Why are our tax dollars going to fund other countries'' abortions?

[elle_chris]

Date: 1/28/2009 6:19:48 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/28/2009 6:13:12 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 1/28/2009 1:22:54 PM
Author: elle_chris
Actually, I don''t believe an ''unborn baby'' is a baby.

When the goverment decides when an abortion is warranted, you''re taking the rights of the woman away, period. Yes, it doors open doors to extremists. Who''s to say that a woman who was raped and it resulted in a pregnancy wouldn''t be forced to have it? I mean, if i think along the lines of those that believe it''s murder, then it''s not the fetus'' fault so why shouldn''t she be made to give birth? I understand that''s an extreme situation but it does happen.

Also, who''s going to decide when it''s unsafe to the woman? A doctor I presume. But having a doctor deciding whether or not it''s medically necessary to abort, sorry- but doctors have differing views as well, it''s not always so clear cut as to whether or not a pregnancy is safe. The last thing I''d want is as doctor who places more values on an embryo, than on my life.

I''m about done with this conversation because I''ve pretty much said all I can say about it. My views on war, etc., have about zero to do with abortion, so it is beyond me why that has been added to this conversation.

But before I close, I do want to address this. You know how I know that an unborn baby is a baby? Aside from having ultrasounds and seeing my own babies and their beating hearts in my womb, I have one other proof. I have seen women be joyous over becoming pregnant, sometimes after a long period of infertility. And I have seen some whose babies died in the womb through miscarriage. I have seen them mourn with deep sorrow the loss of their baby. If the unborn mass of cells was not a baby, then I think there would be nothing to mourn. We have a PS member who recently lost twin boys at 6 months, and those clearly were babies. They were held, named, and I believe they had a funeral. Go tell that mother that her babies were not really babies. The only difference between those babies and an aborted ''fetus'' is that the first were wanted and the latter was not.

So you know what? I am secure, 100% secure, that an unborn child has value and is loved by the Creator who created him or her. I remember what it was like to have the other view, so I know where people are coming from. But I know I was totally wrong.

Why is this being brought into this conversation?

I only brought it in because a poster, Luckystar I believe? correct me if I''m wrong though, said in one of her posts "unborn baby". Not all of us believe it''s yet a baby.

beebrisk- There''s really no consensus on when a cell or cells become a child. But for me, it''s not am embryo or a fetus that still wholly relies on my body to grow.

I don''t mean for it to sound this harsh and, I''m sure as hell not advocating abortion. I just totally believe in personal responsibility for myself -without the goverments interference in my reproductive system. People can judge me all they want, that''s fine. Just don''t take my rights away because you disagree with my choice.

 

[MoonWater]

elle, I wasn''t referring to you. I was referring to bringing up another PSer''s situation. I personally find it unnecessary and inconsiderate to bring a fellow member''s personal issues into this discussion.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 1/28/2009 7:47:27 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 1/28/2009 7:38:34 PM

Author: beebrisk


Dead things don't grow. Inanimate things don't grow. Only living things grow. If it's growing, it's living. If it's living, it's life. It's LIFE!


I think I learned this in 5th grade. I saw pictures and films of cells dividing and embryos growing. This is not a difficult concept. But it's one that needs to be denied by people who have to figure out a way to justify terminating a life and making abortion acceptable.

Again, you say terminating 'a life' as if its fact, when some don't consider a group of quickly dividing cells (or a pregnancy just hours after conception) as 'a life' with rights. This is where we're not meeting, and likely never will, but there's a big difference. The cells on the inside of my cheek are living. The cow that will likely become your dinner in future is living. Life does not necessarily equal 'a life' with rights that are as or more important than yours or mine.

While "some may not consider a group of quickly dividing cells as a life", I'm not sure what else you would call it? It is living. It is life.

Now whether you feel it has "rights" or not is a different story. But it's the same argument the Nazi's used when they "decided" that the Aryan race was superior to any other. It was the same argument (bolstered by Eugenics) that led Hitler not only to write Mein Kampf, but to believe-with certainty-that a particular race of people had a right to live and others didn't. While it is an extreme example of this kind of thinking, it stems from the same precepts and ideology.

It is also the same philosophy that leads Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton no less, to believe that euthanasia is acceptable when it comes to a sick child. He has said "Killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person." Shocking, but true.

Now, I am not by ANY means calling people who believe in abortion Nazi's and I not comparing ANYONE here to Peter Singer. I am simply saying that the rationale used by Hitler, Singer and others is the natural, humanistic and relativistic conclusion that comes when life is determined by, and given value by, any person that determines it so.

 

[elle_chris]

beebrisk- I don''t believe anyone is advocating abortion. Some people (myself included) believe in a womans choice since it is her body. Choice means, have it or not.

Equating it to nazis well.. i don''t recall them giving anyone a choice.

 

[beebrisk]

I am not Catholic. I am not a fan of Obama and I did not vote for him.

But this pretty much sums it up. It's stirring and beautiful and while we're on the subject, watch the video on the home page:

http://www.catholicvote.com/

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 1/28/2009 8:23:21 PM
Author: elle_chris
beebrisk- I don't believe anyone is advocating abortion. Some people (myself included) believe in a womans choice since it is her body. Choice means, have it or not.


Equating it to nazis well.. i don't recall them giving anyone a choice.

I didn't "equate' abortion to the Nazis and I was very clear about that.

You are right, they didn't give anyone a "choice".

Abortion doesn't give an unborn child a choice either. Or a chance.

This is my last viewing of this thread. I've said what I wanted to say and I'll leave the arguing and circular reasoning to the crowd.

I think the video I posted says it all for me. I only wish it did for everyone.

I am off to read Perez Hilton...Sometimes I just need a little Perez!

I wish you all a good night and hope everyone stays warm in this horrific weather. I mean that. Be well.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/28/2009 8:25:17 PM
Author: beebrisk
I am not Catholic. I am not a fan of Obama and I did not vote for him.

But this pretty much sums it up. It''s stirring and beautiful and while we''re on the subject, watch the video on the home page:

http://www.catholicvote.com/

Someone sent me that video by email. It is really well done. (And I am not Catholic, either.)

 

[Maria D]

It looks like the participants in this thread that refer to embryos as unborn "children" or "babies" are done with this conversation so I guess I won't get any enlightenment on my question, but I'll ask it again anyway in case anyone else cares to explain it to me.

Why is it that people who believe sacred life begins at conception are so compelled to speak out against abortion, who are so passionate about making others understand that their views are wrong (as diamondseeker even went as far to say), do not seem to care much about the by-products of the practice of in-vitro fertilization? Why is it on the one hand that pro-lifers feel the that potential human life has "rights" but on the other hand it doesn't? Why are they anti-choice when it comes to abortion but not anti-choice when it comes to conception that creates potential life that will be destroyed? The Catholic Church is consistent in its views but the vast majority of pro-lifers are not. This further evidenced by the fact that they don't see a connection between views on tax funded abortion with views on tax funded war or the death penalty. Yet when those of us who accept that differing viewpoints on this are *all* valid and that's why choice is needed, we are told our logic is circular. As my daughter would say, whatev.

 

[miraclesrule]

It still baffles me that this private issue always brings Americans to their most divisive point.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 1/28/2009 11:13:04 PM
Author: Maria D
It looks like the participants in this thread that refer to embryos as unborn ''children'' or ''babies'' are done with this conversation so I guess I won''t get any enlightenment on my question, but I''ll ask it again anyway in case anyone else cares to explain it to me.

Why is it that people who believe sacred life begins at conception are so compelled to speak out against abortion, who are so passionate about making others understand that their views are wrong (as diamondseeker even went as far to say), do not seem to care much about the by-products of the practice of in-vitro fertilization? Why is it on the one hand that pro-lifers feel the that potential human life has ''rights'' but on the other hand it doesn''t? Why are they anti-choice when it comes to abortion but not anti-choice when it comes to conception that creates potential life that will be destroyed? The Catholic Church is consistent in its views but the vast majority of pro-lifers are not. This further evidenced by the fact that they don''t see a connection between views on tax funded abortion with views on tax funded war or the death penalty. Yet when those of us who accept that differing viewpoints on this are *all* valid and that''s why choice is needed, we are told our logic is circular. As my daughter would say, whatev.

I would love to hear a few anti-choicers/pro-lifers/whatevers answer your question, as well, Maria, but it seems like they only want to pontificate, not debate or explain.

As for whatev, I personally prefer whatevs, but I agree with that, too!

 

[trillionaire]

Our tax dollars are paying to fund other countries' abortions because it is part of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war. If we kill the terrorists before they happen, then we lose fewer American lives. Clearly this is worth the sacrifice, and our tax dollars.

Of course, the abortions are in addition to the 90K+ civilians that we have killed in Iraq. We'll go ahead and call those deaths 'preemptive' too, with the country being all unstable and such.

vs. the fewer than 3,000 that died on 9/11, who were attacked by less than 20 people, you can do the math, we've probably "preempted" 600 terrorists(!) since 9/11, which is pretty incredible! And now that we are funding abortions, well, the sky is the limit!

No terrorists, no way!

 

[MoonWater]

trillionaire, have i told you recently how much i love you?

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 1/29/2009 1:11:56 AM
Author: MoonWater
trillionaire, have i told you recently how much i love you?

Nope... and I never tire of hearing it.

 

[miraclesrule]

Me too Trillionaire. I love you for that last post. In fact, it was a conversation I just had with a guy about the "terrorist" threat and our need to bolster our presence in Iraq. I totally thought I put on my profile that I voted for Obama...I did, but then changed my profile. It was all good though, because whatever provocative discussion we had, he still was mesmerized at my depth of knowledge. Which by the way, was far more logical than his. I had to keep referring back to the 3000 killed in 9/11 as opposed to a myriad of other violent acts both domestically and internationally.

I really wish we could start a group on Facebook or something. We could call it "Wise Women".

 

[ksinger]

Date: 1/29/2009 1:19:31 AM
Author: miraclesrule
Me too Trillionaire. I love you for that last post. In fact, it was a conversation I just had with a guy about the ''terrorist'' threat and our need to bolster our presence in Iraq. I totally thought I put on my profile that I voted for Obama...I did, but then changed my profile. It was all good though, because whatever provocative discussion we had, he still was mesmerized at my depth of knowledge. Which by the way, was far more logical than his. I had to keep referring back to the 3000 killed in 9/11 as opposed to a myriad of other violent acts both domestically and internationally.

I really wish we could start a group on Facebook or something. We could call it ''Wise Women''.

Wow!! Thanks Miracles!! We were so looking for a cool name!

wanna be in our club??? We would certainly consider you for Queen of The Week!

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/28/2009 11:13:04 PM
Author: Maria D
It looks like the participants in this thread that refer to embryos as unborn ''children'' or ''babies'' are done with this conversation so I guess I won''t get any enlightenment on my question, but I''ll ask it again anyway in case anyone else cares to explain it to me.

Why is it that people who believe sacred life begins at conception are so compelled to speak out against abortion, who are so passionate about making others understand that their views are wrong (as diamondseeker even went as far to say), do not seem to care much about the by-products of the practice of in-vitro fertilization? Why is it on the one hand that pro-lifers feel the that potential human life has ''rights'' but on the other hand it doesn''t? Why are they anti-choice when it comes to abortion but not anti-choice when it comes to conception that creates potential life that will be destroyed? The Catholic Church is consistent in its views but the vast majority of pro-lifers are not. This further evidenced by the fact that they don''t see a connection between views on tax funded abortion with views on tax funded war or the death penalty. Yet when those of us who accept that differing viewpoints on this are *all* valid and that''s why choice is needed, we are told our logic is circular. As my daughter would say, whatev.

No one is discussing that for obvious reasons. Many PSers have had help conceiving, and no one wants to be judge and jury here because it would cause tremendous hurt.

And no one said we were perfectly fine with any life being ''thrown away''. But that dog isn''t in this fight, so let''s not bring it in, okay?

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 1/29/2009 1:02:39 AM
Author: trillionaire
Our tax dollars are paying to fund other countries'' abortions because it is part of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war. If we kill the terrorists before they happen, then we lose fewer American lives. Clearly this is worth the sacrifice, and our tax dollars.

Of course, the abortions are in addition to the 90K+ civilians that we have killed in Iraq. We''ll go ahead and call those deaths ''preemptive'' too, with the country being all unstable and such.

vs. the fewer than 3,000 that died on 9/11, who were attacked by less than 20 people, you can do the math, we''ve probably ''preempted'' 600 terrorists(!) since 9/11, which is pretty incredible! And now that we are funding abortions, well, the sky is the limit!

No terrorists, no way!

i can''t read this response enough!

movie zombie

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/28/2009 7:44:07 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/28/2009 7:16:52 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/28/2009 6:20:48 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/28/2009 4:29:30 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/28/2009 10:57:09 AM
Author: vespergirl
Not to any poster in particular, but I just wanted to point out that several posters here said that they hate the idea of the government using their tax dollars to pay for abortions. Yet, perhaps many of you have no problem with the government using your tax dollars to execute people on death row (many of whom were executed though they were proven innocent afterwards), or to murder thousands of innocent Iraqi children and babies for oil.

Why is it OK for the government to play God when it comes to warfare and executions, but not when a woman has been raped, or a mother''s life is in danger?

I have to say that I at least respect the Catholic Church for being unilateral in it''s position on human life. The church opposes abortion, the death penalty and war. To me, anyone who says that abortion is bad but the death penalty and war are A-OK are hypocrites. You either think that the duration of human life should only be dictated by God and never the government, or you don''t. It''s a slippery slope to say that it''s OK for the President to decide to kill Iraqi children but it''s not OK for a crack addict to decide to abort her baby - you can''t have it both ways.

Death row inmates cannot be equated with a defenseless fetus. Not in any instance. At all.

Isn''t having that opinion sort of like playing God? I thought that Christians believed that God is the only one who can judge people.

No. It isn''t against the Judeo/Christian religion to put to death certain criminals. Never was. Not BC or AD.

Oh, really? I remember reading some quotes from the bible like ''Judge not lest ye be judged'', and ''thou shalt not kill.'' There wasn''t an exception for people on death row listed in the 10 commandments. However, the bible is full of contradictions, but since it was written by people, not God, that''s to be expected.

No. The Bible clearly states that ''murder'' is not acceptable, as in "thou shalt not kill". As for judging, you are not to judge another person more sinful than yourself. It does not refer to a court system, a sentencing of death, or the subsequent execution. In context, which is where all Biblical passages should be viewed, ''judging'' is the presumption that it is human nature to view others in a worse light than we view ourselves, and a believer is not to put himself first, or think himself better. "For we have all sinned and come short of the glory" is also in the Bible. The writer of Hebrews is not known, but many believe it was Paul; and its possible he wrote Ephesians as well. Without looking up those specific phrases, I believe each of those verses came from those books. If so, it would continue a theme that Paul has throughout his writings.

 

[iheartscience]

Well gosh, if you're not supposed to judge according to the Bible, why does it seem like all the anti-abortion people are judging women who have had abortions? Because more than one PSer has posted that she's had an abortion, and I know many of the people against abortion know that, and know who, too.

What's the word I'm looking for right now? Oh yeah-hypocrisy!

ETA ditto Moon. I guess all the women on PS who have had abortions won't be hurt by this discussion. Let's definitely look out for the feelings of those who have had in vitro, though!

Although according to many of your definitions of life, women who have done in vitro have killed more babies than a person who has one abortion.

 

[MoonWater]

*sniff*

What''s that....is that logic I smell? Perhaps the lack thereof...

So, let me get this straight. We should refrain from discussing invitro due to PS members who have had trouble conceiving, and we want to avoid hurt feelings (admirable, I agree). But, it''s ok to discuss how "wrong" abortion is ad nauseam even though we know PS members have had abortions...I mean, who care''s about their hurt feelings, right?

Gotcha.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/29/2009 2:51:11 PM
Author: thing2of2
Well gosh, if you''re not supposed to judge according to the Bible, why does it seem like all the anti-abortion people are judging women who have had abortions? Because more than one PSer has posted that she''s had an abortion, and I know many of the people against abortion know that, and know who, too.

What''s the word I''m looking for right now? Oh yeah-hypocrisy!

ETA ditto Moon. I guess all the women on PS who have had abortions won''t be hurt by this discussion. Let''s definitely look out for the feelings of those who have had in vitro, though!

Although according to many of your definitions of life, women who have done in vitro have killed more babies than a person who has one abortion.

Wow, I''ve never thought of this before - great argument. Granted, I don''t think of abortion or in-vitro procedures as "killing babies," but for all of those that believe that life begins at fertilization, that severely limits your fertility options if you are anti-choice without the risk of a great moral conundrum.

And by the way, for people who''ve been offended by me using the "not PC term" anti-choice, I refuse to use the term "pro-life" instead, because many of the anti-choice people seem to not care about the mother''s life as much as the baby''s. "Pro-life" would indicate valuing all human life, not just fetal life.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 1/29/2009 2:51:11 PM
Author: thing2of2
Well gosh, if you''re not supposed to judge according to the Bible, why does it seem like all the anti-abortion people are judging women who have had abortions? Because more than one PSer has posted that she''s had an abortion, and I know many of the people against abortion know that, and know who, too.

What''s the word I''m looking for right now? Oh yeah-hypocrisy!

ETA ditto Moon. I guess all the women on PS who have had abortions won''t be hurt by this discussion. Let''s definitely look out for the feelings of those who have had in vitro, though!

Although according to many of your definitions of life, women who have done in vitro have killed more babies than a person who has one abortion.

I don''t believe I said anything about judging someone who has had an abortion. I would consider it her business, not mine. And I think I''ve more than made that clear.

Let''s not use generalities, on either side, to prove our points.

For the sake of PSers who have had in vitro, as well as abortions, could we lay this topic to rest? We have thoroughly discussed it. And then some.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 1/29/2009 4:37:44 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/29/2009 2:51:11 PM

Author: thing2of2

Well gosh, if you''re not supposed to judge according to the Bible, why does it seem like all the anti-abortion people are judging women who have had abortions? Because more than one PSer has posted that she''s had an abortion, and I know many of the people against abortion know that, and know who, too.

What''s the word I''m looking for right now? Oh yeah-hypocrisy!

ETA ditto Moon. I guess all the women on PS who have had abortions won''t be hurt by this discussion. Let''s definitely look out for the feelings of those who have had in vitro, though!

Although according to many of your definitions of life, women who have done in vitro have killed more babies than a person who has one abortion.

I don''t believe I said anything about judging someone who has had an abortion. I would consider it her business, not mine. And I think I''ve more than made that clear.

Let''s not use generalities, on either side, to prove our points.

For the sake of PSers who have had in vitro, as well as abortions, could we lay this topic to rest? We have thoroughly discussed it. And then some.

So after 7 pages of this, now you want to put it to rest for the sake of the PSers who have had abortions? It seems a little too late for that!

Besides, like Maria, I really would like to know what all the "life begins at conception" people think about in vitro.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 1/29/2009 4:37:44 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/29/2009 2:51:11 PM
Author: thing2of2
Well gosh, if you''re not supposed to judge according to the Bible, why does it seem like all the anti-abortion people are judging women who have had abortions? Because more than one PSer has posted that she''s had an abortion, and I know many of the people against abortion know that, and know who, too.

What''s the word I''m looking for right now? Oh yeah-hypocrisy!

ETA ditto Moon. I guess all the women on PS who have had abortions won''t be hurt by this discussion. Let''s definitely look out for the feelings of those who have had in vitro, though!

Although according to many of your definitions of life, women who have done in vitro have killed more babies than a person who has one abortion.

I don''t believe I said anything about judging someone who has had an abortion. I would consider it her business, not mine. And I think I''ve more than made that clear.

Let''s not use generalities, on either side, to prove our points.

For the sake of PSers who have had in vitro, as well as abortions, could we lay this topic to rest? We have thoroughly discussed it. And then some.

Ditto. But wanted to add that the posters who have had abortions volunteered that information in the other abortion debate. Or was it the other one? Or the other one? I don''t know how many we''ve had.

Point is, they decided they were open to talking about it, any already knew that there were those that disagreed with it. So they were obviously comfortable enough in their skin and their decision to mention it. I don''t think we''ve hurt any feelings...please correct me if I''m wrong.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 5:05:46 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/29/2009 4:37:44 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 1/29/2009 2:51:11 PM
Author: thing2of2
Well gosh, if you're not supposed to judge according to the Bible, why does it seem like all the anti-abortion people are judging women who have had abortions? Because more than one PSer has posted that she's had an abortion, and I know many of the people against abortion know that, and know who, too.

What's the word I'm looking for right now? Oh yeah-hypocrisy!

ETA ditto Moon. I guess all the women on PS who have had abortions won't be hurt by this discussion. Let's definitely look out for the feelings of those who have had in vitro, though!

Although according to many of your definitions of life, women who have done in vitro have killed more babies than a person who has one abortion.

I don't believe I said anything about judging someone who has had an abortion. I would consider it her business, not mine. And I think I've more than made that clear.

Let's not use generalities, on either side, to prove our points.

For the sake of PSers who have had in vitro, as well as abortions, could we lay this topic to rest? We have thoroughly discussed it. And then some.

Ditto. But wanted to add that the posters who have had abortions volunteered that information in the other abortion debate. Or was it the other one? Or the other one? I don't know how many we've had.

Point is, they decided they were open to talking about it, any already knew that there were those that disagreed with it. So they were obviously comfortable enough in their skin and their decision to mention it. I don't think we've hurt any feelings...please correct me if I'm wrong.

And what about those that never said a word? Are you saying that we should shut our trap about invitro out of fear we will offend some PSer out there that we don't know about, but we are free to discuss abortion until we are blue in the face because SOME women were brave enough to talk about it? I don't think so. Maria brought up a very valid & logical point. I would love to read the responses.

 

[trillionaire]

I wonder how many abortions would be performed if men were the ones having the babies.

I wonder why people think that babies have a ''right'' to exist. Life, inherently, is self serving and persistent. Roses will grow among thorns, and parasites will feed off of the nearest host. Life gets a chance, and it takes it and runs with it. Sometimes it is successful, and sometimes it is not. Lives are terminated both naturally and unnaturally. The vehicle is different, the outcome is the same. The difference for some seems to be ''god''s plan'' versus ''my plan''? I don''t know. Life is valuable, but not rare, not precious. There is a reason that women have so many eggs, and men produce so many sperm. People personalize this because of their life experiences, but it is not a personal process.

 

[purrfectpear]

Speaking only for myself, if I was uncomfortable about having an abortion or what someone else might think about MY decions which had nothing to do with THEIR body, then I probably shouldn''t have had one.

That said, I do advocate abortion and I make no apologies about it. For some women it is the right choice, and it is their choice to make. Not mine, not yours, just theirs. There has been some spin from the anti groups lately that quote some statistic like "80% (or whatever their number was, can''t remember the exact) of women who have had an abortion regret it".

I must only know the other 20%. I have many friends who have aborted, and including myself, none of us has any regrets about the decision that was made. I might have regretted the circumstances that put me in the position of making that choice, but not the choice itself.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 5:19:05 PM
Author: trillionaire
I wonder how many abortions would be performed if men were the ones having the babies.

I wonder why people think that babies have a ''right'' to exist. Life, inherently, is self serving and persistent. Roses will grow among thorns, and parasites will feed off of the nearest host. Life gets a chance, and it takes it and runs with it. Sometimes it is successful, and sometimes it is not. Lives are terminated both naturally and unnaturally. The vehicle is different, the outcome is the same. The difference for some seems to be ''god''s plan'' versus ''my plan''? I don''t know. Life is valuable, but not rare, not precious. There is a reason that women have so many eggs, and men produce so many sperm. People personalize this because of their life experiences, but it is not a personal process.

You need to join the club.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 1/29/2009 5:24:43 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/29/2009 5:19:05 PM

Author: trillionaire

I wonder how many abortions would be performed if men were the ones having the babies.

I wonder why people think that babies have a ''right'' to exist. Life, inherently, is self serving and persistent. Roses will grow among thorns, and parasites will feed off of the nearest host. Life gets a chance, and it takes it and runs with it. Sometimes it is successful, and sometimes it is not. Lives are terminated both naturally and unnaturally. The vehicle is different, the outcome is the same. The difference for some seems to be ''god''s plan'' versus ''my plan''? I don''t know. Life is valuable, but not rare, not precious. There is a reason that women have so many eggs, and men produce so many sperm. People personalize this because of their life experiences, but it is not a personal process.

You need to join the club.

Ditto! How can we get trillionaire in?!

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 1/29/2009 5:18:40 PM
Author: MoonWater

And what about those that never said a word? Are you saying that we should shut our trap about invitro out of fear we will offend some PSer out there that we don''t know about, but we are free to discuss abortion until we are blue in the face because SOME women were brave enough to talk about it? I don''t think so. Maria brought up a very valid & logical point. I would love to read the responses.

That''s why I think it is in the best interest of everyone to just end the conversation...for those that may be lurking and have had abortions/in vitro.
My problem with abortion are those that use it as a form of birth control and who are "repeat offenders". There is/are an exception to every rule, and I''m sure people are more than willing to list every possible scenario just to try and get the other person to pause. I can only go with what I believe and what I feel comfortable with. You may not think it makes sense, you''re not supposed to. It''s hypocritical both ways. I personally think it''s hypocritical that when a pregnancy isn''t wanted it''s just a "mass of cells", but when the mass of cells is wanted it is considered a baby. Don''t get it...never will.

In vitro--is hard for me. On the one hand it is the "same thing", but on the other hand, I consider it less barbaric than terminating a pregnancy. There is also the idea that in vitro is done in the hope of creating life, where abortion is done with the intention to end a "life". To tell you the truth, I have more of a problem with surrogate mothers, sperm donors, and the like--as I said before, not for pro-life''s sake, but because I think society is starting to show that things can get tricky when a third party is involved, despite confidentiality agreements..