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.
Reread his post that starts "I have every right to condemn them..." That is where his hatred and vitriol come into play. To be so closed minded and condemning is a real and dangerous form of hatred. Working to secure better and easier access to pregnancy prevention methods and child "support networks" which would help to make abortions more rare and less appealing is "protecting the unborn" condemning and name calling a woman who chooses to abort for whatever her reason is not.
I have never had an abortion. I raised two wonderful grown children that I would kill for. But, if I could not have kept them and raised them myself I would have had an abortion so I cannot condemn a choice I might have made for myself and I refuse to believe it is our place to protect an unwanted fetus unless we are willing to protect and support the mother (and just who is?). Forced childbirth is not something I could advocate.
"if I could not have kept them and raised them myself I would have had an abortion" This statement is unbelievable. So if you could not raise them yourself you would have killed/aborted them?? I want to make sure I understand your statement. if you couldnt raise them yourself you would rather they die than give them up for adoption and let them have life and be in a family that wants a child very badly and would give them love? Do your children know you feel this way. I certainly hope not. I am sure all adopted children, if you asked them if they would choose to be adopted or aborted, if their biological mother could not keep them, would all opt for life. To me this is like playing God. . .
If you didn't grew up in an environment of personal entitlement, it is difficult to understand how someone could be "pressured," "forced" or browbeaten into submission on any issue.
When we speak of force, it sounds like physical force, but all too often men had such sway over their women that verbal coercion was sufficient within the vows of marriage. By the time Fox Terrier refers to some of this thinking was being seriously questioned but up until the late 60s and even into the 70s, women had no support for independent thinking and certainly not for independent decision making. In earlier times, laws were actually on the books that forbade women from "disobeying" their husbands.
I believe Fox Terrier went as far as to say that "not even her mother" would come to her defense or rescue.
If anyone is interested, they might check out more about the early Greek and Roman manu law; also see India on current manu law. I believe this is post-biblical law on restrictions of the female partner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreameyes
I'm sorry you had to go through that Fox Terrier but in all honesty I wonder how a women can be "forced" into an abortion? Yes she may talk to the father and get his input and maybe even be pressured by him but ultimately the decision is hers. Personally there is no one that could ever "force" me to have an abortion.
If you didn't grew up in an environment of personal entitlement, it is difficult to understand how someone could be "pressured," "forced" or browbeaten into submission on any issue.
When we speak of force, it sounds like physical force, but all too often men had such sway over their women that verbal coercion was sufficient within the vows of marriage. By the time Fox Terrier refers to some of this thinking was being seriously questioned but up until the late 60s and even into the 70s, women had no support for independent thinking and certainly not for independent decision making. In earlier times, laws were actually on the books that forbade women from "disobeying" their husbands.
I believe Fox Terrier went as far as to say that "not even her mother" would come to her defense or rescue.
The terms being "forced" and being "pressured" into an abortion have vastly different meanings. And I do not understand your statement regarding "personal entitlement". I believe chosing to abort a fetus has much more to do with being brought up with morals and a conscience than it does entitlement!
My reference to "personal entitlement" refers not to the abortion, but rather to the freedom people have today that didn't exist in past generations. Today women have far more liberty and are nearly equal in decision making as men.
As for forced and pressured, I agree, these are very different terms and hold different weight. I might feel pressured, but not forced to make a decision and it is highly unlikely that I would be pressured into an abortion unless it was my wont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spunky1
The terms being "forced" and being "pressured" into an abortion have vastly different meanings. And I do not understand your statement regarding "personal entitlement". I believe chosing to abort a fetus has much more to do with being brought up with morals and a conscience than it does entitlement!
Kevan was born ten months ago at 23 weeks, Kevan, the youngest surviving baby known to have been born in Britain was the size of his mother's hand at birth and weighed one pound. He was allowed to go home from the hospital to join his family at six months.
In the United States, 36 states prohibit abortions after a certain point in pregnancy. Of those, 23 ban abortions at viability; five ban it in the third trimester; and eight ban the procedure after 24 weeks.
Had this child been conceived in the U.S., he could legally have been aborted in at least 31 states at the age he was born. Viability is determined by state and generally agreed to be no earlier than 20 weeks and no later than 27 weeks.
Here's Kevan after his birth:
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r199/MoMark/babyDM2503_154x100.jpg (broken link)
Here is Kevan now at 10 months weighing 15 pounds with his mother:
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r199/MoMark/babyKevan.jpg (broken link)
This puzzles me. Remember the Laci Peterson trial? Her husband Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering Laci and her unborn child. This child died in the womb. Why was Scott charged with a double murder? Laci was 8 months pregnant. Meaning the medical definiton of the unborn child is a fetus.
As much as you and I are here today, we were not fetuses, but humans. I am living proof that an unborn child is a human being.
If we look at MoMark's numbers (weeks) for viability, it is clear that the Peterson child was fully formed. 8 months = 32 weeks. It is prohibited to have an abortion at this stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina_native
This puzzles me. Remember the Laci Peterson trial? Her husband Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering Laci and her unborn child. This child died in the womb. Why was Scott charged with a double murder? Laci was 8 months pregnant. Meaning the medical definiton of the unborn child is a fetus.
As much as you and I are here today, we were not fetuses, but humans. I am living proof that an unborn child is a human being.
If we look at MoMark's numbers (weeks) for viability, it is clear that the Peterson child was fully formed. 8 months = 32 weeks. It is prohibited to have an abortion at this stage.
But wasn't the child still a part of Laci's body and should not the government stay out of it?
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.
