Our Own Auschwiz[W:602]

Re: Our Own Auschwiz

minnie616 said:

Scrabaholic is correct, most women do not regret aborting an unwanted pregnancy.

It sounds like the women your wife works with (who knew the gender and had names picked picked out ) must have aborted because of medical reasons.

The gender ultrasound also detects fetal deformities.

Click to expand...

My wife doesn't work with that group directly, but she does share stories with me. Some of them had medical abortions, but just as many are just normal women who regret having had an abortion. And maybe you're right that most women don't regret the abortion. But a lot of women do. Killing your baby isn't a natural act. Sometimes hard to rationalize. Sometimes hard to live with.

Re: Our Own Auschwiz

Waddy said:

My wife doesn't work with that group directly, but she does share stories with me. Some of them had medical abortions, but just as many are just normal women who regret having had an abortion. And maybe you're right that most women don't regret the abortion. But a lot of women do. Killing your baby isn't a natural act. Sometimes hard to rationalize. Sometimes hard to live with.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are many decisions we have to make in life that are hard, sad, things like divorce. Doesnt mean they were the wrong decisions.

Divorce is supposed to be one of the most difficult things people go thru, and yet they make that decision with the belief that going forward, it is in their best interests and that of their family, for a better future.

OTOH, pro-lifers love to claim that women have abortions just to avoid consequences...well, sadness and regret, no matter how justified the procedure, are consequences. Maybe that knowledge makes them happier, knowing some women do suffer later?

Re: Our Own Auschwiz

Lursa said:

Yes, there are many decisions we have to make in life that are hard, sad, things like divorce. Doesnt mean they were the wrong decisions.

Divorce is supposed to be one of the most difficult things people go thru, and yet they make that decision with the belief that going forward, it is in their best interests and that of their family, for a better future.

OTOH, pro-lifers love to claim that women have abortions just to avoid consequences...well, sadness and regret, no matter how justified the procedure, are consequences. Maybe that knowledge makes them happier, knowing some women do suffer later?

Click to expand...

Sometimes it's better to just have the offending spouse killed. But there are consequences to that as well. Just do the time and move forward, as you say.

I don't think suffering makes anybody happier, but it needs to be pointed out as one possible consequence.

Re: Our Own Auschwiz

Waddy said:

I don't think suffering makes anybody happier, but it needs to be pointed out as one possible consequence.

Click to expand...

I am going through some medical crap, and depending on the outcome of tests and procedures, may have to have a hysterectomy. I do not expect that to be a walk in the park. It is downright painful and some of the things they do to you before, during and after surgery are not fun. However, one must weigh the risks vs benefits and make a decision. I'm sure women who abort do the same.

Re: Our Own Auschwiz

minnie616 said:

Scrabaholic is correct, most women do not regret aborting an unwanted pregnancy.

It sounds like the women your wife works with (who knew the gender and had names picked picked out ) must have aborted because of medical reasons.

The gender ultrasound also detects fetal deformities.

Click to expand...

It is substantially different dealing with abortion in an unplanned unwanted pregnancy....a situation where relief may be the most overwhelming feeling.....

And the acceptance of abortion in the case of planned and wanted pregnancy....especially when the abortion is late into the wanted pregnancy (usually to US detected severe abnormalities)

If the gender was known......these were later abortions.....much later when most occur.

Bassman said:

https://world.wng.org/2016/01/the_american_holocaust

To date since the horrendous Roe decision, we lost the equivalent of three generations of Americans to these slaughterhouses. They do not liberate women, they liberate men. The excuses in favor of killing our offspring can fill an entire encyclopedia.

Click to expand...

Yes, the encyclopedia of nonsensical lies by the religious anti-choice extremists. Made extra pathetic by the use of the word "holocaust".

Re: Our Own Auschwiz

Waddy said:

Sometimes it's better to just have the offending spouse killed. But there are consequences to that as well. Just do the time and move forward, as you say.

I don't think suffering makes anybody happier, but it needs to be pointed out as one possible consequence.

Click to expand...

@_@

...

Bassman said:

To date since the horrendous Roe decision,

Click to expand...

INACCURATE DESCRIPTION. That Decision merely acknowledged something that has existed since the Founding Fathers started fulfilling a particular Constitutional mandate, but simply got overlooked somehow. See, the Constitution requires that a Census of all persons (except Indians not taxed) be conducted every decade. The Founding Fathers were right there in 1790 to specify the questions related to counting persons in the very first Census. You can find those questions here (along with all the questions associated with every Census since). The Fact Is, unborn humans have never been counted as persons in any Census. Since the Constitution-plus-Amendments is about the rights of persons, it logically follows that non-persons like unborn humans have no rights under the Constitution, and have never had rights under the Constitution. The Roe v Wade Decision might have found another way to conclude that unborn humans don't qualify as persons, but the Legal Precedent was set almost 230 years ago, long long before Roe v Wade.

Bassman said:

we lost the equivalent of three generations of Americans to these slaughterhouses.

Click to expand...

A STUPID LIE. To lose a "generation" means to lose the vast majority of the children of that generation, like fictionally happened to Hamlin (per the Pied Piper). Here are some relevant statistics for you. Depending on the state and the year, the abortion-of-pregnancy rate has ranged from about 1/3 down to about 1/16, which in NO case qualifies as the majority of a generation. (Those abortions did not-at-all prevent the total population of the USA from increasing every year.)

Bassman said:

They do not liberate women,

Click to expand...

ANOTHER STUPID LIE. Women do the vast majority of child-raising. It should be obvious that a woman who aborts is a woman liberated from raising a child. Are abortion opponents too simple-minded to understand such a concept?

Bassman said:

they liberate men.

Click to expand...

THERE IS SOME TRUTH TO THAT, but it is not the same magnitude of truth as the extent to which women can be liberated from child-raising.

Bassman said:

The excuses in favor of killing our offspring can fill an entire encyclopedia.

Click to expand...

STUPIDLY FALSE. There are far more excuses (all of the worthless) for opposing abortion than valid reasons for allowing abortion.

FutureIncoming said:

Women do the vast majority of child-raising. It should be obvious that a woman who aborts is a woman liberated from raising a child. Are abortion opponents too simple-minded to understand such a concept?

Click to expand...

There's another way that a woman could be "liberated" from having a child... Maybe if she doesn't want a child, she shouldn't be having sex in the first place... Sex was never meant to be a recreational activity... It was meant to be a marriage gift... Which makes sense, because I would think it would be smart to plan ahead and have a stable marriage, and income, in place before taking on all the responsibilities associated with procreating.

On another note, I see that you are labeling what is inside the woman's womb as an "unborn human", key word human... so you are acknowledging that it is in fact a human inside her, but yet you are completely okay with that human being terminated simply because he/she hasn't come out of the womb yet, or hasn't yet reached a certain age inside the womb?

I don't understand how age and location can completely change a person's view on a child's life... So if the unborn child is five minutes away from being delivered, an abortion would still be okay, but if one simply waited five more minutes and until the child was delivered, then at that moment it would be considered murder if the child's life was ended? Seriously?! That makes no sense at all...

Also the whole "double homicide" thing gets me... why is it when a pregnant woman goes to get an abortion, her and her baby are only counted as one person, but yet when a pregnant woman gets killed, her and her baby count as two people? And when someone or something someone does causes a pregnant woman to miscarry, I'm sure the baby is considered a person in that case, so how is the baby all of the sudden NOT a person simply because (in most cases) the woman happened to get pregnant but for whatever reason doesn't want the child...?

It's absolutely appalling that people are perfectly okay with the murdering of unborn babies...

Re: Our Own Auschwiz

Waddy said:

Sometimes it's better to just have the offending spouse killed.

Click to expand...

gfm7175 said:

There's another way that a woman could be "liberated" from having a child... Maybe if she doesn't want a child, she shouldn't be having sex in the first place... Sex was never meant to be a recreational activity... It was meant to be a marriage gift...

Click to expand...

Sez who? Sex is normal and has health benefits. I see no reason why one should be obligated to abstain because they aren't married or do not want children. BTW, being married does not guarantee that one wants a child. Many married couples choose to be childfree.

On another note, I see that you are labeling what is inside the woman's womb as an "unborn human", key word human... so you are acknowledging that it is in fact a human inside her, but yet you are completely okay with that human being terminated simply because he/she hasn't come out of the womb yet, or hasn't yet reached a certain age inside the womb?

Click to expand...

I don't care if it's God himself in the woman's uterus - if she wants it out, she gets to choose to have it removed.

I don't understand how age and location can completely change a person's view on a child's life... So if the unborn child is five minutes away from being delivered, an abortion would still be okay, but if one simply waited five more minutes and until the child was delivered, then at that moment it would be considered murder if the child's life was ended? Seriously?! That makes no sense at all...

Click to expand...

Give me one example of a woman choosing to abort "five minutes away from being delivered".

Also the whole "double homicide" thing gets me... why is it when a pregnant woman goes to get an abortion, her and her baby are only counted as one person, but yet when a pregnant woman gets killed, her and her baby count as two people? And when someone or something someone does causes a pregnant woman to miscarry, I'm sure the baby is considered a person in that case, so how is the baby all of the sudden NOT a person simply because (in most cases) the woman happened to get pregnant but for whatever reason doesn't want the child...?

Click to expand...

No such thing as double homicide in my country.

It's absolutely appalling that people are perfectly okay with the murdering of unborn babies...

Click to expand...

Murdering babies is illegal and I don't know of anyone who wants to change that.

gfm7175 said:

There's another way that a woman could be "liberated" from having a child... Maybe if she doesn't want a child, she shouldn't be having sex in the first place... Sex was never meant to be a recreational activity... It was meant to be a marriage gift... Which makes sense, because I would think it would be smart to plan ahead and have a stable marriage, and income, in place before taking on all the responsibilities associated with procreating.

Click to expand...

I'm sure men would be all on for following that edict to only have sex when inside marriage and then only to partake of that gift when trying to have a child.

Gina said:

I'm sure men would be all on for following that edict to only have sex when inside marriage and then only to partake of that gift when trying to have a child.

Click to expand...

Sex did not evolve as a marriage gift. Sex was around a long time before gods were invented. Why are the religious such killjoys? Groucho Marx told a story of the time a Catholic priest came up to him and said "I want to thank you for all the joy you have brought to the world", Groucho replied " And I want to thank you for all the joy that you have taken out of the world".

Scrabaholic said:

Sez who? Sex is normal and has health benefits. I see no reason why one should be obligated to abstain because they aren't married or do not want children. BTW, being married does not guarantee that one wants a child. Many married couples choose to be childfree.

Click to expand...

No! Sex before marriage BAAAAAAAAAD!

It's not like people have sex for bonding purposes or anything! That's preposterous!

TheGoverness said:

No! Sex before marriage BAAAAAAAAAD!

It's not like people have sex for bonding purposes or anything! That's preposterous!

Click to expand...

And only once every two years when you are married.

Gina said:

I'm sure men would be all on for following that edict to only have sex when inside marriage and then only to partake of that gift when trying to have a child.

Click to expand...

You aren't smart, if you scratch every time you have the itch. If you do, make sure your fingers are clean.

Gina said:

I'm sure men would be all on for following that edict to only have sex when inside marriage and then only to partake of that gift when trying to have a child.

Click to expand...

The religious fundamentalist men and women would publicly be in agreement with that. If you call them out for slut-shaming, they will say 'of course, men should keep it zipped too.'

But I doubt even they believe men will do so.

In practice, the world would never work that way, no matter what the religion. Historically it's been safe for men to take that position tho, because there was no way to trace the fruit of their loins back to them.

joG said:

You aren't smart, if you scratch every time you have the itch. If you do, make sure your fingers are clean.

Click to expand...

Contraception is never 100 percent effective.

zyzygy said:

Sex did not evolve as a marriage gift. Sex was around a long time before gods were invented. Why are the religious such killjoys? Groucho Marx told a story of the time a Catholic priest came up to him and said "I want to thank you for all the joy you have brought to the world", Groucho replied " And I want to thank you for all the joy that you have taken out of the world".

Click to expand...

LOL! Groucho was a very clever and witty man. I hadn't heard that quip before. Good one!

joG said:

You aren't smart, if you scratch every time you have the itch. If you do, make sure your fingers are clean.

Click to expand...

Um, what does that have to do with what I wrote or what I was commenting towards, the conditions and frequency of sex?

Lursa said:

The religious fundamentalist men and women would publicly be in agreement with that. If you call them out for slut-shaming, they will say 'of course, men should keep it zipped too.'

But I doubt even they believe men will do so.

In practice, the world would never work that way, no matter what the religion. Historically it's been safe for men to take that position tho, because there was no way to trace the fruit of their loins back to them.

Click to expand...

But we never see them include men in proclamations like that. They, the folks preaching this stuff, only clean up the comment after called on it. We don't see men slut-shamed for running around "sewing their wild oats" outside of marriage and I really don't think they (same they) expect men to have sex only for the purpose procreation. But that is the standard they (same they, not to say all religious folks) they would enforce on women, to be the upholders of morality and Godliness. Sex is a no pleasure zone for women, though even the Catholics permit the rhythm method.

I agree with your last sentence.

joG said:

You aren't smart, if you scratch every time you have the itch. If you do, make sure your fingers are clean.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with having sex only inside marriage and only for the purpose of procreation? Please directly answer that question, without the use of the fingers metaphor.

Lursa said:

The religious fundamentalist men and women would publicly be in agreement with that. If you call them out for slut-shaming, they will say 'of course, men should keep it zipped too.'

But I doubt even they believe men will do so.

In practice, the world would never work that way, no matter what the religion. Historically it's been safe for men to take that position tho, because there was no way to trace the fruit of their loins back to them.

Click to expand...

I've noticed that a lot of the fundamentalist types, seem to care more about the woman being abstinent, than the man.

TheGoverness said:

I've noticed that a lot of the fundamentalist types, seem to care more about the woman being abstinent, than the man.

Click to expand...

A lot of the fundy men go to the ladies of the night.

Gina said:

But we never see them include men in proclamations like that. They, the folks preaching this stuff, only clean up the comment after called on it. We don't see men slut-shamed for running around "sewing their wild oats" outside of marriage and I really don't think they (same they) expect men to have sex only for the purpose procreation. But that is the standard they (same they, not to say all religious folks) they would enforce on women, to be the upholders of morality and Godliness. Sex is a no pleasure zone for women, though even the Catholics permit the rhythm method.

I agree with your last sentence.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. They blame the women 100% for consensual sex. It makes no sense to me.

Eve and the apple I guess...men cannot resist us, it's all our fault when they 'fall.'

Gina said:

What does that have to do with having sex only inside marriage and only for the purpose of procreation? Please directly answer that question, without the use of the fingers metaphor.

Click to expand...

Think about it. A hint might be that instant saticfaction is a poor reason risk having to bring up a child alone or have to kill it.

zyzygy said:

Contraception is never 100 percent effective.

Click to expand...

My experience of a lot of it has been quite good. But, if you don't want to take on the risk, only have safe saticfaction till you marry.