Dem. vs. Rep. Views on abortion and logic
_John_
Posts: 8,646 Member
I know logic and politics don't mix, but logically the stereotypical stance on abortion by the parties seems backwards to me.
Republicans are in support of keeping every fetus alive, but less likely to support the babies with public funds after birth.
Democrats seems to goble every fringe group they can in support of underprivileged/special rights/animal rights, but somehow view a fetus as an animal unworthy of support.
Logically, it would make sense for the two parties to flip flop their "company line" stance on abortion.
Republicans are in support of keeping every fetus alive, but less likely to support the babies with public funds after birth.
Democrats seems to goble every fringe group they can in support of underprivileged/special rights/animal rights, but somehow view a fetus as an animal unworthy of support.
Logically, it would make sense for the two parties to flip flop their "company line" stance on abortion.
0
Replies
-
Bill Maher said something along those lines. I forget his exact quote, but here's a butchered paraphrasing:
"Dems don't GAF about you until you come out the birth canal and then wants to welfare and nanny-state the fawk outta you. GOP wants to guard you from conception but once you're born... *kitten* you, you're on your own! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps... or diaper tabs... whatever. But don't even think of ending your life or getting someone to help you end your life, because we've exclusive rights to warmongering and death penalty!"0 -
Honestly, nothing either party does ever makes sense.
I really wish a true independent contender could step up to the plate, and put the government where it needs to be. The public wants moderation. But you can't get any sense of moderation from either party because they all are rigid along party lines. One of the things that made Reagan such a great president was his ability to compromise.
Where are the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats to find compromise in modern politics?0 -
I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.0 -
You know, I'd also like to further add that the ideals of both parties have evolved over time so I'm thinking that perhaps they will eventually evolve again. If each party can get their head out of their *kitten* and learn to work together.0
-
I would love to see every member of the government thrown out and made to compete for their jobs on a fair playing field with new contenders. It's so broken up there.Honestly, nothing either party does ever makes sense.
I really wish a true independent contender could step up to the plate, and put the government where it needs to be. The public wants moderation. But you can't get any sense of moderation from either party because they all are rigid along party lines. One of the things that made Reagan such a great president was his ability to compromise.
Where are the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats to find compromise in modern politics?
As far as the thread topic, I don't think anything is so black and white and I also don't think either side presents an honest picture.0 -
We need moderates as the party whips... then I think you would see some better congruency in party ideals.0
-
I would love to see every member of the government thrown out and made to compete for their jobs on a fair playing field with new contenders. It's so broken up there.Honestly, nothing either party does ever makes sense.
I really wish a true independent contender could step up to the plate, and put the government where it needs to be. The public wants moderation. But you can't get any sense of moderation from either party because they all are rigid along party lines. One of the things that made Reagan such a great president was his ability to compromise.
Where are the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats to find compromise in modern politics?
As far as the thread topic, I don't think anything is so black and white and I also don't think either side presents an honest picture.
Presidential Elections by way of the Hunger Games!!0 -
I would love to see every member of the government thrown out and made to compete for their jobs on a fair playing field with new contenders. It's so broken up there.Honestly, nothing either party does ever makes sense.
I really wish a true independent contender could step up to the plate, and put the government where it needs to be. The public wants moderation. But you can't get any sense of moderation from either party because they all are rigid along party lines. One of the things that made Reagan such a great president was his ability to compromise.
Where are the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats to find compromise in modern politics?
As far as the thread topic, I don't think anything is so black and white and I also don't think either side presents an honest picture.
Presidential Elections by way of the Hunger Games!!
I vote Pistol Duel0 -
I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.
I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.0 -
I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.
I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.
so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?0 -
I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.
I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.
so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?
You are making the presumption that life is always optimal. Sure, on a primary level, every living thing wants to continue living. But life isn't always easy or pretty.0 -
You are making the presumption that life is always optimal. Sure, on a primary level, every living thing wants to continue living. But life isn't always easy or pretty.
[/quote]
See, here we could get into an "I Robot" type debate, where "optimal" could be a moving target. I use managing my pond as example. I'm culling small bluegill because I want to optimize the growth of the larger ones by reducing competition for food. We can't do this on a human population, for obvious reasons.
The truth of all the matters in life is that as unique and precious as we are, had we never existed someone else would have been able to do whatever we did in society. Again, I use my pond. If i remove a very large bluegill from my population, this just allows room for smaller bluegill to take its place.0 -
You are making the presumption that life is always optimal. Sure, on a primary level, every living thing wants to continue living. But life isn't always easy or pretty.
See, here we could get into an "I Robot" type debate, where "optimal" could be a moving target. I use managing my pond as example. I'm culling small bluegill because I want to optimize the growth of the larger ones by reducing competition for food. We can't do this on a human population, for obvious reasons.
The truth of all the matters in life is that as unique and precious as we are, had we never existed someone else would have been able to do whatever we did in society. Again, I use my pond. If i remove a very large bluegill from my population, this just allows room for smaller bluegill to take its place.
I honestly didn't follow that.
The point is this... women are made to be powerless. I know it doesn't seem like it could be possible in this day and age... but it is. There is an immense psychological component to the way society treats the sexes that could lead to a woman being completely oppressed. Her decision to abort could be about protecting the child from an unpleasant future. You could suggest adoption as the answer, but look how overloaded the foster care system already is, and on top of that, the father could have the power and ability to interfere with the adoption. We would all love to think that men who would make that effort and have that ability really love their children and could offer a good life, but sometimes, the motivations could be in their own best interest and not the child's.
I know have several friends that will disagree with me, and that's fine. We all have different stories to tell. I think that it is sad, though, that the potential evil motivations of the few can disrupt the opportunities of the many, but I honestly believe that the woman's right to choose is in the best interests of all.
That being said, I completely support the death penalty for murderers and rapists. Some just simply can't be allowed any further opportunities to harm others. Consequently, my justification for the death penalty is right in line with my justification for legal abortion.
But that puts me at middle of the road for this discussion. I can't feasibly argue both sides, can I?0 -
You are making the presumption that life is always optimal. Sure, on a primary level, every living thing wants to continue living. But life isn't always easy or pretty.
See, here we could get into an "I Robot" type debate, where "optimal" could be a moving target. I use managing my pond as example. I'm culling small bluegill because I want to optimize the growth of the larger ones by reducing competition for food. We can't do this on a human population, for obvious reasons.
The truth of all the matters in life is that as unique and precious as we are, had we never existed someone else would have been able to do whatever we did in society. Again, I use my pond. If i remove a very large bluegill from my population, this just allows room for smaller bluegill to take its place.
I honestly didn't follow that.
The point is this... women are made to be powerless. I know it doesn't seem like it could be possible in this day and age... but it is. There is an immense psychological component to the way society treats the sexes that could lead to a woman being completely oppressed. Her decision to abort could be about protecting the child from an unpleasant future. You could suggest adoption as the answer, but look how overloaded the foster care system already is, and on top of that, the father could have the power and ability to interfere with the adoption. We would all love to think that men who would make that effort and have that ability really love their children and could offer a good life, but sometimes, the motivations could be in their own best interest and not the child's.
I know have several friends that will disagree with me, and that's fine. We all have different stories to tell. I think that it is sad, though, that the potential evil motivations of the few can disrupt the opportunities of the many, but I honestly believe that the woman's right to choose is in the best interests of all.
That being said, I completely support the death penalty for murderers and rapists. Some just simply can't be allowed any further opportunities to harm others. Consequently, my justification for the death penalty is right in line with my justification for legal abortion.
But that puts me at middle of the road for this discussion. I can't feasibly argue both sides, can I?
I think the right to choose is absolutely the most logical choice of our legal system as far as what is legal, but to get back to the discussion title, I find it ironic which side argues for this.0 -
You are making the presumption that life is always optimal. Sure, on a primary level, every living thing wants to continue living. But life isn't always easy or pretty.
See, here we could get into an "I Robot" type debate, where "optimal" could be a moving target. I use managing my pond as example. I'm culling small bluegill because I want to optimize the growth of the larger ones by reducing competition for food. We can't do this on a human population, for obvious reasons.
The truth of all the matters in life is that as unique and precious as we are, had we never existed someone else would have been able to do whatever we did in society. Again, I use my pond. If i remove a very large bluegill from my population, this just allows room for smaller bluegill to take its place.
I honestly didn't follow that.
The point is this... women are made to be powerless. I know it doesn't seem like it could be possible in this day and age... but it is. There is an immense psychological component to the way society treats the sexes that could lead to a woman being completely oppressed. Her decision to abort could be about protecting the child from an unpleasant future. You could suggest adoption as the answer, but look how overloaded the foster care system already is, and on top of that, the father could have the power and ability to interfere with the adoption. We would all love to think that men who would make that effort and have that ability really love their children and could offer a good life, but sometimes, the motivations could be in their own best interest and not the child's.
I know have several friends that will disagree with me, and that's fine. We all have different stories to tell. I think that it is sad, though, that the potential evil motivations of the few can disrupt the opportunities of the many, but I honestly believe that the woman's right to choose is in the best interests of all.
That being said, I completely support the death penalty for murderers and rapists. Some just simply can't be allowed any further opportunities to harm others. Consequently, my justification for the death penalty is right in line with my justification for legal abortion.
But that puts me at middle of the road for this discussion. I can't feasibly argue both sides, can I?
I think the right to choose is absolutely the most logical choice of our legal system as far as what is legal, but to get back to the discussion title, I find it ironic which side argues for this.
Yes, the contradictions in extremist politics is amazing.0 -
I know logic and politics don't mix, but logically the stereotypical stance on abortion by the parties seems backwards to me.
Republicans are in support of keeping every fetus alive, but less likely to support the babies with public funds after birth.
Democrats seems to goble every fringe group they can in support of underprivileged/special rights/animal rights, but somehow view a fetus as an animal unworthy of support.
Logically, it would make sense for the two parties to flip flop their "company line" stance on abortion.
Not sure it is illogical, depending on how you frame the debate. The republican view is more traditional/conservative in that women's behavior is controlled. The democrat view is more egalitarian. Do you really think there would be a debate if men bore children?0 -
I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.
I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.
so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?
Personally, as I can only speak for myself, I believe that life starts when the first breath is taken or is able to be taken outside the mother.
Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.
After someone is alive, nobody, including the government, should have the right to end that life.
Also,. there are many other problems with the death penalty, but as per this discussion, that is the opinion I share for now.0 -
You could suggest adoption as the answer, but look how overloaded the foster care system already is, and on top of that, the father could have the power and ability to interfere with the adoption.
The foster care system is overloaded with older children who were removed from homes where they were abused.
It uis not overloaded with cute babies that biological parents chose to give up for adoption. People are going outside the US to adopt these days because they want infants and it is very difficult to adopt infants in this country anymore. I know a few who have and I know a few who adopted from other countries and the processes and issues that arise in the US are insane.
But even so, newborns get adopted pretty much immediately when they're available.0 -
If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.
Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?0 -
Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.
Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?0 -
The Catholic interpretation of that story is that Adam and Eve were not specific people, but representative of the human race. It's how they reconcile the Bible and evolution.
Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.
Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?
Unlike many other Christian denominations, Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. So in that case, Catholics (and other similar denominations) would say God was talking to the entire human race and not one very specific person.0 -
Except he said it to Jeremiah, not Adam and Eve.
The Catholic interpretation of that story is that Adam and Eve were not specific people, but representative of the human race. It's how they reconcile the Bible and evolution.
Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.
Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?
Unlike many other Christian denominations, Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. So in that case, Catholics (and other similar denominations) would say God was talking to the entire human race and not one very specific person.
I was born and raised Catholic and never once did I ever hear that Adam and Eve weren't specific people.0 -
Except he said it to Jeremiah, not Adam and Eve.
The Catholic interpretation of that story is that Adam and Eve were not specific people, but representative of the human race. It's how they reconcile the Bible and evolution.
Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.
Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?
Unlike many other Christian denominations, Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. So in that case, Catholics (and other similar denominations) would say God was talking to the entire human race and not one very specific person.
I was born and raised Catholic and never once did I ever hear that Adam and Eve weren't specific people.
I know a lot of people who were born and raised Catholic who know very little about their own faith. But I assure you that is the church's stance on that particular subject.
Do you know about whom the term "immaculate conception" refers? Most don't.
I apologize about the misinterpretation of that verse. It's been a while since I read the Bible and would have to look at the full passage to interpret it better. Regardless, if the church looks at the Bible as representative stories and not as something literal, then even if God said that to one specific character in the story, it was probably meant toward the entire human race. Isn't that how we're supposed to interpret scripture? If not, then none of it applies to anyone except the people in the stories.0 -
I'm an atheist. I found too much hypocrisy with religion when I wasn't even yet a teenager to be bothered with it. Mom made us go anyhow. I used the time to scope out guys I liked and daydream. But my mom was religious (Dad wasn't. He didn't have to go to church. I was jealous. LOL) and my grandparents were very religious - right down to being good friends with a Cardinal. Perhaps our churches didn't teach the same things as yours. Let's face it - this new Pope seems to have a lot of different ideals, standards, and interpretations than previous ones. I don't think that all Catholic churches are the same any more than all Muslims are the same or all Baptists are the same. Frankly, despite not being religious, I find it more than a little insulting and annoying to say that if my church differed from yours then mine must be doing it wrong.
Except he said it to Jeremiah, not Adam and Eve.
The Catholic interpretation of that story is that Adam and Eve were not specific people, but representative of the human race. It's how they reconcile the Bible and evolution.
Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.
Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?
Unlike many other Christian denominations, Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. So in that case, Catholics (and other similar denominations) would say God was talking to the entire human race and not one very specific person.
I was born and raised Catholic and never once did I ever hear that Adam and Eve weren't specific people.
I know a lot of people who were born and raised Catholic who know very little about their own faith. But I assure you that is the church's stance on that particular subject.
Do you know about whom the term "immaculate conception" refers? Most don't.
I apologize about the misinterpretation of that verse. It's been a while since I read the Bible and would have to look at the full passage to interpret it better. Regardless, if the church looks at the Bible as representative stories and not as something literal, then even if God said that to one specific character in the story, it was probably meant toward the entire human race. Isn't that how we're supposed to interpret scripture? If not, then none of it applies to anyone except the people in the stories.0 -
I didn't say anything about anyone's church doing anything "wrong." I said a vast majority of Catholics don't understand their own religion.
I'm an atheist. I found too much hypocrisy with religion when I wasn't even yet a teenager to be bothered with it. Mom made us go anyhow. I used the time to scope out guys I liked and daydream. But my mom was religious (Dad wasn't. He didn't have to go to church. I was jealous. LOL) and my grandparents were very religious - right down to being good friends with a Cardinal. Perhaps our churches didn't teach the same things as yours. Let's face it - this new Pope seems to have a lot of different ideals, standards, and interpretations than previous ones. I don't think that all Catholic churches are the same any more than all Muslims are the same or all Baptists are the same. Frankly, despite not being religious, I find it more than a little insulting and annoying to say that if my church differed from yours then mine must be doing it wrong.
Except he said it to Jeremiah, not Adam and Eve.
The Catholic interpretation of that story is that Adam and Eve were not specific people, but representative of the human race. It's how they reconcile the Bible and evolution.
Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.
Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?
Unlike many other Christian denominations, Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. So in that case, Catholics (and other similar denominations) would say God was talking to the entire human race and not one very specific person.
I was born and raised Catholic and never once did I ever hear that Adam and Eve weren't specific people.
I know a lot of people who were born and raised Catholic who know very little about their own faith. But I assure you that is the church's stance on that particular subject.
Do you know about whom the term "immaculate conception" refers? Most don't.
I apologize about the misinterpretation of that verse. It's been a while since I read the Bible and would have to look at the full passage to interpret it better. Regardless, if the church looks at the Bible as representative stories and not as something literal, then even if God said that to one specific character in the story, it was probably meant toward the entire human race. Isn't that how we're supposed to interpret scripture? If not, then none of it applies to anyone except the people in the stories.
And the things I'm speaking of I learned long before this Pope. I have only been in a Catholic church since he took over once and that was for my grandmother's funeral. However, my mother spent 12 years in Catholic school. my grandmother was a devout Catholic for 97 years and although I wasn't raised in the church, I did learn an awful lot about it from my family and from a brief stint in RCIA classes.
In fact, the reason I took the RCIA classes was I was engaged to someone who was Catholic and his family was very concerned about me being a full-fledged member of the church. They were "devout," but I had several conversations with his mother where I clearly knew more about their religion than they did. I mention the Immaculate Conception because nearly everyone thinks that refers to Mary becoming pregnant with Jesus when in fact it refers to Mary's own conception and that she is the only human born without original sin. My ex's mother argued me to death and finally asked her priest, assuming he would back her up.
Logic itself says the IC can't be about Christ because the church marks the Feast of the IC on Dec. 6 and Christ's birthday on Dec. 26. That's either a very short or a very long pregnancy ...
I don't practice the religion, but I'm quite familiar with it. And the thing about not taking the Bible literally and about Adam and Eve not being recognized as specific people, but a parable representing the entie human race is not only taught in one Catholic church. I have heard that multiple times from multiple nuns and priests in multiple churches in multiple cities and states.
I'm not telling you your church was wrong. I'm telling you that you perhaps were not listening or these things maybe didn't come up in your presence. And you just confirmed what I thought.0 -
I picture God facepalming and saying, "how did you people **** this up this badly"...and then kicking himself in the nuts when it comes to organized religion.0
-
No **** right?I picture God facepalming and saying, "how did you people **** this up this badly"...and then kicking himself in the nuts when it comes to organized religion.
As for the previous argument - I did pay attention. I attended Sunday school every week until I was 16. I wasn't scoping out boys when I was 7 FFS. My grandparents were devout Catholics until they died at 85 and 93 yrs of age. I don't need some stranger on the internet to try to convince me that she's right about the church I grew up with. Perhaps you didn't speak with enough people. I got most of my information from a Cardinal and a Bishop (my cousin) so thank you for your opinion but that's all it is.
You are one of the reasons people leave the church and religion in general. The whole "You're doing it wrong" attitude of superiority when the entire basis of religion is vague interpretation in the first place is just disgusting and reprehensible. Thank you for reminding me why I gave it all up so long ago. Every once in a while I consider trying again. Then I run into someone with that attitude and I remember that you aren't the exception, you are the rule. And you just confirmed that. Screw off.0 -
The Catholic interpretation of that story is that Adam and Eve were not specific people, but representative of the human race. It's how they reconcile the Bible and evolution.
Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.
Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?
Unlike many other Christian denominations, Catholics do not interpret the Bible literally. So in that case, Catholics (and other similar denominations) would say God was talking to the entire human race and not one very specific person.
This is not common knowledge? :indifferent:0 -
I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.
I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.
so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?
Personally, as I can only speak for myself, I believe that life starts when the first breath is taken or is able to be taken outside the mother.
Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.
After someone is alive, nobody, including the government, should have the right to end that life.
Also,. there are many other problems with the death penalty, but as per this discussion, that is the opinion I share for now.
Just one last question. Since there have been cases of babies surviving premature births as early as 21 weeks and you are basing it on the viability of the baby outside of the womb., at what stage of pregnancy would you no longer consider an abortion?0 -
I would say roughly after the first trimester......if abortion is an option for you, it needs to be done asap.....and although I believe in a woman's right to choose when she becomes a parent, I find it disturbing when a woman has several.....I remember reading once that the average woman in Russia will have about 8 abortions in her lifetime......Once the baby is able to live outside the mother, it is too late for an 'abortion'0
This discussion has been closed.