Topic awaiting preservation: Abortion

I'm back from my surgery. Everything went well. Certainly my knee hurts, but I'll survive.
You all know by now I have a penchant for words. Please excuse my longwindedness. I hope it starts a decent conversation.
So, without further ado, let me introduce to you "Why, and In What Circumstances, Should Abortion Be Legal"

Abortion is an issue on which it seems everybody has a stance. It is often difficult to discuss anything of 'controversy', more so when the topic is one as heated as this. Let's start with some common ground. I think this is common ground. If this is not common ground, then consider them my assumptions going into this discussion.

1. There is a difference between a human being and a potential human being.
2. While all human beings are life, not all life is a human being.
3. Neither sperm nor eggs are a human being.
4. Each sperm and egg has potential to be a human being.
5. Day 1 of baby being born, baby is a human being.

So, sometime between -1 month, and 9 months there is a change from potential life to a human being. The big question that constantly surrounds the abortion issue is 'when does that change occur?'

We would all agree (I think) that keeping a potential life from happening is not bad -- for instance, we are not required to have sex every single month with a desire to impregnate every single egg a woman produces in her lifetime -- and we would all agree (again, I think) killing a baby is not good. So, when is the change from potential human being to human being?

Obviously this is an extremely difficult question and everybody has a different answer. We all 'know' what a human being is, but can we define it? Can we make it exclusive to other life?

For years philosophers, secular and otherwise, have attempted to define the point a fetus becomes a human being. Many did not have the same technology we have today, but they used what they did have (their senses and logic) to try to find an answer. They came up with lots of answers, I have outlined five below.

"Conception"
The modern Roman Catholic position, started by, as far as I can tell, Pope Pius IX, states that conception is the start of human life.
Many Christians, Roman Catholic and otherwise, hold to this belief today.

"Appearance as Human"
Aristotle wrote in "History of Animals" that the fetus has a human soul at 40 days after conception for a male and 90 days after conception for a female. This is based on his (apparent?) experience that, if a fetus is aborted prior to 40/90 days, its features are not recognizable as human.
St. Augustine (some 6 centuries later) agreed with Aristotle's take on the situation and argued in "On Exodus" that an abortion before 90 days was not murder because no soul was destroyed.
St. Jerome wrote that the fetus gradually becomes a human in the womb. Abortion, for him, did not count as killing a human being if the fetus had not yet acquired limbs and the 'appearance' of being human.

"Movement of Fetus"
Thomas Aquinas (we're now in the mid 11th century) said that a fetus was not a human being until it moved in the womb.
Pope Innocent III offered a ruling on the case of a monk that had arranged for his (the monk's) lover to have an abortion. The pope wrote that it was not murder because it had happened early enough the fetus had not started moving yet, thus did not yet have a soul.
Pope Gregory XIV (around 1600) said that a fetus is not a human until it moved in the womb.

"Breath"
Some Jews and Christians, taking their cue from Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.", argue that a fetus is not a human being until the baby takes its first breath.
Jewish Law defines when a fetus becomes a human as the point when "the head emerges from the womb."

"Thought"
Carl Sagan argues in "Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium" that conscious, higher level thought is what defines a human being, so a fetus should not be considered a human being until it has a developed frontal cortex and a significant amount of neuron activity.

This is a relatively short list when compared to the long history of people trying to answer this question of 'when does a fetus become a human life?" but I think it shows an important point -- everybody has a different answer.

As for my thoughts:
A human being has a few qualities that are distinctive:
1. Ability to live
2. Self-conscious
3. Rational thought
4. Capacity for moral behavior

A fetus has zero chance of living outside the womb before 24 weeks. It is not until that time that the lungs have developed to a point that they can actually pull oxygen from the air and deliver it to the blood.
The last three go together. The brain does not begin to have significant neuron activity (the beginning of both logical and moral thought) until somewhere in the realm of 24-27 weeks. This is the first time that the fetus realizes itself, it is the first time there are enough neurons in place and working together that the senses work. Sometimes a little sooner than 24 weeks -- 21-23 weeks -- but often near the 24 week mark is the first time that the brain releases electrical energy enough to move muscles.
These factors together convince me that a human being does not exist until sometime around 24 weeks. I'm willing to concede that some fetus become human beings more quickly than others, so maybe an extreme case of 20 weeks should be the standard of the title 'human being'. I think that abortion should be absolutely legal up to the 20th week of pregnency, regardless the reason. I'm also in favor of allowing abortion past the 20 week mark for those cases where a doctor thinks it is needed to save the mother from death or significant harm.

One of the pieces of the Roman Catholic doctrine that causes me so much trouble is the ease with which it allows the destruction of women. For, in the eyes of the church an abortion is not OK, even if the doctors know both the child and the mother will die if the abortion does not take place. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy -- a pregnancy in which the fertilized egg becomes stuck in one of the fallopian tubes instead of traveling all the way down to the uterus -- a doctor is not allowed to intervene according to the church.
You see, in the course of a ectopic pregnancy, the fetus will grow and eventually the fallopian tube will burst, causing massive internal bleeding for the woman. If the body is not cut open, the fetus removed, and the bleeding stopped, the woman will die (thus the fetus will die.)
According to the Tribunal of the Holy Office, a doctor is not allowed to preform this prcedure to save the life of the woman because doing so would instantly destroy the fetus. This is irresponsible.
Even if I were to concede that the fetus at this point is a human life (I don't) it is still irresponsible to destroy two lives over one. It is not logic or compassion that drives the church to this stance, it is a stubborn clinging to rigid dogma, come the proverbial hell or high water.

All of that being said, what I think doesn't matter.
My main goal here was to make it clear that people have various opinions about exactly when a fetus becomes a human being -- the crux of the entire abortion issue. That is why the law can not rule on this issue. This question of "when does the fetus become a human being?" is not an issue that can be solved by science (at least not yet). There is not scientific test that can determine what a soul is, nor can we do any sort of analysis to see if one exists. It is an issue that is personal...and issue that is religious. The state can not take a stand on this, except for to be as liberal as possible.

The issue must remain solely in the hands of the woman, her doctor and her god. If the state takes the contemporary Roman Catholic view (the most limiting) that a fetus is a human being from conception, it is taking a stand that being a Jew is wrong...that being a Humanist is wrong...that following Jewish custom (which allows for abortion) can actually result in imprisonment or execution at the hands of the state.
If the state takes the most liberal stance and keeps abortion safe and legal, then Jews, Humanists, Protestant Christians and Roman Catholics -- everybody -- can each still practice what they believe without fear from the state. Keeping abortion legal is not the same as mandating it.

Though I have done so, my point is not to argue that abortion is right or wrong, but only that the state should not outlaw abortion until science comes up with a clear way to show when a fetus is and is not a human being.

Always enjoy your posts Mobrul. My simplistic view holds that the decision to abort should be entirely up to the woman. To paraphrase a well worn quote...' the day men can get pregnant abortions laws will be aborted.'

mobrul: A tricky issue. Having been brought up a Catholic I'm still uncomfortbale with abortion and other aspects like stem cell research but I think you have steered a sensible course through tricky waters.

I think access to more education, contraception and discussion of alternatives can go a long way to reducing the number of unnecessary abortions.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

mobrul I agree with you 100%

Mobrul; you seem to have covered it nicely... my view on it is that, even though uncomplicated, even just after conception a baby can be called alive.

There's a complication though. The form of life is hardly more complicated than a multi-celled organism. As the growth continues, one could compare the fetus to more 'developed' creatures like insects, small mammals, apes and so on. Most people wouldn't think twice about killing an ant.

While this seems like an awfully cold view on the issue, I think this is how it is. The difference between the pro and contra side of this argument is the question "Are you killing what is, or are you killing what could have been?"

In any case, you are taking a life. It depends on your point of view which life you take.

(I hope I've worded this clearly enough....)

As has already been said, I think it's up to the person in question.

[This message has been edited by mahjqa (edited 04-09-2003).]

In situations like discussion of Abortion, you really have to think of the outcome of what you're voicing an opinion on. Otherwise you're pretty much just thinking blindly. You have to think hard on the results of what might happen if Abortion were legalized or illegalized.

Personally, with what I know and studied, I think that legalizing abortion (in the US at least) would send our economy down.

We'd have teenage mothers left and right sucking money from the goverment by living on welfare. And to think that at a little cost of defying reason millions could live better.

On the other hand... Many precautious teens would think twice before having even protected sex, because then they'd know that if in the rare instance they bacame parents, they couldn't just turn to abortion. They wouldn't have that thought "if all else fails, we'll just have an abortion."

But my first statement still stands, I think that is what we'd really have to think about when we consider these things.

Nice topic Mobrul.

quote:

---

I think that legalizing abortion

---

You don't mean "making abortion illegal"?

No that would be illegalizing .

Nice apostrophe there mahjqa.

InSiDeR, abortion is currently legal in many states in the US. It's just beseiged by anti-abortionist groups. And I think in some states, if the woman requesting an abortion is a minor, she must have the permission of her parents and the courts in order to have the procedure.

Being a woman, I feel very strongly about my personal right to decide when and where to raise a child. Raising a child is a very important thing to me, and I would want to give that child all of the things that it needs to grow up to be the beautiful human being that it is capable of being. I couldn't do that when I was 13, 14, 15, 16... I wasn't stable: mentally, emotionally, or fiscally at that point to be able to provide for a child. In the event that I had become pregnant, I probably would have opted for an abortion. Just because I knew that I couldn't give that child the things that it needed. These days, I'm older, I'm married, have my own place, my own money (a little bit, anyway) and if I became pregnant, would probably have the child. On the principal that at this point in my life, I should be able to provide for it. (Not that I have ANY plans for having children. I personally prefer to give them back to their parents after a few minutes...)

My youngest sister became pregnant when she was just out of high school. She had an abortion. It was a very difficult decision for her, because she really wants to be a mother. She has always wanted to be a mother. But she knew that she was not emotionally or fiscally capable of providing for that child. In any way shape or form.

Now, both she and I have been well educated about all forms of birth control. We also both take precautions against becoming pregnant since we are neither one of us desirous of a child at this time. But the only 100% form of birth control is abstinance. Even using birth control, accidents happen. That's what happened to her.

There are really only two factors to consider in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. (Well, ok, 3 if she's married...) The woman, and the unborn child. The mother needs to ask herself if she's physically and emotionally able to sustain a full term pregnancy. She needs to ask herself, in the event that she is able, whether or not she is in a position to successfully raise a child. She also needs to ask herself, if she's able to sustain the pregnancy, whether or not she would be emotionally able to give the child up for adoption. That sort of thing can break a woman mentally if she's not stable enough to handle it. You can't bring a child into this world lightly. You cannot bring a child into this world and not be prepared to provide for it for a minimum of 18 years.

On the other hand, I do agree that abortions should not be used as a method of birth control in and of themselves. The process for abortion is very difficult to deal with both physically and emotionally. My sister named her unborn child, and still gets teary-eyed at the thought of it, even though it was years ago now. But she, myself, and the rest of my family, including the father of the child (they never got married), all agree that she made the right decision. I shudder to think of what things would be like for her if she had been forced to have that child then. I still sometimes wonder about her capability to raise a child, even though she is married now. In the event that an unwanted pregnancy occurs, all options must be weighed before a decision is made.

The best thing ever is to never get yourself in that position in the first place. But the option should be available if it's needed. My body is my body. If I choose to bear a child, that choice is between me, my husband and my doctor. No one has the right to tell me whether or not I should devote 9 months and my body to a pregnancy. Pregnancy puts tremendous stress on a womans body. Hormones, muscles, bones and joints, and in the event of a long-term disease like diabetes, a whole host of other things need to be considered. A mishap in the delivery room can kill a woman. Ask yourself this question: If you have to choose between the life of your wife/girlfriend and the life of her unborn child, which would you choose?

The option for abortion must remain legal. And I second that quote about if men could get pregnant, abortion laws would be aborted!

As for when a fetus becomes "human" or "alive", I don't even want to think about that can of worms... It should always be up to the woman bearing the child to decide whether or not she is capable of bearing and raising a child, and if not, to decide what to do about it.

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 04-09-2003).]

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 04-09-2003).]

I am reading this thread at work and will have to go home to post.

I myself believe that my body does not belong to me but to God.
But I will post a more lenghtly post when I get home.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-09-2003).]

Bodhi, I know that it is legal. My point was, that those are some results to consider if it were deemed illegal, in all states.

Hmmm...I'm curious to see how Bugs answers this one. Mighty curious, actually.

As for me, I feel it is the right of the woman, to choose...and to bear the consequences (which are not small). I solidly believe that a persons body is their own, and that right should not be taken away. After all, you really wouldn't like it, if someone decided to pass a law, saying that one of your eyes had to be removed...whether you wanted to or not. Obversely, you also would very much like to have the right, to have a cancerous growth removed from your body. In fact, I think there would be an amazing uproar, if that were not the case. Or how about piercing? Or tattoos? Or any other thing that one can do with their body...

There is nothing like a prison of your own flesh.

wow! good topic!

when i was younger, i was completely against abortion. Now that i've gotten a bit older, my views on this subject have changed a bit. i think a fetus is a 'baby' at about 70-90 days.
i am all for abortions that are medically necessary and also for rape/incest victims.
i am for abortions if tests have shown the baby is going to have something wrong with it...mentally or physically.
i am against abortion as a means of birth control, especially since there is quite a few ways to prevent pregnancy. I don't think that an unborn child should pay the price for someone's irresponsibility. Adoption is an excellent alternative.

I also don't like the idea of it being totally the female's choice either. I think that since it took both to make it....both should have a say in any decisions. in most places, you need the father's signature to give a baby up for adoption....but you don't to have it aborted....that makes no sense to me whatsoever! if a girl gets pregnant and keeps the baby and the guy doesn't want it, he's screwed....he's now paying for that for the rest of his life. there are plenty of women out there who only get pregnant with the hopes of keeping they guy they're with. but if he wants it and she doesn't....he gets no say so! as far as i'm concerned, when a woman no longer needs a man to make a baby (the old fashioned way)...then men shouldn't get a voice...but until that time....it should absolutely be the decision of BOTH parents.

having said that....i don't think abortion should be against the law. i would hate to see things go back to pre-abortion rights times when women were dieing because of shotty back alley abortions. i also don't think that my views on this should be forced on other women. accidents do happen, as bodhi has pointed out (thanks for sharing that) and i would hate to see young girls like her sister being FORCED to raise a child should she not find it in herself to give it up for adoption. as it now, since i am (mostly) against abortion....i don't have to have one...but it's still a viable option for those who do believe in it.
i'm also in favor of "the morning after" pill. but, if you believe a baby is a baby at conception, then it wouldn't be a good alternative.



__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

InSiDeR, it was difficult to tell in your post. Thanks for clarifying!

Lacuna! I totally forgot about the morning after pill! I wish that had been an option for my sister. Unfortunately, she found out about the pregnancy a little late for it... to my knowledge, it's not legal in the US except where a rape is concerned, not for general distribution.

In a marriage situation, or in a seriously committed relationship, I agree that the man should have a say in it. But in the event that the father isn't an "interested" party - I don't think it should be mandatory to have his say so on the matter... Certainly, discussing the issue with the man involved is one of those many considerations that should be taken in prior to making the decision to abort the fetus... My sister actually did discuss it with her boyfriend at the time, and neither one of them was up for the task of raising a child, much less financially able to afford the pre-natal care involved in caring for a full-term pregnancy only to end it in adoption. That was one avenue discussed... My mother had a particularly hard time with that one, as she is fond of grandchildren... In some situations, it's the only alternative.

But please don't mistake what I mean. I do not support abortion as birth control. It should only be used as a last resort.

Bodhi - Cell 617

Mbl

I am glad you are doing ok and all is well.

I found it interesting that you used 2 popes, 3 catholic philosphers, the catholic church and one atheist in your post. I am glad you posted this subject and will post a view on how I see the act of abortion in a spiritualistic view as this is the only way I am able to see it.

I am opposed to abortion because I believe it goes against the 5th commandment. "Thou shall not kill". To me, its the murder of an innocent who cannot speak for itself. Its the slaugher of an innocent whos cries cannot be heard. 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. They cannont play God in determining who should live and who shouldn't (I am against capital punishment as well). In determining when a fetus becomes a human person is Godly business.

I do believe all life comes from God as he authors it. God distinguished who is to be and why as each life serves his purpose and fulfills a certain destiny. To me, the body & soul work together to work out its salvation. Therefore our bodies are a temple of the spirit, given us to by God sort of like a suit that fits. Whatever the flesh determines affects the soul. And vice versa. To me, it goes against the laws of nature to work itself out. So who ever tampers with this nature is subjet to grave spiritual consequences in they tamper with the creationist intent.

Touchstone Magazine present the pro life view:
(Contains all major christian religions views magazine)

The deliberate, directly intended killing of an innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengence. Always in all circumstances, and with no exceptions.

All fertilized eqq, embryo and fetus are considered as fully human
beings. They thus have an equal right to its life with its mother, therefore neither the mother, nor the medical practitoner or any other human being can lawfully take that away. That evil is never done that good can become of it or that an end cannot justify a bad means.

A reflective scripture on this is:
Matt: 28-31 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to take the soul, but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? one of them shall not fall on the ground without you for the very hairs on your head are numbered. Fear ye not therefore ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Jeremiah: 1 Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born, I set you apart. I appointed you as a prophet to all nations.
How does abortion destroy women?
I understand your concern for the women that are living but how about the concern for the women that were to come? Could there be a possiblity that God was sending a being that was to find the cure for cancer but we aborted it. A being that could make a diffenence in this world? I myself would gladly give my life so another might live.

Did anyone see that segment on TV where this couple had been married many years and could not have children and all their efforts were fruitless? The wife finally gets pregnant and the couple was so overjoyed. Into the pregnancy the wife started experiencing problems and had to be hospitalized. The doctor told them the baby would not live. They were so overcome with sorrow. The father went home cried and cried. That nite into his sleep, he heard someone calling him dad, dad. He woke up from his sleep and saw a teenage boy standing in his bedroom dooway. One thing he noticed is that the boy had red hair. The boy told the father that he talked to his sister and they agreed that he couldn't come right now and the sister said it was Ok. And that he would come later. The image went away. Further down the road the wife became pregnant again and delivered a beautiful baby girl with red hair. Later the wife got pregnant again and the couple knew already they were having a son. Sure enough, it was. And this son had the same red hair also. The two children look so much alike they are mistaken for twins and are very very close. The parents felt so blessed as God had interviend in their sorrow and sent them a message that all would be ok. This is a true story.

Today the abortion industry is unregulated. The abortionist workers are lying to the teens and misrepresenting what the actual fetus is. I know there is a case now where 700 plaintiffs are suing for damages done by abortion clinics. The plaintiffs are suffering from emotional depression, despair, drug abuse and alcholism due to the abortions they had. No doubt that it leaves an emotional impact on the heart & soul.

I am amazed how society today protects all kinds of animal rights and endangerd species. How the rights of dogs and cats in the way they treated has more attention that the way the human life is protected and cared for in the womb. Throwing a fetus that look like small humans in trash cans for containment has to be the most abusive treatment for human life. We even have cemeteries for pets, but not for the aborted fetsus. What kind of world are we living in?

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-10-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-10-2003).]

jade:

quote:

---

In determining when a fetus becomes a human person is Godly business.

---

But you are working from a whole series of unproven (and largely unprovable) assumptions - the chief one being that God exists at all.

Essentially you are imposing your belief system on people who may not share it - is that acceptable?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

This has to be a legal issue, not a moral issue, and definately not a religous issue. We can't be a society that claims to have fredom of religion, and then base our laws on scriptures specific to one religion, or general to most, or even all religions. You have the right to believe any religion you want, or to not believe any of them, therefore if you personally believe it is wrong to have an abortion, than you have the choice to never have one, but you do not have the right to take away anyone elses right to have one.

I think we can all agree that a fetus is alive, therefore, it deserves the same protection that we would give to any other life - be it a plant, a pet, or an animal we raise for food (believe me though, I'm not suggesting we eat fetus'). How do we determine what protection this is, and give the fetus this protection? We have to determine, as a mtter of law, not religion, whether or not a fetus is a human. Or when it becomes a human. Why? Because as a society, we don't protect the lives of living thing that arn't human. We may protect them against cruelty, and we protect their species as a whole, but killing non-human life is not illegal. So, we must determine, as a matter of law, when a fetus is a human being.

..and that's not something I want to do right now.

well, for what it's worth...abortions are performed regularly on animals also.

i don't want to turn this into another 'does god exist' thread...but if he's as all knowing as he's supposed to be...then wouldn't he know that the woman was going to have an abortion?? and knowing that, why would he drop the future human that was going to cure cancer into her womb??

as for the morning after pill....here's a link. apparently, it's different from the french ru-486 pill (which i don't believe is available in the u.s.).

while looking for info on the pill i came across this. i just skimmed it but thought i would drop it in. it's about when a baby becomes a human.....or something like that anyways.



__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

some good stuff in here. bohdi hits an interesting point:

quote:

---

Raising a child is a very important thing to me, and I would want to give that child all of the things that it needs to grow up to be the beautiful human being that it is capable of being. I couldn't do that when I was 13, 14, 15, 16... I wasn't stable: mentally, emotionally, or fiscally at that point to be able to provide for a child.

---

i work with teenagers and i absolutely agree. the thing is, by having sex you are assuming that potential risk and therefore the responsibility imo. do the crime, do the time, to put it simply. if you deem yourself mature enough to be sexually active you must also accept the physical and emotional repercussions that may result.

i personally am against abortion for several reasons, one of which includes my faith as i believe that every life is created with a purpose and plan for it no matter what the parents' intention. in a more practical sense, i think we'd all agree that killing a child is wrong, correct? in that case, rather than argue at what point a fetus is or isn't alive, in posession of a soul, etc., i present a different question: at any time is that entity not a potential human life?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

I don't see how you can compare human life to a plant, a dog or cat. Abortion is all a matter of conveience & money. Money for the abortion clinics or people not having a child because it cannot be afforded or a single womens desire not to be saddle with a life or in the case of a young teenager, too young to fool with a handicap of a unwanted life. Why do these people not want to live with the consequence of their actions? The action of abortion is tragic.

No. I am not imposing my belief on anyone. But because the United States Supreme Court determined a womans right to choose, does not make it a right moral decision. It takes away the right of a human person to have the right to live.

How did the US determine when the fetus is a life? Did they leave it up to the mother? the doctor? So the US Supreme Court, the mother, the doctor have the power over life and death in this country.

What about if the fetus is born alive and is killed. Which is the case before in the abortion clinics. It is outside the womb. Isn't this murder?
Or the case where a teenage couple, that killed their newborn, threw it in the dumpster and were sentenced to prision for murder. If she would of killed the baby inside her womb alittle before her term, it would be an abortion. So they would be free today. Does this make any sense?

Lets take religion out for a minute and see how we can sit by and let humans decide who lives or dies in the womb?

I have held a dead fetus in my hand and it had all its limbs. It was perfect. You could see its heart inside and I am sure before it was aborted its heart was beating. It was heartbreaking.

[edit: Holy crap lots of people posted here while I was writing! This is a response to the ^^ previous post to Jade's, just before Emps up above...need to type faster...]

Very interesting from you Jade. Thank you for taking the time to comment.
I'd like to respond, if I may, to a few of the things you wrote.

quote:

---

I found it interesting that you used 2 popes, 3 catholic philosphers, the catholic church and one atheist in your post

---

While it is terribly 'convienent' for me to use respected church leaders to illuminate my point, I assure you it was not by design (I'm simply not that tricky...boy I'd be dangerous if I was...but I digress )
The fact is, during much of know Western History the leaders in the church were basically the only literate, philosophising people that existed. If you weren't clergy, you had to worry about farming or smithing or something else...not writing books. Simply a matter of history.
I will admit to a bit of 'trickery' in that I included that scripture from Genesis and the note on Jewish law with a specific purpose. More on that later.

quote:

---

I am opposed to abortion because...

---

Just as I am and Aristotle was and Pope Innocent III was, you are more than welcome to your opinion. That's pretty much the whole point of my post. I want to discuss this further with you and others, for sure, but I wanted to take this moment to assure you that, while we don't agree, I absolutely respect your opinions and conviction.

quote:

---

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

---

Perhaps I spoke too early about this 'not agreeing' we're doing, because with this statement I 100% agree.
1 pt for agreement

quote:

---

Today the abortion industry is unregulated

---

This is simply not true. Not just anybody can perform an abortion. An abortion is a medical procedure and the medical industry is arguably the most regulated, controlled, overseen industry in the US. Besides the medical aspect of the situation, most states have a date (normally around the start of the third trimester) beyond which abortions are illegal, except to save the life of the woman.

quote:

---

We even have cemeteries for pets, but not for the aborted fetsus

---

While this may be true, it is also true that (in general...may be isolated incidents of otherwise) the Roman Catholic church and its priests will not hold funerals or any of the associated traditional death rituals for aborted fetuses either.

quote:

---

No doubt that it leaves an emotional impact on the heart & soul.

---

This statement is one with which I will not argue. I have no doubt that there are people who are seriously affected by such a difficult decision. That being said, alcohol can "[leave] an emotional impact on the heart & soul" and we do not outlaw it. Simply put, there are lots of things that "[leave] an emotional impact" and that is all part of the decision making. Please don't think that I take abortion lightly, that people should run around willy nilly abortion abortion abortion...
...but serious decisions with serious consequences are exactly what shapes who we are. Outlawing serious decisions simply because they require thought and introspection and possible serious consequences is bad, bad news.

Now, on to why I included the comment on Jewish law. You mentioned the 5th commandment and you said, "Thou shall not kill." In fact, the commandment is "Thou shall not murder." This is significant because the Jews (to whom this and its nine brother commandments were given) do not regard a fetus as a human being until "the head emerges from the womb"...thus, abortion = no murder. Now, this is according to the Jewish custom and law, but it was their commandment first and it would be tough to argue the commandment was given without regard for the contemporary customs without a specific mention.
How did Jesus (the 'transition', if you will, from Jew to Christian) change this definition of when a human being begins? Why should it be any different for Christians than it is for Jews?

Though I'm terribly interested to read your response to those two questions, even this tangent of discussion only addresses the religious aspect of abortion and only from a Christian or Jewish perspective; not any other religion and certianly not the legal aspect.

I think we are in agreement on the legal aspect -- that is, the law has no business in the issue. Right?



[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 04-10-2003).]

I think that abortion should be a choice made purely by those involved, the mother, the father, and whoever they deem necessary to make their choice. Anybody elses influence is just tampering and harmful to the people involved in such a difficult decision.

I think there need to be limitations placed on legalize abortion. It IS NOT a birth control option. After a minimal number of 'convenience' procedures the woman should be sterilized. She obviously doesn't want children or is incapable of protecting herself from getting pregnant.

While I understand the arguements for people being responsible for their actions and accepting the consequences of said actions, not everyone asked for or is actually responsible for their situation. Rape victims come instantly to mind. If anyone tries to tell me that, in some way 'they were asking for it', I'm gonna have to shoot you. I can think of no worse way to further punish someone then to force them to have a child that will forever remind them of a horrific experience that will traumatize them for the rest of their lives.

quote:

---

Exodus:21:22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely (Or she has a miscarriage) but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

---

This is from an Online Bible so I'm not sure as to its level of acceptence by the masses, but here it seems that the value is placed on the mother not the unborn child.

Just thought I'd toss that in.

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 04-10-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-10-2003).]

I've written more than enough today...maybe tomorrow...
but for now I do want to address one question

quote:

---

How did the US determine when the fetus is a life?

---

Abridged opinions from Roe v Wade
The full text from the six is very very long (the abridged is long too, don't let me fool you).
I've tackled the full opinions twice before...may do it again someday, but not soon. 'Til then, the abridged is a good read if you really do want to know on what the Supreme Court based their decision.
the real deal



[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 04-10-2003).]

ok, let me make a few comments.

first, something general.

personally, i do not feel it is my place to judge someone who adheres to a different belief set to mine.

for example: i believe that sex before marriage is wrong, hence i do not do it. what about all the other folk, who think it is perfectly fine? Well, they have made a decision, often well educated, and acted on that decision.
If they agree with me that it is wrong, yet still do it, then i feel i am able to pass some sort of judgement (please, do not misinterpret that word, i do not mean it in terms of 'condemn', but 'rebuke' or 'correct').

The same applies to abortion. If someone were to hold the same beliefs as me, and still abort a child (for the reason of unwanted pregnancy), i would question how strongly they hold to their beleifs.
They made a decision to have sex, accepted the possibility that it may result in pregnancy (and determined what level of possibility that was, by selecting their contraceptive), yet are unwilling to face the consequence.

do i think that laws should be passed to support these beliefs? by all means, no. I need not expand too much on this, emps and dan put it well enough.

however i do believe that laws should be put in place to protect society. Personally, i think it is far too complex - and reliant on predispositions - to determine when the foetus becomes a member of society, and thus, should be protected, so it should be formed on another factor:

how would the termination or continuation of the baby's life affect the mother's wellbeing?

this is in regard to the health of the mother, as well as the mental state of the mother.

for example, if research shows that abortions after 150 days cause extreme mental anguish on almost all mothers, than that is where the limit should be set.

however, the exception should also be laid: if the continuation of the pregnancy puts the mothers life in certain, or probable danger, then the termination is also allowed.

anything more than that should be up to the mother to decide (upon consultation of those whose opinions she holds as important, whether they be the father, her family, a doctor, or God).

At the risk of sounding harsh, or even redundant:
If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one.
But please don't demand that everyone in the world adhere to your same principles. It's just not going to happen.

Women have been aborting fetuses for as long as they have known there are natural herbal abortifacients in existence. Women have always known and used these methods to control their number of offspring. You will not stop women from having abortions just because you make it illegal or place restraints and limitations on them. Women will again opt for the less safe methods of aborting the fetus before they simply decide to give in and have the kid. Be serious now.

Settling the issue of when a fetus becomes a human being won't stop the debate or the practice. Women will continue to exercise this type of control over their bodies. They will continue to have children when and where they want to. Obviously, not every woman, but you must know, where there is a will, there will always be a way. We must be sensible, and keep this process a legal and available part of medical practice. If only to save the lives of women who might attempt other, less safe ways of aborting their unwanted babies!

GD - sterilizing women who've had multiple abortions? That's a little harsh, don't you think? Granted, perhaps they need to be further educated about other methods of prevention, and perhaps those methods should be made more available to them. But sterilization?

Bodhi - Cell 617

Thank you for that voice of reason, bodhi23. As a man, it's hard for me to speak for women. I think you really hit the nail on the head. Nice post. I agree with you all the way.

I usually steer clear of posting in threads like this, mostly since the arguments in them is very often based on religious views that I personally do not share in the same way as a lot of people here.


However, this is a very, very important issue for foremost the whole female population of this world (the men also but not in the same way).

Dan said this in an earlier post:

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has to be a legal issue, not a moral issue, and definately not a religous issue. We can't be a society that claims to have fredom of religion, and then base our laws on scriptures specific to one religion, or general to most, or even all religions.

---

Thank you!
I could not agree more!

My personal views in the religious aspecet of this is that the bible says that "God gave man free will" or words to that effect. This is used by people to justify or explain a lot of different actions taken by man. Especially as an answer to why God doesn't stop wars and similar cruel things.

On the other hand, on issues like this, "God gave man free will", it seems like it's not even applicable.

Another thing that disturbs me immensly is the fact that the religious leadership in most, if not all religions are men, societys leadership is by large composed by men.

Men, as we all know will never ever experience the ups and downs with a pregnancy in an even remote way similar to a woman. We, as men will also never share the same type of bond with a child as a woman does through life.

Yet it is the men in our priesthood and society that decides whether it should be legal or not, or under what circumstances it is ok or not with an abortion!
Perhaps this is the way it is because it is the way it was, but it does NOT make it right!

To me, to accept that a man alone should decide whether a woman should carry a child or not is just as unacceptable as if the man should be the only one deciding when to have sex regardless of the womans whishes.

The last half of the statement above is regulated based on the fact that a woman has the right to say no to sex in every imaginable situation, break that and it's rape.
Now, should a woman not have the same right to say no to a pregnancy that she knows will not work to the future childs best?

That's it for me on this subject.
(And thank you all for beeing able to discuss this without resorting to foul language and such! Superb series of posts!)
/Dan

{cell 260}
-{ a vibration is a movement that doesn't know which way to go }-

bodhi: perfect!! thank you! i'm just going to start following your posts with a "yep, what she said!!"

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Bodhi23 - No, I don't. If a woman is into the abortion clinic every couple of years for an abortion for 10 years in a row I think there are some obvious tendencies there. The first being she doesn't want children. The second being she is not able to prevent herself from getting pregnant. (at elast every couple of years or so) It runs in the same vein as my belief that death row inmates should only get a certain number of appeals before they can't do anything about it anymore. If you can't fix your problem, be that prove you are innocent or figure out how to stop getting pregnant, in three to five attempts, you should be forced to deal with the consequences of your actions because you aren't learning anything otherwise.

Now, of course, I'm not saying that women who have had abortions because of health issues or rape cases should be sterilized. Those are... legitimate reasons for an abortion. Before anyone jumps down my throat, abortions soley for the sake of not wanting a child are legitimate as well, but they are born of other wants and needs. I think where I am really going with this is that after a certain number of abortions for purely convenient kinds of reasons the suggestion should be made and the services should be available. I'm not saying they should be forced to be sterilized but I'm not beyond some heavy urging for it to be done.

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 04-11-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-11-2003).]

quote:

---

It is often difficult to discuss anything of 'controversy', more so when the topic is one as heated as this.

---

You can say that again. I'm finding it hard to post with any objectivity to this thread and that is the main reason I haven't posted thus far.

GD - As long as you qualify the situations in which that would be appropriate, I understand your point. I'm not sure I totally agree, but I'll think on it, given the qualifiers.

Bugs - I'm actually interested to hear what you have to say on the subject. You seem a reasonable fellow, but I get the impression you tend towards conservatism. I don't imagine that's conducive to a pro-choice stance on this subject. I don't want to give the impression that I would hold anyone's personal feelings on the subject against them, 'cause I don't. As long as we agree to disagree politely... We're prepared, man - lay it on us!

Bodhi - Cell 617

I don't have much I want to say on this topic, because I know that nothing I say, and nothing anyone says will ever change anyone else's opinion on the matter. The battle over abortion is one of convincing the young and ignorant that your opinion is right, and gathering a greater quantity of those that agree with you than those that don't.

I do want to say that I support a woman's freedom to choose. I believe in a higher power, but I do not believe in God. Because of this, I don't see abortion as killing, but rather as the ending of a process that leads to life. If you were to tear up an author's stack of blank paper, you did not destroy a book, you simply prevented a book from coming into being for the moment. The idea is still there. That idea is the life essence that we all hold within us. It will simply take form in a different place, at a different time, on a different pad of paper

I also believe in forced sterilization, but that's a different topic.

hmmm....steriliztion.....well, i'm for it! and i'd even support forced sterilization of drug addicts who continually fall pregnant. especially the ones who've already got 6 crack addicted babies.....
though, i believe that if a good portion of other things in society were "fixed" then this would become a bit less of an issue.

human shield: cool perspective.....never thought of it that way before. definately something to think about and thanks for putting it so well!

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Mbl.

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. I embrace that jewish history as our christian ancestory history. Jesus was a Jew and I love him in his jewishness too. As the Jews of today separate themselves from Christians, we don't separate them from ourselves. Their belief is part of our belief, except we believe the kingdom is already here & they don't. We believe we are an extension of their belief in its fullness. So the church dogma is that the commandment laws are Gods law, and Jesus is God for us too.

I want to address the life issue of a flawed human fetus. If the mother knows the child will be born retarted, ill or deformed, should she have the right to choose to abort when the time frame for the legal abortion has expired? Being that she will be inconvienced and have to be burdened with a life that she or others may deem as life not acceptable or the quality of this life not be to society standards.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 04-11-2003).]

Well... I see no difference as to the condition of the fetus be it normal or retarded/deformed/whatever. The point of having a deadline is to create a point at which abortion is illegal, regardless of reasons (excepting, of course, life threatening ones). It isn't legal to kill a retarded or deformed child. Why should it be legal to abort a retarded/deformed fetus after the deadline had been passed? Before the deadline it's a non-issue. Most issues with difficult/malformed/whatever pregnancies are know well ahead of time. A deadline set at (what was the number being tossed around...) 20 weeks should be plenty of time to find out what complications there might be and make a decision based on that.

I personally don't condone abortion for reasons of malformation or retardation. I find that to be an abhorent thought and it pains me to know humans can be so cruel. We are only animals it seems. It's like returning a pet dog because it doesn't match your couch. I think abortion should be restricted to those actions that are a result of illegal conduct, life threatening situations, or exceptionally life damaging situations. But that just me. It irritates me that abortions are seen as birth control by some. The lack of responsiblity is... it's just astounding.

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 04-12-2003).]

having participated in several discussions on this topic, i find myself reading the same arguments i've heard before..

just a few points - bodhi i agree with you!

insider - your off topic point on "teenage mothers left and right sucking money from the goverment by living on welfare". 90% of all people on welfare are under the age of 18. 6% are over 65 and 4% are the caretakers of the other 96%... and they all live at 70% of the poverty line while on welfare.

jade - god may decide who lives, but he also decides who will die - though you and i may not understand his motivations.
-- as for "innocent life is a sin that screams to heaven for vengence"? dogs and cats are innocent life and breeders regularly kill the newborn who are not perfect specimens of the breed.
-- you say, "Abortion is all a matter of conveience & money." not so. health is a major issue.
-- you may see yourself as the heir of the jewish tradition, but i seriously doubt you truly understand what you are saying...
-- as for the bible/torah, have you read it? or only the catholic translation of the king james version?

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

dan - absolutely, "This has to be a legal issue, not a moral issue, and definately not a religous issue."

to all - in all my years, i've never encountered a woman who used abortion as a birth control method... abortion is considered major surgery! why would any sensible woman use major surgery as a birth control method?

VR

What are dogs and cats innocent of???

I don't see how a comparison can be made between animals and humans species as far as intelligence.

Have you ever bore children? I have three. I can tell the difference.

I do know what I am saying in reference to Jewish history and the whole CC doctrine clarifys it and believes it as well. All our roots are jewish. What are your roots?

what are dogs and cats innnocent of? life! just like human babies!

regarding the intelligence of animals... they are intelligent. some not as intelligent as some humans, but others like dogs achieve the intelligence of 4-5 year olds. then there are dolphins.. hard to say how intelligent animals are since we assume their motivations are all "natural instincts"

i have four children and one grandchild... and having children does not make you an expert on how intelligent other species of animals are. remember, humans are also animals

you have made my point, when you say:

quote:

---

I do know what I am saying in reference to Jewish history and the whole CC doctrine clarifys it and believes it as well.

---

does this mean that you have read the torah? or the roman translation of the king james version of it? what roman church doctrine are you referring to?

what does the roman church say about the medievil (sp) pope who got his jollies putting jewish people through the olive presses?

quote:

---

All our roots are jewish. What are your roots?

---

say what? would you elaborate on this? i'm not sure what you are suggesting here...

[edit] and what does all this have to do with abortion?

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 04-12-2003).]

VR

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.

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

I was addressing the Jewish topic to Mobrul & you commented. And however way you want to see how the first 5 books of the Bible are translated either from Greek or Hebrew, they still carry the same message in both translations as the Jewish torah.

If you want to ask me about CC abuses refer to the catholic and other christians thread, since I have explained it there. Also its like asking the US goverment today why they are responsible for the slaughter & anniliation of most of the Native American indians as a people.

I asked what your religions roots were so I could better understand where your coming from.

Getting back to the abortion issue. I wanted to also point the original Jane Doe in the Roe vs Wade regrets her abortion and also that she was used by the attorneys to futher their case. She is now a pro-life activist and works to reverse the decision and also to bring to light the abuses of the unregulated practices done at abortion clinics.

Jade you said

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.

---

But if you believe in the sanctity of Life, as you have said, doesn't that then include all Life, not just human life?

And yes, one can compare humans and animals, on precisely that basis...

My people believe that everything has a spirit...that makes us similiar. We call animals brothers and sisters...in spirit. Do you think that animals then have souls?

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).]

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?

VomitHorder - Are you saying that women should have children for money? Isn't that a slightly worse idea than prostitution? Not to mentin that one of the areguement FOR abortion is that unwanted pregnancies end up costing more in the long run, be it through orphanages or legal fees if the moter decides to keep the baby or any other number of reasons. You aren't thinking objectively. You are just shouting out an opinion without care of whose rights you are trampling on.

quote:

---

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

---

What body? We're talking about abortions in the early stages of pregnancy. I'm sure in the later weeks of the time limits we've discussed there are going to be some features... I don't really know how defined, but some. I just find this arguement of your ludicrous. Potential is a terrible thing to waste, I agree.... but it is a far worse thing to doom the result of that potential before it can culminate itself.

Take this analogy... I see the body as a vessel, a ship. The spirit that embodies this vessel or ship is like the captain. What's more important? The ship or the captain? Well you know what... I can make another ship. I can make awhole bunch of ships for that captain to choose from. See where I am going with this? The captain(spirit) is the only part that is really important. If the vessel is removed the spirit will just move on to the next one. That's how it works. IMHO

Tone it down a little, converse instead of shout and demand, and maybe we'll get somewhere.

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

quote:

---

Take this analogy... I see the body as a vessel, a ship. The spirit that embodies this vessel or ship is like the captain. What's more important? The ship or the captain? Well you know what... I can make another ship. I can make awhole bunch of ships for that captain to choose from. See where I am going with this? The captain(spirit) is the only part that is really important. If the vessel is removed the spirit will just move on to the next one. That's how it works. IMHO

---

sorry, but that sounds more hypothetical and fabricated than any ultra-fundamentalist diatribe i've heard imo

chris


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

"...If the vessel is removed the spirit will just move on to the next one. That's how it works. IMHO"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry, but that sounds more hypothetical and fabricated than any ultra-fundamentalist diatribe i've heard imo

---

fig - fabricated diatribe? it's basically hindu philosophy on the soul/spirit moving from one body to the next.. {edit - reincarnation }

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 05-09-2003).]

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/index.html

Check this out and see if you still agree that the baby is not a human


[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-09-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-09-2003).]

nice jade...

when you can't make your point... just post some gross pictures. or...are the pictures your point?? if that's the case, it didn't work. i still don't want to dictate what YOU can do with your body.

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Continued here.