Question regarding the abortion discussion below??
Posted By: whorn on 2006-11-30
In Reply to:
This question is mainly for anti abortion advocates. What would you do in a situation where you were found to be pregnant, but it was found to be an ectopic pregnancy? Would you terminate the pregnancy, or carry it to conclusion, whatever that conclusion may be? Thanks for any replies.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
My belief? "late-term abortion" or partial-birth abortion" = infanticide, it is sickening
So in these cases I do think, as in most things, there is no ABSOLUTE, but a judicious guideline for this should be investigated and established by the medical community, as far as survival/outcome, but then we must be willing to prosecute mothers and doctors who go outside the guidelines...with established jail terms....and more money to house these "criminals" for years. Why not let God by the ultimate judge, He has the wisdom and the power, and eternity without God is worse than anything we as humans can mandate, don't you think?
meant is against abortion...didn't mean supports abortion (NM)
If that is all you got out of this discussion, please, do bow out.
As I see from your other posts you just tend to step in and make random irrational comments, I'm sorry I even replied to your post.
What exactly is illogical, and where was the discussion?
There certainly *is* a feral element on the right that will attack anyone viciously if it serves their purposes - nothing is sacred to them - and they don't respect "logic" any more than they respect the mothers of deceased soliders. I've spent years talking to these people. It took me a long time to reluctantly come to the conclusion that you can't reason with them because they don't respect reason. You can't find common ground because they don't want to share any ground - they want it all. You can't speak to them in a sincere way because they will take that as a sign of weakness and attack you all the harder. You can't deal with them fairly and expect to be treated fairly in return - they will lie at the drop of a hat. Their intention is not to be tolerant of others but to crush any dissent and run smear campaigns against those who are not "like" them. Now that's just my experience with this specific element on the right. It's just my opinion but it's far from illogical to draw conclusions from many years of personal experience. If you are a progressive, may you have better luck than I in trying to find a human face amongst that particular element I'm referring to. If you are a Republican and you actually want to discuss something, it seems like there are plenty of people here including me who would be willing to discuss an issue without getting personal. But no matter who you are, don't expect me or anyone else who's had my experience with the ugly among the right to parse their words or try to be falsely sweet and forgiving toward a specific group of people who are just flat downright dangerous and despicable, and don't deserve to be kid-gloved.
I really enjoyed the discussion, as well.
It was nice to have a peaceful discussion with differing viewpoints. Peace to you, too.
Could you please take your discussion to your own board
PLEASE.
This is the liberal board, or at least that what it says. I don't understand why you guys have taken it over.
This discussion is about where Bush was and was not.
Ignored the most devastating natural disaster in recent US history.
new topic for discussion
McCain's cross in the dirt story he tells now -- history of:
how similar the McCain story is to that offered by Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsen and then later popularized by Christian leaders Chuck Colson and Billy Graham. Sullivan also points out other suspicious changes:
The story changed from the guard using a sandal to the guard using a stick.
At Saddleback, McCain talked about a single guard being the protagonist. The same guard loosened his ropes and then later sketchd the cross in the dirt. In McCain's 1999 book, these were two different guards at two different prison camps.
McCain's first writings about his time in captivity didn't mention the story at all, so he's asked his readers for evidence of McCain offering that story prior to his 1999 book (when he was gearing up for a presidential run).
Several contributors to the comment thread on my first post have pointed to this rather stunning New York Times piece from 2000 in which McCain tells the story but about someone else!
Many years ago a scared American prisoner of war in Vietnam was tied in torture ropes by his tormentors and left alone in an empty room to suffer through the night. Later in the evening a guard he had never spoken to entered the room and silently loosened the ropes to relieve his suffering. Just before morning, that same guard came back and re-tightened the ropes before his less humanitarian comrades returned. He never said a word to the grateful prisoner, but some months later, on a Christmas morning, as the prisoner stood alone in the prison courtyard, the same good Samaritan walked up to him and stood next to him for a few moments. Then with his sandal, the guard drew a cross in the dirt. Both prisoner and guard both stood wordlessly there for a minute or two, venerating the cross, until the guard rubbed it out and walked away.
I think they had a family discussion ...
and they decided as a family to go forward. And this would not be an issue had there are those judgmental among us who decided to make it one. In this day and time for the Dems here, of ALL People, to act all holier-than-thou and act like being pregnant not married still carries some kind of stigma just stinks to high heaven. These same people who have told us to go back to our churches and not push our morality on them. The hypocrisy is staggering. The very people they called judgmental are the ones surrounding this family to support them, not ostracizing them like they had announced their daughter was a pedophile or a serial killer.
I would put the judgment here much MORE in question than Sarah Palin's, and I think a lot of people out there in America whose lives this very thing has touched will do the same.
And I would say that regardless of what party affiliation she has too. If that was a Democrat running for VP and people wre bashing her in this way I would be yelling foul just as loud.
It just amazes me the depths some will sink to for political purposes. INcluding fileting a 17-year-old. Just because her mother made the announcement did not mean poeple were obligated to attack..that was a choice and it taking that choice says a lot about character...or the screaming lack thereof.
we are having a mature discussion
about politics and religion, please do not start posting useless dribble. Thank you.
a "mature" discussion about
seeing black men run through the house, black arms coming out from under the bed, and several people talking to Jesus in the flesh? Okay then. I will bow out.
Don't read too much into this discussion. It just happens...sm
to be the news of the day. I do find it amusing though that her clothes came from the stores that they did. NM has $3000 handbags, etc, very HIGH prices and she probably only got a few outfits for the RNC's $150,000. I am sure that she didn't choose to get her wardrobe from these stores. She was probably staying in a hotel and the repub bigwigs called the department stores and told them what to bring over and what size, charge it to us. They were molding her to what they wanted her to be in order to get votes. It backfired. I actually feel sorry for her now. I hope she gets to keep her new clothes. She will probably be glad to get back to Alaska and out of the lower 48.
No, actually I'm not begging for discussion..
I am simply pointing out diversity. I've seen numerous posts on here from christians, and I really don't feel a need to debate their religion every time I see it. In fact, I respect other's opinions and beliefs, especially when they are willing to express them.....something you should try.
haven't been following this discussion at all BUT
isn't that calling the kettle black? I only clicked on this message cause it was the latest posted one... and after reading it i go... um excuse me... did you EVER given the current administration a break? for ANYTHING? And i dont want to hear they did this and this and this and this. that's fine, people were against them from the beginning too. This happens on BOTH sides, why doesn't everyone agree that there are hypocrites on each side!!! that is hypocritical in itself when you ALWAYS point fingers at the other side! Differing opinions is one thing, but to say that the RIGHT cant give this government a break? Well that's because they OPPOSE what it is they stand for! just like the left opposes what the right stands for!!!!
You call that discussion?
By definition, a discussion is give and take. An informed opinion on a complex issue takes more than a snarky one-liner on a subject line. It's really easy to define an opinion with which you disagree as "endless babble."
Besides, message boards are lousy places to have a true discussion about anything.
Here's a topic for discussion
Leaving criminal penalties out of the equation: Is it immoral to break the law?
What if you consider the law immoral (such as, for example, segregation)? What if you consider integration immoral? How much does individual conscience have to do with this? Easy to say someone else's conscience is in error, but they are saying the same about yours.
Some people try to short their taxes because the money goes to fund a war they do not believe in (there's usually one going on) or to fund abortions, or medical research they abhor, and now to bail out failed businesses and individual mortgages. I think everyone could find something that's funded by our tax money objectionable. How much are we morally required to render unto Caesar?
It's illegal to overstay a parking meter. Is it also immoral if you did it intentionally, simply because you've violated a law? How about sliding through a red light at 3 a.m. on a deserted country road when you could not possibly injure anyone?
If it's legal to raise rent past a tenant's ability to pay, is it also moral? What if this makes them homeless?
I thought the discussion was
for employees to have their health benefits taxed as income.
As noted in a discussion below about this...(sm)
I don't care what his views are or what he is. What I do care about his what he teaches kids. Sending them to his conservative website for homework in my opinion is way out of line.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the language used by the poster above, which is what I was talking about before you tried to change the subject, as usual.
Why is this discussion over - Ive been away for awhile and,
So why is this topic now closed?
So much for logical discussion between right and left.
/
I see. I saw in a discussion about Bruce on Netscape.nm
z
Bashing and discussion are two different things. sm
Evidently the moderator agrees, as she hasn't paid a visit to the boards.
Discussion from Gab Board re Pres.
"First... I don't claim him. I think he's a tyrant to put it nicely and I think he is a warmonging hillbilly (and that's sad for the hillbillies because they are decent folk he gives a bad name). I told everyone not to vote for him last time... I tried to warn them. I didn't want him and he hasn't done anything to help me our my friends and family in the slightest, except make us look ridiculous on the international stage (which I can say because I live in Europe at the moment and I know how foolish they think us right now). Second, good for you. Maybe you should vote for McCain so that the pain (errr I mean pleasure) never ends. I bet the people that he's been against and not fought for (i.e., Katrina victims, Iowa flood victims, homosexuals, people with diseases that stem cell reasearch could help, innocent people in far off lands that lost family members and friends who were innocent victims) I bet they all share your same sentiments.. right? You can have him.. I bet right about now he's half price on the discount rack anyways! Third... you should be grateful she put "creatrue." Its probably how Bush spells and says it, so its a true representation. Fourth... I think the last time I checked it was a free country with free speech and allowed for people to have their own opinions. I have better names to call him than childish ones... but I won't use them since your so easily offended... are you his personal emotional filter? I doubt he cares what the American people call him... he's certainly proven he doesn't care what they think or how they feel... so why should we care about him? Thanks back atcha. I can have whatever opinion I want of the president and I can tell you, I am more the majority than you are."
Moving over here per Mod request.......
Of course you can have your opinion about President Bush. I was just saying that the names are uncalled for. Are you staying in Europe forever or are you planning on coming back to the U.S.? Just curious.
President Bush isn't perfect and there have been many mistakes, I do agree. I did vote for him and agree with the vast majority of his conservative views. I do plan on voting for John McCain in November. But, if Obama is our next president, as much as I disagree with his views, I wouldn't call him names; but that's just me I guess.
I do not envy anyone who is willing to take on the gigantic role of running the country. I would not want the job in a million years. I have respect for ANYONE, republican or democrat, who is ready and willing to take on this great responsibility.
I still would like to know what a creatrue is and President Bush is NOT retarded.
This discussion kind of reminds me of the ...sm
election of 1960, Nixon/Kennedy. Everyone was saying Nixon is a God. He has the most experience. No way John Kennedy is qualified to be president. Then came the first debate, and the rest is history. No teleprompter needed for either JFK or Obama. Their vision for America was/is enough to light the world.
yeah, so what, you aren't following the whole discussion
nm
Not trying to start a religious discussion here, but
being on its knees is exactly what this country needs. 
So there has to be a discussion of posts for it to be relevant?
what a stupid, anonymous comment
You really don't want to start this discussion, Sparky
x
i thought i'd find some intelligent discussion
here, but what a nasty post. or maybe you are hopelessly superficial. so sorry.
another life-altering issue for discussion
brought to you by the True Believers. distract, distract. blame the clintons.
More on Obama eligibility status from discussion
This argument validates the lawsuit, so it would seem to not be so frivolous. Can't argue about the facts.
************************************
It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason:
Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between " December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986? . Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: ".If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16." Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which mea ns though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai'i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16 It doesn't matter *after*. In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawai'i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent.
Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.
*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President *** Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. Now you can see why Obama's aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. election law. I think the Gov. of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. citizen, and it would set precedence.
Not THE solution, but perhaps one of many? sorry I put an idea out there for discussion, didn't
and sorry if my post ended up with yours, that happens, and I am not here to insult anyone. I do believe in my stance and my idea, have many reasons for it, thought that for once an issue on here could be discussed without personal attacks, if you read my first posts, there is no content other than the proposed idea; I was insulted and attacked for no reason, had the AUDACITY to defend myself and what I am trying to do with my life, my OWN life, and as usual it has turned ugly and it is almost impossible to figure out the original thread....oh well, back to work.
That's funny, a refusal to comment is an end to a discussion as far as I know.
x
Good discussion on PBS' Lehrer News Hour
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec05/bop_9-2.html
Very good discussion of the political ramifications of the current governmental failure in this emergency - includes New York Times columnist David Brooks, a Republican with some rather surprisingly accurate statements.
You must skip all the "rabid" democrat discussion, and obviously don't count...sm
However, rather unfair to use the term "rabid" for any of us, don't you think?
I'd love to hear from the gal that was keeping score yesterday, to see who really rants and rails the most.
Seems to me the dems on this board far out rant the reps, and yet I don't see you calling the dems rabid.
rabid
One entry found.
Main Entry:
ra·bid Listen to the pronunciation of rabid
Pronunciation:
ˈra-bəd also ˈrā-
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin rabidus mad, from rabere
Date:
1594
1 a: extremely violent : furious b: going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion
2: affected with rabies
That is true....so everyone want to move the discussion to Faith board? nm
x
This is for a serious discussion... Do you think Obama will help the black community to "change&#
I am watching a story on Nightly News maybe that's what this is... It is about what he will do for the "black community" I guess they call it. They then pointed out the murder rate between in that community, that African-Americans make up 13% of the population but 40% of the incarcerated, etc. etc.
My discussion would be this, do you think it will be a main focus for him to guide or change those young men and women into better things and do you also think that him simply becoming president gives the ones on a bad road reason to make more of their life?
Doesn't your refusing to comment on my question then end the discussion?
It seems there is no topic upon which to stay.
Abortion is for men. nm
This isn't abortion!
Read it again: the child is already out of the womb and breathing! the child is BORN. Not a fetus.
Your telling me that a child that is born from a botched abortion should be left to die?
That is what this bill is about. If a child is born after an abortion attempt, that it should be treated as a US citizen with all rights of a citizen given, including the right to lifesaving medical care. You don't think that's fair?
Abortion
Haven't you guys who are going on about this given any thought that every time politicians start speaking of abortion, gay marriage, etc., it is a smoke screen. They know how to push our buttons, but then they are always hiding something else. The know if they keep our minds on these types of issues, we won't be paying attention to other under-handed things that are going on.
This is not about abortion. It is about a man who...
voted AGAINST giving medical care infants who survive abortion, who are living and breathing outside the mother and unattached even by the umbilical cord. That is horrific, and frankly I don't feel real good about someone who wants to fight for that TO happen, instead of AGAINST it happening. If he can't muster up enough sympathy for poor children dying alone in a dirty clothes closet, how could I possibly believe he cares about the "middle class?"
Talk about a STRETCH.
abortion
I think that it is sad that people do not believe abortion is murder. I am pregnant by surprise and had an ultrasound at 12 weeks (when many abortions are performed) and was able to see my baby move around and his hands and feet. If that is not a baby, heaven help us all. Having said that, I am not sure that abortion should be illegal. In my heart, I know that it is wrong, but in my head, I also know that it will continue to happen in an unsafe manner if it were to become illegal. However, perhaps not so prevalently, so this is a toughie for me, but I cannot believe that God condones it.
ABORTION
who KNOWS there are other alternatives out there? Come on people!! We all type this stuff...There are sooooo many different kinds of birth control out there. Why wait and kill a baby? Bottom line, that's what abortion is. I just cannot believe the mentality of some of you people. I may not have all the fancy words some of you use but I think this is just common sense. I don't even know that I think a woman should have her "choice" taken away but I do think abortion should not be considered birth control. If you don't want to have a baby and CHOOSE abortion, and it happens again and again, how about an old fashioned TUBAL LIGATION? All this talk truly makes me ill to my stomach.
I'm curious how many of you out there are willing to fess up about an abortion and sharing your feelings about your "choice." My sister had a "choice" to make years ago and she has nightmares about it still. The guilt she has felt is unreal. Maybe some of you do live with yourselves and I honestly think any woman who has made this "choice" and can live with herself without any sort of guilt EVER, is just a very hard person.
Abortion
I agree
you won't go into abortion because........ sm
somewhere, deep inside, you know it is murder...a sin in God's eyes just as much as adultery.
The issue is not about choice (and I have other views on that word as well) but about the taking of innocent lives who have no voice to speak for themselves. As far as welfare....it's coming already and it won't be me who pays, unless that top income bracket keeps spiraling downward into the low 5-figure numbers which is not an impossibility.
On abortion
Solomon's wisdom still at work today.....
A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:
'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I'm
pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.'
So the doctor said: 'Ok, and what do you want me to do?'
She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution
for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.' She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept
her request.
Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let's
kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill
one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your
arms.'
The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!'
'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best
solution.' The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.
He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's
still in the womb. The crime is the same!
Oh if our current judicial system could only understand this fact.
Abortion..............s/m
You can talk your heart out, I was, am and will always be pro-abortion.
Till to the end of the 3rd month of pregnancy it is the mother who has the right to end the pregnancy.
Who is going to help me in all aspects if I, as the mother, know that I will most probably not be able to care and provide for this child? Not for all mothers is the option of adoption, this means GIVING AWAY one's flesh and blood to STRANGERS an acceptable option.
I am against partial birth abortion.
Really, no one is pro-abortion......
The term is pro-choice and there are a lot of Americans who are pro-choice. If you think they are going to overturn Roe vs Wade to satisfy less than half the population - you will be disappointed. This is just a political joust to get people arguing - with no end in sight. Give it up. They thought they'd win another election with this tired, worn out "issue" - and they were wrong.
And this is different from abortion... How? sm
Abortion is the ending of a life, plain and simple. Yet people get all up in arms when their "right to choose" is taken away from them.
I am not advocating this woman's choice in the least. I personally think she should be prosecuted for what she has done, just as I believe women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them should be prosecuted. There is no difference.
I feel the same way about abortion. sm
nm
|
