Topic awaiting preservation: Abortion (Page 3 of 4)

quote:

---

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.

---

Therin lies the problem, jade. You see the damage being relative to the life being lost. I don't see a life being lost. When I bleed I don't mourn my blood. We disagree on what is being aborted and therfore our thoughts aren't going to ever meet in the middle because there is no middle.

In regards to the court case... I don't think that it is at all applicable in our arguement. Abortion clinics (and those that work there) have to believe that the fetus' being aborted are just tissue, not life. They can only tell people what they believe. If these women decide after the fact that it wasn't just tissue... that doesn't make the information given by the abortion clinic inaccurate nor incomplete.

I grant that there could/should be better communication between the patients and the abortion clinics but you have to realize that these women weren't forced into this. They made the choice and they are just as responsible as the doctor who performed the abortion.

There are plenty of ways a new life could harm or damage someones life. I hardly expect you to understand what those ways are. I'm not going to argue with something as intangible as the "sanctity" of life. Its like fighting ghosts. I don't happen to believe that life is holy or more important than anything else. It exists, that's enough for me. If, in my next life the shell I was to inhabit is destroyed before I can enter it... I'll come around again. The wheel forever turns.

I give you this as a parting thought. If a life gains nothing in entering this world and changes nothing before it parts this world, was there any reason for that life to exist?

And one other thought. What do we fear/understand about dying? Beyond the unknown of the afterlife we know we're going to miss a great many experiences. Our understanding of a future and knowing what those experiences might be is what makes the fear grow within us, the understanding of that loss. A fetus/life/soul (if you will), doesn't have any experiences to relate to or understand. They lose nothing in the grand scheme of things. Of course this is beased on MY philosophy, I don't expect you to agree. I just thought you might think about it for a little while.

While a single Theocracy and a Democracy could possibly, maybe work together if it wasn't against the founding tenets of this country, many Theocracies working with one Democracy isn't a very likely option. When have the many many sects of christianity ever agreed completely on one topic? Not ot mention the differences between the Christian faiths and the pagan faiths. Does one choose which theocracy to bind to Democracy? You can't. Within this very thread there are explainations of differences in belief. The Judaic(incorrect term?) believe when a fetus becomes life is different from most other christian religions, if my memory serves me well. That is obviously different then your viewpoint on that topic. Could you ever reconcile your belief with anyone elses, or would you only be reconciling their belief with yours? When you allow no quarter none can be given in return.

So I ask you this... Does abortion have to be illegal? Could there be a term limitation of 20 weeks, after which an abortion would be illegal. Would that be acceptable to you? Or is it only black & white and 'No' or 'No' for you?

Ok - now I'm done... Honest.

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

quote:

---

The Christian movement was responsible for the end to slavery.

---

And who was responsible for the start of slavery in America? Was America made up of Buddhists and Animists purchasing the Africans bought from their tribal enemies? Was the South populated by nothing but Atheists and Druids until 1865, when the 13th Amendment passed? Christians didn't just wander by and say, "How horrid! This simply must stop!"

Oh, and all the bad things you mentioned about society are all taking place in a country in which 83% of Americans claim to be Protestant or Catholic (as of 1999, U.S. Census source). So unless the remaining 17% are all ruffians, I'm betting that the majority of the crimes are being committed by Christians. Remind me again why this is democracy's fault?

GD - you hit the nail on the head.

The crux of the disagreement is really in the dogma of each individual's belief system. Christian dogma states that you don't come back or get another chance. There is no reincarnation in Christianity. If a life ends in this world, you either go to Heaven or Hell (or Purgatory if you're Catholic). This is probably the biggest reason that most fundamentalist Christians disagree with abortion in any case.

I believe in reincarnation, if I don't return this world/universe, the possibility exists that I may return to another. I don't fear death, perhaps I fear the pain of dying, but I'm not afraid of what may come afterwards. What lies beyond this world is anyone's guess. We will not know for certain until we get there. We can only have beliefs and ideas about it.

Because of this dogmatic limitation, I can understand why a devout Christian would have reservations (putting it mildly) about preventing a new life from happening. I understand. I don't agree - but I understand.

As I understand it, abortion is currently legal up to a certain point. I forget what the time limit is, but after a certain time, an abortion is not legal. After all this discussion, I find myself feeling that the government here has done probably the best they could do under the circumstances. Because there are so many moral dogmas in this country, the government cannot make everyone happy with their laws. But they have set a limit at which abortion is harmful, to either the mother or the child; and thus have made it illegal. My guess is, that limit sets within some idea of when that fetus actually becomes "human". Whereever they got their figures from, I imagine those guys up on Capitol Hill gave it their best shot, at the time. Given the fact that abortions will continue to occur, regardless of the legality, is it not best to keep them legal so that some modicum of control can be maintained? Let's focus on improving the service provided and try to keep these women healthy.

Yeah, our government is corrupt. Who's isn't? But I'd still rather live here than in lots of other places in the world.


Bodhi - Cell 617

I personally do not believe in abortion. but.....I don't think it is my right or the govts to tell another what she can do with her own body. I agree It is a legal issue.

I am consistent...I do not believe in capital punishment or bombing other countries... either..( unless we had to in self defense)

"whenever I find myself on the side of the majority, I pause and reflect. " Mark Twain

Bump!!

jade? Where'd you go, jade?

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

OK. Sorry for the neglect.

GG
Why do you believe that you can do what you want with your own body?
And does that mean you should have the right to infiltrate it with drugs if
you want, or starve it or commit suicide if you want, since its your body.

If you wanted to jump off a cliff, should we try to talk you out of it? Or let
you die since its your life, your body.

In the capital punishment/abortion issue, I see the executioner and the abortionist in the same way in that we have given both the right to kill. How do you see this?

quote:

---

Why do you believe that you can do what you want with your own body?
And does that mean you should have the right to infiltrate it with drugs if
you want, or starve it or commit suicide if you want, since its your body.

---

absolutely!
i'd rather be making decisions on what's to happen to my body, rather than having people like you dictate what i should or shouldn't do with my body. i happen to be into tattoos....i think everyone should have one! does that mean that you should be forced into having one?? what time would you like to be inked?? it may be a silly example...but, when i look at the logic in the above quote...that's where it takes me.
people are going to do what they like with their bodies. i think the best we can do, is try to make sure that they do it in relative saftey, hence abortion clinics and shooting galleries!
i don't shoot drugs and i don't have abortions.... that does NOT give me the right to impose my views on the rest of the world.

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

I think really the issue here is a failure to see 'the other'.

There are just too many opinions out there and not enough scientific fact to back up any of them significantly.
Jade, you say that an abortionist is killing somebody. There are lots of people out there who simply don't see it that way. Religious leaders can't agree on this issue, scientists can't agree on this issue, doctors can't agree on this issue. The pope (and the Roman Catholic church) do not have an exclusion policy on moral or scientific clarity.

If every single religion in the world agreed with your view (or even most religions...or for that matter, every Christian sect...) maybe, just maybe, you'd have an argument for illegality. If a preponderance of scientists and doctors agreed that life begains at moment x, then maybe you'd have an argument for illegality at moment x.

The facts of the matter, though, are very different. People disagree. Lots of people disagree. Not only is there disagreement between Christians and Jews...there are even a large proportion of Christian protestants who do not see abortion as murder. Doctors don't agree on 'when is a human being'. Current scientific thought seems hold to the thought that a human being exists somewhere between 20 and 26 weeks after conception. Even so, there is still significant disagreement. To demand, in the face of all this disagreement, that the Roman Catholic church has some special all-knowing grasp on the answer to this question, and that everybody, RC or not, must follow that belief, is just plain arrogant.

When I asked if you were in favor of a theocracy, you said that the 'religious organization' (by that I assume you mean the Roman Catholic church, or maybe 'Christianity' in general?) should be given consideration when dealing with 'moral' things. Here is where you begin a dangerous and slippery slope.

Could it not be argued that *all* things are 'moral' things. Could it not be argued that attending a church service weekly is a 'moral' thing. Should that, then, be regulated by law? We could have the 'Sunday Morning Secret Police' on inspection duty.
It could certainly be argued (many Baptists would, anyway) that drinking alcohol, playing cards, and dancing are all 'moral' things. Should we then criminalize dancing and playing cards? Should we reinstate prohibition? (It worked so well the first time...)
Some would argue that rock'n'roll is a 'moral' thing. Which bishop do you propose to be the new Rock'n'Roll Czar, in charge of 'musical purity'?
The Quakers would argue (likely) that war is a moral thing. Would you like to see the Quakers in charge of our defense policy? We could set up a permanent Quaker wing in the Pentagon...
The Luthern Church (Missouri Senod) proclaims, in its rightousness, that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are immoral 'cults', not true religions and not related to Christianity at all. How long should prison senteces be for those found guilty of such heresy as being a Mormon? What if we 'know' someone is a Jehovah's Witness, but they won't admit it? Can we use torture to get them to confess and act morally?

Do you see where I'm going with this? Most everything can be labeled 'moral' issues.

In the words of Jello Biafra:

Where do you draw the line?
I'm not telling you, I'm asking you.
Where do you draw the line?

sorry for bringing something in a bit after the fact but:

quote:

---

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.

---

um, i am the only one that sees a difference between the something that happens naturally within the body and a deliberate surgical decision an individual makes? just checking. also:

quote:

---

As I understand it, abortion is currently legal up to a certain point. I forget what the time limit is, but after a certain time, an abortion is not legal.

---

rather than not being sure exactly when that is and who decided it, wouldn't that seem to be a critical piece of information for all viewpoints involved here?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

See what you started GD.

Mbl.

Why can't people be accountable for their actions. If they know their sexual union will create a new life, why can't they be accountable for the new life.

Its like if a son ask his father if he can play catch with his friends and the father says go ahead but don't go play catch near the neighbors house. The son does it anyway and breaks a window. So the son gets in trouble with the father and has to go tell the neighbor himself what he did.. And the neighbor says, thats ok, mistakes happen, but your going to have to pay for getting me a new window.
So the son if he doesn't have allowance has to cut grass or do jobs to get money to fix the window. How can we teach children they have to be accountable for their actions and adults not. What kind of message does this send to society. Why is society always looking to take the easy way out of any dilemma.

Why are you always bringing in the RC as if it were only a religious issue. Morally speaking persons who are not affiliated with organized religions don't all aqree with you.
Where is the Jewish creed that says abortion is ok today.
You will not find one, because there are so many divisions of judiasm, they don't even agree with each other on views? Where is there another demoninationl creed of beliefs that states abortion is ok? The exodus O/T jews are not adhering to the same beliefs as their Torah. What did the God of the Jew state on aboriton?
Commandment #1. I am the Lord your God, thou shall not have strange Gods before me.
In saying yes to abortion, we have made our ownselfs Gods in deciding life. So aborters are the strange Gods.

In the N/T we have Jesus the son of the living God, who says I AM the way, the truth and the life. He who believes in me shall have life eternal.

I AM

Way
Truth
Life

There are millions of books written on each on these titles. But the last title says I am life meaning in all ways life is God before, here and after as we know it. So aborting life is aborting God in the form thru which God chooses to come. So aborters & the helpers are in fact aborting God, since God comes thru the soul which God has already determined for each person before its conception.
So its putting a halt to Gods gift to creation, is saying, no I don't want it, take it back, I am not ready for it just yet. In religious doctine it says the soul cannot go back and dies a mortal death just like another outside the womb.

Are we going to start aborting humanity out of exisistance?
Will this eventually lead to the extinction of mankind, by mankinds own hand?

And in morality, why should the state dictate moral law and who draws the line on the lawmakers themselves? Who are they accountalbe to? Us. There is too much diveristy. So whats the solution?




[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-28-2003).]

Fig

What do believe about the determination of when life begins?

Mbl & Web or GD.
What do you think of the partial-birth abortions, where they
pull the head out and then stick a sharp object into the back
of its head and kill the baby?

Fig:
I'm not sure who wrote that quote you stated earlier, but you are correct. It is essential people understand the facts. As it stands, each state may set its own rules on abortion according to some limits set in Supreme Court Cases Roe, Doe and Casey.

Currently most states prohibit abortions after some specified time (mostly in the range of 18-26 weeks and after), except for health reasons. Some have various parental notification or consent laws regarding minors. A minority of states have instituted waiting periods and mandated 'counseling'. Almost all require statistical record keeping by abortion providers.

Roe v Wade says no state can regulate abortion during the first trimester and that states can regulate abortion starting in the 2nd trimester, as long as there are exceptions built into the regulation for health issues. The Casey case mainly clarifies what are health issues.

To everybody involved in this discussion, I provide this brief overview simply as a teaser...go out and do some research yourself. If you're gonna argue, at least know what's up.
--

Jade:
"...why can't they be accountable for the new life."
For the last time, there are lots of people who do not think that what we are talking about is a human life. You are welcome to, but to argue for a law that affects EVERYBODY because of something YOU believe is arrogant.
Let me turn the tables, just a bit. I am a vegetarian. I think that killing pigs and cows and chickens for food and leather shoes is wrong, immoral.

Now, would you like it if I got passed a law that criminalized the butchering and eating of this life?

That's my belief. I don't think it is morally acceptable to lust for eating blood. On the other hand, I understand that there are many people who (rightfully so) approach the situation from a whole other set of values and standards. I respect that, I tolerate that. I don't insist people approach this moral issue from only my point of view. I don't do it; I'm satisfied. I'm clean with my self, my conscience and my god. I let others make their decision based on their conscience and their god.
--

"Why are you always bringing in the RC..."
My only mention of the Roman Catholic church was in reference to your desire for, in at least part, a theocracy. I simply wanted to point out the hazzards that lie down that road.

You are correct, this is not only a 'religious' issue. I simply wanted to point out that there are lots of creeds and thoughts and value systems out there and there is no consenses on the abortion issue. People disagree with me and people disagree with you and people disagree with lots of points that neither of us are making. That's my point!
--

"Where is the Jewish creed that says abortion is ok today."
Let me point you to just one of many, The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. The entire page is set out to show how this particular group of Conservative Jews view the abortion topic. It is clear they believe abortion to be acceptable at certain times.

Besides that, there are many Jewish groups who have been long-time and strong proponents on keeping abortion safe and legal:
Jewish Council of Public Affairs
American Jewish Congress
National Council of Jewish Women

And finally a quote from Mark Pelavin, the associate director of the Reform movement's Religious Action Center:

quote:

---

The intrinsic Jewish belief in the sanctity of life is compatible with the strongly held belief in abortion as both a moral and correct decision under some circumstances. The decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is a personal one, which must be made by the woman on the basis of her own religious and moral criteria.

---

Is that enough, or need I go on?
--

"And in morality, why should the state dictate moral law...?"

It shouldn't. In a real, Liberal Democracy (we're close...though not perfect) there is a 'seperation of church and state' so the state makes laws, based on the rule of the majority, while protecting the rights of the minority. The state shouldn't prohibit nor should it proscribe those acts which are in the realm of morals. The state's job is to maintain the security of it's citizens. That's all. It is not in the state's job description to proscribe morals. All other decisions fall to the individual (with, in this case we would hope, council from her medical and spiritual advisors).

quote:

---

What do you think of the partial-birth abortions, where they
pull the head out and then stick a sharp object into the back
of its head and kill the baby?

---

I'm not a scholar of abortion practices so i don't know if this is the common method or not. As to how I feel about it... If it happens in the first 20 weeks or whatever proscribed time frame there is... I have no problem with it. Method is not an issue.

Why would the methodology of the abortion bother me? It's just a vessel to me that the spirit enters or it doesn't. If it doesn't it moves on to the next one in it's cycle of life.

Should mothers who have smoked and drank their babies into oblivion prior to a still birth be tried for murder? It is surely their fault that it has happened. What about crack addicted mothers who have children that live only long enough to be a statistic? Crack addicted mothers who have SEVERL children that only live that long. Where was the meaning in those lives? If you tell me they got to become a statistic, I'll fall over. And if you say it made a difference to the mother.... I'll believe that when they stop having kids and get their act cleaned up.

Now I know not all addicts never change... You know what... F*** it. I'm tired of putting disclaimers on everything I write. You should know by now that I'm a reasonable person (at least I hope so) so understand what I mean. if you don't... ask me.

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

Life begins, for me, in an organism that can sustain life on its own. That is how nature works, IMHO. So, for me, at the point were the fetus can be seperated from the mother, and still survive. Anything else, and I regard it as a part of the mother. If she wishes to cut off her arm, I don't care. It's her choice, IMHO. Eventually, we will have the ability to achieve conception in an artificial womb...or to sustain it. At that point, we may need to re-consider abortion policy...since that is not currently possible, the destruction of the tissue, is the only alternative to making a woman's body into a prison.

Nice post, Mobrul.

I agree, WS.

Actually that has been happening on and off recently. Not as world shattering as you and Bugs agreeing all the time... but a step in the right direction maybe.

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

Mbl.

If you take creed on the aborition stand with the jews, why not all of their beliefs.

And you are referring to American jewish platforms or organizations or divisons. They are like protestants, they do all agree with each other. What about jewish faith world wide? Do the jews in Israel believe the same way? Who speaks for the jewish faith worldwide?
Do they have a heirarchy that tells them how they should all believe?
These American sect of jews are interpreting scripture in accordance with thier own belief in how scripture reveals the message to them. And from what I read it seems, they regard it as not as means of birth control, but only in particular circumstances. If this is the conservative jew viewpoint, what is the liberal jew viewpoint?

What about the Jews who are pro-life? Like Jews for Life organization? They go against the jews you quoted and referred to.
And not all jews are pro-choice.

GD

So what now? Are we going to choose to not let life come because there is a possiblity it will suffer a life of doom or of poverty and neglect. Because of these reasons, we determine their life will have no value or quality. By whos standards are you judging? If a life comes to a rich couple or in well to do circumstances as opposed to a life of an drug addicted mother or into poverty, who are we to choose that it should not come. Shouldn't both have equal chance to live in the world. No matter how long. All life no matter what circumstance it comes should be treated equal. Are we observing class distinction even in the womb? Look at the cocaine addicts? I will bet you know a cocaine user. They are all over. Whats the difference between them and crack cocaine addicts. Drugs knows no class. Even the rich high class cocaine users are hurting their babies. Shouldn't we put them in the same catagory?

And what about the parents whos children are born retarted or deformed or with serious illness that would need life long heath care? Should they have not come either? Do those parents feel their children should of never been born so the parents could of had an easier life?


[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-30-2003).]

Why are you making a distinction between the classes... people are people. Druggies are Druggies. I never made any statement about the monetary capabilities of the mothers in question. Don't bring in issues that don't matter.

Again, you are arguing that there is life where I see none. The way I see it, a crack addicted fetus is absolutely going to live a life of pain, torment, and suffering. I don't see it as only a possibilty. By who's standards do I judge? By those of the majority of living beings I would assume, though it is more likely that they are just my standards.

Should both lives have an equal chance to live in this world... yes. But I see things differently than you. In removing the crack addicted fetus I am allowing the spirit that might have entered it a chance to live a life equal to that of others. But I believe that is possible. You don't. Besides that, an equal chance for life has already been taken away by the mothers of these babies in question. Should you not be asking THEM these questions?

Oh... and by the way... you never answered this:

quote:

---

So I ask you this... Does abortion have to be illegal? Could there be a term limitation of 20 weeks, after which an abortion would be illegal. Would that be acceptable to you? Or is it only black & white and 'No' or 'No' for you?

---

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

Jade, you've looked right past my very explicite point. Just to be clear, I'll repeat:

There are lots of different views on abortion. Many religions, creeds, value systems and philosophies have many different stances about life, conception, sex and abortion. Even medicine and science can not yet answer all these questions to a level of satisfaction.
Since there are so many thoughts, opinions, theories and values, it is not the responsibility of the state to dictate policy on a related action.
Such an action can only be decided by the individual. We can hope that individual would consult with her medical and her spiritual advisors.
As I said above, the choice for an abortion must be left to the woman, her doctor, and her god.

Whether or not I agree with Jewish law, custom or tradition is not the point; it has nothing at all to do with the argument at hand. I mentioned Jews only to show that EVEN within the realm of religion, there is great disagreement on the issue.

There are only two ways I could see someone logically advocating an anti-abortion law:
1) Propose a theocracy
2) Find medical science that 'proves' that a human being exists at conception

Absent one of those two issues, advocation an anti-abortion law is illogical. Maybe there are other reasons. If so, I'd like to hear them...but I've thought long and hard and I haven't been able to come up with any.

for me it is a black and white issue, because imo that fetus is destined to be a human being at the time of conception. if that child is not meant to live then nature will take its course and intervene. otherwise you are taking away another person's life, or at the very least the right for nature/God/whatever-your-belief to choose whether that child lives or dies.

chris

I will never feel a compromise in regard to life. To me, that is asking God for a compromise. My voice is for the person that is to come. I post to defend them. I will die defending them since I feel so very strongly for them, since they cannot speak for themselves. When I go to abortion clinics to protest, we are peaceful, we pray. In the face of adversity with profanity, name calling and hand gestures I remain very committed. Because the souls comming are God sent, I feel they have a reason to come to fulfill a destiny in life, even if its for a couple of hours or a day.

For the state to even put a time limit on the weeks determined when a abortion is legal is stupid. If your into giving the woman the right to choose, why can't she choose for herself when its the right time for her to abort. Lets face it, the state is still dictating to her what to do with her body in telling her she has to do it within a time frame.
Since alot of people think life begins when your are born, why shouldn't it matter on the number of weeks?

So you will never back down on your viewpoint, never relent that not everyone believes as you do. You will never understand that some people don't think abortion is a bad thing. Never open your mind to understand things that don't conform to your specific ideals.

And because of all of those things, you will never be taken seriously by anyone who knows how to compromise and find solutions amenable to most, if not all, involved in a particular issue.

As I said before:

If you allow no quarter, none can be spared for you.

In other words.... If you don't give a little, don't expect anything in return.

If abortion was made illegal, more women will die along with their babies because of the underground methods that would be used. As has been mentioned within this thread. Abortions WILL go on.

IF we pretend I agree that abortion is wrong... I still wouldn't fight for it to be illegal. It is of more harm to not only lose the potential life but also lose the life of the mother and any other potential lives she could have had.

If that's what I believed that would be my justification for fighting to allow regulated abortion. More lives will be lost if it is made illegal. Period.

I would assume that you believe more death is not a better option? Or do you find that to be "justice" in some... dare I say 'skewed' way?

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

Well, it *really* is this simple -

This cannot be a religiously based decision. It is a legal decision.

So, as soon as you start to say 'god', stop speaking and rethink the issue.

^^^ exactally.

Oppinion is oppinion, everyones is different, we can't just use yours to make laws that other people have to live by. The laws of 'God' are not the laws of society, as has been said over and over again, you have the right to not have an abortion, you have the right to protest abortion clinics, you do not have the right to restrict what other people do, based on your own religious beliefs.

Tell me, from a medical standpoint, why a non-developed fetus is no different from a human being, and I might change my views.

Okay... I'm coming into this post a little late, so please grant me a little leeway if I bring something up from waaaay up there...

I feel that abortion should remain legal. It is a woman's choice to determine what to do with her own body. She should be offered all possible avenues in the event the abortion is not medically necessary to save her life. But ultimately it is her choice to make. It would be nice if the father's input was taken into consideration, however if a woman truly does not want to carry the baby then nothing is going to stop her - abortion being legal or not. I was up in Duluth, MN a couple of years ago (a section of the state that is littered with Pro-Life billboards) and I saw a billboard that really surprised me. It said simply this, "Abortion is a decision to be made between a Woman and her God" My first thought was "Wow, that's really cool," followed by "That is so true."

As for partial-birth abortions... they turn my stomach, personally. This occurs when the fetus is viable outside the mother's womb. (Granted in most cases with significant medical intervention) I think this is a procedure that should only be reserved for the most dire of medical circumstance. By the time a fetus is viable (I forget exactly when during the term of the pregnancy this is marked) that is when I believe life truly begins. After that time, a life is being taken (IMO) and that is a sad thing. But again, it is a decision that the woman has to live with the rest of her life. Would she have done things differently after the passing of years? Maybe. But we all do things that we regret and later wish we could undo. That is part of life, and part of our growing experience.

There was some mention of the morning-after pill way up above, and I saw an interesting blurb the other day regarding it that I thought I'd share....

quote:

---

Company Wants Morning-After Pill Sold Without Prescription

The company that makes the "Plan B" morning-after pill wants the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve the drug for sale without a prescription, the Washington Post reports.

Women's Capital Corporation planned to petition the FDA Monday for the right to sell the Plan B contraceptive as an over-the-counter drug. Similar morning-after pills are sold without prescriptions in Europe.

If approved, Plan B would be the first morning-after contraceptive to be sold over-the-counter in the United States. Anti-abortion groups may oppose any such move.

Plan B doesn't abort an egg that's already been fertilized. Instead, it prevents conception.

Some states allow the sale of emergency contraception without a prescription, but those drugs are sold behind-the-counter, meaning women must ask a pharmacist for them.

---

Source: DrugDigest

Personally, I think this is a decent idea. It would solve alot of abortion issues. Here is an article supporting that very issue. Just a summary-

quote:

---

Drop in Abortions Tied to Morning-After Pill
Emergency contraception credited with 43% of decline in 2000

---

Edit-Clarifying Summary


[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 05-01-2003).]

Something I just thought of after reading MD's post...

jade - What do think of contraceptives? I only ask because that used to be a firm standing point in the church, Abstainence was the only way and contraceptives were wrong. Are you against preventing people from getting pregnant in the first place, via using contraceptives? I understand you're probably against pre-marital sex but lets face it, nobody is going to be able to stop it.

So maybe instead of protesting abortion you should promote sex education and contraceptive usage, hmm?

BTW - There was a news story on a new method for vasectomy that I didn't get to see... I'll try and find it and post a link. It sounded like it had some significant possibilities for some of our above discussion.

{EDIT}I found this interesting but it wasn't what I was looking for. UltraSonic Vasectomy I still can't find that news story. I'll keep looking.

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 05-01-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 05-02-2003).]

GD
I do not advocate using contraceptives or have I ever used them in my marriage. I have taught my children about the sacredness of their bodies, as I believe they are temples of the spirit and their virginity is a gift to their intended spouse. I don't advocate safe sex. I advocate no sex before a union of marriage. I believe the body of each person has a dignity in that it was only given to us for the spirit to dwell in to achieve a spiritual means. For it to be used only to release a sexual tension mutually by persons make the act itself a misuse of the creators intention.

I do give sex education classes to 6th & 10th graders in my diocese. In a society today where people are more sexually active, I teach them that its ok to hold on to their virginity and they shouldn't feel pressured to perform. I also tell them that act of a sexual union is a beautiful gift. In fact one of the best gifts God gave us as it has so much pleasure in it but is reserved for the one you love in the marriage state. I do not advocate using condoms to them. Saying to use them is saying its ok to have sex before marriage. I know the human biological sexual nature of a person especially after puberty reeks with curosity and is stimulated by their body changes, but I educated them in the right direction in understanding what their bodies are getting ready for.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-02-2003).]

But what about the indisputable fact that a number of them *are* going to engage in sexual activities long before they should?

Should they not at least be educated enough to use a condom to help prevent the spread of disease and pregnancy?

Regardless of your view of whether them having sex is right or wrong, if teens are going to be doing it, they need to know the physical consequences and how to avoid them, for the benefit of society if nothing else.


Just because they make one bad choice does not mean they should be left to make more...

jade: wow! while i commend you for taking the time to educate kids about sex, i'm also shocked at how much information you're NOT giving them. it's all well and good to 'preach' abstanance....but to not acknowledge the fact that MOST of the kids you're teaching will have sex prior to marriage, with less than adaquate information about safe sex and contraception, is frightening.
wow! i'm sorry, i don't mean to be offensive...but that has got to be one of the most ignorant things i've ever heard!!
i would think, that if you've given them ALL the correct information, you'd not have to worry about them making the wrong choice when it comes to having sex. how can they make an educated...informed decision, when they are neither educated or informed???

wow...i'm just stunned...this is so wrong on so many levels, that it has totally scatterd my thoughts. need to reorganize and post more later.....wow!

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Exactly, DL.

jade - So you basically allow no avenue of choice for anyone unless it is through following the churches law? Do you agree that people are going to have premarital sex, and always will be having premarital sex? Shouldn't you advocate what is best for them and best for the causes you stand for? I find the acceptance of contraceptives to be a far lesser evil then allowing the rampant spread of disease and unwanted child births, not to mention abortions.

I hardly find the use of a condom to advocate pre-marital sex. What about those married couples who don't want to have children and still want to have sex freely? Contraceptives are still the best way to prevent pregnancy. Don't bother telling me about the rhythm method. I know what they call people that use the rhythm method - PARENTS. I'm sure you're basing this argument on the belief that knowing that condoms are available removes the consequences of having sex before you're married. Yeah... I suppose it does but that belief also implies that those consequences are okay AFTER you are married. Well I'll tell you something... They aren't. I know plenty of married couples that are in no way capable of taking care of a child any more than a couple of unmarried teenagers. That doesn't make it all right for the married couple to have kids. I don't see how marriage qualifies poor actions among adults.

Now... I'm going to lay out your viewpoint as how I see it... Tell me if I'm wrong.

You don't want people to have sex before marriage but you know it happens (Assumption #1 - I believe you HAVE to know this). You don't advocate safe sex for people having sex, married or unmarried (Assumption #2 - I haven't gotten your answer on that yet) even though this would further your cause by reducing the number of abortions and divorces. You are against abortions because they are against your moral strictures as supplied by your religion even though there are many people who don't follow your beliefs and aren't subject to them. You won't back down from anyone who believes anything differently then you because you believe you are right and they are wrong. You believe that everyone should believe the same things as you (Assumption #3 - Your inability to even consider someone elses point of view supports this assumption). You educate young people on only one side of sex education knowing full well that some of them are going to be having sex before they are married (Assumption #4 - I am assuming such because I believe it is something that can't be ignored (see next sentence) AND the numbers support this viewpoint). You ignore blatant points and supporting facts since they don't matter in your view of things because your ideals are more important than the reality of living in todays world. (Assumption #5 - This is not so much an assumption as a conclusion drawn on your statements from within this forum).

I'm sure I could go on but I think that is enough. I feel sick that I let you draw this out of me. I really, really tried to be tolerant but there have been too many times where your intolerant views have risen to the surface. Your lack of respect for basic facts and the reality of life is awe insipring. I truly hope that you open your eyes and realize that the world has changed and the tenets of the church are no longer up to date. I think you do more harm to your causes by being so intolerant of the possible options that have been presented. I have said it before (several differnt ways)... I will say it once more...

If you don't allow yourself to change, you can't expect other people to change for you.

Look at that sentence. Do you see how it is structured rather similarly to the Golden Rule? You have to give to recieve, treat others how you want to be treated, don't do things to people that you don't want done to you. If you don't show mercy don't expect any mercy.

I don't know how many other ways there are to say it.

You accept nothing from anyone. How can you expect us to accept anything for you?

I think I'm done trying to talk to you. All I've been succeeding at doing is talking AT you, nothing is sinking in. I'm tired. Tired of wasting my voice(as it were), my time, and my patience...

...on you.

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

GD - that's why I removed myself from the conversation.

Jade - it's obvious that you are firm in your beliefs. You have every right to hold your own beliefs. That's one of the biggest reasons the US exists. Freedom of beliefs. And if the children you're teaching choose to believe the same things as you, well, they have that right as well. But they also have the freedom to believe something totally different also.

However, by not providing all of the facts relating to human sexuality, you are doing those children a grave disservice. You cannot protect each and every one of those children 24/7/365. Where is the sense in not arming them with enough information to make an informed decision on their own, when faced with such a choice?

A teenager, fully informed of the health dangers of sexual activity (not to mention the procreative aspect of it) and brought up with a strong belief in their God and family, will, more often than not, surprise you by making the decision you would wish them too. But in not providing them with all the pertinent information, you unwittingly lead them to wonder what's so special about it, which in turn will more than likely lead to adolescent sexual exploration. I mean, come on now. This is teenagers we're talking about. To simply prohibit something without sufficient explanation provided is enough to turn any kid's curiosity on full-speed.

You don't have to omit religion to talk about the health risks of unprotected sex. And just because you talk about safe sex, doesn't mean you are advocating sex before marriage. It just means you care enough to provide all the information.

But, that said, I can see that you are stubbornly clinging to what you have been brought up to believe, and that likely, all the common sense statements that GD and everyone else have been making are falling on deaf ears.
I find it tragic that there are still people who, given the voluminous amount of information available, still find it necessary to pretend it doesn't exist, or that by not "believing" in something, think they can make it go away.

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 05-02-2003).]

Ref to GD, LNA, DL

OK GD. If you want to be done with me. I appreciate your attention and your info. I guess it all boils down to matters of faith. There are some grey areas of faith and some black and white. In regard to abortion there is never a compromise. For the simple reason that all are called to be their brothers keeper and that means even the brother in the womb.

The way you think is not right for everyone in the world too. Millions of people think like me and millions like you. So whats else is new? How come your right and I am wrong anyway? Why do I have to give into a secular way of living or what society dictates? Does that take me up to trend?

And how is it going to look if a religious institution gives in the current society way of thinking. Should the Catholic church start passing out condoms at Sunday Mass? Should I start telling my students to go ahead and have safe sex and hand out condoms to my 10th graders. I know some will have sex B-4, but I must let them know the consequences so it will be a deterrent. Putting a condom in their hand makes it easier to say yes to sex. All the parents of these childen are aware of what is being taught to them. I have been teaching this class for 10 years all from the spiritual viewpoint. Never a complaint from a parent. The catholics are not the only religion to teach this I might add.

I know as married adults, we are called not to use any form of contraceptives. But you must understand a faithful person or believer will follow his conscience. I know lots of couples don't follow this. But many are trying to live for the next world and adhere to the teachings.

But shouldn't there be a quide to moral living? And don't tell me it should be the US Goverment. Or up to scientist. Or up to the individual teenager. Condoms is not the answer to stop teen pregancy.

Some people live only for the world they are in. Some look at the larger picture and detach themselves from the constraints that society morally dictactes and that doesn't make them better than anyone else or more enlightened or righteous. They are a simple people of faith that are trying to live with what their heart feels.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-02-2003).]

quote:

---

The way you think is not right for everyone in the world too. Millions of people think like me and millions like you. So whats else is new? How come your right and I am wrong anyway? Why do I have to give into a secular way of living or what society dictates? Does that take me up to trend?

---

It's been said over and over again. You don't have to have an abortion, you don't have to agree with people having abortions, you can go out and protest abortion clinics, but you can not stop other people from having abortions, and society can't deem them to be illegal unless you can show why having an abortion is wrong.

quote:

---

And how is it going to look if a religious institution gives in the current society way of thinking. Should the Catholic church start passing out condoms at Sunday Mass? Should I start telling my students to go ahead and have safe sex and hand out condoms to my 10th graders. I know some will have sex B-4, but I must let them know the consequences so it will be a deterrent. Putting a condom in their hand makes it easier to say yes to sex.

---

I don't understand how you possibly took this, from reading GD's post, he said you need to educate children on the health risks of sex, not that you need to give them condoms, and tell them to go test em out. Putting a condom in their hands does make it easier to say yes to sex. But what's wrong with sex? I remember back when I was in ninth grade, a bunch of girls came by, we were going to a party. On the way out the door, my mom pulled me aside, she saw the girls, and looked at me. She didn't say something like "don't you dare have sex, you'll burn in hell" or "those feelings are wicked, and if you go, don't come back", she just simply said "you know enough to use a condom, right?" Teaching people, children or adults, to be obedient but not informed is no better than not teaching them at all. I'd say a God with any sort of love at all for his people, would care more about keeping them safe and healthy, then keeping them obedient.

quote:

---

I know as married adults, we are called not to use any form of contraceptives.

---

This might sound audacious, but you in fact, do not know that.

quote:

---

But shouldn't there be a guide to moral living?

---

Absolutely not.

The 6th graders are given different levels of sexual teaching than the 10th graders. I am certified by the diocese along with an RN we teach together. We cover all areas of the biology, health and disease realted issues. She teaches most the medical and I the spiritual. We are honest about all circumstancs that occur in regard to casual sex. The children have lots of questions and there is always open discussion. Condoms are discussed. Most parents are embarrased to speak to their children about sex in an explict way and we also invite parents to these classes. Hardly any come. These children are more open with us about sex than to their own parents.

I would think if they do have casual sex, that they will probably think to use a condom or not. Even grown adults don't use them.

The most important thing we teach them is their bodies are beautiful handiwork & created for the glory of which they are subjects to.

So no, I don't think its wrong in what we are teaching.

Jade- First off, I think it commedable that your diocese is actually making the effort to educate kids about sex. I've not heard of many that do. I think it's fine that you teach your church's view of pre-marital sex. However, I think its irresponsible to teach a subject only so far to drive home the point that sex before marraige is immoral, that contraception is immoral. (This is a really graphic analogy, but in today's world it fits...) It's akin to teaching a kid how to load a gun, hand it to him and then send him out on the street with it, after you've told him there are "consequences" if he uses it before he's fully qualified (i.e. being married) You haven't taught him about the safety (contraceptives), you haven't taught him that he is fully responsible for the injury he causes another (STDs... or the child that is the product of irresponsible behavior.) Or, the fact that this weapon can kill. Unprotected sex can and does kill. (And not just the adults involved...those unborn children that you protect become the victims too)

This is a subject that kids absolutely must be fully informed about. It is ultimately their choice to go against the edicts of their faith and upbringing. I don't doubt that you love your children. But wouldn't it break your heart if one of them got AIDS because they were so afraid to use a condom because they were taught it was wrong to use one? It has happened. When your children get married, it's not unlikely that they will be marrying someone who has already had sex. Wouldn't you prefer it if your future children-in-laws were STD free?

Condoms may not be the answer to teen pregnancy, but is certainly does help. And giving kids a condom does not give them the message that sex is "okay". I didn't go out and have sex the first time a teacher handed me a condom. Neither did the majority of my class. Those that did, well, if their faith said that was a sin, that is between them and their god. But at least for that one encounter, there wasn't an unwanted child produced or a disease spread. I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of supporting the consequences of other people's bad choices.

quote:

---

I'd say a God with any sort of love at all for his people, would care more about keeping them safe and healthy, then keeping them obedient.

---

Well said, Dan.

For what it's worth, Jade, no one is telling you that you are wrong. No one here is saying that they are right. However, some here are conceding the points others are making as valid, whether they believe it or not.

Well, I personally am very glad that there are laws that protect me (and others) from people like jade...and the 'teachings' that she gives, is one reason why I don't support religion, and would never, ever subject my children to...this sort of propaganda.

It's like instructing someone of the beauty of Nature...without informing them of the very real dangers...and then expecting that nothing will happen to them, when they seek this beauty out. I have seen this so often...ignorant city folk 'getting in touch with Nature'...and running into trouble. Nature doesn't care what one believes, or is searching for. 'Oh, you appreciate my beauty, I won't send any bears/mountain lions/rattlesnakes your way'...right.

To believe, and have faith, is one thing...to actively subject others, especially children, to these, is sick, IMHO.

Thank god that the congress has managed to block all of Mr. Bushs nominations to the higher courts...filibuster, I love you!

Web

I commend Bush for speaking out against abortion as he is pro-life. One of the first things he did in office was to stop partial birth abortions. I am grateful to him for that. Just recently the high courts passed a law where abortion clinics have to release their medical file info on patients which before were keep private as to more regulate the abortion industry and keep an eye on them. Also the high court defeated a petition against Planned Parenthood and in favor of the pro-life cause in regard to protest near clincs, in contacting patients in regard to counsel them, showing graphic pictures on aborted fetuses,( which the clinics will not do as they are afraid it will deter the patients from choosing to have their fetus aborted and that would mean less money for them. They should show the mother what the fetus will look like. Its not a glob of tissue. It has a visable head, arms, fingers and toes).

With Bush in office, I can see a light at the end of the tunnel and I hope he will be re-elected next term to do more for the pro-life cause. And it seems very likely that he will be president next term.

Heh.

quote:

---

And it seems very likely that he will be president next term.

---

Well, we'll see...don't bet on it, though...the war is over, and now begins the crucial phase (in Iraq)...and on it could very well ride Mr. Bushs chances...and the Enron disaster is drawing ever closer...

And recent...tones, against Syria...I don't see how someone like you, with your beliefs on the sanctity of life, could ever support Mr. Bush...remember, he was the Governor of Texas (Death penalty). And, of course, the two...'conflicts' during his presidency, where many innocent lives were lost.

You really don't think these things through very well, apparently. Or maybe it's just about American lives? or christian? Just exactly where do you draw the line?

Well, as I said, we will see, now won't we?

**MISSION FAILED** Abort! Abort! The baby will not be a boy! (This is the kinda crap that'll happen if its legal at any stage. I think they oughta only give abortions for rape victims. so many people want to adopt! come on if you take away the warm and fuzzy life aspect its just like raiseing cattle just to tip'em, cutting down trees just to let them rot, manufacturing cars just to push'em into a junk-pile! What a waste! If you say that the mother might not have the recources to suport her pregnancy then she could just be paid for the baby (upon delivery in caseof misscarage) if she needs mony now just get government assistance. all of this is easier said than done but What about those people who suffer from..... or those who get..... or those who are barely..... Life is ruff and full of supriseing struggles.

P.S. its a womans choice to do what she wants with her own body. Just not when it tramples the rights of anothers body. a woman can't kill her child when their born. Whats the difference. Fetus rights NOW!

ok vomit, then why abort rape victims?

It's just another unwanted pregnancy, but it's also another human life, by your argument - and the same options exist, like adoption and gov't assistance.

my next question is this: have you read the rest of the thread? because this just sounds like you 'vomiting' out your opinion, with little regard for what has been achieved so far in this topic.

i hate to force you to think, but if you contemplate the previous contributions to this conversation, you may be able to consequently post more constructive comments, yeah?