I Don't Hate Babies

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Everyone is opposed to abortion, everyone is in agreement that the practice must end.

The conflict arises as how to end the practice, where any solution to the problem of abortion must comport with the Constitution and its case law.

Unfortunately there are those who seek to end abortion by violating a woman's right to privacy, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Supreme Court gave themselves the power to strike down laws in Marbury v. Madison:

The Supreme Court . The Court and Democracy . Landmark Cases . Marbury v. Madison (1803) | PBS

When they use that power to declare a law unconstitutional on grounds that aren't really in the Constitution, then it is tyranny.

You might want to look up the part in the constitution about judicial review.

Then get back to me.

Meanwhile you certainly aren't a very good American if you don't follow the constitution.

The right to have an abortion is not in the Constitution, nor the right to have a same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court acted unlawfully in both of these cases.

Back before judicial activism gone wild, if you wanted a big change in the law, you added an amendment to the Constitution.

Like changing the voting age to 18, or giving the women the right to vote.

Abortion and SSM aren't big changes, just an obvious application of existing laws.

 

[OldLady]

I don't hate babies

I believe in women's right to choose whether to carry on with a pregnancy, but not because I hate babies. Actually, I'm pro-choice because I AM thinking of the babies.

When a women knows that she is not in a position to bring a child into this world, cannot give it the security and support it deserves, either financially or emotionally, why force that potential life to fruition? To me, that seems the responsible decision, and no one I know who has made that choice found it easy. I don't believe we need to bring unwanted children into this world any longer. It's the baby that suffers for being unwanted or born to parents unprepared/unable to care for it. Until the fetus is able to survive outside the womb, it is not a "baby," although us moms start emotionally bonding with the life in our bellies as soon as we discover we're pregnant.

Third trimester abortions? I'm not so sure about that unless the mother is going to die, because we can frequently save premies. Not always, and not always without serious complications, but sometimes.
Birth control is better than abortion. Those who want to shut down Planned Parenthood are making a huge mistake, imo, since PP helps prevent abortion through birth control for women.

Groups that help potential moms get the support they need to care for the baby or put it up for adoption, bless them. But they can't possibly handle them all.

If I'm a baby killer for my beliefs, it's euthanasia, not murder.

Since there are an abundance of couples who want to adopt a baby, and they don't care about race, every thing you just said doesn't make sense.

A lot of couples do care about race, and about genetic history, and are not enthused about babies exposed to drugs in the womb. I'm glad the people you know don't care about those things (they're angels, in my book), but a lot of these babies would not be snapped off the shelf.

 

[OldLady]

I don't buy the argument that it's better to kill an unborn child if he/she might face difficulties in life.
There are far too many who grew up in desperate circumstances who prospered later in life for me to accept that they would have been better off not even having a chance at life. A logical extension to the idea would be to kill homeless teenagers who are not wanted at home and who face a few short years of misery on the streets before dying a horrible death, sick, alone and unloved. Underage girls forced into prostitution face untold horrors. Would it not be more merciful to quietly round them up and do away with them? I just don't buy it.

Jack Nicholson, for one example, would not have given the world his art had his mother adopted that attitude.

It is not a 'logical extension' at all. Extinguishing an insentient mass of undeveloped embryo is not the same as killing a teenager!

 

[hadit]

I don't buy the argument that it's better to kill an unborn child if he/she might face difficulties in life.
There are far too many who grew up in desperate circumstances who prospered later in life for me to accept that they would have been better off not even having a chance at life. A logical extension to the idea would be to kill homeless teenagers who are not wanted at home and who face a few short years of misery on the streets before dying a horrible death, sick, alone and unloved. Underage girls forced into prostitution face untold horrors. Would it not be more merciful to quietly round them up and do away with them? I just don't buy it.

Jack Nicholson, for one example, would not have given the world his art had his mother adopted that attitude.

It is not a 'logical extension' at all. Extinguishing an insentient mass of undeveloped embryo is not the same as killing a teenager!

Once an unborn baby gets a heart beat, fully functioning circulatory system, active brain activity and responds to external stimuli, he/she is every bit as human as an adult in a deep coma. Possibly more, because left alone, the baby will be born and be active, while the adult may never recover. The bottom line remains, from where do we get the authority to deem another's potential life status as being worthy of extinction? Like I said, would it not be more merciful to simply kill 15 year old prostitutes than have them die from a drug overdose or a beating from an enraged pimp or deranged john?

 

[OldLady]

Euthanasia is a slippery slope, I realize. But how can you say it is equally merciful to kill a teenager as pull the plug on a human being in a deep coma? Does awareness mean nothing? That embryo is not aware in the way you or I are aware; it is not yet a baby. You and I will never agree on this, so if you wish to get in the last word, respond again. I won't refute it.
Abortion is an ugly topic and I realize my opinion on the matter is on the ugly side, too. It is still my belief that it is better to snuff that spark of potential life before it is a sentient human being, subject to suffering, than force it into a world where it is unwanted or neglected, subjected to who knows what.
People will not stop having sex, and it is women who get left holding the bag and usually coping with the child alone. You do realize that women have been finding ways to abort unwanted children since women have had babies? Knitting needles, tansy, would-be "doctors" in dirty back rooms who rake in the cash. In those cases, both the mother's and the fetus's lives are at risk. Making it illegal again won't make it go away. Until there is a 100% effective form of birth control that is safe for everyone and that can be reversed, unwanted pregnancies will happen and a woman should have the right to decide whether she is capable of making the life-long commitment to be its mother.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't buy the argument that it's better to kill an unborn child if he/she might face difficulties in life.
There are far too many who grew up in desperate circumstances who prospered later in life for me to accept that they would have been better off not even having a chance at life. A logical extension to the idea would be to kill homeless teenagers who are not wanted at home and who face a few short years of misery on the streets before dying a horrible death, sick, alone and unloved. Underage girls forced into prostitution face untold horrors. Would it not be more merciful to quietly round them up and do away with them? I just don't buy it.

Jack Nicholson, for one example, would not have given the world his art had his mother adopted that attitude.

It is not a 'logical extension' at all. Extinguishing an insentient mass of undeveloped embryo is not the same as killing a teenager!

How many times do you have to repeat that to yourself before you are able to sleep at night?

 

[hadit]

Euthanasia is a slippery slope, I realize. But how can you say it is equally merciful to kill a teenager as pull the plug on a human being in a deep coma? Does awareness mean nothing? That embryo is not aware in the way you or I are aware; it is not yet a baby. You and I will never agree on this, so if you wish to get in the last word, respond again. I won't refute it.
Abortion is an ugly topic and I realize my opinion on the matter is on the ugly side, too. It is still my belief that it is better to snuff that spark of potential life before it is a sentient human being, subject to suffering, than force it into a world where it is unwanted or neglected, subjected to who knows what.
People will not stop having sex, and it is women who get left holding the bag and usually coping with the child alone. You do realize that women have been finding ways to abort unwanted children since women have had babies? Knitting needles, tansy, would-be "doctors" in dirty back rooms who rake in the cash. In those cases, both the mother's and the fetus's lives are at risk. Making it illegal again won't make it go away. Until there is a 100% effective form of birth control that is safe for everyone and that can be reversed, unwanted pregnancies will happen and a woman should have the right to decide whether she is capable of making the life-long commitment to be its mother.

Well, there is one, but it requires something that is in short supply.

 

[Iceweasel]

My mother told me and my brother if abortions were legal I wouldn't be here. Guess where I stand.

 

[blackhawk]

Being pro life doesn't mean you hate or are waging a war on women just saying.

 

[OldLady]

I don't buy the argument that it's better to kill an unborn child if he/she might face difficulties in life.
There are far too many who grew up in desperate circumstances who prospered later in life for me to accept that they would have been better off not even having a chance at life. A logical extension to the idea would be to kill homeless teenagers who are not wanted at home and who face a few short years of misery on the streets before dying a horrible death, sick, alone and unloved. Underage girls forced into prostitution face untold horrors. Would it not be more merciful to quietly round them up and do away with them? I just don't buy it.

Jack Nicholson, for one example, would not have given the world his art had his mother adopted that attitude.

It is not a 'logical extension' at all. Extinguishing an insentient mass of undeveloped embryo is not the same as killing a teenager!

How many times do you have to repeat that to yourself before you are able to sleep at night?

I sleep just fine, Unk. When it was my turn to make that decision, I couldn't/didn't have the abortion. I believe in women's right to make that choice, though, based on their circumstances. And those of you who so glibly call abortion 'murder,' alright--have at it. I heard a conservative say 4,000 abortions p/day are performed by Planned Parenthood. That's 1,460,000 unwanted babies a year. Who do you suppose will be taking care of them? We've already got enough, imo.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The people of Western culture have been completely irresponsible when it comes to their birthrate.
We simply have been having far too few children, and now we face the death of the culture that gave humanity the modern world.
Once European natives are gone, and European Americans are gone there will be no one left to preserve this vital culture.
We gave the world all the modern inventions, and freedom is our middle name.

We let this happen, and the world will begin to suffer in the coming decades unless other peoples take up the torch.

 

[Unkotare]

...
I sleep just fine, Unk. ....

So did the guards at Auschwitz, even the ones who never personally killed anyone.

 

[Unkotare]

... We've already got enough, imo.

Is that your opinion, Dr. Rudin?

 

[the_human_being]

 

[the_human_being]

 

[OldLady]

Either of you gentlemen going to answer my question, who cares for these 1,460,000 unwanted babies per year?

 

[OldLady]

... We've already got enough, imo.

Is that your opinion, Dr. Rudin?

I tried to Google that. Which one?

 

[OldLady]

The people of Western culture have been completely irresponsible when it comes to their birthrate.
We simply have been having far too few children, and now we face the death of the culture that gave humanity the modern world.
Once European natives are gone, and European Americans are gone there will be no one left to preserve this vital culture.
We gave the world all the modern inventions, and freedom is our middle name.

We let this happen, and the world will begin to suffer in the coming decades unless other peoples take up the torch.

Same reason the Catholic Church will never approve of birth control. But of course, they don't SAY that.

 

[Unkotare]

... We've already got enough, imo.

Is that your opinion, Dr. Rudin?

I tried to Google that. Which one?

Nazi eugenicist, thought we had too many of the 'wrong' people. Not unlike...