Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

Just the Truth: Hard Cases, Rape Incest (Page 5)


May 6th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
Name-calling! Name-calling!

Well, you're an extremist nutcase!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 6th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
One girl & her baby with serious health issues.

One girl & her baby with serious health issues.

Two people who decide what to do - have the baby & keep it?
- have the baby & adopt it out?
- have an abortion?

One fact, one reality both girls had options, they both had choices, no-one had the power to force them to do something.

I had had 3 miscarriages & my daughter when I was faced with exactly this situation, I chose abortion & I would do so again in an instant given the same situation. Do I think that another person has the right to make a different choice - most definitely - but that is the point - we should have the right to make the decisions that we believe are right for us, perhaps also for our family & also I believe the ones that we believe are right for the unborn baby.

Just as we have the right to choose whether or not to breast feed (i didn't) to work or stay at home (i worked p/t then f/t then was medically retired when my kids were 4 & 10).

Choices that is what a free society grants us.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 6th, 2004
Experienced User
You know the conversation between you two- samie and poopoo- started off actually really good guys- you both were understanding of how one may choose one choice over the other, the choices for both of these people were good choices:) and its wonderful that a child who had all these medical dilemas was kept, and was very loved, it would be great if everything went that smoothly with everyone, and they had the support systems that this person had to care for the child, but not everyone does. See samie you can get your point across and we can sympathize and uinderstand. And you were starting to sympathize with poopoo and her point- not necesarily agreeing , but being understanding- but then your ego came in and you started with the whole name calling crap- nazi? Cme on now- this is why we don't like your discussions- your rude
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 6th, 2004
Active User, very eHealthy
Well, poo said our andrew should have been killed to allow a more healthy baby to come into existance now this really upset me, our andrew although he couldnt interact he certainly knew he was loved as we knew he loved us. Now for someone to say he should have been killed to allow a "fully functoning" person to come into existance is awful, offensive and reminisant of the nazi's. I was deeply offeneded that anyone should even think this let alone suggest it.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 6th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
You are so sure that he enjoyed his brief, inert life? Maybe he was in there, hating you all.

Your sister's decision to carry to term was hers, as was my sister's. You think my sister is a mur derer. I find that offensive.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 6th, 2004
Active User, very eHealthy
You awful hateful person, how dare you. This is my last post to you, you nasty peice of work.

I dont think your sister is a mur derer I said I could understand why she did it -

rot in hell
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 6th, 2004
Experienced User
Not to start an argument- cause we know how that will turn it...I'll win- just kidding---

samie, I don't think poopoo meant it like that. I'm sure shes happy that andrew was kept alive- whether or not he felt he had a great life, only he knew, i'm sure he did he sounded very loved- I think atleast what I took from her statement was, "wasn't it nice she had the choice"- meaning nothing was forced on her- to have to keep andrew- *glad she did- or abort, due to his conditions. On the other hand isn't it also great, poopoos sister had the choice as well, although it was abortion- given her medical condition, the babys medical conditions and just the whole situation- both has a choice, I think that was her point, and you miconstrued it to say your cousin made the wrong choice- just go back and read it and try to to see her point a little clearer- poopoo feel free to correct me, if this isnt what you meant
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 6th, 2004
Active User, very eHealthy
I think there certainly needs to be a place where these kids can be looked after 24/7 by social services or something - giving people like poo's sister no reason to abort - no offence to poo's sister more of an attack on the system
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 6th, 2004
Experienced User
I think people who make a decision to bring a life into the world are taking a lot of responsibility on themselves. Anytime you have a baby you are saying that you are promising the world is an okay place, and you are making a promise their life will be worth living. If you think they won't have a happy life, you don't have the right to bring them into the world. I know the anti-choice people don't agree, they will say you shouldnt get pregnant in the first place, but sometimes it's not that easy, and if you think that a deformed baby will only have misery, then how can you bring it into the world?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 6th, 2004
Experienced User
"i can understand your sisters decision and don’t judge her for it "

thats what you said samie, I thought you were being understanding, but now its pretty obvious you contradict what you say becasue

you are judging her sister for it- your just sugaring it up a bit,
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 6th, 2004
Experienced User
If my sister had the condition poopoos had, and not to mention the condition of the baby and the whooolle damn situation just sucked and she decided to abort, i'd be 100% behind her, becasue I love my sister, and god forbid anything happen to her becasue of that- if she chose to keep it, i'd be behind her too, not becasue I want her to have complications, but becasue I love her
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 6th, 2004
Experienced User
"nice that she had the choice. "
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 6th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
That's absolutely right zil -- having the choice is the important part. Because if you do decide to keep it, maybe you are hoping the doctor's are wrong, for example, it helps to know it was your own decision and that you have the support of your family. If you are forced to carry on, dreading every day that goes by, that is not the same for the end result.

No two women's circumstances are going to be the same.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 10th, 2004
Active User, very eHealthy
Surely the most important part is weather or not the unborn are human beings or not and weather they should be granted protection – if they are in fact not human beings then the womans right to choose is obviously the most important part – however if the unborn are human beings (which they are from conception according to science) then we must recognise that the right to life supersedes all other rights and grant protection for the unborn.

In many states there are many cases of women being incarcerated and prosecuted for using controlled drugs etc while pregnant – one woman was charged with administering controlled substances to a minor and another charged with child endangerment and recently a women has been sent to prison for the manslaughter of her unborn child. In these states it is illegal to harm your living unborn baby and rightly so but in these very same states it would have been quite lawful and respectable for these women to have killed their unborn child through abortion. If drugs and the such are harmful to your baby then what is abortion?

A pro life advocate was stopped by police in the car with him was the tiny remains of an aborted fetus when discovered by the officer the policemen charged him with transporting human remains across state lines without a permit. When the pro life advocate realised this would mean going to court and the state (which allows abortion) having to argue that the unborn are infact human beings he welcomed the charge – the state dropped the charges. How can a state allow abortion if they recognise the fact that the unborn are human beings (let alone prove it in a court of law) since abortion is directly killing i.E mur der ing those human beings
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 10th, 2004
Experienced User
You are the one always saying that the law is irrelevent to your argument, it is funny that now you think it is important. And in china they force you to have abortions if you already have a child under their one-child policy, so that is the law, even though they also execute people for murder there. Well, here's another law -- that you have to destroy unwanted embryos from fertility treatment, so obviously the the law is that those arent persons.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 11th, 2004
Active User, very eHealthy
The law does not make something morally correct so is irrelevant to the abortion argument – however if the law is morally incorrect changing it is
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 11th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
Discussion of Morality
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 11th, 2004
Active User, very eHealthy
Ok then why should abortion be legal in the .U.S since just 12 days prior to roe ve wade 77% of the voters voted against legalized abortion - doesnt seem it is societies moral value to allow abortion to me
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 11th, 2004
Extremely eHealthy
Sorry, I don't really care what americans vote for.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 12th, 2004
Active User, very eHealthy
You dont really care about anyone but yourself
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Quick Reply
Answers to Similar Questions
User Profile
Dr. Nikola Gjuzelov
User Profile
Dr. Madhumita Avinash Paul
User Profile
Dr. Madhumita Avinash Paul
User Profile
Anand J. Singh
User Profile
Dr. Madhumita Avinash Paul