Hi all, my first post ....
I have children. With my pregnancies as soon as I saw those two blue lines I knew they were my babies. It wasn't the potential of them turning into the children I imagined has I puked my guts daily it was them(albeit slightly more idealized before birth). I never thought of them as a group of cells, they were babies in my heart before they were ever children in my arms.

Emotionally I get it the pro-life/anti-choice crowd.l I feel in my bones that this is right.

At least for me and how I live my life.

But the kicker is I am a firm believer that life is messy and many do not share my view and they have every right to do as they wish.

Also having been pregnant , neither time being exceptionally easy and the last one fairly difficult, I am of the belief that it would actually constitute cruel and unusual punishment on a women to enforce a pregnancy she doesn't want or can't afford. A baby is not like tumor, your whole psyche is effected by pregnancy and it isn't always a pleasant experience even when the child is wanted. I think adoption is really the best option, but a pregnancy in and of itself is not always feasible.

Has to the op, it's already been stated that your question was somewhat silly.They are two very different things . One is innocent one doesn't work. Its just has flawed as asking why conservatives are all right with the death penalty and still pro-life.

Nobody is pro-abortion. Show me one pro-abortion activist.

The reason we are for choice and against torture is simple.

Explain this to me - what is the problem if I decide to send my baby straight to heaven before it even has a chance to suffer this life rather than have it born to a miserable life in a crappy world where circumstance and environmental factors will undoubtedly lead it to a life of sin away from God's grace????????

Answer that and I will be glad to explain myself further.

p.s. do not get on me just to harass me over the word "it." I use that term to be gender unspecific because I do not feel like writing "him or her" over and over and not because I see a potential child as some ......IT.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by spaznational

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Again, nobody is talking about aborting fetuses. Perhaps you should do a bit of research re: zygote/embryo vs. fetus.

Perhaps YOU should read your own posts. I quote: "An zygote, a fetus, are symbiotic organisms. They are not viable life. "

You're talking about aborting fetuses. This is an abortion thread.

Yes, and if you continued to read, you would understand. I first stated that I misspoke, and intended to say embryo, and I second pointed out the fact that fetus' aren't aborted in this country.

You didn't state that you misspoke in the post I was responding to. I don't generally read an entire thread so perhaps you corrected yourself in another post that I missed. Sorry to have used a direct quote from you that you are now refuting, Mr. Kerry.

And about aborting fetuses...

You stated, "An embryo becomes a fetus at 10 weeks. 90% of all abortions take place in the zygote/embryo stages, which are 2 months or less into pregnancy."

So who is in that missing 10%?

Originally posted by notanicegirl
Nobody is pro-abortion. Show me one pro-abortion activist.

The reason we are for choice and against torture is simple.

Explain this to me - what is the problem if I decide to send my baby straight to heaven before it even has a chance to suffer this life rather than have it born to a miserable life in a crappy world where circumstance and environmental factors will undoubtedly lead it to a life of sin away from God's grace????????

Answer that and I will be glad to explain myself further.

p.s. do not get on me just to harass me over the word "it." I use that term to be gender unspecific because I do not feel like writing "him or her" over and over and not because I see a potential child as some ......IT.

Thanks for posting. Not to be rude but, somebody is pro-abortion because there have been millions of them. Did people get abortions by accident or are they being forced to get them?

Ok please dont take anything I say as rude, I am not trying to insult you, but I might. Do you really think someone is going to harass you over the calling a baby an IT? That is what you are worried about somebody getting upset over.

But you think no one would think this is strange -->
"Explain this to me - what is the problem if I decide to send my baby straight to heaven before it even has a chance to suffer this life rather than have it born to a miserable life in a crappy world where circumstance and environmental factors will undoubtedly lead it to a life of sin away from God's grace????????"

If you are serious. I hope that you get a better view of the world and realize it is not so bad. I am assuming you are talking about the Christian concept of God and grace. I am pretty sure in that belief system they also believe that there is forgiveness. One of the best things a person can do for their own sanity is forgive themselves and others.

Have a nice weekend and thanks again for sharing.


[edit on 9-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by notanicegirl
Explain this to me - what is the problem if I decide to send my baby straight to heaven before it even has a chance to suffer this life rather than have it born to a miserable life in a crappy world where circumstance and environmental factors will undoubtedly lead it to a life of sin away from God's grace????????

So, what if you decide to send your best friend to heaven because you just can't stand for them to suffer this life anymore? It shouldn't be YOUR DECISION to end a life, as you just took everything that that child ever could have in one fell swoop without so much as a discussion with that child. Somebody else said it (somewhat jokingly), but if that child, after it is born, wants to blow there brains out at 18, then that's ok, it was their decision.

Hi, just a brief 'intervention'.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Ok so we are off topic again but what the heck. I have ADD so it kinda works for me.
1. Afghanistan/Taliban could have avoided invasion if they just handed over Bin Laden, which they said they would not do. So thus you get invaded.

They said that they would consider extraditing him if they could find him( they liked being in power) if the US were willing to provide them with some of the evidence that will be employed to prosecute him. Since the US refused to negotiate ( "Give him up , or") or share any of the information that suggests his guilt the Taliban were really not left with any options. The US were always going to invade Afghanistan no matter what the Taliban did short of inviting them to occupy the country.

Beside that fact the FBI is still not searching for OBL in relation to 9-11 as they still have no direct evidence of his involvement; there was not and still is no legal case against him.

2. Even though Bush used 911 as a pretense for Iraq this was wrong. I agree they were not a threat in that way. He did have grounds to invade which he didnt really use, I assume because he is slightly stupid.

There were no legal grounds for the invasion and occupation of Iraq without a mandate and the UN have made it pretty clear that both the invasion and occupation are simply illegal criminal acts. The US national security state invaded Iraq simply because they believed they could get away with it given the fighting in Afghanistan and their already significant presence ( Israel) in the middle east.

Those grounds are that Iraq was in constant violation of the cease first agreement from the first Gulf War from the moment they signed it.

No they were not. There never was a UN mandated no fly zone that Iraq could violate; entirely invented by the US national security state to keep pressure on the Iraq forces and to ensure that a invasion would not be met with unexpected fortifications and air defense systems.

Oh and the seed analogy I understand where you are going I just dont agree with the logic of it, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Agreeing to disagree is the cowards way out but it's true that cowards tend to live to fight another day.

I will do my best to stay out the discussion but i would like to make a statement.

I think this is much like arguing that a pile of bricks, cement, sand is a house because that's what it normally becomes given the right circumstances and applied intelligence. Perhaps that sounds like a 'liberal' ( hehe) ploy to shift the argument but in my opinion it has to come down to women being enabled to make, preferably, educated ( let the state invest in trying to scare them out of abortion if it wants to) decisions about their own bodies. It seems to me that the debate largely turns on the religious argument that human life ( i suspect 'souls' and the like) starts with inception and the inherit 'specialness' of human life.

I would feel more comfortable with state intervention, laws against abortion, once our leaders shows that they are serious about preserving human life everywhere ( tens of thousands starve or die from disease ever day and no one can turn them into zygotes) will fight poverty everywhere and wont resort to incarcerating people by their millions without any effort to address their grievances.

Stellar

[edit on 11-5-2009 by StellarX]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
How is it that liberals are against torture but pro abortion? So its not ok to torture your enemy but it is ok to end your childs life? Can someone please explain?

Because the only way you get information out of your enemy is by torture and because abortion is a choice and women have the right to do it, and because you lack the brains to understand these simplest of concepts and open a ridiculous thread.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
How is it that liberals are against torture but pro abortion? So its not ok to torture your enemy but it is ok to end your childs life? Can someone please explain?

This is like Mad-Libs:

How is it that conservatives are pro torture but against choice? So its ok to torture your enemy but it is not ok to abort a fetus? Can someone please explain?

I have always liked Mad-Libs.

[edit on 5/11/2009 by clay2 baraka]

How do you go from an abortion debate to 9/11?

Why is it people think because you are anti abortion you are pro war or death penalty or pro torture?

Besides how can one compare a terrorist, or child murdering rapist, to an innocent unborn child?

OK since some babies survive abortions, and are born alive,

Do they have human rights?

Or should they be given the death penalty?

You know if I was pro abortion, I would be ashamed to tell anyone.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
OK since some babies survive abortions, and are born alive,

That's why there are laws prohibiting late term abortions, yes.

Do they have human rights?

I would rather debate the human rights of the tens of thousands of children that have been born that starves or dies from disease every day. As for human rights we do currently have laws where a line is drawn and they start having rights; anything before is a non-scientific religious argument about human exceptionalism.

Or should they be given the death penalty?

You cannot kill something that isn't independently alive according to our best scientific evidence. Maybe when the US government ( and Somalia; only two nations that have not signed it) signs the "Convention on the Rights of the Child" it could authoritatively speak about protecting the rights of the yet unborn?

You know if I was pro abortion, I would be ashamed to tell anyone.

As i recall, reading, few women have abortions without emotional consequence and most are ashamed because they well understand that our male dominated societies still consider their bodies public property and thus a group males can dictate laws to.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
How do you go from an abortion debate to 9/11?

Fascinating, isn't it!

Why is it people think because you are anti abortion you are pro war or death penalty or pro torture?

I would say that happens because people make connections based on their beliefs; this whole discussions speaks volumes as to what connections people illogically manage to make.

Besides how can one compare a terrorist, or child murdering rapist, to an innocent unborn child?

Well you can't in my opinion as a terrorist is almost certainly a thinking human being ( despite the propaganda about mindless suicide bombers who just 'hates' everything) and a child murdering rapist doesn't just magically appear one day to commit such crimes. Both are example's of how flawed our societies are and how destructively we can sometimes interact with each other.

Your appeal to emotion is noted , as if the law makers of the world cares for a zygotes guilt or innocence when grown children starves, but i will state again that our best scientific and medical knowledge have given us a good knowledge ( around 24 weeks; but it's considered late term and by no means the norm) of when it becomes questionable to terminate a viable fetus so that we can regulate it. This really isn't a question of allowing women to be 'irresponsible' ( we prosecute them when they shake them too hard only a few months later when they still couldn't possibly survive on their own) but one of allowing women some remedial action when they do make mistakes.

Perhaps if we start slapping men with fines for getting women pregnant ,when they didn't plan on having children ( accidentally or otherwise) we can allow men to have a say in the matter?

Stellar