I've become annoyed with a couple of the people who are commenting here, so until I decide otherwise, I'm just going to nuke anything they say without reading it. It's my blog. It's my right.
Indeed, because their comments seem to be centered around, "As long as she has the abortion, everything else doesn't matter."
On the last post, if I walked into my doctor's office and said I wanted X prescription or Y procedure, and he had to give it to me NOW because it was my "right", the doctor would most likely have me escorted from the clinic.
At the end of my pregnancy with my first son, I had a horrible nosebleed. I literally had a plastic bag full of bloody tissues and the front of my nightshirt was all bloody. I looked like I'd been shot. I ended up going to the ER because it wouldn't stop. Not only did they not let my husband or dad (who drove us to the hospital) come back with me, every staff member who saw me asked the same question:
Does anyone in your house hit or otherwise physically/verbally abuse you?
And I saw 3-4 staff members, including the doctor.
So WHY, if abortionists care so much about women, wouldn't they ask the same thing. Why wouldn't the ask women if they are being abused, forced, or otherwise coerced into having an abortion? Why wouldn't they do due diligence in really making sure a woman WANTED an abortion? I'm not saying ALL women would change their minds, but a good portion of them would, since studies show upwards of 60% of post-abortive women indicate they were pressured or threatened in some way to abort their child (usually by the father - talk about a "woman's choice").
They who defend abortionists not doing this are just as culpable as the men, family and friends who push a woman through the clinic doors and tell her to kill her child. And, like those abortionists, they don't pay attention to the vast numbers of women who suffer real physical and emotional trauma after an abortion.
So long the procedure results in a dead baby, hey, no due diligence is needed. No follow up is needed.
There's a difference between a woman with a huge nosebleed and a woman walking in the door. In the first case you have an unusual situation that lends itself to suggest abuse. In the second you don't.
But you never answered my questions: don't abortionists have a duty to ASK about abuse? To REALLY, and TRULY make sure a woman is not being pressured or threatened to have an abortion? I had no bruises, no other marks, no prior history of abuse on my record (this is the hospital where my OB-GYN office is, so they have my records). And, moreover, the question was also asked when I walked in the door to deliver my son. By every nurse I saw before and during L&D, and while I recovered. It's a repeated process and I'm not the only one. So a nosebleed may be more obvious, but then why'd they ask me when I went in to have my baby, having no outward signs of abuse on my person?
Furthermore some portion of those women are almost certainly changing the story after the facts, in the same way that if you poll people after an election a lot more of them say they voted for the winner than actually voted for the winner. People lie in polls when they think the truth makes them look bad.
So now those women are liars? Okay, I get it. If abortion's no big deal - as you posit - then why would women feel the need to "look good" afterward and lie, unless they didn't really want an abortion but were left with no other option? I always marvel at how people who argue abortion helps women have no problem turning around and throwing the SAME women under the bus when they question whether or not (or say outright) that abortion was not right and they regret it.
And what happened to "choice?" Shouldn't people who think abortion is between a woman and her doctor be outraged that even ONE woman is pressured or threatened into having an abortion? Doesn't that intimidation take away her choice?
I guess it doesn't matter, so long as the result is a dead baby though, because if it did, pro-aborts would work to make sure women weren't facing external pressure from people (usually the MEN who father the children).
Funny, I don't feel culpable.
That's your character flaw then, not mine. But you are. Just as people here asserted I'm responsible for the death of George Tiller and, afterward, the death of the guard at the National Holocaust Museum.
I totally agree with you, Amy. The end result that is most important to pro-aborts is a dead baby. I believe that it has something to do with world population control. Maybe. I can hear them now... "It's better to kill babies than to overpopulate our world." I actually talked to someone that said that. It's pretty scary to hear.
SegaMon, how is that different to your thinking that the most important thing is a live baby? That's what used to happen - the live babies were just left on pavements and in front of foundling homes where 90% died of disease and starvation.
And about overpopulation - yeah - lets just foregt about that and procreate - who needs any human free zones so wild animals can exist - F*&k the Tigers - they don't deserve to be here!
Chrsitina, I'm not trying to be rude - but come on?
Lil, do you hear yourself? You're saying, "What's so great about a live baby?" and criticizing people for being unhappy about babies being killed.
Do you take that attitude about Darfur? That the people who want to stop the genocide need to think about tigers and overpopulation and stop being so obsessed with live people?
No Christina - I wrote my comment in reply to Segamon who said that that to pro aborts the most important thing is a dead baby. To pro life people the most important thing is a live baby - they don't care how its going to live, what kind of quality of life it will have, and what kind of affect its going to have on the rest of the population and the world - so that they don't turn into the killing machines in Darfur.
I do worry about Tigers, and Sharks and Cheetahs and Baboons and I worry that they will be extinct very soon. I wonder why that doesn't bother you?
And about overpopulation - yeah - lets just foregt about that and procreate - who needs any human free zones so wild animals can exist - F*&k the Tigers - they don't deserve to be here!
Um, and never mind that in most Western nations there's ZERO or negative population growth. Darned humans, messing everything up for animals.
I note, however, you're not willing to make any personal sacrifice to make things better for the tigers. Like most "save the animals!" types, as long as it's other people dying, you're cool with that.
Do you give your friends who have kids a, "Sorry your baby lived, you earth-destroyer" cards?
"I note, however, you're not willing to make any personal sacrifice to make things better for the tigers. Like most "save the animals!" types, as long as it's other people dying, you're cool with that."
Amy, What would you consider that to be?
"Do you give your friends who have kids a, "Sorry your baby lived, you earth-destroyer" cards?"
Amy, are you serious? Is that a mature comment to make about the destruction of natural habitats to make way for more human beings. Do you have something constructive to say about how we can different species can co exist without wiping each other out?
I consider that to be that those who say X policies are good need to adhere to them first. For example, human extinction folks have no problem talking about killing 4 million (or more) people, but never seem willing to shed THEIR mortal coil to advance their cause.
So, if you say, oppose having kids, do you have any? If you oppose massive energy consumption, what do YOU do to reduce your usage? If you think driving is bad, how do YOU commute.
I find a lot of the die-hard, "you can't DO that" eco-types (like Al Gore) turn around and do the exact same things they tell us we're forbidden to do. I believe Ted Turner, for example, said we should only have 1 or 2 children, but he has 3 or 4 or 5.
If these ideas are so good, I want to see people who offer them live by those standards for a set period of time before making the rest of us follow.
I don't believe in global warming. I don't believe in cap and trade. I believe that my lifestyle is a good way to be a steward to the earth, even with lots of kids (because we hand down clothes and toys and furniture rather than buy new), but I don't expect congress to legislate it.
Above all, I believe human beings are special. That WE are created in the image and likeness of God and, therefore, worthy of life. I do not believe it's rational, sane, or compassionate to kill our fellow human beings to save the planet for animals. I believe in treating animals kindly, but they are here to be our beasts of burden (i.e. horses, oxen), our companions (dogs and cats) and our food (cows and pigs). And that they should not be elevated to a level more important than any human being. Animals have a remarkable ability to adapt, and do in a lot of circumstances.
Is that a mature comment to make about the destruction of natural habitats to make way for more human beings.
It's more mature than the "What's so great about a live baby?" comment you made earlier. How is that not EXTREMELY childish and immature?
You lament the destruction of animals, but not of your fellow human beings. Hell, even animals (like elephants) mourn when one of their own dies. Most mothers, in nature, are extremely protective of their young (as in, see a baby bear in the woods, run the other way as fast as you can because mama's around and she'll be angry). But we're not supposed to be?
Your argument is based on the presumption that one's state in birth will ALWAYS be one's state in life. Are kids born into poverty at a disadvantage? Perhaps. But that's not a locked guarantee they'll stay that way. And the fact that a lot of children born into poverty are of different races only reaffirms the notion that pro-aborts are proudly carrying forth with Sanger's vision of abortion as eugenics.
Second, you believe it's better to be dead than to deal with the difficulties of life. Life is always rife with potential for difficulties. If I lose my job, or my house, does that mean I'm justified in killing my 2-year-old son because it's better that he's 6 feet under than dealing with what, in all likelihood, is a temporary state of being?
Lastly, if we're supposed to "save the planet" - who are we saving it for? Only people who are wealthy? White? Genetically perfect? What's your standard? And how is it not racist or somehow bigoted? Only the people YOU and Al Gore deem worthy of life?
Amy, I don't have any children, I only use public transport because I don't have a car, I am don't eat meat or chicken and hope 1 day not to eat fish either - but I'm a work in progress what can I say. I don't know if that's enough walking the talk for you?
I don't think you have a clue about what is going on outside of your neighbourhood in terms of animal welfare and environmental destruction. You have no idea where your children's burgers come from - and you don't care either - that's fine, but don't get angry when people feel uncomfortable with factory farming and want to expose it to the rest of teh world in the hope that things will get better.
"Most mothers, in nature, are extremely protective of their young"
Amy, if you had to actually do any zoological research into mammalian or avian breeding you would find that they practice birth control. This is to ensure that the fittest survive. Birds will lay eggs in different stages so that the oldest pecks the youngest to death, ensuring he gets the most food. That same bear who is protecting her cub from attack will have no problem letting it starve or eating it if there is no food. Even current hunter gatherer societies will decide wether to keep babies alive or not depending on food supply and fitness of the baby born. We as humans, have always practiced birth control - and believe me before abortion - it was much more painful for the babies.
I don't understand what you mean by this whole Eugenics thing - are you telling me that women in the third world would not enjoy the freedom of being able to choose when to have a baby or not - like their Western counterparts. Do they not deserve the same freedom that we so enjoy here in the West - or is it only them that have to suffer the slow death of their children when they cannot feed them?
Finally this is the cherry on the top:
"Animals have a remarkable ability to adapt, and do in a lot of circumstances."
Lil, you're making quite a leap to go from "I care about whether or not babies are slaughtered" to "I don't care if tigers go extinct." You'll have to fill in the gaps there.
And the whole "quality of life" thing is something that might salve your conscience ("Oh, it's okay to rip the babies up because they'd have just suffered anyway." but it doesn't pass the logic test. You might just as well vent your spleen on firefighters for pulling peopel out of burning buildings and paramedics for rushing them to the burn center, with no regard for all the suffering the person will face while undergoing treatment. If "This person might suffer, so better to kill him" we need to just nuke the entire earth and get it over with, because -- news flash -- everybody suffers.
The solution to suffering isn't to kill people who might suffer. It's to alleviate the causes of their suffering.
Why abort a mentally disabled baby to prevent him from being locked away in a horrible institution? The baby didn't create the horrible institution. Adults did. Why not shut down the institution and come up with better ways to care for the mentally disabled? And if you think that killing people is an okay way to alleviate suffering, you'd alleviate far more suffering by killing the people who run the horrible institutions, wouldn't you? Because if deprived of their mentally disabled people, they'd just fine other vulnerable people to inflict misery on.
I guess you and I have different ways of looking at things. I see the long history of human birth control which includes infanticide and realise that through abortion we are actually being more humane. I know that this seems ridiculous to you, but its true - babies were left on side of the roads if they were healthy, never mind the disabled ones. I wish will all my heart that a safe and long lasting birth control method is created so that there doesn't need to be any more abortion. I believe it will happen - and I hope it will be available to all who want it.
As for the quality of life issue, again we see things differently, I know that a baby needs to have good enough parenting in order to grow into a good human being - and even with good enough parenting there isn't a guarantee that they won't turn pathological. I do not see the point of forcing women to have babies they cannot emotionally or physically look after so when their children turn into criminals then you think its ok to kill them. It would be ok if it was just them but by then they have already destroyed someone else's life.
Of course I know that you can't tell exactly who is going to turn into a criminal, but if you have a single, young, poor women who is already struggling to look after the babies she does have with different fathers then its not rocket science to think that her new baby isn't going to have the basic minimum requirements of life. And no I don't think she should have her baby as a gift for infertile couples - I think she should preserve her energy and resources to look after the children she does have or into getting herself in a better financial situation.
I don't believe in giving people enough rope to hang themselves with.
Don't you want to just scream at them "Use a bloody Condom!"
I want to scream at them, "Keep your pants zipped!"
Why is it that people are total slaves to their hormones, screwing up their own lives and creating children whose lives they then either end or screw up? Contrary to popular belief, it's possible to have a full, satisfying life without having sex in untenable situations.
Yeah, I know married people are another matter -- but even then, there is birth control that can reduce the number of unintended pregnancies if used consistently and in tandem with basic fertility awareness. Which again involves at least sometimes keeping the pants zipped.
And here's a HUGE pet peeve -- why don't the prochoice groups, whose mantra is about women controlling their own bodies, fight as hard for the right to a tubal ligation as they do for the right to abortion? There's something the woman is really doing to just her own body, but it's almost impossible to get somebody to do one unless you already have a houseful of filthy, starving children.
I have my tubes tied, I got them tied after my third child because that was all the children we wanted. I think if DR's were opened minded about giving this operation to woman (I was 20 years old when I got my tubes tied and even then *being married, thried one on the way, me & my hubby both working good jobs*) the DR didn't want to do the operation. I had to fight for it, but you know if I wanted to abort at 27 weeks because I was depressed I could do it in a nano second. I guess that confused me a but, so the a pro-choice doctor I HAD to see when I was pregnant, I used this line, 'If woman have the right to choose to have a baby or not shouldn't birth control be a choice also? I mean I am choosing not to ever have a baby again.; Once I used that line to her she signed my paperwork for my tubal.
Good for you, Krystal, But why don't prochoice organizations beat that drum?
They beat the Pill drum, and the condom drum, and the abortion drum, and the depo drum -- but they draw the line at fiercely advocating for a woman's right to choose to end her fertility.
On what grounds? "Oh, she might regret it later!?" That's true of abortion but that doesn't stop them from advocating it as an on-demand right. Why not tubal ligations, not on demand, but after an informed consent process? Do some sociological research into what process helps women make informed tubal ligation choices that they are unlikely to regret later?
19 comments:
Indeed, because their comments seem to be centered around, "As long as she has the abortion, everything else doesn't matter."
On the last post, if I walked into my doctor's office and said I wanted X prescription or Y procedure, and he had to give it to me NOW because it was my "right", the doctor would most likely have me escorted from the clinic.
At the end of my pregnancy with my first son, I had a horrible nosebleed. I literally had a plastic bag full of bloody tissues and the front of my nightshirt was all bloody. I looked like I'd been shot. I ended up going to the ER because it wouldn't stop. Not only did they not let my husband or dad (who drove us to the hospital) come back with me, every staff member who saw me asked the same question:
Does anyone in your house hit or otherwise physically/verbally abuse you?
And I saw 3-4 staff members, including the doctor.
So WHY, if abortionists care so much about women, wouldn't they ask the same thing. Why wouldn't the ask women if they are being abused, forced, or otherwise coerced into having an abortion? Why wouldn't they do due diligence in really making sure a woman WANTED an abortion? I'm not saying ALL women would change their minds, but a good portion of them would, since studies show upwards of 60% of post-abortive women indicate they were pressured or threatened in some way to abort their child (usually by the father - talk about a "woman's choice").
They who defend abortionists not doing this are just as culpable as the men, family and friends who push a woman through the clinic doors and tell her to kill her child. And, like those abortionists, they don't pay attention to the vast numbers of women who suffer real physical and emotional trauma after an abortion.
So long the procedure results in a dead baby, hey, no due diligence is needed. No follow up is needed.
There's a difference between a woman with a huge nosebleed and a woman walking in the door. In the first case you have an unusual situation that lends itself to suggest abuse. In the second you don't.
But you never answered my questions: don't abortionists have a duty to ASK about abuse? To REALLY, and TRULY make sure a woman is not being pressured or threatened to have an abortion? I had no bruises, no other marks, no prior history of abuse on my record (this is the hospital where my OB-GYN office is, so they have my records). And, moreover, the question was also asked when I walked in the door to deliver my son. By every nurse I saw before and during L&D, and while I recovered. It's a repeated process and I'm not the only one. So a nosebleed may be more obvious, but then why'd they ask me when I went in to have my baby, having no outward signs of abuse on my person?
Furthermore some portion of those women are almost certainly changing the story after the facts, in the same way that if you poll people after an election a lot more of them say they voted for the winner than actually voted for the winner. People lie in polls when they think the truth makes them look bad.
So now those women are liars? Okay, I get it. If abortion's no big deal - as you posit - then why would women feel the need to "look good" afterward and lie, unless they didn't really want an abortion but were left with no other option? I always marvel at how people who argue abortion helps women have no problem turning around and throwing the SAME women under the bus when they question whether or not (or say outright) that abortion was not right and they regret it.
And what happened to "choice?" Shouldn't people who think abortion is between a woman and her doctor be outraged that even ONE woman is pressured or threatened into having an abortion? Doesn't that intimidation take away her choice?
I guess it doesn't matter, so long as the result is a dead baby though, because if it did, pro-aborts would work to make sure women weren't facing external pressure from people (usually the MEN who father the children).
Funny, I don't feel culpable.
That's your character flaw then, not mine. But you are. Just as people here asserted I'm responsible for the death of George Tiller and, afterward, the death of the guard at the National Holocaust Museum.
"So now those women are liars?"
Yeah, it's funny how fast "trust women" goes out the window when the pro-aborts don't like what they have to say...
I totally agree with you, Amy. The end result that is most important to pro-aborts is a dead baby. I believe that it has something to do with world population control. Maybe. I can hear them now... "It's better to kill babies than to overpopulate our world." I actually talked to someone that said that. It's pretty scary to hear.
SegaMon, how is that different to your thinking that the most important thing is a live baby? That's what used to happen - the live babies were just left on pavements and in front of foundling homes where 90% died of disease and starvation.
And about overpopulation - yeah - lets just foregt about that and procreate - who needs any human free zones so wild animals can exist - F*&k the Tigers - they don't deserve to be here!
Chrsitina, I'm not trying to be rude - but come on?
Lil, do you hear yourself? You're saying, "What's so great about a live baby?" and criticizing people for being unhappy about babies being killed.
Do you take that attitude about Darfur? That the people who want to stop the genocide need to think about tigers and overpopulation and stop being so obsessed with live people?
No Christina - I wrote my comment in reply to Segamon who said that that to pro aborts the most important thing is a dead baby. To pro life people the most important thing is a live baby - they don't care how its going to live, what kind of quality of life it will have, and what kind of affect its going to have on the rest of the population and the world - so that they don't turn into the killing machines in Darfur.
I do worry about Tigers, and Sharks and Cheetahs and Baboons and I worry that they will be extinct very soon. I wonder why that doesn't bother you?
And about overpopulation - yeah - lets just foregt about that and procreate - who needs any human free zones so wild animals can exist - F*&k the Tigers - they don't deserve to be here!
Um, and never mind that in most Western nations there's ZERO or negative population growth. Darned humans, messing everything up for animals.
I note, however, you're not willing to make any personal sacrifice to make things better for the tigers. Like most "save the animals!" types, as long as it's other people dying, you're cool with that.
Do you give your friends who have kids a, "Sorry your baby lived, you earth-destroyer" cards?
"I note, however, you're not willing to make any personal sacrifice to make things better for the tigers. Like most "save the animals!" types, as long as it's other people dying, you're cool with that."
Amy, What would you consider that to be?
"Do you give your friends who have kids a, "Sorry your baby lived, you earth-destroyer" cards?"
Amy, are you serious? Is that a mature comment to make about the destruction of natural habitats to make way for more human beings. Do you have something constructive to say about how we can different species can co exist without wiping each other out?
Amy, What would you consider that to be?
I consider that to be that those who say X policies are good need to adhere to them first. For example, human extinction folks have no problem talking about killing 4 million (or more) people, but never seem willing to shed THEIR mortal coil to advance their cause.
So, if you say, oppose having kids, do you have any? If you oppose massive energy consumption, what do YOU do to reduce your usage? If you think driving is bad, how do YOU commute.
I find a lot of the die-hard, "you can't DO that" eco-types (like Al Gore) turn around and do the exact same things they tell us we're forbidden to do. I believe Ted Turner, for example, said we should only have 1 or 2 children, but he has 3 or 4 or 5.
If these ideas are so good, I want to see people who offer them live by those standards for a set period of time before making the rest of us follow.
I don't believe in global warming. I don't believe in cap and trade. I believe that my lifestyle is a good way to be a steward to the earth, even with lots of kids (because we hand down clothes and toys and furniture rather than buy new), but I don't expect congress to legislate it.
Above all, I believe human beings are special. That WE are created in the image and likeness of God and, therefore, worthy of life. I do not believe it's rational, sane, or compassionate to kill our fellow human beings to save the planet for animals. I believe in treating animals kindly, but they are here to be our beasts of burden (i.e. horses, oxen), our companions (dogs and cats) and our food (cows and pigs). And that they should not be elevated to a level more important than any human being. Animals have a remarkable ability to adapt, and do in a lot of circumstances.
Is that a mature comment to make about the destruction of natural habitats to make way for more human beings.
It's more mature than the "What's so great about a live baby?" comment you made earlier. How is that not EXTREMELY childish and immature?
You lament the destruction of animals, but not of your fellow human beings. Hell, even animals (like elephants) mourn when one of their own dies. Most mothers, in nature, are extremely protective of their young (as in, see a baby bear in the woods, run the other way as fast as you can because mama's around and she'll be angry). But we're not supposed to be?
Your argument is based on the presumption that one's state in birth will ALWAYS be one's state in life. Are kids born into poverty at a disadvantage? Perhaps. But that's not a locked guarantee they'll stay that way. And the fact that a lot of children born into poverty are of different races only reaffirms the notion that pro-aborts are proudly carrying forth with Sanger's vision of abortion as eugenics.
Second, you believe it's better to be dead than to deal with the difficulties of life. Life is always rife with potential for difficulties. If I lose my job, or my house, does that mean I'm justified in killing my 2-year-old son because it's better that he's 6 feet under than dealing with what, in all likelihood, is a temporary state of being?
Lastly, if we're supposed to "save the planet" - who are we saving it for? Only people who are wealthy? White? Genetically perfect? What's your standard? And how is it not racist or somehow bigoted? Only the people YOU and Al Gore deem worthy of life?
Amy, I don't have any children, I only use public transport because I don't have a car, I am don't eat meat or chicken and hope 1 day not to eat fish either - but I'm a work in progress what can I say. I don't know if that's enough walking the talk for you?
I don't think you have a clue about what is going on outside of your neighbourhood in terms of animal welfare and environmental destruction. You have no idea where your children's burgers come from - and you don't care either - that's fine, but don't get angry when people feel uncomfortable with factory farming and want to expose it to the rest of teh world in the hope that things will get better.
"Most mothers, in nature, are extremely protective of their young"
Amy, if you had to actually do any zoological research into mammalian or avian breeding you would find that they practice birth control. This is to ensure that the fittest survive. Birds will lay eggs in different stages so that the oldest pecks the youngest to death, ensuring he gets the most food. That same bear who is protecting her cub from attack will have no problem letting it starve or eating it if there is no food. Even current hunter gatherer societies will decide wether to keep babies alive or not depending on food supply and fitness of the baby born. We as humans, have always practiced birth control - and believe me before abortion - it was much more painful for the babies.
I don't understand what you mean by this whole Eugenics thing - are you telling me that women in the third world would not enjoy the freedom of being able to choose when to have a baby or not - like their Western counterparts. Do they not deserve the same freedom that we so enjoy here in the West - or is it only them that have to suffer the slow death of their children when they cannot feed them?
Finally this is the cherry on the top:
"Animals have a remarkable ability to adapt, and do in a lot of circumstances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals#Modern_extinctions
Here is a link to animals who didn't manage to adapt and are lost to us forever!
Lil, you're making quite a leap to go from "I care about whether or not babies are slaughtered" to "I don't care if tigers go extinct." You'll have to fill in the gaps there.
And the whole "quality of life" thing is something that might salve your conscience ("Oh, it's okay to rip the babies up because they'd have just suffered anyway." but it doesn't pass the logic test. You might just as well vent your spleen on firefighters for pulling peopel out of burning buildings and paramedics for rushing them to the burn center, with no regard for all the suffering the person will face while undergoing treatment. If "This person might suffer, so better to kill him" we need to just nuke the entire earth and get it over with, because -- news flash -- everybody suffers.
The solution to suffering isn't to kill people who might suffer. It's to alleviate the causes of their suffering.
Why abort a mentally disabled baby to prevent him from being locked away in a horrible institution? The baby didn't create the horrible institution. Adults did. Why not shut down the institution and come up with better ways to care for the mentally disabled? And if you think that killing people is an okay way to alleviate suffering, you'd alleviate far more suffering by killing the people who run the horrible institutions, wouldn't you? Because if deprived of their mentally disabled people, they'd just fine other vulnerable people to inflict misery on.
Christina,
I guess you and I have different ways of looking at things. I see the long history of human birth control which includes infanticide and realise that through abortion we are actually being more humane. I know that this seems ridiculous to you, but its true - babies were left on side of the roads if they were healthy, never mind the disabled ones. I wish will all my heart that a safe and long lasting birth control method is created so that there doesn't need to be any more abortion. I believe it will happen - and I hope it will be available to all who want it.
As for the quality of life issue, again we see things differently, I know that a baby needs to have good enough parenting in order to grow into a good human being - and even with good enough parenting there isn't a guarantee that they won't turn pathological. I do not see the point of forcing women to have babies they cannot emotionally or physically look after so when their children turn into criminals then you think its ok to kill them. It would be ok if it was just them but by then they have already destroyed someone else's life.
Of course I know that you can't tell exactly who is going to turn into a criminal, but if you have a single, young, poor women who is already struggling to look after the babies she does have with different fathers then its not rocket science to think that her new baby isn't going to have the basic minimum requirements of life. And no I don't think she should have her baby as a gift for infertile couples - I think she should preserve her energy and resources to look after the children she does have or into getting herself in a better financial situation.
I don't believe in giving people enough rope to hang themselves with.
Don't you want to just scream at them "Use a bloody Condom!"
I want to scream at them, "Keep your pants zipped!"
Why is it that people are total slaves to their hormones, screwing up their own lives and creating children whose lives they then either end or screw up? Contrary to popular belief, it's possible to have a full, satisfying life without having sex in untenable situations.
Yeah, I know married people are another matter -- but even then, there is birth control that can reduce the number of unintended pregnancies if used consistently and in tandem with basic fertility awareness. Which again involves at least sometimes keeping the pants zipped.
And here's a HUGE pet peeve -- why don't the prochoice groups, whose mantra is about women controlling their own bodies, fight as hard for the right to a tubal ligation as they do for the right to abortion? There's something the woman is really doing to just her own body, but it's almost impossible to get somebody to do one unless you already have a houseful of filthy, starving children.
I have my tubes tied, I got them tied after my third child because that was all the children we wanted.
I think if DR's were opened minded about giving this operation to woman (I was 20 years old when I got my tubes tied and even then *being married, thried one on the way, me & my hubby both working good jobs*) the DR didn't want to do the operation. I had to fight for it, but you know if I wanted to abort at 27 weeks because I was depressed I could do it in a nano second.
I guess that confused me a but, so the a pro-choice doctor I HAD to see when I was pregnant, I used this line, 'If woman have the right to choose to have a baby or not shouldn't birth control be a choice also? I mean I am choosing not to ever have a baby again.; Once I used that line to her she signed my paperwork for my tubal.
Good for you, Krystal, But why don't prochoice organizations beat that drum?
They beat the Pill drum, and the condom drum, and the abortion drum, and the depo drum -- but they draw the line at fiercely advocating for a woman's right to choose to end her fertility.
On what grounds? "Oh, she might regret it later!?" That's true of abortion but that doesn't stop them from advocating it as an on-demand right. Why not tubal ligations, not on demand, but after an informed consent process? Do some sociological research into what process helps women make informed tubal ligation choices that they are unlikely to regret later?
Goodness, that took a long time.
Not that everyone has to agree with ya, but what's the point of having folks who are irrational....
Post a Comment