The March for Life Banners the Media Won’t Show You (politician, Maryland)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There you have it, pregnancy is nothing more than an "inconvenience".
Pregnancy is not an inconvenience, quite the opposite, pregnancy is a huge deal that can negatively effect a woman's job, her finances, her health and could even end her life.
Not something a woman should be forced to go through against her will.
Even more egregious, some think a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy and deliver to provide the adoption industry with more product. That thinking assigns women to the status of breeding stock and that is sickening.
OK. But, what does this have to do with what I posted? I asked a two pronged question. One being, how is using the term,"inconvenience" , to describe pregnancy , up for criticism by people who describe pregnancy as, basically, a disease? I.E. parasitical, tumorous, ad nauseum? And number two, since a premature birth, often, cannot survive on its own, outside the womb, is said birth a "baby" or just an expelled mass of parasitical tissue?
I'm. neither defending or denigrating anyone. Just a simple question. Posting the "inconvenience" quote was not required, as I didn't deny that such things were said. Just that I , personally, hadn't seen any such. OK, now I have. Not that it matters to me. My questions remain the same, and also remain unanswered. There you have it....
As an addendum, I am quite aware at how serious an issue pregnancy is, and how it can change lives. Been there for the last 19 years. But , again, its not my intention to take sides on the lines here. I'm just asking for clarification of a couple, specific, areas.
Last edited by NVplumber; 01-29-2015 at 07:20 PM..
Even Obama admits he doesn't know when life begins
I recall Obama stating that he is not in favor of providing life-sustaining assistance and medical care to a baby that survives abortion because it would be going against the woman’s wishes. I remember it because it was such a shocking and outrageous statement.
He admits he is undecided on whether life begins at conception: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.
“there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life...”
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."
[My conclusion: Note, he calls it "a child"! clearly, this must mean that the child, who survives an abortion, cannot be deemed to be a human being simply because of a technicality with the definition and potential conflict with the 14th Amendment.]
In 1997 He Voted against banning partial birth abortion:
Obama, as a member of the Illinois Senate, opposed a state version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a measure that would make sure babies who survive abortions are given proper medical care.
OK. But, what does this have to do with what I posted? I asked a two pronged question. One being, how is using the term,"inconvenience" , to describe pregnancy , up for criticism by people who describe pregnancy as, basically, a disease? I.E. parasitical, tumorous, ad nauseum? And number two, since a premature birth, often, cannot survive on its own, outside the womb, is said birth a "baby" or just an expelled mass of parasitical tissue?
I'm. neither defending or denigrating anyone. Just a simple question. Posting the "inconvenience" quote was not required, as I didn't deny that such things were said. Just that I , personally, hadn't seen any such. OK, now I have. Not that it matters to me. My questions remain the same, and also remain unanswered. There you have it....
As an addendum, I am quite aware at how serious an issue pregnancy is, and how it can change lives. Been there for the last 19 years. But , again, its not my intention to take sides on the lines here. I'm just asking for clarification of a couple, specific, areas.
The term "inconvenience" is up for criticism because it is erroneously used to portray the woman as selfish......as if carrying a pregnancy for 9 months and giving birth is a walk in the park. Nothing to it, ho hum.
Would you describe having a tumor as an inconvenience? I wouldn't. If I found out I was infected with parasites, would I call that an inconvenience? NO.
If I forget to pick up a loaf of bread on the way home, I would call that an inconvenience.
When a man is diagnosed with prostrate cancer and has to go through months of uncomfortable treatments or surgery, missed work, financial loss, risk of losing his life, would you call that a minor inconvenience?
No? Then tell me where pro-lifers get off assigning that term to pregnancy.
I didn't answer your second question because I thought jjrose's response answered it.
Once a fetus can survive outside of the womb, whether it can survive on its own or not, it is a baby. There are many people of all ages that cannot survive on their own, but they do not need to be tethered to one specific person 24/7 to survive.
Then they don a tea party flag and spew on about how food stamps and other entitlements need to be cut. Or they pitch the ***** that they have to pay for free birth control with their taxes, and argue that abstinence should be taught as a valid form of sexual education . Anti abortion activists don't give a fig about the child or the mother. They are just concerned with shoving their archaic draconian views down everyones throats. So please stop with the whole "we care about the babies" speech. The actions of your kind tell us a different story.
That is simply not true and said to slur pro-lifers. Here is an article that disproves it.
"One of the greatest lies and slurs hurled at pro-lifers is that we only care about the baby until it is born.
“Are you prepared to pay for that child of poverty in order to help raise it for the next eighteen years? No?? Then shut up about abortion!”
It’s a clever little manipulation, though not much in the way of an argument."
I recall Obama stating that he is not in favor of providing life-sustaining assistance and medical care to a baby that survives abortion because it would be going against the woman’s wishes. I remember it because it was such a shocking and outrageous statement.
He admits he is undecided on whether life begins at conception: This is something that I have not come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.
“there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life...”
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."
[My conclusion: Note, he calls it "a child"! clearly, this must mean that the child, who survives an abortion, cannot be deemed to be a human being simply because of a technicality with the definition and potential conflict with the 14th Amendment.]
In 1997 He Voted against banning partial birth abortion:
Obama, as a member of the Illinois Senate, opposed a state version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a measure that would make sure babies who survive abortions are given proper medical care.
"One of the greatest lies and slurs hurled at pro-lifers is that we only care about the baby until it is born.
“Are you prepared to pay for that child of poverty in order to help raise it for the next eighteen years? No?? Then shut up about abortion!”
It’s a clever little manipulation, though not much in the way of an argument."
"It was on the internet, so it must be true."
The thing is we can see the ACTIONS of those who call themselves "pro life" and their actions speak louder that your blog.
They claim that "every child is wanted" yet there are still children that age out of the system.
They claim that "we support the mother" yet welfare gets cut and the woman is called a leech or a "welfare queen"
They claim that they want to reduce abortions yet constantly push for "abstinence only" education. And don't fight for the ONE thing that has proven to reduce abortions, free long term BC.
So excuse me if I don't believe your article, but I have seen this dance in real life.
"One of the greatest lies and slurs hurled at pro-lifers is that we only care about the baby until it is born.
“Are you prepared to pay for that child of poverty in order to help raise it for the next eighteen years? No?? Then shut up about abortion!”
It’s a clever little manipulation, though not much in the way of an argument."
When my boyfriend took me for a recent pelvic exam at the local Planned Parenthood, we had to wade through dozens of awful pro-lifers shouting at me to change my mind (change my mind about what, I wondered - scraping off some cervical cells for my health?). My boyfriend's mom considered getting an abortion but was talked out of it. She was in no way prepared to have a child - much less the 2 more that followed. She had a mental breakdown and visciously abused my boyfriend when he was all of 6 years old. He ended up in the foster care system. Both of his parents were dead of drug overdoses before he hit his teens and he was split up from his two younger sisters. None of them ever found permanent homes, spending most of their teen years in glorified orphanages known as group homes. They all aged out of the system into homelessness as do more than half of foster care kids. His sister, like 75% of girls who age out of the system, was pregnant for the first time within 18 months of aging out. She is 25 and has had 5 pregnancies - most aborted because it's pretty hard to be pregnant when you're homeless and have no support. The other sister has hepatitis from dirty needles - drug abuse is also very common for foster care kids who age out of the system. None have gone to college, and why should that be a surprise? Only 3-6% of children who age out of the foster care system get a further education.
Imagine turning 18 and being booted on your tush - no fall back, no parental or family support, often having no idea how to open a bank account, boil water, or set a basic budget.
So, excuse me if we take issue with the statement that pro-lifers care about unwanted children after they are born. Given the number of pro-lifers (in the millions), why are there over 100,000 children in the system RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT? Why is there a SINGLE child who cannot find a permanent home? Why is there a single very scared 18 year old who has never had a moment of love or security in their life being told to go figure it out alone in the world? Where are these pro-lifers?
How many fosters have you taken in?
Edited to add: In addition to the horrible childhood and subsequent difficult young adulthood that I have described, all 3 kids were physically and sexually abused in the system - either by foster parents or their bio children, other kids in the group homes, or staff in the group homes. This is exceptionally common given the average foster care parent. So few people apply to be a foster parent that for every fantastic parent out there, there are a handful more who are in it for the money (i.e. the year my boyfriend lived in an Auschwitz style bunker with two 4 level bunkbeds and 8 to a 10 x 10 room).
It's not a huge surprise, given all the circumstances, that nearly half of all foster kids who age out of the system end up incarcerated within 18 months. One system to another.
Last edited by charolastra00; 01-30-2015 at 07:00 AM..
The thing is we can see the ACTIONS of those who call themselves "pro life" and their actions speak louder that your blog.
They claim that "every child is wanted" yet there are still children that age out of the system.
They claim that "we support the mother" yet welfare gets cut and the woman is called a leech or a "welfare queen"
They claim that they want to reduce abortions yet constantly push for "abstinence only" education. And don't fight for the ONE thing that has proven to reduce abortions, free long term BC.
So excuse me if I don't believe your article, but I have seen this dance in real life.
You could call those homes or places that provide services and find out easily for yourself but you probably won't do that. None so blind as those who will not see.
When my boyfriend took me for a recent pelvic exam at the local Planned Parenthood, we had to wade through dozens of awful pro-lifers shouting at me to change my mind (change my mind about what, I wondered - scraping off some cervical cells for my health?). My boyfriend's mom considered getting an abortion but was talked out of it. She was in no way prepared to have a child - much less the 2 more that followed. She had a mental breakdown and visciously abused my boyfriend when he was all of 6 years old. He ended up in the foster care system. Both of his parents were dead of drug overdoses before he hit his teens and he was split up from his two younger sisters. None of them ever found permanent homes, spending most of their teen years in glorified orphanages known as group homes. They all aged out of the system into homelessness as do more than half of foster care kids. His sister, like 75% of girls who age out of the system, was pregnant for the first time within 18 months of aging out. She is 25 and has had 5 pregnancies - most aborted because it's pretty hard to be pregnant when you're homeless and have no support. The other sister has hepatitis from dirty needles - drug abuse is also very common for foster care kids who age out of the system. None have gone to college, and why should that be a surprise? Only 3-6% of children who age out of the foster care system get a further education.
Imagine turning 18 and being booted on your tush - no fall back, no parental or family support, often having no idea how to open a bank account, boil water, or set a basic budget.
So, excuse me if we take issue with the statement that pro-lifers care about unwanted children after they are born. Given the number of pro-lifers (in the millions), why are there over 100,000 children in the system RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT? Why is there a SINGLE child who cannot find a permanent home? Why is there a single very scared 18 year old who has never had a moment of love or security in their life being told to go figure it out alone in the world? Where are these pro-lifers?
How many fosters have you taken in?
Edited to add: In addition to the horrible childhood and subsequent difficult young adulthood that I have described, all 3 kids were physically and sexually abused in the system - either by foster parents or their bio children, other kids in the group homes, or staff in the group homes. This is exceptionally common given the average foster care parent. So few people apply to be a foster parent that for every fantastic parent out there, there are a handful more who are in it for the money (i.e. the year my boyfriend lived in an Auschwitz style bunker with two 4 level bunkbeds and 8 to a 10 x 10 room).
It's not a huge surprise, given all the circumstances, that nearly half of all foster kids who age out of the system end up incarcerated within 18 months. One system to another.
Your boyfriend went through a life like that and didn't learn not to bring a child into the world until he was ready to be a good father? Now that is really sad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even Obama admits he doesn't know when life begins
. Anti abortion activists don't give a fig about the child or the mother. They are just concerned with shoving their archaic draconian views down everyones throats. So please stop with the whole "we care about the babies" speech. The actions of your kind tell us a different story.
