gadgetlady

No, I'm saying that what she said appeared to me to be sarcasm, not nastiness (actually, your comment that prompted hers, that sex isn't just for making babies and if she doesn't know that she's missing out seemed much more personally nasty to me), while your comment about her back woods thinking seemed personally nasty and not sarcastic at all.

What she said was "personally nasty", but telling her she has "back woods" thinking is not only not personally nasty, but mature? Ummm, NOT!

The answer doesn't need to make sense to everyone. It needs to be based on scientific fact. Not amorphous religious beliefs, belief about when the soul arrives, dependence on what medical technology is doing "this year" for premature births, whether or not he woman "feels" like being a mother, or anything else. How should we, as a society, define a person? If we define a person only as a person after a full and complete birth, then I guess the D&X late-term abortion procedure (aka partial-birth abortion) whereby the baby is delivered feet first and then stabbed at the base of the neck and the brains sucked out so there's no possibility of accidental "live birth", is A-OK. But if we allow each pregnant mother to define life based on her own preference, what do we do when she decides that her 2 day old infant isn't up to snuff? After all, the major change from 3 days ago was the baby's place of residence. This country used to define a black person as 3/5 of a person. Were they wrong? ABSOLUTELY. What an individual or a group of people choose to believe is irrelevant. What do science and logic tell us? We must have a standard definition for life. Right now, we don't. If a pregnant woman is hit by a drunk driver and the baby dies, the other driver can be charged with some form of murder or homicide. What happens if she was driving to an abortion clinic? The other driver then accomplished the same goal for which she was headed. But, many say, it wasn't his choice to make. In other words, it wasn't his baby to kill. But since when does a human being's personhood depend on whether another person values their life? It seems to me that the 14-year-old had access to "safe, legal abortion" but it still didn't solve the problem. She still abused her child. Therefore the "abort them before you have a chance to abuse them" argument just didn't work!

Statistically, in locations where the incidence of abortion is low, so is the incidence of child abuse. When abortion increases, child abuse does also. When abortion rates sharply increase, child abuse does also. There are many conclusions that can be drawn, some valid, some not, but it remains a fact that unplanned or unwanted does not equal abused.

Abusing kids is extremely serious. However, there is no statistical correlation between an unplanned pregnancy and an abused child. Many, many abused children were wanted and planned. Furthermore, brutally killing a child so he won't be abused seems a little counter-productive, don't you think?

Actually, she was not only not brain dead, after her car accident she went on to become the Chair of the Department of Psychology of a major university. Oh, yes, she did have thoughts on the matter. Who has the say for the baby, since he can't speak for himself? We all know that an infant, left alone without nutrition and care, will die. Is it OK for people to kill their infants by starvation? To let them simply die because they opt not to provide care?

I wanted to respond to something someone said about people never changing their minds on this issue. I can't remember who said it and I can't find it now. But people do change their minds. Ever heard of Bernard Nathanson? He was a co-founder of NARAL and an abortionist. He oversaw 60,000 abortions and performed 5,000. He is now pro-life. There are numerous cases of other abortion providers, nurses, doctors, and clinic workers, who had their eyes opened to what they were doing. In Dr. Nathanson's words, regarding aborting his own child and the children of friends, colleagues, etc.: "Yes, you may ask me...[W]hat did you feel? Did you not feel sad -- not only because you had extinguished the life of an unborn child, but, more, because you had destroyed your own child? I swear to you that I had no feelings aside from the sense of accomplishment, the pride of expertise. On inspecting the contents of the bag I felt only the satisfaction of knowing that I had done a thorough job. You pursue me: You ask if perhaps for a fleeting moment or so I experienced a flicker of regret, a microgram of remorse? No and no. And that, dear reader, is the mentality of the abortionist: another job well done, another demonstration of the moral neutrality of advanced technology in the hands of the amoral". Dr. Nathanson finally rejected abortion on scientific, not religious, grounds. If HE can change his mind, with the proper presentation of facts, anyone can. There are plenty of websites that discuss Nathanson. This one is particularly good and concise, easy reading: http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/remember-naral.htm I remember when Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) was "discovered" or revealed herself to me Jane Roe. The pro-abortionists were ecstatic! (She never did have an abortion but carried her baby to term and place the baby for adoption). They brought her up in front of masses of people to speak about her experience, and she got to the microphone and said something along the lines of, "I just want to know who and where my baby is." :faint: Needless to say, she was not the spokeswoman that the movement envisioned. She is now a pro-life activist.

So it would have been OK for me to stop giving food and water to my quardiplegic aunt (before she died last year of cancer)? After all, she couldn't maintain her life on her own for any length of time, and would have died in very short order if left alone.

What would you suggest? Assisting the child in living, or killing it? If the latter, how?

Wow! I woke up to a thread that took off. I might go back and respond to some individual posts, but here are just a few random thoughts. I am 100% pro-life, in case you hadn't already guessed. There is a disagreement over what to call the human being developing in the womb. I choose to call it an unborn baby. Others choose to use a Latin word instead to obfuscate the issue. I believe in birth control. I use it. I am a Christian, but I don't oppose abortion for religious reasons. I oppose it for scientific reasons. If aborting an 8-month pregnant woman offends you, ask yourself why. And then count back from birth and tell me when the baby ceases to be a baby and becomes a blob of tissue. Unplanned pregnancies do not equate to child abuse. Unplanned pregnancies often lead to changed lives. To be sure, many planned pregnancies result in child abuse. The ultimate form of child abuse is ripping that child from the safety of the mother's womb and dismembering him or her. Women who have had miscarriages are perfectly within their rights to mourn, as are women who have had abortions. Losing a baby hurts. Many women have abortions against their will and many know it's wrong when they do it. They are simply in a crisis situation and they are latching on to whatever they believe will help them escape. Many women change their minds many times in the process of deciding whether to have an abortion. Unfortunately, many of them change it again right after the procedure is over. It is a harsh reality that aborted babies are born alive. It's not something the pro-life movement made up. If you're pro-abortion and it upsets you, you might want to figure out why. The baby is not a woman's body. If it were, a pregnant woman would have the unusual medical situation of having 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 hearts, 2 brains, 2 circulatory systems, and, in the case of a male child, male genitalia. I believe the only case where abortion is warranted is when the physical life of the mother is in danger from complications if the pregnancy were carried to full term. In that case, it is killing one to save another. I believe the best thing for perpetrators of incest is abortion. If these disgusting people had to face up to their crimes rather than being able to hide behind them by sending their daughters, nieces, etc. to an abortion clinic time after time, they might actually be caught and jailed. As it stands, when the child is never seen pregnant, the incest just continues. Most people are blisfully unaware of the development that occurs in the womb. Show a picture of a developing baby, in utero or aborted, to a child. And they know that interefering with the continuing life of that child is murder, just as interfering with their continuing life would be murder. Pro-abortion adults, however, are either blinded or refuse to look. I'm sure I'll have more to say and I might actually have time to go back and respond to some individual posts, but not right now.

This might be a better link but I don't know if it'll work for everyone: http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?121206/121206_oreilly_kelly&OReilly_Factor&Under%20Investigation&acc&O%26%2339%3BReilly%20Factor&-1&Shows&296&&&new

I think they're back up without the menorah. How long ago were you in 5th grade? I'm surprised they showed you Silent Scream. Was it a public or private school? Did anyone watch O'Reilly Factor tonight? I don't typically watch it because he's too pompous, but someone called me and told me to turn it on. He was interviewing a woman who had had an abortion at age 14 from Tiller in Kansas. He basically just let her talk about her experience. You can watch it online at http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html (click on "Ex-patient of abortion doctor speaks out" on the right-hand side under "video" in blue). She was 20 weeks along (Tiller will abort up until the day of birth) and she describes the 5 day process of her saline abortion, culminating in her being dilated enough and the clinic having her sit on a toilet and push her dead baby out into that toilet. It's quite eye-opening, especially for those who believe abortion isn't legal through all 9 months of pregnancy, or who believe that there are no emotional after-effects from the procedure. I know some of you won't click on it and watch it because you believe it to be pro-life rhetoric. Instead, it's the actual experience and aftermath of someone who went through it.

Yeah, I did too. I kind of threw me the other way, though. I bought some very cool modest bathing suits because of it. And it spurred all sorts of discussions in our house about modesty. So it was actually a good thing to have happen. I guess the fact that someone gave it to her isn't all that unusual in California, though. Growing up, I had a best friend who's mother grew up in Europe. She told a story about how they used menstrual rags and washed them out every night and hung them on the line. Everyone in the neighborhood knew when a woman was having her period because of what was on her laundry line. There are a lot of things that we consider disgusting that were matter-of-course not so many years ago. I'm not saying I don't consider it disgusting (I do)! I'm just saying our opinions are tainted by what we're used to. There wasn't such a thing as disposable diapers when I was a baby. Now, most people wouldn't even consider giving up that convenience, even though cloth diapers, even through a diaper service, are cheaper. There was a time when large families would inhabit single-room houses, or houses with only one or two rooms. Now it's an offense to the sensitivities of some that 18 children inhabit 3 rooms. I'm sure for those children it's what they're used to and they're fine with it. And, again, who are we to judge? What we know is not necessarily the only norm out there. In fact, it's probably not even close to the norm.

Last night I watched "The New Adventures of Old Christine". Anyone watch that? It was a particularly funny episode. Christine is a self-proclaimed environmentalist who makes a big deal out of driving a Prius. Her car is in for repairs so she has to rent another. The only thing the rental company has left is a tricked-out SUV. She objects, but then relents but only with "no leather seats." Her brother comments that she has a nice collection of "free-range shoes and belts at home." (She ends up loving the SUV despite herself.) My point was that we all have our own level of comfort with our own lifestyle choices. I suspect most of you own cars (not necessarily the most environmentally friendly thing in the world) and go through your share of to-go food in styrofoam containers. It is not for me to judge your choices, nor for you to judge mine. Every election, our city has one or many anti-expansion, anti-development measures. I always vote against them. Would I like it more if everyone moved out and I had the beautiful landscape to myself? Of course I would. Would it be hypocritical of me to be the last one to enter and then lock the door behind me? Absolutely, yes it would. And therefore I don't do it. As to snark, I live for it. Snarkiness is the spice of life.

I fully support tax breaks for such things. OK, I have an idea. I was surfing the web a few months ago looking for a modest bathing suit for my 9 year old (a relative gave her a string bikini for her birthday, but that's a whole other thread) and I came across an Amish website. One of the products they were selling was a reusable pad for women who are menstruating. My first reactions was, "Wow, women still use these things? That's a little gross." But then I realized that it wasn't for me to judge, and I'm sure they have their reasons. So instead of using disposable sanitary napkins that are thrown away and fill our local dumps, maybe some of the women on this board could test out the ones you rinse out instead? If anyone wants the link, I'd be happy to hunt for it.

Wait, I thought the mantra of all men was that size doesn't matter . . .

Carol, my sarcasm was directed at those who portray the earth as an overpopulated ball of massive urban sprawl. I live in the greater LA area and have driven from LA to Vegas only to see hundreds of miles of vacant and perfectly usable land. I have flown over the US and seen thousands and thousands of miles of empty land. I have driven through Los Angeles at rush hour and seen how many people there are. Those who live in big cities sometimes don't understand that the claustrophobia they feel is a result of their choice of location.I'm sorry that my sarcasm, which was not directed at you, offended you.

Wait, there are places that are far enough away from any metropolis to make commuting undesirable? I thought it was wall to wall people from east to west and north to south. There's uninhabited land out there in the US and {gasp} possibly other countries? I thought we were all out of land. Thanks for opening my eyes.

I had an employee once who was fighting for saving the wetlands. She lived on a house that overlooked them. I said to her one day, "Janet, do you know what was below your house before it was there?" She said no. I replied, "Wetlands."

Hmmmm. Sounds like the impact of "overpopulation" is greatly influenced by where one chooses to live. I live in a huge metropolitan area. I accept the traffic and crowds because I like the weather here. It's a trade-off that I'm willing to make (at least for the time being).

At 6-7 weeks, the genitalia have been clearly formed in the unborn baby, but they can't be seen clearly on an ultrasound. Most people don't know this, but at 8 weeks the formation of all organs is complete and everything is present that will be found in a developed adult. All the baby has left to do is grow. At 8 weeks, details as small as fingerprints are present. So the sex of the baby at 6 or 7 weeks is not unknown, just unknown via ultrasound.

Ok, ok, THAT's really funny, too! Someone call Alanis Morissette!

Good one, Carlene. {um, is anyone afraid of offending the blondes on this board} (in case of questions, that was an attempt at humor)

This is actually not an established fact. There is debate about whether Article 11 ever existed in the original text, and some indication that it didn't appear until 1930. Don't get me wrong; I'm not defending the statue. I think it's ridiculous. I just think it's important to get the facts straight.

One other thing. If you don't believe the statistics, how about believing me? I am a personal witness to the violence perpetrated against pro-lifers. I have been spat on, pushed, kicked, cursed, had people bare their breasts and rear ends in the hopes that I would be offended and leave, and I have witnessed countless other acts of violence against others. I have never ONCE seen any pro-lifer do any of those things in retaliation. I have been to hundreds of protests and demonstrations and I have never ONCE seen any violence by pro-lifers. But I have been victim to it at least 20 times and I have seen it many, many more. It is not only tolerated by those in favor of abortion (at these events), but it is often encouraged. Is there violence by pro-lifers? Yes, there is. But it is generally very scattered, rare, and often not the work of a group but of a misguided individual. Overwhelmingly the pro-life movement is a peaceful one, using tried and tested methods of civil disobedience.