who supports right to choose

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

If adoption is such a simple and wonderful little alternative to abortion then I want to know why is this all happening? ...... If adopting these poor innocent babies is so easy --how many of the pro-life people reading this have stepped forward and taken one into their homes? Not a lot! That's because either these wonderful Christians don't want to have a "child of color" in THEIR house----or---in other cases it's because there are potential problems and most people, Christian or otherwise, understandably don't want to take the financial, lifestyle and safety risks that are involved. The TRUTH is there are no easy answers to this question. I'm a Chrisitian --- and I believe that bringing human beings into a world where they can't get food, protection, and love is a terrible thing to do. And I'm NOT just saying it's wrong to be the party bringing the child in. I also think it's equally wrong to tell someone who is trying to stop someone who needs to get an abortion from getting one. I loved to just shake my finger at a rapists, a war monger, a drug addict, 2 immature teenagers, a woman (or MAN) who is emotional, developmentally, or intellectually impaired, or a woman who just had an "accident" and tell them, "no, no,no" -- but I can't.

First, you should know that adoption is the MOST successful when the children are adopted at birth. Therefore, if these "abortion minded" (I hate that term) women came forward and decided on adoption rather than abortion, the child would get adopted. Studies and life circumstances show that even children of color (who tend get adopted at a far slower rate than white children) are adopted if done so at birth.

Second, I really dislike the fact that you lumped rapists in with women who had an "accident". Rape is the most despicable act, and perhaps I'm going from a limb from my pro-life people here, but in these cases, rape, incest... I believe abortion could be considered. But lumping THAT act, that FORCES a woman into sex in the most demeaning way possible with women who have "accidents" in ridiculous! Those who have "accidents" have control to STOP the pregnancy by not having sex!

I have worked with child abuse cases, I have seen newborn babies going through drug withdrawal upon birth. I have witnessed a one pound baby be born. I have taken these kids into the state's custody and placed many of them into foster care. Through the years of seeing this and the tears and the pain that I felt for these poor innocent children, I have never once told myself that it would have been better off had they never been born. I have seen some of these children grow up and lead normal productive lives and seen them experience joy, along with their caregivers. Who am I to judge whether these children should have been born? Who is the mother to decide? The mother clearly didn't have the clarity of mind to not get pregnant, or the logic to stop using drugs.... how can I place the decision to stop a child from being born into her incapable hands?

I'm a Chrisitian --- and I believe that bringing human beings into a world where they can't get food, protection, and love is a terrible thing to do. I wouldn't even let a pet DOG have pups if the pups couldn't be cared for. As a Christian --- I'm am so profoundly heartbroken that we argue over the rightousness of abortion and never even discuss the rightouness being idle (or sitting around pontificating) when we can do things to prevent suffering.

This opens a whole NEW can of worms. So all the families living, if you can call it that, on welfare. Homeless men and women and children- should we ENCOURAGE these people to have abortions? We've stepped over a line here. We've gone from abortion being a choice that's available and we've moved to you "not allowing" birth if they couldn't be cared for.

Until the day come that the human race becomes responsibile enough to stop these out-of-control conceptions ---I am in favor of any and all methods needed to stop this unspeakable suffering.

Again, can't we just encourage people to practice safe sex... or heck, no sex at all until they can care for a child? Aren't people responsible to themselves? Can't "out of control" conceptions be stopped by using an something other than murder as a form of birth control? And stating that you're in favor of any and all methods--- I would hate to live in a world where THAT regime is in place. Someone to judge when I can and cannot have children... it's ludicrous. In my mind I imagine this governmental control looking over my finances and determining if I have enough spending money to finance a child.

I really hate how abortion seems to be lumped into a category with Christian views. Almost making it dismissable with other Christian views... it's not a Christian issue, it's not necessarily a MORAL problem, it's a societal problem. Pro Choicers claim a woman should have control over her own body... should drug users have "control" to do what they want to their body? The answer is NO because it doesn't just affect that one person who is choosing an action for their body. And yes, I did lump pregnant women in with drug users... because they both have a CHOICE to not have inappropriate sex and to not use drugs.

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

This characterization that women who have become pregnant against their wishes are promiscuous, irresponsible, uncaring, cold-hearted and selfish is completely unfounded and unfair and only serves those who choose to put down others for their own purposes.

I'm confused about this quote. Women who become pregnant "against their wishes"... are we talking victims of rape or just pregnant women in general. Because in regards to pregnant women in general, who don't want a child, I wouldn't personally categorize them as promiscuous, uncaring, cold hearted and selfish... but if not irresponsible, what would you call them? Because I certainly would call them that.

[ELENATION 0]

First, you should know that adoption is the MOST successful when the children are adopted at birth. Therefore, if these "abortion minded" (I hate that term) women came forward and decided on adoption rather than abortion, the child would get adopted. Studies and life circumstances show that even children of color (who tend get adopted at a far slower rate than white children) are adopted if done so at birth.

Second, I really dislike the fact that you lumped rapists in with women who had an "accident". Rape is the most despicable act, and perhaps I'm going from a limb from my pro-life people here, but in these cases, rape, incest... I believe abortion could be considered. But lumping THAT act, that FORCES a woman into sex in the most demeaning way possible with women who have "accidents" in ridiculous! Those who have "accidents" have control to STOP the pregnancy by not having sex!

I have worked with child abuse cases, I have seen newborn babies going through drug withdrawal upon birth. I have witnessed a one pound baby be born. I have taken these kids into the state's custody and placed many of them into foster care. Through the years of seeing this and the tears and the pain that I felt for these poor innocent children, I have never once told myself that it would have been better off had they never been born. I have seen some of these children grow up and lead normal productive lives and seen them experience joy, along with their caregivers. Who am I to judge whether these children should have been born? Who is the mother to decide? The mother clearly didn't have the clarity of mind to not get pregnant, or the logic to stop using drugs.... how can I place the decision to stop a child from being born into her incapable hands?

This opens a whole NEW can of worms. So all the families living, if you can call it that, on welfare. Homeless men and women and children- should we ENCOURAGE these people to have abortions? We've stepped over a line here. We've gone from abortion being a choice that's available and we've moved to you "not allowing" birth if they couldn't be cared for.

Again, can't we just encourage people to practice safe sex... or heck, no sex at all until they can care for a child? Aren't people responsible to themselves? Can't "out of control" conceptions be stopped by using an something other than murder as a form of birth control? And stating that you're in favor of any and all methods--- I would hate to live in a world where THAT regime is in place. Someone to judge when I can and cannot have children... it's ludicrous. In my mind I imagine this governmental control looking over my finances and determining if I have enough spending money to finance a child.

I really hate how abortion seems to be lumped into a category with Christian views. Almost making it dismissable with other Christian views... it's not a Christian issue, it's not necessarily a MORAL problem, it's a societal problem. Pro Choicers claim a woman should have control over her own body... should drug users have "control" to do what they want to their body? The answer is NO because it doesn't just affect that one person who is choosing an action for their body. And yes, I did lump pregnant women in with drug users... because they both have a CHOICE to not have inappropriate sex and to not use drugs.

Everything you have said in this post is what I meant to say in my previous post, but I'm not so eloquent, but I completely agree and you stated it so very well and clear, thank you.

Elena

[BJean 16]

Yes, pregnant women can choose abortion or not, just like drug users can choose to use drugs or not. That is one reason why it is absolutely not for you to say what choices either of them absolutely should make. These are personal choices that certain persons in our society should not make for each other.

You pointed it out when you said that abortion could be encouraged by society so that they don't have to pay the welfare bills for those who can't afford to take care of their own babies. That "can of worms" is a very real possibility. If people believe that they can make these kinds of choices for others, then they can certainly change their beliefs and change which people should get or do what. You could see the day when, as in some countries, the government decrees that all male babies must be aborted or that all female babies be aborted. Do you really want your government making these kinds of decisions in our so-called freedom filled democratic country?

What's the matter with you people? Are you unaware that birth control methods are not 100% effective? and you believe that the woman who becomes pregnant should be penalized and that an unwanted child should be punished as well? How short-sighted and gross. Because in many cases that's what happens when you force pregnant women to bring unwanted children into this world.

Our government should not be in that business. No matter how strongly you feel toward every fetus in every womb in this United States - it is not the choice or problem of the state - it's the choice and problem of the people involved.

[gadgetlady 4]

What's the matter with you people? Are you unaware that birth control methods are not 100% effective? and you believe that the woman who becomes pregnant should be penalized and that an unwanted child should be punished as well? How short-sighted and gross. Because in many cases that's what happens when you force pregnant women to bring unwanted children into this world.

Oh, don't you know? It's because we hate women and think they should be barefoot and pregnant as that's their true place in life.

HELLO!!!!!! We don't believe, no matter what the circumstances, that it's OK to kill people for the sake of convenience. And if the unborn baby is aborted, he/she IS getting punished -- by death.

it's the choice and problem of the people involved.

After you figure out how to ask all of the people involved -- the mother AND the baby -- then we can talk. In the interim, we will continue to be a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves.

[BJean 16]

Wonder why the babies can't talk?

Anyway, I have no idea why you think that abortion is a convenience. You're way off base on that one. Abortion can and does save lives.

I'm fine with you working your self in a tizzy if you choose to, in order to stop women from having abortions. Just don't think that you have a right to tell every woman in America (and her sperm implanted egg) that you have a right to speak for them. You have a right to speak for yourself. Keep it up. I'm all for that.

[gadgetlady 4]

Wonder why the babies can't talk?

Well, gee, they can't talk when they're 6 months old either. Guess it's OK to dismember them at that age, too?

[anjelinaj 0]

I assume, even though you're talking in the third person, that this is your personal experience (please correct me if I'm wrong). Did you choose to see the ultrasound prior to the abortion?

No, that would be the wrong assumption. I was there to support a friend. Why do you want to know if she looked at the ultrasound? I assume it's because:

1. How could she look at an ultrasound of her 'baby' and then have an abortion?

or

2. Why didn't she look? Did it make her feel sad to look @ her 'baby' and then have an abortion?

I only posted because you stated mother's are not allowed to look @ ultrasounds in abortion clinics because 'it's bad for business' and I knew in this case it wasn't true.

It would be intersting to know which side of this debate throws around false statements the most.

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

It would be intersting to know which side of this debate throws around false statements the most.

I've been to a clinic where they didn't do ultrasounds first. I think when people speak, they speak from experience... I don't think anyone is throwing around false statements, but rather just speaking from what they know and believe. You don't need to be so accusatory.

I don't know why people can't seem to have a civilized conversation about this topic. It really brings out the worst in people.

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

Although leos, I would like to say I don't think it was gadget's business whether you were there for yourself or for someone else.

Even though I'm prolife, I still believe in the protection of privacy. And the right to live without being scrutinized and looked down upon, no matter our choices.

[gadgetlady 4]

No, that would be the wrong assumption. I was there to support a friend.

Sorry. My bad. I couldn't tell from what you said, and it wasn't clear.

Why do you want to know if she looked at the ultrasound? I assume it's because:

1. How could she look at an ultrasound of her 'baby' and then have an abortion?

or

2. Why didn't she look? Did it make her feel sad to look @ her 'baby' and then have an abortion?

Actually, I was wondering what the reason might be if she chose not to look.

I only posted because you stated mother's are not allowed to look @ ultrasounds in abortion clinics because 'it's bad for business' and I knew in this case it wasn't true.

It is not the norm for abortion clinics to show ultrasounds to mothers prior to an abortion. I'm not saying it never happens, but it is not the norm.

[gadgetlady 4]

Although leos, I would like to say I don't think it was gadget's business whether you were there for yourself or for someone else.

Even though I'm prolife, I still believe in the protection of privacy. And the right to live without being scrutinized and looked down upon, no matter our choices.

When someone opens up a line of discussion on a public forum, it is not an invasion of privacy for someone to ask questions related to that issue. No one is ever compelled to answer. I asked so as to gather information, not to look down on anyone.

There are several mothers on this thread who have volunteered information about their abortions; whether those experiences have been positive or negative, information is always good as it helps us to learn.

[anjelinaj 0]

You don't need to be so accusatory.

I don't know why people can't seem to have a civilized conversation about this topic. It really brings out the worst in people.

An assumption was made about what I posted, I made an assumption about the reply to my post.....how is that accusatory? Personally, i think the reason people can't have a civil conversation about abortion is because it always breaks down into name calling and personal attacks.

gagetlady=When someone opens up a line of discussion on a public forum, it is not an invasion of privacy for someone to ask questions related to that issue.

I didn't open a line of discussion about whether or not I had an abortion.

[gadgetlady 4]

gagetlady=When someone opens up a line of discussion on a public forum, it is not an invasion of privacy for someone to ask questions related to that issue.

I didn't open a line of discussion about whether or not I had an abortion.

You described an experience in an abortion clinic. I don't think it was unreasonable of me to assume that you were describing something you had gone through, although I did acknowledge on the front end that I wasn't sure that was the case. If you don't want to answer questions about something you brought up in the first place, you don't have to answer. Of course, if you don't answer you do run the risk that everyone reading your introduction of the issue and then your non-answer might arrive at their own conclusions (which may or may not be wrong). I don't say that to be snarky. It's just a statement of what will probably happen.

[anjelinaj 0]

if a pregnant mother asks to see her ultrasound, she is denied the privilege. Abortionists and staff workers know what happens when a mother sees her unborn baby moving, kicking, heart beating, etc., and it's not good for business.

I assume, even though you are talking in the third person, this is your personal experience. Please correct me if I'm wrong) What was the reason you wanted to see the ultrasound before the abortion?