Post Abortion E Cards

[krisy]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NRLL580&show_article=1



You gotta be kiddin me.

"You did the right thing"?????????..... In an e card ?....After having an abortion?

Then the lady that started these e cards says she noticed Hallmark didn't have any cards for after an abortion!!!

I wonder why!!!!!

geese

[5stringJeff]

They already have post-abortion cards... in the 'Sympathy' and 'Mourning Your Loss' sections. :(

[Abbey Marie]

They already have post-abortion cards... in the 'Sympathy' and 'Mourning Your Loss' sections. :(

They should be addressed to the aborted baby.

[LiberalNation]

Aborted babies don't normally have names so how would you.

Doesn't seem like it's something that would require a card either way. It's a private decision and I'm betting most getting an abortion don't want sympathy cards or mean cards to make em feel bad.

[Abbey Marie]

Aborted babies don't normally have names so how would you.
...


"Dear unwanted dead baby Smith" would work ok.

[Nienna]

Aborted babies don't normally have names so how would you.

Doesn't seem like it's something that would require a card either way. It's a private decision and I'm betting most getting an abortion don't want sympathy cards or mean cards to make em feel bad.

Yes, their feelings of grief, stress, anxiety, depression, etc. don't really exist because "it wasn't really a baby." They certainly don't need sympathy or support.

[jimnyc]

E-card? sounds like some dumbass trying to make a profit in a classless manner.

After Anna Nicole died, people registered domains and were selling them for high dollars before the day was over.

[krisy]

I remember when I saw some nutcase a couple of years back on O Reilly. She was from planned parenthood and they were sending out "choice on earth" cards at Christmas....You know,the holiday celebrating Christs BIRTH. I found it pretty disgusting.

[Abbey Marie]

I remember when I saw some nutcase a couple of years back on O Reilly. She was from planned parenthood and they were sending out "choice on earth" cards at Christmas....You know,the holiday celebrating Christs BIRTH. I found it pretty disgusting.

Radical feminism rears its ugly screwed-up head.

[gabosaurus]

:lame2:

[krisy]

:lame2:


Your input means a lot :slap:

[LiberalNation]

I remember when I saw some nutcase a couple of years back on O Reilly. She was from planned parenthood and they were sending out "choice on earth" cards at Christmas....You know,the holiday celebrating Christs BIRTH. I found it pretty disgusting.
That doesn't sound that bad. Good for Planned Parenthood.

[krisy]

That doesn't sound that bad. Good for Planned Parenthood.

Why would you send out cards backing abortion on a holiday celebrating a birth,of Jesus? A little contradictory...just a tad

[gabosaurus]

The opposite of the conservative way of thought -- they don't want anyone to have a choice about anything.
They need to come up with the military e-card, sent directly from the White House on special occasions.
"Sorry I killed your kid. You'll get over it."

[LiberalNation]

Becuase ya felt like. No not contradicyory. Not everyone believes the same as you.

[krisy]

The opposite of the conservative way of thought -- they don't want anyone to have a choice about anything.
They need to come up with the military e-card, sent directly from the White House on special occasions.
"Sorry I killed your kid. You'll get over it."


What does this have to do with the war? Last time I checked,there isn't a draft,and everyone in the military is there by their own choice.

A woman has a choice to control her "reproductive rights" before she has sex and get pregnant. She has a "choice" to not get pregnant. It's not hard.

[Gaffer]

The opposite of the conservative way of thought -- they don't want anyone to have a choice about anything.
They need to come up with the military e-card, sent directly from the White House on special occasions.
"Sorry I killed your kid. You'll get over it."

:trolls:

[Nienna]

Becuase ya felt like. No not contradicyory. Not everyone believes the same as you.

Of course not everyone believes the same as everyone else. But this is a message board: here for debate and discussion. We're interested in WHY people believe things that seem to make no logical sense, and are offensive as an added bonus... things like celebrating killing babies on a day renowned for a live birth.

[LiberalNation]

It wasn't celebrating killing babies it was promoting choice. There is a difference.

[Nienna]

It wasn't celebrating killing babies it was promoting choice. There is a difference.

Yes, it's true there is a difference. "Promoting choice" is much more deceptive about the selfishness and brutality involved in ending the child's life.

[5stringJeff]

It wasn't celebrating killing babies it was promoting choice. There is a difference.

When you choose to kill your baby before birth, there's no difference.

[manu1959]

Aborted babies don't normally have names so how would you.

Doesn't seem like it's something that would require a card either way. It's a private decision and I'm betting most getting an abortion don't want sympathy cards or mean cards to make em feel bad.

the child my college girlfiend aborted did ..... *yes i meant to spell it that way*

[manu1959]

It wasn't celebrating killing babies it was promoting choice. There is a difference.

you should choose life .... it is more fun

[Nienna]

Are there post-abortion e-cards for the FATHERS whose children were the victims of "choice"?

"So sorry the 'choice' to raise and love your child was taken out of your hands."

[manu1959]

Are there post-abortion e-cards for the FATHERS whose children were the victims of "choice"?

"So sorry the 'choice' to raise and love your child was taken out of your hands."

i made a bad choice to have unprotected sex out of marriage .... i get to pay emotionally ... the baby paid with it's life

[LiberalNation]

Yes, it's true there is a difference. "Promoting choice" is much more deceptive about the selfishness and brutality involved in ending the child's life.

No promoting choice means it her choice and not made for her based on "your" morality. Choice also means the right no to have an abortion. Places like china are anti-choice but pro-abortion not pro-choice. People like you wish us to be just like that. Anti-choice.

[krisy]

No promoting choice means it her choice and not made for her based on "your" morality. Choice also means the right no to have an abortion. Places like china are anti-choice but pro-abortion not pro-choice. People like you wish us to be just like that. Anti-choice.


This is a load of crap. Being pro life has nothing to do with being anti choice. It's more about being personally responsible. Everyone has a choice to walk their rears into Walgreens and buy a pack of condoms is they MUST have sex. I wonder how many abortions would never have been if someone would have taken a few minutes to be responsible. Instead,they choose not to take those few minutes and pay for it with guilt the rest of their life. Personal responsibility sounds much nicer to me.

[Nienna]

No promoting choice means it her choice and not made for her based on "your" morality. Choice also means the right no to have an abortion. Places like china are anti-choice but pro-abortion not pro-choice. People like you wish us to be just like that. Anti-choice.

People like me?

The problem with "my" morality and "your" morality is this: the lack of objectivity guarantees that SOMEONE will be unhappy, if not destroyed. We can't all live life completely by our OWN rules. Someone eventually tramples over someone else's life, and there is no remorse, because how dare anyone tell someone else he shouldn't do something he wants to do?

In this case, you are saying, "How dare you force YOUR morality on another woman?"

My answer is this: How dare that woman force a child to die because of her "choice," and still have the GALL to to insinuate that I am the one who is selfish?

[Abbey Marie]

No promoting choice means it her choice and not made for her based on "your" morality. Choice also means the right no to have an abortion. Places like china are anti-choice but pro-abortion not pro-choice. People like you wish us to be just like that. Anti-choice.

Mother loses her "choice": Inconvenience for a time.

Mother has her "choice": Child dies

Where is the child's choice?

[Missileman]

Mother loses her "choice": Inconvenience for a time.

Mother has her "choice": Child dies

Where is the child's choice?

How long before you start referring to aborted fetuses as teenagers or adults in an attempt to totally erase the concept of development? It's not dishonest enough to say abortion is killing babies, now they're children? :lame2:

[Abbey Marie]

How long before you start referring to aborted fetuses as teenagers or adults in an attempt to totally erase the concept of development? It's not dishonest enough to say abortion is killing babies, now they're children? :lame2:

:lame2: back atcha.

Oops, sorry, should I have said "little masses of tissue"? Oh, drat, I shouldn't use the word "little"; it sounds too much like a baby. I think the correct terminology is "products of conception", no?

I know how you pro-abortion folks prefer to dehumanize them. Makes it so much easier to endorse killing them, doesn't it?

[Nienna]

How long before you start referring to aborted fetuses as teenagers or adults in an attempt to totally erase the concept of development? It's not dishonest enough to say abortion is killing babies, now they're children? :lame2:

There you have it, MM. A "fetus" is just one stage of development in the same HUMAN BEING. "Embryo," "fetus," "infant," "child," "teen," "adult," "senior citizen"... there you have a list of names describing the development of ONE person. It doesn't magically turn into a human being when it reaches a certain stage, or when it relocates to outside the womb.

[Missileman]

There you have it, MM. A "fetus" is just one stage of development in the same HUMAN BEING. "Embryo," "fetus," "infant," "child," "teen," "adult," "senior citizen"... there you have a list of names describing the development of ONE person. It doesn't magically turn into a human being when it reaches a certain stage, or when it relocates to outside the womb.

But the point you keep ignoring is that it isn't a person during every stage of development. It's called development for a reason.

[krisy]

MM,I once saw a pro life commercial in which they asked...."why is it when you want the child,it's a baby,but when you don't...it's something else?"

That's about how a lot of people think unfortunately.

[LiberalNation]

My answer is this: How dare that woman force a child to die because of her "choice," and still have the GALL to to insinuate that I am the one who is selfish?

The unborn do not have the same rights as other humans. Woman are not charged when harm to a fetus occurs and her right to her body and medical procedures pertaining to her body trumps the fetuses rights to dwell in her body. That's how it goes.

[Missileman]

MM,I once saw a pro life commercial in which they asked...."why is it when you want the child,it's a baby,but when you don't...it's something else?"

That's about how a lot of people think unfortunately.

Why is it that when a woman becomes pregnant they say "she's going to have a baby" and not "she has a baby" ?

[Nienna]

The unborn do not have the same rights as other humans. Woman are not charged when harm to a fetus occurs and her right to her body and medical procedures pertaining to her body trumps the fetuses rights to dwell in her body. That's how it goes.

So, when all the plantation owners down south in the early 1800s owned their slaves, the abolitionists should have just contented themselves with, "Well, the law says they can own these slaves. Their right to free labor trumps the right of slaves to be free. That's just the way it is. Oh well."

Not all laws are RIGHT. We should fight against the unjust ones. We should speak for the powerless.

[krisy]

The unborn do not have the same rights as other humans. Woman are not charged when harm to a fetus occurs and her right to her body and medical procedures pertaining to her body trumps the fetuses rights to dwell in her body. That's how it goes.


Theree has been more than one case now where someone killed a pregnant woman and was charged with double homocide. If they can charge someone with the murder of the baby inside her........you see where I'm going. That means the law recognizes that baby as an individual. I remember the last case when someopne was charged with the death of a fetus too,the women's groups were going nuts. They know what that will lead to.

[stephanie]

It's very disheartening to see so many young people today, have so little regard for a human life...

I suppose a few yrs. down the road, it will be old people next...
The reason.......nobody wants to be bothered taking care of them...

Very sad...

[Nienna]

It's very disheartening to see so many young people today, have so little regard for a human life...

I suppose a few yrs. down the road, it will be old people next...
The reason.......nobody wants to be bothered taking care of them...

Very sad...

I found it interesting that she isn't even using the old argument "It's not a HUMAN." Very sad to think that our youth have degenerated to the point that the humanity of the baby doesn't even matter. They KNOW it is human, yet, still believe that a woman should have the right to take its life for the sake of her own wishes.

[Abbey Marie]

The unborn do not have the same rights as other humans. Woman are not charged when harm to a fetus occurs and her right to her body and medical procedures pertaining to her body trumps the fetuses rights to dwell in her body. That's how it goes.

Did you intend to sound so cavalier about taking an innocent human life?

[LiberalNation]

I found it interesting that she isn't even using the old argument "It's not a HUMAN." Very sad to think that our youth have degenerated to the point that the humanity of the baby doesn't even matter. They KNOW it is human, yet, still believe that a woman should have the right to take its life for the sake of her own wishes.

Don't sterotype "youths" views by me. I didn't go that route because I do believe a fetus is human, what else would it be. I don't believes it's right to "life" trumps the mothers right to her own body.

[Nienna]

Don't sterotype "youths" views by me. I didn't go that route because I do believe a fetus is human, what else would it be. I don't believes it's right to "life" trumps the mothers right to her own body.

Why not?

[LiberalNation]

Did you intend to sound so cavalier about taking an innocent human life?
But is it a life, it's sure alive but is it a life. If she miscarried would it be manslaughter as her body took that life because of something "she" did or didn't do.

[LiberalNation]

Why not?
because it is not born, it is not conscious/even aware of it's existence in the sense that we are. It has yet to give anything to society and has nothing it could take away by its death. It has never been a part of society worthy of its protections. Seems to follow then that the person who did meet those criteria rights would be more important.

[stephanie]

But is it a life, it's sure alive but is it a life. If she miscarried would it be manslaughter as her body took that life because of something "she" did or didn't do.

gross..

and idiotic..

:lame2:

[Said1]

But is it a life, it's sure alive but is it a life. If she miscarried would it be manslaughter as her body took that life because of something "she" did or didn't do.

That depends. Would it be ok if she was irresponsible and found herself pregnant after not using protection, then miscarried for as a result of heavy drinking and smoking crack? Would you 'approve' of that, since it's a life, but not exactly alive? Probably better off, but it's her choice to be a loser at the expense of another's life, right? Would that be unintentional manslaughter?

[Abbey Marie]

Originally Posted by Abbey
Did you intend to sound so cavalier about taking an innocent human life?


by LiberalNation: But is it a life, it's sure alive but is it a life. If she miscarried would it be manslaughter as her body took that life because of something "she" did or didn't do.


I'll take that as a yes. Sad.

[Nienna]

because it is not born, it is not conscious/even aware of it's existence in the sense that we are. It has yet to give anything to society and has nothing it could take away by its death. It has never been a part of society worthy of its protections. Seems to follow then that the person who did meet those criteria rights would be more important.

Preborn babies have a much higher level of consciousness than many would like to believe. There is evidence that their sense of pain is vastly MORE sensitive than ours. They can hear, respond to light, pressure, show expressions such as fear. If you are seventeen, your brain has likely not developed as much as an adult's brain in the center of logic and reasoning. People develop throughout their entire lives.

If you are arguing based on contribution to society, do you then think that all mentally handicapped people should be able to be "terminated" based on the will of their caretakers? What do they contribute?

Our founding fathers believed that every human has the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, simply because of his humanity. Each person's worth is INHERENT, not based on what he can do for someone else.

[LiberalNation]

That depends. Would it be ok if she was irresponsible and found herself pregnant after not using protection, then miscarried for as a result of heavy drinking and smoking crack? Would you 'approve' of that, since it's a life, but not exactly alive? Probably better off, but it's her choice to be a loser at the expense of another's life, right? Would that be unintentional manslaughter?
No that's the point, it's her body and she can be a drunk crack-whore if she wishes regardless of her state of pregnancy. Her body trumps the well being of the fetus/human inside her.

[LiberalNation]

Our founding fathers believed that every human has the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, simply because of his humanity. Each person's worth is INHERENT, not based on what he can do for someone else.
I believe they were thinking every born human not pregnant womans fetus.


If you are arguing based on contribution to society, do you then think that all mentally handicapped people should be able to be "terminated" based on the will of their caretakers? What do they contribute?
They contribute by being; have a state in our physical world outside the body of another. That is the difference.

They are not attached inside a female’s body; they would therefore would not be able to violate her inherent rights to her own body. Also if a woman had a health condition and her doctors said you need to have an abortion before treatment can begin would you risk the mother’s life for the life inside her. Should she not have a right to protect her own life by getting rid of that fetus?

[krisy]

No that's the point, it's her body and she can be a drunk crack-whore if she wishes regardless of her state of pregnancy. Her body trumps the well being of the fetus/human inside her.


That's a real self esteem builder for a woman too. I have the "right" so I will abuse my body and the baby inside it. That is absolutely sick.

It's pretty clear that most women that are for abotion are so much for women's rights,yet they don't seem to take into consideration what an abortion does to a woman,let alone the baby. Having an abortion would probably haunt you the rest of your life. And what if you have kids down the road....you will always wonder about the one that's not there.

[stephanie]

That's a real self esteem builder for a woman too. I have the "right" so I will abuse my body and the baby inside it. That is absolutely sick.

It's pretty clear that most women that are for abortion are so much for women's rights,yet they don't seem to take into consideration what an abortion does to a woman,let alone the baby. Having an abortion would probably haunt you the rest of your life. And what if you have kids down the road....you will always wonder about the one that's not there.

I don't know krisy...

With the attitude of Ln and others like her...
I doubt they would feel bad at all..

[Said1]

No that's the point, it's her body and she can be a drunk crack-whore if she wishes regardless of her state of pregnancy. Her body trumps the well being of the fetus/human inside her.

Good grief. what if the baby lives? You have no problem with the total lack of regard for the unborn life shown by the mother because it's her body? I wonder what your life would be life had your mother drank? People with FAS do not lead productive normal lives.

[Said1]

That's a real self esteem builder for a woman too. I have the "right" so I will abuse my body and the baby inside it. That is absolutely sick.

It's pretty clear that most women that are for abotion are so much for women's rights,yet they don't seem to take into consideration what an abortion does to a woman,let alone the baby. Having an abortion would probably haunt you the rest of your life. And what if you have kids down the road....you will always wonder about the one that's not there.

Most 17yrs old who spend giant amounts of their free time on internet message boards aren't experts on much, c'ept internet message boards. Although I'm sure she's seen and experienced a lot at school and stuff. :laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

man and I ain't even an expert on internet message boards.

[Nienna]

I believe they were thinking every born human not pregnant womans fetus.
Here is the wording: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If the word "men" is understood to include women, it seems reasonable to allow that it includes ALL HUMANS.

They contribute by being; have a state in our physical world outside the body of another. That is the difference.
If a human contributes to society simply by "being," then the preborn can be said to contribute, also, since they do indeed exist. I do not understand why you believe the location of the human determines its worth.


They are not attached inside a female’s body; they would therefore would not be able to violate her inherent rights to her own body. Also if a woman had a health condition and her doctors said you need to have an abortion before treatment can begin would you risk the mother’s life for the life inside her. Should she not have a right to protect her own life by getting rid of that fetus?
The preborn do not violate a woman's right to her own body. The WOMAN made the choice to act in a manner which made her at risk of conception. A woman who makes the choice to have sex should also be willing to face the consequences of her own actions. The woman violates the PREBORN BABY'S right to its own body when she takes its life. The BABY had no say in the matter.

If a woman's life was at risk, I believe the woman should do everything in her power to give the baby a chance at survival. However, in cases such as ectopic pregnancies, there isn't much hope for the baby, and it is dangerous for the mother. This is the only reason I can see for having an abortion. In many other conditions, the baby can be saved, and every effort should be made to do so.

[LiberalNation]

What if she has breast cancer and needs to start chemo immieditly. Should she be forced that her cancer go untreated so the baby can go till term and be born.