Attack at Planned Parenthood Clinic

[Thumpalumpacus]

Am I the only one who likes trolls and people who are too obnoxious to be taken seriously? Lol. I find him hysterical.

You just like him because his name's a poop reference, 'fess up.

[Aroura]

I do not think all individual life is inherently sacred, so I would have helped the woman with the stray cat. Unwanted kittens are most likely just going to be killed later in a shelter, which I suppose you know if you work with strays. I find people who refuse to fix their pets abhorent, but I am getting off topic...lol.

I used to think there was nothing at all wrong with killing animals for food. I grew up on a farm, after all, and I helped kill a few turkeys and chickens, even.

But as I have gotten older, my views have changed a bit. I still take no issue with the morality of meat eating in and of itself, but the lives of most food animals are horrid, the cost to our ecosystem is worse, and to individual human health it is also harmful.

I now eat meat rarely. Only free range chicken (I bought a locally raised Turkey on thanksgiving). I used to also eat wild caught fish. Then I discovered what overfishing is doing to the world, and I have stoppe eated eating fish as well. I admit I indulge in occasional processed meats...but acctually now that I think about it, we have not bought anything except chicken or turkey for months. Anyway, meat eating is fine in limited amounts, as long as the animals have a decent life, imo.

So yeah, the way I view life and suffering and moral behavior has drastically affected my personal eating habits.

I think abortion is a terrible, horrifying option. But I am glad it is a legal option. I think my emotions and my logic disagree on the topic a bit. Clearly a zygote is not a person, nor is a fetus. But If I had lost my daughter at say, 18 weeks I would have been devestated. At the same time, as an older woman who was giving birth for the first time, we had a much higher risk of complications and birth defects. My husband and I discussed it early in the pregnancy. We wanted a baby, but If the fetal tests had returned results of severe defects, including downs syndrome, we would have jointly agreed to terminate the pregnancy.  I have mental issues that mean I cannot care for a special needs child. I got my tubes tied the same day my daughter was born so I would never have to face such a choice again.

I grant that I am not in a position to judge the lives, circumstances, and choices of others. I am glad that options exist, for many at least. It has only improved society, as a whole, to give women this option more freely.

I'm glad your baby was born healthy. I'm also glad to hear you admit that you would not be able to care for a special needs child but let me say one thing on the issues of terminating a baby with down syndrome. 

My 20 year old daughter has down syndrome. She has a wonderful quality of life. She walks, talks, sings, dances, learns how to read and do basic math in school. She is capable of bathing herself and getting snacks from the kitchen. To say that she wouldn't have any sort of quality of life is a misnomer. Nearly every child born with down syndrome is fully capable of learning as "typical" people do. It just takes them longer. Many are born with medical issues that can be fixed with surgery. Many have no medical issues at all. There is quite a large number of adults within the down syndrome community who lead independent lives. Some even marry. Males are born sterile, females have a 50% chance of giving birth to a child with down syndrome. 

All that being said, I am a strong advocate of getting ride of the triple screening tests that determine not only down syndrome but spina bifida as well. Why? Because they are only screenings. They are at best between 40 - 60% accurate. I had one and the screening showed zero signs of my daughter having down syndrome. These people CAN and DO go on to lead productive, active and happy lives. 

I cannot speak about other disabilities which are more severe because she doesn't have them. I can only speak for people who have down syndrome. And I would really hate to see someone terminate a pregancy based on a screening that isn't even capable of providing actual proof of down syndrome. Those who choose to do so are missing out on so much joy and love. While I firmly believe that it should always be a woman's right to choose, this is the ONLY area in which I am truly torn on the subject. While I have the views regarding my post here, I also have to say that if the fetus, no matter if it has down syndrome or not, is threatening the life of the mother and she will most  likely die if she carries to term, then by all means, the choice must be made to save her life. However, if the reasons are that one doesn't think they could raise such a wonderful child, please rethink that because there are so many people who would love the opportunity to raise a child with down syndrome via adoption. 

If given the chance to adopt a child with down syndrome, I would totally do it in a heart beat. Given my experience with being a mom of one already, I welcome that with open arms.

Then you should go do that right now.  Seriously.  There are thousands of special needs kids who actually exist and need adoption.

I am glad to hear about you and your daughter though. : Of course they can, I never said they couldn't, just that I could not give what was needed.  If you can, then you should.

[robvalue]

OK, so...

If it's fully explained to everyone as part of a new regime of basic education that "a zygote/fetus is a human", and it's part of medical training to make this fact clear, would you then want to prosecute both parties for murder? It appears your whole case rests on the fact that you consider the thing to be a human.

I think both parties are already quite clear about what exactly they are killing, regardless of what anyone would class it as.

I won't keep argueing about the semantics of "parasites", but I find it interesting it's excluded from the medical definition. It's to be expected, really, but I wonder what the actual distinction is. I class it informally as a parasite, meaning nothing more than it's another life form living inside you, extracting nutrients from you. Interestingly, the only alternative I could see is that it's actually classed as part of the woman until born, or at least until independently viable. I hadn't thought of that before. In some ways, at least informally, that makes sense to me.

[Tiberius]

Right, first few responses here. Due to the amount of people I'm trying to respond to, if you aren't quoted by me and respond to something I've said, don't get upset if I ignore your response. If you raise an interesting point, I might get around to it eventually, but for now I'll try to focus on the people who responded to me earlier in the thread.

Actually it doesn't have the right to use a woman's body, reproductive rights belong to the woman, after all it is her body. Just because the fetus needs the woman's body to survive does not mean that it has a right to it.

Ok, I understand that's your belief, but what's the argument to back it up? You just saying so doesn't make it true. My argument is the fetus is a human being (can be proved genetically), inhabiting the woman in a completely natural way (fetuses grow inside women's wombs because that is the way humans reproduce), and whilst the fetus might have been placed there against the will of the woman, it didn't do anything itself to violate the woman's rights. The fetus is an innocent party in most cases (excluding the scenarios where the fetus is harming the woman), so why does not it not have a right to life, a right to inhabit the woman (which is the only way it can fulfill its right to life at this point).

Yes, reproductive rights certainly belong to the woman, and women should be able to refuse to have children with their partners if they want. It is certainly a violation of a woman's rights if they are forced to get pregnant. However, after pregnancy occurs, you have the rights of the fetus that should come into the equation. As I've said before, in my opinion, the right to life (the most important right) trumps all others, and that includes the mother's right to do what she wants with her own body.

But you seem to be arguing that a woman should have no more say over what goes on in her body than the rapist that knocks her up.  So long as the rapist successfully scores the goal, according to you she should accept her fate for the next 9 months.  I completely disagree.  It must be her decision that counts.

Well, firstly I don't think most rapists are actively trying to get their victims pregnant; rape seems to be more about power than about procreation. Otherwise, yes, I think that rape victims who become pregnant have to "accept their fate", but only because once pregnant, I believe that the conflict in rights ultimately has to side with the right to life of the fetus. Rights are not black and white, they can come into conflict with each other, and this is one of those instances. On the one hand, you have the right of the mother to do what she wants with her own body, but on the other, you have the right to life of the fetus. Either way, someone's right is going to have to be violated, and in my opinion, when one of those rights is the right to life, the only logical and ethical resolution is to violate the other right. Simply put, if you have a choice where either two people live (or at least have a chance to live), or one definitely dies, the only logical and ethical choice is to let both people have a chance to live.

The abortion argument for me boils down to bodily rights, it doesn't matter to me if you consider the fetus a human being or not. No human has the right to use another humans body for the purpose of sustaining it's life and that goes the same for a fetus.

Why though? You're falling into the same problem as before. If you think that, fine, but if you can't actually reason why, your words are meaningless, even if everyone agrees with you. You say no human has the right to use another human's body for the purpose of sustaining it's life, but that's exactly how reproduction works, and has always worked (for humans). If you don't think that's a right, then you are effectively saying that the only reason a fetus is allowed to be sustained in the womb is because the mother allows it, so at what point during pregnancy does a fetus actually gain the same right to life as other humans, and more importantly, why does it happen at this point? Where do we draw the line, and why should it be drawn there?

[Catholic_Lady]

Am I the only one who likes trolls and people who are too obnoxious to be taken seriously? Lol. I find him hysterical.

You just like him because his name's a poop reference, 'fess up.

What? Hanky is another word for poop?? 

Lol I never knew that. I just thought hanky was like hanky panky, which means sexual intercourse. 

Well whataya know. I like him even more now. Weeeeeeee! 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Mr Hanky is a talking piece of shit on the TV show South Park.

Great, now I've done did it.

[Joods]

I'm glad your baby was born healthy. I'm also glad to hear you admit that you would not be able to care for a special needs child but let me say one thing on the issues of terminating a baby with down syndrome. 

My 20 year old daughter has down syndrome. She has a wonderful quality of life. She walks, talks, sings, dances, learns how to read and do basic math in school. She is capable of bathing herself and getting snacks from the kitchen. To say that she wouldn't have any sort of quality of life is a misnomer. Nearly every child born with down syndrome is fully capable of learning as "typical" people do. It just takes them longer. Many are born with medical issues that can be fixed with surgery. Many have no medical issues at all. There is quite a large number of adults within the down syndrome community who lead independent lives. Some even marry. Males are born sterile, females have a 50% chance of giving birth to a child with down syndrome. 

All that being said, I am a strong advocate of getting ride of the triple screening tests that determine not only down syndrome but spina bifida as well. Why? Because they are only screenings. They are at best between 40 - 60% accurate. I had one and the screening showed zero signs of my daughter having down syndrome. These people CAN and DO go on to lead productive, active and happy lives. 

I cannot speak about other disabilities which are more severe because she doesn't have them. I can only speak for people who have down syndrome. And I would really hate to see someone terminate a pregancy based on a screening that isn't even capable of providing actual proof of down syndrome. Those who choose to do so are missing out on so much joy and love. While I firmly believe that it should always be a woman's right to choose, this is the ONLY area in which I am truly torn on the subject. While I have the views regarding my post here, I also have to say that if the fetus, no matter if it has down syndrome or not, is threatening the life of the mother and she will most  likely die if she carries to term, then by all means, the choice must be made to save her life. However, if the reasons are that one doesn't think they could raise such a wonderful child, please rethink that because there are so many people who would love the opportunity to raise a child with down syndrome via adoption. 

If given the chance to adopt a child with down syndrome, I would totally do it in a heart beat. Given my experience with being a mom of one already, I welcome that with open arms.

Then you should go do that right now.  Seriously.  There are thousands of special needs kids who actually exist and need adoption.

I am glad to hear about you and your daughter though. : Of course they can, I never said they couldn't, just that I could not give what was needed.  If you can, then you should.

Thank you. It truly is a life changing experience. I had her when I was 24 and my world literally stopped. She's a great kid and if I could afford to adopt another child with DS, I would in a heartbeat. 

We all do what we feel is best for ourselves, families and future. It's the best we can do considering the circumstances we are given. I admire your honesty with the subject. I lost a baby two years ago and just at the beginning of October, I got a tubal ligation and an ablation done. I'm 44 with two daughters and two step-sons ranging in ages from 11 to 20. My plate is full and I'm happy. I am happy for your family and I'm positive that your daughter has the best mom and dad ever. 

[Catholic_Lady]

Tib, you are my hero. I love and agree 100% with everything you said.

(Oh and Mr Hanky is my hero too of course)

[Catholic_Lady]

Mr Hanky is a talking piece of shit on the TV show South Park.

Great, now I've done did it.

Hahahaha! I did not know that. I dont watch that show. That's hilarious. 

[Joods]

Mr Hanky is a talking piece of shit on the TV show South Park.

Great, now I've done did it.

It's only fitting since he is a shitstain on the underwear of life. 

Hey look.. I've gone and done it too! 

**jumps in boat with Thump and grabs a paddle