How did I "judge" her? I did say that she must have filed suit for the money. That would seem pretty obvious. She has a healthy baby. She never stated that she didn't want another child. She didn't want to die in childbirth for the sake of her other child. That did not happen. I supported her pursuit of the abortion if her life was in danger. I did wonder about the fact that she already had a child. I read at least three news stories about this situation. Far many more harsh judgments have been made about me here than I made about her. Oh, and I don't come at this from a scriptural POV. I have felt this way since my early 20's when my then-wife and I were asked to go to a Pro-Choice march and declined. That was 1980 or so. I have quoted no scripture. It's all just common sense. I have no desire to control someone's life... until it has gotten to the point where I have to in order to save another's life. We do that with a lot of laws...
What exactly would be my motive for lying? The only reason I share very private parts of my life on here is to testify some of the consequences of women carrying unwanted children to term. There's enough of you men in here sitting on your high moral horses making judgments. And we've heard the stories of Christian athletes, "I could have been aborted, but look at how successful I am now!", when that fate is so pitifully unlikely for most people born in that position. I'd say even my fate, as a pretty well-adjusted and productive member of society, is not that common. Some unwanted children end up in trash bags minutes after being born. Plenty end up drug addicted or in jail. I could tell you the same thing to your face with no issue. Rather than living the childhood I had and adding further burden to two poor, uneducated, ignorant people that already had 7 kids, I would prefer not to exist.
Glad you're here, ShadyPink! If you can do it, so can others. We all deserve the shot we are given at life.
I think you're lying for three reasons. 1. This is morbid, but if you truly preferred not to exist, then you would have killed yourself already. Please don't do that, by the way -- that would be bad. Cutting, but true. 2. You do have a motive to lie. It's your political agenda. You dislike those who try to outlaw abortion, so you've fabricated a reason why abortion should still be legal. 3. You also don't like Christians, which further biases you and causes you to make up stories to paint them in a bad light. Your logic is also very flawed for two reasons 1. It's not good logic to make a rule based purely on an outlying exception. It's better to fix the exception itself. You are arguing that kids that "should have been aborted" will live crappy lives. First off you exaggerate when you say "most" will do that, and secondly, there are ways to fix that, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater with your poorly thought out approach 2. Your logic that women should "have a choice" is hypocritical, because you try to argue in favor of "choice", but you deny the unborn baby that same choice.
You don't get it. I didn't want this life, and my mother didn't want it. If she had gone through with the abortion, no one (not you or any other nut that doesn't see the necessity of abortion) would have suffered. Your intent to persuade others that abortion is inherently and absolutely wrong, does nothing but create more suffering. It will not become illegal. Interesting to know that you think abuse and neglect are acceptable collateral as long as women are pushing babies out their vagina, cause that's what's important.
This is why you aren't open to a debate. Don't imply that those of us who are PRO-CHOICE are pro-abortion. There is a huge difference and the latter is a copout. No one thinks abortion is a pleasant event. We value life just as much as you.
Abuse and neglect is another choice that is made. Wish we could legislate those out of existence as well. Never did I say that they were acceptable. Can you only win these arguments by twisting the words of those with whom you disagree if you are unable to quiet them?
The fact is that being pro-Choice legalizes abortion. That is what is important. It doesn't matter how you feel about it or whether or not you would choose it for yourself. Ultimately it is about the innocent life being tossed away.
And criminal penalties do what, other than excessively punishing the woman in question, and making them resort to substandard practices? You act, as always, as if there were no abortions pre-Roe v. Wade.
right, because the life of the mother doesn't matter. also, you can't vote against covering the uninsured and claim that you value life, but apparently many do.
I have no doubt that criminal penalties would reduce the number of abortions-- no way to prove that, of course, but it stands to reason. That means lives saved. If outlawing something makes it more likely to happen then our society is more juvenile than is probably salvageable. The only thing that people have to do is to live with their choices.
your logic is quite flimsy when your emotions and bias come into play. You continually inject unrelated points and exceptions to try to prove your logic. Not compelling. 1) The life of the mother does matter. Who is arguing against that? Perhaps I don't fully understand your point -- if you're suggesting that raising a child is a burden on the mother's life, then why don't we take a more responsible approach like providing her assistance or helping her find responsible adoption options rather than killing a baby? Don't you think that's a more sensible path? 2) who is "anti-insurance", exactly? Take that tangent to another thread. TIA
1. When I initially brought up this idea, I mentioned my struggles with suicide. Feel free to look up my post on that. Regardless, I wouldn't need to be suicidal to feel this way. Ending my life now will not undo my entire existence, it would only cause suffering for those who love me. I am not a selfish person. 2. My "political agenda" on this issue was shaped by my experiences. I'm not sure if you can see my friends list on Facebook, but if you can you'll see I have as many older siblings as I say. You probably won't find any corroborating evidence of my abuse online, but I'd have no issue telling you about it in person. That way, you can call me a liar to my face. 3. Never did I say I don't like Christians, so I don't know where you got that idea. How exactly am I trying to paint Christians in a bad light? 1. I said most will not become handsomely paid and highly successful athletes. Do you disagree with this? And I'm not trying to make any rule, but have you read the research that shows that bad outcomes are the "outlying exception" of unwanted children? Highly unlikely. 2. Something that never exists cannot be "denied" anything. By that logic, women who use contraception are denying "unborn babies" the choice to life all the time. Are you against contraception? I said acceptable collateral. You may not like it, but you do realize it is a likely consequence? You said you were glad I was here and said others should have the same "chance", after I relayed my experience. That implies that you are okay with outcomes such as mine, and worse even, because you think every pregnancy should be brought to term.
You have no evidence or way of proving the extent to which ANYONE values life. For someone that always asks for "proof," I find your response comical. Just because you disagree with me and about 50 million people, your judgment is ridiculous. I think it's cowardly to tell someone that they don't value life because they don't adhere to the same principles-"right" or "wrong"- that you have created for yourself. I am Pro-CHOICE and I do value life, especially when you consider that I teach over 75 impoverished students with lives that are filled with unimaginable horrors. It's easy to sit behind a computer screen and make accusations about how much someone values life. In person, I guarantee you wouldn't. I would never question someone about how much they value life because I realize that a difference of opinion doesn't address the idea at all. So, yeah, I'm Pro-CHOICE and I value life. Now, go ahead and Fox News me. Everyone on this forum expects it by now.
What is with your certainty? Care to show how historical evidence of heavy-handed legislation have solved societal ills like alcohol and drug consumption? Outlawing something might reduce abortions, but at what cost? What are the criminal penalties assigned to women that you are willing to bear?
haha, you delving into logic is hilarious. I think as soon as you mention manbuddy, your brain melts. but for the sake of appeasing your conscience and appealing to your logic, you realize criminal penalties for abortion or even in extreme instances the refusal to accept abortions even when the mother's life is at risk, certainly devalues a woman's life? I mean, if you were to propose a reasonable framework for managing abortions with criminal penalties, have at it. I just see a whole lot of "stop crushing baby skulls.". As for your life values--- http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/ Might want to think twice. isn't really a tangent if you want to question other's appreciation of life, TIA for not assuming things about people, by the way.
You're trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you try to say you value life but your actions tell another story. Your actions support the enablement of abortions. You can't have it both ways! And you're not pro-"choice", since you deny the baby any kind of choice at all. That's a hypocritical position that you have. It's clear that you don't have strong logic when you inject irrelevant points into your logic such as A) "well many other people agree with me, too!" and B) the fact that you're a teacher -- nice, but irrelevant to the discussion of life we're having. Then you try to gain sympathy by saying that you teach underprivileged youth. Again, nice, but irrelevant to our discussion.
