Using women's health care issues to support abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lynn-D
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lynn-D

Guest
I am totally apposed to abortion and firmly believe that a women’s choice ended in the bedroom. If she chooses afterward to abort her baby then it is the destruction of a gift from God that houses the soul at the moment of conception. This is not only a religious issue but a basic moral one.

The following is a misnomer since it only serves destruction and not the health care of a woman.
nationalpartnership.org/site/PageServer?pagename=newsroom_pr_PressRelease_080821

Lynn-D
 
I know when I talk to pro-death people I ask at least how can you say for the heath of a women in a partial birth abortion [D&E abortion] when the baby is already outside the womb except for the head.

I tell them how the baby’s brain is sucked out of its head. Most are shocked because they don’t know what really goes on in those abortion mills.

When it comes to a woman’s health heck a woman can have a headache and kill her baby in the name of heath.

Women are also lied about the breast cancer abortion connection.

My first wife [God rest her soul] had an abortion eighteen years later guess what she had breast cancer. She beat the cancer [five years] but other stuff like blood clots came up and ended up killing her.

Also birth control pills is bad stuff too. Women are so lied too it’s just sinful.

I’m not even going to get into about Margaret Sanger that racist child of Satan.

That’s the reason I can’t vote for a certain party that supports the killing of our children
 
It seems their definition of “reproductive health care” is… wait for it … abortion!

Talk about “mutually exclusive”!!!

I’m with you, Stan!

Ruthie
 
Lynn-D said:
I am totally apposed to abortion and firmly believe that a women’s choice ended in the bedroom.

It does seem pretty clear cut to me that it’s a religious issue here, no more no less, for which women all over the country will be made to suffer, regardless of their faith.
Anti-choice politics and rightwing ideology must not determine health policy in this country.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ruthie said:
It seems their definition of “reproductive health care” is… wait for it … abortion!

Talk about “mutually exclusive”!!!

I’m with you, Stan!

Ruthie
Click to expand...
Thanks Ruthie,

I get soooooo ticked off at Catholics that supports politicians that vote to kill children in the name of a woman’s choice. The baby doesn’t get a choice.

What really gets me is that our tax dollars are paying for it here and around the world. :mad:
 
agnostic said:
It does seem pretty clear cut to me that it’s a religious issue here, no more no less, for which women all over the country will be made to suffer, regardless of their faith.

Amen to that.
Click to expand...
Well since you don’t believe in God why are you on these boards just to pick an argument.

BTW when do you believe life begins?
 
stanmaxkolbe said:
Well since you don’t believe in God why are you on these boards just to pick an argument.

I wasn’t picking an argument :confused: I made my comment that’s all :confused: Does my comment and point of view have to agree with yours :confused:
BTW when do you believe life begins?
Click to expand...
Why are you asking me that question when you know I’m pro choice? Is it so I will say something like at the moment of birth when the umbilical cord is cut so you can then scream abuse at me and shove your church’s anti abortion rhetoric down my throat, and damn me to hell?

Seems to me it is you that is the one looking for an argument 🤷
Click to expand...
 
I used to be pro-choice. But after learning more about embryonic development – mainly from pro-choice and apolitical sources – I realized a long long time ago a fetus is a baby. Soon enough I saw that an embryo is also a person. The scientific basis for setting the beginning of life any later than implantation fell apart and there really was never much of one for setting it any later than three or four days from fertilization.
Long ago abortion was safer than having a baby under many conditions but not all. Now it’s rare that abortion is safer than birth.
That is so even without the increased chance or breast cancer, later miscarriage and later ectopic pregnancy abortion leads to.
Pregnancy actually seems to be statistically protective for women in their reproductive prime (21-25 years old at conception).
Therefore justifying abortion as a necessity for women’s health is untenable today, and justifying it as a woman’s right over her own body is untenable and has been for many years now. We all know there is another living body involved and it violates all reason to deny that that other body is human.
 
agnostic said:
I wasn’t picking an argument :confused: I made my comment that’s all :confused: Does my comment and point of view have to agree with yours :confused:

Why are you asking me that question when you know I’m pro choice? Is it so I will say something like at the moment of birth when the umbilical cord is cut so you can then scream abuse at me and shove your church’s anti abortion rhetoric down my throat, and damn me to hell?

Seems to me it is you that is the one looking for an argument 🤷
Click to expand...
Well I see you angry too but that’s understandable most liberals are.

I think maybe you should investigate when life begins and you may change your mind and become pro-life.

I’ll pray for you.

God Bless.
 
I’m sorry that all the pro-choice folks cannot see a very early term spontaneous abortion. I have when working in the delivery and no one will ever convince me that that is not a baby.
 
The modern propaganda …“a blatant attempt to block a woman’s access to reproductive health care” makes me sick.

Just like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, today’s fascists, led by the billion dollar abortion industry and defended by liberal attorneys, use emotional terms like “a woman’s choice, reproductive health care, …”.

Since when did killing your own innocent unborn baby become “womens reproductive health care”?

We must all pray for the strength to stand up against this modern holocaust, 50 MILLION US BABIES KILLED SINCE ROE V. WADE!

The relentless onslaught of these lies is changing the minds of the women among us, especially our daughters.

When people like self described “ardent catholic” Nancy Pelosi defend abortion and birth control as a woman’s right, we must defend Christ’s teaching and confront the lies.

We must make it clear that prominent self described “Catholics” like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Rudy Guliani do not follow the clear teaching of Jesus Christ as presented by His One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.

If our leaders will not do this, we must!!!

“Lord, save me”

Mark
 
Pro-choice arguments depend on a few false premises:
  1. That abortion is safer than birth (rarely the case today)
  2. That parenthood is the end of life (not the experience of four-fifths of adults in this country, who find life goes on and generally is richer for the inclusion of children)
  3. That a baby isn’t a real baby until birth or for some even later (an absolute defiance of biological reality).
    If you were to accept such outrageous premises, of course you woud be pro-choice; who would deny a woman the right to protect her health, then force her to engage in a task that means she isn’t capable of ever living a real life again (parenthood), all for the sake of a baby that is still just a possibility and isn’t alive yet? It would be pointless, shallow, mean-spirited and abusive to do so. Since that is how they see the facts (for whatever reason), that is how they see us.
    We won’t get anywhere with pro-choice people until we can find a way to overcome their emotional resistance to the realities:
  4. That abortion, even legally, is dangerous, and the few pregnancies that still threaten the mother’s life mostly threaten her about as much whether she aborts or not, while birth, including caesarean birth, becomes safer every year. A late-term pregnancy can be ended for the mother’s health – by delivering and saving the baby, a process called premature birth. There is rarely a conflict between live birth and the mother’s life. It’s a false dichotomy.
  5. That parenthood is part, really a middle or even early part, of the flow of life, not the end of the parent’s life but an enrichment of it.
  6. That when the DNA in the sperm cell and the DNA in the egg cell form a complete human genetic complex, a new human being lives. Every one of those cells is alive already, definitely human and genetically not “part of the woman’s body” any more than the woman is part of her own mother’s body when she hugs her mother. It’s a baby. It is one already, not someday – and most likely wants to live.
    Someone who understands these facts can no longer in conscience accept abortion as a “right” and a “choice”.
    The economic, social and educational condition of the birth mother might make a great argument for making adoption easier or foster care more stable. It cannot possibly make a case for abortion. The cure for poverty is never, never, never to kill children. Medically, abortion is so rarely the only safe course for the mother, indeed so seldom the safest course, that if we outlawed abortion but left it legal when the mother’s life is in danger, that would still stop at least 98% of all abortions. That’s a lot of babies rescued.🙂 Most Americans do support banning abortion except in cases where the mother’s life or health is at severe risk, so we could achieve such a law. We could increase our majority on that if need be by getting the word out that biologically, aside from religion, when someone is pregnant, a baby is there. There is just no plausible biological case for calling it anything but a human being. We need to stress that.
    We will meet emotional resistance from those who feel their lives would end if they had to give birth or their girlfriends had to give birth. We can get around that by working harder to make adoption easier, including open adoption.
    Some will say they could never “force” someone else to have a baby and then give it away. But no one I know of is planning to do anything of the kind. We already help out single mothers and poor newlyweds a great deal. We must generate more publicity on where such help is available and how volunteers can get involved.
    We can create an enormous groundswell of support for the lives of the youngest among us here in the USA. If we overturn Roe v. Wade here the wave could ripple through the world. We need to start by publicizing the facts that count.
 
Mark77 said:
Since when did killing your own innocent unborn baby become “womens reproductive health care”?
Click to expand...
One would think that “reproductive health” for a woman would mean the proper functioning of her body to nourish and nurture her unborn baby until term and then give birth naturally to a live baby. Anything else is a frustration of reproductive health and results in dead people. A blow and affront to proper reproductive functioning.
 
NTOT said:
One would think that “reproductive health” for a woman would mean the proper functioning of her body to nourish and nurture her unborn baby until term and then give birth naturally to a live baby. Anything else is a frustration of reproductive health and results in dead people. A blow and affront to proper reproductive functioning.
Click to expand...
Yes you’re right.

It’s PC since they can’t convince the majority of American people who are smart and know that abortion in killing the innocent. So they have to change the name.

Just like liberals had to change their name to progressives. More murder is done in the name of socialism.

But I’m not enlighten like them I’m just a Mass going, Bible reading, gun owning Catholic so what do I know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top