Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding

[Anguille]

... Women and girls who do give up children for adoption because they feel it is in the best interest of the child are also not frowned upon. They are respected for respecting life and putting the interest of the child above their own...

I frown on any woman who gets pregnant or chooses not to abort an unwanted pregnancy with the express intention of selling her child.

Women who find themselves obligated to give up a child due to circumstances beyond their control have my sympathy.
But those who give birth knowing all along they will abandon or sell their child, disgust me.

Selling? Who said anything about selling... nice way to try and spin

You never heard about women making arrangements for paid medical care, living arrangements and stipends in exchange for permitting a childless couple to adopt her child? That's selling your child.

 

[DiamondDave]

And all the statistics out there, showing that single mothers and their babies will end up in poverty, on welfare, and in a real struggle to survive, compared to couples with children, the rest of their lives....

And the pure hatred many americans express when single mothers need welfare to survive....

ALL OF THIS is why women choose to not bear their children when not married or when the father decides to skip....

Ahh.. the tried and true misconception about single mothers NEEDING a handout to survive...

No.. the NEED is to do whatever it takes to EARN for your family, children, and self.. many things are needs but they are YOUR needs... I, nor anyone else, NEEDS to put food on your table... YOU need to put food on your table and I need to put food on mine... you may work at 7-11 to do it, I may be a CEO.. my position does not transfer YOUR need into being MY need

You're doing the same thing, though. You are trying to force your need to have your morals the rule of the land.

No.. try the simple thing of protecting all innocent life... whether it be 6 months along and still in the mother... 6 months old and nursing off the other.. 6 years old and in 1st grade.. 16 years old and driving... 60 years old and looking toward retirement

Unless you feel that it is moral to eliminate the other innocent lives at your whim as well

 

[Ravi]

Ahh.. the tried and true misconception about single mothers NEEDING a handout to survive...

No.. the NEED is to do whatever it takes to EARN for your family, children, and self.. many things are needs but they are YOUR needs... I, nor anyone else, NEEDS to put food on your table... YOU need to put food on your table and I need to put food on mine... you may work at 7-11 to do it, I may be a CEO.. my position does not transfer YOUR need into being MY need

You're doing the same thing, though. You are trying to force your need to have your morals the rule of the land.

No.. try the simple thing of protecting all innocent life... whether it be 6 months along and still in the mother... 6 months old and nursing off the other.. 6 years old and in 1st grade.. 16 years old and driving... 60 years old and looking toward retirement

Unless you feel that it is moral to eliminate the other innocent lives at your whim as well

No, I just don't think the unborn are living, human beings...that's my moral value. I've got no problem with abortion but I'd never dream of forcing my morals into the law of the land, i.e., forcing people to abort against their will.

You have a different moral viewpoint than I do, and you want to force women to give birth against their will because you believe the unborn are living, human beings.

That's your need.

 

[DiamondDave]

I frown on any woman who gets pregnant or chooses not to abort an unwanted pregnancy with the express intention of selling her child.

Women who find themselves obligated to give up a child due to circumstances beyond their control have my sympathy.
But those who give birth knowing all along they will abandon or sell their child, disgust me.

Selling? Who said anything about selling... nice way to try and spin

You never heard about women making arrangements for paid medical care, living arrangements and stipends in exchange for permitting a childless couple to adopt her child? That's selling your child.

And do I think that if a woman gets pregnant only for such a thing is a good thing? Nope... But do I think it is bad, when searching for the family to raise that child in her womb, that if she negotiates to have the care she's required paid for by those adopting the child? Nope.. It is in the best interest of all lives involved... all 4 (or even more) of them.. and it is an agreement.. and not all adoptions are handled in such a way... I grew up with a neighbor at home years ago who went thru her pregnancy, stayed with her dad, and simply arranged for the adoption agency to find a suitable home for her child.. no payout or care provided by the adopting family

Now do you consider it wrong when a family pays out expenses to go and adopt a child from China or Russia?

 

[DiamondDave]

You're doing the same thing, though. You are trying to force your need to have your morals the rule of the land.

No.. try the simple thing of protecting all innocent life... whether it be 6 months along and still in the mother... 6 months old and nursing off the other.. 6 years old and in 1st grade.. 16 years old and driving... 60 years old and looking toward retirement

Unless you feel that it is moral to eliminate the other innocent lives at your whim as well

No, I just don't think the unborn are living, human beings...that's my moral value. I've got no problem with abortion but I'd never dream of forcing my morals into the law of the land, i.e., forcing people to abort against their will.

You have a different moral viewpoint than I do, and you want to force women to give birth against their will because you believe the unborn are living, human beings.

That's your need.

And you, are wrong.. it is not about morals, except for protecting life....

You magically think that passage thru a vag canal or a c-section opening gives the spark of life.. which is utterly ridiculous...

Hell.. my youngest could have been aborted by the likes of you, or you would have upheld the chance at her being aborted when months early before the due date... yet I had interaction with that CHILD while still in the womb... saw that life doing things on it's own while in the womb... and realize it is not just some part of the woman's body that is there for whimsical removal or mutilation

A fetus is a human child at a step in maturation.. just as that child goes thru several steps more along the way... it is it's own life... it's own identity... yes, it cannot survive on it's own.. but neither can a 6 month old that is outside the womb and breathing air on it's own... it is not like a wart on your ass that you can remove at will because it is only a piece of your body

 

[Ravi]

No.. try the simple thing of protecting all innocent life... whether it be 6 months along and still in the mother... 6 months old and nursing off the other.. 6 years old and in 1st grade.. 16 years old and driving... 60 years old and looking toward retirement

Unless you feel that it is moral to eliminate the other innocent lives at your whim as well

No, I just don't think the unborn are living, human beings...that's my moral value. I've got no problem with abortion but I'd never dream of forcing my morals into the law of the land, i.e., forcing people to abort against their will.

You have a different moral viewpoint than I do, and you want to force women to give birth against their will because you believe the unborn are living, human beings.

That's your need.

And you, are wrong.. it is not about morals, except for protecting life....

You magically think that passage thru a vag canal or a c-section opening gives the spark of life.. which is utterly ridiculous...

Hell.. my youngest could have been aborted by the likes of you, or you would have upheld the chance at her being aborted when months early before the due date... yet I had interaction with that CHILD while still in the womb... saw that life doing things on it's own while in the womb... and realize it is not just some part of the woman's body that is there for whimsical removal or mutilation

A fetus is a human child at a step in maturation.. just as that child goes thru several steps more along the way... it is it's own life... it's own identity... yes, it cannot survive on it's own.. but neither can a 6 month old that is outside the womb and breathing air on it's own... it is not like a wart on your ass that you can remove at will because it is only a piece of your body

Sadly you generalize and assume so much that it's not even worth continuing this discussion.

Have fun.

 

[DiamondDave]

No, I just don't think the unborn are living, human beings...that's my moral value. I've got no problem with abortion but I'd never dream of forcing my morals into the law of the land, i.e., forcing people to abort against their will.

You have a different moral viewpoint than I do, and you want to force women to give birth against their will because you believe the unborn are living, human beings.

That's your need.

And you, are wrong.. it is not about morals, except for protecting life....

You magically think that passage thru a vag canal or a c-section opening gives the spark of life.. which is utterly ridiculous...

Hell.. my youngest could have been aborted by the likes of you, or you would have upheld the chance at her being aborted when months early before the due date... yet I had interaction with that CHILD while still in the womb... saw that life doing things on it's own while in the womb... and realize it is not just some part of the woman's body that is there for whimsical removal or mutilation

A fetus is a human child at a step in maturation.. just as that child goes thru several steps more along the way... it is it's own life... it's own identity... yes, it cannot survive on it's own.. but neither can a 6 month old that is outside the womb and breathing air on it's own... it is not like a wart on your ass that you can remove at will because it is only a piece of your body

Sadly you generalize and assume so much that it's not even worth continuing this discussion.

Have fun.

And you trivialize for convenience... kinda like the Nazis trivializing the lives of Jews.. did not want to define them as human, even though by every rational realization they indeed were

 

[Anguille]

You're doing the same thing, though. You are trying to force your need to have your morals the rule of the land.

No.. try the simple thing of protecting all innocent life... whether it be 6 months along and still in the mother... 6 months old and nursing off the other.. 6 years old and in 1st grade.. 16 years old and driving... 60 years old and looking toward retirement

Unless you feel that it is moral to eliminate the other innocent lives at your whim as well

No, I just don't think the unborn are living, human beings...that's my moral value. I've got no problem with abortion but I'd never dream of forcing my morals into the law of the land, i.e., forcing people to abort against their will.

You have a different moral viewpoint than I do, and you want to force women to give birth against their will because you believe the unborn are living, human beings.

That's your need.

Dave has some unresolved issues stemming from his childhood (see his posts above) that make him pathologically determined to force his moral beliefs on others regardless of their own moral beliefs.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, baby, toddler, child, youth, adult, middle-aged, senior. What is the commonality in these stages of life?

 

[DiamondDave]

No.. try the simple thing of protecting all innocent life... whether it be 6 months along and still in the mother... 6 months old and nursing off the other.. 6 years old and in 1st grade.. 16 years old and driving... 60 years old and looking toward retirement

Unless you feel that it is moral to eliminate the other innocent lives at your whim as well

No, I just don't think the unborn are living, human beings...that's my moral value. I've got no problem with abortion but I'd never dream of forcing my morals into the law of the land, i.e., forcing people to abort against their will.

You have a different moral viewpoint than I do, and you want to force women to give birth against their will because you believe the unborn are living, human beings.

That's your need.

Dave has some unresolved issues stemming from his childhood (see his posts above) that make him pathologically determined to force his moral beliefs on others in spite of their own moral beliefs.

We would agree that a fetus/child in the womb is human... it is not a canine, bovine, or other form of life

And life is

Main Entry:
1life Listen to the pronunciation of 1life
Pronunciation:
\ˈlīf\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural lives Listen to the pronunciation of lives \ˈlīvz\
Etymology:
Middle English lif, from Old English līf; akin to Old English libban to live — more at live
Date:
before 12th century

1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction2 a: the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b: one or more aspects of the process of living

Hmm... the child in the womb certainly is not dead or a dead body
It is certainly animate and becoming more so as it grows more.. just as children outside the womb do
It certainly metabolizes, grows, reacts to stimuli and cells are constantly reproducing and growing into a human being that will eventually be able to reproduce (just as newborns cannot reproduce but will eventually get to that stage as adults)
There are continuing physical and even mental experiences that the child goes thru while growing in the womb, just as it does and continues to do after he birth process
And it is certainly along the process of living

The difference being, between a child in the womb and a child outside the womb after birth... exposure to breathing air.. and a passage outside the body of the mother.. nothing more.. but, even when premature (and with technology advancing) younger and younger children do survive outside the womb earlier and earlier... children that are of the gestational age that could still be aborted and have been aborted

It is just convenient for you and your ilk to trivialize that life... after all, your perception of your personal life is indeed more important than that other life

 

[Care4all]

They are all stages in the life of a human being, only from infant forward they are born human beings, with a birth certificate, and have all rights of any other human being in America!

 

[Care4all]

There are many states, that do NOT PERMIT abortions after the 12th week....roe v wade says up to the 12th week, women can have choice, federally protected.

Anything beyond this point, is up to each individual state....and states like nj for one, only permit abortion up to the 12th week...through the embryo stage but not through the foetus stage.

Then states like NY permit them through the 5th or 6th months I believe?

I don't know of any state, that permits abortion beyond the 6th month....unless to protect the life of the mother.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

morning after pill>>>>>>>abortions

 

[Care4all]

morning after pill>>>>>>>abortions

Not necessarily....

I think many in the medical field define conception, when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus, not when the sperm penetrates the egg, but when it is firmly attached to the woman's uterus and egins to grow rapidly by dividing its cells.

What the morning after pill does, similar to the birth control pill, from what I have read, is trick the female's body in to thinking it is pregnant, which prevents the egg from conception, from attaching to the uterus....over 30% of all fertilized eggs do NOT attach themselves to the uterus....

For me, it is 100% of my fertilized eggs do not attach themselves to my uterus....my husband and I have no children. I use no birth control and doctors have determined that my eggs have been getting fertilized....and for various medical reasons, they just do not attached to my uterus.

Does this mean that every month i have a fertilized egg, which could be every month of year, for all I know at this point....does this mean that every month my body kills my babies?

I don;t think so....

I'll stick with the medical term of conception being when the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterus...

So, if the morning after pill, does what i have read about it, stops it from attaching to the uterus if there even is a fertilized egg....then to me, this is not abortion.

Though I will say that the Catholic Church believes it is a form of abortion, and they also believe that using birth control pills is as well....or they believe the pill is sinful in nature along with artificial insemination as being sinful in nature because of all of the fertilized eggs not used, that are later discarded in the masses..

Care

 

[Zoom-boing]

They are all stages in the life of a human being, only from infant forward they are born human beings, with a birth certificate, and have all rights of any other human being in America!

Bolded part, correct. The rest? While yes from infant forward they are outside vs. inside the womb, being that they are ALL stages in the life of a human being, ALL stages have the same rights. Seeing as they're you know, HUMAN and all.

 

[Zoom-boing]

morning after pill>>>>>>>abortions

Is the morning after pill the same things as Plan B or are they two different things? My understanding of Plan B was that it was emergency contraceptive. That it prevented pregnancy, rather than did anything to the unborn child.

 

[Care4all]

They are all stages in the life of a human being, only from infant forward they are born human beings, with a birth certificate, and have all rights of any other human being in America!

Bolded part, correct. The rest? While yes from infant forward they are outside vs. inside the womb, being that they are ALL stages in the life of a human being, ALL stages have the same rights. Seeing as they're you know, HUMAN and all.

Well, they don't according to our Laws on the books as they stand,

and they don't according to Biblical Law either imo....I have already posted the passage in the Bible that indicates such.

I can do so again, if you missed it.

See, for me....there is absolutely no question in my mind, at this point in my own life, that Conception begins the life of ones own offspring....no one knows this more than me, because my husband and I have not been able to conceive....I would give anything to be pregnant....because that would mean, that my hubby and I could have a child....simple as that....I KNOW the life of ones offspring, begins at conception....trust me on that....

care

 

[Zoom-boing]

They are all stages in the life of a human being, only from infant forward they are born human beings, with a birth certificate, and have all rights of any other human being in America!

Bolded part, correct. The rest? While yes from infant forward they are outside vs. inside the womb, being that they are ALL stages in the life of a human being, ALL stages have the same rights. Seeing as they're you know, HUMAN and all.

Well, they don't according to our Laws on the books as they stand,

and they don't according to Biblical Law either imo....I have already posted the passage in the Bible that indicates such.

I can do so again, if you missed it.

See, for me....there is absolutely no question in my mind, at this point in my own life, that Conception begins the life of ones own offspring....no one knows this more than me, because my husband and I have not been able to conceive....I would give anything to be pregnant....because that would mean, that my hubby and I could have a child....simple as that....I KNOW the life of ones offspring, begins at conception....trust me on that....

care

The laws on our books are wrong.

The Bible can be interpreted in many ways.

The one, defining, common thing that a zygote vs. a 90 year old man have in common is the fact that they are both human. Different stages? Yes. So what pro-abortionists are saying is that killing the unborn is fine, depending upon what stage of 'humaness' it's in.

Nope. Destroying the unborn - no matter what stage they are in - is destroying a human.

 

[Father Time]

Though I will say that the Catholic Church believes it is a form of abortion, and they also believe that using birth control pills is as well....or they believe the pill is sinful in nature along with artificial insemination as being sinful in nature because of all of the fertilized eggs not used, that are later discarded in the masses..

Care

Monty Python had it nailed

[youtube]U0kJHQpvgB8[/youtube]

 

[Care4all]

Bolded part, correct. The rest? While yes from infant forward they are outside vs. inside the womb, being that they are ALL stages in the life of a human being, ALL stages have the same rights. Seeing as they're you know, HUMAN and all.

Well, they don't according to our Laws on the books as they stand,

and they don't according to Biblical Law either imo....I have already posted the passage in the Bible that indicates such.

I can do so again, if you missed it.

See, for me....there is absolutely no question in my mind, at this point in my own life, that Conception begins the life of ones own offspring....no one knows this more than me, because my husband and I have not been able to conceive....I would give anything to be pregnant....because that would mean, that my hubby and I could have a child....simple as that....I KNOW the life of ones offspring, begins at conception....trust me on that....

care

The laws on our books are wrong.

The Bible can be interpreted in many ways.

The one, defining, common thing that a zygote vs. a 90 year old man have in common is the fact that they are both human. Different stages? Yes. So what pro-abortionists are saying is that killing the unborn is fine, depending upon what stage of 'humaness' it's in.

Nope. Destroying the unborn - no matter what stage they are in - is destroying a human.

There is still MORE than one life involved, which many tend to neglect and ignore.

And each case, is its own individual case, with its own circumstance, of which God is well aware....it's between them and their maker when all is said and done.

I still believe there is more value to a human born than a human not born....

if a fertility clinic is on fire....and both living employees are at risk of dying if not saved by the firemen and frozen embryos are at risk of dying if not saved by the firemen, I choose saving the breathing, living employees FIRST, over and above any of the frozen embryos.

And the firemen would choose the same, and any sane person would choose the same, and i think you would do the same....this is not illogical, it is logical....imo.

So this gives more worth to a living breathing human than a living human embryo....both human, both alive, but one is born, and one is not born....

I didn't see if you made comment on the post where i showed common law early on in this country, where abortions up to quickening were permitted and after quickening they were against the law....

this is not something new, that this generation of people out of the blue, decided to believe...it is something that has nearly always been believed....

Even with the life of the mother chosen over the life of the baby to be, even if the baby to be can be saved....if the child being born will near certainly kill the mother, the Doctor is obligated to save the mother's life, over the foetus.... unless the parents of the child to be tell the doctor otherwise.

all of this gives greater worth to a breathing human over a developing human....while both being living entities, one is BORN and one is not....

Where this really fits in to the question on whether abortion should be legal or not...is another story.