are tied and I will be losing my ovaries in a few months.

I saw your brother the last 2 Friday's in a row. Are you back in Md? I asked him and he said he didn't know.

 

[sockgirl77]

I saw your brother the last 2 Friday's in a row. Are you back in Md? I asked him and he said he didn't know.

Yes and he does know. He just knows better than to give my personal business out to strangers. I just saw him 2 weeks ago.

 

[PsyOps]

Seem? No.

I was pretty clear with the word need in that statement.

So, you're telling me what I need right after criticizing me (well, everyone) for telling people what they need (should or shouldn't do).

 

[Wenchy]

As you know I work with many teens during the week, plus I'm single. I really wouldn't want to adopt any kids without my being married.

I have read all about it, and that's "nice" of you. Step up and show the children that one person (you) can be a great parent. Otherwise, STFU with your holier than thou BS.

Take the troubled into your home, get them educated and you will also get tax money to "foster" them.

You can do it...really!

Practice what you preach.

 

[This_person]

what's natural about in vitro?

It's about as unnatural as is possible.

I see your game now. You don't care about the actual life (seeing as how an in vitro embryo is the same as an abortion embryo) you're just a 'punish the slut' kind of guy huh? That'll teach her to get pregnant huh?

Otherwise it would be the life itself you argue for.

Let's describe it this way, and see if you get it. A certain type of brain cancer is 100% fatal to the untreated, and only 25% survival rate of those who are treated. So, of the treated, is that killing 75%, or saving 25%?

That's right, when you try to save (create) a life, the lack of success is not murderous, it's simply failure at the goal of life.

Now, take random people off the street, slice a hole in their head, and suck their brains out because they're inconvinient to their family. I'm betting real close to 100% die. Is this a "choice" of their family, or murder of the person?

That's right, when you kill someone, that's murder.


Do you see the difference between IVF and abortion yet?

Oh, and if you can show me anything that implies my feeling on this are "punish the slut", please show me, so I can correct your horribly inaccurate view.

 

[This_person]

The patient being the family affected. I actually believe that the woman should be morally (NOT legally however) obligated to inform the 'father'. But in the case of a married couple who already have three kids they are struggling to care for. It would be the entire family affected by a 4th child. If something happened to the mom it would be the entirely family who loses a mother.
Ultimately it is the woman's decison but there is more to accidental pregnanies than just some 20 year old and her BF having an oopsie.

I agree there are more people than that. I've looked at the numbers.

However, why this kid? Why not the older one, they're probably more expensive to this hypothetical family of 5? Why does only the mother get to decide who dies?

 

[This_person]

because its possible the tadpole is able to live on its own at a later date than the end of the first trimester (as a general rule).

Don't you see that's the whole point? It IS possible, unless you kill that child.

 

[This_person]

Forget the % of abortions that are the result of the rape. If you believe abortion is wrong, then its wrong. The fetus is no different during a rape pregnancy than it is during a non-rape one.
The "innocent" is exactly the same in both cases.

I do agree the innocent person, the murdered child, as being the same. However, a big difference for me is that the murdered child was NOT the choice of the mother. This is no longer a personal responsibility issue, and I personally believe that the mother's mental health could be greatly damaged by carrying that child to term, even if she gives it up for adoption after.

I'm all for charging the rapist with murder as well if the mother chooses abortion in this issue, but I'm REASONABLE enough to see something other than just the black and white of the issue.

 

[This_person]

Hypocrit.

DING DING DING DING!!!! You were the first one to actually do it, congratulations!

 

[This_person]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people have opinions on what someone should or should not do.

And if you're a man, then you need to just shut up. You absolutely have no clue what any of this is like.

Men are parents, too. I can only speak for myself and the type of people I choose to associate with, but we understand.

 

[donbarzini]

and I do my best to avoid mudslinging .

Now that is the funniest thing I've heard this year.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Now that is the funniest thing I've heard this year.

 

[tommyjones]

Now that is the funniest thing I've heard this year.

View Post Today, 06:19 AM
Remove user from ignore listThis_person
This message is hidden because This_person is on your ignore list.

View Post Today, 06:21 AM
Remove user from ignore listThis_person
This message is hidden because This_person is on your ignore list.

View Post Today, 06:23 AM
Remove user from ignore listThis_person
This message is hidden because This_person is on your ignore list.

View Post Today, 06:26 AM
Remove user from ignore listThis_person
This message is hidden because This_person is on your ignore list.

View Post Today, 06:28 AM
Remove user from ignore listThis_person
This message is hidden because This_person is on your ignore list.

View Post Today, 06:37 AM
Remove user from ignore listThis_person
This message is hidden because This_person is on your ignore list.

well thats the funniest thing i have seen all year

 

[Xaquin44]

Let's describe it this way, and see if you get it. A certain type of brain cancer is 100% fatal to the untreated, and only 25% survival rate of those who are treated. So, of the treated, is that killing 75%, or saving 25%?

That's right, when you try to save (create) a life, the lack of success is not murderous, it's simply failure at the goal of life.

Now, take random people off the street, slice a hole in their head, and suck their brains out because they're inconvinient to their family. I'm betting real close to 100% die. Is this a "choice" of their family, or murder of the person?

That's right, when you kill someone, that's murder.


Do you see the difference between IVF and abortion yet?

Oh, and if you can show me anything that implies my feeling on this are "punish the slut", please show me, so I can correct your horribly inaccurate view.

Thats not a good comparison. Brain cancer =/= a child. When you preform in vitro, embryos (children as you define them) are 100% dead. I guess if you want to rationalize the casualties to make yourself feel better thats fine, but don't pretend it fits in your views and is not horribly hypocritical.

Remember, in vitro kills (generally speaking more embryos then one abortion), and as you like to say, "That's right, when you kill someone, that's murder."

 

[This_person]

Thats not a good comparison. Brain cancer =/= a child. When you preform in vitro, embryos (children as you define them) are 100% dead. I guess if you want to rationalize the casualties to make yourself feel better thats fine, but don't pretend it fits in your views and is not horribly hypocritical.

Remember, in vitro kills (generally speaking more embryos then one abortion), and as you like to say, "That's right, when you kill someone, that's murder."

The difference is still that with IVF you are trying to create life, some just don't make it. With abortions, you are taking life and snuffing it out on purpose. It's not hypocritical to say that trying to create life is good, trying to kill life is bad. It's actually pretty consistent.

 

[Xaquin44]

The difference is still that with IVF you are trying to create life, some just don't make it. With abortions, you are taking life and snuffing it out on purpose. It's not hypocritical to say that trying to create life is good, trying to kill life is bad. It's actually pretty consistent.

yes ... but you fully know that much of the life you create will die. It's more akin (if you buy that an embryo is a child) to having quints and killing 4.

Is an embryo a child?

 

[This_person]

yes ... but you fully know that much of the life you create will die. It's more akin (if you buy that an embryo is a child) to having quints and killing 4.

Is an embryo a child?

It's a lot more like having sex ten times and getting a pregnancy capable of going full term once. You're not intentionally killing anyone, they're just not making it full term. Intention here is the key - if you are trying to create life and fail that's almost the exact opposite of trying to kill and succeeding.

 

[PsyOps]

Yes. That's exactly what I'm doing.

No uterus no opinion. That's how I feel about it.

So I suppose since the vast majority of murders are committed by men, women should have no opinion on it.

And I suppose since we have legislators and members of our USSC that are men they need to sit out on that decision when it comes due.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure if a man had an opinion that agreed with yours you'd be just fine with that MAN spouting off about it. So, your feelings are only based on those that disagree with you.

 

[Xaquin44]

You're not intentionally killing anyone, they're just not making it full term.

oh no no you're not intentionally killing anyone .... you just know for fact it will happen but do it anyway.

hey, why not just view abortions as 'not making it full term'?

or is it only allowed in special cases that you say should be ok?