This is just an opinion of mine, but I've lost a child due to miscarriage, and it was very early (the complications were how we found out she was pregnant - pregnant to not pregnant all in one day), and due to an abortion I'd found out about years later. Both were devastating. As if I'd lost one of my children that did survive Roe v. Wade.
It wasn't meant to bother you. It was meant to speak accurately.
Babies are considered old enough for life when the fertilized egg embeds itself in the womb to grow.
I'm glad you're coming to your senses and realizing that.
Well, it was good talking to you, and reading your bumper sticker responses on "PRO-CHOICE" with no substance.im done with this thread. say what you want, i won't be returning.
ill leave with this...
im right your wrong.
There are lots and lots of people who want kids, but can't have them. :shrug:
No one is suggesting forcing people to have babies, just not kill the ones they chose to have. Also, no one is suggesting people have babies to answer a fertility issue of someone else, just not kill the child they chose to have, and if they can't support it, offer a choice of someone else to raise and take responsibility for the life they chose to bring into this world.
Take the hair out of your eyes lady and read the truth:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new annual report from Planned Parenthood shows the nation's largest abortion business has made over $1 billion in profit for the first time in its history. The non-profit pro-abortion group shows the historical gain in its new annual report covering 2006-2007.
While Planned Parenthood made $972 milion in its 2005-2006 annual report, last fiscal year it brought in $1.017 billion.
On its web site posting of the annual document, Planned Parenthood says it "highlights our advancements in providing and protecting trusted health care services and medically accurate sexuality education."
Instead, the report finds Planned Parenthood doing more abortions than ever before.
The report shows an increase in the number of provided abortions from 264,943 in 2005 to 289,650 in 2006.
Of concern to pro-life groups, Planned Parenthood acknowledges the receipt of over $336 million in government grants and contracts from both state and federal governments.
The revelations from the annual report upset Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council.
"A majority of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion -- however, still Planned Parenthood receives more than $300 million in taxpayer funding each year for 'family planning' projects that help bolster their abortion trade," he told LifeNews.com.
He said Planned Parenthood was not a "wise investment" of public money because of its history.
"Would you invest in a company whose affiliates are complicit in sexual crimes against children?" he asked, pointing to numerous instances of its centers doing abortions on victims of statutory rape and sexual abuse.
"Would you take your hard-earned money and pile it into a company whose fundraisers "get excited" when someone wishes to target African-American babies for extinction?" he asked.
Perkins said the ultimate slap in the face to the majority of Americans who are pro-life is the fact that Planned Parenthood plans still receives government funds despite the fact its political action committee will spend $10 million this year election[ing] pro-abortion candidates.
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
He may not be the one carrying the child during gestation, but he would be there for the child (legally and morally) for at least 18 years (kinda trumps the 9 months). Also, presuming this isn't a rape issue, we're talking about a conscious choice of two individuals to potentially create a child, so why is his voice less than hers should the child be wanted (or, unwanted for that matter)?
I'm all for choice.
I would never get an abortion though :shrug:
This is where the dilemma comes into play though. Should the father have a choice? He isn't the one carrying a kid for 9+ months :shrug: In my opinion, if you are a father that WOULDN'T want an abortion, and the woman gets an abortion, well then that is just a way of divine intervention showing that she isn't the woman for you.
Statistically, can you back that up? Do most abortions kill babies of lower income parents?I'm all about pro-choice. People need to stop getting in the way of other people's choices that don't affect them in the least. If anything, having abortion be a choice rather than a non-option, it causes less welfare recipients, thus, lower taxes
I'm not for getting involved in people's business like this. I'm just against murder.
Until what age of child? Seriously, should a third trimester baby be killed in this fashion? How about a 1 year old that she didn't realize would be such a life changing event - retroactive abortion? How is the first or second tri-mester any different from the point of view of taking another person's life than the third, or the first year of life?
I do, too. I have a great amount of sympathy/empathy for someone feeling they're that choiceless that they'd kill someone for their own well being in the future. But, I feel even more for the unborn child, personally. The innocent life that was not part of the decision to be born; the decision the mother and father made. (I'm ruling out rape/incest as they're an insignificant percentage of abortions performed).
Why is the unborn child getting executed for someone else's actions?
They've made the CHOICE to have sex. Once you make that choice, you have to live with it.
This is why people run around ####in' everything they see, because now (thanks to Abortion Clinics) there's no consequences to making a dumb mistake. You "screw" up, and someone else pays for it with death.
He may not be the one carrying the child during gestation, but he would be there for the child (legally and morally) for at least 18 years (kinda trumps the 9 months). Also, presuming this isn't a rape issue, we're talking about a conscious choice of two individuals to potentially create a child, so why is his voice less than hers should the child be wanted (or, unwanted for that matter)?
I agree. I am just saying that it is a touchy issue. If mom wants kid, dad doesn't want responsibility but he is the father (for sure, its proven) then should HE be able to tell the mom she can't have the kid? I think not :shrug:
Statistically, can you back that up?
Do most abortions kill babies of lower income parents?
anything can be backed up statistically. Can I assure you that the stats are true? Nope. But here it goes
WHO HAS ABORTIONS?
• Fifty percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 17%.[7]
• Black women are 4.8 times as likely as non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely.[7]
• Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic.[3]
• Women who have never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions.[7]
• About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.[7]
• The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women).*[3]
• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[8]
Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
I'm not for getting involved in people's business like this. I'm just against murder.
Until there's something as effective a birth control as abstinence, I'd say you're wrong. It's much less a risk, but not a non-issue.
Both parents have consequences, as does the child, regarding the choice.
You're suggesting that parents can and should have the right to starve their children, or each other, or handicapped family members under their care - anyone who couldn't get by on their own.
