Sanya Richards-Ross reveals having an abortion right before the 2008 Olys

Shoebacca wrote:

It's okay to be a Christian and not believe 100% of your religions beliefs. Just like it's okay to be Republican or Democrat and not follow your party 100%. In fact I respect people more who have differences and can't be labeled 100%. Those people are fundamentalist sheep.

Hi LIBERAL snowflake

[quote]LIRunner wrote:

Everyone? Was she friendly with Lolo Jones?

[quote]Star wrote:

Good one, and Speaking of the Virginous One, I saw her image flash on the TV last night, apparently she's on some upcoming reality show. Didn't catch its name or premise but I think its safe to say,

Its not Teenage Moms.

Was told that people have done to get the "legal" hormonal boost. Apparently this is normal practice in China where they push any questionable training. I assume here its more kept quiet but either way getting pregnant produces more hormones and can create a natural boost in performance.

So Allyson felix has had an abortion?

Star wrote:

No male athlete has ever had to face a situation of jeopardizing their athletic career due to an unplanned pregnancy.

But males are quick to judge.

This.

What if the only thing you've been good at since you were an adolescent, and the thing that is not only providing for you but probably for your immediate family and maybe even your extended family. One night of sex would be enough, and one pregnancy would be enough to lose your career. You've never trained at anything else. A writer can go write for a different industry. An athlete knows only sport and competition.

No man has ever had to choose between something he's spent decades training for and poverty just because one night's birth control mistake. This country and the religious right are more interested in punishing women for sex like it's still the middle ages than they are about saving fetuses as evidenced by all the anti birth control stances they've adopted.

Her husband was an NFL player. Don't pretend that her alternative was poverty.

Regardless, I think it is her choice. I'm all for people having religious views, but they can't impose it upon other people. I don't belive in abortion except in rape or risk to the mother, but I believe in the right of others to make their own choice. Anybody who says it is murder can go f themselves, that is ridiculous rhetoric just to inflame the issue.

nihilism wrote:

She's black it's just kinda what they do. Cultural thing.

Lots of sex, never use protection, and then either have loads of kids or get abortions.

Here's something I've posted before regarding "protection." The majority (54-55%) of women having abortions in the USA were using a "contraceptive" drug or device when they conceived the child they aborted (many so called "contraceptives," besides failing to prevent conception, may also cause a very early abortion); a greater majority were experienced "contraceptive" users but some abandoned these drugs or devices, often because of their side effects which frequently include depression, weight gain and decreased sex drive, for just three examples. How ironic. Should we be surprised by such unintended effects when the intended effect is to produce a diseased state?

Your thinking is all too common as it was in the 1960s and that led to this mess. The USA went from a 5-7% out-of-wedlock birth rate in the early 1960s when direct abortion was illegal to about 41% today when direct abortion is legal and widespread. This is the exact opposite of what proponents for artificial contraception and abortion predicted.

The 1960s champions of artificial birth control fobbed off as "health care" drugs designed to induce a diseased state – prolonged infertility – by poisoning women and devices or interventions which monkey-wrench the human reproductive works, usually in women. They declared that these lifestyle drugs, devices and interventions would prevent out-of-wedlock births, abortion, child abuse, divorce, adultery and more. The 1960s were a time of moonshots, psychedelia and great hope in technology and medicine.

The data are in. After decades of widespread use of these artificial methods, the reported rates of out-of-wedlock births, abortion, child abuse, and divorce have not fallen but have moon rocketed (as have the rates of transmission of sexual diseases). Not groovy. While rates of adultery are difficult to obtain, you may suspect as I do that they have increased. In the USA, unmarried women procure more than 80% of abortions; of the remaining less than 20% of abortions (those procured by married women), a significant percentage may be by women impregnated by men to whom they are not married: abortion in the USA is overwhelmingly a consequence of sex between people unmarried to each other. Further, the majority of women having abortions in the USA were using a "contraceptive" drug or device when they conceived the child they aborted (many so called "contraceptives," besides failing to prevent conception, may also cause a very early abortion); a greater majority were experienced "contraceptive" users but some abandoned these drugs or devices, often because of their side effects which frequently include depression, weight gain and decreased sex drive, for just three examples. How ironic. Should we be surprised by such unintended effects when the intended effect is to produce a diseased state? Might these effects – intended (infertility) and unintended (depression, weight gain and decreased sex drive) - have something to do with adultery and divorce?

The sexual revolution has not so much been tried on an enormous scale and found wanting as it has been tried on an enormous scale and found disastrous. While economic and other factors contributed, that revolution has been fueled largely by the use of artificial “contraceptives.” How much worse must things get before those still clinging to great hopes for these lifestyle drugs, devices and interventions rid the moonbeams from their eyes and shake the psychedelic dust from their bell bottoms?

No such thing wrote:

GhostofTedKennedy wrote:

+1

Heard her blabbing about her Christian values, but a late stage abortion proves she puts money and fame first.

There's no such thing as God. You men invented religion, that's why God was invented male.

. Sorry, but no invisible "man" in the sky told anyone a female couldn't remove an embryo or fetus from her body. It's not a baby.

+1

nihilism wrote:

She's black it's just kinda what they do. Cultural thing.

Lots of sex, never use protection, and then either have loads of kids or get abortions.

You couldn't be more wrong labeling abortion as a black cultural phenomenon. White women have tons of abortions, they can afford them and you would be shocked at who these women are.

idiot... wrote:

If you get an abortion early on, the clump of cells has not been formed into a baby that has nerve cells that feel pain...

The baby must be just so far along that the body parts can be identified after the dismemberment. Anything, like an arm, leg eye or 'mass of tissue' left inside can trigger a catastrophic toxic reaction inside the woman.

Take a look at the videos on you tube of 3D ultra-sound only half way through pregnancy. The kids are moving around, making facial expressions and acting like a baby.

To impose means to put or place on or upon. If staying the hands of abortionists imposes, what words properly describe the slicing through of a living human fetus with a scalpel, the dismembering of a living human fetus with forceps, or, in the case of some late-term abortions, inverting the fetus to a breech position, pulling it out of the birth canal so only its head remains inside, jabbing the base of its neck with scissors to insert an aspirator, sucking its brains out to collapse its skull, and then removing it entirely from the birth canal to deliver a dead baby? Surely something more forcible than "impose" is appropriate.

I am reminded of these words by a US President, though one noted for his failures to live up to his convictions: "The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson to Maryland Republicans, 1809. ME 16:359

That's her Texas education. After all, that kind of moral values are common around Longhorn circles.

Star wrote:

.

No male athlete has ever had to face a situation of jeopardizing their athletic career due to an unplanned pregnancy.

But males are quick to judge.

Um, what? A fringe elite would need to get a real job in a hurry.

Big tuna wrote:

Her body, her choice :-)

A fetus is not a baby btw.

At what point does it become a baby?

Still the woman must always come before everything.

Can't believe she says every athlete she had has had this.

Most unwanted pregnancies are through carelessness not failed contraception

Whew.. we've a got a real psycho here... this guy has a REAL issue with the use of contraceptives.

Which shows that the "mainline churches" have strayed from the faith and commandments of the Apostles. Here's a passage from the very early Christian work, "The Didache" (also called "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" - "didactic" is related to "Didache" ):

Big tuna wrote:

Her body, her choice :-)

A fetus is not a baby btw.

1. The body inside a pregnant woman's body is not the pregnant woman's body.

2. Elsewhere in this thread, someone quoted Shakespeare's use of "child" (older than a baby) for a living human fetus. I'll stick with Shakespeare.

As a Christian man, I have conflicted feelings on this subject, but here is where I stand; As a man, I don't think I have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. However, I personally, would not want anything to do with being part of making a decision to have an abortion. I could never say yes, do it.

Insert atheist comments here.