Does anyone believe that an unborn baby has a right to live?

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 06/05/2012

My husband has already told me that my life is worth more than our hypothetical unborn child's. I'm paranoid of what my ex would try to do with our daughter if I did die before she turned 18/19. So as hard as it would be for me I would get an abortion. I don't like the idea and I don't think of it as a form of birth control.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 06/05/2012

becky: Too bad the child doesn't get to choose! I don't understand how abortion ever became an option for a pregnant woman. Choose not to have sex; choose to use birth control to prevent pregnancy. Any woman or man who chooses to have sex KNOWS that the end product could be a child. Therefore, the only "choice" once a woman is pregnant should be to raise the child or give the child up for adoption. Killing the unborn child should not be a choice!

That inaguaral paragraph kinda did the labling for you.

Johnny - posted on 06/05/2012

Oh, so "pro-life" only applies to people who have not committed a crime?

Johnny - posted on 06/05/2012

Becky, I did not state that the mother's life is worth more than the child's. Although if she has pre-existing children, they might suggest so. I simply asked how people can call themselves "pro-life" (as many do) when they will fight to stop women from aborting babies that are killing the mother. In most of these circumstances, the baby will also die as a result of the mother's death. It seems to be more about archaic beliefs than any true care for the life of the mother or the baby.

Becky - posted on 06/05/2012

What crime has the fetus committed?

Lisa - posted on 06/05/2012

I BELIEVE EVERY WOMAN HAS THE DECISION TO DO WHATS BEST FOR HER- IT IS AFTER ALL" HER BODY"; IF THE CHILD WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A DISEASE I PERSONALLY WOULD PROBABLY ABORT. I"LL PROBABLY BE EATEN ALIVE FOR THAT COMMENT; BUT I"VE ALWAYS FELT THIS WAY: "MY BODY; MY CHOICE".

Lesley - posted on 06/05/2012

A little food for thought for the "pro-life" people out there.

If a man brutally rapes and kills a young girl, do you believe he should get the death penalty?

If a soldier kills a terrorist defending the freedom of his fellow citizens, does he deserve to rot in your God's fiery hell if he does not repent?

If an armed robber came into your home and held your child hostage, and a policeman was able to get a clear shot at him with a gun, would you say no?

Please don't claim that you are a pro-lifer if you stopped to contemplate these questions. A little hypocritical if you do. Pro-life means you believe in life for everyone right?

Becky - posted on 06/05/2012

@Johnny, I never claimed to be "pro-life". I was labeled that from others on this post. Also, why is the mother's life worth more than the child's? This is a debate that neither side will ever justify to the other side. The fact is, abortion is legal. Therefore, women have a choice no matter what others believe. If they feel justified in their decision, then it is not my responsibility to place judgment.

Tracey - posted on 06/05/2012

I believe everyone has the right to choose, too, but not all choices are equal. The choice to live on ice cream and Coke is a choice, and so is the right to choose to eat moderately in all things. But no one thinks the former is a better choice than the latter.



My brother was born with myelomeningocele and hydrocephalus. This was before there was decent ultrasound, but my parents were first told he'd not last the night. The next morning, the doctors said he'd be a vegetable and that he'd never walk. He started hitting all his milestones (except walking) on time or early. Then they said he wouldn't live to be a year old. Then four years old (at which point he started walking and reading). Then five. Then 10. Then 20. The last "death point" they gave the family was he'd die at 35. He's 45. At this point his doctors have kind of given up predicting his imminent death.



He's gone to college, lived on his own, had girlfriends, had a job, had a car. He's volunteered with various organizations. He has plenty of friends. As a boy, he competed in the Special Olympics and set a state record for distance throwing. Nothing was wrong with his arms! He did have some learning challenges because of having meningitis at age two, but I know plenty of kids with similar problems who look fine on the outside. Anyone can have dyslexia, like he does, or a central processing disorder, which he developed as a result of meningitis.



A doctor looking at a 17-week ultrasound today would likely have suggested abortion. You can ask him, or anyone in our family, exactly how we feel about that. We've all made sacrifices, but doesn't life require some give and take, some bending and swaying with the wind? He would tell you, as he did me, that he doesn't have it nearly as bad as someone he knows who has emotional problems and is stuck in a bad marriage she won't leave. No one would abort *her* because of the potential pain and suffering!



So yes, I believe people should have a choice. And I also believe that some choices are worse than others. If a family can be prosecuted for harming a premature baby, why is it then ok to go way beyond harming a "fetus" the exact same gestational age?

Christine - posted on 06/05/2012

Yes!!!

Johnny - posted on 06/05/2012

Becky, if you do not believe in abortion in cases where it is necessary to save the mother's life, then you are not actually "pro-life".

Johnny - posted on 06/05/2012

It saddens me that so many people here place the life of an unborn child ahead of the life of the mother. I can understand that it bothers people that some women may not make smart decisions about their own activities, fail to bother to use protection or abstain, etc. etc. But when people say that they do not believe in abortion for any reason, it chills me to the bone.

I do not believe in abortion for any reason = I believe a mother should die if the pregnancy is threatening her life, even if that means both the mother AND the baby dies.

I do not believe in abortion for any reason = I believe a mother should carry a dead baby and she must go through the full delivery and birthing process.

I do not believe in abortion for any reason = I believe a mother carry a child suffering from a birth defect such as ancephaly that will result in death at birth must proceed with the preganancy.

I do not believe in abortion for any reason = I believe that at an infant must be carried until it births naturally regardless, even if it is suffering from a condition that will cause it profound pain at the end of gestation, through birth and at the beginning of its short life

I do not believe in abortion for any reason = I believe that a young girl/teen who is raped or has incest committed against her must carry her child no matter what trauma this causes her. I would rather that she kill herself than have an abortion.

That's the "moral" postion?

Becky - posted on 06/05/2012

Every day we are faced with choices. We all have to live with the paths we choose to take. If I am a "pro-lifer", does that make you an "anti-lifer"? How can thinking that a child should have a chance at life be considered a bad thing? I just think of the ways that I have heard and seen that they end the child's life. He/she would suffer either way. I couldn't live with the thought that I had put my child through that. I have only expressed my view on this issue. Thankfully, I have never had to make a choice.

Sharon - posted on 06/05/2012

Well said Krista, I think some of these women may be living in a la-la land where such awful things don't exist, or perhaps they have never seen the realities of a disorder such as this. I could never put a little child through a life like that. You wouldn't let your cat or dog suffer such an existence, so why would you ok it for a child?

Krista - posted on 06/05/2012

I'd like to pose an honest question to those of you who are completely, utterly 100% against abortion in any circumstances:

Are you okay with your child suffering, then?

Let's say that you found out that your unborn baby had Tay-Sachs disease.

Here's a brief description, for those of you unfamiliar with it: "Infants with Tay–Sachs disease appear to develop normally for the first six months after birth. Then, as neurons become distended with gangliosides, a relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities starts and progresses inexorably. The child becomes blind, deaf, unable to swallow, atrophied, and paralytic. Death usually occurs before the age of four."

You would HONESTLY prefer to put your child through a life like that? You HONESTLY think that four years of horrible, painful, unceasing suffering for that poor innocent child is better than mercifully terminating the pregnancy?

It's your choice, obviously. But I just cannot understand the mindset that feels that a life like this is the better option.

Proud - posted on 06/05/2012

I do not believe in abortion for any reason.

Liz - posted on 06/05/2012

Nail on the head, Krista, as always.

Krista - posted on 06/05/2012

My own personal stance on this is that I would not abort -- not unless my life was in danger, or if I was raped, or if the fetus had severe abnormalities that are incompatible with life.

And no, I'm not talking about Down Syndrome or another "mild" disability. I'm talking about something horrific like Tay-Sachs disease, or anencephaly.

I can imagine nothing more traumatizing than carrying a doomed baby around in my womb for months, knowing that it will likely be born dead, or that it will die shortly after birth, and watching my belly grow, feeling its movements, receiving well-wishes from unknowing passers-by and acquaintances. Can you even imagine being forced by law to go through this, instead of having the choice to terminate the doomed pregnancy and begin the mourning process and the healing process? Honestly, I think it would be enough to drive a woman to madness.

And it irks me that very few of the pro-lifers here are even acknowledging that, in their blind zeal for their position.

Krista - posted on 06/05/2012

Therefore, the only "choice" once a woman is pregnant should be to raise the child or give the child up for adoption. Killing the unborn child should not be a choice!

So if my pregnancy was life-threatening, you do not think that I should have the right to save my own life? That I should be forced to risk leaving my toddler without his mommy?

Becky - posted on 06/05/2012

I didn't change my stance. It should never be a "choice" to abort a child. Unfortunately, women have that choice, so it is their decision. I believe it is killing no matter how you dress it up. That it is legal to abort a life is very hard for me to accept. I care for my mentally challenged 28 year old son and my 51 year old sister who suffered a brain injury 3 years ago. There are challenges in life that people face every day and perservere.

Lesley - posted on 06/05/2012

This is turning into quite the heated debate, which I believe was probably the intention of the original poster. My 2 cents is this....

It is a woman's choice to decide whether or not she will keep a pregnancy. It is the law. What you decide to do with the choice you have been given is yours and yours alone to make for your situation and your family's well being.

Please don't tell me that if I decided to abort a pregnancy because I knew it would be an excruciatingly painful life for a person to have to live that I am immoral or a killer. Honestly I am tired of reading people's closed-minded posts about abortion and God's wrath. If you would like to make a real point based in real concrete fact...awesome. If you want to condemn people's legal choices they are making based on your own personal faith that not everyone believes and is not based in anything but your own leap of faith, then I feel it has just turned into evangelism.

For the record, I am a mother of 2, who had a miscarriage and experienced the loss of a pregnancy. I have never had an abortion, and I would probably never choose to have an abortion, but I feel as a woman it is my duty to strongly and passionately defend the right of choice for all women out there.

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 06/05/2012

Becky, no one is saying that it's not a hard choice. But your first post stated clearly that you don't believe women should be given that choice. That's what I don't understand. Why say one thing then change your stance and say something different?

Becky - posted on 06/05/2012

@MeganRegnier, I just can't wrap my head around taking the life of an innocent. I think each woman has to make her own decision. However, they shouldn't pretend like it isn't ending the chance for a PERSON to live.

Patricia - posted on 06/05/2012

i agree the baby is a human life i think this is why i have 10 kids and love them all with everything i have and more

♥♪Megan♫♥ - posted on 06/05/2012

Morally it's wrong. Now your going to get all kinds of flack because people don't have morals anymore and are so selfish they don't think about the child that in them. They just think about the trouble it's going to be to take care of someone with a disability. It comes down to whether or not you want to be a responsible, moral person, or if you just want to live with your selfishness and not care about a little child's life that might effect yours in a way that you didn't want.

Anna dear, do you want to know how I came to my 'selfish' decision about not wanting to take care of a child with a severe mental or physical handicap? I'm a care aide. I work in people's homes and some of these people are children with severe mental and physical handicaps. I can handle my job fine because it's only temporary and a few hours a day a few days a week.

I am very respectful and in awe of these parents who are strong enough and willing to sacrifice time and money to take care of their children. I know I couldn't do it. And it isn't selfish or morally wrong for me to decide that I couldn't handle taking care of a child with a severe handicap on my own. For you to come on here and say that shows that you lack respect and manners for other people's choices

@ Becky, so the mother's life doesn't matter at all? I'm not talking about just a lapse of judgement and someone forgot a condom. We're talking about a child who will have no chance at living a pain free life. Or what about a mother whose life is going to be threatened? Should she not have a choice?

Becky - posted on 06/05/2012

Too bad the child doesn't get to choose! I don't understand how abortion ever became an option for a pregnant woman. Choose not to have sex; choose to use birth control to prevent pregnancy. Any woman or man who chooses to have sex KNOWS that the end product could be a child. Therefore, the only "choice" once a woman is pregnant should be to raise the child or give the child up for adoption. Killing the unborn child should not be a choice!

Michelle - posted on 06/05/2012

My husband and I talked about what we would do before hand if we were told that the child were having was going to have issues and we chose abortion. I feel everyone has the right to CHOOSE.

Liz - posted on 06/05/2012

If you think that is the truth, Anna, it just goes to show that you have either chosen not to read the preceding posts or failed to comprehend them.

Either that or you fail to comprehend that most people's personal truths are not necessarily universal.

Firebird - posted on 06/05/2012

No Anna, what hurts is the knowledge that someone who can spell as well as you do, has that kind of mindset. It kind of strikes me as a bit of a contradiction.

Anna - posted on 06/05/2012

Just stating the truth! Hurts doesn't it?

Polina - posted on 06/05/2012

Here is a good article:
http://prospect.org/article/pro-life-par...

"...Depending on the child and the severity of his or her affliction, that education and care can run as high as $50,000 just in the baby’s first year."
"It would be logical to expect, then, that these new restrictions on abortion would be accompanied by increased public services for women and children—especially for children with developmental disabilities. The laws should also lead to stronger support for physically, intellectually, and developmentally disabled teenagers and adults—which is, after all, what the healthier and luckier of these babies grow up to be. You might expect the people passing these laws to rally behind the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which bars insurance companies from turning anyone away based on a pre-existing condition; after all, no condition is more pre-existing than one you’re born with.
But nothing of the sort is happening. Instead, even as state legislators are finding new ways to interfere with a woman’s or couple’s decisions about baby-making, they are reducing the services upon which families depend.."

Liz - posted on 06/05/2012

"Morally it's wrong. Now your going to get all kinds of flack because people don't have morals anymore and are so selfish they don't think about the child that in them. They just think about the trouble it's going to be to take care of someone with a disability. It comes down to whether or not you want to be a responsible, moral person, or if you just want to live with your selfishness and not care about a little child's life that might effect yours in a way that you didn't want. "



Way to be massively insulting to a lot of people who were debating on the side of choice, but who had nothing at all in common with this stereotypical and morally bankrupt position that you describe.



Edited for clarity.

Anna - posted on 06/05/2012

Morally it's wrong. Now your going to get all kinds of flack because people don't have morals anymore and are so selfish they don't think about the child that in them. They just think about the trouble it's going to be to take care of someone with a disability. It comes down to whether or not you want to be a responsible, moral person, or if you just want to live with your selfishness and not care about a little child's life that might effect yours in a way that you didn't want.

Corrie - posted on 06/05/2012

My ansewer is for question 4. I brought up my two daughters without any problems and their step father caters for them and their children like his own. The reason is this when you are involve with
another man, ask them if they are willing to take you and your children not just you because its not the kids falt that they existed in this greedy world. I turned down two other men in my life
because they just wanted me not my kids.

This is how I turned them down when they wanted to leave my country, they asked me to just get up pack and leave. I said I can't just leave my children behind, if you love me enough marry me before leaving the country. I thought of what might happen when leaves for another woman in future.
I thought if I return to my country, there will be no job no home and my kids will sacrifice.

Eunice.

Johnny - posted on 06/05/2012

"@ Johnny – there are indeed physical components to Downs Syndrome. A few of my clients at work have Downs Syndrome and heart problems are very common. I know of one particular client with Downs Syndrome who is of above average intelligence and will read reference books as though they were “light” bedtime reading! She often seems to me to be “brainier” than the staff supporting her! But this same lady has serious heart problems. Downs Syndrome is often a PHYSICAL disability as much as a learning disability. Heart problems are by no means the only common physical defects of people with Downs."

Exactly. I used to work in an assisted living house for high functioning individuals with Downs Syndrome. Most of them held down full-time jobs, got themselves to work, and mostly looked after their own needs. They just were not quite at the point where they could live entirely independently. One reason for this was that many of them had quite serious health issues, heart problems and hearing problems were the big two.

Last year, one of my co-workers gave birth to a son with Down's and they had diagnosed a heart valve issue during an ultrasound (which was being done because the genetic testing had pointed to a high probability of Down's) and operated in utero. This gave his heart the chance to heal well before birth and now his chances of having other heart issues in life is significantly reduced.

If we are going to give birth to a child, don't we owe them the best chance possible?

Glorianna - posted on 06/05/2012

Isobel, other countries are not the US. China and Russia for instance, (were abortion is legal and regularly practiced in both countries) which have the highest rate of US adoptions, have an over abundance of children because no one can afford to raise thier children or anyone elses, they are completely poverty stricken, in addition the Chinese do not look favorably on adoption, or on female children, so while they will not adopt, they do place thier females babies up for adoption on a regular basis. Neither of these concerns apply to the US. Here in the US, we are a wealthy country, adoption is not looked down on, and boys and girls are equally desired. The longest wait, is not the paperwork, or the filing, or even the fees. Its the waiting on a child to come availble. You can wait years after completing the entire process. I agree that the gov't has far to many regulations in place. I will concede that.

Leslie - posted on 06/05/2012

Its nobody's business what a woman chooses to do with their own body. It's their decision not anyone else's.

Liz - posted on 06/05/2012

***We now use “person with physical disabilities” (if they’re physically disabled – remember they’re a PERSON first, and their disability is secondary to that), “person with sensory disabilities” (if their disability is sensory – e.g. if they’re blind or deaf) and “person with learning disabilities” (if their disability is concerned with impaired intellectual function). Now that’s not hard to remember, is it? I absolutely CRINGE when I hear people refer to my clients in any of the outdated ways mentioned in the above paragraph. God only knows what they must be thinking themselves when they hear people call them names like that!***



You might have better results correcting people who use the terms that make you cringe, if you inform them in an unbiased and matter of fact way, rather than using language laced with disapproval, horror and condescension.



(ETA: I accept that the above may not have been your intention and in fact, given the usual well-thought nature of your posts, I would be comfortable assuming that it was not your intention. It is, unfortunately, how those words can seem to come across.)



These terms are second nature to you because of your work environment and experience, but many of the women that you might seek to 'inform' here do not share that background or knowledge and don't deserve the 'Now that's not hard to remember is it?' approach.



Also bear in mind that there ARE differences in terminology in geographically disparate locations. What is not acceptable to you may well still be part of acceptable medical vernacular somewhere else, 'mental retardation' being a case in point.

Liz - posted on 06/05/2012

***"@ Liz H – We have had clients who needed PEG feeding, and with very limited ability in that they were unable to walk, talk, move around much etc … The point of Supported Living is that each person is given the amount of support they need to achieve some measure of independence. Some of course need far more support than others and might only be able to (perhaps) hold a washcloth to their face whilst getting bathed/showered, or perhaps respond in looking towards the person that addressed them by their name. Largely, anyone with more serious disabilities would be in a Nursing Home. I don’t work in a Nursing Home, we have no nurses, just Support Staff – but there is a very wide diversity of ability and disability in the group of Homes for which I work."***



And those are exactly the kind of 'more serious disabilities' that I have constantly been referring to, which is why your remarks concerning assisted living are not best suited being aimed in my direction. I hoped that was clarified in my last post, but clearly not!



Honey, I'm a nurse, as in I have a Bachelor's degree in Nursing and an RGN qualification in Britain, though I am not currently on the NMC register as I live now in the USA. I _understand_ what supported living is and which levels of disability predispose someone to needing to live in a nursing home versus assisted living elsewhere. I've been working in this field for more than twenty years. As I said in my last post to you, I really _do not_ need your lecture on this subject! I'm actually starting to feel patronised by you, given that I already explained my field and experience to you once already and you're continuing.



My point remains that in my opinion I would abort a child who would be SO severely disabled as to have minimal or _no_ ability to interact with their environment or other people or even to know that those things exist. You don't work with this kind of person because, by your own admission, their level of disability would mean that they could not function in your facility. I haven't _once_ been talking about a level of disability that COULD function in your facility.



No amount of explaining to me what your particular assisted living facility is like is going to change either my experience or my viewpoint regarding a level of disability that you're not referencing anyway. Sorry!

Isobel - posted on 06/05/2012

If what you were saying were true there would be no countries in the world where abandoned children are left, untouched and neglected until they become unable to feel ANYTHING...or so violent and feral as to render them untouchable for their entire lives.

Isobel - posted on 06/05/2012

um...no, the laws of supply and demand do NOT apply to the trafficking of babies. The reason adoption is difficult is because the legal system is so convoluted that nobody could manage to do their own paper work if they tried...the VAST majority of money spent is on lawyers that know how to maneouvre the system...and that cost will NOT go down when there are more "customers"...ew.

Angela - posted on 06/05/2012

Sorry, off-topic again but just to respond to a couple of people who responded to my own last post:

@ Sherri Champagne – the company I work for has almost ALL of our clients fees paid by the State as they are entitled to Disability Benefit, Incapacity Benefit etc … I know of ONE client who pays his fees himself as his learning disability is mild and he always worked for his living and put into a pension fund which adequately covers his financial outgoings in Supported Living now he is retired. Everyone else gets everything covered by their benefits payable under the UK’s Welfare State. Entitlement to benefit is assessed on a person’s disability and needs, regardless of the income/financial status of their parents. We help with careful stewardship of their money and they enjoy vacations overseas and in Britain and we accompany them on their vacations to support them in their needs.

“Mentally retarded” has not been used in the UK for over 40 years. “Mentally handicapped” was discarded as suitable terminology about 20 years ago – as was “physically handicapped” and just plain “handicapped”. Other words which have been used in the past to describe people with disabilities include “backward”, “cripple”, “mongol” and “spastic” – all awful words and “retard” – (which was never used much in the UK) is also an appalling term.

We now use “person with physical disabilities” (if they’re physically disabled – remember they’re a PERSON first, and their disability is secondary to that), “person with sensory disabilities” (if their disability is sensory – e.g. if they’re blind or deaf) and “person with learning disabilities” (if their disability is concerned with impaired intellectual function). Now that’s not hard to remember, is it? I absolutely CRINGE when I hear people refer to my clients in any of the outdated ways mentioned in the above paragraph. God only knows what they must be thinking themselves when they hear people call them names like that!

http://www.wsf.org/news/mahercomments.ht...

http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-politic...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/10/...

@ Liz H – We have had clients who needed PEG feeding, and with very limited ability in that they were unable to walk, talk, move around much etc … The point of Supported Living is that each person is given the amount of support they need to achieve some measure of independence. Some of course need far more support than others and might only be able to (perhaps) hold a washcloth to their face whilst getting bathed/showered, or perhaps respond in looking towards the person that addressed them by their name. Largely, anyone with more serious disabilities would be in a Nursing Home. I don’t work in a Nursing Home, we have no nurses, just Support Staff – but there is a very wide diversity of ability and disability in the group of Homes for which I work.

@ Johnny – there are indeed physical components to Downs Syndrome. A few of my clients at work have Downs Syndrome and heart problems are very common. I know of one particular client with Downs Syndrome who is of above average intelligence and will read reference books as though they were “light” bedtime reading! She often seems to me to be “brainier” than the staff supporting her! But this same lady has serious heart problems. Downs Syndrome is often a PHYSICAL disability as much as a learning disability. Heart problems are by no means the only common physical defects of people with Downs.

And I believe it’s sensible to have genetic screening in pregnancy if you are thought to be at risk – even if you would never get an abortion. It’s as well to be prepared for your child’s disability OR, if all is well, to simply have your mind at rest that your baby’s OK. Nothing wrong with that!

Gloria - posted on 06/05/2012

No matter the condition's, every baby has a right to live! Not the baby's fault if the person wasn't thinking ahead.

Glorianna - posted on 06/05/2012

A few people have mentioned the adoption issue, and how difficult and selective and expensive it is to adopt. Yes it is, primarily because there are not enough babies up for adoption, and there is a multitude of people wishing to adopt. Not to sound to cold and calculating. . . supply and demand. If there were more women who chose adoption instead of abortion, the process to adopt would be quicker and cheaper.
Foster care adoption are quicker and chaper for this very reason. However they are much more emotinally taxing, Its an emotinal roller coaster that not everyone is prepared to embark on. Also a great many children in foster care have severe emotional, neurological and physical issues tied to abuse and parental drug abuse. Another roller coaster many are not willing to embark on. (Which is why there are so many needing adopted).
I encourage everyone who conceived and does not want a child to place the child for adoption.

Julie - posted on 06/05/2012

Sorry bout that!! I will remember for next time! :)

Johnny - posted on 06/05/2012

Paragraph breaks?

ETA. Sorry Julie. I appreciate what you are saying in your post, it is just hard to read as all one block.

Julie - posted on 06/05/2012

I'm not on here to to say that women who have abortions will be punished. God gave us the freedom of choice to do the right thing or to do the wrong thing. Yes there is evil in this world and because I follow my God I chose certain things and actions that would be pleasing in his sight. I'm not perfect and my God says we are all born into sin and we are forgivin whe we ask him into our hearts. That doesn't mean we won't sin again or make mistakes but were forgivin. U don't have to believe as I do and I'm not asking u to. I'm simply stating how I feel. I'm sorry if I have stepped on anyone's toes, I truly am. I do raise my kids to respect themselves and I do preach abstinence to my children however I'm not stupid either I do ask them to make the right choices in their sex life. My son is 17 and he's still a virgin. His girlfriend is also a Christian and has made the decision to stay pure for her husband. He's not allowed to be alone and when they go on a date they have a chaperone. Yes my household is strict and I don't expect anyone else to run their home as I do. This is mine and my husbands decision. My children are well rounded and I don't shelter them from life they attend public school and they volunteer at various homeless missions and teen pregnancy centers. They respect their future spouses and their own bodies. Again this is my life and I'm not saying u have to live the way we do. My children know the real world. My own daughter was a virgin when she was raped and not to go into a lot of details she knows how my husband and I feel about abortion. She made her decision to let the innocent child have life and while she struggled weather to put her up for adoption or keep her I let her make that choice. She did chose to keep her and we all love her dearly. My daughter is still saving herself for her husband. She's not out there sleeping around now just because someone stole her virginity. She has a boyfriend and she's 19. We still don't allow alone time in our house and she still has to double date. I agree that just preaching abstinence doesn't work it's a full time commitment from the parents. I do believe that for children who don't have parents that want to make that commitment then birth control needs to be offered. Again I'm not forcing this on y'all I just want you to know this is how my home is run and I don't expect to change ur minds on God or religion. When I became a Christian I chose to live a better life for me. I choose what decisions I make because my God gave me the freedom of choice. I held my 7 week old baby as he took his last breath but I didn't blame God for him passing. Just as I don't blame him for the choices others make to murder or steal or abuse their kids. God offers me heaven after life on earth where he does make everything perfect. In the bible it says for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Our whole world is full of sin but ur life is what u make of it. Again I want to say sorry if I have stepped on anyone's toes or upset anyone.

Sally - posted on 06/05/2012

So what your doing infact Michelle is saving our souls and hoping that we will see the light and the will of your god before we are punished for our sins.
Well im buggered then cos i don't believe in your god. I believe in nature,a higher being that gave us freedom to make our own choices,freely without fear of punishment.
If your god truely created everything and gave man freedom of choice then it must follow that he also gave them the knowledge how to do abortions but left the reasons for using them up to us. so he even respected our right to choose whats best for us as a person.

Sylvia - posted on 06/05/2012

The only right answer is no ... At what point is life viable 22/23 weeks never after that point but is it right to force some one to have a child against there wishes no its not. ... So you can argue for and against ... Disability should never be forced in to this .... It's a personal choice for me no but don't judge other you don't live there life for them ...

Lesley - posted on 06/05/2012

At Comis -
Wondering if you support the military branches? Pictures of war and soldiers killing people make me cringe, but war is legal. Do you believe that soldiers should feel guilty for "committing murder," as you say? Kind of a weak argument on your part.