Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 133

Thread: A Joyful day for the religious right…Women beware.

  1. #101
    Bold Soul Guest

    Post

    Originally posted by eileen:
    it's an easy thing for males to know almost nothing about the female reproductive system, focusing on the strategies for removing the fetus and all the implications of that on the fetus, with absolutely no regard for what those strategies mean to the women they are being performed on.

    to me it's like the equivalent of a bunch of women discussing different ways to get a 4 pound kidney stone through a guy's penis, and talking all about the ways it affects the kidney stone without any regard for the person the penis belongs to.

    but then again, i forgot, women are just merely host organisms, so i guess we should just shut up and breed.
    Don't distort my point to make your own. A kidney stone is a living organism?

    For the time being, abortion is legal. Feel free to uphold and support the practice all you wish. I'll restate my point...

    Just because abortion is LEGAL doesn't mean it isn't about willfully ending life.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    24,583

    Post

    Originally posted by eileen:
    it's an easy thing for males to know almost nothing about the female reproductive system, focusing on the strategies for removing the fetus and all the implications of that on the fetus, with absolutely no regard for what those strategies mean to the women they are being performed on.

    to me it's like the equivalent of a bunch of women discussing different ways to get a 4 pound kidney stone through a guy's penis, and talking all about the ways it affects the kidney stone without any regard for the person the penis belongs to.

    but then again, i forgot, women are just merely host organisms, so i guess we should just shut up and breed.
    The issue isnt the female reproductive system or knowledge of...

    This is an issue of rights.

  3. #103
    Bold Soul Guest

    Post

    Originally posted by Jamie Lennox:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by eileen:
    it's an easy thing for males to know almost nothing about the female reproductive system, focusing on the strategies for removing the fetus and all the implications of that on the fetus, with absolutely no regard for what those strategies mean to the women they are being performed on.

    to me it's like the equivalent of a bunch of women discussing different ways to get a 4 pound kidney stone through a guy's penis, and talking all about the ways it affects the kidney stone without any regard for the person the penis belongs to.

    but then again, i forgot, women are just merely host organisms, so i guess we should just shut up and breed.
    The issue isnt the female reproductive system or knowledge of...

    This is an issue of rights.
    </font>[/QUOTE]It is my view that Government has a responsibility to protect and defend the rights of the individual. Making abortion illegal infringes upon an individual's free will.

    Incarceration, euthanasia, execution and abortion are all INSTITUTIONS that also infringe upon the free will of another living being.

    Humans must evolve to deal with both halves of this dilemma. My guess is that it will take another millenium.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    oakland
    Posts
    178

    Post

    i'm not distorting anything when i talk about a kidney stone, i'm not making a one-for-one comparison with a kidney stone and fetus, i'm making a comparison about how a procedure like abortion would be perceived if it was being performed on a male's anatomy instead of a woman's.

    i'm saying think of how ridiculous it sounds to talk about this kidney stone example as though the male's health is irrelevant:

    like if someone said 'hmmm....should we slice up the kidney stone first or should we just attempt to squeeze it whole through his penis? oh, either way should be the same'. doing that would seem completely ludicrous! you have to consider how it impacts the male having that procedure, right?

    i mean, really, do you think it would be better for the male's health to squeeze the complete kidney stone through, or do you think it would be better for his health to make it smaller first?

    it's a no-brainer, right?

    well, it's a similar situation with abortions. but because we've got this medeival mentality in our society that the society can just dictate what it wants to do with women's bodies, that a bunch of politicians can make laws about it without a thorough knowledge of women's health issues, well it's no wonder we wind up with discussions like this.

    but if we were to actually consider a woman's health (god forbid) as being important, then we would realize that certain procedure types may be better for the woman's health. it's not all about the fetus.
    music is the answer to your problems. keep on dancing, and you can solve them.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    JC
    Posts
    16,372

    Post

    well, it's a similar situation with abortions. but because we've got this medeival mentality in our society that the society can just dictate what it wants to do with women's bodies, that a bunch of politicians can make laws about it without a thorough knowledge of women's health issues, well it's no wonder we wind up with discussions like this.
    Its not just about woman... They want to make decisions for everyone.. i.e. Dr. Kevorkian..

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Reigel 7
    Posts
    10,061

    Post

    i just want to point out that the shoulders of a fetus end to end are much wider than its head.
    "We're not just dancing to have fun-we're dancing for survival. We're dancing to save our lives." PTT

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    dc
    Posts
    39,385

    Post

    Originally posted by eileen:
    i'm not distorting anything when i talk about a kidney stone, i'm not making a one-for-one comparison with a kidney stone and fetus, i'm making a comparison about how a procedure like abortion would be perceived if it was being performed on a male's anatomy instead of a woman's.

    i'm saying think of how ridiculous it sounds to talk about this kidney stone example as though the male's health is irrelevant:

    like if someone said 'hmmm....should we slice up the kidney stone first or should we just attempt to squeeze it whole through his penis? oh, either way should be the same'. doing that would seem completely ludicrous! you have to consider how it impacts the male having that procedure, right?

    i mean, really, do you think it would be better for the male's health to squeeze the complete kidney stone through, or do you think it would be better for his health to make it smaller first?

    it's a no-brainer, right?

    well, it's a similar situation with abortions. but because we've got this medeival mentality in our society that the society can just dictate what it wants to do with women's bodies, that a bunch of politicians can make laws about it without a thorough knowledge of women's health issues, well it's no wonder we wind up with discussions like this.

    but if we were to actually consider a woman's health (god forbid) as being important, then we would realize that certain procedure types may be better for the woman's health. it's not all about the fetus.
    agreed, its not all about the fetus, but how much of it is?

  8. #108
    Bold Soul Guest

    Post

    Originally posted by eileen:
    i'm not distorting anything when i talk about a kidney stone, i'm not making a one-for-one comparison with a kidney stone and fetus, i'm making a comparison about how a procedure like abortion would be perceived if it was being performed on a male's anatomy instead of a woman's.

    i'm saying think of how ridiculous it sounds to talk about this kidney stone example as though the male's health is irrelevant:

    like if someone said 'hmmm....should we slice up the kidney stone first or should we just attempt to squeeze it whole through his penis? oh, either way should be the same'. doing that would seem completely ludicrous! you have to consider how it impacts the male having that procedure, right?

    i mean, really, do you think it would be better for the male's health to squeeze the complete kidney stone through, or do you think it would be better for his health to make it smaller first?

    it's a no-brainer, right?

    well, it's a similar situation with abortions. but because we've got this medeival mentality in our society that the society can just dictate what it wants to do with women's bodies, that a bunch of politicians can make laws about it without a thorough knowledge of women's health issues, well it's no wonder we wind up with discussions like this.

    but if we were to actually consider a woman's health (god forbid) as being important, then we would realize that certain procedure types may be better for the woman's health. it's not all about the fetus.
    We certainly agree on all points covered here.

    What I see is an imbalanced mentality has permeated society. For one to have what they require, another must do without. For one to win, another must lose.

    As I said, I think the only answer to the dilemma you've pointed out is the evolution of the human ideal...something that American society is not encouraging.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    dc
    Posts
    39,385

    Post

    Originally posted by eileen:
    actually, that's not why the procedure is performed that way, i'm just trying not to be extremely graphic about it like the discovery health channel and shit, but so be it.

    the fetus's head is not hard and formed, and the head is left in last so it can be essentially collapsed in order to fit through a smaller opening than if it was pulled out intact.

    expanding the cervical opening is called dilation and that's why it's significant here, and it's no joke. trust me, i know from personal experience.
    got it, the size of the cranium is reduced in order to fit through the cervix more easily, notwithstanding cosmic's point that the shoulders are wider than the head, perhaps they can be compressed or extricated one at a time. but that raises the question, why not perform a ceasarian to remove the fetus, certainly a more invasive procedure for the mom/woman but perhaps more humane than puncturing the cranium and suctioning the brain. i wonder what guage needle/suction they use?

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    JC
    Posts
    16,372

    Post

    Originally posted by mhd:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by eileen:
    actually, that's not why the procedure is performed that way, i'm just trying not to be extremely graphic about it like the discovery health channel and shit, but so be it.

    the fetus's head is not hard and formed, and the head is left in last so it can be essentially collapsed in order to fit through a smaller opening than if it was pulled out intact.

    expanding the cervical opening is called dilation and that's why it's significant here, and it's no joke. trust me, i know from personal experience.
    got it, the size of the cranium is reduced in order to fit through the cervix more easily, notwithstanding cosmic's point that the shoulders are wider than the head, perhaps they can be compressed or extricated one at a time. but that raises the question, why not perform a ceasarian to remove the fetus, certainly a more invasive procedure for the mom/woman but perhaps more humane than puncturing the cranium and suctioning the brain. i wonder what guage needle/suction they use? </font>[/QUOTE]Wow am I the only one that sees this.. [img]graemlins/conf44.gif[/img] Once the fetus is out of the womb its a seperate entity then the mother.. therefore it will be KILLING a child.. NOT aborting a fetus...

  11. #111
    Bold Soul Guest

    Post

    Originally posted by MYOR:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by eileen:
    actually, that's not why the procedure is performed that way, i'm just trying not to be extremely graphic about it like the discovery health channel and shit, but so be it.

    the fetus's head is not hard and formed, and the head is left in last so it can be essentially collapsed in order to fit through a smaller opening than if it was pulled out intact.

    expanding the cervical opening is called dilation and that's why it's significant here, and it's no joke. trust me, i know from personal experience.
    got it, the size of the cranium is reduced in order to fit through the cervix more easily, notwithstanding cosmic's point that the shoulders are wider than the head, perhaps they can be compressed or extricated one at a time. but that raises the question, why not perform a ceasarian to remove the fetus, certainly a more invasive procedure for the mom/woman but perhaps more humane than puncturing the cranium and suctioning the brain. i wonder what guage needle/suction they use? </font>[/QUOTE]Wow am I the only one that sees this.. [img]graemlins/conf44.gif[/img] Once the fetus is out of the womb its a seperate entity then the mother.. therefore it will be KILLING a child.. NOT aborting a fetus... </font>[/QUOTE]As I said, some illusory principle that a child is not alive until it passes through the womb of its mother leads to this barbaric practice.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    JC
    Posts
    16,372

    Post

    Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MYOR:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by eileen:
    actually, that's not why the procedure is performed that way, i'm just trying not to be extremely graphic about it like the discovery health channel and shit, but so be it.

    the fetus's head is not hard and formed, and the head is left in last so it can be essentially collapsed in order to fit through a smaller opening than if it was pulled out intact.

    expanding the cervical opening is called dilation and that's why it's significant here, and it's no joke. trust me, i know from personal experience.
    got it, the size of the cranium is reduced in order to fit through the cervix more easily, notwithstanding cosmic's point that the shoulders are wider than the head, perhaps they can be compressed or extricated one at a time. but that raises the question, why not perform a ceasarian to remove the fetus, certainly a more invasive procedure for the mom/woman but perhaps more humane than puncturing the cranium and suctioning the brain. i wonder what guage needle/suction they use? </font>[/QUOTE]Wow am I the only one that sees this.. [img]graemlins/conf44.gif[/img] Once the fetus is out of the womb its a seperate entity then the mother.. therefore it will be KILLING a child.. NOT aborting a fetus... </font>[/QUOTE]As I said, some illusory principle that a child is not alive until it passes through the womb of its mother leads to this barbaric practice. </font>[/QUOTE]True you did say that.. but I guess this illusion doesn't work on everyone......

  13. #113
    Bold Soul Guest

    Post

    Originally posted by MYOR:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MYOR:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by eileen:
    actually, that's not why the procedure is performed that way, i'm just trying not to be extremely graphic about it like the discovery health channel and shit, but so be it.

    the fetus's head is not hard and formed, and the head is left in last so it can be essentially collapsed in order to fit through a smaller opening than if it was pulled out intact.

    expanding the cervical opening is called dilation and that's why it's significant here, and it's no joke. trust me, i know from personal experience.
    got it, the size of the cranium is reduced in order to fit through the cervix more easily, notwithstanding cosmic's point that the shoulders are wider than the head, perhaps they can be compressed or extricated one at a time. but that raises the question, why not perform a ceasarian to remove the fetus, certainly a more invasive procedure for the mom/woman but perhaps more humane than puncturing the cranium and suctioning the brain. i wonder what guage needle/suction they use? </font>[/QUOTE]Wow am I the only one that sees this.. [img]graemlins/conf44.gif[/img] Once the fetus is out of the womb its a seperate entity then the mother.. therefore it will be KILLING a child.. NOT aborting a fetus... </font>[/QUOTE]As I said, some illusory principle that a child is not alive until it passes through the womb of its mother leads to this barbaric practice. </font>[/QUOTE]True you did say that.. but I guess this illusion doesn't work on everyone...... </font>[/QUOTE]If a woman can choose the act while being mindful that it is a willful ending of life, more power to them.

    Most women have to fool themselves as to the truth about abortion to choose the process. Women's "rights" groups and pro-choicers propaganda and rhetoric is as illusory and bombastic as pro-lifers and right wingers. Planned Parenthood gives you PAMPHLETS, not TEXTBOOKS.

    Show me a woman who looks at all the scientific facts related to abortion without rationalization and I'll show you a woman who registers at Target for her baby shower.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    JC
    Posts
    16,372

    Post

    Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MYOR:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MYOR:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by eileen:
    actually, that's not why the procedure is performed that way, i'm just trying not to be extremely graphic about it like the discovery health channel and shit, but so be it.

    the fetus's head is not hard and formed, and the head is left in last so it can be essentially collapsed in order to fit through a smaller opening than if it was pulled out intact.

    expanding the cervical opening is called dilation and that's why it's significant here, and it's no joke. trust me, i know from personal experience.
    got it, the size of the cranium is reduced in order to fit through the cervix more easily, notwithstanding cosmic's point that the shoulders are wider than the head, perhaps they can be compressed or extricated one at a time. but that raises the question, why not perform a ceasarian to remove the fetus, certainly a more invasive procedure for the mom/woman but perhaps more humane than puncturing the cranium and suctioning the brain. i wonder what guage needle/suction they use? </font>[/QUOTE]Wow am I the only one that sees this.. [img]graemlins/conf44.gif[/img] Once the fetus is out of the womb its a seperate entity then the mother.. therefore it will be KILLING a child.. NOT aborting a fetus... </font>[/QUOTE]As I said, some illusory principle that a child is not alive until it passes through the womb of its mother leads to this barbaric practice. </font>[/QUOTE]True you did say that.. but I guess this illusion doesn't work on everyone...... </font>[/QUOTE]If a woman can choose the act while being mindful that it is a willful ending of life, more power to them.

    Most women have to fool themselves as to the truth about abortion to choose the process. Women's "rights" groups and pro-choicers propaganda and rhetoric is as illusory and bombastic as pro-lifers and right wingers. Planned Parenthood gives you PAMPHLETS, not TEXTBOOKS.

    Show me a woman who looks at all the scientific facts related to abortion without rationalization and I'll show you a woman who registers at Target for her baby shower.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Most woman dont fool themselves... They choose what is best for them at the moment.. knowing full well that it would have been another life in this world..but its OUR CHOICE.. NOT ANYONE ELSE... We will have to live with it NOT YOU, NOT PRESIDENT BUSH, Not any Pro-Lifer...

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    dc
    Posts
    39,385

    Post

    Originally posted by MYOR:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MYOR:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MYOR:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by eileen:
    actually, that's not why the procedure is performed that way, i'm just trying not to be extremely graphic about it like the discovery health channel and shit, but so be it.

    the fetus's head is not hard and formed, and the head is left in last so it can be essentially collapsed in order to fit through a smaller opening than if it was pulled out intact.

    expanding the cervical opening is called dilation and that's why it's significant here, and it's no joke. trust me, i know from personal experience.
    got it, the size of the cranium is reduced in order to fit through the cervix more easily, notwithstanding cosmic's point that the shoulders are wider than the head, perhaps they can be compressed or extricated one at a time. but that raises the question, why not perform a ceasarian to remove the fetus, certainly a more invasive procedure for the mom/woman but perhaps more humane than puncturing the cranium and suctioning the brain. i wonder what guage needle/suction they use? </font>[/QUOTE]Wow am I the only one that sees this.. [img]graemlins/conf44.gif[/img] Once the fetus is out of the womb its a seperate entity then the mother.. therefore it will be KILLING a child.. NOT aborting a fetus... </font>[/QUOTE]As I said, some illusory principle that a child is not alive until it passes through the womb of its mother leads to this barbaric practice. </font>[/QUOTE]True you did say that.. but I guess this illusion doesn't work on everyone...... </font>[/QUOTE]If a woman can choose the act while being mindful that it is a willful ending of life, more power to them.

    Most women have to fool themselves as to the truth about abortion to choose the process. Women's "rights" groups and pro-choicers propaganda and rhetoric is as illusory and bombastic as pro-lifers and right wingers. Planned Parenthood gives you PAMPHLETS, not TEXTBOOKS.

    Show me a woman who looks at all the scientific facts related to abortion without rationalization and I'll show you a woman who registers at Target for her baby shower.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Most woman dont fool themselves... They choose what is best for them at the moment.. knowing full well that it would have been another life in this world..but its OUR CHOICE.. NOT ANYONE ELSE... We will have to live with it NOT YOU, NOT PRESIDENT BUSH, Not any Pro-Lifer...
    </font>[/QUOTE]there is no denying what you said, the fact is abortion rights/pro-choice is a political fight that women should always win, the irony is for the foreseeable future, most judges and legislators will be dominated by men, most conceptions involve men, so from the personal to the political we are in this together

  16. #116
    Bold Soul Guest

    Post

    Isn't the right to choose abortion the right to define life for not just you but another life form?

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Reigel 7
    Posts
    10,061

    Post

    Originally posted by MYOR:
    Most woman dont fool themselves... They choose what is best for them at the moment.. knowing full well that it would have been another life in this world..but its OUR CHOICE.. NOT ANYONE ELSE... We will have to live with it NOT YOU, NOT PRESIDENT BUSH, Not any Pro-Lifer...
    what about the father, grandparents, aunts, uncles, sisters & brothers. aside from the direct experience, is it really only the mother who has to live with it?
    "We're not just dancing to have fun-we're dancing for survival. We're dancing to save our lives." PTT

  18. #118
    Bold Soul Guest

    Post

    Isn't the right to choose abortion the right to define life for not just you but another life form?

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    oakland
    Posts
    178

    Post

    well first of all, i think the direct experience part IS the crux of it from a legislating sense. from a woman's point of view it is a question of whether a woman is legally forced to continue the direct experience of a pregnancy.

    hypotheticals are always problematic, but...

    if you could offer a woman a choice of an abortion procedure, or with the same level of medical invasiveness, just somehow remove the embryo or fetus instead of aborting it, raise it in a test tube somewhere and let it go along it's merry way to live a happy and fruitful life unbeknownst to the woman, i think that women would probably be just as happy to take that second option.

    both of these options solve the problem, and that is for a woman to end a pregancy she doesn't want to have.

    once the baby is living outside of the mother, it's a whole different thing. a father can take custody, the grandparents, the state, send the babies to another country for adoption, whatever.

    but it's something else entirely in my opinion, to actually step in and require that a woman must stay pregnant in order to serve any of these outside parties. that would be enforcing a woman's role as "breeder" above her other choices. maybe she doesn't want to stay in the pregnancy because she realized she's up for a promotion. maybe she just found out her sister has cancer. maybe the father ran off with her best friend.

    i think the choice is definitely hers to make, because like i said at the beginning, my view on it was definitely confirmed when i was pregnant and delivered both of my sons. no woman should be compelled to do go through it.
    music is the answer to your problems. keep on dancing, and you can solve them.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    New York, New York, United States
    Posts
    10,557

    Post

    question for those who believe that abortion is murder ... why do most "pro life" people also believe in the death penalty? How can one be right and the other wrong? What about euthenasia? Of course, that's willfully taking a human life, too. How about when a mother's life is in jeopardy if she gives birth? What about victims of rape and incest? What about the retarded girl who's impregnated by a rapist and who has no chance of being able to even understand the needs of her child?

    I'd love to find someone - anyone - who answers these questions with a consistent philosophy and yet believes a woman should not have the right to choose abortion.
    "MAY YOU LIVE AS LONG AS YOU WANT, BUT NEVER WANT AS LONG AS YOU LIVE. MAY YOU LIVE TO BE 100, & ME 100 BUT MINUS A DAY, SO THAT I'LL KNOW THAT NICE PEOPLE LIKE YOU, HAVE PASSED MY WAY. AND REMEMBER, WHEN FRANKIE CROCKER ISN'T ON YOUR RADIO, YOUR RADIO JUST ISN'T REALLY ON."

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    dc
    Posts
    39,385

    Post

    Originally posted by eileen:
    well first of all, i think the direct experience part IS the crux of it from a legislating sense. from a woman's point of view it is a question of whether a woman is legally forced to continue the direct experience of a pregnancy.

    hypotheticals are always problematic, but...

    if you could offer a woman a choice of an abortion procedure, or with the same level of medical invasiveness, just somehow remove the embryo or fetus instead of aborting it, raise it in a test tube somewhere and let it go along it's merry way to live a happy and fruitful life unbeknownst to the woman, i think that women would probably be just as happy to take that second option.

    both of these options solve the problem, and that is for a woman to end a pregancy she doesn't want to have.

    once the baby is living outside of the mother, it's a whole different thing. a father can take custody, the grandparents, the state, send the babies to another country for adoption, whatever.

    but it's something else entirely in my opinion, to actually step in and require that a woman must stay pregnant in order to serve any of these outside parties. that would be enforcing a woman's role as "breeder" above her other choices. maybe she doesn't want to stay in the pregnancy because she realized she's up for a promotion. maybe she just found out her sister has cancer. maybe the father ran off with her best friend.

    i think the choice is definitely hers to make, because like i said at the beginning, my view on it was definitely confirmed when i was pregnant and delivered both of my sons. no woman should be compelled to do go through it.
    eileen, appreciate your input, thanks for sharing your experience

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    dc
    Posts
    39,385

    Post

    Originally posted by JMNYC:
    question for those who believe that abortion is murder ... why do most "pro life" people also believe in the death penalty? How can one be right and the other wrong? What about euthenasia? Of course, that's willfully taking a human life, too. How about when a mother's life is in jeopardy if she gives birth? What about victims of rape and incest? What about the retarded girl who's impregnated by a rapist and who has no chance of being able to even understand the needs of her child?

    I'd love to find someone - anyone - who answers these questions with a consistent philosophy and yet believes a woman should not have the right to choose abortion.
    jon, what are your thoughts on partial birth abortions?

  23. #123
    Bold Soul Guest

    Post

    eileen - your courage is admirable and your communication is most effective. Thank you for providing. You are indeed a bold and courageous thinker.

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    NYC, NY
    Posts
    1,456

    Post

    Originally posted by MYOR:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by al boogie:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mhd:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by david mancuso:
    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Orion : Konbit:
    Repeat for emphasis:

    Doctors say:

    in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.
    This is ...the bottom line.

    d
    </font>[/QUOTE]there is a way to craft this legislation to ban partial birth abortions, of the brain sucking kind...
    </font>[/QUOTE]Even if there was a law with clear wording. . .why should there be legislation that bans a medical procedure that the doctors find ethical and useful?
    </font>[/QUOTE]first, explain to me when it is ethical and useful in your own words. i described the procedure in layman's terms and everybody in this thread, except you, ignored it. i don't get how you can endorse it but can't talk about it. on its face, the procedure reaches a level of barbarism even worse than capital punishment, imo. the choice to manipulate the fetus in the womb to turn it around and leave the head in the womb is a political choice, not a medical choice. so talk to me and leave the shortcomings of the right wing out of it, and lets assume that legal abortions are not threatened
    </font>[/QUOTE]i still haven't found this website womenissues.com that MYOR quoted if from...???
    </font>[/QUOTE]Here is the link señorita.. ;)
    http://womensissues.about.com/cs/par...albirthabo.htm
    </font>[/QUOTE]thanks for the link...it proved to me that this definition that you provided us with was written in the political text of a bill being presented, rather than a medical definition from an AMA journal, or something close to that nature. because i didn't read the definition to come from a medical text, i can deem it politically skewed...
    evolution revolution

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    NYC, NY
    Posts
    1,456

    Post

    Originally posted by gf:
    Funny how we all want to save the animals, feed the poor, help the homeless....etc, but to abort a embryo or a fetus is an acceptable practice.
    actually i don't see us all doing that.

    Originally posted by gf:
    I did not want to get back in to this but c'man guys think about it. Man the more I think about this the more it bothers me.

    Now do I have to post pictures of the procedure.
    please don't. then i'll post a pic of the removal of prostate or testicular cancer...and all of it is very ugly and gross to look at.

    [ October 25, 2003, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: al boogie ]
    evolution revolution

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •