Baby Rowan

Please give me an example of a leader of the anti-abortion movement who also supports governmental assistance for single mothers who fall below the poverty line.........

 

Are you guys blaming the clinic? WTF. The clinic didn't force anything upon her. It's her choice. End of discussion.

 

just to clarify...if you don't support additional assistance specifically from the government, then you don't give a flip about the baby???

i tend to agree...that govt should be doing more in that area...particularly with health care. but i don't think that just because someone disagrees with me on that premise, they're evil and don't care about babies.

 

There are orgainzations that provide just the sort of thing you say "folks don't give a flying f*ck" about. Here are a few of examples in Minnesota:

"Our archdiocese has developed programs to assist women and their families during pregnancy. Catholic Charities' Seton Services offers medical, social, and adoption services throughout pregnancy, birth, and afterward. The Respect Life Office provides emergency financial assistance through the LIFE FUND, helps with housing through the Share-A-Life Program, and in the Marian Project reaches out to women and men hurting after an abortion."

The above was from a letter written by Archbishop Harry Flynn.

In addition the churches in the Archdiocese regularly offer support through individual church volunteer organizations. This support includes clothing, food, miscellaneous help (e.g. babysitting, meals, driving to doctor's appointments, etc.), monetary assistance, counseling, job training, etc.

I would surmise that organizations such as this exist in every state.

 

I have read about fifthward.org, they sound like a class outfit

 

incredible. the woman who runs it is among the most loving people i've ever known.

 

Ultimately, this is about choice. Pro-choice supporters don't want more abortions, they want the ability to choose to do so.

To force the mothers to give a baby, "to save a life" is selfish. What gives you the right to tell the mothers what to do with their own children? Don't you think they would care about it more than you would?

The hypocritical part, which Tex was getting at, is after the baby is born, where are the pro-life people then? People have abortions because they aren't ready financially, mentally, emotionally, and physically. If you force them to have a child, that child will be raised with substandard finance, care, and development. Maybe the mother doesn't have time or is a single parent. Statistics show that those raised by a single parent, or by a poor family has a greater chance of going to prison than college.

For every abortion called off by pro-life people, they should chalk up the money to finance the kid until he's 18. Pledge to adopt every child that the mother wish to abort but cannot do so because of them. Maybe then I'll agree that abortion is unnecessary.

 

so it's utilitarian, huh? we don't have enough money, so just kill 'em all, huh? better off dead than poor in the USA. and because stats indicate it's more likely that single parents will produce kids who go to jail, we should weed out those kids RIGHT NOW! to make sure they won't bother us later.

ask andrea yates if someone else has the "right" to tell a mother what to do with her kids. turns out the right to life for the child ultimately kinda trumps that one.

 

I think there are good people with the best of intentions on both sides of this debate. But Max, I'm sorry, that just sounds like the rankest of propaganda. The evil abortionist who corrupts the innocent young children into having sex so they will get pregnant and have abortions, so she can make more money! I have no doubt that some woman told you this. I seriously doubt that it was true. What was the context of this conversation? Does she by any chance, speak to groups about her past as an abortionist?

 

i'll see if i can find you the story. she was the woman who did time. she absolutely did it. she confessed to all of it under oath. there was a huge expose on it in the media in Dallas.

she ultimately went to jail for peforming an abortion on a girl who was not pregnant. if i remember right, the girl died.

by the way...are you calling me a liar?


EDIT: here's a link to her story: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/carol_everett.htm

 

Ummmmm Max, I specifically said I had no doubt that some woman told you this.

 

See, you guys always turn it into pro-choice = kill the kid. Pro-choice is having the choice to have an abortion before the fetus fully develops into a baby. I never said to kill anybody.

I guess it boils down to when you believe life begins. I mean, a 1 weekd old embryo cannot think and has not lived a 'life'. It's not alive to me anymore than your sperm. I mean, do you believe everytime u jack off you're killing millions of potential kids.

 

sorry, i missed that. see the link i edited in to my post, above.

 

Wow

....at almost 23 weeks, there is a strong chance of survival. And the treatment (or lack thereof) that this woman received is sickening. This far along, there should have been other options. Crazy.

Regardless of which side of this issue you're on...i think you should find THIS story disturbing.

Abortion on demand is available in other countries...yet the rate of abortions is much much less than it is in the US. Until the debate shifts from ALL or Nothing, and to standards of care and education, very little progress will be made.

This really is an example of the worse of all worlds.

 

wait, you said it. you said that this was a utilitarian decision. one based on economics, alone. that a child of a single parent is doomed to a life of incarceration...and on and on.

in this story, the child is over 5 months. 23 weeks. a week away from third trimester. Roe's prohibition was for abortions PAST the first trimester. you do the math.

 

The problem I see is that so much of the medical industry (which includes abortion clinics) exists for profit. Considering how easily greed comes to all of us, it doesn't surprise me in the least that there have been abortion clinicians who have directed pregnant woment toward abortions. And I don't like that any more than I like it when a doctor directs a patient toward a certain drug or away from treatment because the insurance company only reimburses up to $X dollars and the treatment costs more than that.

If the welfare of the patient didn't have to compete with an accountant, I think these kind of horror stories would be far less frequent.

 

Ya think? I've never looked at it from that angle.