Unfortunately, not all people (even a very decent and fairly educated), regardless of their sex, abortion and did not consider in terms of murder in the full sense of the word.
And even the fact that modern society was once again turning to the faith (and all the best-known religions do not accept abortion, treating them just like killing a person) does not allow to hope that in the coming years the situation has stabilized on the issue of abortion and the curve crawl down.

Let’s try to look at the problem from the other side, from a purely scientific point of view.
And if we talk about it from this vantage point, then all of us are already well known that in just a few days since the moment of conception, the embryo begin to show signs of limbs and sensory organs to form, and even modern equipment captures the biochemical activity of the brain.
Yes, it is too early to talk about the full human being, but nevertheless it’s a living creature that is capable of even thinking, and this means that we have is not about some ephemeral humanoid creature, but a full-fledged personality.
Since, in this case should be considered an abortion?
Otherwise, how a person’s death can not be called even a stretch.

And it is often necessary to hear from the fairer sex complaining about the fact that the adoption of such an unpopular decision they have pushed this man.
However, the situations are different, but the essence is still the same.

Of course, more often confronted with statements that this pregnancy was not desired and planned. Possible, for example, such an option when the female was raped, and she had no desire to make the light of the “monster”, whom she obviously thinks the unborn child.

Often the problem of abortion for young persons who have not reached even the age of puberty, they are, whether at its own request or at the insistence of the family, the decision on abortion in order to avoid all the problems that arise in connection with the birth of the baby.

It happens so, that the pregnancy was the result of adultery, when a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy in order to preserve the marriage and did not allow her husband to doubt her honesty.

Capable of a newborn and cause problems of the financial plan because it would require additional expenditures of money that his wife afford at the moment, for one reason or another can not.

And that’s not all the reasons pushing the modern woman an abortion, and, unfortunately, very often the situation is such that it has to take decisions in favor of abortion, pushing, one way or another, that man, being a potential father of a baby conceived .
At least, this is sure the majority of the fair sex.
In some cases, the man simply refuses to accept any responsibility in providing moral and material support to the expectant mother and her baby, often insists on the abortion because of good, in his opinion, the reasons for this.
And to say that these men do not exist, it is impossible, as it is, though unfortunate, but true.

Still, the main blame for the incident (murder), lays down, in any case, a woman, after all, it makes the final decision regarding the “punish or pardon the” conceived child, and blaming “the instigator”, whom is her lover, has no much sense, since the degree of guilt they are different.
After all, in any case, the last word is always pregnant, then the responsibility is also shifted entirely to her and that she should be remembered that justify the fact that it is ready to commit, it is simply impossible.

Yes, no one would argue that such situations do occur when the “throw a stone” into a woman who took such an unpopular decision, not up a hand for most of us, but there are reasons that justify it, quite a bit.
As for everything else, you can not find the act of mitigating circumstances.
And sure of themselves, and men, at least most of them.
Yes, they are willing to forgive the “ladies of the heart” a lot of quirks and whims, but there is no place among the accomplishment of deliberate infanticide.

Someone said “One of the greatest diseases is to be nobody to anybody”.

To love your neighbour is an obligation. A world without love is a desert even if it is entirely a forest. I am here to talk of someone who dared to love; someone who stood for love all through life.

This person said “Loneliness and the feeling of being unwanted is the most terrible poverty”. This person also said “The hunger for love is much more difficult to remove than the hunger for bread”. 

I am here to talk of none other than Mother Teresa. She was a very brave woman and was not afraid of what others thought of her. She stood for values and never compromised on her core beliefs under any circumstance. She was not the type to say anything just to be diplomatic, or to soothe anyone’s ego.

In 1997, in the midst of thousands, and with the US President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton on stage, she courageously spoke out against legalized abortion. She said “The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between”.

Mother Teresa was a firm opponent of the death penalty. In the year 1990, when a prisoner named Robert Harris was condemned to death, she phoned up the governor of California, Deukmejian, and requested him to grant clemency. The governor spoke of how he simply could not do that as it would be against the law. Mother Teresa told him, “Do what Jesus would do”.  He talked again about how it was in the state’s hand, but Mother Teresa repeated what she said-“Do what Jesus would do if he was in your position”. She cut to the heart of the matter.

The execution was stayed.

Mother Teresa was very clear about one thing. She was not a social worker but a Catholic nun, and wherever she went, she put the faith first. She helped thousands of terminally sick street people die a peaceful death surrounded by love. The last thing that bothered her was the allegation of Hindutva groups that her work was a cover for the conversion of people to Catholicism.

Many people speak and give great discourses, but very few walk the talk. Mother Teresa was one of them.

Thank you!

Current United States President, Barack Obama, announced Friday that his administration will not require Religious institutions like hospitals & universities to provide free contraception to their employees in their health insurance. ”Whether you’re a teacher or a small businesswoman or a nurse or a janitor, no woman’s ’s health should depend on who she is, or where she works, or how much money she makes,” Obama said, claiming free contraceptive care is a “core principle” of his health care law, ObamaCare, which requires that all preventive services to be provided at no cost to patients.

The Obama Administration states that by offering free preventive services like this that the sheer amount of pregnancies will be reduced thus costing insurance companies less in the long run. Though this statement might be true there are several things to be considered before you decided whether this was a wise choice or not. 

First, there will be an immediate cost of offering a ‘free’ service to people. How much will this bill cost insurance companies?  The Guttmacher Institute reports that they estimate the cost to be about $21 per patient to add contraception to a plan for a year. Even if the costs are offset by a reduction in pregnancies as the Obama administration suggests, the up-front cost to insurance companies would be considerable. Thus this bill will further harm your pocket book, just slightly though. 

There is one more very important thing to consider about this bill though. As a ‘religious’ individual I am expected to oppose this bill just like the Catholic Church, however that is not the case. I support this decision personally. Why? Why would a Christian youth pastor and student of a Bible College support a bill that the catholic Church directly opposes?  The answer is simple. There will indeed be a reduction in pregnancies. This in itself isn’t neccessarily a good thing, but if there is a reduction in pregnacies then there will also be a reduction in abortions. Thus a reduction in mothers choosing to murder their children. You see, the logic is really rather simple here. The women who want to use the preventive care are most likely the same women who would choose to reject their pregnancy, thus mudering their baby. So an increase in payment of $21 per person to slowdown the murder of millions of babies in most certainly a good thing in my opinion. More than that, ‘religious’ individuals like myself have essentially indirectly won a battle when it comes to the issue of abortion, & the prochoice murderers think that they’ve won this one by allowing free preventive care. 

So in conclusion was this ‘accomodation’ a good thing? When it comes to our econmic situation it wasn’t the best decision. However when it comes to slowing down the rate that we conciously choose as a country to murder millions of children at, this was a very good move. I know that slowing down the rate of abortion wasn’t the reason for this decision, but it is however a direct consiquence of it. So I ask you was this a good decision by the Obama Administration?

The recent scandal over grants to Planned Parenthood pitted two views of abortion against each other. These have clever names: Right to life and pro choice. One side would allow abortions, the other would outlaw them in any circumstance. Is there another approach to this issue.

Without stereotyping anyone, it’s clear that there are people who are the captains of their fate and others who seem to be blown about by the winds of chance. The second type, usually with low incomes and low education, often finds themselves losing their jobs and housing, getting up with the wrong crowd and it the case of many young women, getting pregnant. Often they can neither afford to raise a child or even abort it.

I suggest not only allowing abortions, but for those who can’t afford it, free ones, provided by government. On top of that, the government should provide a one time grant of $10,000 that could be used only for housing, health care and/or education.  This would give marginal people a chance to better their lives. 

We don’t need a big government agency to determine eligibility. The offer would be open to all, but only once. Clearly the women who have planned to have a child and who are able to care for and raise one would not toss out motherhood for a grant that they don’t really need. The women who are poor and desperate and now pregnant would be the ones to take advantage of this, perhaps giving them their first opportunity to be in control of their own lives.

10,000 bucks may seem a lot of money, but think about what we spend on child welfare, health care through emergency rooms and the crime associated with unwanted children raised in poverty. 

They say a woman has the right to choose, but didn’t she use that right when she became pregnant? Did she not know, especially in this time, and with our knowledge, that spreading her legs and doing whoopy would get her pregnant in the long run? With this foreknowledge, and roll of the dice, willingly, shouldn’t she have to keep and raise the child?

Do we not prevent people from hurting themselves in many ways, such as not allowing them to be cannibals, because the meat isn’t cooked and is bad for you, as well as it is against social mores, and possibly involves killing someone (there probably aren’t too many pieces of people just lying around to eat on)?

Or surgery, which is banned from the normal person performing it on themselves, because of the risk of not enough knowledge for the procedure, as well as safety protocols which need to be adhered to, along with the need for a medical license.

We stop people from doing things all the time which are deleterious to their health and well-being, as well as if it involves the health and well-being of another. So, why is abortion allowed when there is another person or persons involved?

A woman can choose to keep her child, and married or not, force the man to support the child; however, if she chooses to kill the baby, the man is given no say, and has no rights. Hmmm! No rights to keep or give up  the child, and possibly no rights to support/not support the child – talk about a double standard!

We are pushing the envelope every day as to when life begins, with some believing it begins with the sperm and ova, and others only after the child is delivered, but science – medical science – is proving that life exists in the child at earlier and earlier terms, with some saying now that life exists as early as six weeks, and even at conception, but we treat the baby as a bag of garbage.

Should we keep it, as opposed to the child, or should we throw it in the trash, like so much detritus?

We deliberately dumb down the speech used in the procedure and on the baby, by calling it an abortion instead of killing, and calling the baby a fetus, which means baby, but most people don’t realize that! Why do we tiptoe around this – because we know it is wrong, and we know it is murder?

In forty years, we have now killed enough children, to make up one-fifth of today’s population, while pretending that we haven’t done a thing wrong!

So, does a woman have the right to kill her child, and where will this abortion process end? Perhaps, one day, we will be so deluded, that families will be allowed to do late-term abortions themselves, which will involve killing their child at home at two years old, because mom thought her little princess wasn’t smart enough, or didn’t like her brown eyes. No longer murder, but just a late-term abortion!

We are, or were, a civilized country, and yet, I see more and more barbaric things happening the longer I live. Even in war, we give respect and quarter, and yet, here with these precious infants, we act like it is the right of a woman to murder just for the sake of convenience!

In this country, and others, I would rather be a soldier in the throes of full battle, than an infant in the womb of its mother. I would have a better chance of survival!

PTR February 9, 2012

Not that abortions hadn’t been performed down through the many decades, of our country existence. While many religious based groups loves to protest against the procedure. Which if you’re an adult falls, within your rights to have done. Funny, that when in this legal era of abortion that these protesters never complained or gripes about the killers, of doctors and bombing of clinics. I guess they “Blind Sighted” religious people.

Notice, we can ask anyone their opinion, of the president. And instantly you’ll find someone wiling to offer you their assessment. It’s like their right to speak without restrictions to you. Now, request their opinions on abortion. And watch the honest folks speaks either for or against with an open opinion. Which is their honest granted right.

Now find a religious person of faith and watch the things they state. You’ll going to hear about their religious teaching. Or be debated about the death of the infancy child in its early stages of life. The same religious folks can jump quick to defend certain things. But sometimes they can’t come together on racism that dominate the world.

We can try to over turn the abortion law. Just realize just like in the movie mention above. It won’t stop. Did prohibition stop when they outlaw it? Of course not. Where there’s a will? There’s a way. We can  have doctors claiming to be faith base to the end of time. Except, realize we need to gt a second opinion when it comes to us just staying alive.

Many times the biggest mouth complaining seems to be a man. Mention vasectomy to many of them and they start to figuring out lies to why t shouldn’t be required of them.

Deciding For Abortion:

The decision to perform abortion is taken by the certificate and medical specialists. Sometimes their decisions are influenced by the religious communities, while most of the times, they take decision on the basis of medical background. Usually the physicians take the right decision for you and your individual health. All this is done to secure your health for any future situation that might be arising again. Willingness of the patient is also obtained in an interview and she is also warned of the side effects of abortion.

Physical Effects Of Abortion:

The most important side effects of abortion include the changes occurring in physical health of patient. The things most commonly affected after this surgery are the life of the woman’s body and the physical effects of abortion as a response to this action if the termination is based on responsibility. In addition to physical complications, psychological stress may also happen. In these cases a woman is at risk due to the gravity of her decision. In addition to depression, a woman and the body’s reaction to the procedure may also occur.

Threatening Diseases Posed By Abortion:

Some common side effects of abortion may lead to cancer, heart disease and even death during surgery as it can be. Your body is more than the risks to your children as compared to yourself in cases if the bode gets paralyzed. Therefore all the specific measures should be taken prior to taking such decisions like abortion or other surgical procedures.

Legal Status Of Abortion:

Having an overview of the side effects of abortion, it becomes extremely critical to support this phenomenon legally. The most important thing which should be determined is the women’s health during pregnancy and determination of specific measures and developments that could support this decision. Legal status and support to abortion of pregnancy varies from state to state and country to country. The development concerning the current understanding of human biology helps a lot in making the decision about your personal life.

Complications After Abortion:

Among certain other complications arising after abortion some major ones are uterine bleeding, perforation of endometrium, pelvic inflammation, ectopic pregnancy, and the sequel of delay. In addition to this many women may also suffer from mental health problems like depression and regret. 

Due to religious views or moral views, a lot of parents probably wouldn’t let their daughter receive an abortion no matter what. That would lead to a lot of strain on the families and the teenagers. The likelihood of the teenager finishing high school would become very slim. Two teenagers I know dropped out of high school in order to take care of their babies, despite the fact that their parents said that they would help them out.

Their futures are pretty much screwed, and they know it. Without a high school degree, it’s tough getting into a good college especially one that could lead you to those goals that you had when you were younger. For a teenager to give up a kid, it can be tough on the teenager and sometimes the parents will even refuse to have the children go up for adoption. 

Should parents have the right to give the consent an underage girl needs to have an abortion? It could be dangerous to many young girls, girls that had a bright future ahead of them. But it’s also a medical procedure, and for all other procedures you do need parental consent for them. Now, I’m just one random teenager in the United States, but I do have to say this; let teenagers take responsibility by choosing what they are going to do with their life, don’t let their parents force them into any certain world or choice. Like all women, it’s their choice and their life, let them pick what they will do with it.

He also brought up how Ron Paul added earmarks and then voted against the bill.

Santorum will vote for a bill even if it has spending he disagrees with. Whereas, Paul will vote against bills even if has spending he wrote into the bill for his district. Which is more fiscally conservative?

They have both come out in favor of earmarks. Rick Santorum simply says that it’s just part of his job to earmark things for his state it’s just that it’s gotten corrupt. Whereas, Ron Paul argues that all spending should be earmarked by Congress, but that the problem is the spending. We need to cut spending and not authorize any spending that is no authorized by the Constitution.

Getting the corruption out of Washington and cutting all spending that isn’t authorized by the Constitution are both monumental tasks. Santorum claims he’s accomplished more because he’s more willing to compromise to get things done. Ron Paul is simply too principled for Washington. He writes legislation that would restore personal liberty. Do you know how hard it is to get the big government fat cats to support that?

But you know, seeing all the things that have been accomplished in Washington DC, I think it’s actually better that Dr Paul didn’t have a hand in it. He’s been the lone critic on many matters and maybe it’s time to start listening and following his sage advice. And if that advice comes from the office of the President, well, it’ll be backed by a veto stamp which Dr Paul will not be afraid to use as he has proven with his voting record. Santorum will be less likely to simply veto bad laws and likely will instead make deals, you know like Congress has been doing with Obama which hasn’t cut much of anything.

The question is do you want a President that will stand firm on his principles and just say no or one who is going to compromise?