Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?

[gadgetlady 4]

That's a whole nother issue, that's not illegal yet, is it?.....So you mean to tell me these girls go on dates, dances, play sports, and are just having a great old time? Heck, kids are horrible if you're different at least 18 years ago when I was in high school! If you didn't have a certain kind of clothes, were overweight, etc. you were left out. Sometimes I think these documentaries make it look like life is just grand for the people the story's about, but don't show the behind the scenes reality. Once again, their mom had a CHOICE and she did with her body as she wanted......

Actually, suicide is illegal. And, quite frankly, I don't believe it should be because it is YOUR LIFE and you have a right to do with it what you want. I don't particularly like the idea of suicide and the mess it leaves for others to clean up after you, but I do truly believe that people should have the right to do with their own bodies whatever they want, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

I've always wondered -- if a woman goes into a doctor's office and asks them to remove her perfectly healthy arm because she doesn't want it anymore, after all it's HER BODY and HER RIGHT to decide, would they do it? Uh, yeah, NOT. So why when she's asking to remove the baby is it her right?

If you told an abortion-minded woman you could remove the unborn baby from her wombs and place it in an incubator and she would have no further contact or responsibility, do you think she'd allow it? In most cases, I sincerely doubt it. She doesn't want to just not be pregnant. She wants to make "the problem" go away. She wants the baby to be dead. If you were able to remove her responsibility and her contact with the baby, she would still have a biological baby "out there" and she'd know it. The only way, she thinks, to ease her mind is to "get rid of it". The problem is, what she's "getting rid of" is another human being. Just like OJ did.

[gadgetlady 4]

Well, it's been fun guys, but I'm hopping on a plane. Argue amongst yourselves for a few hours or possibly a few days depending on my internet access while I'm gone. Just don't forget that precious child you're arguing about!

[dotofoz 0]

Actually, suicide is illegal. And, quite frankly, I don't believe it should be because it is YOUR LIFE and you have a right to do with it what you want. I don't particularly like the idea of suicide and the mess it leaves for others to clean up after you, but I do truly believe that people should have the right to do with their own bodies whatever they want, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

I've always wondered -- if a woman goes into a doctor's office and asks them to remove her perfectly healthy arm because she doesn't want it anymore, after all it's HER BODY and HER RIGHT to decide, would they do it? Uh, yeah, NOT. So why when she's asking to remove the baby is it her right?

If you told an abortion-minded woman you could remove the unborn baby from her wombs and place it in an incubator and she would have no further contact or responsibility, do you think she'd allow it? In most cases, I sincerely doubt it. She doesn't want to just not be pregnant. She wants to make "the problem" go away. She wants the baby to be dead. If you were able to remove her responsibility and her contact with the baby, she would still have a biological baby "out there" and she'd know it. The only way, she thinks, to ease her mind is to "get rid of it". The problem is, what she's "getting rid of" is another human being. Just like OJ did.

I respect your opinion. I don't agree with it, but that's why we live in the USA. Comparing OJ slaughtering 2 living, breathing humans, to an unwanted pregnancy at say 10 weeks that can't live outside the womb is

is like comparing apples to the moon!

[skyeblu79 0]

I smoked throughout all my pregnancies. My children weighed between 8 and 9 pounds at birth. None of them have any "long term damage" as a result of my smoking. To sanction abortion because the mother smoked is just crazy.

There is no law in place to "save" crack babies by requiring that they be aborted. Do you think there should be?

So, did yal not know the damage that smoking could potentially do to a baby back then?

[Boo Boo Kitty 3]

I smoked throughout all my pregnancies. My children weighed between 8 and 9 pounds at birth. None of them have any "long term damage" as a result of my smoking. To sanction abortion because the mother smoked is just crazy.

There is no law in place to "save" crack babies by requiring that they be aborted. Do you think there should be?

I am glad your kids are healthy, but as you said before on another thread you wished you hadn't. We also did not know the things about smoking that we do now. And you can't tell me you don't know if they have damage later in life, until it happens.

Crack mothers should never be having babies, that is a birht control issue. If they know that they will abuse their own body they shouldn't have children plain and simple.

[Boo Boo Kitty 3]

Here's a question for you. A woman is pregnant. The baby's father has syphilis and the mother has tuberculosis. They have had four children. The first child was blind, the

second one died, the third child was deaf and dumb, and the fourth child had tuberculosis. The mother is now pregnant with the fifth child but is willing to have an abortion. What would you counsel her to do?

If you support abortion in this case, congratulations. You just killed Beethoven.

I WILL NOT counsel ANYONE else in any way which way to go which has been my point all along. It is her personal choice either way. I did not sign up in life to be anyone's keeper or judge and jury. Obvisouly there enough people running around doing that.

[GeezerSue 7]

I have backed my "belief" up with empirical data. Where's yours? Believing that life begins when "Daddy" (curious that you call him that - who is he a "Daddy" of if the baby hasn't passed through the birth canal yet?) gets that gleam in his eye is not scientific; there is no separate DNA at that point.

Actually, I was pro-life before I was a Christian. I was pro-life the instant I thought about the issue, because it was quite obvious to me that the unborn baby is a separate human being. Research only strengthened my position.

You can't decide for yourself when someone else's life is at stake.

"If you don't believe in slavery, don't own a slave." What's wrong with that statement? The slave is a human being, and by "owning" one you are denying him his right to life.

The law restricts us in all sorts of ways when what we're doing interferes with the life of another person. You can get drunk all you want in the privacy of your home, but if you CHOOSE to get behind the wheel of a car, you endanger others. You can own a gun in your own home, but if you CHOOSE to shoot that gun in the air on the 4th of July, you endanger others. In these situations, I'm sure you wouldn't say "WHO DECIDES". In these situations and many others, the law is set up to protect those who cannot protect themselves. You believe we should continue to arbitrarily exclude the unborn from protection because YOU BELIEVE they are not human beings.

I ask again -- WHERE is your empirical data?

I don't need to defend what I believe because I'm not trying to make YOU do anything...except maybe leave other people alone.

The "Daddy" comment was entirely tongue-in-cheek. Maybe I need to use little smileys or something.

You live in Orange County, California. You are SURROUNDED by a thoroughly conservative, Christian value system. If you grew up anywhere in the US, you were exposed to a predominantly Christian--sometimes Judeo-Christian--mindset. We are all influenced by Christianity the same way anyone growing up in Iraq would be influenced by Islam...whether they were personally involved in the believing or not.

The problem with your position is that in all the other examples you give, there is a PERSON involved...someone who was born a person. Not so with a fetus.

Enjoy your trip. Please note that the pregnant women on your plane did NOT have to pay passenger taxes on their fetuses as those are charged PER PERSON....

[missy4gordon 0]

Enjoy your trip. Please note that the pregnant women on your plane did NOT have to pay passenger taxes on their fetuses as those are charged PER PERSON....

Children aged 2 or younger fly free also......

[Wheetsin 714]

Here's a question for you. A woman is pregnant. The baby's father has syphilis and the mother has tuberculosis. They have had four children. The first child was blind, the

second one died, the third child was deaf and dumb, and the fourth child had tuberculosis. The mother is now pregnant with the fifth child but is willing to have an abortion. What would you counsel her to do? If you support abortion in this case, congratulations. You just killed Beethoven.

And thus we come full circle, back to one of my earlier posts referring to the rhetoric of the logical fallacy that abortion is "bad" because it would remove great people from mankind. It's a safe argument for people to return to, and tries to deliver a powerful punchline, but just lacks in logical integrity. (IMO)

And now you're saying that counseling someone = killing someone (if I interpret that correctly...), or supporting abortion = killing someone. So where do you draw your line? By your own rhetoric, are jurors murderers if the person is sentenced to death? Are people who pay taxes or vote or - in any fashion - support the legal system all murders if someone is put to death? Are defense attorneys who lose their case? If not, then why would a counselor be? (assuming you understand the criteria in counseling before judging the actions)

[Carlene 12]

So, did yal not know the damage that smoking could potentially do to a baby back then?

Obviously not. My youngest child is 33 years old.

[Carlene 12]

Also, it is the mother's decision along with her doctor as if to have the operation. He can't force her can he, and If he can, we live in a worse society than I thought!

In some instances, doctors certainly CAN force a patient to have surgery...

Sept 27, 2000

Conjoined one-month-old twins are at the center of an ethical and moral debate in Britain after a judge ordered the twins to be separated so that one might live, even though the parents object to the procedure. A court of appeal on September 22 upheld the ruling, though the case may still be appealed to the House of Lords and even to the European High Court of Human Rights. The two girls, born August 8, are joined at the rump, and doctors say both will die within a year if they are not separated.

[skyeblu79 0]

Obviously not. My youngest child is 33 years old.

I was being serious. I really didn't know. I was just wondering after what time people knew. In my lifetime, I have always known smoking was horrible for you. Tons of people still smoke and don't care knowing the harm that could happen to their babies.

I wonder why more people don't focus on that.

[dotofoz 0]

In some instances, doctors certainly CAN force a patient to have surgery...

Sept 27, 2000

Conjoined one-month-old twins are at the center of an ethical and moral debate in Britain after a judge ordered the twins to be separated so that one might live, even though the parents object to the procedure. A court of appeal on September 22 upheld the ruling, though the case may still be appealed to the House of Lords and even to the European High Court of Human Rights. The two girls, born August 8, are joined at the rump, and doctors say both will die within a year if they are not separated.

OK, what happened? Did one live? Did the surgery take place, since that was in 2000? Geez, I didn't realize the UK was like that...It seems like it's the politicians ordering the surgery, not the Dr.....

[dotofoz 0]

I was being serious. I really didn't know. I was just wondering after what time people knew. In my lifetime, I have always known smoking was horrible for you. Tons of people still smoke and don't care knowing the harm that could happen to their babies.

I wonder why more people don't focus on that.

My guess would be is because they're ignorant!

[Big girl banded 0]

In some instances, doctors certainly CAN force a patient to have surgery...

Sept 27, 2000

Conjoined one-month-old twins are at the center of an ethical and moral debate in Britain after a judge ordered the twins to be separated so that one might live, even though the parents object to the procedure. A court of appeal on September 22 upheld the ruling, though the case may still be appealed to the House of Lords and even to the European High Court of Human Rights. The two girls, born August 8, are joined at the rump, and doctors say both will die within a year if they are not separated.

Ok Carlene. I thought we were staying within the bounds of the USA here

But here in the us if the childs life is at risk (such as you posted was in the UK,) the courts can step in with a gaurdian ad lidem ( a children advocate lawyer) to make sure the childs safety is being addressed. Needless to say this is used daily with children that are ill in the us and the parents wont or cant get them proper medical care. Here in the US we can remove the child from the home to do this IF NECESSARY as a last resort.

HOWEVER, here in VA a young man 16 with cancer was taken to court with his parents bc he wanted homeopathic cancer treatment and refused traditional chemo... it made alot of news bc the lower courts demanded the chemo...but on appeals they lost it and the child has chosen his own course of treatment.. Now 16 is very different then smaller children.