Why Abortion And Euthanasia Should Be Legal

[koshergrl]

Nobody *forces* women to have babies. That is the law of NATURE. If you have a problem with the fact that women can get pregnant and once pregnant, give birth, then take it up with NATURE.

But a woman does NOT have the right to terminate the life of another. Even if that other is dependent upon her for life.

We are OBLIGATED to protect those who come under our protection, regardless of the MANNER they are placed there. If you go to a park, and you see two 5 year olds playing, and no adult...you can be held CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT if you allow something to happen to those children, or if you leave them alone after you realize they are not being supervised. Because everybody is OBLIGATED to protect the vulnerable.

So if you become pregnant, by whatever method, under whatever circumstance, you are OBLIGATED to protect the life inside of you until you can find someone else to take that burden from you...and murder is NOT an acceptable way to discharge the responsibility.

A woman's right to her own body does not extend to the killing of another. End of story.

 

[koshergrl]

As a matter of fact, abortion is more often *forced* upon women than birth is. I have yet to hear a single woman complain about being *forced* to give birth...but there are thousands upon thousands of women who will testify to being coerced into abortions they did not want, and later regret.


The majority of women who get abortions state that they are getting them under coercion. Almost 100 percent of late term abortions are coercive.

Which is why the abortionists don't want anyone to know what they REALLY do in those clinics.

 

[choosy]

As a matter of fact, abortion is more often *forced* upon women than birth is. I have yet to hear a single woman complain about being *forced* to give birth...but there are thousands upon thousands of women who will testify to being coerced into abortions they did not want, and later regret.


The majority of women who get abortions state that they are getting them under coercion. Almost 100 percent of late term abortions are coercive.

Which is why the abortionists don't want anyone to know what they REALLY do in those clinics.

You really think, that women were almost forced to get abortions? And how do the women get under coercion in THOSE CLINICS? Are they captured and deported?

 

[koshergrl]

I don't *think*, I know.

Aside from that, your post is unintelligible. Try to use English.

 

[koshergrl]

"
Reasons women give for having abortions:

• Forced by mother
• Father opposed
• Husband or boyfriend persuaded me
• No other option given
• Would have been kicked out
• Loss of family’s support
• Lack of support from society
• Clinic persuaded me4

​

"In 95% of all cases, the male partner plays a central role in the decision.5 Of men interviewed at abortion clinics 45% recalled urging abortion, including 37% of married men.6 Many of these men reported being justified in being the primary decision maker in the decision to have the abortion.6"

Forced Abortions in America

 

[koshergrl]

"pro-choice ethicist Daniel Callahan, director of the Hastings Center, has acknowledged the same basic problem:

That men have long coerced women into unwanted abortion when it suits their purposes is well-known but rarely mentioned. Data reported by the Alan Guttmacher Institute indicate that some 30 percent of women have an abortion because someone else, not the woman, wants it.14 "

Forced Abortions in America
​

 

[koshergrl]

Citations​

1. VM Rue et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16 (2004).
2. See the special report, Forced Abortion in America.
3. M Gissler et. al., “Pregnancy Associated Deaths in Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record linkage,” Acta Obsetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 76:651-657 (1997); and M. Gissler, “Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000,” European J. Public Health 15(5):459-63 (2005).
4. Frederica Mathewes-Green, Real Choices (Ben Lomond, CA: Conciliar Press, 1997).
5. Mary K. Zimmerman, Passage Through Abortion (New York, Prager Publishers, 1977).
6. Arthur Shostak and Gary McLouth, Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love (New York: Preager Publishers, 1984).
7. Brian McQuarrie, “Guard, clinic at odds at abortion hearing,” Boston Globe, April 16, 1999.
8. Carol Everett with Jack Shaw. Blood Money (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Books, 1992). See also Pamela Zekman and Pamela Warwick, “The Abortion Profiteers,” Chicago Sun Times special reprint, Dec. 3, 1978 (originally published Nov. 12, 1978), p. 2-3, 33.
9. Julie A. Gazmararian et al., “The Relationship Between Pregnancy Intendedness and Physical Violence in Mothers of Newborns,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, 85 :1031 (1995); Hortensia Amaro et al., “Violence During Pregnancy and Substance Use,” American Journal of Public Health, 80: 575 (1990); and J. McFarlane et al., “Abuse During Pregnancy and Femicide: Urgent Implications for Women’s Health,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, 100: 27, 27-36 (2002).
10. I.L. Horton and D. Cheng, “Enhanced Surveillance for Pregnancy-Associated Mortality-Maryland, 1993-1998,” JAMA 285(11): 1455-1459
(2001); see also J. Mcfarlane et. al., "Abuse During Pregnancy and Femicide: Urgent Implications for Women's Health," Obstetrics & Gynecology 100: 27-36 (2002).
11. “Is Your Mother’s Feminism Dead? New Agenda for Women Revealed in Landmark Two-Year Study,” press release from the Center for the Advancement of Women (advancewomen.org - advancewomen Resources and Information.), June 24, 2003; and Steve Ertelt, “Pro-Abortion Poll Shows Majority of Women Are Pro-Life,” LifeNews.com June 25, 2003.
12. See Theresa Burke, Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion (Springfield, IL: Acorn Books, 2000) and www.unchoice.info.
13. “National Opinion Survey of 600 Adults Regarding Attitudes Toward a Pro-Woman/Pro-Life Agenda,” Scott Rasmussen Public Opinion Research commissioned by the Elliot Institute, conducted in Dec. 2002.
14. Daniel Callahan, "An Ethical Challenge to Prochoice Advocates," Commonweal, Nov. 23, 1990, 681-687, 684.
15. JR Cougle, DC Reardon & PK Coleman, “Depression Associated With Abortion and Childbirth: A Long-Term Analysis of the NLSY Cohort,” Medical Science Monitor 9(4):CR105-112, 2003.
16. Frank, et.al., "Induced Abortion Operations and Their Early Sequelae," Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 35(73):175-180, April 1985; Grimes and Cates, "Abortion: Methods and Complications", in Human Reproduction, 2nd ed., 796-813; M.A.
Freedman, "Comparison of complication rates in first trimester abortions performed by physician assistants and physicians," Am. J. Public Health 76(5):550-554, 1986).
17. DC Reardon et. al., “Deaths Associated With Pregnancy Outcome: A Record Linkage Study of Low Income Women,” Southern Medical Journal 95(8):834-41, (2002).

Forced Abortions in America

 

[RKMBrown]

Not everyone can cope with raising a special needs child, and they shouldn't be forced to. It costs a lot of money, and Downs kids have heart problems, among other medical issues. Its a financial drain.

That said, I am not sure what I would do if I was going to have a baby with Downs. 12 months ago I would have said kill it. But since I have met this wonderful young lady named Sarah who used to do karate with me, I have started to change my mind.

Don't think I am thrilled with the fact so many are aborted - I do consider the fact that a lot of parents cannot afford to raise a special needs child - especially if they have other kids at home.

So here we have an actual "issue" related to the OP, but instead of aborting the child to help the child go through a life of pain, what we really have is aborting a child because the child will be "different" be a burden on the parents time and finances.

Why then can't we just go around killing people after birth based on burden? Why is killing a child after birth different than killing a baby with a beating heart in a womb, to save us from the "burden" of having to raise the child? Why not do an IQ test when the child is 10 and if under a certain threshold let the parents kill the child at that time?

What's the difference?

You can not force a woman to have a baby! Why is killing a child after birth is different? I hope you know the difference! There are laws ... And -a born baby is not dependent on a woman!
Why do you want to take women this right??? There are no alternatives

That's like saying I can't force you to not run over a child crossing the street, if you desire to run someone over I should let you? You think because the baby is in your belly it has no rights? wow Does that mean someone in my car has no rights, in my house has no rights? What's the difference? A born baby is not dependent on a woman? HUH? Have you not heard of mothers throwing their children into dumpsters? Starving their kids by locking them up or malnutrition?

Yes, I wish to take away the current law that overlooks murder's of children in the womb. Heart beating till you take a pair of pliers and crush the babies head or crush it using a high powered vacuum to suck it's limbs and body parts through a tube? Abortion of a live fetus is a nightmarish act, not a blessing.

 

[choosy]

"
Reasons women give for having abortions:

• Forced by mother
• Father opposed
• Husband or boyfriend persuaded me
• No other option given
• Would have been kicked out
• Loss of family’s support
• Lack of support from society
• Clinic persuaded me4

​

"In 95% of all cases, the male partner plays a central role in the decision.5 Of men interviewed at abortion clinics 45% recalled urging abortion, including 37% of married men.6 Many of these men reported being justified in being the primary decision maker in the decision to have the abortion.6"

Forced Abortions in America

My English is really bad - should we try in German?

In fact the reasons for abortion are often not to have support! That´s why I say: Abortion must be the last resort. But to offend women as murderess is no solution!

 

[koshergrl]

You should try in German perhaps on a German messageboard.

This is an American messageboard, and we speak English. So if you are going to argue that women should be able to kill their babies, brush up on your skills.

 

[Noomi]

Here you go Noomi, you ought to be thrilled with this...

Then again, you probably want to euthanize the 1 out of 10 that isn't aborted too.

Not everyone can cope with raising a special needs child, and they shouldn't be forced to. It costs a lot of money, and Downs kids have heart problems, among other medical issues. Its a financial drain.

That said, I am not sure what I would do if I was going to have a baby with Downs. 12 months ago I would have said kill it. But since I have met this wonderful young lady named Sarah who used to do karate with me, I have started to change my mind.

Don't think I am thrilled with the fact so many are aborted - I do consider the fact that a lot of parents cannot afford to raise a special needs child - especially if they have other kids at home.

So here we have an actual "issue" related to the OP, but instead of aborting the child to help the child go through a life of pain, what we really have is aborting a child because the child will be "different" be a burden on the parents time and finances.

Why then can't we just go around killing people after birth based on burden? Why is killing a child after birth different than killing a baby with a beating heart in a womb, to save us from the "burden" of having to raise the child? Why not do an IQ test when the child is 10 and if under a certain threshold let the parents kill the child at that time?

What's the difference?

You don't seem to understand that not everyone is rich and can afford to raise a special needs child. Unless you are prepared to pay for the cost of the raising of such children, keep your mouth shut.

 

[thanatos144]

Not everyone can cope with raising a special needs child, and they shouldn't be forced to. It costs a lot of money, and Downs kids have heart problems, among other medical issues. Its a financial drain.

That said, I am not sure what I would do if I was going to have a baby with Downs. 12 months ago I would have said kill it. But since I have met this wonderful young lady named Sarah who used to do karate with me, I have started to change my mind.

Don't think I am thrilled with the fact so many are aborted - I do consider the fact that a lot of parents cannot afford to raise a special needs child - especially if they have other kids at home.

So here we have an actual "issue" related to the OP, but instead of aborting the child to help the child go through a life of pain, what we really have is aborting a child because the child will be "different" be a burden on the parents time and finances.

Why then can't we just go around killing people after birth based on burden? Why is killing a child after birth different than killing a baby with a beating heart in a womb, to save us from the "burden" of having to raise the child? Why not do an IQ test when the child is 10 and if under a certain threshold let the parents kill the child at that time?

What's the difference?

You don't seem to understand that not everyone is rich and can afford to raise a special needs child. Unless you are prepared to pay for the cost of the raising of such children, keep your mouth shut.

Killing a baby saves you money. Maybe you should put that on a poster or tv ad

tapatalk post

 

[Noomi]

That went over your head, didn't it?

 

[RKMBrown]

Not everyone can cope with raising a special needs child, and they shouldn't be forced to. It costs a lot of money, and Downs kids have heart problems, among other medical issues. Its a financial drain.

That said, I am not sure what I would do if I was going to have a baby with Downs. 12 months ago I would have said kill it. But since I have met this wonderful young lady named Sarah who used to do karate with me, I have started to change my mind.

Don't think I am thrilled with the fact so many are aborted - I do consider the fact that a lot of parents cannot afford to raise a special needs child - especially if they have other kids at home.

So here we have an actual "issue" related to the OP, but instead of aborting the child to help the child go through a life of pain, what we really have is aborting a child because the child will be "different" be a burden on the parents time and finances.

Why then can't we just go around killing people after birth based on burden? Why is killing a child after birth different than killing a baby with a beating heart in a womb, to save us from the "burden" of having to raise the child? Why not do an IQ test when the child is 10 and if under a certain threshold let the parents kill the child at that time?

What's the difference?

You don't seem to understand that not everyone is rich and can afford to raise a special needs child. Unless you are prepared to pay for the cost of the raising of such children, keep your mouth shut.

Let's check over the costs of raising a child in America for someone in poverty. Health care... free. Food.. free. School... free. I'm confused. What cost? You mean "time?"

Keep my mouth shut? So no one is allowed to speak for the child? Does that make it easier if no one disagrees? I'm not sin free, not by a long shot, but this act is not a blessing for the child or mother or doctor that will have to live with it.

 

[thanatos144]

That went over your head, didn't it?

No it just proves you're a sick person

tapatalk post

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So here we have an actual "issue" related to the OP, but instead of aborting the child to help the child go through a life of pain, what we really have is aborting a child because the child will be "different" be a burden on the parents time and finances.

Why then can't we just go around killing people after birth based on burden? Why is killing a child after birth different than killing a baby with a beating heart in a womb, to save us from the "burden" of having to raise the child? Why not do an IQ test when the child is 10 and if under a certain threshold let the parents kill the child at that time?

What's the difference?

You don't seem to understand that not everyone is rich and can afford to raise a special needs child. Unless you are prepared to pay for the cost of the raising of such children, keep your mouth shut.

Killing a baby saves you money. Maybe you should put that on a poster or tv ad

tapatalk post

Abortion is not ‘killing a baby,’ to argue such is ignorant idiocy and demagoguery.

If you believe abortion is ‘wrong,’ then don’t have an abortion.

But thankfully the Constitution prohibits you from attempting to codify your subjective opinion and ignorance.

 

[RKMBrown]

You don't seem to understand that not everyone is rich and can afford to raise a special needs child. Unless you are prepared to pay for the cost of the raising of such children, keep your mouth shut.

Killing a baby saves you money. Maybe you should put that on a poster or tv ad

tapatalk post

Abortion is not ‘killing a baby,’ to argue such is ignorant idiocy and demagoguery.

If you believe abortion is ‘wrong,’ then don’t have an abortion.

But thankfully the Constitution prohibits you from attempting to codify your subjective opinion and ignorance.

Huh? What does the Constitution have to do with killing babies?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That went over your head, didn't it?

No it just proves you're a sick person

tapatalk post

Those who defend privacy rights are not ‘sick.’

Indeed, it’s quite likely that those who refer to abortion as ‘baby killing’ suffer from some sort of obsessive disorder themselves, particularly when they seek to compel other citizens to believe as they do through the authority of the state, in violation of the Constitution.

 

[Sunshine]

That went over your head, didn't it?

No it just proves you're a sick person

tapatalk post

Those who defend privacy rights are not ‘sick.’

Indeed, it’s quite likely that those who refer to abortion as ‘baby killing’ suffer from some sort of obsessive disorder themselves, particularly when they seek to compel other citizens to believe as they do through the authority of the state, in violation of the Constitution.

Branching out a little there C?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Killing a baby saves you money. Maybe you should put that on a poster or tv ad

tapatalk post

Abortion is not ‘killing a baby,’ to argue such is ignorant idiocy and demagoguery.

If you believe abortion is ‘wrong,’ then don’t have an abortion.

But thankfully the Constitution prohibits you from attempting to codify your subjective opinion and ignorance.

Huh? What does the Constitution have to do with killing babies?

Nothing.

And no one ever said it did.

But the Constitution does address the issue concerning a woman’s right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free from interference by the state:

[O]ur holding [finds] that the Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)[.]

Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Consequently, and again, abortion is not ‘killing babies,’ a women’s right to terminate her pregnancy, in the context of the right to privacy, is indeed protected by the Constitution.