On the 2009 anniversary of Roe v. Wade it is incumbent on us to reconsider the neglect of waiting-room males in the nation's abortion clinics and doctor's offices. Over 600,000 annually sit nervously hoping for news a loved one is now available to leave, free from an ill-timed and unwanted pregnancy. Almost all have been kept from sharing comfort and love in either the procedure or recovery room. All have learned NOTHING about family planning and contraception, both subjects they urgently need help with (25% or so are repeater). We should rectify this sitation today, as it does us no honor: males can become a major partner i reducing the number of abortions, if given the care and education they need.

1 out of 3 ... is me

blogging my elective second trimester abortion

http://1outof3.blogspot.com/

Why should males be concerned about abortion?

Is a male’s concern for abortion is nothing more than a male’s concern for contraception?

Would the survival be extended to more women if women were also allowed post birth abortions?

Being unsure of your answer, this is a rewording of the prior question.

Would legal post birth abortions provide more women more survival?

Is caffeine good for nursing babies?

Is a nursing baby good for caffeine?

A baby was born alive in Florida and thrown away in a botched abortion attempt.

Forgive us, God.

What does God need to forgive us of?

p.s. web masters should take credit for altering entries.

I can't tell one Anon from the next - just how many people are posting is it just one person talking to him/herself? I haven't flagged any entry because I technically can't see it violating policy, but there are serious questions of accuracy and use of terminlogl, starting with the term "post birth abortion," which in this person's eyes does not equate to "partial birth abortion."

This may be a new (haven't seen it before) tactic on the trolls' part to confuse those of us who use names, thinking each Anon's post comes from the same person. I apologize in advance for any "friendly fire" you may have received.

Who can be bothered be first amendment fire?

Would legal post birth (i.e. toddler/newborn) abortions provide more women more survival?

My mistake in thinking a prior post was altered by the web master.

Why do you limit the abortion definition to pre birth?

Would legal toddler/newborn homicide provide more women more survival?

Similarly, why limit protections for the right to life when someone needs anothers body after birth? Would a newborn have better survival if it was protected when it needed the same resources in the womans body it had prior to birth? Why can someone go to jail for trying to maintain their life if they do so by violating anothers bodily integrity? Why is it infanticide to refuse to act on behalf of a newborn to feed or shelter it, but its not also infanticide to refuse to act to provide from ones bodily integrity?...especially if the resources in need were the same again that it had prior to birth? Why is it that putting a body part in a womans vagina after birth called sex and not partial re-birth?...and sometimes criminalized. So many distinctions made at birth.

I still say no to abortion. I never consider "accidental" children as their parents' mistakes. They will always be a gift that should be treasured. Regardless of how many months the baby has spent in his/her mother's womb, it IS a life worth protecting from harm. In the first place, if a couple never intended to have a child, they should have known better the consequences of their sexual intercourse. It does not take a great amount of intelligence to understand that a penile insertion into the vagina might result to a pregnancy. Hello, elementary biology?

George

So the pre born deserves to bears the risk of failed or no contraception?

...people, who feel their lives have more meaning when they are surrounded by people forced to live meaningless, destitute lives. It pains me to think I once held such a Christian attitude, where one striving to live one's own life by Scripture has to see others judged to live otherwise - especially when such judgements include a less-favorable living situation than one's own, and feel better about one's life. Yeah, it's hard to point fingers and say "That female is whore because she didn't marry before having sex," when the female doesn't have any children in tow, drives a nicer car than yours and lives in bigger house than yours. All you can say about the single, unattached, childless, "affluent" female is "how many abortions has SHE had?" Not quite the same punch that the other statement packs, because you don't know the answer and it's driving you crazy (OCD?).
That's what it's all about: JEALOUSY. A feeling you're losing to Jones, John and/or Jane because their lives might look a little better than yours because you did what was expected of you (go to church, marry, play reproductive roulette because your local society demands it, and suffer the mounting debt of too many kids because that's what God wanted). Too bad for you the people you envy, many of them LGBT, many of them having had abortions, many of them never in committed relationships, don't all live a more desperate life than your own, be it real or imaginary. I just saw a video banned by a TV station detailing the "threat" of homosexuality in our land, without acknowledging the self-hypocrisy, and it couldn't keep the word "abortion" out of the dialogue. And you wonder why we think everyone who's part of the Religious Right are all the same. Your neurosis (and I'm being kind here) would be comical 30 years ago, but there's too much at stake to let it go. The constant attempts to change the language to suit your needs are indicative of a need less to win, but more not to lose! Believe there will be a judgement in the afterlife, for your envy-fueled support of the theocrat Bush is bringing US closer to the Apocalypse, and if there's anything your God has a problem with, it's forcing His hand!

...more Americans adopted a gay life-style? But that would be cheating, wouldn't it? It never occured to you so many marriages end in failure and violence, but never address root causes, such as out-dated family planning and one partner's need (yes, need) to be a little less monogamous and/or a little more LGBT, than the other. Do you have such self-control, you don't dare look at the just-divorced man and woman and say, "never should have been married to begin with," because that would admit any marriage without strict government regulation is prone to failure in a world where one does not need to do much to be connected to the next town, or the other side of the world, for that matter. The world may still be flat, to you, but what challenges your beliefs is that it is also SMALL.

When you leave Christianity, are you allowed to leave the “do not kill” part too?

...since people so slavishly wish to protect the unborn, I have already killed! Every time I was part of unprotected sex and pregnancy did not result, I killed the cells that could have fertilized because obviously it was something I was not doing, thereby falling under the "what I have failed to do" in praying for forgiveness for the multitudinous transgressions against God in-between Sundays (for me it's even worse, since I have used latex to prevent, therefore, I've killed because of "what I have done"). And I was almost 20 before giving my virginity, so there's been a lot of killing going on for years "Every sperm is sacred (Monty Python's "the Meaning of Life")," therefore the octuplet Mom should be canonised as a saint forthwith because she let SOOOO many more sperm live than the rest of us. I hope all you pro-choicers out there see the sarcasm here, but don't be surprised at the sarchasm between this post and the theocratic response. I'm still waiting for the reponse to my "envy" challenge - must be true. The next time someone wants to remove a splinter from a pregnant woman's eye, look in the mirror for the log in your own! Most of the people who heard Jesus were too poor to afford mirrors: no excuses today!

Is a prenatal no more human than a single sperm?

...prenatal? In the eyes of at least one Church, YES! Doesn't matter if he makes twice as much as me, finds the cure for cancer and even is "pro-life," he's an abomination and no act committed against him is sinful in the eyes of the insecure God whose insecure Church I left. Curious how we can "play God" through in-vitro fertilization but we are murderers when pregnancy is terminated - admittedly "with extreme prejudice!" Bring back Torquemada and the Inquisition, so my clone and all the people connected with the abortion industry and their clients can be tortured for ten years before being burned alive at the stake: that would be such a growth industry our economic troubles would evaporate!
I wonder how much cash the IVF industry donates to to faith-based charities to maintain that double-standard?

Why would homicide against your clone differ from homicide against your (if you had one) identical twin brother?