You Will Regret Your Abortion

Sadanie said,

REally? Wow. Killing an unborn is maturity?


alexa said,
"She then acts sensibly and sees her doctor and gets it arranged asap while it is still a tiny embryo, maybe has a wee cry when she gets home but sometimes just feels relieved and it is over and she has her life back. The decision was right for her. That is where the 'right' comes in, being 'right' for any particular woman will differ."

Let me interpret…."lets kill it while its little….its less a life and I won't feel so bad about myself."

A wee cry ?…..what a joke.

Get this…honey. Unless you have had an abortion YOU DO NOT KNOW AND CAN'T BEGIN TO KNOW. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW LITTLE IT IS…OK. IT IS TAKING A LIFE THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TAKE…AND WOMEN KNOW IT, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAVE THIER ENTIRE LIVES TO THINK ABOUT IT.

Why is this a tough subject…if its just tiny? And why if women only cry a wee little bit? LMAO

The statement is a joke.

You are pro-abortion and you champion killing unborn babies.


The post is a joke. Have you had an abortion to know how you would feel?

 

He knew what would happen but allows people to make their own mistakes. WEll your a blamer so of course you would blame someone.

 

I think you should calm down and take a deep breath.

You are close to hysterical.

I am sorry that you had an abortion and either didn't have a choice about it, or made the wrong choice for YOURSELF, but that is not a valid reason to impose your regrets and your wants on other women.

Maybe instead of praying in front of women's clinics, you should go see a therapist who might help you get over your PERSONAL trauma. . .

In the mean time, I believe I am done talking to you, as know for a fact that talking to a borderline hysterical person will not bring any constructive conversation.

Take care of yourself. . .and leave women alone to make their own choices.

 

Apparently, you are the one blaming women who do choose to have an abortion. . .

Are you getting a little confused?

 

Life is too short

 

I would save an 11 year old son...because I would be bonded with that child...IF for some odd reason the 10 week gestation fetus was killing my 11 year old son..... Silly example.

But that has nothing to do with whether a 10 week gestation is any less an individual and any less a human life.

You have contempt for something you can't hold and coo at......

 

many pro-lifers will not support "save the children" funds etc because a) those children are not American and b) doing so does not reward them with the same feelings of superiority and self satisfaction that demeaning women having abortions does

 

This is as Sadine said a hysterical post and has little relationship to my post. I know you said earlier you had had an abortion, though to be honest I did not take you seriously.

I am very aware of the need for the person having the abortion to feel under no pressure to have one and to take the decision which is right for them. Abortion is not right for all women under the same conditions.

For that reason I stayed close with a woman this year who was under strong pressure to have an abortion while it was perfectly clear she didn't want one - she said it was impossible for her not to think of it as a little baby within her and had had dreams about it and would discuss how she would manage and then say maybe she had better have an abortion as her husband wanted it. To have this child was going to completely change their lives. Luckily they had the extra room, free child minding and free higher education here in Scotland so eventually the decision was made - on the day she was due the abortion, that they would keep the child. Since then it has not appeared nearly so scary and although a different family to what they had imagined and much more work and attention on the family as a family working together, I think it will work well. They will have to give up some choices but will have others. She was fortunate to have the free help, the space and the free higher education which makes it more financially and practically possible.

For some people it simply is not right to have an abortion. Now I do not know what happened with you but in the above case I was concerned that the woman would go into depression if she had the abortion simply because clearly for her it was not the right thing. That does not take away from the reality that I have known women who have had abortions, it has been the right thing for them and they have never regretted it. We are all different and our situations are all different.

Were you perhaps persuaded to have an abortion against your will or did the problems happen afterwards. Did you then become involved in religion and pro life and have landed yourself with a lifetime of perjatory?

If you made a mistake you need to forgive yourself and move on. If you cannot do that then Sadine's suggestion of counselling seems sensible.

 

Please refer to the US Constitution Article III Section 2:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/

The law was challenged in Roe v Wade and the US Supreme Court has absolute authority related to ALL laws in the United States. The laws were infringing upon the Rights of a Woman and the Supreme Court had to determine if there was a legal foundation that rationalized that infringement. It addressed the LAW and it did so based upon the entire written history of mankind.

The Court did not decide when a "human life can be killed" but instead, based upon the US Constitution and the historical precedent of ALL recorded history, drew the lines where the LAWS could infringe upon the Constitutionally Protected Rights of the Woman.

As I previously mentioned there is a gross failure of the "anti-abortionists" to read and understand the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v Wade which is why they make false or misleading statements about it. Because of their ignorance they don't know how to address their concerns property under the Constitution. If they want to extend protections under the law to the pre-born then they need to do that through a Constitutional Amendment that establishes "personhood" for the pre-born. Instead of having a personal or religious opinion that the pre-born are "persons" they need to establish that under the law and that requires a Constitutional Amendment. The issue is a legal issue and not an issue of opinion.

Currently there is no legal precedent for the pre-born being "persons" but new legal precedent can be established by Constitutional Amendment. What part of that do the "anti-abortionists" fail to understand? If they took the time to read and understand the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade that fact would become very evident.

 

No, I obviously meant, which would you save, a baby or a tray of embryos?

 

how so?

Anyone with any moral fiber will understand the life they snuffed away.

 

to the OP

I disagree in most of the cases

the pro-death crowd views the baby as nothing more than an inconveninece upon their self-centered lives. They have no regrets because somewhere within their life they came to the conclusion that the baby has no value nor the right to life; the same life they themselves enjoy. A hypocrite cannot see themselves in the mirror

 

People rationalize things differently. There are of course people who have abortions and do not regret them ... ever. Being faced with an unwanted pregnancy can be very emotional for people so some will have regrets for either decision. Some women will regret going through with the pregnancy and some will regret having an abortion. Not be able to know what may have been is probably one of the largest factors.

What your doing is hoping and telling yourself they will suffer regrets because you do not agree with abortion.

 

I agree with you and would venture a guess that the majority fall into that category

I find it utterly despicable but do agree with the statement

 

If it was that cut and dry there would be no discussion. It simply was a controversial decision….and still debated today by people far smarter than we are people on both sides of this issue who know the Constitution.


I like this explanation.

http://rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html

 

See, this doesn't compute.

If its just a "blob of cells", then why does the woman feel guilt for doing it? It's not a human being right? It's just a parasite. So why do these women feel so bad about it? Is it because they know they are about to kill their child? No, couldn't be that could it?.....lol.

 

Here is my original question again...

How does a woman know that an abortion is the 'right choice' when our liberal-Socialist society and media believe in moral relativity? Is ANY decision moral then?

So far, you have failed to address my original post twice now and, from your classless, juvenile insults I gather you can't.

 

While a good read the noted link is highly erroneous in many of the statements made related to the Roe v Wade decision. A few examples:

In fact the decision in Roe v Wade did address the "right of privacy" with numerous citations of prior precedent. It was not limited to just to prior Supreme Court decisions based upon the 14th Amendment but also an precedent establishing decisions related to the 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendment and those citations are contained in the Roe v Wade decision.

The Roe v Wade decision also addressed the question of "States Interests" which historically overwhelmingly related to protecting the health and welfare of the woman and not the pre-born. Where legal precedent existed related to abortion predominately it addressed protecting the woman. The Court considered those facts.

The court also addressed the different stages of pregnancy based upon both statutory laws and the common law. There was never any limitations on abortion prior to the "quickening" of the fetus under either. Abortions in the first trimester had never been considered to be a criminal offense in recorded history, ever. The ability of a woman to have an abortion was never restricted during the first trimester nor was there any compelling States Interest in limiting abortions during the first trimester historically.

The Supreme Court did establish that a States Interest could exist related to late term abortions (after the quickening) so long as the physical and mental health of the woman were considered and the Roe v Wade decision reflects this fact. To cite Roe v Wade:

In short the Supreme Court decision was the same as the decisions in numerous cases where State laws were either too vague or that they were over-reaching beyond a justifiable States Interest in limiting abortions which violated the Constitutional Rights of the Woman. A "States Interest" can exist but by necessity it cannot be over-reaching to the point were it over-whelmingly denies the Woman her Constitional Rights. There must be balance between the States Interest in the pre-born as the State must also consider the Woman's Constitutional Rights.

Roe v Wade established that balance between the States Interest and the Constitutional Rights of the Woman.

I won't go into every error but there is one additional error in logic in the rebuttal to the Roe v Wade decision that must be addressed. In that rebuttal it states:

The author uses the 9th Amendment arguing the Right to Life of a fetus but fails to acknowledge that the 9th Amendment refers to People. In fact, in the protections of our inalienable Rights such as Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as expressed in the Declaration of Independence the US Constition refers to "people" or "persons" exclusively. Carolyn Gargaro, in her arguments doesn't present a single documented precedent for establishing that the pre-born have ever been considered as "people" or "persons" and makes this huge jump to an illogical conclusion that something that has never been defined as either "people" or "persons" somehow magically becomes "people" or "persons" in her argument.

Could we, for example, assume a cow is a person entitled to life? A cow has never been established as being either "people" or "persons" by any legal precedent but there are some vegans that believe they should have the same Constitutional protection of life as you and I enjoy under the Constitution.

Once again, this was a serious consideration of the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade because if personhood did exist for the preborn then the abortion laws were completely unnecessary. As "people" or a "person" a fetus, embryo or zygote would already have a protected Right to Life under the existing Constitution.

If Carolyn Gargaro has any valid position it is that the only way to resolve the issue is to create and have ratified a Constitutional Amendment that establishes "personhood" for the pre-born which I've been recommending because it doesn't exist today. It isn't that Roe v Wade was an erroneous decision because Roe v Wade was based upon the Constitution, Constitutional precedent, statutory law and common law as well as the complete written history of mankind related to abortion.

The Roe v Wade decision did not "legalize" abortion but instead it established the legal balance between the Interests of the States and the Constitutional Rights of the Woman.

 

A baby is a person established by birth. The "pre-born" (i.e. zygote, embryo and/or fetus) are not babies nor is there any historical precedent for considering the "pre-born" to be persons.

Why are anti-abortionists intentionally dishonest in their choice of words? Just once I'd like to read an opinion from an anti-abortionist that is honest in addressing the issue of abortion.

 

They can't be honest, or they would have no case.

 

If the personhood of any should be questioned, it's not that of fetuses, but that of the alleged human beings who profess to believe a newborn is a person when it wasn't five minutes before.

 

As opposed to those who believe in personhood at the "moment of conception"?

 

In fact they do but they need to be honest and address it correctly under the US Constitution. I have repeatedly noted that for additional protections related to abortion in excess of those provided under the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade (which balanced the Right of the Woman with the Interest of the States) they would need to establish legal precedent. This can only be done in the United States by Constitutional Amendment.

Opinions don't matter without legal precedent.

 

This issue was addressed in the Roe v Wade decision and the protections for the fetus are established at viability. Of course those that mention the above tend to ignore the protections for the fetus during the last trimester which Roe v Wade established.