Woman has 15 abortions in 17 years!

[QUOTE="MasterBolt360"]

Man, She must have like a huge hole in her stomach now.

markop2003

Babies don't come out of the belly button?

Ya know, she could have just had her uterus ripped out after the first abortion.

Then you would never have to worry about kids again.

[QUOTE="QiiXii"]

What's the difference between one abortion and fifteen abortions? (If you're pro-choice)

Oleg_Huzwog

One is generally rationalized as an unfortunate necessity - a lesser of two evils, so to speak.

Fifteen is just ****'d up.

What's the difference between one abortion and fifteen abortions? (If you're pro-choice)

QiiXii

[QUOTE="QiiXii"]

What's the difference between one abortion and fifteen abortions? (If you're pro-choice)

sonicare

Shocking. Had she not heard of contraception, I don't care if she had mental problems she is sick.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="QiiXii"]

What's the difference between one abortion and fifteen abortions? (If you're pro-choice)

xaos

What.

Irene Vilar said she had the abortions not from poverty or fear but as an extraordinary act of rebellion against her 'controlling' husband who did not want children.

The attractive one-time academic prodigy attended a boarding school in New Hampshire and was accepted into a New York university when she was only 15.

A year later, she fell in love and married a 50-year-old Latin American literature professor, who she says was opposed to having children.

She claimed she had the abortions so her husband wouldn't leave her although she failed to reveal whether he knew of the terminations.

That woman is messed up.

DJ_Lae

We could make a presumption here that her Latin-American husband is perhaps catholic, thus doesn't believe in the use of contraceptives? The onus should be as much on him as it is her.

Regardless, as someone mentioned earlier pro-choice is exactly that – whether its once, twice or fifteen times its irrelevant. If we leave the door open, then it's an individual's responsibility as to how they use that freedom that's given to them.

Alcohol is legal, yet some people will abuse it. We can't have it both ways.

I'm all for having your own choice, however, I think that actually giving birth to the babies is a way at getting back at her husband for not wanting kids, not getting rid of your babies.

We could make a presumption here that her Latin-American husband is perhaps catholic, thus doesn't believe in the use of contraceptives? The onus should be as much on him as it is her.

Regardless, as someone mentioned earlier pro-choice is exactly that – whether its once, twice or fifteen times its irrelevant. If we leave the door open, then it's an individual's responsibility as to how they use that freedom that's given to them.

Alcohol is legal, yet some people will abuse it. We can't have it both ways.

poptart

Alcohol abusers can be tossed into rehab against their will... so yes, we can have it both ways.

not surprising...you guys are very, very judgmental.

[QUOTE="poptart"]

We could make a presumption here that her Latin-American husband is perhaps catholic, thus doesn't believe in the use of contraceptives? The onus should be as much on him as it is her.

Regardless, as someone mentioned earlier pro-choice is exactly that – whether its once, twice or fifteen times its irrelevant. If we leave the door open, then it's an individual's responsibility as to how they use that freedom that's given to them.

Alcohol is legal, yet some people will abuse it. We can't have it both ways.

Oleg_Huzwog

Alcohol abusers can be tossed into rehab against their will... so yes, we can have it both ways.

They can be, but only if they're deemed to be a danger to themselves or those around them.

That's a different scenario altogether.

not surprising...you guys are very, very judgmental.

samuraiguns

Why? You don't think she could figure out what she was doing was wrong after around 11. :?

Psst, lady, it's called "having your tubes tied"...

[QUOTE="samuraiguns"]

not surprising...you guys are very, very judgmental.

bacon_is_sweet

Why? You don't think she could figure out what she was doing was wrong after around 11. :?

Im pro-choice and really that's pretty bad. Abortions should be offered to help people who can't raise a child or were raped. Maybe one abortion with the reasoning of "oh we made a mistake and forgot a condom/condom broke" is excusable but this seems to be just "ew babies do not want, abort" x15.Ace6301

I think this reasoning sucks. No offense.

If 15 abortions are "wrong" (at least from the perspective of the fetus), then one abortion is wrong too.

Now granted, if you have 15 abortions in 17 years, then you've obviously got problems. So we could see this as being "wrong" in the sense that we say "why is this lady doing this to herself?"

But otherwise, what's the problem?

[QUOTE="samuraiguns"]

not surprising...you guys are very, very judgmental.

bacon_is_sweet

Why? You don't think she could figure out what she was doing was wrong after around 11. :?

I don't know how you can justify one abortion, yet damn an individual for multiple procedures. If you can rationalise one, why can't you rationalize two? Likewise if you've had two, then why would the third be wrong?

Of course the sheer volume of procedures she's undertaken is paramount to gluttony, but hey that's her call…

[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

[QUOTE="samuraiguns"]

not surprising...you guys are very, very judgmental.

samuraiguns

Why? You don't think she could figure out what she was doing was wrong after around 11. :?

I think it's pretty darn for sure that she was damaged mentally. :P

[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

[QUOTE="samuraiguns"]

not surprising...you guys are very, very judgmental.

samuraiguns

Why? You don't think she could figure out what she was doing was wrong after around 11. :?

Still its way too many in such a short time to give her the benefit of the doubt

[QUOTE="bacon_is_sweet"]

[QUOTE="samuraiguns"]

not surprising...you guys are very, very judgmental.

poptart

Why? You don't think she could figure out what she was doing was wrong after around 11. :?

I don't know how you can justify one abortion, yet damn an individual for multiple procedures. If you can rationalise one, why can't you rationalize two? Likewise if you've had two, then why would the third be wrong?

Of course the sheer volume of procedures she's undertaken is paramount to gluttony, but hey that's her call…

I agree

So, here's what I got from that article, she was getting knocked up repetitively and then killing the babies to tell the father "screw you." She needs meds of some sort.Pyro767

Um…. Killing babies?

[QUOTE="QiiXii"]

What's the difference between one abortion and fifteen abortions? (If you're pro-choice)

Oleg_Huzwog

One is generally rationalized as an unfortunate necessity - a lesser of two evils, so to speak.

Fifteen is just ****'d up.

And that rationalization is ****ed up.

If one believes that there's ANYTHING wrong with an abortion, then having ONE abortion is wrong. If one sees an abortion as a "murder", then the ONLY acceptable rationalization for abortrion should be if the pregnancy poses a clear and immiment risk to the life of the mother.

We don't kill PEOPLE because they are destined to grow up in an unfit home. We don't kill PEOPLE because sociological trends indicate that they stand a high risk of having what many of us would refer to as a "bad life".

If one abortion is okay, then 15 abortions is no worse.

And if one abortion is unacceptable, then I think a LOT of pro-choice people here need to reevaluate their stance on abortion. At what point do YOU consider it "necessary" to kill a "person"?

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="QiiXii"]

What's the difference between one abortion and fifteen abortions? (If you're pro-choice)

MrGeezer

One is generally rationalized as an unfortunate necessity - a lesser of two evils, so to speak.

Fifteen is just ****'d up.

And that rationalization is ****ed up.

If one believes that there's ANYTHING wrong with an abortion, then having ONE abortion is wrong. If one sees an abortion as a "murder", then the ONLY acceptable rationalization for abortrion should be if the pregnancy poses a clear and immiment risk to the life of the mother.

We don't kill PEOPLE because they are destined to grow up in an unfit home. We don't kill PEOPLE because sociological trends indicate that they stand a high risk of having what many of us would refer to as a "bad life".

If one abortion is okay, then 15 abortions is no worse.

And if one abortion is acceptable, then I think a LOT of pro-choice people here need to reevaluate their stance on abortion. At what point do YOU consider it "necessary" to kill a "person"?

That is just despicable.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="QiiXii"]

What's the difference between one abortion and fifteen abortions? (If you're pro-choice)

MrGeezer

One is generally rationalized as an unfortunate necessity - a lesser of two evils, so to speak.

Fifteen is just ****'d up.

And that rationalization is ****ed up.

If one believes that there's ANYTHING wrong with an abortion, then having ONE abortion is wrong. If one sees an abortion as a "murder", then the ONLY acceptable rationalization for abortrion should be if the pregnancy poses a clear and immiment risk to the life of the mother.

We don't kill PEOPLE because they are destined to grow up in an unfit home. We don't kill PEOPLE because sociological trends indicate that they stand a high risk of having what many of us would refer to as a "bad life".

If one abortion is okay, then 15 abortions is no worse.

And if one abortion is acceptable, then I think a LOT of pro-choice people here need to reevaluate their stance on abortion. At what point do YOU consider it "necessary" to kill a "person"?

Best response yet

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="QiiXii"]

What's the difference between one abortion and fifteen abortions? (If you're pro-choice)

MrGeezer

One is generally rationalized as an unfortunate necessity - a lesser of two evils, so to speak.

Fifteen is just ****'d up.

And that rationalization is ****ed up.

If one believes that there's ANYTHING wrong with an abortion, then having ONE abortion is wrong. If one sees an abortion as a "murder", then the ONLY acceptable rationalization for abortrion should be if the pregnancy poses a clear and immiment risk to the life of the mother.

We don't kill PEOPLE because they are destined to grow up in an unfit home. We don't kill PEOPLE because sociological trends indicate that they stand a high risk of having what many of us would refer to as a "bad life".

If one abortion is okay, then 15 abortions is no worse.

And if one abortion is acceptable, then I think a LOT of pro-choice people here need to reevaluate their stance on abortion. At what point do YOU consider it "necessary" to kill a "person"?

Just because to some the distinction between cases and the application of criteria is a "blurry" thing doesnt mean that its wrong or impossible.

Its the same thing I hear from everyone who supports an extreme and absolute view: if you dont oppose it completely how will you define the gray area. Well excuse me but such a difficulty doesnt render the whole position wrong or completely dangerous.

lol are you kidding me? thats like saying droppin a atomic bomb on a city is the same thing as dropping a nukecee1gee

Not much to say here, because I don't know what you're saying.

I was under the impression that "nuke" was a short way of referring to "nuclear weapons". I was also under the impression that atomic bombs ARE nuclear weapons.

So...chalk it up to my not knowing anything about atomic bombs or nukes, but what are you saying here? Are you saying that atomic bombs AREN'T nukes? If so, that's news to me, and thank you for that little bit of information.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

One is generally rationalized as an unfortunate necessity - a lesser of two evils, so to speak.

Fifteen is just ****'d up.

Teenaged

And that rationalization is ****ed up.

If one believes that there's ANYTHING wrong with an abortion, then having ONE abortion is wrong. If one sees an abortion as a "murder", then the ONLY acceptable rationalization for abortrion should be if the pregnancy poses a clear and immiment risk to the life of the mother.

We don't kill PEOPLE because they are destined to grow up in an unfit home. We don't kill PEOPLE because sociological trends indicate that they stand a high risk of having what many of us would refer to as a "bad life".

If one abortion is okay, then 15 abortions is no worse.

And if one abortion is acceptable, then I think a LOT of pro-choice people here need to reevaluate their stance on abortion. At what point do YOU consider it "necessary" to kill a "person"?

Just because to some the distinction between cases and the application of criteria is a "blurry" thing doesnt mean that its wrong or impossible.

Its the same thing I hear from everyone who supports an extreme and absolute view: if you dont oppose it completely how will you define the gray area. Well excuse me but such a difficulty doesnt render the whole position wrong or completely dangerous.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="QiiXii"]

What's the difference between one abortion and fifteen abortions? (If you're pro-choice)

MrGeezer

One is generally rationalized as an unfortunate necessity - a lesser of two evils, so to speak.

Fifteen is just ****'d up.

And that rationalization is ****ed up.

If one believes that there's ANYTHING wrong with an abortion, then having ONE abortion is wrong. If one sees an abortion as a "murder", then the ONLY acceptable rationalization for abortrion should be if the pregnancy poses a clear and immiment risk to the life of the mother.

We don't kill PEOPLE because they are destined to grow up in an unfit home. We don't kill PEOPLE because sociological trends indicate that they stand a high risk of having what many of us would refer to as a "bad life".

If one abortion is okay, then 15 abortions is no worse.

And if one abortion is acceptable, then I think a LOT of pro-choice people here need to reevaluate their stance on abortion. At what point do YOU consider it "necessary" to kill a "person"?

In this case, she seems to almost be addicted to abortions and to be getting them out of spite. It's not so much the abortions themselves as much as it's the screwed up state of mind they seem to be portraying.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

One is generally rationalized as an unfortunate necessity - a lesser of two evils, so to speak.

Fifteen is just ****'d up.

GabuEx

And that rationalization is ****ed up.

If one believes that there's ANYTHING wrong with an abortion, then having ONE abortion is wrong. If one sees an abortion as a "murder", then the ONLY acceptable rationalization for abortrion should be if the pregnancy poses a clear and immiment risk to the life of the mother.

We don't kill PEOPLE because they are destined to grow up in an unfit home. We don't kill PEOPLE because sociological trends indicate that they stand a high risk of having what many of us would refer to as a "bad life".

If one abortion is okay, then 15 abortions is no worse.

And if one abortion is acceptable, then I think a LOT of pro-choice people here need to reevaluate their stance on abortion. At what point do YOU consider it "necessary" to kill a "person"?

In this case, she seems to almost be addicted to abortions and to be getting them out of spite. It's not so much the abortions themselves as much as it's the screwed up state of mind they seem to be portraying.

Indeed. people are not sickened by the number of abortions, it's more so her reason behind the abortions.

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

In this case, she seems to almost be addicted to abortions and to be getting them out of spite. It's not so much the abortions themselves as much as it's the screwed up state of mind they seem to be portraying.

Lilyanne46

Indeed. people are not sickened by the number of abortions, it's more so her reason behind the abortions.

I see nothing wrong with abortions, but I agree, it's the reason that gets me. :|

Because she loves her husband and doesn't want to lose him? Why is that any worse than 'because I don't want a baby in my life' or any other non-medical reason you can think of?

I really don't think it's anyone's business. =/ It's messed up, but I don't really care that much. :P

Lilyanne46

I agree with you on that. I see this as "news", that isn't really news-worthy

This is YOUR criterion for how it should be. Not actually how it SHOULD be. ;)

Just because to some the distinction between cases and the application of criteria is a "blurry" thing doesnt mean that its wrong or impossible.

Its the same thing I hear from everyone who supports an extreme and absolute view: if you dont oppose it completely how will you define the gray area. Well excuse me but such a difficulty doesnt render the whole position wrong or completely dangerous.

Teenaged

Killing people is more subject to absolutism than a lot of things.

If a fetus/embryo is just a bunch of cells, and we are not to confuse it with a person, then how is there ANYTHING wrong with abortion? From the fetus's perspective, we don't give a crap about the fetus since it's just a clump of cells. If I get one abortion, that's my business and I'm not hurting anyone but myself. So what the hell, gimme 15 abortions, who cares?

But then if we are to recognize that a fetus/embryo IS a person, and that getting an abortion actually is KILLING A PERSON, then I'm sorry, but absolutism starts to kick in.

How often do we kill PEOPLE for their own sake, and especially without their consent? Almost never. So the notion that killing the embryo/fetus is done for the sake of the fetus sort of evaporates. Abortion would somehow be the ONLY situation in which it is somehow acceptable to do that ****. If your child is born severely retarded, you can't do that. If your child is born with crippling grotesque and irreversible deformities, you can't do that ****. So it doesn't apply with abortion either. So you might not be suited to take care of the kid. Tough cookies. That child might be statistically prone to a bad life, but if you recognize it as a person then how can you kill it? If we do that, then what's stopping us from killing babies that are born retarded and deformed? You don't do that ****, because there are VERY limited circumstances in which it is okay to KILL PEOPLE.

So...if it's not for the sake of the growing fetus/embryo, then for who? The mother? Again, tough cookies. Letting the baby live may be inconvenient for the mother, but how often do we KILL PEOPLE for the sake of someone else's CONVENIENCE? The mother has to suffer for 9 months, at which point she's free to put the baby up for adoption. Emotional trauma or physical trauma, it pales in comparison to the alternative, which would be KILLING AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING. Again, IF we accept that an embryo/fetus is an actual person and has some kind of moral right to be allowed to live, then it would take an EXTREME situation for it to be acceptable to KILL that baby for the sake of the mother. And if on the other hand we recognize that the embryo/fetus is just a clump of cells and is not a person, then **** it. Get 5 abortions or 70 abortions. At worst, you're only hurting yourself.

Yeah, nothing is entirely absolute. But there's nothing that gets closer to being absolute than the notion that "you don't KILL PEOPLE unless it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY".

If we work under the assumption that embryos and fetuses are people, then I think it's very fair to say that the vast majority of abortions are probably "not necesary" in the sense that the reasons for getting an abortion aren't sufficient to justify KILLING SOMEONE.

And if fetuses/embryos are NOT people, thwen WHAT is wrong with abortions? The only moral complaint I have EVER heard for abortion essentially boils down to the idea that it's wrong to kill the fetuses. That they deserve a chance at life. But once you go there, then how is ONE abortion somehow acceptable? And if you deny that the fetus/embryo is a person and deny that it has any kind of moral right to be allowed to get a chance to live, then how are 100 abortions any worse than ONE?

[QUOTE="Lilyanne46"]

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

Indeed. people are not sickened by the number of abortions, it's more so her reason behind the abortions.

poptart

I see nothing wrong with abortions, but I agree, it's the reason that gets me. :|

Because she loves her husband and doesn't want to lose him? Why is that any worse than 'because I don't want a baby in my life' or any other non-medical reason you can think of?

Well, she was also aborting these babies just to spite her husband as well...

In this case, she seems to almost be addicted to abortions and to be getting them out of spite. It's not so much the abortions themselves as much as it's the screwed up state of mind they seem to be portraying.

GabuEx

Yes, but then we're talking about two different things.

There's nothing wrong with eating a hamburger. However, there's something wrong with eating hamburgers to the point where you balloon to 700 pounds, and cannot achieve sexual satisfaction unless there is a hamburger in your mouth.

But then, we we substitutte abortions for hamburgers, WHAT do people see wrong with this? When people express disgust at this story, WHAT are they disgusted about? Does the disgust stem from the fact that this woman clearly has mental and emotional problems? Or does the disgust stem from the idea that she "murdered 15 babies"?

Are we talking about the woman's mental state, or the abortions themselves?

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

[QUOTE="poptart"]

Because she loves her husband and doesn't want to lose him? Why is that any worse than 'because I don't want a baby in my life' or any other non-medical reason you can think of?

Lilyanne46

Well, she was also aborting these babies just to spite her husband as well...

Exactly what I'm saying...

If she really didn't want to have kids and want to stay with her husband, then couldn't they have just talked and try to work things out? What she did was jsut pointless, excessive, and also contradicts what she is trying to rebel against.

oh boy, the prolifers are gonna load this into thier prolife-minigun and rapidfire it in every single argument.

Anyway, I think it is wrong because she could just wear a condom/get her or his tubes tied/take the pill, but it is not exactly a big deal

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]In this case, she seems to almost be addicted to abortions and to be getting them out of spite. It's not so much the abortions themselves as much as it's the screwed up state of mind they seem to be portraying.

MrGeezer

Yes, but then we're talking about two different things.

There's nothing wrong with eating a hamburger. However, there's something wrong with eating hamburgers to the point where you balloon to 700 pounds, and cannot achieve sexual satisfaction unless there is a hamburger in your mouth.

But then, we we substitutte abortions for hamburgers, WHAT do people see wrong with this? When people express disgust at this story, WHAT are they disgusted about? Does the disgust stem from the fact that this woman clearly has mental and emotional problems? Or does the disgust stem from the idea that she "murdered 15 babies"?

Are we talking about the woman's mental state, or the abortions themselves?

I think it depends on the people who have opinions on abortions. Those who are opinionated on the issue will probably be disgusted by the fact she "murdered" 15 babies, and those who are not would probably discuss her mental state