Ultrasound cost is just another excuse.
Ultrasound testing is free at most, if not all, pregnancy centers who believe in
saving the child's life.

Ultrasound testing is free at most, if not all, pregnancy centers who believe in
saving the child's life.

I thought he was saying when you go to the clinic for an abortion though. Then it's not free & at the clinic when you go for the actual abortion is where the ultrasound is forced.

Back in the day when the courts said it was too much of a burden to have to go to the next state, abortions were running at about $250 - 500.00. My how things have changed - a $150.00 ultrasound is a hard hit for many people.

Attaching to the uterine wall is not what creates an embryo. Fertilization does that. However, I am not sure about the lag in time on fertilization and until you said that, I didn't think about it in those terms. I should look that up to pin down the answer.

That's why the morning after pill works in two ways--blocking eggs from release and preventing attachment by simply making the uterine wall an inhospitable place for the egg.

Eggs don't always attach to the uterine wall, even if fertilized. The body flushes it away just like it does the uterine lining every month.

It's her breath, then shouldn't she choose if she wants to end that particular
breath?
Because it's murder.



I still don't see how you view it as a child, but okay.
You did read into it.
Because it isn't a tomato or a fire hydrant. I'd be all for women aborting
tomatoes and fire hydrants from their body, but it's neither. Nor was it nor
will it ever become anything else. It's a child that did nothing deserving of
death.

I thought he was saying when you go to the clinic for an abortion
though. Then it's not free & at the clinic when you go for the actual
abortion is where the ultrasound is forced.
You don't have to go to the abortion mill for an ultra sound. You can go to a
place where they don't murder children, first.

Eggs don't always attach to the uterine wall, even if fertilized. The body flushes it away just like it does the uterine lining every month.

I am not sure if you are just giving me information or making a point. If you are just giving information, thanks.

If you are saying that the baby might not be attached, anyway, so the morning after pill is okay then by that argument, abortion is okay because sometimes (about a fourth of the time) the mother miscarries, often before she even knows she is pregnant. I don't agree with the logic.

But I like you.

Where have you found that it's scientifically proven that it's a human before actual birth? Because I've been researching this topic for years & have yet to find ANYTHING to be proven.

Ok, I'm not going to get into how babies are made because I assume by this time in your life you know. Now, with that being said, if you have 2 humans conceiving of a baby, the liklihood that the baby is going to turn out to be a human is, well, 100%. Therefore, when the baby is born it is human. Ergo, 10 minutes, 10 hours, 10 days, or 39 weeks before it is born, it is human. As I said before, it isn't a babboon until birth. There is no arbitrary point during the pregnancy that it suddenly becomes a human. It either is a human or it isn't and I havent heard of one documented case of a human giving birth to a crow.


If it's murder then why in your opinion is it okay to have an abortion after a few weeks? It makes no sense what you're saying.

You didn't read my post carefully enough. I never said it was murder but that millions and millions of people feel that it is. I said I am pro-choice but I am willing to accept the fact that the unborn child is human. I'm not making excuses or trying to rationalize my pro-choice stance. I believe there are times when abortion is acceptible. By the same token, my opinion is that there is a point in the pregnancy when the baby shouldn't be aborted unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so. I absolutely respect the opinions of the pro-lifers and I absolutely respect the opinions of the pro-abortionists as long as they are willing to call it what it is - the ending of a human life.

I also absolutely believe that because the opinions on both sides are so deep and emotional, it isn't a decision that can be made nationally. It must be made at the state level to account for moral and philosophical differences between regions of the country.


I had no problem viewing the ultrasound so not ALL of us are outraged by it. And why wouldn't the cost of it be a viable reason for not wanting it? Mine costed $150. Before I wouldn't have had to have it & I wouldn't have had to dish out an extra $150.

That's good for you and I am fine with that. I believe there are far too many people who think the unborn baby is just some mass of atoms inside the woman and isn't alive. The ultrasound at least makes them stop and think about what they are doing. Many on the pro-choice side have used the cost of the ultrasound as a reason to not require the parents to see the ultrasound. Think of the extra $150 as the cost of playing the baby game.

You don't have to go to the abortion mill for an ultra sound. You can go to a
place where they don't murder children first.

Duh. I never said you couldn't.
I'm saying they FORCE you to get one AT the clinic when you go for the abortion, which is why people use it as an "excuse" because it's NOT free there.

Duh. I never said you couldn't.
I'm saying they FORCE you to get one AT the clinic when you go for the
abortion, which is why people use it as an "excuse" because it's NOT
free there.
Of course the place where they murder children is going to charge you. They
have to make money. Most women who see an ultra sound realize it's not
a tomato or a fire hydrant and make an informed and responsible decision to
not have the child murdered.

Of course the place where they murder children is going to charge you. They
have to make money. Most women who see an ultra sound realize it's not
a tomato or a fire hydrant and make an informed and responsible decision to
not have the child murdered.

True.
But some, like me, make the responsible decision to terminate the pregnancy instead of having a child who we can't raise properly.
And I won't put a child into an adoption ring when there's already tons who never get adopted.
I WILL terminate a pregnancy, like I have, because it's responsible in my opinion.

True.
But some, like me, make the responsible decision to terminate the pregnancy instead of having a child who we can't raise properly.
And I won't put a child into an adoption ring when there's already tons who never get adopted.
I WILL terminate a pregnancy, like I have, because it's responsible in my opinion.

Healthy newborns (and most are) are snatched up for adoption faster than you can blink an eye. There is a reason people spend tens of thousands of dollars to adopt international babies.

I am not sure if you are just giving me information or making a point. If you
are just giving information, thanks.
Here's some information from about RU486, this is a morning after pill. There are
probably others.

Mifeprex (Mifepristone (RU486)) Drug Information: Uses, Side Effects, Drug (http://www.rxlist.com/mifeprex-ru486-drug.htm)
Interactions and Warnings at RxList (http://www.rxlist.com/mifeprex-ru486-drug.htm)

[/B]
Healthy newborns (and most are) are snatched up for adoption faster than you can blink an eye. There is a reason people spend tens of thousands of dollars to adopt international babies.

Yes, but that's also why the older children don't have a chance.

[/B]

Yes, but that's also why the older children don't have a chance.
But older children aren't aborted and you said one of the reasons you aborted was because you didn't want your child to be one of the ones who wasn't adopted.

Fact is, people will go overseas to get a baby even if older American kids are available. Most older kids come through foster care and are often abused and a mess. God knows they need homes but they have been through hell and have their own sets of issues, poor darlings. Moreover, foster kids have very high standards for who can adopt and people with even small problems in their background are often denied, by law, to adopt foster care kids. There is much more leeway in a private adoption.

But older children aren't aborted and you said one of the reasons you aborted was because you didn't want your child to be one of the ones who wasn't adopted.

Fact is, people will go overseas to get a baby even if older American kids are available. Most older kids come through foster care and are often abused and a mess. God knows they need homes but they have been through hell and have their own sets of issues, poor darlings. Moreover, foster kids have very high standards for who can adopt and people with even small problems in their background are often denied, by law, to adopt foster care kids. There is much more leeway in a private adoption.

Exactly, I don't. What if it came out with a health problem or something like that? I'm sure it would be a turn off when people went to adopt.

I also care about the older children who never get adopted. I don't think it's fair to add more children to the list.

I understand that people go overseas to adopt babies & new borns. But I've personally known people who wanted a new born, but it was too difficult for them to get one so they adopted an older child instead.

Yes, but that's also why the older children don't have a chance.
You're starting to use rumors and stories in your defense. If you'll keep to
facts you'll be better for it.

Here's some information from about RU486, this is a morning after pill. There are
probably others.

Mifeprex (Mifepristone (RU486)) Drug Information: Uses, Side Effects, Drug (http://www.rxlist.com/mifeprex-ru486-drug.htm)
Interactions and Warnings at RxList (http://www.rxlist.com/mifeprex-ru486-drug.htm)

Plan B, the "morning after pill" and RU486 are not the same drug.

Plan B is used as an emergency contraceptive. RU486 is the "abortion" pill, which is sometimes used in early pregnancy instead of a surgical abortion. It does have side effects and can have serious side effects. The Plan B pill is pretty much just hopped up birth control.

The Abortion Pill vs. The Morning-After Pill... Are they the same thing? (http://contraception.about.com/b/2009/02/02/ru486-vs-plan-b.htm)

You're starting to use rumors and stories in your defense. If you'll keep to
facts you'll be better for it.

Nah, I'm not.
If you kept your rude opinions to yourself, you'll be better for it.

Nah, I'm not.
If you kept your rude opinions to yourself, you'll be better for it.
When was I rude?

When was I rude?

With the last thing you said.
Don't have to get rude to support your beliefs.

Plan B, the "morning after pill" and RU486 are not the same drug.
I just read on Mayoclinic.com that Plan B is being phased out by the (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morning-after-pill/MY01190)
manufacturer. (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morning-after-pill/MY01190)

Does anyone know why?

I just read on Mayoclinic.com that Plan B is being phased out by the (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morning-after-pill/MY01190)
manufacturer. (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morning-after-pill/MY01190)

Does anyone know why?

Is that a rhetorical question in that you know the answer, or are you seriously asking? I had not heard that, though I have had no need for Plan B and haven't kept up with it.

And, for both Prune and Penny, from that Mayo Clinic article:

It's always a good idea to make a decision about birth control before having sex. However, the morning-after pill can help prevent pregnancy if you've had unprotected sex — whether you didn't use birth control, you missed a birth control pill or your method of birth control failed.

Conception typically doesn't occur immediately after sex. Instead, it may happen up to several days later. During the time between sex and conception, sperm travel through the fallopian tubes until they potentially meet up with an egg. As a result, taking emergency birth control soon after unprotected sex isn't too late to prevent pregnancy.

It's safe to use the morning-after pill during breast-feeding.

Keep in mind that the morning-after pill isn't the same as mifepristone (Mifeprex), also known as RU-486 or the abortion pill. The morning-after pill can prevent pregnancy. If you're already pregnant when you take the morning-after pill, the treatment will be ineffective and won't harm the developing baby. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy — one in which the fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall and has already begun to develop.

Exactly, I don't. What if it came out with a health problem or something like that? I'm sure it would be a turn off when people went to adopt.

I also care about the older children who never get adopted. I don't think it's fair to add more children to the list.

I understand that people go overseas to adopt babies & new borns. But I've personally known people who wanted a new born, but it was too difficult for them to get one so they adopted an older child instead.

But we've also known probably more people who, when they can't get a newborn, don't adopt at all. For the most part, the two groups are not competing for the same parents. Older kids frequently go to single parents or their foster parents who decide they want to adopt them.

With the last thing you said.
Don't have to get rude to support your beliefs.



You're starting to use rumors and stories in your defense. If you'll keep to
facts you'll be better for it.
Oh, you mean this. I wasn't rude I was informing you that you weren't using
facts and were basing your knowledge of adoption on rumors and stories. I
was very civil.

Is that a rhetorical question in that you know the answer, or are you
seriously asking? I had not heard that, though I have had no need for Plan B
and haven't kept up with it.
It's a serious question. The link I provided didn't provide that information.

And, for both Prune and Penny, from that Mayo Clinic article:

It's always a good idea to make a decision about birth control before having sex. However, the morning-after pill can help prevent pregnancy if you've had unprotected sex — whether you didn't use birth control, you missed a birth control pill or your method of birth control failed.

Conception typically doesn't occur immediately after sex. Instead, it may happen up to several days later. During the time between sex and conception, sperm travel through the fallopian tubes until they potentially meet up with an egg. As a result, taking emergency birth control soon after unprotected sex isn't too late to prevent pregnancy.

It's safe to use the morning-after pill during breast-feeding.

Keep in mind that the morning-after pill isn't the same as mifepristone (Mifeprex), also known as RU-486 or the abortion pill. The morning-after pill can prevent pregnancy. If you're already pregnant when you take the morning-after pill, the treatment will be ineffective and won't harm the developing baby. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy — one in which the fertilized egg has attached to the uterine wall and has already begun to develop.

For what it is worth - and let there be no question that I am ardently pro life - if someone is going to have an abortion, I would rather it be by medication than surgery. At least from what I know.

And I wish they would anesthetize the fetuses. It's heartless to not do so. I know, I know that is ridiculous but if they are going to kill them, anyway, at least don't torture them.

I realized that after reading all of it.

Tone is hard to decipher on a message board! I would be interested in knowing the answer. Maybe it's just not being used?

For what it is worth - and let there be no question that I am ardently pro life - if someone is going to have an abortion, I would rather it be by medication than surgery. At least from what I know.

And I wish they would anesthetize the fetuses. It's heartless to not do so. I know, I know that is ridiculous but if they are going to kill them, anyway, at least don't torture them.

Well, when we're talking the first few weeks of life, I think you'd have to do a local because it would be so tiny I'm not sure you could anesthetize it. Nor am I sure if there are nerves to feel pain; there isn't a brain at that point, yet. I'll have to do some reading on a fresh mind tomorrow.

Well, when we're talking the first few weeks of life, I think you'd have to do a local because it would be so tiny I'm not sure you could anesthetize it. Nor am I sure if there are nerves to feel pain; there isn't a brain at that point, yet. I'll have to do some reading on a fresh mind tomorrow.

I don't know when they feel pain or when they could anesthetize them, either. I guess I was thinking a little further on but didn't really think about it too much. I should have said I wish they would anesthetize them, if at all possible. I assume once they could be anesthesized (drugs could work for the little ones, couldn't they?) they'd be developed enough to feel pain but I don't know, exactly.

I realized that after reading all of it.

Tone is hard to decipher on a message board! I would be interested in
knowing the answer. Maybe it's just not being used?
My tone is almost always civil and often humorous, but it hasn't be humorous
on this thread.

I don't know when they feel pain or when they could anesthetize them,
either.
It's around 8 weeks. One example is the video "The Silent Scream" I've seen
it and it's gruesome and an eye opener.

fetuses are not able to feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation. This is because they have not formed the necessary nerve pathways that send pain signals to the brain. Even though fetuses begin forming pain receptors around the eighth week of development, the thalamus (responsible for relaying info into higher regions of the brain) does not develop until around the 28th week. Without signal transfer through the thalamus no information can reach the cortex for processing.

It's around 8 weeks. One example is the video "The Silent Scream" I've seen
it and it's gruesome and an eye opener.

Got a link?

Got a link?
Yes, I do.

The Silent Scream (http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm)

Yes, I do.

The Silent Scream (http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm)

Thank you.

In my heart, I am torn. I know people who have made the choice to abort babies, my wife and both of my sisters had miscarriages, and they are all haunted by their experiences. I feel bad for all of them for different reasons. In my experience, those who aborted did so out of desperation. They felt like they had to do it. My wife and sisters all would love to have had the babies they miscarried to have been born healthy. Their life experiences are totally unique, as are all individuals' life experiences. But like PP, I can't get past the FACT that abortion stops a beating human heart. It isn't an inconvenience, a parasite (in the tapeworm sense), an "it", or most of the time even a threat to the mother or her future. It is a human life, no matter how immature it may be, once it is conceived.

But I can see how there are those who believe a pre-birth human being is nothing more than a problem, an inconvenience, a parasite, a choice, etc. Because our society has been bombarded with this kind of attitude about pre-birth human beings for many years. And what about the size of the abortion industry? Consider the millions of abortions that happen every year and how many dollars (example: what is the cost of an abortion? $10,000? Too much? Too little? If it is $10,000, then multiply by 1,000,000 and it is a $10 billion per year industry and you KNOW that is conservative) are we talking about that wouldn't go into somebody's pockets if suddenly abotions weren't so socially acceptable? Don't kid yourself. It is big business.

At least the rate of abortion has been slowly declining, unless you want to bash President Obama and prove me wrong by proving that under Obama the rate of abortion has been going UP, not down.

At least the rate of abortion has been slowly declining, unless you want to bash President Obama and prove me wrong by proving that under Obama the rate of abortion has been going UP, not down.

I doubt if they even have those stats, yet.

I doubt if they even have those stats, yet.

Yeah, it takes a little longer than that to compile that kind of data, I'll bet.

At least the rate of abortion has been slowly declining, unless you want to bash President Obama and prove me wrong by proving that under Obama the rate of abortion has been going UP, not down.

Although I don't ever like to pass up a good chance to bash President Obama, I'll pass on this one, since I have no idea which way the trend is going, but thank you anyway.

Although I don't ever like to pass up a good chance to bash President Obama, I'll pass on this one, since I have no idea which way the trend is going, but thank you anyway.

What in the h - e - double hockey sticks does a president have to do with the rate of abortion? Abortion is legal in all 50 states per the Supreme Court. Whoever is in office isn't going to have anything to do with it. What will have to do with it is the level of education being provided, availability of contraceptives and availability of information to women/mothers BEFORE they abort.

And please, xoxotiffanynicole, this is not meant as a poke at you or anything personal but simply using your situation as an example (tones and inferences are very hard on chat boards like this but I know your decision was difficult) - if, as PQ states, you were aware and informed that healthy newborn babies can nearly always be placed with parents wanting newborns, would you have given the abortion a 2nd thought?

What in the h - e - double hockey sticks does a president have to do with the rate of abortion? Abortion is legal in all 50 states per the Supreme Court. Whoever is in office isn't going to have anything to do with it. What will have to do with it is the level of education being provided, availability of contraceptives and availability of information to women/mothers BEFORE they abort.

And please, xoxotiffanynicole, this is not meant as a poke at you or anything personal but simply using your situation as an example (tones and inferences are very hard on chat boards like this but I know your decision was difficult) - if, as PQ states, you were aware and informed that healthy newborn babies can nearly always be placed with parents wanting newborns, would you have given the abortion a 2nd thought?

I've learned not to take other peoples' beliefs on this matter to heart 'cause it just pisses me off so no problem.
There definitely needs to be more education handed out to any woman, pregnant or not. I weighed the decisions and choices, like any other woman who has gotten an abortion has done. There was no second thought to the abortion. There were TONS.

What will have to do with it is the level of education being provided,
availability of contraceptives and availability of information to women/mothers
BEFORE they abort.
I've noticed that since the level of this education has increased that the
number abortions have gone up.

I've noticed that since the level of this education has increased that the
number abortions have gone up.

I doubt that is causal other than women have options (birth control and abortion) and are putting off marriage and raising kids so there is more time to get an education. Moreover, much of the drive behind abortion rights has been driven by feminist notions of control over their own bodies and that tends to be driven by the elite. But overall, society has become much more accepting of irresponsible sexual behavior and a break down for respect for lifetime commitments, leading to foolish and impulsive choices and pregnancies being realized a couple of months after the dad has moved on. It uses abortion to clean up problems because that is easier than trying to instill a sense of personal responsibility regarding sexual behavior and a value system that genuinely believes two parents are appropriate and not just better. This is not to say that married women in stable relationships don't have accidents but the reasons they choose abortion are likely to be fundamentally different than your average single gal.

My tone is almost always civil and often humorous, but it hasn't be humorous
on this thread.

You have taken being sanctimonious to heights I've never witnessed. It is the worst sort of rudeness. It is your tool and your trademark. Have a nice day.

I've noticed that since the level of this education has increased that the
number abortions have gone up.
So teaching birth control methods is wrong and immoral, because it arouses curiosity and a desire in people to indulge in sex?

I am for such a law. Just like I'm for the laws that forced slave owners to free
their slaves. Just like I'm for the laws that forces people to go to jail if they
commit a crime deserving of incarceration. Just like I'm for the laws that force
people to pay fines for parking in a no parking zone. Is see no reason to
murder the child. Anti abortion means no abortions. Period.

Thank you for helping us clarify this point.

If you wish to make government strong enough to put a stop to abortions, why stop there? Or if you want to stop there, why trust big government to stop there as well?

So teaching birth control methods is wrong and immoral, because it arouses
curiosity and a desire in people to indulge in sex?
Why do you believe that?

If you wish to make government strong enough to put a stop to abortions,
why stop there? Or if you want to stop there, why trust big government to
stop there as well?
What are you talking about? Rewrite your sentence. You're point is
obfuscated.

Why do you believe that?

I'm not believing. Did you notice I asked you a question? Don't you know that many parents don't want birth control taught in schools because it might arouse curiosity about sex make them what to fool around.

What are you talking about? Rewrite your sentence. You're point is
obfuscated.
Do you want government or in other words the law to be strong enough to ban abortion, or not? If so, do you want things to stop there? If not, do you actually trust government to stop from there? Please dear, God, how can I make myself more clear.

So teaching birth control methods is wrong and immoral, because it arouses
curiosity and a desire in people to indulge in sex?


I'm not believing. Did you notice I asked you a
question? Don't you know that many parents don't want birth control taught
in schools because it might arouse curiosity about sex make them what to
fool around.
Then why did you ask me a question that had nothing to do with any post
up to that point? What brought it up? I certainly didn't, but you asked me.
I doesn't make sense.

Do you want government or in other words the law to be strong enough to
ban abortion, or not?
Yes. It's a very sensible thing to do.



If so, do you want things to stop there? If not, do you actually trust
government to stop from there? Please dear, God, how can I make myself
more clear.
What things? Be concrete.

Quite often you don't make yourself clear. This isn't a put down by any
means. Your writing skills aren't very good and most of the time it's hard
to follow.

Don't call me dear.

Yes. It's a very sensible thing to do.


What things? Be concrete.

Quite often you don't make yourself clear. This isn't a put down by any
means. Your writing skills aren't very good and most of the time it's hard
to follow.

Don't call me dear.

It should be obvious to others of this fine forum that you were, indeed making a put down, and no, I most certainly didn't call you dear. There's no way you successfully dispute the latter.

But my point was if you make government strong enough to ban abortion, will government stop with its new found power from there? I fear that I don't know. And I gather you, Prunepicker, wouldn't be the least concerned about it.

Then why did you ask me a question that had nothing to do with any post
up to that point? What brought it up? I certainly didn't, but you asked me.
I doesn't make sense.

All I did was ask you a question that should have been answered by now with either yes, no, I don't know, or I pass.

I didn't call you dear. But my point was if you make government strong
enough to ban abortion, will government stop with its new found power from
there? I fear that I don't know. And I gather you, Prunepicker, wouldn't be
the least concerned about it.
All it has to do is ban any form of abortion whatsoever.

As far as what the government is concerned, ending the convenience of
murdering children won't be any different than making a law about BOcare (http://prunepicker.wikispaces.com/BOcare)
or the deficit stimulus. (http://prunepicker.wikispaces.com/deficit+stimulus) Well, there will be one difference, ending the murder
of innocent children would be responsible.

I want innocent children to at least have the same rights as murderers or
violent criminals.

All I did was ask you a question that should have been answered by now with
either yes, no, I don't know, or I pass.
I honestly don't understand the question and why you asked me.

All it has to do is ban any form of abortion whatsoever.

As far as what the government is concerned, ending the convenience of
murdering children won't be any different than making a law about BOcare (http://prunepicker.wikispaces.com/BOcare)
or the deficit stimulus. (http://prunepicker.wikispaces.com/deficit+stimulus) Well, there will be one difference, ending the murder
of innocent children would be responsible.

I want innocent children to at least have the same rights as murderers or
violent criminals.
At best an idealism, because I would imagine that a ban on all abortion would turn out about as successful as the ban on marijuana. Bear in mind that whatever the government tries to ban it loses control over it, and the more people who disagree with the ban, the more crazy out of control the situation gets. Around 50% or more of the people believe in abortion rights, so you can get some idea from there how banning abortion would turn out.