a knife in my heart...

[othicbrooke]

so i have gotten in quite a bit of debates about a number of morally wrong issues we must fight against in our society with several people out there and the past 2 weeks i've actually done something about it

Comments

[othicbrooke]

I find it extremely funny and ironic how you are actually the one who is so blind you are following everyone else's ideas. These pro choice people you follow have convinced you its okay to murder children and that they stop after a certain point, which they in fact dont. And another thing is by shuting down these clinics we are helping a lot of people in more ways than you could ever imagine. Maybe you forgot that some people are actually forced to have an abortion. We witnessed first hand a girl whose mother dragged her to the clinic to abort her child. The girl was so devastated. By letting these clinics continue we are allowing so many lives to be destroyed. If my mother let me have that much guilt on myself and I had to live with that I think it would be even worse than if my mother beat me. There are so many other options. You can give your child up for an abortion. Another thing we saw was a father who wanted his child so bad but the mother didnt want it and she tried to abort the baby. Theres a destroyed relationship. And if you saw what we have to go through maybe you'd think differently... you try walking down the streets of Pittsburgh with just a handful of people and no one supporting you and we dont back down and run. Your taking the easy way out because you refuse to see the truth or fight against injustice... another way your backing down is by remaining anonymous... thats the easy way out buddy. Have you actually researched your side? and the other side? have you seen visuals or witnessed any of this injustice? Information is the only way to clearly choose which side you are going to support. I pray one day your eyes may be opened to this and its okay to have differences in opinions. I'm not trying to force you to believe what I believe, but I want you to just see the other side for what it really is. God Bless

[othicbrooke]

***put your child up for adoption*** oops

[othicbrooke]

While I can see what your examples with the girl and the husband mean, and how those 2 individuals were devastated, the truth is you are only thinking in the short term. Sure, that girl was devastated, but if her mother is dragging her into the clinic that means that she is under the age of 18. In the first place, she probably shouldn't be having sex. But, ok, just for arguments sake let's pretend it's ok. That young girl would have to dedicate her time to the baby, which means a) she can't go to college, b) she has to get a quick fix job, and c) has to hire a nanny while she's at work. The result is a very poor family, with the effect hurting the generations that would follow that child. As for the husband and his "destroyed relationship", if his wife and him could not agree on what do to before they had sex, then they probably aren't ready for the child in the first place. Also, if they can't come to terms with something as important as that, do they really belong together? That's not my call to make, but obviously each of them would have some major reevaluation to do. As for your gallavants through Pittsburgh, I commend you for your strength. However, the same strength could be demonstrated by a group of Neo-Nazis or KKK members who want to protest as well. The point is, just because you can show that you are strong, doesn't mean your cause is worth fighting for. Be careful how you show your strengths, because the one you demonstrate isn't always a positive one. As for your point that I remain annonymous, why are you focusing on the person instead of the argument. A strong arguer doesn't worry about his/her foe, only what they present. You bring up a strong argument for emotional devastation, but I implore you to look beyond the short term, perhaps 2 years, and look at the future lives of the people you are talking about.

[othicbrooke]

How about the future of the baby?

Oh wait. They're dead.

[othicbrooke]

That response is completely short-minded. Yes, the baby is dead. And I'm not going to say it is not unfortunate. However,it's 1 dead baby (in most cases) versus a depressed mother, a poor family, and uncared for baby (who eventually WILL find out he/she was unwanted), and then the generations that also spring from the new youth or even still the old couple who has another one. You still think in the short term, the minimalist scale. I think about the future, you think about immediate. And the end result is that I will not make mistakes that will cost me my future, while you will fall into a moral fallacy blinded by your narrow mindedness.

[othicbrooke]

There IS no future for someone who has died.

I am not narrow minded. I see your one exception, the exception that a baby cannot be afforded or loved. I also see the thousands of capable people out there dying to love it. Moral fallacy? You yourself say it is "sad" and "unfortunate" that babies have to die because they are unwanted. It is sad and unfortunate that you can't be man enough to defend a human being without a voice. Or 2 million.

Or if that's not good enough for you, there are thousands of women who suffer from post-abortion depression. They are haunted by the life inside them going out. There are fathers who are unable to stop their children from being killed. There are mothers whose own parents make the decision for them, a decision that should have not even be an option.

Who are you to say whose future matters more than others, or whose life? I think about the future more than you do. I think about the future that never gets a chance to happen because someone's own immediate needs overshadow it.

[othicbrooke]

This is exactly my point! You think about 1 single life. All things being equal, neither you or me can predict the value of that life. On the other hand, neither of us can predict the value of the life that the mother would have without that child. So to say that I value one or the other more is simply foolish. I value both lives, but I am a realist. And in the grand scheme of things, the future that "never gets a chance to happen" could also be said about the new mother forced to have her kid. You are simply taking chances with both lives, while I try to ensure that at least one person ends up happy. You could end up screwing up many lives, while I end up sparing more.

[othicbrooke]

You wrongly make the assumption that I am valuing the baby's life over the mother's. There are thousands and thousands of women that can attest to the great and unshakable loss of having an abortion, organizations devoted to healing, and support groups all for the other victim in an abortion: the woman.

The original feminists were not pro-choice; they were pro-life. The ability to give birth is not a curse, it is a gift. The entire life of a woman is not ruined by motherhood. Look at our own parents.

There are also women who have abortions who do so for reasons outside your one argument, financial or emotional inability to provide for it. This is an incredibly false assumption. Many women wrongly use abortion as a form of birth control. This kills many innocent lives and also can lose them the ability to conceive later in life.

You are not ensuring anyone's happiness. Many people live their lives and are never happy. But they are happy once, twice, they have felt happiness. They have felt what it is like to be alive and living and the inalienable rights allocated to every human being, that you would deny those who have never had a chance. This is as senseless an argument as killing the homeless or those in poverty by arguing that they will never achieve a happy life. Every life is equal, and if you truly valued life as you claimed, and did not treat it as a casual commodity, you would realize this.

[othicbrooke]

I am not saying that using abortion as birth control is good. People should use abortion responsibly. But, how is it different to abort as birth control, and to use birth control? In both situations, the life that could be will never be. Maybe I've given the impression that I support endless amounts of abortion. That is incorrect. I support using abortion maturely in cases where the baby causes more harm to the family than good. How does one measure this? It's a delicate balance of financial stability, psychological stability, and other factors that shape the baby's life. And while these thousands and thousands of women have post-abortion depression, these are women who were in the first place not ready for a child because they cannot handle the psychological pressure. People need to think before they have sex, not just about with who, but about the consequences. And until every angle is thought of, that person is not ready to handly ANY of them, including a child. Do you really want a child in the hands of a mother that doesn't love it, doesn't know how to treat it, and can't afford it?

[othicbrooke]

No, I don't want the child in the hands of that mother because I care about it. And likewise, I don't want it having to experience terrible pain and die at the hands of science.

Is there any difference between some abortions, and all abortions? How about some murder and other murders, some rapes and all rapes? They are all wrong. There is no mature way to "use" abortion. Abortion is not a birth control technique, neither is it a convenient way to escape inconvenience.

Your persistent disregard of the option to allow a baby to live and not care for it is also notable, namely adoption. I would be curious to know why you have totally disregarded this moral alternative every time it has arisen.

[othicbrooke]

There is no difference at all between the process of the abortion, but there is between the reasons behind them and the frequency at which they occur. As for my persistent disregard, I believe I affiliate myself with the pro-CHOICE group, which gives the mother the option. We simply look at the choice from different perspectives, where I'm giving the mother the choice, and you are giving the baby a chance. Just remember that in the end, it is the mother's choice, and not the child's.

[othicbrooke]

It is the mother's choice, simply because she has a voice. In the pro-life perspective, the mother gets the choice. The baby gets to live. And there is no price on life.

[othicbrooke]

In pro-life the mother is forced to have her baby. That is no choice! As for why she gets the choice, why should the baby get the choice when it leaches nutrients off of the mother, makes her life difficult, makes her gain weight, gives her morning sickness, forces its way through the vagina, and the ultimately costs the mother resources. Unless the baby is wanted, it is a much bigger effort than it is worth to have the child for 9 months than to end the problem 4 weeks or however long into it when not much damage is done to her.