The Way it Was (Pre-Roe v Wade)

[Foxfyre]

You can look up the benefits as easily as I can. Just type "benefits available to single parents" into your browser and you'll get all kinds of hits.

Yes, and I get very little. A few grants. Some tax sites.

Perhaps what you are talking about is a state issue as I know states handle the details of their benefits.

Or maybe you need a new browser? Because I get pages and pages of hits providing that information.

 

[Foxfyre]

To DL, I must be getting old because I thought I had been explaining in some detail why I believe there have been 54+ million abortions since Roe v Wade, and why I think it is a breakdown in our former cultural values that is the reason for that. And the only fix is a renewed appreciation and promotion of those cultural values that will naturally make abortion much less 'necessary' and much less attractive as a form of birth control and therefore will greatly reduce the number of abortions.

 

[Dragonlady]

I believe when the cultural norm is a two parent family with a loving dad and mom in the home, the children greatly benefit. And I believe there is an attitude promoted making it politically incorrect to value the traditional two parent home. And again, I acknowledge that not all two parent homes are good for kids. Mine wasn't.

I believe a large majority--not all, but a majority--of kids doing poorly in school, who drop out of school, who get in trouble with controlled substances and otherwise with the law, who run with gangs, and who live in poverty correlate to their living with a single parent. (Again this is not true of ALL kids living with single parents.)

I believe we have a culture that promotes instant gratification and in order to have that, the baby in the womb must be downgraded to a clump of cells and a non person.

I believe the demise in the cultural preference for a two parent traditional family has resulted in far more negatives than positives. And that has been amplified by putting emphasis on sex as recreational and socially expected rather than an expression of closeness and love.

And I believe all of the above is why we have 54+ million babies aborted since Roe v Wade with an additional average 1.3 million added to that every year. And only the pro lifers on this thread seem to have a serious problem with that number. And again being pro life is not the same thing as wanting to make all abortion illegal.

You offer no suggestions or solutions to the situation other than to return to two parent families (which don't always work).

As long you maintain these beliefs, and continue to promote a way of life that existed for very few people, as the 'cultural norm', nothing will change and you will continue to wring your hands over the number of "lives" lost, with little concern for the impact on the real lives which are changed and impacted by the toll taken on women who have no real option of carrying their babies to term with no medical insurance, no means of supporting the child when it gets here.

I know of many married women who have found themselves pregnant in circumstances that were less than ideal (the kindest way to state it), who chose to terminate their pregnancies. All would say they had no other option, one in an abusive marriage which endangered her life and that of her two children, became pregnant with a third child, just as she was about to pack and their bags and flee. He had beaten her repeatedly through her second pregnancy, hoping to induce a miscarriage. She could not leave him and get a job if she was pregnant.

With one noteable exception, every woman I know who had an abortion did not discard an inconvenience blob of flesh. This was a major decision. The exception was a woman who had her first abortion when she was 13, and several thereafter. She lived in Japan for 5 years when birth control was illegal, and the Japanese used abortion for birth control. Fetuses were inconvenient and ended, no muss, no fuss, no packdrill. She had at least two more after she came back from Japan and thought nothing more of any of them than she did about flossing her teeth.

This was not the case for anyone else I've talked about this with. None of the women regretted the decision they had made - not one, but many wished things could have been different, that they could have been in the position of being happy about having a baby. When they had a child, or another child, they wanted to be in a much better place in their lives to give that child a good home and a good life.

You dismiss these thought, caring women, as selfish and lazy in their birth control.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe when the cultural norm is a two parent family with a loving dad and mom in the home, the children greatly benefit. And I believe there is an attitude promoted making it politically incorrect to value the traditional two parent home. And again, I acknowledge that not all two parent homes are good for kids. Mine wasn't.

I believe a large majority--not all, but a majority--of kids doing poorly in school, who drop out of school, who get in trouble with controlled substances and otherwise with the law, who run with gangs, and who live in poverty correlate to their living with a single parent. (Again this is not true of ALL kids living with single parents.)

I believe we have a culture that promotes instant gratification and in order to have that, the baby in the womb must be downgraded to a clump of cells and a non person.

I believe the demise in the cultural preference for a two parent traditional family has resulted in far more negatives than positives. And that has been amplified by putting emphasis on sex as recreational and socially expected rather than an expression of closeness and love.

And I believe all of the above is why we have 54+ million babies aborted since Roe v Wade with an additional average 1.3 million added to that every year. And only the pro lifers on this thread seem to have a serious problem with that number. And again being pro life is not the same thing as wanting to make all abortion illegal.

You offer no suggestions or solutions to the situation other than to return to two parent families (which don't always work).

As long you maintain these beliefs, and continue to promote a way of life that existed for very few people, as the 'cultural norm', nothing will change and you will continue to wring your hands over the number of "lives" lost, with little concern for the impact on the real lives which are changed and impacted by the toll taken on women who have no real option of carrying their babies to term with no medical insurance, no means of supporting the child when it gets here.

I know of many married women who have found themselves pregnant in circumstances that were less than ideal (the kindest way to state it), who chose to terminate their pregnancies. All would say they had no other option, one in an abusive marriage which endangered her life and that of her two children, became pregnant with a third child, just as she was about to pack and their bags and flee. He had beaten her repeatedly through her second pregnancy, hoping to induce a miscarriage. She could not leave him and get a job if she was pregnant.

With one noteable exception, every woman I know who had an abortion did not discard an inconvenience blob of flesh. This was a major decision. The exception was a woman who had her first abortion when she was 13, and several thereafter. She lived in Japan for 5 years when birth control was illegal, and the Japanese used abortion for birth control. Fetuses were inconvenient and ended, no muss, no fuss, no packdrill. She had at least two more after she came back from Japan and thought nothing more of any of them than she did about flossing her teeth.

This was not the case for anyone else I've talked about this with. None of the women regretted the decision they had made - not one, but many wished things could have been different, that they could have been in the position of being happy about having a baby. When they had a child, or another child, they wanted to be in a much better place in their lives to give that child a good home and a good life.

You dismiss these thought, caring women, as selfish and lazy in their birth control.

Well, as long as you misrepresent what I have said, or dismiss it as irrelevent or untrue, and tell me what I dismiss etc. in a way that I certainly never did, and continue to rely on anecdotal incidents as your primary argument, we can't really have a constructive conversation, can we. But do have a nice day.

 

[1Templar]

Coat hangers.

 

[sealadaigh]

personally, i see no dif between killing a fetal human life and killing a 3 hour old human life...and we can go from there.

All fetal human life? Even a week after conception? Because that seems just silly. Not to mention the most emotional of all abortion positions.

I can understand people getting bent out of shape over late term abortion. But this whole "life begins at conception" thing is just hard to fathom.

fetal human life is human life.

i really have no position other than i do try to respect human life and do not believe in killing it for reasons beyond the control of that life.

all the other lines after conception are arbitrary line. that is fine, but it should be understood.

i am sure people, for instance, can make very good and substantial arguments for killing people with alzheimers. i could argue that they have less utility and potential than a fetal life.

i am just opposed to the arbitrary line.

a lot of things seem silly.

 

[sealadaigh]

a human fetus is a human life and you are killing that fetal human life for arbitrary reasons that are no fault of that fetal human life.

i myself can think of plenty of arbitrary reasons to kill human life based upon what i consider worthwhile or of quality. personally, i see no dif between killing a fetal human life and killing a 3 hour old human life...and we can go from there.

i think abortion is an easy way out and a way of avoiding addressing real issues.

You are entitleld to your opinion, and by all means don't have an abortion if that's how you feel. But an fetus is NOT a human life. It is the potential for human life.

And again, here is someone suggesting that abortion is easy and people shouldn't be getting abortions as the easy way out. A child is not punishment. A child is to be loved. We should not be suggesting women should have babies they don't want or can't afford simply to punish them for having sex for fun.

Last but certainly least, if God is so opposed to abortion, why do so women have miscarriages? If every fetus is so sacred, why do 1/3 of all pregnancies end in "spontaneous abortions"? If God didn't believe in abortion, women would not miscarry.

and you are entitled to your opinion as well. by all means, don't drive while you are drunk if you are opposed to it. now, does that really make sense. how about this. you may be opposed to beatind your children. by all means then, don't do it.

i said "easy way out", not "easy". there is a difference.

yes, children should be loved but they always aren't. they are a hard job.

a lot of the arguments i hear people make for abortion can be made for killing a three year old or an elderly person.

why arre you bringing god into this. i don't think god should be brought into it at all and i do not do so.

however, LOl, i imagine there is some threshold level for high cholesterol where 1/3 of those who exceed that level die.

 

[Underhill]

You can look up the benefits as easily as I can. Just type "benefits available to single parents" into your browser and you'll get all kinds of hits.

Yes, and I get very little. A few grants. Some tax sites.

Perhaps what you are talking about is a state issue as I know states handle the details of their benefits.

Or maybe you need a new browser? Because I get pages and pages of hits providing that information.

My internet does get routed through France (at work) but I've never had a problem before...

But yes, there are pages and pages of sites talking about a few grants and taxes.

 

[Dragonlady]

and you are entitled to your opinion as well. by all means, don't drive while you are drunk if you are opposed to it. now, does that really make sense. how about this. you may be opposed to beatind your children. by all means then, don't do it.

Your comparisons don't even make sense. Having an abortion endangers no one but the woman making the choice herself. Driving drunk endangers everyone on the road.

yes, children should be loved but they always aren't. they are a hard job.

This is poorly expressed but what I think you are trying to say is that children aren't always loveable because they are hard work, but that's not the same thing as growing up unwanted and unloved. There is a vast difference between a child who has a rough day and Mom is relieved when the child settles down for the night, and child who never receives and sort of affection or validation and is truly unwanted.

a lot of the arguments i hear people make for abortion can be made for killing a three year old or an elderly person.

Really??? Well I would like to hear these because I can't think of a single argument I can make that would be remotely applicable for killing either.

why arre you bringing god into this. i don't think god should be brought into it at all and i do not do so.

however, LOl, i imagine there is some threshold level for high cholesterol where 1/3 of those who exceed that level die.

I was not in any way responding to your posts, so it's really irrelevant to me whether you think I should bring God into this discussion or not. If you don't wish to discuss religious reasons for opposing abortion, then don't respond to the posts, but please don't try to tell others what they can or cannot discuss.

And then you attempt to compare high cholesteral to miscarriage????

 

[Katzndogz]

To DL, I must be getting old because I thought I had been explaining in some detail why I believe there have been 54+ million abortions since Roe v Wade, and why I think it is a breakdown in our former cultural values that is the reason for that. And the only fix is a renewed appreciation and promotion of those cultural values that will naturally make abortion much less 'necessary' and much less attractive as a form of birth control and therefore will greatly reduce the number of abortions.

New App Lets Users ?Bang? Facebook Friends | Business | RIA Novosti

WASHINGTON, January 30 (RIA Novosti) - A controversial new sex app called “Bang With Friends” claims to facilitate sexual encounters with users and their Facebook friends without the embarrassment of rejection.
“Anonymously find friends who are down for the night,” the company website said. “Your friends will never know you're interested unless they are too!”
The Bang With Friends app, aimed at 20-somethings, was created by three college-aged men from California, who are withholding their identities, according to US media reports.
The app, launched a week ago, only alerts users of a potential hookup if both parties express interest by selecting what is called the “Down to Bang” button.

But critics of “Bang With Friends” told RIA Novosti, putting the physical first is the reason for the demise of the majority of marriages and relationships in the United States.
“Back in the day people would court, they would go out with different people without exploring the sexual relationship because it allowed you to get to know what you may or may not have in common,” said Kristen Crockett, a Washington based relationship coach.
And while some who use the app may be more interested in sex than building a relationship, Crockett cautions users with the potential drawbacks of getting physical with a Facebook friend.

Skip the dating and jump straight to the sex, one of the creators said.

We are moving into a coarse and ugly culture. Breakdown in values? We are looking toward their end.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is hope. The recent March for Life had far more young attendees than older ones. Perhaps young people have reached a point where they are finally starting to disgust themselves.

 

[Underhill]

New App Lets Users ?Bang? Facebook Friends | Business | RIA Novosti

WASHINGTON, January 30 (RIA Novosti) - A controversial new sex app called “Bang With Friends” claims to facilitate sexual encounters with users and their Facebook friends without the embarrassment of rejection.
“Anonymously find friends who are down for the night,” the company website said. “Your friends will never know you're interested unless they are too!”
The Bang With Friends app, aimed at 20-somethings, was created by three college-aged men from California, who are withholding their identities, according to US media reports.
The app, launched a week ago, only alerts users of a potential hookup if both parties express interest by selecting what is called the “Down to Bang” button.

But critics of “Bang With Friends” told RIA Novosti, putting the physical first is the reason for the demise of the majority of marriages and relationships in the United States.
“Back in the day people would court, they would go out with different people without exploring the sexual relationship because it allowed you to get to know what you may or may not have in common,” said Kristen Crockett, a Washington based relationship coach.
And while some who use the app may be more interested in sex than building a relationship, Crockett cautions users with the potential drawbacks of getting physical with a Facebook friend.

Skip the dating and jump straight to the sex, one of the creators said.

We are moving into a coarse and ugly culture. Breakdown in values? We are looking toward their end.

People said the same thing when personal adds first started to appear looking for hook ups or sex.

There will always be (and have always been) people interested in sex only. It's just much easier for them to find each other now.

 

[Dragonlady]

To DL, I must be getting old because I thought I had been explaining in some detail why I believe there have been 54+ million abortions since Roe v Wade, and why I think it is a breakdown in our former cultural values that is the reason for that. And the only fix is a renewed appreciation and promotion of those cultural values that will naturally make abortion much less 'necessary' and much less attractive as a form of birth control and therefore will greatly reduce the number of abortions.

An appreciation of those values is a goal not a strategy, and would take generations to accomplish, if in fact it could be accomplished at all. We cannot go backwards, even if we wanted to because I don't think that society in general, every lived by these values, even if they did espouse them.

In order for a society to retain or adopt values or standards, they have to first want to do so, and there is no indication that the majority of people want to do this. Do you think broadcast television is going to go back to showing married couples in their PJ's kissing goodnight and getting into twin beds? And if promiscuous sex is shown every hour of the night and day on TV, how are you going to convince young people that they shouldn't be doing it? Do you think the networks are going to broadcast TV shows about happily married families in loving relationships and teens who remain virgins until they married?

You offer no indication whatsoever as to how you would go about instilling these value. Who would teach these values to children? Today's parents don't have them and can't pass them on, and today's grandparents certainly didn't teach their children to honour these traditions. So how do we get children to understand that they way their parents live, and the way society lives is wrong and this is how we need you to live from now on?

I want a point by point plan to turn the nation away from this path of destruction and on to a more moral nation, because I can see no possible way of doing so with the cooperation and consent of the people. There is no moral will in the nation to do what you suggest.

 

[Foxfyre]

To DL, I must be getting old because I thought I had been explaining in some detail why I believe there have been 54+ million abortions since Roe v Wade, and why I think it is a breakdown in our former cultural values that is the reason for that. And the only fix is a renewed appreciation and promotion of those cultural values that will naturally make abortion much less 'necessary' and much less attractive as a form of birth control and therefore will greatly reduce the number of abortions.

An appreciation of those values is a goal not a strategy, and would take generations to accomplish, if in fact it could be accomplished at all. We cannot go backwards, even if we wanted to because I don't think that society in general, every lived by these values, even if they did espouse them.

In order for a society to retain or adopt values or standards, they have to first want to do so, and there is no indication that the majority of people want to do this. Do you think broadcast television is going to go back to showing married couples in their PJ's kissing goodnight and getting into twin beds? And if promiscuous sex is shown every hour of the night and day on TV, how are you going to convince young people that they shouldn't be doing it? Do you think the networks are going to broadcast TV shows about happily married families in loving relationships and teens who remain virgins until they married?

You offer no indication whatsoever as to how you would go about instilling these value. Who would teach these values to children? Today's parents don't have them and can't pass them on, and today's grandparents certainly didn't teach their children to honour these traditions. So how do we get children to understand that they way their parents live, and the way society lives is wrong and this is how we need you to live from now on?

I want a point by point plan to turn the nation away from this path of destruction and on to a more moral nation, because I can see no possible way of doing so with the cooperation and consent of the people. There is no moral will in the nation to do what you suggest.

There is no point by point plan to be had. But the one who knows that there is a better way lives that better way. And by example and, when opportunity offers itself, by persuasion he or she converts another. And that person another, until the mindset of the culture itself is changed.

We do not promote a culture that cherishes and values life by accusing those who cherish and value life of 'wanting to deny women their rights' or 'wanting to return to the dark ages of back alley abortions' etc. etc. etc. We promote a culture that cherishes and values life by doing it. And by instilling knowledge of the truth that the baby within the womb is no less a human life than are any of us who are walking around in the world. Once most people are persuaded of that, there will be far fewer unwanted pregnancies and far fewer abortions.

Without dragging God into the discussion, the Bible offers us some excellent advice. "Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." (Phillipians 4:8) THAT is how we change our culture. We can't do it by defending the indefensible.

 

[Dragonlady]

We do not promote a culture that cherishes and values life by accusing those who cherish and value life of 'wanting to deny women their rights' or 'wanting to return to the dark ages of back alley abortions' etc. etc. etc. We promote a culture that cherishes and values life by doing it. And by instilling knowledge of the truth that the baby within the womb is no less a human life than are any of us who are walking around in the world. Once most people are persuaded of that, there will be far fewer unwanted pregnancies and far fewer abortions.

You cannot persuade those who will not listen and there are far too many of us who know the truth of the time. It was not the golden Utopia you remember, and we will continue to expose your lies and tell the true story of the times.

The problem isn't that families aren't respected in your culture. The resistance to publically funded healthcare is overwhelming, and yet nothing does more to provide financial and emotion stability for families than to ensure that everyone, regarding of income level, is assured of quality health care for your families, especially for mothers and children.

If children mattered to Americans, nutrious school lunch programs would be available in low income neighbourhoods, all schools would have quality facilities and good teachers, and all neighbourhoods would have recreational facilities with good coaches.

Instead of providing a village to raise your children, the poor are relegated to crime infested ghettos where children have little to do after schools but run the streets, where schools are poorly maintained, ill equipped, and children get a third rate education, which they probably won't complete.

When children matter enough that substantial resources are devoted to their care, education and well-being, regardless of whether their parents are rich or poor, then maybe women won't feel the need to abort babies they can't afford to carry to term, much less feed, clothe and educate for the next 20 years.

That will prove to women that babies matter.

 

[Foxfyre]

We do not promote a culture that cherishes and values life by accusing those who cherish and value life of 'wanting to deny women their rights' or 'wanting to return to the dark ages of back alley abortions' etc. etc. etc. We promote a culture that cherishes and values life by doing it. And by instilling knowledge of the truth that the baby within the womb is no less a human life than are any of us who are walking around in the world. Once most people are persuaded of that, there will be far fewer unwanted pregnancies and far fewer abortions.

You cannot persuade those who will not listen and there are far too many of us who know the truth of the time. It was not the golden Utopia you remember, and we will continue to expose your lies and tell the true story of the times.

The problem isn't that families aren't respected in your culture. The resistance to publically funded healthcare is overwhelming, and yet nothing does more to provide financial and emotion stability for families than to ensure that everyone, regarding of income level, is assured of quality health care for your families, especially for mothers and children.

If children mattered to Americans, nutrious school lunch programs would be available in low income neighbourhoods, all schools would have quality facilities and good teachers, and all neighbourhoods would have recreational facilities with good coaches.

Instead of providing a village to raise your children, the poor are relegated to crime infested ghettos where children have little to do after schools but run the streets, where schools are poorly maintained, ill equipped, and children get a third rate education, which they probably won't complete.

When children matter enough that substantial resources are devoted to their care, education and well-being, regardless of whether their parents are rich or poor, then maybe women won't feel the need to abort babies they can't afford to carry to term, much less feed, clothe and educate for the next 20 years.

That will prove to women that babies matter.

No, in order for most of the unintended negative consequences you list to be remedied, it is first necessary for babies and children to matter. The ones committed to providing substantial resources for the child should be the parents. Preferably both parents who care enough about the child to get married before the child is born and who are committed to loving each other and that child and giving it a loving home. When THAT becomes the cultural norm, you see much MUCH less of the negatives you listed.

The enormous majority of abortions are performed because the mother is not willing to be inconvenienced by the child nor is she willing to give it life and then allow someone else to raise it and provide the child all he or she needs. The cultural change that needs to happen is also a return to a concept of sex being an expression of love between two people who care about each other and are committed to each other rather than casual recreation.

The abortion statistics are pretty telling when you read them for what they are:
Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics

And again, I am not going to judge any woman who has had an abortion because I don't KNOW why she chose to have an abortion. Nor am I saying that abortions are never necessary or that those that are should not be legal and safe.

But 54+ million babies aborted since Roe v Wade should not be an acceptable number to anybody.

 

[Dragonlady]

The abortion statistics are pretty telling when you read them for what they are:
Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics

And again, I am not going to judge any woman who has had an abortion because I don't KNOW why she chose to have an abortion. Nor am I saying that abortions are never necessary or that those that are should not be legal and safe.

But 54+ million babies aborted since Roe v Wade should not be an acceptable number to anybody.

I read the report. I guess you missed the No. 1 reason why women have abortions:

•On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).

Or this little tidbit:

•The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women (NAF).

3/4 of the women say that they cannot afford a child. 2/3 of the women who receive abortions, are on Medicaid.

•Among women who obtained abortions in 2009, 40.2% had no prior live births; 46.3% had one or two prior live births, and 13.6% had three or more prior live births (CDC).

Over 46% of the women who obtained an abortion are married or living with their partner, and over 60% of these women already had one of more children. So much for the notion that women in loving relationships don't abort. That women wouldn't kill they babies if they really understood they were destroying a life. Or that they abort babies simply because they are inconvenient.

What emerges in reading this report is a picture of the women who get abortions. Adults more than teenagers, married or in a relationship, but desperate poor and unable to raise any more children.

Hardly the careless vapid fun seeker the anti-abortion crowd in this thread portray. Everything in the articles confirms what I have been saying throughout this thread.

And please Foxfire, don't insult my intelligence and say that raising the child is the parents' responsibility, because these parents are saying they are too poor to do it. So if you want to stop abortions, try giving the poor some family supports, because they're having all the kids they can at the moment.

 

[Foxfyre]

The abortion statistics are pretty telling when you read them for what they are:
Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics

And again, I am not going to judge any woman who has had an abortion because I don't KNOW why she chose to have an abortion. Nor am I saying that abortions are never necessary or that those that are should not be legal and safe.

But 54+ million babies aborted since Roe v Wade should not be an acceptable number to anybody.

I read the report. I guess you missed the No. 1 reason why women have abortions:

•On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).

Or this little tidbit:

•The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women (NAF).

3/4 of the women say that they cannot afford a child. 2/3 of the women who receive abortions, are on Medicaid.

•Among women who obtained abortions in 2009, 40.2% had no prior live births; 46.3% had one or two prior live births, and 13.6% had three or more prior live births (CDC).

Over 46% of the women who obtained an abortion are married or living with their partner, and over 60% of these women already had one of more children. So much for the notion that women in loving relationships don't abort. That women wouldn't kill they babies if they really understood they were destroying a life. Or that they abort babies simply because they are inconvenient.

What emerges in reading this report is a picture of the women who get abortions. Adults more than teenagers, married or in a relationship, but desperate poor and unable to raise any more children.

Hardly the careless vapid fun seeker the anti-abortion crowd in this thread portray. Everything in the articles confirms what I have been saying throughout this thread.

And please Foxfire, don't insult my intelligence and say that raising the child is the parents' responsibility, because these parents are saying they are too poor to do it. So if you want to stop abortions, try giving the poor some family supports, because they're having all the kids they can at the moment.

Pre Roe v Wade, most women who could not afford to raise a child, and that would be a lot of the unmarried ones, gave the child life and then handed it over to a loving couple who desperately wanted a baby and could give it everything he or she needed. The mother was far less likely to see it as an option just to kill the child she didn't want or couldn't care for. She was far more likely to revere the life and demonstrate love in its highest form.

 

[Dragonlady]

re Roe v Wade, most women who could not afford to raise a child, and that would be a lot of the unmarried ones, gave the child life and then handed it over to a loving couple who desperately wanted a baby and could give it everything he or she needed. The mother was far less likely to see it as an option just to kill the child she didn't want or couldn't care for. She was far more likely to revere the life and demonstrate love in its highest form.

And you're still ignoring that over 60% of the abortions are performed on women who already have living children. These women will not give up their babies, and they cannot afford to even carry the child to term, because the US has no maternity leave for them to do so. I hasten to add, yet another family support available in every other first world nation.

Your arguments won't fly, and your solution won't work until the US addresses the poverty that drives women to abort their children.

That's how society shows that children matter.

 

[sealadaigh]

and you are entitled to your opinion as well. by all means, don't drive while you are drunk if you are opposed to it. now, does that really make sense. how about this. you may be opposed to beatind your children. by all means then, don't do it.

Your comparisons don't even make sense. Having an abortion endangers no one but the woman making the choice herself. Driving drunk endangers everyone on the road.

yes, children should be loved but they always aren't. they are a hard job.

This is poorly expressed but what I think you are trying to say is that children aren't always loveable because they are hard work, but that's not the same thing as growing up unwanted and unloved. There is a vast difference between a child who has a rough day and Mom is relieved when the child settles down for the night, and child who never receives and sort of affection or validation and is truly unwanted.

a lot of the arguments i hear people make for abortion can be made for killing a three year old or an elderly person.

Really??? Well I would like to hear these because I can't think of a single argument I can make that would be remotely applicable for killing either.

why arre you bringing god into this. i don't think god should be brought into it at all and i do not do so.

however, LOl, i imagine there is some threshold level for high cholesterol where 1/3 of those who exceed that level die.

I was not in any way responding to your posts, so it's really irrelevant to me whether you think I should bring God into this discussion or not. If you don't wish to discuss religious reasons for opposing abortion, then don't respond to the posts, but please don't try to tell others what they can or cannot discuss.

And then you attempt to compare high cholesteral to miscarriage????

having an abortion kills human life. i would call killing something endangering it.

so. you are only for first trimester abortions, right?

i wasn't comparing high cholesterol to miscarriage per se. i was comparing the arguments.

maybe you should define human life...when it begins and what exactly makes it human?