Those who are pro-life, does it bother you that McCain...

[Mx5]

:001_smile:

So, would you say, that in YOUR experience, many people make that assumption? Just as others have experience that leads them to make that assumption?

 

I wouldn't say just in my experience, but in what I've observed in the media (including blogs, forums like this, news, etc.) and in our US culture, in general. I really hate it when all people are judged by the fringe people in their particular group, regardless of what that grouping is.

 

People are people and we do people-ish things. I just get soooooooo tired of the "You're pro-life so you must only care about fetuses" and "What about Darfur?" thang. Just being honest here. One can care about and be helpful in many things at the same time. :confused1

[Kelli in TN]

Why is it assumed that is someone is pro-life, that they only care for unborn? Or that they are pro-war? Or Republican? Or conservative? Or that they don't know about or care about Darfur? Burma? (fill in the country with atrocities)? To judge half the US population who are against abortion as being like this is quite a generalization. It's not either / or. These ideals are not mutually exclusive.

 

I laid awake last night wondering if I should be the one to say this.

 

Some of you folks have no idea how tortured some pro-lifers are about this election. It might be easier for you. You see one side (the pro-life side) as misguided and that makes your decision easy. Imagine if you believed that unborn children, Iraqi citizens, murderers on death row, the innocents of Darfur, chocolate plantation slaves, diamond mine slaves, and your own country's brave soldiers were ALL deserving of life and that NONE of them should die without us first trying everything in the world to keep them alive. Then who would you vote for? If all of the above were equally important to you, who would you cast your ballot for?

 

It is not as cut and dry as some of you seem to think.

[Jenny in Atl]

I wouldn't say just in my experience, but in what I've observed in the media (including blogs, forums like this, news, etc.) and in our US culture, in general. I really hate it when all people are judged by the fringe people in their particular group, regardless of what that grouping is.

 

People are people and we do people-ish things. I just get soooooooo tired of the "You're pro-life so you must only care about fetuses" and "What about Darfur?" thang. Just being honest here. One can care about and be helpful in many things at the same time. :confused1

 

Maybe people would not have these impressions if they saw action on the part of those who say they value life (all life). Again, my family has first hand experience in the 3rd world where many walked away or showed little interest. Many of these groups poured their energies/$ into the unborn cause, while the living are dying. I'm not pro-abortion, yet I have heard many hear say if you are not "pro-life" you must be pro-death. Until this silly debate stops and real people put in to play real action via compassion for mankind, this will continue to be yet another circular argument. It's easy to say you are pro-life, and much harder to actually promote/make real a world in which this is not just a slogan.

[Gailmegan]

I laid awake last night wondering if I should be the one to say this.

 

Some of you folks have no idea how tortured some pro-lifers are about this election. It might be easier for you. You see one side (the pro-life side) as misguided and that makes your decision easy. Imagine if you believed that unborn children, Iraqi citizens, murderers on death row, the innocents of Darfur, chocolate plantation slaves, diamond mine slaves, and your own country's brave soldiers were ALL deserving of life and that NONE of them should die without us first trying everything in the world to keep them alive. Then who would you vote for? If all of the above were equally important to you, who would you cast your ballot for?

 

It is not as cut and dry as some of you seem to think.

 

It is for me! Barack Obama without a hesitation. He is FOR LIFE in EVERY arena except the unborn (and then it's not that he is anti-life, but pro-choice). We have had 20 years of "pro-life" (anti-abortion) presidents since Roe v Wade and nothing has been done to reverse the ruling. I recently read a survey that 69% of Americans are pro-choice. Roe v Wade will not be overturned until the majority of Americans want it overturned, so casting my vote for that ONE reason only would be a waste of my vote, as well as against my conscience and my common sense.

[Kelli in TN]

Maybe people would not have these impressions if they saw action on the part of those who say they value life (all life). Again, my family has first hand experience in the 3rd world where many walked away or showed little interest. Many of these groups poured their energies/$ into the unborn cause, while the living are dying. I'm not pro-abortion, yet I have heard many hear say if you are not "pro-life" you must be pro-death. Until this silly debate stops and real people put in to play real action via compassion for mankind, this will continue to be yet another circular argument. It's easy to say you are pro-life, and much harder to actually promote/make real a world in which this is not just a slogan.

 

I read a the blog post of a homeschool mom once that proclaimed that abortion for the express purpose of birth control ought to be a protected right. That is an extreme view. I would never, ever paint the majority of pro-choice with the extreme pro-abortion brush as expressed by that blogger.

 

By the same token, some of the rhetoric in this thread that paints pro-lifers as uncaring about other life issues is a hard pill to swallow.

 

I actually want to promote/make real a world in which this is not just a slogan. If I had money to spare, which I don't, I would give to my local crisis pregnancy center. And I would give to the Heifer Project. And I would give to the NotForSale Campaign. And many, many other organizations.

 

I know that pro-choice people are not one dimensional, but neither are pro-life people.

[Kelli in TN]

It is for me! Barack Obama without a hesitation. He is FOR LIFE in EVERY arena except the unborn (and then it's not that he is anti-life, but pro-choice). We have had 20 years of "pro-life" (anti-abortion) presidents since Roe v Wade and nothing has been done to reverse the ruling. I recently read a survey that 69% of Americans are pro-choice. Roe v Wade will not be overturned until the majority of Americans want it overturned, so casting my vote for that ONE reason only would be a waste of my vote, as well as against my conscience and my common sense.

 

Well, see? It is not as cut and dry as people are saying. You are proof of that with this very post!

[Greta]

I laid awake last night wondering if I should be the one to say this.

 

Some of you folks have no idea how tortured some pro-lifers are about this election. It might be easier for you. You see one side (the pro-life side) as misguided and that makes your decision easy. Imagine if you believed that unborn children, Iraqi citizens, murderers on death row, the innocents of Darfur, chocolate plantation slaves, diamond mine slaves, and your own country's brave soldiers were ALL deserving of life and that NONE of them should die without us first trying everything in the world to keep them alive. Then who would you vote for? If all of the above were equally important to you, who would you cast your ballot for?

 

It is not as cut and dry as some of you seem to think.

 

Kelli, I'm glad that you decided to say it. I, and perhaps others, do need to be reminded sometimes that there are people who really really struggle the way you described here. I mentioned that my Mom is apolitical, and that is exactly why. I think that it's natural that the people who are more solidly at one end of the spectrum or the other are the ones who speak out the most often and the loudest (I'm pointing fingers in the mirror as much as at anyone else!). So sometimes it's easy to lose sight of the fact that there are a whole lot of people in the middle who feel conflicted.

 

And just for the record, I don't see pro-life as being "misguided". (Not saying I think you were accusing me personally of that, I just feel the need to clarify.) In fact, I think your position of being concerned about the lives of Iraqis, death-row inmates, fetuses, and everyone is very very consistent and worthy of my deepest respect. And it's one that does put you in an uncomfortable position politically, isn't it? I realize that on the surface, my position looks inconsistent to many people. I know that I find it inconsistent when someone calls themselves pro-life while being pro-war. But I think it boils down to the fact that they view war as a necessary evil (I don't know how anyone could think *this* war was necessary, but in general) but do not see abortion that way. I'm rather the opposite. I see every war that we've been involved in since WWII as being completely unnecessary and just evil. But I see access to legal abortion as a necessary evil. It's not that I don't find abortion disturbing. It's not that I don't think abortions should be prevented. It's that I find the alternative much more deeply disturbing.

 

Well, I'm not sure if I am making a lot of sense here, but mostly I wanted to say that I truly appreciated your post.

[Kelli in TN]

. But I see access to legal abortion as a necessary evil. It's not that I don't find abortion disturbing. It's not that I don't think abortions should be prevented. It's that I find the alternative much more deeply disturbing.

 

Well, I'm not sure if I am making a lot of sense here, but mostly I wanted to say that I truly appreciated your post.

 

As one who has come to view most pro-choice people in this way, it cuts deep when I see some of the rhetoric in this thread (not from you and I won't name anyone). It's like some of us who are more moderate but still pro-life are talking and talking and the other side has their fingers in their ears and are screaming back at us.

 

I, and many others, are so much more multi-faceted about these issues.

 

I really appreciate your kind, fair-minded post.

[Kelli in TN]

The way I see it, Roe v. Wade is settled law, and I don't see it being overturned. The only area of concern would be Supreme Court appointments, but even at that, I don't like to see abortion used as a litmus test for appointees.

 

When it comes to the abortion issue, my feelings line up much more closely with McCain's than Obama's. I mean, at least McCain is in the ballpark; Obama is not even on the same planet! :D

 

My biggest fear about this is NOT the Supreme Court appointees. My fear is that Mr. Obama will get universal health care in some form (which I think is a very good thing) and it will include abortion (which I think is a very, very, very bad thing) and we will be saddled with that and never be able to undo that.

 

That, in a nutshell, is my biggest fear.

[Kelli in TN]

Go back and read some of Fourmother's posts on this matter. How people from urban areas view gun control is *not the same* as most of the nation. All Obama has said is that *it should be a local issue.* I agree with him and have said the same here. There will always be states and cities trying to overstep their bounds, that is what the court system is *for*.

 

Obama is not against funding the military. My husband and I have poured over every word said by both candidates and checked voting records. Again, my husband has been in the military 14 years, has two combat tours and he's voting *for the first time ever* so that he can vote for Obama. I realize not all veterans are voting Obama and that's fine, but let's not pretend it's because Obama is going to let the soldiers go to war unprepared.

 

I don't think Mr. Obama's stance on guns is so far out there. I heard him say, and I AM paraphrasing, that he understands the difference between AK40's (wait, am I saying that right? Is that a real gun or do I look like a moron?) in the urban areas and hunting rifles in Ohio (or somewhere like Ohio)

 

Anyway the point is, we need to protect the right to own guns, but we need to use our brains about it and protect innocent citizens from weapons that ought not be available to the public and from people who ought not be allowed to have more than a squirt gun full of water.

[j.griff]

I actually want to promote/make real a world in which this is not just a slogan. If I had money to spare, which I don't, I would give to my local crisis pregnancy center. And I would give to the Heifer Project. And I would give to the NotForSale Campaign. And many, many other organizations.

 

I know that pro-choice people are not one dimensional, but neither are pro-life people.

 

I don't see throwing money at an issue as taking action.

I don't belive the Heifer Project is actually helping anyone either. They are giving cows to people who were not depending on cows before. Then those people have to have grain to feed the cow. If they spent that time/money educating them and providing a way for them to grow real food, then they would be a much longer lasting and life sustaining project. There are more sensible vegan charities that help provide actual solutions instead of spreading the problems developed countries have from raising animals for food.

 

And seriously, I hear so many people say how they'd love to have those babies that are being aborted, but I don't see those same people going down to abortion clinics and offering to raise the unwanted child. I just don't see any action, except condemning people for their choices. Protesting is not action, it does nothing. Talking about an issue isn't action either. There seems to be a LOT of judgement and control, and desire of controlling others actions, without any real offers of solution. But that's JMHO.

[Spy Car]

he understands the difference between AK40's (wait, am I saying that right? Is that a real gun or do I look like a moron?)

 

What's seven digits between friends? :D

:auto:

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't think Mr. Obama's stance on guns is so far out there. I heard him say, and I AM paraphrasing, that he understands the difference between AK40's (wait, am I saying that right? Is that a real gun or do I look like a moron?) in the urban areas and hunting rifles in Ohio (or somewhere like Ohio)

 

Anyway the point is, we need to protect the right to own guns, but we need to use our brains about it and protect innocent citizens from weapons that ought not be available to the public and from people who ought not be allowed to have more than a squirt gun full of water.

 

HA! I was just posting about this in the other thread:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=543516&postcount=59

 

I agree with you except you don't quite have the gun right but that's ok, not everyone knows guns. :D

 

With regard to your concern about universal health care and abortions-there is already a law on the books that forbids federal money being used for abortions.

 

In fact, I know Army wives who have had to pay for their own surgery when they had an ectopic pregnancy or other non-viable pregnancy. I know one who had IVF (because her husband had been through testicular cancer and they had banked the sperm, her medically history of fibroids, etc made other procedures more difficult)-she got pregnant with triplets but one died. She needed the dead fetus removed so that the other two babies were not placed at greater risk than necessary. She had to fight with the military insurance in the midst of her grief because they kept telling her they would not pay for an abortion. Refusing to pay for *any* abortions makes it quite difficult for women because it *is* sometimes a medical necessity and the fetus is not always viable.

[LisaKinVA]

Refusing to pay for *any* abortions makes it quite difficult for women because it *is* sometimes a medical necessity and the fetus is not always viable.

 

This is a problem -- not just with payment, but in actually having the procedure -- in the private sector as well. My 2nd child (a boy) was found deceased at our mid-term ultrasound (IUFD... intra-uterine fetal demise) at about 22 weeks. He had died around 20 weeks.

 

Our choices? Walk the picket line at a local clinic or drive at least an hour to a hospital that would perform the operation. Just what a woman in shock dealing with a traumatic loss needs :confused:

 

Now, thankfully, this time being going against the odds worked in my favor -- and the laminaria caused me to go into labor on my own -- but still, I had a panic attack at the thought of just having to walk into a women's clinic. My dh said in hind-sight he would have gone, holster loaded, to the clinic to keep everyone away from me... but still.

 

The ramifications of legal abortions and the emotional issues surrounding it are far from simple -- and they are much further reaching than most people realize.

[Mrs Mungo]

This is a problem -- not just with payment, but in actually having the procedure -- in the private sector as well. My 2nd child (a boy) was found deceased at our mid-term ultrasound (IUFD... intra-uterine fetal demise) at about 22 weeks. He had died around 20 weeks.

 

Our choices? Walk the picket line at a local clinic or drive at least an hour to a hospital that would perform the operation. Just what a woman in shock dealing with a traumatic loss needs :confused:

 

Now, thankfully, this time being going against the odds worked in my favor -- and the laminaria caused me to go into labor on my own -- but still, I had a panic attack at the thought of just having to walk into a women's clinic. My dh said in hind-sight he would have gone, holster loaded, to the clinic to keep everyone away from me... but still.

 

The ramifications of legal abortions and the emotional issues surrounding it are far from simple -- and they are much further reaching than most people realize.

 

I'm so sorry for your experience, I have not been through this but I know women who have and I could see how painful it was for them. :grouphug:

[Murphy101]

It bothers me that anyone would say that in any certain circumstance it's okay for a woman to kill her own baby.

 

I don't think abortion will ever be done away with. It's been around forever and there will always be people who go that path.

 

Thus my goal is not whether he can over-turn RvW.

 

It's whether he will refuse to endorse abortion or make it easier to obtain.

 

That said, the #1 reason I will probably vote McCain is NOT because of my being pro-life, yes all life. The #1 reason I'll likely vote McCain is Obama.

 

Aside from all that, I'm curious over the problem with protecting unborn/babies over other lives? I don't think it's that I consider a soldier or any other person as less worthy of llife. (I absolutely do NOT!)

 

However, most people do consider the death of a child, of any age, to be far grievous a thing than the death of an adult, of any age. I don't think it's because they value someone's life less than others. I think it's because for some (many?) they view an infant, a child, as something rather akin to being sacred? Something to be protected at all costs?

 

For example, if I saw a man and a child about to be hit by a train and could only grab one of them? I'd be sad as could be at the man's death, but I really don't think I'd have to debate making a grab for the kid, kwim? My dh tends to have the same view and he's not religious. He says it's a no brainer to him - children and prego ladies are always to be protected. (lucky me.;))

 

Also, I am always horribly offended by the notions that abortion is better than living in poverty, or with illness, or being raised unwanted or whatever else people like to claim.

 

I was/am one of those babies that many people think my mother would have been just in aborting.

 

I'd love to say she didn't because she and my father loved me and all that.

 

But the truth is, they didn't and I had an unhappy childhood.

 

But I lived. Thank God. No matter how horrible someone's life is - it's a life worth living. Because for as long as we are alive, we have hope. Even if the only possiblity is for a miracle to happen - it's still possible.

 

Children are hope. I often wonder if it's not those that are the very worst off in the world who need the hope, their children, the most. Some won't see it that way. My parents sure the heck didn't.

[RebeccaC]

When my kids protest they do not do so outside of a clinic or even near a clinic. The closest is an hour away now. They stand on main street in our neighboring city which is also without a clinic or outside of courthouses.

 

I am sorry for the loss of a baby in the womb and I do not see the removal of a dead baby as an abortion. I think most pro-life folks would not see it as an abortion. I would think that an OBGYN would handle that in the local hospital but apparently not.

 

As to military healthcare when I was in the military I did everything in my power to stay as far away from it as I could. I was fortunate that my spouse had great medical through his job. When I became really sick in Saudi I was able to go home and get care in a civilian hospital because of our private insurance coverage and because I was ILANG called up and serving in the regular AF for the war.

 

In the late 80s and early 90s most of the gals I knew in the ANG staid as far away from military health care as they could. Primarily because it was healthcare geared toward men and because rape in VA hospitals of females was high and unspoken about. Things may have changed since then I don't know because I have been out since 92. However I would think that the removal of a dead baby would come under the exception of life of the mother but again I have no idea how the military runs its healthcare now.

 

I do remember that in the early 80s when I work a surgical ward the a removal of a dead baby was not considered an abortion. So I am a bit surprised to see it treated as such by insurance companies now but I guess if insurance can find a way out of paying for something it will. The death of a baby is never easy and always a tragedy no matter how that death occurs.

[Peek a Boo]

Stereotypes run both ways. Just see the post below about Obama's view that babies are a punishment.

 

that's not a stereotype --that's Obama's own words.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

[Mrs Mungo]

When my kids protest they do not do so outside of a clinic or even near a clinic. The closest is an hour away now. They stand on main street in our neighboring city which is also without a clinic or outside of courthouses.

 

I am sorry for the loss of a baby in the womb and I do not see the removal of a dead baby as an abortion. I think most pro-life folks would not see it as an abortion. I would think that an OBGYN would handle that in the local hospital but apparently not.

 

As to military healthcare when I was in the military I did everything in my power to stay as far away from it as I could. I was fortunate that my spouse had great medical through his job. When I became really sick in Saudi I was able to go home and get care in a civilian hospital because of our private insurance coverage and because I was ILANG called up and serving in the regular AF for the war.

 

In the late 80s and early 90s most of the gals I knew in the ANG staid as far away from military health care as they could. Primarily because it was healthcare geared toward men and because rape in VA hospitals of females was high and unspoken about. Things may have changed since then I don't know because I have been out since 92. However I would think that the removal of a dead baby would come under the exception of life of the mother but again I have no idea how the military runs its healthcare now.

 

I do remember that in the early 80s when I work a surgical ward the a removal of a dead baby was not considered an abortion. So I am a bit surprised to see it treated as such by insurance companies now but I guess if insurance can find a way out of paying for something it will. The death of a baby is never easy and always a tragedy no matter how that death occurs.

 

An ectopic pregnancy is not technically the removal of a dead baby. But it isn't a viable pregnancy and *can* result in a dead mom. The rule has nothing to do with the insurance company itself but has to do with federal law and how it was written.

[Mrs Mungo]

that's not a stereotype --that's Obama's own words.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

 

I think Obama's statement comes more from the "if you play, you'd better be ready to pay" attitude that comes from some pro-lifers than reflecting his own views on babies.

 

eta: he also said

 

This is a very difficult issue, and I understand sort of the passions on both sides of the issue, I have two precious daughters — they are miracles.

 

This is an example where good people can disagree. The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option.

 

eta the original quote for the link-phobic:

Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.

[LisaKinVA]

An ectopic pregnancy is not technically the removal of a dead baby. But it isn't a viable pregnancy and *can* result in a dead mom. The rule has nothing to do with the insurance company itself but has to do with federal law and how it was written.

 

True. It's also medical terminology. The term abortion refers to the procedure itself -- not the circumstances under which it's performed. It's a sad, little-known fact, that when reading unfiltered abortion statistics they include (for example), all D&C's, regardless of a baby being alive or dead.

 

Medical and Legal terminology regard a D&C an abortive procedure... period. I'm not sure about how a fetus in the late-term is treated, the only woman I've met whose baby died inutero during the 3rd trimester was induced and the baby listed as still born.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't see throwing money at an issue as taking action.

I don't belive the Heifer Project is actually helping anyone either. They are giving cows to people who were not depending on cows before. Then those people have to have grain to feed the cow. If they spent that time/money educating them and providing a way for them to grow real food, then they would be a much longer lasting and life sustaining project. There are more sensible vegan charities that help provide actual solutions instead of spreading the problems developed countries have from raising animals for food.

 

 

well, the good news is that despite your opinion, Heifer Int'l really DOES help people. There's a pretty nifty cycle of how animals work in a local economy, and many places simply aren't suitable for growing many sustainable foods. But for those that have actually researched the organization, we know that " It provides gifts of livestock and plants, as well as education in sustainable agriculture, to financially-disadvantaged families around the world........Heifer International is involved in several other progressive global initiatives which provide people with clean water, access to education and emergency housing."

 

 

But that sounds like fodder for another thread :)

 

 

And seriously, I hear so many people say how they'd love to have those babies that are being aborted, but I don't see those same people going down to abortion clinics and offering to raise the unwanted child. I just don't see any action, except condemning people for their choices. Protesting is not action, it does nothing. Talking about an issue isn't action either. There seems to be a LOT of judgement and control, and desire of controlling others actions, without any real offers of solution. But that's JMHO.

 

I always wonder where people are looking when they say they don't see people going down to adopt unwanted babies -- there are organizations ALLLLLL over the place that have families waiting for a baby, places for moms to go if they need a safe place to be, and families helping moms during a pregnancy/ birth/ adoption process.

Kinda like, while I have never seen a Democrat personally hire some homeless person to give them a job or even some part time income, i don't think that their inaction on that particular instance renders their concern impotent. I'm sure they are giving what they can to charities that DO help feed the poor and train the homeless for jobs.

 

I did notice that you don't see "throwing money at an issue" as "taking action" --I think almost every hands-on volunteer would disagree with that --the money coming in is what GIVES them the opportunity to BE hands-on.

 

I think most hands-on volunteers also WELCOME a person's willingness to spread awareness of an issue --that "just talking" might get to the one or two people who have the time, talent, and motivation to be another hands-on volunteer who might not have otherwise known how they can help. Word of Mouth is a VERY powerful tool.

 

So I'm not really sure why you don't think the various support people in a charitable operation are not as "worthy" of your consideration for "taking action": most organizations realize that even those smaller jobs are vital to their success.

 

There are many ways to support an organization/ issue --direct hands-on action isn't the only way, and I hope to instill in my children the foresight to not judge someone's values by just what they see them "directly" involved with.

[Jenny in Atl]

My first baby stopped growing at three months. It was discovered after a D&C was done and there were no "products of conception", that I had a double uterus and the baby was in a pocket which had no exit. Instead of opening me up, I was given Methotrexate. I still morn the loss of that child.

[Peek a Boo]

I think Obama's statement comes more from the "if you play, you'd better be ready to pay" attitude that comes from some pro-lifers than reflecting his own views on babies.

 

 

I'm sure they very well might have meant that.

But "punished with a baby" is a pretty d***ing choice of words.

 

My point, though, was that the statement about Obama seeing babies as a punishment was not stereotype --it was his own words.

 

 

I do agree that ectopic pregnancies --and abortion statistics that leave out medical circumstances-- are important to consider. Even i would abort a tubal pregnancy, but i would wish for a transplant like I mentioned in the Ectogenesis thread :D

 

However, even with those circumstances clarified, the rate of abortion on demand -- the ability to kill a human for convenience w/ no legal consequence or due process-- is a HUGE number.

 

I think Rebecca and Martha have summed up my own feelings rather well.

 

{{{{{Jenny}}}}}}}

[Murphy101]

True. It's also medical terminology. The term abortion refers to the procedure itself -- not the circumstances under which it's performed. It's a sad, little-known fact, that when reading unfiltered abortion statistics they include (for example), all D&C's, regardless of a baby being alive or dead.

 

Medical and Legal terminology regard a D&C an abortive procedure... period. I'm not sure about how a fetus in the late-term is treated, the only woman I've met whose baby died inutero during the 3rd trimester was induced and the baby listed as still born.

 

there is spontanous abortion - meaning mother naturally passed fetus during a m/c

 

there is therapudic abortion - meaning the mother had to have some sort of medical intervention to pass the fetus. which coudl be as horrible as what most people think of with abortion or something as simple as a mother who has miscarried through no fault of her own, but is not passing the fetus naturally.

 

and may I just say o/t I drove the nurses insane when everytime they came at me with paperwork for my D&C and it was written or they used the term abortion - I scribbled it out and wrote "dilation and curvature for spontanous miscarriage remains".

 

I thought it was very callous of them to keep referring to my "abortion" of a baby that we very much wanted. :glare: Wanted so much that it took more than 4 weeks of no heartbeat and no growth for me to admit that baby was gone and that I needed a D&C to preserve my own health.

 

ecoptic pregnancy is not classified as an abortion at all to my knowledge? the removal of the zygote is the sad by-product of preventing or repairing a ruptured fallopian.:grouphug:

[Nakia]

Well let's just say we are working on it. If we have our say we will move back maybe next May??? PRAY FOR US!!! :D

 

 

I read through 5 pages for your answer!! I am praying!

[PiCO]

(assorted quotes) I guess if we follow your realistic logic we should say and think that folks have been owning other humans since time began and therefore we should once again legalise slavery... Illegal slavery is worst than legal slavery and it is true illegal abortions can be worse than legal ones that is however not justification for either... There was once the thought/belief that technology would end slavery around the world it has not. Medical advances might end abortion but I think it will be a generation of young people who say enough is enough and change the laws so that abortion is legal only to save the physical life of the mother with everything being done to save the child too.

 

You know, I just do not understand why militant pro-lifers think slavery and abortion are practically the same issue. I really don't see the connection at all. So I guess I'll bow out of this conversation here.

[LilyK]

You know, I just do not understand why militant pro-lifers think slavery and abortion are practically the same issue. I really don't see the connection at all. So I guess I'll bow out of this conversation here.

__________________

 

 

Feel free to bow out, but allow me to add that abolition and abortion are often compared because they are both movements to uphold the rights of those who cannot help themselves. The slave could not help himself because he had virtually no legal rights. The unborn cannot help himself because he is utterly helpless in every sense of the word. Abolitionists tried to uphold the slave's God-given right to freedom. Pro-life activists try to uphold the unborn's God-given right to life. If you really cannot see the parallel, then, I guess you are right. It is just time to bow out of the conversation.

[Mrs Mungo]

Feel free to bow out, but allow me to add that abolition and abortion are often compared because they are both movements to uphold the rights of those who cannot help themselves. The slave could not help himself because he had virtually no legal rights. The unborn cannot help himself because he is utterly helpless in every sense of the word. Abolitionists tried to uphold the slave's God-given right to freedom. Pro-life activists try to uphold the unborn's God-given right to life. If you really cannot see the parallel, then, I guess you are right. It is just time to bow out of the conversation.

 

Or you can ignore that piece of the argument if you disagree with the definitions.

[Peek a Boo]

Or you can ignore that piece of the argument if you disagree with the definitions.

 

It's ok to disagree with a definition, but if one desires actual, serious discourse then it would be prudent --and even courteous to our lurkers-- to explain why and how there is a difference in definition. That doesn't guarantee agreement, but it can open some people's eyes to various viewpoints :D

 

For me, abolition/ abortion is a simple comparison: you are dealing with living humans who have no rights. One was being discriminated against because of the color of their skin, the other because of their stage of development [whether they are inside or outside the womb]. And that's not even bringing religion into it... ;)

 

and Martha-- I wouldn't sweat medical terminology too much. It bolsters the scientific categorization of a single cell human as being human. Abortion is just a removal. The issue is what TYPES of removal we're talking about.

[Peek a Boo]

You know, I just do not understand why militant pro-lifers think slavery and abortion are practically the same issue. I really don't see the connection at all. So I guess I'll bow out of this conversation here.

Why does one need to be a "militant" pro-lifer to see the connection between two human rights issues?

[Murphy101]

Feel free to bow out, but allow me to add that abolition and abortion are often compared because they are both movements to uphold the rights of those who cannot help themselves. The slave could not help himself because he had virtually no legal rights. The unborn cannot help himself because he is utterly helpless in every sense of the word. Abolitionists tried to uphold the slave's God-given right to freedom. Pro-life activists try to uphold the unborn's God-given right to life. If you really cannot see the parallel, then, I guess you are right. It is just time to bow out of the conversation.

 

ahem...

 

actually the main reason they used to be compared (I don't hear this argument too much these days?) is because the vast majority of the time those seeking abortions or are targeted as needing abortion options are low-income minorities. Basicly, there is a segment of the movement that views oh let's say encouraging abortion services in 3rd world african nations as a form of genecide.

 

The same was once said of free birth control clinics in the south. Many didn't think it was being offerred out of health concerns, but in the hope of eliminating blacks from the population due to lack of births. I'm sad to say they were probably right.

 

I don't know whether I agree with that argument today or not, so don't shoot the messenger here. Please.

 

I can say it's sure not often one hears about how important it is for middle to upper class white women in america to have abortion options.

 

To me, if the issue is about health, about economics, about war, about poverty - then deal with those issues. I don't view telling a possibly desperate pregnant woman that she should get an abortion because she's poor, in a war-torn country, that she's uneducated, and or that her health is bad as dealing with the issues. In fact, I view it as robbing her of the one source of possible joy and wealth she might ever have.

 

Or you can ignore that piece of the argument if you disagree with the definitions.

 

or that too.:)

 

As for a pp's comment about the pro-lifers not wanting to care for those babies.

 

What blarney. Adoption is ridiculously difficult and expensive. And the requirements elliminate lots of people who would love to have more and would probably make very fine parents. For example, I wouldn't qualify because I don't meet sq footage requirements, or asset requirements, or I already have "too many" or or or...

 

But hey ...

If you have one or some you want to give away - feel free to send them my way. We'll make room for a bed and plate somehow despite what the state says.:D

[LilyK]

Or you can ignore that piece of the argument if you disagree with the definitions

 

The idea of disagreeing with definitions brings to mind another parallel.

Abolitionists used to call it a natural right to freedom. Slave owners called it infringing on their right to property.

 

Pro-life activists call it saving a human life. Pro-choice activists call it infringing on a woman's right to choose.

[Mrs Mungo]

The idea of disagreeing with definitions brings to mind another parallel.

Abolitionists used to call it a natural right to freedom. Slave owners called it infringing on their right to property.

 

Are human beings property? I say no.

 

Pro-life activists call it saving a human life. Pro-choice activists call it infringing on a woman's right to choose.

 

When does a fertilized egg become life? There is a lot of debate about that. I refuse to participate any further in that piece of the debate.

[Murphy101]

Martha-- I wouldn't sweat medical terminology too much. It bolsters the scientific categorization of a single cell human as being human. Abortion is just a removal. The issue is what TYPES of removal we're talking about.

 

I don't sweat it.

Normally anyways.

What upset me and infuriated me, was those nurses knew I was Catholic. Knew I had 5 kids at home. They treated me like ignorant dirt and my dh as 1-step from being a wife beater. Basicly they gave the clear indication that the only reason I was there just had to be:

 

a. I was a fanatical religious moron

or

b. I was being suppressed by my fanatical abusive husband

 

It simply never occurred to them that a woman could want a 6th baby in the house.:(

[Kelli in TN]

I don't see throwing money at an issue as taking action.

I don't belive the Heifer Project is actually helping anyone either. They are giving cows to people who were not depending on cows before. Then those people have to have grain to feed the cow. If they spent that time/money educating them and providing a way for them to grow real food, then they would be a much longer lasting and life sustaining project. There are more sensible vegan charities that help provide actual solutions instead of spreading the problems developed countries have from raising animals for food.

 

And seriously, I hear so many people say how they'd love to have those babies that are being aborted, but I don't see those same people going down to abortion clinics and offering to raise the unwanted child. I just don't see any action, except condemning people for their choices. Protesting is not action, it does nothing. Talking about an issue isn't action either. There seems to be a LOT of judgement and control, and desire of controlling others actions, without any real offers of solution. But that's JMHO.

 

Okay. So, the Heifer Project is on the bad charities list now, because? Why? Because you say so?

 

Of all the things for you to jump on me about, the Heifer Project is beyond the weirdest one you could pick on. You probably just are not aware of how far the Heifer Project goes into education and you probably did not know that you sponsor what is appropriate to where the people live. You are helping them get back into a place of independence in the traditions of the culture and climate. You probably just did not know that and therefore you did not mean to sound so....uninformed.

 

I have never, will never, would never protest outside an abortion clinic. If the legal fees of adoption were no prohibitively expensive for my family I would love to adopt. Or to provide financial support to a mom who wished to keep her baby. Whichever.

 

You attack people that you do not even know over things that you do not know about them.

[Kelli in TN]

My first baby stopped growing at three months. It was discovered after a D&C was done and there were no "products of conception", that I had a double uterus and the baby was in a pocket which had no exit. Instead of opening me up, I was given Methotrexate. I still morn the loss of that child.

 

I am so sorry, Jenny. I cannot imagine the heartache.

[Mrs Mungo]

My first baby stopped growing at three months. It was discovered after a D&C was done and there were no "products of conception", that I had a double uterus and the baby was in a pocket which had no exit. Instead of opening me up, I was given Methotrexate. I still morn the loss of that child.

 

I'm so sorry for your loss, Jenny.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think Heifer International is a great organization and they have received many accolades.

 

From Wiki:

 

Heifer International received the 2006 Social Capitalist award from Fast Company magazine.

 

Heifer International also received the 2004 Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize for its efforts to eliminate hunger and help communities become self-sustaining. It was the first US-based organization to win the $1 million award since 1997.

 

In 2003, Heifer International was named one of Forbes magazine's top 10 charities.

 

In 2007, the Heifer International Headquarters building was named one of the American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment Top Ten Green Projects.

 

In 2008, the Heifer International Headquarters building was named a National AIA (American Institute of Architects) Institute Honor Award Winner.

 

A 2005 report by the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance (WGA) found that Heifer International met all of its standards for charity accountability. The WGA found that Heifer International is truthful in its representations of how money is spent, does not allocate an excessive part of its budget for fundraising or administrative expenses and makes its financial statements readily available to the public.

 

The American Institute of Philanthropy gave Heifer International an "Open Book Credit" for making complete financial documentation available on request.

[Kelli in TN]

HA! I was just posting about this in the other thread:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=543516&postcount=59

 

I agree with you except you don't quite have the gun right but that's ok, not everyone knows guns. :D

 

With regard to your concern about universal health care and abortions-there is already a law on the books that forbids federal money being used for abortions.

 

In fact, I know Army wives who have had to pay for their own surgery when they had an ectopic pregnancy or other non-viable pregnancy. I know one who had IVF (because her husband had been through testicular cancer and they had banked the sperm, her medically history of fibroids, etc made other procedures more difficult)-she got pregnant with triplets but one died. She needed the dead fetus removed so that the other two babies were not placed at greater risk than necessary. She had to fight with the military insurance in the midst of her grief because they kept telling her they would not pay for an abortion. Refusing to pay for *any* abortions makes it quite difficult for women because it *is* sometimes a medical necessity and the fetus is not always viable.

 

 

Dang. I knew I was going to give myself away. Now you folks all know that I am clueless on guns. But I meant well. Y'all can say, "Bless her heart, she tries" about me now.

 

 

Do you think the law could be overturned, allowing abortions to be part of a universal healthcare plan? That really is a problem for me.

 

As to the rest of your post, if someone as simple and uneducated as me can see wrong from right here, why can the powers that be, with their law degrees and their access to physicians who can clarify medical scenarios for them, not see that there is a wide divide between a federally funded abortion and saving a woman's life in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

 

Does anyone in leadership have common sense?

[Jugglin'5]

:iagree:All I can say is that it surprises me that many of you really don't know of people getting multiple abortions. I went to college in New Mexico and a sorority sister of mine drove up to Colorado twice in a 6 month period to Trinidad to get abortions. And those were not her first. She knew all about birth control and was on the easily obtained pill but would forget to take them. This is very, very common. I am not saying that everyone who has an abortion has multiple ones. But there are many who use it nonchalantly as back up birth control, or even the only birth control. I kinda thought I had a fairly sheltered upbringing, but I guess it wasn't as sheltered as I thought. I never even saw anyone do drugs until late in college. But I did know girls in both high school and college who had abortions, and they all knew the facts of life and how to obtain birth control.

 

I graduated high school in 1982 and can recall only one full-term pregnancy during my four years there, and this particular girl left school and did independent study. I have a girlfriend who has had SEVERAL abortions...several! It's like birth control for her. Makes my stomach turn. I have another girlfriend who had an abortion in 12th grade and only her, I, and the Dr. know about it...her parents were never informed. She is now the mother of five. Another girlfriend of mine had an abortion as well, and ended up marrying the man who got her pregnant. They are now the parents of three children and GREATLY regret their decision to abort their first child. Greatly.

 

I don't put my complete trust in any of them. None. I will vote my conscience and my morals, but beyond that the only One I can fully trust is God. Thankfully, regardless of who is president, God is on His thrown and ruling the nations. Unfortunately for immoral America, He rules justly. We WILL get what we deserve...and I don't think it's going to be pretty.

 

Just my opinion.

[Peek a Boo]

Are human beings property? I say no.

 

...and there's more to human rights than deciding whether a human is property or not. Most abolitionists weren't content to sit by and say "see! We did it! They aren't slaves/being aborted anymore!" They knew it was a deeper problem than that --the way people view a person's life still has a long way to go, on both issues.

 

 

 

When does a fertilized egg become life? There is a lot of debate about that. I refuse to participate any further in that piece of the debate.

 

well, since Mrs. Mungo doesn't want to discuss the debatable part, I'll elaborate for the lurkers :)

 

There is no human embryologist that will debate the scientific status of a single cell living, unique diploid human [taxonomy] as soon as fertilization is complete. But I'm always on the look out for one who wants to debate it scientifically :)

 

There IS debate among bioethicists as to which specific moment of life as a unique diploid human one can assign "personhood" to a cell. When two living haploid human cells [egg/sperm] are absorbed into the new living diploid human has brought questions as to when that "life" began, since there was always life involved, period. the question then isn't so much about when "life" began, but when we have an observable, empirically provable, alive, unique diploid individual in its earliest stage of development.

 

many biologists will jump on the "debatable" bandwagon, but they will always bring religion/philosophy into the mix. Or no facts that refute the bolded statement above.

 

I always find it interesting that in the evolution debate, evolutionists are pretty consistent about discounting opposing statements from anyone other than a credible, in-the-specific-field scientist and putting philosophy/ religion squarely OUTSIDE the realm of science, but they can't do that with human life.

 

If anyone would like to PM me about someone I'm not aware of debating this issue, please DO let me know.

[Kelli in TN]

I think Heifer International is a great organization and they have received many accolades.

 

From Wiki:

 

Heifer International received the 2006 Social Capitalist award from Fast Company magazine.

 

Heifer International also received the 2004 Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize for its efforts to eliminate hunger and help communities become self-sustaining. It was the first US-based organization to win the $1 million award since 1997.

 

In 2003, Heifer International was named one of Forbes magazine's top 10 charities.

 

In 2007, the Heifer International Headquarters building was named one of the American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment Top Ten Green Projects.

 

In 2008, the Heifer International Headquarters building was named a National AIA (American Institute of Architects) Institute Honor Award Winner.

 

A 2005 report by the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance (WGA) found that Heifer International met all of its standards for charity accountability. The WGA found that Heifer International is truthful in its representations of how money is spent, does not allocate an excessive part of its budget for fundraising or administrative expenses and makes its financial statements readily available to the public.

 

The American Institute of Philanthropy gave Heifer International an "Open Book Credit" for making complete financial documentation available on request.

 

Thank you so much Mrs. Mungo. I cannot imagine for the life of me what I did to get on j.griff's bad list and I surely cannot figure out how Heifer International got on her bad list. Of all the things to be mad at someone about, that is the weirdest.

[Jenny in Atl]

I like Heifer.. give bees each Christmas. :confused:

[Mrs Mungo]

Do you think the law could be overturned, allowing abortions to be part of a universal healthcare plan? That really is a problem for me.

 

No, I don't see that happening. It would be too controversial.

 

As to the rest of your post, if someone as simple and uneducated as me can see wrong from right here, why can the powers that be, with their law degrees and their access to physicians who can clarify medical scenarios for them, not see that there is a wide divide between a federally funded abortion and saving a woman's life in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

 

Does anyone in leadership have common sense?

 

People in leadership, I think, have common sense. However, beauracracies do not and that's the problem.

[Aggie]

 

I do agree that ectopic pregnancies --and abortion statistics that leave out medical circumstances-- are important to consider.

 

Peek....where can we see abortion stats? It is my understanding that PP is not required to take or report any numbers regarding abortions. I believe hospitals have to report, but I'm not even sure of that.

 

Thanks,

Aggie

[Murphy101]

All I can say is that it surprises me that many of you really don't know of people getting multiple abortions.

 

there are many who use it nonchalantly as back up birth control' date=' or even the only birth control. [/quote']

 

I wouldn't say I don't "know" them.

 

I would say, that by and large, people who do such things don't talk about it/admit it to someone who is a catholic homeschooling mother of 8.6. I think they presume, rightly so, that such insight into their mentality would not be met with happy enthusiasm and they don't want to hear what I think on the subject. ;)

 

I remember many girls did such back in highschool some 15+ years ago.

I'm fairly certain some things never change.

[Peek a Boo]

People in leadership, I think, have common sense. However, beauracracies do not and that's the problem.

 

ooh! ooh! look! I get to use THIS:

 

:iagree:

 

:D

[mommytobees]

I can respect that, but ... then all lives are sacred -- not just the lives of the unborn.

 

Anywhere from 100,000 to 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the Iraq war (no one knows the true number).

 

If innocent lives are what we're looking to save -- be they unborn or born -- I see a definite contradiction.

 

I see a problem with pointing at Iraq for a point of contradiction against abortion.

 

Iraqis were dying in much larger numbers prior to the US involvement.

 

I understand being against the war, but pointing it out here doesn't strengthen the support or apathy or advocacy of life.

 

Kris, pro-choice and supports her sailor

[Mrs Mungo]

I see a problem with pointing at Iraq for a point of contradiction against abortion.

 

Iraqis were dying in much larger numbers prior to the US involvement.

 

I understand being against the war, but pointing it out here doesn't strengthen the support or apathy or advocacy of life.

 

Kris, pro-choice and supports her sailor

 

I agree and I love you Major Winters photo! I luv Major Winters.