Posted on 03/23/2005 10:01:06 AM PST by stylin_geek
To paraphrase Mayor Guilani as quoted by someone on this board, last night: "I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you."
The girls are pregnant.
An early completed pregnancy has a significant protective effect against breast cancer, even in families where there is a strong genetic predisposition.
In order not to be pregnant, they either carry the child to the natural end of the pregnancy or they have an intentional (elective) abortion.
Are you proposing that the girl (or the general public) should not be notified of this in order, as the authors point out, to protect her right to fully informed consent?
So you think that silencing traumatized post-abortive women--women who can honestly attest to how abortion has left them in daily anguish--is okay? Its folks like you who made me keep my mouth shut for over a decade.
Who do you honestly think would be more persuasive with a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy--someone like me who has actually murdered an innocent baby and is willing and able to describe the hell that follows--or someone like you, who is doing a great job at silencing women like me?
You want to save babies? Stop hurting women.
Maybe we should make this information a routine part of high school sex ed classes too, so that sexually active girls can make a fully informed decision not to use contraceptives if they have sex. Girls with a family history of breast cancer that worries them, would be especially receptive to this message.
Providing this information about a possible benefit of continuing the pregnancy is defensible only if it is also undertaken to notify these girls of ALL the potential drawbacks -- physical and emotional -- to carrying a pregnancy to term. Physical discomfort for several months, getting behind in school with likely long term effects on educational achievement, permanent urinary continence problems, stretch marks and possibly a C-section scar, post-partum depression, long term emotional scars from giving up a baby for adoption, or from keeping it and living with the realization that all your hopes and dreams of college and a career, or of falling in love and getting married and having babies with your husband are almost certainly down the tubes, or from keeping it and watching helplessly as the child of a stressed-out, depressed, and financially strapped single mother looks for love and support in all the wrong places and gets into serious irreparable trouble. The list is awfully long, and many of the psychological and physical issues are too complex for most young girls to grasp, and the likelihood of any particular girl experiencing any particular one is highly speculative (as is the likelihood that she will get breast cancer if she has an abortion and then delays childbearing for many more years, or that she won't get breast cancer if she goes ahead and has the baby).
Personally, I regard having a baby as a huge step that should never be taken without careful advance planning and thought. The effects on society as a whole, and on the individuals directly involved, when an unplanned unwanted child is brought into the world, are often seriously negative. And rationalizations about some possible narrow personal benefit to the mother (or to both parents), such as slightly reducing breast cancer risk, getting a boyfriend to marry you, etc. don't even come close to justifying it.
uh... that's all nice and good but what exactly does it mean?
Welcome to FR! Your screen name brings back childhood memories.
Goose!
Per your reference to the "anti-abortionists", I prefer to be referred to as "pro-life". With regard to your reference to "most women who have had abortions are not traumatized": where did you get those statistics? Planned Parenthood? When you refer to the "brainwashing" being done by the "anti-abortionist", when does all this "brainwashing" take place? At a brunch hosted by the brainwasher?!? The mother who gives up her baby for adoption, but is so "traumatized" by it should have thought about that reality when she decided to sow the seed. And then, last, but not least: How utterly selfish, inexcusable, unnatural, and disgusting for you to imply that it is best to have an abortion so one doesn't have to be under the stress of raising a child she may not be "emotionally or financially" equipped to raise. God forbid these excuses for women that will kill a baby so that they are not inconvenienced. And, God forbid anyone who will shamelessly say what you have.
Shocking?
The only thing that is shocking to me is that a newspaper actually covered the story in something resembling a fair light.
A rock solid reason to NEVER allow the state access to your children.
This involves a minor. If a 14 year old girl willingly runs away with a 25 year old man because she "is in love with him" then the man would be charged with kidnapping whether the girl went willingly or not. Minors, especially those under 16, are not considered to have to the emotional maturity to make those types of decisions under our legal system. (yeah, I know, for some reason they are considered mature enough to have an abortion)
Great. Nice town.
The statute of limitations for rape is 7 weeks?
Pervert paradise!
It shouldn't be all that hard to find out the name of that POS mother and her POS son.
Shunning might be very appropriate here at the very least.
Cops in that town are shear idiots. I won't go near it.
Who, then, can speak the most honestly and eloquently and brutally of the horrors of abortion? The women who live with the guilt and pain of having had an abortion.
Oh yeah, let's not offend anyone lest they just continue to go out and murder innocent babies by any method that's convenient.
So go ahead and be offensive. Every single time you meet a woman who has had an abortion, make sure you offend her every way you know how. Go ahead and pass judgement. Cast the first stone. Do what you will.
What you will quite likely succeed in doing is silencing someone who may be able to persuade a woman dealing with an unplanned pregnancy against having an abortion.
Does that clear things up?
You're changing the conditions of the discussion - if the girls are pregnant, the consideration is whether there are long term risks in abortion vs. carrying the child they already have to term.
Girls who are not pregnant do not have to consider whether they are trading protection for risk of breast cancer.
For girls who are not pregnant and the boys around them, a different set of conditions exist: the only safe sex is sex between monogamous partners, it's healthier for them and their children, as well as safer in terms of domestic violence, premature births and healthier marriages if they do not live together before marriage, and have their children within the conventional definition of marriage as one man and one woman for life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.