Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A fetus is not a child. I think people would listen to your arguments more if you cut out the spin and worn out twisted logic.
I guess though, that's all you have. Sad.
, don't take it personally, I couldn't resist
Hitting the sauce again, Swillo?
That's such a cute little title you have there -- reproductive choice -- for the act of destroying an unborn human life. You can't admit it's human life, you call unborn human beings by scientific names, and twist the issue into being about just the woman's rights and not the child's. All in a failed effort to desensitize and dehumanize to suit your personal convenience.
How quaint.
ok--let me get this this straight----at one time you weren't and then all of the sudden you were ? When did that happen and how do you know ?
Just because you give it a new label doesn't change the facts.
Have you ever heard anyone woman say "My fetus just kicked"
Have you ever asked a pregnant colleague "When is your fetus due"
In the womb a baby has:
a heartbeat, just like you
hands and feet, just like you
it feels pain, just like you
it has brain activity, just like....well, it has brain activity.*
* A little humour there
Yeah I've heard that weak argument ad nauseum.
I think fetus should be free to live anytime they want, but not inside the body of any woman who does not want it inside her. When men can get pregnant, they can also make that choice for themselves. And you know it will be a whole different story then!
I pretty sure that if men were the ones who were pregnant for nine months, gave birth and nursed and cared for children for months and years after, then the human species would have gone extinct a very long time ago.
I think fetus should be free to live anytime they want, but not inside the body of any woman who does not want it inside her.
Yeah I've heard that weak argument ad nauseum.
hahahahahaha, well anguille, I would call that a stretch and was not my point!!! lol
I was Just saying that anyone, at one time or another, can be faced with so much despair that not being alive might seem like it would be better...and that women without a job, without health care, and without the father to be anywhere in sight, might also determine that it would be better to not bear their child to be and expose them to the same sadness....it is a desperate decision for the most part...and is was a desperate comment from Job, due to the circumstances he was going thru.....
hahahahahaha, but nice try! lol
Care
You know me, I try anything I can.
But you make a good point about women deciding it's better not to bear a child. And when they do that, it often means that at a later point in their life they do chose to bear a children. A choice they might not have if they go through with first pregnancy.
A member of my family chose to abort the first time she became pregnant. She then later went on to have two children. Her intention had always been to have two kids and then no more. Imagine if she had gone through with the first pregnancy? Her second child would never have been born. And maybe not even her first. That would have been a terrible shame as they are both great kids.
oh man --now THAT was some seriosu backpeddling.
It's not me backpedaling, it's you getting dizzy. When you are capable of making some sense, get back to me.
Ok .... let's that this one step farther. What about couples that chose Artificial insemination? They want children but can not have them.
Like ....
When the doctor suggested .... "selective reduction" , they chose not to and ended up with a family like this ...
Welcome to The Gosselin 10
BTW ... I love this show! And watch it every week. I know that the television show is how they can afford a family of this size, but what about "selective reduction" for other couples that go this route? Is that right or wrong?
ah yes---when all else fails---call them crazy and run !
You know me, I try anything I can.
But you make a good point about women deciding it's better not to bear a child. And when they do that, it often means that at a later point in their life they do chose to bear a children. A choice they might not have if they go through with first pregnancy.
A member of my family chose to abort the first time she became pregnant. She then later went on to have two children. Her intention had always been to have two kids and then no more. Imagine if she had gone through with the first pregnancy? Her second child would never have been born. And maybe not even her first. That would have been a terrible shame as they are both great kids.
They look like a very happy family.
This post makes me dizzy, watching logic chase it's tail.
especially since her abortion could have had complications severe enough to cause sterility. Then she would have had 0 kids.
That's such a cute little title you have there -- reproductive choice -- for the act of destroying an unborn human life. You can't admit it's human life, you call unborn human beings by scientific names, and twist the issue into being about just the woman's rights and not the child's. All in a failed effort to desensitize and dehumanize to suit your personal convenience.
How quaint.
