‘What Kind of Mother Is 8 Months Pregnant and Wants an Abortion?’

Gosh, this is so sad. Made me cry reading it. I can't really comment because I've never been in such a situation. I don't know if I would make the same decision, but I certainly don't hold it against this woman. You can tell by reading the story that it certainly wasn't an easy decision to make.

 

So you advocate killing 9 month olds then. Its a good thing that people like you are in the tiny minority. You are dangerous.

 

at 8 months you call that a c-section imo

 

if a parent want to remove the fetus at 9 months, I have no issue with that, then you see if it survives on it's own, it's called a c-section though and not an abortion

 

She was responding to someone else about aborting a 1 year old vs an 8 month old fetus for deformities. At 8 months the fetus is viable and should not be aborted simply because it has deformities. Unless its brain dead or the health of the mother is at stake there is no reason for that at all. I used to work with disabled kids when I was growing up and while they will never win any science awards they are still people that have something to offer.

I am not sure why you are bringing C-sections into this discussion. They are completely different things. An abortion by definition is killing the fetus.

 

Women are EVIL, Jezebels and whores the lot, always trying to tempt innocent men into SIN. Creatures of the devil, every one

Conservatives don't believe in big government, especially when it's trying to extend the lives of people they don't like, like the poor and elderly. The poor aren't rich because they're lazy and God hates them, The elderly should be rich or they were lazy and God must have hated them too. In either case they should both commit suicide, and so we should help them along, certainly not give them any assistance so this useless offal can live longer

OTOH the purpose of government is to enforce GA-HAWD'S Laws and to punish any women who dare to have SEX we conservatives disapprove of. And women who have deformed children even if they were married and wanted the child MUST have done something to cause that, either directly or by offending GA-HAWD at some time in their lives. How dare we try to THWART GOD'S WILL and let this evil slut escape her righteous punishment.

What I say isn't something I just made up. It's CALVINISM, and I'm sure such a good god fearing Calvinist as most conservatives here are know exactly what it is and believe totally in it. They can forget their smoke and mirrors about the "unborn" and just admit to their twisted and sick misogyny now, they're not fooling anyone any more..

 

Are you trying to appeal to the claim that pro-lifers are all just motivated by religious beliefs? Because I have not seen very many religious arguments in this thread or any of the others in the Abortion section.

When choicers get backed into a corner in an abortion argument, there's a couple of accusations they like to pull out, and this is one of them.

Another is the "conservatives only care about baby when it's inside the womb" allegation. It's really just trying to change the topic. Can we get back to the original argument now?

 

The child in the OP wasn't just disabled. A baby having near constant seizures has nothing meaningful to offer, not that I think that is a legitimate metric on the issue. I do not condemn her for the abortion. If I were to condemn her it would be continually getting pregnant knowing the outcome was so dicey given her history.

 

I don't even follow that logic. Medicine advances at light speed. If we aborted everyone that had issues, even ones that seemed enormous at the time then we wouldn't have developed nearly what we have today. Its not like we haven't dealt with epilepsy and seizures before. They have tons of treatment options and forms of medication. I hate to bring up the Nazi card but that is literally the "culling the herd to make it stronger" argument that Nazi's used which they appropriated from eugenacists here in the US. Eugenicists are the most abhorrent and reprehensible people on this planet and we have some of them right here on this very thread.

As someone who worked with people that live well long after the doctors said they would including spina bifida there is no guarantees and even in a few short years what was once an issue is easily treated. In her case she was smart and could read and stuff but she wasn't able to focus for long periods of time. She will never contribute anything to society other than her personality but she is still a human being and as such deservers protection, including viability in the womb.

 

ah, you mean like this

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html

there is no such thing as a 9 month abortion, they would do a c-section as it's viable, that is my point.......


.

 

And now you are bringing Bush into this? Seriously, you are literally trying to score points against Bush. What does his hypocrisy or lack of hypocrisy depending on who you believe have to do with this at all?

 

The original argument was about what kind of woman carries a baby for eight months and then decides to abort it. I am arguing that is really none of your business, SCOTUS notwithstanding abortion on demand is a woman's right until the child is born, period. I believe in partial birth abortion without question if the woman requests it. Our Republican religious fanatics have overturned our traditional secular government to impose a medieval morality on us. This will change, sooner or later.

While you act as if these are specious arguments I see that you refute neither one of them

And there IS no non-religious argument against a woman"s right to choose. None whatsoever,

 

Do you believe in it when the baby is perfectly healthy and normal?

I just want to point out here that partial birth abortion is NEVER necessary for the health of the mother.

 

I'll ignore the inflammatory personal attack just to keep the ignorance of your post displayed.

Your hatred blinds you to any logic whatsoever. That is the only way , besides total ignorance, that you could've deduced that I supported killing 9 month old children from my post.

 

I DO believe I just heard all that from one of the many Repug presidential nominees in a speech, and it got a big round of applause .... Summed up Repugs pretty well!!

 

Have you EVER given a thought to how those people with "problems" feel ?

No, I didn't think so. It IS all about you and how YOU feel, isn't it?

FORCING them to live with their "problems" makes YOU feel all warm and fuzzy and righteous so it's a good thing.


YOU don't have to PAY for their care...how nice and warm and fuzzy for you....

YOU , of course, will make sure every one of them has adequate loving care until their deaths so no one abuses them...????

 

Make no mistake, this is no different than killing a born baby.

Which may not be morally wrong in itself, I do believe euthanising babies with severe mental retardation should be allowed if the parents and doctors chose so, no matter if the baby is already born or not.

But lets not pretend that 36 weeks old foetus is any different than a baby already.

 

There, I INCLUDED everything in the post you quoted even the part you wanted to avoid

 

:“We expect your baby to have moderate to severe mental retardation; she’s going to have moderate to severe physical disability; she is probably never going to walk or talk; she will possibly never be able to lift her head; she is going to have seizures all of the time.” is not something that is fixed with medicine. You trying to equate this with the Holocaust is a pathetic attempt to avoid the reality that in this case, the woman made the best decision she could for herself and her child.

 

You : """"When choicers get backed into a corner in an abortion argument,"""

THAT happened only in your dreams......

 

They have been known to palliate 1 year olds

 

Well why don't you then make a valid argument for a change.

Both myself and the OP ask for a definition what is valuable about human life and you completely avoided addressing this topic.

 

You don't see threads based on religious arguments because "pro-lifers" try to hide their motivations, even lie about them. Can you name a pro-life organization that is not religious?

No, it is questioning pro-lifers' motives and sincerity.

 

you gave a scenario that matched something Bush did, so I asked if you meant like that scenario, I can't help it if Bush was the one responsible for that or not

so do you support pulling the plug on children if the parents can't afford to keep them plug plugged in? do you agree with Bush....?

.