Topic awaiting preservation: Abortion (Page 2 of 4)

Jade, you said,:

quote:

---

In reference to your questions on jewish interperation of the 5th
commandment in thy shall not murder and christian term thou shall not kill, the CC considers itself judaic-catholic. We believe in the first five books of the bible, the torah. We accept all what judiasm taught up to the birth of the saviour.

---

The reason this was brought was that if you do indeed believe this, then you should have no problems with abortion before the baby's head exits the womb, according to your religion. Not to mention the fact that the Torah has some pretty strict rules concerning society that just aren't viable today.

As far as the abortion issue is concerned, I believe the choice should be available and the only thing to decide is when is the cutoff point and who should make the decision. This is the direction we seem to be going in, and I'm still trying to form an opinion on the subject.

I do, however, strongly agree that this cannot be a religious issue.

quote:

---

Well I quess according to your way of thinking dogs could possibly be driving cars in the distant future since they could possibly be able to think & reason as humans.

---

i don't follow your logic... dogs may be alive and even possibly thinking, but manipulate complex machines?

quote:

---

I was addressing the Jewish topic to Mobrul & you commented.

---

jade - this forum is for discussion. why say this? are you suggesting that i shut-up and fade away?

as for my religious roots, what has that to do with my questioning of your commentary? do i need credentials for you to take my comments seriously? or should i say what you did? see my answer in a different thread...

in my humble opinion, you are like many religious people. you repeat what has been told to you without understanding, which is fine - for you. what you have shared has been enlightening to many here, but you must accept that your comments will generate questions! especially when you make statements that are questionable in the eyes of others... and in controversial topics.. it's this difference of opinion that defines that a topic is controversial. i say this latter, because i find you becoming hostile and realize it may be my abruptness that offended you.

[edit]this is not an apology btw, i am that i am
and what does all this have to do with abortion?

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 04-14-2003).]

Not looking to be hostile, just was referencing your comment on jewish topic. I don't want you to go away.

If you feel I don't understand my faith and cannot explain why I believe the way I do, what more can I say. I love what I believe in even if I am limited in understaning according to your opinion or view of me. I am in love with love. Is that so hard to believe?

My comment about your roots had nothing to do with credibility. I just wanted to know more of you as a poster. Sorry, if it seemed condesending.

jade:

quote:

---

To compare animals & a blank sheet of paper to humanity, dehumanizes the dignity of the potential human person and I find that very upsetting.

---

Only from your viewpoint - some people (like, I assume, Buddhists) would see all life as sacred without dehumaising humanity.

quote:

---

Well I quess according to your way of thinking dogs could possibly be driving cars in the distant future since they could possibly be able to think & reason as humans.

---

I've seen dogs driving cars and motorbikes just not well yet. No one is arguing that they are able to think and reason as well as adult humans but is that your criteria? Or is it if they have souls or not?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

And if anyone fancies it I'll be having choir parctice in the rec room in an hour - if anyone wants to join in the first song is:
www.stone-dead.asn.au/albums-cds/lyrics/every-sperm-is-sacred.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

^^^ Hehe...

Nice post...

Very funny emperor

I guess your dads sperm that fertilized your mothers egg forming you wasn't sacred stuff. So your reason for existing was a fluke.

Was it a meaningless sperm that fertilized a meaningless egg?



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-14-2003).]

jade: My conception and birth where indeed miraculous and purely down to the aid of the Saint Anne's magazine but thanks for your inquiry into my father's sperm (I'll be sure to pass it on).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emperor

How was it miraculous?

Somebody ^^ up there asked something like "When is it not potential for human life."
The answer is "way before conception.'
Eggs and sperm both are produced long before conception. Each egg and each sperm are all 'potential' for human life. We do not demand (morally or legally) that each of them be taken to their 'human being' conclusion. I'd argue that policy (if it existed) would be one of the most destructive and irresponsible ones I've ever heard.

So, it does matter when that little bundles of cells is a human being and when it is simply 'potential' to be a human being. A human being is protected, morally and legally. Potential for human life is subject to much less protection.

Jade:
You brought up the 5th commandment (some protestants, I believe, call it the sixth).
Either way, the verse to which we are referring is Exodus 20:13, yes?
The point is, regardless of whether the word is interpreted as 'kill' or 'murder', the Jews (to whom the commandment was originally given) did not, nor do they now, regard abortion as in violation of this commandment.
The question that arises, then, is a very specific one:

What did Jesus say or do that changed the status of abortion from not violating the Exodus 20:13 commandment to violating Exodus 20:13?

That question needs to be answered.

And by going on and on about comparing human being to a dog or a piece of paper, you are imposing your belief (that a human being exists at conception) onto the argument. Please remember that, while you are entitled to your belief, it is one that is very much in contention among the rest of the world. Not everybody believes that a human being exists at conception. Many (including atheists, the followers of Jewish law, many protestants, etc) don't believe that a human being exists until much later.

Finally, you've again repeated the baseless assertion that the abortion industry is totally unregulated. This is simply not true. I've provided evidence that it is very much regulated. I would like to hear a bit more on you theory that it is unregulated. Please expand on your thoughts.

jade: I come form a devotely Catholic family and my parents were in their early 30s and hadn't had a child yet so one of my aunts sent the Saint Anne's magazine (known for its miracles) and lo - 9 months later I was born. Coincidence? I think not. I also had a tricky birth (umbilical cord around my neck) and I think St, Anne saw me through that too

[edit: My mother coming off the pill and the excellent work of army surgeons have also been credited but I'm sticking with the miracles]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Sorry to take so long to get back to this...

VR - You said:

quote:

---

gd - sterilization? maybe we should sterilize all the fathers who abandon their children too?

---

What a marvelous idea. Maybe there wouldn't be so many deadbeat dads out there if the echos of the snippers were in the back of their minds. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. I'm not really sure how that statement has anything to do with what I said but... whatever.

Besides that... I did mention that it wouldn't be forced on them. It would be an option that was made readily and evidently available.

One other thing... Abortion, by its basest nature, IS birth control. Regardless of the reason for having an abortion you are preventing a birth.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-14-2003).]

Mrobul. Will post info back to you when I get home.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-14-2003).]

GD - i am very sour on forced stelization, because several judges used that sentence on women whose only crime was something as insignificant as being caught sleeping on someone's private property/land. that was 40 or so years ago, so i don't recall all the details.

buddhists actually believe that all life is sentient, that we pass through different phases on the wheel of life. we have all been other animals - a requirement before incarnating as a human. i forget when they believe a fetus becomes human, but it's not at conception.

birth is a miracle. two cells join to become one, then multiply to a trillian (1,000,000,000,000) before being born as a human.

[edit] btw, sterilization is practiced in the community already - that's what tying a woman's tubes is about, also hysterectomies (sp)

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 04-15-2003).]

yes velvet, but they only do a hysterectomy if it's medically necessary and unless you're a certain age or have a certain amount of kids, doctors won't tie your tubes either.
after i had my son i asked to have my tubes tied. i have no intention of having anymore children so i thought it was a good option for me. i was only 18 then and he told me that i had to wait until i was 21 or had at least 3 kids. i thought that was reasonable. a few years ago, i approached my dr. on this again....it's been 8 years, i'm certain that i don't want any more kids. i'm still not old enough and/or have enough kids. his reasoning is because i may marry again and want to have a child with that person and i would regret not being able to. while i understand where he's coming from, i think at this point in my life, i would really regret having to have a baby. YIKES!

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

It is unfortunate that a doctor (and I know this is, for the most part, 'standard practice') will not let you control your own body and reproduction.
That pisses me off more than most anything.

A similar thing happened to my aunt. She's 40 years old, she's been married for 18 years to the same man. They both went to many doctors over the years and asked for one or both to be sterilized. They simply couldn't find a doctor that would do it. She remained on birth control pills, but nothing's perfect and after 18 years she got pregnant. So here she is at 40 years old with a new born baby that she loves but did not plan.
She could have had an abortion, sure, but her religious beliefs demanded she not. I respect that.
The biggest problem here is she was not allowed to control her own reproductive situation.

(and anyone who argues that she simply could have avoided having sex deserves a good punch in the nose and a kick in the shin)

I understand your viewpoint, VR, but you aren't reading what I'm saying. I'm not talking about forced sterilization. I'm talking about making more options available to women who don't want to (or shouldn't have to) end up in an abortion situation again but don't want to (or refuse to) change their lifestyle.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Mobrul, Sorry for delay. I am doing this on my lunch time.

Fetus is Latin for "baby". And I read how the pro-choice would rather use this term to sound more clinical, that using the word baby which would sound more personal.

In refence to Exodus 20:13

Who is God referring this commandment to? To mankind? Or just to the Jews of old. Your confusing Jews of yesterday to the Jews of today. The chosen people are all of us. And where in scripture in the first 5 books of the bible (Torah), which Christians call Pentateuch books does it say to take a life from a woman is permissable. Since today's jews don't believe in Jesus as savoir, I would think they would not agree on the issue of abortion either.
If Jesus taught it was ok to abort, then Mary could have choosen to abort him as well, since she herself was unmarried.

I will not refer to NT scriptures on life, because there are too many. And I have posted some before.


Genesis: 2:7 "the lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became and living being"
Genesis 5:2 " When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God; he created them male and female. When they were created, he blessed them and named them"man.
Genesis 9:1 God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them: "Be fertile and multiply and fill the earth"
Genesis 9:6 If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made. Be fertile, then and multiply; abound on earth and subdue it.
Genesis 17: 15 God to Abraham, " I will bless your wife Sarah, and give you a son by her. Him also will I bless; he shalll give rise to nations, and rulers of peoples shall issue from him: " 17" Can a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Or can Sarah give birth at ninety? " Nevertheless your wilfe Sarah is to bear a son and you shall call him Issac. I will maintain my covenant with the God of his descendents after him.
Exodus 21:22-25 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart and yet no mischief follow: he shall surely be punished, according as the womans husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges. And if mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye fo eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"

When Roe vs Wade gave the woman a right to an abortion, it failed to implement Roe vs Wade. The law placed the physician the responsibilty to insure the safety of the woman who gets the abortion. Per statistics 90% of abortions are performed in clincs, which most states exempt from regulation. I read veterinary clinics are more regulated than abortion clinics. The abortionist does not have to be a specialty OB-GYN. They can be urologist, allergist or plastic surgeon. There are no licensing requirements for the staff of abortion clinics. In case of an emergeny in the clinic, what are the laws governing how the emergency should be handled. Look in the case where the doctor performed the abortion and left, but the baby was still living. So the nurses took care of the baby and brought it back to health or sustained life till they took the infant to the hospital, which required lots of medical care. This baby who had to fight for her life became a beautiful woman and is now a spokesman for the Pro-Life cause. What about the doctors who perform abortions. Do they spend thousands of dollars to take life. Thirty years of legalization has not taken the stigma out of being an abortonist. So what does the abortion industry end up with as far as doctors? Doctors who once did them, no longer want to perform abortions. Some providers pose as doctors, others who assist in the abortions testify they never sterizlize the instruments. Some women seeking abortions are already in their late term. In some states the abortionist is not a doctor and is only a clinic worker required to have medical training. Anyone can open an abortion clinic if you have the money. Look into the disposal of the babies. I read somewhere where this doctor was sued for illegally dumping babies in a trash dump. There is no regulation for this. How many women have died from unsafe abortions since it has been legalized?
One case I read is when the doctor cut a womans bowel by accident and sent her home and she died later. So to say the industry is regulated is not true. It by far is lacking in protection of women.
Its all about money. Being in favor of abortion means making sure it is safe. If you care about the exploitation of woman, you care about it no matter who is doing the expoiting.

quote:

---

How many women have died from unsafe abortions since it has been legalized?

---

a hell of alot less than were dying before it was legal. there is NO medial procedure that is 100% safe. you're dentist can kill you if he makes a mistake. not all doctors are on the up and up either, but i feel that is a problem with the medical field as a whole and not just limited to abortion clinics.
i also think that it's more than just the stigma associated with performing abortions, that doctors don't like. i'm sure it has something to do with the fact that fanatical pro-lifers kill/attempt to kill doctors that perform abortions. (which has never made any sense to me).

as i said above, i'm not for all kinds of abortions, but i am definately for letting people choose. it's simple, if you're aginst abortion.....don't have one!

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Its simple to say if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
I for one cannot look the other way with indifference.

In legalizing abortion society says,"here is the knife, us it, kill it, I will even help you hold the knife if your hand is unsteady. We didn't need it anyway. It would of been of no value to us or mankind"

And what does the anti-abortion side of society say?
Some God who may not be real, who you may not believe in commands that his people (which includes you, whether you want it to or not) have to do everything his specific way?

When you can defend your position using something less trivial than a bible specific to any one (or group of) religions, then you're arguement will have some credibility. Otherwise, it absolutely has to be the womans choice - because without evidence, what supports your theory that it's wrong?

Anyways, regardless whether or not an abortion is wrong, as far as I'm concerned, it's much more wrong to force your religious beliefs onto someone else. Let society come to a conlusion that satisfies the physical world, not the spiritual one.

Uh... Jade... I'm not confusing anybody with anybody.

Specific peoples aside, that bible verse states that if a woman should be harmed causing her to lose the child, providing that nothing else happens afterwards, there is a punishment that is imposed by the husband (not the woman... interesting).

If further harm is caused to the woman then the harm is returned to the attacker in full. It is the harm to the woman that is focused on while the lost child is basically ignored. There is no mention of the harm to the fetus being returned to the attacker in full. THAT is the point I was making. If the bible itself only supports punishment in cases where it was an attack or something like that, and then only because the father lost an heir or something of value it makes no sense to react the same way when it's a choice made by the woman to have an abortion. If she has discussed it with the father there isn't any harm being done.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Jade this

quote:

---

In legalizing abortion society says,"here is the knife, us it, kill it, I will even help you hold the knife if your hand is unsteady. We didn't need it anyway. It would of been of no value to us or mankind"

---

is not what society is saying by legalizing Abortion. Instead, it is saying, that a woman has the right to decide what she does with her body.

I'm very glad that America has a separation of Church and State. Because we know what happens in lands that don't...Afghanistan, Iran, and many other countries...and there was a time in Western history, where the Church regularly interfered in the runnings of the States...I believe we call them the Dark Ages...and some of the worst atrocities in Mankinds history happened during these times...the Inquisition, for example, The Crusades...and later, the Genocide of my people, for another...in fact, the Genocide of many native peoples...

Only since the seperation of Church and State, have we seen an end to such madness...

The bottom line is, believe what you will, and practice it, by all means...but don't you ever force your beliefs on someone else. You don't like Abortion? Fine, then don't practice it. But it is not your right to pass judgement on others and preach to them what they should or should not do, who don't believe as you do under the law!.

You have the right to peacefully protest this, even attempt to change the law, yes, that is ok. But to wait outside of Abortion clinics to kill the Doctors, that is wrong. Hell, it is wrong to 'mob' those exercising their free will, and lawfully allowed rights.

Belief is not an excuse to disregard the law, and to violate the rights of others.

And contrary to your belief, it's not about money...for that woman, considering an Abortion, it's definitely not about money (except for the cost, of course...hopefully, she can raise the cost of the operation).

I'm very glad that America protects me from beliefs like yours. Just be content that in your belief, those people will be burning in hell...unless, of course, they happen to become 'saved' afterwards, that is...*snicker*

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-16-2003).]

GD, i do agree that women are entitled to all the options available - whether or not they exercise them. i wasn't actually disagreeing with you

Lacuna, I just love your posts. We are so in agreement so much of the time...

Mobrul, I know that this quote is not a pro-life quote, but it made me have a thought:

quote:

---

Eggs and sperm both are produced long before conception. Each egg and each sperm are all 'potential' for human life. We do not demand (morally or legally) that each of them be taken to their 'human being' conclusion. I'd argue that policy (if it existed) would be one of the most destructive and irresponsible ones I've ever heard.

So, it does matter when that little bundles of cells is a human being and when it is simply 'potential' to be a human being. A human being is protected, morally and legally. Potential for human life is subject to much less protection.

---

You know, women have a menstrual cycle every month to prepare their bodies to become pregnant. In the event that the egg is not fertilized, the body releases the egg and the "nest" that has been prepared for it, through a completely natural process. If that's the case, then I've lost hundreds of "potential" lives... Up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing but a collection of cells. In some cases, a woman's body rejects the fetus as an invasive organism and she has a miscarriage. We don't call that murder, or even accidental manslaughter. Let's be serious about this "when's a baby a baby" question.

Many of us do live in a country where we are free to have our own beliefs. I am firmly of the opinion that people should not attempt to force their beliefs onto others. There's an awful lot of different beliefs within this varied country of ours. But if you are going to state your beliefs, expecially as a rebuttal to a post in a discussion, be prepared to document references and examples used. In this kind of discussion, you will generate feedback; you might as well have some links to back up your comments.

In regards to the discussion of voluntary sterilization, (and I realize this may be touchy for the guys in our forum) but women are not the only ones who can take this precaution. A vasectomy is a reletively inexpensive, safe, out-patient, and completely reversable procedure that a man can have done in order to prevent his wife from becoming pregnant if the couple no longer wants the risk of additional children. Because the male reproductive organs are external to the body, there is no real risk of major surgical errors or infections.
When my oldest sister and her husband had reached their preferred family limit of 3 kids, they discussed all manner of options to prevent an unplanned addition to their family. (Coming from a family of 6 kids, as we do, I can totally understand their perspective) Evaluating all the options, they decided that this was the most economical and efficient procedure. Never have they looked back.
Men have a hard time hearing about that. Something about manhood being all wrapped up in a fully functional and reproductively viable penis. But the procedure does not prevent you from functioning sexually, you just shoot blanks. And again, completely reversable.
If a man and his wife are content with their family, and wish not to worry about unexpected bundles of joy, why place the burden of abdomninal surgery on the woman? It's not all her fault she gets pregnant, you know it takes 2 to tango!

Bodhi - Cell 617

Amen Bodhi! Well said!

Dan

Who or what according to you is credible in the issue of abortion?
If science is credible, what does science say when the baby in the womb becomes human? Do scientist (people) determine?

Lets forget about religious faith and deal with you as a scientific piece of matter. Do you sustain your own life? No. You need air. You are dependent. So your handicapped. You depend on air to be provided for you so you can live a heathy life. And for what?
Why do you even exist at all? For the physical & social sciences and what it dictates. In what way is society credible?

Does social science determine what kind of man you will be or want to be? Or do you determine? And take into consideration the society you live in will have different idologies in future generations. So if your living by current society agendas, your idologies will become meaningless in the future, like if you didn't matter. Maybe extinct.

And does your piece of matter matter at all? And to who? Your family, your parents, friends, co-workers. And if it you do matter, why do you care. Because society tells you to care? Do you want to be wanted or loved? And if you do, why should you care? Could you possibly matter to sombody where it can make a difference? If you don't matter to anyone, your worthless. Your life has no worth. Its like you should have never been born. But then again your life could be a worth to you, because you live to achieve a goal, accomplishment or destiny. But why, so it can die with you. So people who knew you can say, " yes, he was a nice man, good to his family, respectable in the community, didn't break any laws. He was able to exist in the society he lived in and that was a great accomplishment" Are you living for a good tombstone epitaph and then life goes on?

Excellent post, Bodhi. One point I'd like to make. That works well in situations where there is a "couple" but what about those women who aren't in a relationship, don't want children, and have many partners? Are all guys going to need to get a vasectomy, so those women who fall into this category don't have to worry about getting pregnant?

I thought there was a method of sterilization that could be reversed for women too. Is that a misunderstanding on my part or is there such a thing?

Not to try and slide off the issue at hand... I fully intend on having a vasectomy after having the children I want to have.

It does bring something to mind though... What would be the reaction (what is your reaction) to vasectomy along with circumcision. I don't know what the long term effects would be or if it would work but lets asume it would. If it remains reversible and doesn't permanently damage anything, would that be so big an issue. Wouldn't that then alleviate some of the issues we're discussing here, not to mention a myriad of other issues? All that would mean is that, when you're ready, I mean really ready, to have a family you swing by the doctor's office and get "fixed" (funny how that term is revesed now) and you're ready to go.

That really doesn't bother me very much. It's a little too close to a controllable situation then I'd like but I've always been a supporter of population control of some sort.

Anyway... sorry to digress. Back to the Topic!!

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-16-2003).]

That's...GD, that's actually not a bad idea...if it was 100% reversable.

And I think there is where the problem lies...

I have some real questions abouta lot of the things you've written here lately, Jade. Do you mind if I ask them?

quote:

---

I don't understand how the United States Judicial system can make a determination on this as they have no business in this moral law.

---

Up there, earlier you made the preceding remark. I presumed (maybe incorrectly?) that you were saying that abortion is a religious, or moral, issue and not a legal issue. That is, the legal system has no business dealing with abortion. We (I thought) agreed. Then later you said

quote:

---

In legalizing abortion society says,"here is the knife, us it, kill it, I will even help you hold the knife if your hand is unsteady. We didn't need it anyway. It would of been of no value to us or mankind"

---

which seems to say that you are for the illegalization (the involvment of the legal system) of abortion.
I'm confused. Please help me understand your position.

Are you for or against the legal system getting involved in the abortion issue?

If indeed you are calling for the illegalization of abortion, do you wish for a total theocracy, or only a theocracy regarding certain issues?

I'm also a bit confused from an earlier post where you wrote two things.

quote:

---

Your [sic] confusing Jews of yesterday to the Jews of today

---

and

quote:

---

Since today's jews don't believe in Jesus as savoir, I would think they would not agree on the issue of abortion either.

---

Regarding the first, why do you think I am confusing Jews of old to Jews of today? In what way? Perhaps I am confusing them, but I don't understand how. Please explain a bit more of what you mean.

Regarding the second, I understand very clearly what you are saying, but I do not understand why you are saying it. What is it about Jesus' acts or words that changed the definition of when a fetus is a human being?

Help walk me through the steps that brought you to the conclusion that "...Since today's jews don't believe in Jesus as savoir...they would not agree on the issue of abortion either."

Finally, regarding your last post:
You wrote

quote:

---

If science is credible, what does science say when the baby in the womb becomes human? Do scientist (people) determine?

---

Absolutely scientists determine that (or at least they try to). That is the foundation of healthy, growing societies. This backlash against science has been seen before in the course of human history...we call the last episode the "Dark Ages." It was mostly brought on by the plague, but it resulted in a lot of people living for a very long time with little to no growth in knowledge, literacy, art, culture or music. A sad time.

Do you wish for a return of life with repressed science?
What role do you think science should have in a healthy society?

And then on to your next paragraph, being a part of a larger ecosystem is not at all the same as being handicapped. Sure we need air to survive. We need food, water, shelter, and affection. We need a purpose. Humans are social creatures within the realm of a very interconnected environment. I don't understand where you are going with this at all. Please help me. I'm trying to dig meaning out of it and I simply can't.

Your next paragraph asks 'Does social science determine what kind of man you will be...?'
Certainly not.
But social sciences DO illuminate those many things that impact how a person is going to behave...helping us understand that behavior better.
There is an old debate. It is probably best know as the 'nature vs nurture' debate. It basically attemps to answer the question 'Is a person influenced more by his/her genetics or by his/her environment. The more we learn, the more we realize that it is a healthy combination of both that determine 'what kind of a man' someone will be.

Social sciences are the study of the 'nurture' part of that equation, while genetics and medicine in general is the study of the 'nature' side of that equation. So, social science does not create the (wo)man, but it does help us understand the factors that do...so we are smarter and more aware of them...so we can make knowledgable decisions...so we can become the person we want to be.

What any of this has to do with the legality of abortion, I'm still not sure. Illumination of this would help me a lot. Would you mind?

To sum my questions:
1)Are you for or against the legal system getting involved in the abortion issue?
2)If indeed you are calling for the illegalization of abortion, do you wish for a total theocracy, or only a theocracy regarding certain issues?
3)Why do you think I am confusing Jews of old to Jews of today? In what way?
4)What is it about Jesus' acts or words that changed the definition of when a fetus is a human being?
5)Do you wish for a society that represses science?
6)What role do you think science should have in a healthy society?

Six questions. I hope that is not too much.
Thank you for helping me to clear up some of this. Sometimes arguments get muddied, unclear in such a forum and I perhaps missed some subtle point that would everything.

and about this "it's all about the money" stuff. from what i know, abortions aren't THAT expensive. as far as i know it's only about a few hundred bucks to have one and most places that perform them have sliding-scale fees, so if you have no money, you pay no money. i'm sure the state then kicks in some kind of suppliment, but i'm sure it can't be all that much. so, i see that as a complete nutter statement! if you have a link with evidence otherwise, please share it!

bodhi: perfect!!

GD: if it was 100% reversible I'd be all for it!!! As a parent with a son nearing puberty...it would definately take some pressure off. my step-son (or ex-step-son) is 16 and he and his gf had a baby a few months ago. this is absoultely something i would be for (to think *i* could be a grandparent! *shiver*)

speaking of sharing links....i found this kinda interesting. I didn't read the WHOLE thing (because i'm too lazy) but i'm sure from the name, that it's slanted towards pro-choice rather than pro-life. I don't know if what they have there is FACT, especially the stuff below. so if anyone knows, one way or the other please share!!!

quote:

---

St. Augustine (AD 354-430) said, ?There cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation?, and held that abortion required penance only for the sexual aspect of the sin.6 He and other early Christian theologians believed, as had Aristotle centuries before, that "animation", or the coming alive of the fetus, occurred forty days after conception for a boy and eighty days after conception for a girl. The conclusion that early abortion is not homicide is contained in the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the church in 1140.6 As this collection was used as an instruction manual for priests until the new Code of Canon Law of 1917, its view of abortion has had great influence.6

At the beginning of the 13th century, Pope Innocent III wrote that ?quickening? ?the time when a woman first feels the fetus move within her? was the moment at which abortion became homicide; prior to quickening, abortion was a less serious sin. Pope Gregory XIV agreed, designating quickening as occurring after a period of 116 days (about 17 weeks). His declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication continued to be the abortion policy of the Catholic Church until 1869.

The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended at the end of the nineteenth century.7 In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially eliminated the Catholic distinction between an animated and a nonanimated fetus and required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

This change has been seen by some as a means of countering the rising birth control movement, especially in France,8 with its declining Catholic population. In Italy, during the years 1848 to 1870, the papal states shrank from almost one-third of the country to what is now Vatican City. It has been argued that the Pope's restriction on abortion was motivated by a need to strengthen the Church?s spiritual control over its followers in the face of this declining political power.8

---

it also has info on what some of the other religions think of abortion. interesting anyways

[edit] here's another link (that i didn't completely read). it's slanted the other way. i didn't want to leave either side out [/edit]
__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

[This message has been edited by Lacuna (edited 04-16-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Lacuna (edited 04-16-2003).]

Lacuna, that second link you posted is just full of mis-information...I don't find it very credible, when the foundations of an argument are based on mis-information...the first link you posted was a very interesting read, however...and very well supported, IMHO.

One thing about abortion, that is not being said here - population. Because no form of Birth control has yet to reach a 100% mark (except death, of course), that then leaves Abortion as the only other option to control unwanted reproduction. We cannot just populate the planet with more, and more people, at this time in our history...in this, the Bible needs to be seriously questioned. There just isn't enough room. Once we start getting out and colonizing space, I suspect that the need for Birth control will relax, somewhat. Also, it's a question of financial and social status, to have less children - in todays world, where both parents are working, caring for more children is both expensive and time-consuming, of which working parents have little of both. Until that changes, Birth control will be an important factor. And since Birth control is not yet 100% perfect, abortion will remain a viable option irregardless of whether it is legal or not.

Based on these cold, hard facts, it is no longer a moral issue...not at all, but a legal issue. The strange thing is, those who support pro-life do not have any realistic solutions to these questions...which of course, undermines their postition. It is fine to believe in something, certainly...but when someone attempts to force that belief on others (which is bad enough), one should at least have viable solutions to offer. Failing that, one should be content to just follow the tenants of ones own belief...and leave that to others, as well.

Population problems should definitely be taken into consideration. I wouldn't necessarily say that abortion is the only remaining option, as mandatory sterilization hasn't yet been accepted as an option, but it's certainly helpful in that respect. I'm all for not taxing our limited planetary resources just because we feel that every baby started has to be born...

Jade - your posts appear to be increasingly scattered. It seems like you're just throwing out statements without some logical order. You haven't answered any of the questions that have been posed to you. Just spouting more fundamentalist rebuttals. It's obvious that you're against abortion. That's already been established. We want to know why you're against it. And saying that "the Bible says its wrong" isn't good enough for this bunch.
No one here is going to judge you on the fact that you think abortion is wrong. That's not what the conversation is about. We're interested in the reasons you support it or condemn it. I think that some well thought out answers to the questions Mobrul has posed, would help us all understand where you're coming from.
If the only reason you are against it is because you've been raised to believe it's wrong, state that and let it go. There's no sense in creating hurt feelings or disenssion on either side of the fence if you aren't able to defend your position.

It's really important to know why you (collective) believe in something. To blindly take someone's word for it and not understand the issue completely is like jumping off a bridge just because your friend does. (perhaps not a good analogy, but it gets the point across!) Defending your position, and stating in clearly organized sentences exactly why you believe it that way, and from what sources you get your information, will not only help us to better understand you, but allow you to better understand yourself.

And "because the Bible says so" is probably not an acceptable answer here. If you believe abortion practices to be unhealthy and unregulated, state that, and cite your source. If you believe abortion to be unhealthy to the woman, state that, and cite your sources. But please please please don't come back with moral dogma that draws attention away from the central issue.


GD - if a woman has her tubes "tied", it can be reversed. However, the major problem with a woman having that type of surgery is that it is open abdominal. She has to have inpatient surgery, in a hospital (not like in a medical center to a drs office), her abdomen is opened, the fallopian tubes clipped (sort of like folding a hose to cut the water supply) and then she's closed back up again. The recovery time is something like 6 weeks to 3 months, depending.
In order to reverse the procedure, the same operation is performed, again, with the extended recovery time. Think about the cost of that sort of procedure, let alone the impact on the woman's body.
The vasectomy, on the other hand, is an outpatient procedure, that can in some cases, be performed in a physician's office (if they have the set up), if not, then in an outpatient medical center. The small tubes connecting the testes to the urethra are located at the top of the scrotum (sorry for the graphic explanation, but it helps), and external to any body cavities. Those tubes are cut, and tucked back so that they don't reconnect. The small (tiny tiny) incision is sutured, and dude goes home where his wife rewards him with coddling and special treatment for 3 days... For the reversal, a similar procedure. The cost is less, both monetary and in physical trauma. Emotional trauma, for some men, might be worse, depending on your feelings about having your manhood messed with...
There are still birth control methods for women that don't involve having your tubes tied. A type of IUD is still used, and there are a couple of hormonal implants that are inserted under the skin of your arm that prevent pregancy much like the borth control pill. You don't have to think about it, and when you're ready to have babies, you can have it removed and in a few months, you're right as rain. But those methods mess with female hormones, which are crazy enough as it is. Men, if you love your wives, and wish not to have any children, consider the vasectomy. Easier on everyone involved.

I'm not sure you could have a sterilization procedure done at the same time as circumcision, just because most of a baby boy's internal reproductive parts aren't in place quite yet. But if they could figure out a way to take care of that for all teenagers, and have it 100% reversable too? That would probably take a lot out of this whole abortion discussion anyway...


edit - sp.

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 04-17-2003).]

Vasectomy is a reasonably simple proceedure but having read some more information on it I found out a couple of things. Vasectomy with intent of reversal isn't recommended. The reversal surgery itself is costly and requires an operating room. So as yet vasectomies at birth aren't a viable option. Still a good idea though.

(SOURCE) Marin Urology - Vasectomy: Introduction

After reading a bit more on tubal ligation and vasectomies, the tubal ligation is far more invasive and the risks are higher but it is far more flexible as to the ability to change your mind. The restoration rate is about 70% for tubal ligation reversal and almost non-existent for vasectomy reversal. All recommendations point to a permanent decision as the reversal surgeries for both sterilization options are expensive and not always effective.

(SOURCE) Women's health - Sterilization: His or Hers?


So, unfortunately, there needs to be more research into avenues of sterilazation at birth (IMO). I wonder if any studies are being performed... After a google hunt... it appears not. The only findings I had were mass sterilization forced on populations and other things that would incite the ire of many a people if the topic was brought up.

Hmmm... I'll have to keep hunting on this one...

[EDIT] Watched my phrase-ology... and fixed it.[/EDIT]

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-17-2003).]

GD - thanks for those links. I was going off of second hand information, as my sister and her husband did some research before they decided on that avenue. I wonder if they know the actual cost of the reversal of that? Not that they anticipate either a divorce or any of their kids disappearing any time soon!

To my knowledge, there's only one country (China) where overpopulation is such a problem that the government has to take stringent measure to limit childbirth. It'll be long, if ever, that the US government makes that type of decision. Plenty of time for research to come up with some new sterilization/birth control procedures...

Until such time as childbirth in this country is limited in that fashion, people will have to rely on either pre-coitus prevention, the morning after pill, abstinence, or abortion for population controls.
There are so many unwanted children in the world. Why should someone be required to bear their own if they don't desire that?
And you try telling a teenager not to have sex! All we can do is educate and prepare our children (and ourselves) to be responsible in their sexuality.


Bodhi - Cell 617

I am going to try to hit reponses B-4 I go on easter holiday & finish up on response back to you mobrul later as time is running out and I have been terribly busy. Sorry.

Lna
In regard to "abortion being all about money", I meant a demand and supply. Like if there are tons of women out there wanting an abortion, there is a money making industry that will provide you. And it is all about a profit for somebody. Killing fetuses is a big time money making industry and I am sure the abortion industry is well represented & protected in Washington.

Web
I was wondering about population control too, that the idea of it is a farce. I read somewhere that you could put all the population of the US we have right now in one state. This may be wrong. Or do you think that it maybe true?

Bdi
Re: In your statment about a unvoluntary aborted fetus and a voluntary aborted fetus, one involves the will of nature and the other involves the will of the human person doing the abortion. Two totally different actions but the same outcomes, death. For whatever reason the fetus doesn't come to term on its own could be Gods way of using the laws of divine nature for that particular life to come at another time or not at all. It could somehow be related to the parent(s) trial & destiny in life. I'd say only God knows.

And in regard to my post not being reliable or as credible as yours, I believe sacred scripture to be the only reliable book on the face of this earth in regard to how I view life. If I ramble and confuse you or Moburl, forgive me. I must not represent myself well. Being that I am the only representative of the pro-life voice on this post, I probably couldn't hit all post responses and maybe answer the ones I did well enough for lack of time in research. I only intended to hit the religious view anyway. Most of posters here posted much on the the anatomies, & political view points.

Mbl.
I have a lot to answer here in response and I will try to get in as much as I can. Be careful what you ask from me because you might get a lot. More will come on another post.

In refence to my last post to Dan was to relate to the existence of life as we know in a pupose for a life being; which would be none, if your Godless. After your dead & buried you become just part of the ecosystem & in this way I could see how potential life coming wouldn't matter to some. Since the belief is there is no destiny beyond death.

This is the religious viewpoint of the religious leaders of America which expresses my viewpoint,

"We affirm before God & the law all are equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty & persuit of happiness"

Point 1. Are you against the legal system getting involved with the abortion issue?

No. I want them to give rights to the unborn? In the previous post where I posted the SC had no business in moral law, that was an err. I should of clarified the the court had no business in the determining the moral of that law. Religion is based on the word of God, which is not a matter for people to vote on. It is not up to the politicians to decide on religious matters and in the same way not the religious to decide on political matters. The specific role of a religion in a democratic society is not for the courts to take control or stance on theological questions of any kind. Its a matter of separation and state and the religious side must be observed. We all know that religion has shaped America today and the principle of which it was founded on is Christian. Are we in agreement here? Here in the Americas religion is a major social phenomeon and its difficult to separate it from our culture. This being the reason for the ongoing bitterness of this debate.

If the ASC is getting into the law of deciding the ethical practices of morality in regard to natural & divine law,
what is in store of us as a nation for the future?

What case will they decide on next in the future:
Will people have the right to:
clone themselves, its their body?
marry same sex partners and raise a family?
marrying of siblings?
having more than one spouse? etc..
Where is the line drawn?

I would naturally want a pregnant woman to bring her baby to full term to give it the gift of life. What could be a more precious gift from the lifegiver, meaning God and woman being co-producers of life in giving an infant a chance to live. Be it with the mother or up for adoption.

Will finish up point Monday.

Did somebody send me e-mail. Please send it again. I mistakenly lost it all.

Everyone have a nice easter holiday.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-18-2003).]

quote:

---

In refence to my last post to Dan was to relate to the existence of life as we know in a pupose for a life being; which would be none, if your Godless. After your dead & buried you become just part of the ecosystem & in this way I could see how potential life coming wouldn't matter to some. Since the belief is there is no destiny beyond death.

---

Finally, you see my point. This is exactally how society *should* look at potential lives. If you have religious beliefs, they're your religious beliefs, and you can choose to follow them. You can't tell society to follow them.

Jade-

I think a big part of the issue here is that there is no (and there should be no) social moral compass. It's all personal. You can't tell me what I think is right or wrong. You can only tell me what YOU think is right or wrong. It's all subjective and pointless. You can't convince someone not to do something if they think it isn't wrong. And you aren't going to convince them it's wrong without something more concrete then your faith.

Prove to me that there is some damage being done by abortion. Show me the potential good that you speak of that has been lost... you can't, just as I can't show you the potential evil that has been stopped. I CAN however show you the good that has happened in life because of an abortion.

Now I've never had to deal with an abortion but, that statement above shows how there is irrefutable proof that abortions have helped people. For some it was a mistake, but for many it was a second chance for them to live life to its fullest. They believe it and feel it every day. Can you contest that, Jade? Can you provide me with solid, concrete, irrefutable proof that an abortion hurts people more than it helps them?

Really sit down and think about it. Don't just regurgitate some religiously based dogma. I understand that religion is a major part of your life and I respect that but religion can't answer this question. If religion wasn't an issue what is YOUR moral reason for being against a woman's choice? YOUR reason... not the church's, not your mother's or your father's reasons, YOUR reasons.

It's hard to tell who you really are when you give us someone elses answers (the church's).

The major agreement in this thread so far is that the government should have no say in matters of moral decisiveness. I hold that the church also, should have no say in the moral decisions of the masses. In my life there is one authority in my decisions as it sits on my moral compass. ME, I am the only one that knows what, and how, I feel about something. Religion, friends, family, and many other things have tempered my understanding of moral issues but, Ultimately, it is my choice.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-18-2003).]

Jade - My apologies if it came out that I thought my posts were more "credible" than yours. That's not what I intended. It just seemed that your recent posts were much more "reactionary" in content. You seemed disorganized and were not clearly addressing some of the questions that had been put to you. This last post was a little more clearly thought out.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. My thoughts about voluntary abortion vs. an involuntary miscarriage are this:
I think that God, being omniscient and omnipotent, could just as easily arrange for a woman to decide to have an abortion as he could cause a miscarriage. Why God would make the world work that way is beyond my comprehension, but it's a point that can't be denied. If God is truly "all-powerful", I'm sure he's got a reason for causing the development of the abortion process in the first place. (That comment is not intended to prompt anyone to bring "Satan" into this conversation, God created Satan as well - his purposes for bringing his own adversary into the world are his own.)

The fact that the founders of our government happened to be "Christian" in their spiritual beliefs does not mean that our government was founded on "Christian" principals or organization. On the contrary, our founding fathers were trying to get as far away from religion as they could. That "God" has found his way into our government's trappings only means that those men personally had Christian beliefs.
The majority of our founding fathers were Freemasons, and it is on the Masonic organization that our government is modeled. I'll find some back up for that later, if anyone's interested.

In any case, based on freedom of religious beliefs, you are entirely at liberty to believe that abortion is morally wrong. No one has the right to force you to believe otherwise.

But the legality of abortion is a different matter entirely. Our secular government needs to determine at what point to make abortion illegal. And because of the requirement for separation of church and state, they cannot turn to religious leaders to determine at what point a fetus becomes human, and thus abortion becomes murder. For this purpose, our government must turn to things that can be proved, seen and touched. Science is the only method in which this issue can be decided for legal purposes.
Your moral and religious beliefs are your own, and it is the freedom of this country that allows you to hold those beliefs unchallenged. But when making legal decision for all American people, who all hold different religious beliefs, the government cannot make a decision based on a single set of religious beleifs. Surely you can see the sense in that perspective?


Bodhi - Cell 617

Bdi,
No apology neccessary, Thanks anyway. So many of us do that I notice, so as not to offend the other poster and consider them. I find that very nice.

I know I am not going to change anyone's pro-choice position and know we are just getting our views or opinions out as we see them. I never considered the unvoluntary vs voluntary aboriton view you had. Thats a new one.

GD
In reference to damage done by abortion, one has not to look far to see. First of all the torn up fetus parts that are thown away like garbage. Today the US Supreme court is hearing a case in regard to 700 plaintiffs who want to sue abortion clinics for emotional duress because of lack of information & misleading information they were provided B-4 their abortions in that the fetus was just a glob of tissue and thats it. No emotional nuturing care given after follow up to deal with the emotional loss and after effects. I am sure more lawsuits will follow and will hopefully change the way in which abortion clinics represent themselves.

I went to a retreat with 50 women all different Christian sects for a weekend. On one occasion our group was discussing childcare when our table leader shared with us her two miscarriages she had the year before and was quite emotional about it. Another had an abortion and two years before and regretted it because she felt she emotionally led down her baby and was feeling so guilty. These two women were younger in their late 20s or early 30s. The older lady in our group around sixty-five was quiet & reserved most of the time & all of the sudden she started crying. We were suprised. She told us she had miscarried her first child in her twenties and never got to see the fetus or hold it and she felt so hurt. We all bonded and before our retreat was over had a mock burial for all the unborn babies that did not get to come. So the loss of life be it willful or not still carries the same emotional trauma for the mother maybe not right away but eventually for some.
And how could welcoming a new life harm or damage someones life? Is is for selfish reasons? Is it to have a better life. I come from a large family. 8 sisters & 2 brothers. My parents sent us all to private schools. It was a struggle but they did it. They were not well off or rich. Some of us went on to college and we made out on our own. One of my sisters married young still in high school, had three children but was left on her own as a single mother without help from her ex.
She made it on her own without help and all her 3 boys are making it ok in the world. How do you explain to children that we pick and choose who we want to come into the world and they could have been aborted too depending on circumstances. What kind of message does that send to the future generation of adults?

Mbl.

2. If indeed you are calling for illegaization of abortion, do you wish for total theocracy, or only a theocracy regarding certain issues?

No. Not every issue.

I would wish that democrary and theorcary could work together and its not impossible. I would wish that in the issues regarding morals that consideration be given to the reason of religious organizaion before a determination be made. In legalizing abortion the courts have also imposed their rule of law on the majority because they wield political power. How could their reasoning be right?

Does democrary work ok in the US. Is it really " by the people, for the people" Ameican is run by big business and special interest and self interest. Who suffers for this? We do. Look at the degredation of American today. Abortion, drugs, terrorism, rampant pornograhy, abuse & negelect of the eldrely, indiffernce, injustice, divorce, hunger, neglect of children, crime, death as a result of no insurance, poor people in land rich with wealth, homelessness of families, etc.

Didn't the senate just pass a raise for themselves in these bad economic times, around 3.2%, while Social Security got 1.something. The rich are getting richer. Where is the justice?

There are a lot of religious in the US and because of the religious freedom to speak reform for the better has been possible. The Christian movement was responsible for the end to slavery. Can we agree on this? And look at Martin Luther King. And we must look of the shape of the America to come.
The largest minority group in the US is coming from Mexico & South America who is predominately Catholic or Christian. Our company has many hispancs on the payroll from South American who have their children in US colleges who could be decision makers in goverment in the future. But I think there is a possibility that we can work together to improve our society problems with the help of the religious views of all sects be it jew, christian, islamic, protestant. In a goverment that has reasoned God out of their existance, it is doomed to fail. Look at the Soviet Union. Shouldn't we learn our lesson from them.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-21-2003).]