Anti-Choice Bush Nominee

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:14 am

RedGlitter;748382 wrote: Adoption is certainly fine except it requires the mother to carry for nine and deliver. That's what we're trying to avoid.
Yup. We're all on the same side hoping for medical advancements.

How early are they keeping premies alive nowadays anyway?

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:29 am

adoption is another option and i think it should be promoted, but i think that is also a choice too, and not for everyone.

I know i would find it MUCH more unbearable to carry a child and give it up than i would to terminate a pregnancy at an early stage.

I also dont think i could bear to terminate at a late stage. Its the going through pregnancy and childbirth thing, and being that I dont think of a tiny embryo as a person, im not morally outraged at the idea of early abortion.

I think its one of those things that is really hard to agree on. Nobody will ever convince me that a 6 week foetus is as much of a person as my 9mth old baby or my 6 year old. I cant see how giving rights at conception could ever or should ever work.

I think there are certain rights bestowed at the age of viability (24 weeks gestation) and I think thats fine, although i Do happen to feel uncomfortable with the idea of abortion a fair bit earlier than that.

My view is that it should be available quickly and easily on demand up to around 12 weeks, and then past that, only with good medical reason

I do respect the other viewpoint though. My partner is actually quite anti-abortion. Weve had a few "discussions" about it.

I have no respect for anyone that would try and bully someone into a choice they werent happy with - ie people who wave placards outside abortion clinics or tell people theyre bad for their choice. I also have no respect for people that would try and encourage someone to abort when they wanted to go ahead with the pregnancy. I think that is very cruel.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:18 am

I'm glad my "parasite" comment was taken appropriately. I didn't know of a nice way of saying that. I am trying to see how I can put this. Watch me mangle it.

I keep coming up with the concept that the baby/embryo/fetus is only as human as you want to make it. For instance. A crazy example but try me out. A woman is on her way to get an abortion. On her way to the clinic she gets in a wreck and loses the baby. Suppose the wreck was the other person's fault. Technically that baby was her property. Does that other driver owe her compensation for the miscarriage that he caused? Should he go to prison for involuntary manslaughter? Or does the fact the woman was going to abort negate what happened? Does it render the loss as not a crime?

In case i have confused anyone with any of my comments in this thread or similar, let me please say this: I like kids. They are small humans. I am not anti-child. I do think when the conception occurs, we are talking about a human baby being developed and not a tumor growing in one's uterus. But having said that, I believe there are things worse than death. The one that makes me see red (no pun) is when people imply the mother has an obligation to deliver *because* she got pregnant. I said yesterday no child should ever serve as a consequence and I believe that.

I think abortion is a necessary evil, always has been and as long as humans are human, always will be. There is a saying "I brought you into this world and I will take you out." That's a bit how I feel. I don't have any ill will against the idea of adoption. For many it's a viable option. For me, no. I would rather abort (shall I say kill?) my child than give that child to a stranger to raise as their own. Some will understand this. Others will think I'm a selfish horrid wretch. That is your prerogative to do so, just as my prerogative is to control my body and what is in it.

I know there are members here who are adopted or have given up a child for adoption and I understand why this whole subject may be hurtful to you. I don't mean to cause you more pain or somehow devalue you. I am only saying how I feel personally. Some will agree, probably most will not but I don't think we will ever come to a happy medium on this.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:37 am

RedGlitter;748436 wrote: I'm glad my "parasite" comment was taken appropriately. I didn't know of a nice way of saying that. I am trying to see how I can put this. Watch me mangle it.

I keep coming up with the concept that the baby/embryo/fetus is only as human as you want to make it. For instance. A crazy example but try me out. A woman is on her way to get an abortion. On her way to the clinic she gets in a wreck and loses the baby. Suppose the wreck was the other person's fault. Technically that baby was her property. Does that other driver owe her compensation for the miscarriage that he caused? Should he go to prison for involuntary manslaughter? Or does the fact the woman was going to abort negate what happened? Does it render the loss as not a crime?

In case i have confused anyone with any of my comments in this thread or similar, let me please say this: I like kids. They are small humans. I am not anti-child. I do think when the conception occurs, we are talking about a human baby being developed and not a tumor growing in one's uterus. But having said that, I believe there are things worse than death. The one that makes me see red (no pun) is when people imply the mother has an obligation to deliver *because* she got pregnant. I said yesterday no child should ever serve as a consequence and I believe that.

I think abortion is a necessary evil, always has been and as long as humans are human, always will be. There is a saying "I brought you into this world and I will take you out." That's a bit how I feel. I don't have any ill will against the idea of adoption. For many it's a viable option. For me, no. I would rather abort (shall I say kill?) my child than give that child to a stranger to raise as their own. Some will understand this. Others will think I'm a selfish horrid wretch. That is your prerogative to do so, just as my prerogative is to control my body and what is in it.

I know there are members here who are adopted or have given up a child for adoption and I understand why this whole subject may be hurtful to you. I don't mean to cause you more pain or somehow devalue you. I am only saying how I feel personally. Some will agree, probably most will not but I don't think we will ever come to a happy medium on this.
Geez, what a train wreck! :yh_wink

Red you are remarkably consistent. That's both comforting and disturbing for me. I think I could have written this for you based on your posting history. We make a terrific Venn diagram.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:48 am

Accountable;748449 wrote: Geez, what a train wreck! :yh_wink

Red you are remarkably consistent. That's both comforting and disturbing for me. I think I could have written this for you based on your posting history. We make a terrific Venn diagram.

:wah: Umm...thanks Acc...I think?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:31 am

Listening to the arguments about women's bodies being "used" by a baby that is growing inside just makes me think that there is an extreme discomfort and denial about what women's bodies do. It is a gift that we carry the child and our bodies are capable of nurturing life, not a curse. Modern medicine has gone about trying to alleviate this function of the female body and natural medicine has struggled to keep up with the damage we've done. Depo Provera is being pushed on women so we don't "have to" menstruate every month, and abortion is being defended so we don't "have to" give birth. Are we really that out of touch with our state of being?

I used to be hardcore into women's rights but I've reached a point where I think we've all gone insane. If there is something we don't like about life as a woman we try to "fix" nature. This is one of the medical procedures that was a mistake. There are things that were invented to help society that got used in terrible ways, this is one of those inventions.

My points about men being denied a choice are tossed away with the comment "it's not their body" as if men have nothing to do with the process of becoming pregnant. We have an equal rights problem now. Men are being denied. What a slap in the face. I thought the modern society was more sensitive to how men are eliminated from the birth process. It is much harder for men to bond with their babies during a pregnancy but there is most certainly a bond. A part of the man is now growing inside a pregnant women. As a fact of being female, when you become pregnant, your body is no longer completely your own. Like it or not, deal with it.

If abortion continues to be legal then men should be given equal rights over any decisions to terminate a pregnancy. Too complicated? Then it shouldn't be legal. If it remains legal, people should stop denying that they are killing a unique being. If you're going to do it, admit what you are doing. I've killed someone. I learned to live with it. At least I'm honest about it. Pretending it's not a living thing is a cop out that allows people to kill without having to admit what they are doing.

I am not consistent.

I used to be pro-choice. I know all the arguments for pro-choice and used to defend it quite effectively. I have spent a lot of time over the last two years going over my own experiences and thinking about how wrong women's rights groups have been in their battle to tell the world to feck off. We're not talking about human rights anymore, we're talking about a bunch of robots built on a model of social perfection which doesn't exist. We can't control life so we should stop pretending we can.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:38 am

koan;748577 wrote: Listening to the arguments about women's bodies being "used" by a baby that is growing inside just makes me think that there is an extreme discomfort and denial about what women's bodies do. It is a gift that we carry the child and our bodies are capable of nurturing life, not a curse. Modern medicine has gone about trying to alleviate this function of the female body and natural medicine has struggled to keep up with the damage we've done. Depo Provera is being pushed on women so we don't "have to" menstruate every month, and abortion is being defended so we don't "have to" give birth. Are we really that out of touch with our state of being?

I used to be hardcore into women's rights but I've reached a point where I think we've all gone insane. If there is something we don't like about life as a woman we try to "fix" nature. This is one of the medical procedures that was a mistake. There are things that were invented to help society that got used in terrible ways, this is one of those inventions.

My points about men being denied a choice are tossed away with the comment "it's not their body" as if men have nothing to do with the process of becoming pregnant. We have an equal rights problem now. Men are being denied. What a slap in the face. I thought the modern society was more sensitive to how men are eliminated from the birth process. It is much harder for men to bond with their babies during a pregnancy but there is most certainly a bond. A part of the man is now growing inside a pregnant women. As a fact of being female, when you become pregnant, your body is no longer completely your own. Like it or not, deal with it.

If abortion continues to be legal then men should be given equal rights over any decisions to terminate a pregnancy. Too complicated? Then it shouldn't be legal. If it remains legal, people should stop denying that they are killing a unique being. If you're going to do it, admit what you are doing. I've killed someone. I learned to live with it. At least I'm honest about it. Pretending it's not a living thing is a cop out that allows people to kill without having to admit what they are doing.

I am not consistent.

I used to be pro-choice. I know all the arguments for pro-choice and used to defend it quite effectively. I have spent a lot of time over the last two years going over my own experiences and thinking about how wrong women's rights groups have been in their battle to tell the world to feck off. We're not talking about human rights anymore, we're talking about a bunch of robots built on a model of social perfection which doesn't exist. We can't control life so we should stop pretending we can.

I have to put this post as one of the top posts I have read on this forum. On another note, Koan if I may ask, did your stance on abortion change after having your daughter, and do you think it was the unconditional love given and shown from your daughter that influenced it?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:41 am

koan;748577 wrote: Listening to the arguments about women's bodies being "used" by a baby that is growing inside just makes me think that there is an extreme discomfort and denial about what women's bodies do. It is a gift that we carry the child and our bodies are capable of nurturing life, not a curse. Modern medicine has gone about trying to alleviate this function of the female body and natural medicine has struggled to keep up with the damage we've done. Depo Provera is being pushed on women so we don't "have to" menstruate every month, and abortion is being defended so we don't "have to" give birth. Are we really that out of touch with our state of being?

I used to be hardcore into women's rights but I've reached a point where I think we've all gone insane. If there is something we don't like about life as a woman we try to "fix" nature. This is one of the medical procedures that was a mistake. There are things that were invented to help society that got used in terrible ways, this is one of those inventions.

My points about men being denied a choice are tossed away with the comment "it's not their body" as if men have nothing to do with the process of becoming pregnant. We have an equal rights problem now. Men are being denied. What a slap in the face. I thought the modern society was more sensitive to how men are eliminated from the birth process. It is much harder for men to bond with their babies during a pregnancy but there is most certainly a bond. A part of the man is now growing inside a pregnant women. As a fact of being female, when you become pregnant, your body is no longer completely your own. Like it or not, deal with it.

If abortion continues to be legal then men should be given equal rights over any decisions to terminate a pregnancy. Too complicated? Then it shouldn't be legal. If it remains legal, people should stop denying that they are killing a unique being. If you're going to do it, admit what you are doing. I've killed someone. I learned to live with it. At least I'm honest about it. Pretending it's not a living thing is a cop out that allows people to kill without having to admit what they are doing.

I am not consistent.

I used to be pro-choice. I know all the arguments for pro-choice and used to defend it quite effectively. I have spent a lot of time over the last two years going over my own experiences and thinking about how wrong women's rights groups have been in their battle to tell the world to feck off. We're not talking about human rights anymore, we're talking about a bunch of robots built on a model of social perfection which doesn't exist. We can't control life so we should stop pretending we can.
:yh_clap Very powerful. Thanks. :yh_clap

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:58 am

koan;748577 wrote:

If abortion continues to be legal then men should be given equal rights over any decisions to terminate a pregnancy. Too complicated? Then it shouldn't be legal.

Thats scary. You think abortion would be ok if men could have the choice over womens bodies as much as the woman does herself?

I dont see it as complex at all. I see it as a womans uterus. MY uterus. If someone takes up residence in my uterus and i dont want them there, i reserve the right to evict. I do NOT expect any man to say I have to termiate or I have to give birth. its MY body, not his. MY body.

Until a foetus can survive independently it is there purely because im letting it be, because I want it to be. Once ive given birth, then its a little person in its own right. Until that point, its a part of my body and I can do what I like with it. I wont try and tell you what you can and cant do with your body. Dont tell me what I can do with mine!!!

I have two children am 26 weeks pregnant with my third, I have also terminated one unwanted pregnancy (which im ok with- shock horror), and yet ive also grieved severely for the miscarriage of a much wanted one.

Ive been pro-choice ever since I knew what it meant, and that hasnt changed just because im a mother, nor do i think it ever will.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:47 am

Don't take this wrong but I had to snort a bit at the nature comment.

In the animal world if there is something wrong with an offspring, be it lion cub or puppy/kitten, or if it is somehow undesired, the mother will kill it. I know there are so many here who would scream "We're not animals!!!" Well basically we are. We all have our primal forces. I think we're more in touch with nature than we care to admit.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:57 am

Abortion is one of those issues I cannot say I'm pro choice or pro life. I believe it's one of those situations that you have to be in before you can clearly make a choice of where you want to stand.

I also do not consider being pregnant as having a parasite inside you. I consider a statement like that a slap in the face to the women out there who would love to be able to be pregnant.

But I live in my own little world and believe that before passing judgment, one should either walk a mile in the fellow's shoes, or imagine doing it.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:07 pm

It's no slap in the face to anyone.

A parasite can only function off the life of its host. Up to a point a baby is the same way. That's all that was meant. I'm not sure why I'm defending it when others here said the same thing but there it is.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:08 pm

Sheryl;748660 wrote: Abortion is one of those issues I cannot say I'm pro choice or pro life. I believe it's one of those situations that you have to be in before you can clearly make a choice of where you want to stand.

I also do not consider being pregnant as having a parasite inside you. I consider a statement like that a slap in the face to the women out there who would love to be able to be pregnant.

But I live in my own little world and believe that before passing judgment, one should either walk a mile in the fellow's shoes, or imagine doing it.

But it is a parasite, in the strict sense of the word. A joyous, blessed, parasitic bundle of joy.

Broadening the definition a bit, the kid stays a parasite for as long as you keep him in your house. And some continue to be parasites for years after that.

But that's human life. We start completely dependent on others until we learn to take care of ourselves, then to take care of others. Then the process sort of reverses toward the end.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:22 pm

But it's such a horrid way to describe growing a baby in your womb. And do you think it would be ok to tell a woman who cannot have children " It's ok you don't don't want to have to deal with a parasite living off you" I think NOT!

Don't get me wrong, I am on of those women who HATED being pregnant. Being fat, bloated, the gas, always have to be within 15 feet of a bathroom, ect..could of done without it. But in end, when my children arrived I was happy. But I have enough empathy to understand, that there are others who are not able to carry a child, and would loved to have the experience of carrying a child.

minks · Post by **minks** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:29 pm

rjwould;748355 wrote: It was just horseplay. I never said he was homosexual, I merely stated in a jovial way that his relationship with clint could border on homosexuality, which I meant as "could be interpreted by some as". If you prefer I change the post to reflect that more accurately, I will be happy to.

have you been to FG before under a different name???

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:30 pm

Sheryl;748677 wrote: But it's such a horrid way to describe growing a baby in your womb. Yes ma'am it is.Sheryl wrote: And do you think it would be ok to tell a woman who cannot have children " It's ok you don't don't want to have to deal with a parasite living off you" I think NOT!No ma'am it's not.

minks · Post by **minks** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:34 pm

rjwould;748687 wrote: No, never. Check my ip address if you want.

oh no worries not necessary I was just curious is all.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:37 pm

Sheryl;748677 wrote: But it's such a horrid way to describe growing a baby in your womb. And do you think it would be ok to tell a woman who cannot have children " It's ok you don't don't want to have to deal with a parasite living off you" I think NOT!

Don't get me wrong, I am on of those women who HATED being pregnant. Being fat, bloated, the gas, always have to be within 15 feet of a bathroom, ect..could of done without it. But in end, when my children arrived I was happy. But I have enough empathy to understand, that there are others who are not able to carry a child, and would loved to have the experience of carrying a child.

Sheryl, who would say that to a pregnant woman anyway? We're not insulting pregnant women here. If you are fat and go to the doctor, s/he he will write you down as being "obese." What a disgusting word! But true nonetheless. That's how I am applying this. I am sure if one is happily pregnant all they can think about is the blessing they're carrying and that's A-OK, But this idea that some women somehow "owe" barren women because they can have kids and the others can't is terrible. It's not just what you've said, I've seen it come up several times. The notion that a woman should bear a baby for all the infertile women in the world well....it sounds like "clean up your plate, there's kids starving in Africa!"

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:40 pm

parasite IS a horrible way to talk about it, and i did acknowledge that, and i can imagine this is probably not a nice topic for someone who has lots of trouble concieving, but by definition, a parasite, a creature that is taking from the body of another, with no benefit to its host - well, that kind of IS like an unwanted pregnancy, and I think a lot of women who have had an unwanted pregnancy might identify with that feeling.

By being pro-choice, im not saying that children arent a wonderful thing and much sought after for many people, but realistically, its not like that for everyone.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:40 pm

RedGlitter;748698 wrote: Sheryl, who would say that to a pregnant woman anyway? We're not insulting pregnant women here. If you are fat and go to the doctor, s/he he will write you down as being "obese." What a disgusting word! But true nonetheless. That's how I am applying this. I am sure if one is happily pregnant all they can think about is the blessing they're carrying and that's A-OK, But this idea that some women somehow "owe" barren women because they can have kids and the others can't is terrible. It's not just what you've said, I've seen it come up several times. The notion that a woman should bear a baby for all the infertile women in the world well....it sounds like "clean up your plate, there's kids starving in Africa!"

I'm not saying we "owe" them something, I was just stating one should be alittle tactful (is that the right word

) around them.

suzycreamcheese · Post by **suzycreamcheese** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:11 pm

why, really?

Someone could have trouble concieving yet still be able to look at the subejct objectively and still very well be pro-choice.

Just because someone may have trouble TTC doesnt mean that they wouldnt realise that the term was used as a comparison to make a point and not on the offensive.

Id say it was much more tactful than calling people who have terminated a pregnancy murderers. That doesnt particularly offend me, but it could easily make someone who hasnt come to terms with their decision feel pretty damn **** about themselves, and that helps noone.

Not saying we should stifle debate though

Snooze · Post by **Snooze** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:14 pm

Great, now I'm reading the title to this as "Anti-Choke Bush Nominee".

Thanks, Lemon and Mint.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:15 pm

koan;748577 wrote: Listening to the arguments about women's bodies being "used" by a baby that is growing inside just makes me think that there is an extreme discomfort and denial about what women's bodies do. It is a gift that we carry the child and our bodies are capable of nurturing life, not a curse. Modern medicine has gone about trying to alleviate this function of the female body and natural medicine has struggled to keep up with the damage we've done. Depo Provera is being pushed on women so we don't "have to" menstruate every month, and abortion is being defended so we don't "have to" give birth. Are we really that out of touch with our state of being?

I used to be hardcore into women's rights but I've reached a point where I think we've all gone insane. If there is something we don't like about life as a woman we try to "fix" nature. This is one of the medical procedures that was a mistake. There are things that were invented to help society that got used in terrible ways, this is one of those inventions.

My points about men being denied a choice are tossed away with the comment "it's not their body" as if men have nothing to do with the process of becoming pregnant. We have an equal rights problem now. Men are being denied. What a slap in the face. I thought the modern society was more sensitive to how men are eliminated from the birth process. It is much harder for men to bond with their babies during a pregnancy but there is most certainly a bond. A part of the man is now growing inside a pregnant women. As a fact of being female, when you become pregnant, your body is no longer completely your own. Like it or not, deal with it.

If abortion continues to be legal then men should be given equal rights over any decisions to terminate a pregnancy. Too complicated? Then it shouldn't be legal. If it remains legal, people should stop denying that they are killing a unique being. If you're going to do it, admit what you are doing. I've killed someone. I learned to live with it. At least I'm honest about it. Pretending it's not a living thing is a cop out that allows people to kill without having to admit what they are doing.

I am not consistent.

I used to be pro-choice. I know all the arguments for pro-choice and used to defend it quite effectively. I have spent a lot of time over the last two years going over my own experiences and thinking about how wrong women's rights groups have been in their battle to tell the world to feck off. We're not talking about human rights anymore, we're talking about a bunch of robots built on a model of social perfection which doesn't exist. We can't control life so we should stop pretending we can.

This is another wonderful expression of clear reason and admirable values by Koan. I read it in absolute awe of the typical Koan skill with words but more than that, in awe of the change that has taken place in her over the years. At one time anger and cynicism came through what she wrote. Today I sense peace and sincerity in the person behind her flawlessly crafted posts.

I’ve learned something from her tonight and it doesn’t have anything to do with the abortion topic. I’ve learned the value in being more deliberate in what I write. I’m going to be more careful about jumping in too fast in an attempt to win an argument. I’m going to try to post when I have something to say that will add value to the discussion. Many times over the years Koan has said she is “working on a post and later we are presented with something truly worth reading. I’m going to do more work on my posts in the future. If it’s worth saying it should be worth an effort to say it well.

Thank you Koan

drumbunny1 · Post by **drumbunny1** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:16 am

Clint;746664 wrote: A tattoo and a human life are not comparable, unless of course, you are grasping at straws to rationalize the taking of innocent human life.

Thank you for joining the discussion. You have clearly demonstrated that "pro choice" is really the highest degree of selfishness.

Ha! I demonstrate selfishness?! So what do you suggest we do with all the unwanted pregnancies in the world? All the children that will end up being neglected and abused? Are you going to keep them and take care of them? MO is that its none of anyones damn business whether or not a woman chooses to have a baby or abort it, and its definetly not there business to tell them whether or not they can do it.

Snooze · Post by **Snooze** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:24 am

Clint;749152 wrote: This is another wonderful expression of clear reason and admirable values by Koan. I read it in absolute awe of the typical Koan skill with words but more than that, in awe of the change that has taken place in her over the years. At one time anger and cynicism came through what she wrote. Today I sense peace and sincerity in the person behind her flawlessly crafted posts.

I’ve learned something from her tonight and it doesn’t have anything to do with the abortion topic. I’ve learned the value in being more deliberate in what I write. I’m going to be more careful about jumping in too fast in an attempt to win an argument. I’m going to try to post when I have something to say that will add value to the discussion. Many times over the years Koan has said she is “working on a post and later we are presented with something truly worth reading. I’m going to do more work on my posts in the future. If it’s worth saying it should be worth an effort to say it well.

Thank you Koan

Wow, I'm amazed you can breathe. :rolleyes:

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:36 am

Thank you, Clint. That is an incredible compliment.

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:41 pm

drumbunny1;749262 wrote: Ha! I demonstrate selfishness?! So what do you suggest we do with all the unwanted pregnancies in the world? All the children that will end up being neglected and abused? Are you going to keep them and take care of them? MO is that its none of anyones damn business whether or not a woman chooses to have a baby or abort it, and its definetly not there business to tell them whether or not they can do it.

I suggest that we not have the “unwanted pregnancies. I suggest that the value of human life be elevated to the point that every pregnancy is wanted and every life is cherished. I know we will always have people in our midst who think life is all about them but my hope is they will become fewer and fewer.

That they will become a smaller and smaller group is the ironic outcome of abortion. Parents who would end a human life with the intent of improving their own won’t be teaching their values to their offspring.

Adoption is an option. Many people are going to other countries to adopt because the opportunities to adopt in the U.S. are so limited. The argument that loving homes can’t be found for rejected children is a specious one.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:30 pm

rjwould;747177 wrote: Too bad so many pro-lifers cannot control themselves. BTS, you are an excellent example as to why too many abortions happen. I sure as sh-t wouldn't come to you for level headed advice if I found myself in a situation of an unintended pregnancy.

You really need to calm down and come to your senses. You may be passionate about what you believe, I can respect that, but you're out of control. How in the world could you find the strength and wisdom to be a counselor to young people when you cannot control your emotions. My guess is you are an adolescent, at least emotionally.

Golly if you came to me pregnant (with our birth control available there is NO unintended pregnancy unless raped) rj and wanted advise....... I would make a big exception and suggest an abortion...... no demand it..........

About me being a counselor?

Where did you get that info from?

And if the pics upset you.............GOOD.

That is exactly what was intended.

I know that anti-lifers NEVER go to look at the results of what they support.........

Ever heard this one rj?

Attack the message................not the messenger..........K?

Attack my message on its merits for once and not me.

nvalleyvee · Post by **nvalleyvee** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:42 pm

RedGlitter;740324 wrote: For anyone who wants this information, this was in my email today:

Dear Terri,

President Bush nominated yet another staunch anti-choice activist for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. And he’s counting on you not knowing about it! Help NARAL Pro-Choice America expose and defeat this anti-choice nominee.

Richard Honaker is one of Bush’s most unapologetically anti-choice nominees to date. As a state senator in Wyoming, he twice pushed legislation to ban legal abortion in nearly all circumstances.

When that failed, he led an effort to pass the measure - a near-total abortion ban - as a statewide ballot initiative. Honaker believes his conservative anti-choice beliefs and his interpretation of scripture trump established legal precedent—especially when it comes to individual liberty, the right to privacy, and a woman’s right to choose.

Now President Bush has nominated Richard Honaker for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge on a district court in Wyoming. This nominee doesn’t deserve consideration, and most certainly doesn’t deserve confirmation!

NARAL Pro-Choice America needs your immediate support to expose Honaker’s record on a woman’s right to choose. We must educate every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and alert the media and the voting public. We must stop Bush from further stacking the federal courts with right-wing ideologues. Now is the time to make certain the Senate says “no to this radical nominee!

We cannot let Bush pacify his far-right base—at the expense of women’s rights. We deserve fair-minded judges who will apply the law without prejudice, and who will protect a woman’s constitutional right to choose.

Support our national campaign to expose Bush’s anti-choice nominee and protect the right to choose toda

Sincerely,

Nancy Keenan

President

NARAL Pro-Choice America

Can you say Roe vs Wade? It does not matter who Bush appoints. I have not seen this Supreme Court decision overthrown......yes modified............but not repealed by the Supreme Court.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 8:51 pm

rjwould;751555 wrote: You don't want to be a counselor to younger people?

Well raising 5 children, I suppose I am a counselor in effect and I might be doing ok on this couseling thingy as I also have 9 grandchildren with nary a abortion there either.

I know you will holler the "in a perfect world" crud, but if you are your children's friend you can raise good children and encourage them to do right.

I won't go into my children's life to support my counseling per Se but I will say they are better off than I was when I was their ages.

I can listen and under stand there are 2 sides to EVERY story.