Topic awaiting preservation: Abortion, continued. (Page 1 of 2)

New thread due to length - lacuna last posted this :

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.


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

Amen, Lacuna...that's exactly the sort of tactics most radical anti-abortionists resort to...

What, should I now post something like the dead, torn and twisted bodies of Iraqi children from the Iraq conflict recently?

Sorry, but I don't think such 'tactics' are appropriate.

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

Oh. So you can look the other way still? This arouses no
emotion in you a all?

Why not show aborted fetuses as they really are. Why hide
the TRUTH.

Web.
I want to know why they are gross to you?????
This happens in the thousands every day. No way in comparision to
the Iraq children who are victims of war.

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

jade:

When setting rules to structure our society, should we be guided by Emotion or Logic?

Exactly, Norm...well said.

Jade...no, not in the least. I've seen much, much worse...heh. I was in a war...

No, it's more about the 'Well, if I can't get'em with a structured argument, then I'll attack with pics!!' And after that? What, bombs? Shootings? How far will you go, to support your point?

You still don't seem to get it...it's about the right to choose. Have you ever seen the surgery involved in removing an appendix? Looks pretty nasty, too. And I don't see people hanging their appendices on the wall, like a trophy. Fact is, it's just a bit of removed flesh.

Norm

That depends on the rule in question.
In the issue of determning abortion, logic doesn't apply because you can't logically decide life for yourself. That is stepping into Gods shoes. Is it logical for a mother to abort her own child? Depending on her curcumstance maybe for her reason, yes. Is it logical for the the child to come? No. But the child to be born serves an emotional purpose. To love and to be loved and live a destiny. No matter how it came to be or what conditions it comes in. The abortion issue is very passionate on both sides. Both dealing with lots of emotions.

oh... it brought out emotions jade... just not the ones you were looking for. it pissed me off quite frankly... you couldn't make your point so you throw up a link to "shock the loonies". don't get me wrong, i'm not a completely cold, heartless bitch...it is sad... i don't think anyone has said that abortion is all sunshine and rainbows.... most of us knows what happens when someone has an abortion.
maybe you should suss out some photos of crack babies....better yet... go to your local NICU and watch a crack addicted baby go through withdrawls.... or... go to the morgue... have a lookieloo at the bodies of physically and sexually abused kids. those images shock me more than your nasty lil abortion photos. i'm sorry, but i would rather women have abortions rather than have children suffer in any way, because they aren't wanted.
if people like you put half as much energy into saving the lives of children already living in horrid conditions and less time trying to shock and scare women out of having abortions it would be a much better world.




__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Web.

I don't think you can compare a fetus to an appendix.

My father is a WWII veteran and saw much carnage when
he hit the beach at Normandy after the invasion on D-Day.
All those dead bodies, blood and parts he had to pick up and
pile. But my father cannot look at these pictures of aborted fetus because it breaks his heart. Is this what he faught in
the war for. To give us freedom to pull apart baby body
parts in the womb? I guess he sees it different from you.

Lcn

We have to be accountable. Society has to be accountable. We are all in this world together as a people. We can figure something out. But exterminating a human person is not the answer to lifes problems. Somebody does want those unwanted children. So your saying all those sick babies should never have been born? Tell that to the one who loves them and care for them
at hospitals. Will they say the same thing? How about the mentally handicapped and retarted or deformed. Should they have been born too?

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

vr - maybe my choice of words wasn't quite appropriate. my point is simply that to me, the idea that an entity has a soul (if one chooses to believe in that concept, which i do) at conception seems more plausible to me than the idea of a spirit floating from one entity to the next. seems strange to me that people would bash christians for unrealistic concepts then accept something like that as truth.

whatever the reactions to jade's pics, let me post some text that i picked out off the top of that page:

11 WEEKS AFTER CONCEPTION:
HEART IS BEATING (SINCE 18-25 DAYS)
BRAIN WAVES HAVE BEEN RECORDED AT 40 DAYS
THE BABY SQUINTS, SWALLOWS, AND CAN MAKE A FIST
THE BABY HAS FINGERPRINTS AND CAN KICK
THE BABY IS SENSITIVE TO HEAT, TOUCH, LIGHT AND NOISE
THE BABY SUCKS HIS OR HER THUMB
ALL BODY SYSTEMS ARE WORKING

first off, would you agree that this is accurate, and if so do you not agree that these functions indicate an independent entity? it seems that the idea of when a fetus is a person is the key to all the points involved. i do personally find the process of abortion disgusting as the pics indicated, but for the sake of this discussion i don't think that's necessarily relevant.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

I suppose that's a fair assessment, Fig. Either belief is as plausible as the other. My viewpoint just fits better with me. That isn't the problem at hand though. It's the understanding that it doesn't matter to others that I believe this. They don't accept this and don't seem understand that it is my intrinsic right to make choices based on my religion. Their religious views forbid them to have an abortion. Okay... that's fine... That means I can't force them to have one, the Constitution protects them. My religion says I am free to choose because the life that is coming will find another way regardless of what I choose. My religion states that it is MY responsibility to deal with the aftermath of my own choices. So who protects me? Right now the laws that protect us all, protect me. Do you want to set a precedent that allows the freedoms granted to us all to be stripped away one by one? Talk about walking backwards.

I don't know if I cna agree with all of those staements. It's a little obscure about the timelines involved. If the fetus is able to support itself seperately from the mother without the help of mahcines... then I would agree that 'all body systems are working.'

Jade - If so many people want these children... why are there so many unadopted children in the world today? Why should we produce more children to be adopted when the ones that are already here aren't being adopted in the first place. Lets help the ones who are here before worrying about the ones that are going to be coming later.

Logically and Emotionally, god doesn't influence my decisions. I do not believe in god in the sense that you do. Besides... How do you know that God didn't want this issue to be around to get people to choose. I mean why not throw something out there to test everyone. The blatant sinners are those who get the abortions but those he already knew about. It's those of the following that break His law that he's looking for. People who will ignore the 'Right' that He has set forth to push their own agenda. If God wants this to stop, He'll make it stop. Who are you to take His laws into your own hands?

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 05-09-2003).]

I think that abortion should not be done unless the women was raped or the baby has no chance at all of survival. I once did a highschool debate about this subject. And I found that some doctors go in and remove the childs brain and they consider that abortion. That is just wrong, and disgusting. I also think that most women who have abortions are promiscuous and just do it as a easy way out. Which I think they need some rude awakenings! Just my opinion.

BiGCaC

Ok., let's put this topic in perspective, shall we? Let's say that abortion is outlawed. No woman can legally have one (it's considered murder). First of all, what happens to a woman that does have one anyway (illegally) and is caught? Does she get the death penalty in, say, Texas? Spend her life in prison? What about the 'doctor' (person) administering the proceedure?

And since the proceedure is illegal, the safty of the mother will drop dramatically...as the penalties are severe (for both involved)...and anyone could 'offer' to do it...a lot of 'mothers' are risking their lives, by deciding to have one...so, accordingly, two lives are at risk....great risk. And prices will go up...way up. Now, only well-off women can afford it. Well, I guess there will be those offering abortion cheaply...but at much greater risk (the ol' coat-hanger method...)

Fact is, the 'right to lifers' have not offered a better solution to this. Without a better solution, how can one force this type of decision onto someone else? Why don't the 'right to lifers' attempt to change the system offering a better solution! This would have the desired result, without forcing beliefs on someone else...

Adoption? Well, then make the laws surrounding adoption easier, and better. Support networks outside of the Church, to help expecting mothers find surrogate parents...without all the red tape. Problem is, you are still dealing with people...how does one know that they really do want the child, and will establish a loving bond to a child that is not thiers? And who really wants a mentally disabled child? So what happens to these children? An orphanage?

Fact is, we've seen these systems before....and they were for the most part horrible. That's why the laws changed.

Provide a better solution to abortion, and I think many will listen...I just don't see this being done.

And don't come at me with the 'chastity' (celibate) thing...we all know that doesn't work. And even despite very good birth control these days, women still get pregnant unwillingly...for example, my older sister. She got pregnant despite a condom and birth control pills...Life always finds a way...

Fact is, women will get pregnant...we need to deal with this issue. When it is unwanted, what to do? At this time, abortion is the only option, that best considers all these issues.

Provide a better one.

my position on abortion is based on remembering what it was like before abortion was legal in this country (usa).. i am for keeping abortion legal.

before it was legal, only those women able to travel to another country, where it was legal, got medically safe abortions.
before it was legal, girls and women who were raped had to bear the child who would remind them constantly of their trauma.
before it was legal, it cost thousands of dollars to get a 'back alley' abortion.
before it was legal here, too many women and girls died as a result of infections, chop jobs and/or bleeding to death from a 'back alley' abortion.
going back to that would be reinstituting a nightmare in our midst!

i am thankful mothers no longer have to worry that their daughters may find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy and decided to find a 'back alley' abortionist!!! is that too pragmatic? too bad, it's my opinion that i formed as a child after reading a few horror stories in the newspapers about some young girl trying to end an unwanted pregnancy.

the social consequences for pregnancy before marriage were a lot worse when i was young.. not at all like today. some young women caved in before that social pressure and tried to find a way out.. and the choices she had were few. have the child and give it up? to whom? not all homes are created equal. have the child and live an ostracized life? wonder what the child looked like and how it was growing w/o ever knowing? lovely, some, but not all women can live like this. or, find an abortionist who may kill you and the unborn fetus? ick. legalizing abortion ended the nightmare.

do i sound a bit irate? yes, i am passionate on this issue and nothing you can say will make me agree to go back to that nightmare.. it's not about killing children- the suggestion that it is is abominable. this is about a woman's choice to do what she will with her body. period.

if you want to make it illegal? adopt a child or two to prove you are thinking about providing good homes for unwanted children (that 'you' is anyone on the supposedly 'right to life' side of the argument). until then, imho, you have no legs to stand on. and don't ask me more questions. that is my opinion and in all the years i have heard the debate, nothing has made me see a nightmare as more desireable than making medically safe abortions legal.

fig

quote:

---

maybe my choice of words wasn't quite appropriate. my point is simply that to me, the idea that an entity has a soul (if one chooses to believe in that concept, which i do) at conception seems more plausible to me than the idea of a spirit floating from one entity to the next. seems strange to me that people would bash christians for unrealistic concepts then accept something like that as truth.

---

i didn't bash christians, nor did i say i accepted that point of view (though i wonder about it). my point was that you had bashed the hindu point of view. they may see your point of view as unrealistic?

I just I'd toss in one thought I mentioned the last time we had this discussion.

Let's continue to play with the thought that Abortion equals Murder in the legal sense.

Now imagine the mother to be slips and falls or does some other unintentional harm to her self, thus creating a miscarriage.

Should she then be be accused of manslaughter?
She has after all taken the life of her child, although unintentionally?

According to the abortion=murder-thesis she has to be.

And for the idea that all those unwanted children having someone who wants them... well that's reaching for it. Howcome then that there are so many children suffering these days?

So my standpoint is that abortion should be legal, but preferably preceded by counceling. It's not a contraceptive method, but a child has the right to be wanted in this world!

the "bash" comment was more a generic observation and not at all intended at you vr, no offense taken or intended, just trying to point out that the opinion of someone else's view works both ways. it does tend to seem like in general its ok to criticize/bash/make fun of christian beliefs, whereas the second you have an opinion of someone whose beliefs are muslim/hindu/etc. you're intolerant and closed-minded.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

http://www.g-fresh.de/grocery_store_kid_no_candy.avi

www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/the-hand.html

mmmmmkk.... i know i'm going to sound like an asshole for saying it... but uhh, im just gonna butt in...

for one, i'm just gonna state my personal view on the whole thing, i've avoided the topic for a while now. ....
1) If you dont think you're fit for being a parent (i could go into what i think determines the fitness of a parent) then i dont think abortion is the best option... i would most likely say giving up your child for adoption is the best choice. Why worry over the morals of killing a living thing whether it has thought or not when there are obvious alternatives? Who are YOU to decide that the child doesn't deserve life? Its not his/her fault that you screwed it up for him. I believe there are exceptions. cases where you know the child is going to be severely handicapped (as in, unable to perform functions necessary to live/carry out life) or has some other outstanding problem.
2) You can make your point without posting disgusting pictures, please. If i wanna talk about shit, i dont post pictures of shit on the boards, alright? Shit is pretty nasty, we all know it, so we dont want to see it. We would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

maybe i'll think of more on my opinion later.

Jade, you still haven't provided a reasonable alternative to abortion. I suspect that the reason is, that you cannot.

Therefore, your tactics are wrong. Because you won't be fixing the problem, only making it worse.

And if you are so 'concerned' about Life, then are you also against the Death penalty? What about War?

I don't know what your father experienced in the war...but I do know what I experienced...and I'm not going to go into details here...let's just say, that seeing a fetus doesn't bother me in the least bit...

It's just tissue...nothing more, nothing less...

SZ,
Why is this pic "hand of hope" so disgusting to you?

I don't think that pic of little Samuel represents " a shit " If the other pics on abortion are so gross to you, then it proves my point that abortion is a very disgusting horrible act. It is just convienent for you to look the other way and pretend the horrors of abortion don't happen. Out of sight, out of mind?

Web,

The alternative to abortion, is do not abort. The act of abortion is a very selfish act. It is the epitome of selfishness,
where the life of the mother is more important than the life of the her child. Her need and desires are primary. The childs life isn't even secondary. Its obsolete. Its plead to live is unheard. It screams silently in the womb. How do we know what spiritually happens in the womb for the child? How do we know what kind of spiritual energy it radiates? When we terminate its spirtitual energy, it effects us all, because it is connected to us too.

I am so sick of hearing about going back to "back ally abortions." If the mother takes the risk of loosing both her life and the life to the child from an illegal abotion, lets see it for what it really is, a selfishness, not being accountable, taking the easy way out and me first, me God.






[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-14-2003).]

Pathos pathos pathos pathos
No logos, no ethos
Not even very good pathos

There are lots of things that are gross but that are not murder.
There are lots of things that are gross but that are not even bad.
Simply saying something is gross (and posting pictures to 'prove' it!) is not careful rhetoric. It's childish.

I've been following silently for a while, and I'm disappointed. I can't decide if you are making a conscious effort to continually obfuscate the discussion or if you truly don't know how to make rational points, backed up with facts...or even well reasoned opinion.

Give me something, anything at all, that shows that you've thought about the consequences of making law based on your spiritual beliefs. I'm not denying your right to have those beliefs. What I am not understanding is your insistance that your opinions should be the basis for US law.

Can we make laws based on MY spiritual beliefs?
Would you accept them?
I've asked before if, based on my vegetarianism, you would accept the criminality of eating meat. You didn't answer. It would be nice to get an answer from you.

*Would you support or oppose a law banning the slaughter of animals for human consumption?*

You've openly stated here that you think the use of contraception, even within the context of a marriage, is immoral. Why not make possession of contraception illegal? Certianly a sperm or an egg is potential life. Using contraception might as well be murder! Who are people to decide when life will happen or not? That is like playing god!

Contraception = Incarceration!
Use the Pill, get the Chill!
Evade the knock up, get the lock up!

You once (earlier in the previous thread) advocated a theocracy of sorts. You said that laws concerning 'morals' should not be handled through the normal Liberal and constitutional process, but instead led by somebody else (who, at this point, remains unclear).
I asked you 'Where do you draw the line?' and recieved no answer. I would like one. It would help me understand a lot of your approach to this issue.

*Which issues are to be handled by 'others' and which by the normal Liberal process?*
*Who, exactly, are those 'others'?*

I'm frustrated by your repeated evasion of legitimate questions concerning the use of religion, god, spirtuality, personal opinion -- anything other than reason, science and logic -- to write US laws. I don't think you understand the consequences of such an action. Maybe you do, but you haven't shown it here.

Jade we've already discussed your opinion

quote:

---

Web,

The alternative to abortion, is do not abort. The act of abortion is a very selfish act. It is the epitome of selfishness,
where the life of the mother is more important than the life of the her child. Her need and desires are primary. The childs life isn't even secondary. Its obsolete. Its plead to live is unheard. It screams silently in the womb. How do we know what spiritually happens in the womb for the child? How do we know what kind of spiritual energy it radiates? When we terminate its spirtitual energy, it effects us all, because it is connected to us too.

I am so sick of hearing about going back to "back ally abortions." If the mother takes the risk of loosing both her life and the life to the child from an illegal abotion, lets see it for what it really is, a selfishness, not being accountable, taking the easy way out and me first, me God.

---

and it is not a reasonable way to replace abortion, and certainly not a basis for a law.

If that is your 'concept' or basis, for your 'law' then that is scary...and another thing - what if the 'moral' responsibility (and laws) are decided by a religion different than yours? How about an Islamic moral authority? Because it's the same thing, really...just different than your religion...

'We are right, you are wrong'...okay...I see real problems with this. But as long as it is only your opinion, that's fine...but as a law? Or a moral authority, telling me (and everyone else) what is wrong or right? Sorry, but I don't agree...and I think most will not. Because you are assuming, that your religion is the one that's going to be deciding...what if it isn't? And even if it is, which 'group' of christianity? Ban the books...they are evil! Ban films...they are evil! Ban everything...like some groups of christianity?

*shakes head*

If you open that can of worms...I don't think you have really thought this through.

Mbl.

You know my oppostion to abortion is for me a religious issue and I know there are many religions out there, but tell me which sect thinks abortion is ok and is a good thing? What sect in our society will agree with you.

Let me not impose my religious beliefs on you and lets look at this as a human rights issue. Have you really read this statement from our founding fathers of the US of A.

"we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are CREATED equal and that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights - of LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Who would be the creator in this statement" Would it be GOD and would God be the endower? If so, how does God endow us?

I am sure you say that this is a human & civil rights statement for our nations and others as well? And don't we make laws to protect these rights? We know by looking at the pics I posted on this thread that the fetus is a human person. Even though the fetus is within the womb, its a functioning human in its infancy. So obviously, killing it is bad. Not a good thing.

Who really decides on the abortion issue, the woman or the government? I believe that the government should stay out of this very private matter. Since abortion was legalized look at all the paid advertisements by the pro-abortion leaders using the same party line, plus the cooperation of the very liberal media, ABC for one, which by far succeeded in changing the terms of the on-going debate. Lots of political wanabes were led to believe being pro-choice was the winning side. So if they were anti-abortion B-4, they now became pro-abortion to win the election. Of course the pro-life side loosing their political strength. They were quoted as saying "Yeah, I am convinced the fetus is a living person and for myself, I would never have one, but I wouldn't tell anybody else they shouldn't have an abortion, so I will not seek laws to abolish it. So here we have some confused politicans swaying to public opinion so they can get elected or re-elected. And public opinion has swayed non-deciders to think pro-lifers are a bunch of religious zealots who don't care for the needs of the mother, who shoot abortionist and burn down clinics. This is what the pro-abortist want the public to think. But in reality we care for both mother and child.

I would want an ammendment to the US constitution that will give equal protection under the law to all living humans from the time their biological life begins at conception and to natural death. It might look like a long shot, but I believe in the future it could happen. It would first be a good thing if the goverment gave each state the rights to determine abortion themselves. This would take out the federal judges completely.
So far the pro-life movement has been successful in pushing for parental notification,the right for the woman to know all the information about the procedure before making up her mind, forbidding certain types of abortions, like partial-birth, taxpayers money being used to pay for abortions, overall state & health regulations. All this has come in to focus thur the pro-life cause not the por-choice side.

I think the adoptions laws should be made easier for couples to adopt. Now it is so difficult to for an adoption with so much red tape and money involved. I think this should be looked at and laws passed to guarantee a child should have to the opportunity to be raised in a loving home instead of foster care, in which he/she is moved from one home to another. A Planned Parenthood employee will tell and unmarried teenager that it would be a fate worst than death to put her child up for adoption.

You know legalizing abortion was sold to us so it would be the cure to our social ills, but women are still having illegimate babies, there are still single moms, there is still violent crime, teen suicide and terrible teen dysfunction and many children still on welfare. Why isn't aborting helping society?

You know contraception is not comparable to murder of an innocent life. It is not permissible for a catholics to use as part of our teaching.

Now if your into casual sex & sex anytime you want it, you would think to use a contraceptive. Just because the liberal minded think that sex is ok outside of marriage doesnt mean its ok. Look at diseases, possible pregnancy, etc it involves.

Jade - you're missing the point.

Legal abortions are not legal to improve society - they are legal to prevent women from causing greater danger to themselves by seeking to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in another fashion.

If the practice of medically safe and legal abortions is made illegal, it will not stop women from seeking to terminate unwanted pregnancies. It doesn't matter what you, personally, believe is right or wrong.

The morality of the issue is not in question. Certainly, if you think it is wrong, you should not be forced or coerced in any way to have one. And you should not be expected to encourage it, by any stretch of the imagination. No one has said that.

However, what is in question, is whether or not your specific beliefs and moral views should be the basis for the making of laws that affect everyone in a country that was founded on principles of religious freedom. To say that this should be the case goes completely against everything that this nation was founded on.

Regardless of the personal religious beliefs of the men who wrote the Constitution, they believed that the government should not be involved in the moral lives of it's people. So their personal influences crept into the writing of government documents. Does that mean that everyone in the USA has to believe in the Christian God and the teachings of the Catholic Church? I don't see that written anywhere. In fact, I believe it was the difficulty of reconciling church and state that was the impetus for creating our government in this fashion in the first place.

This is the reason that this issue is always the subject of such fierce debate. What most pro-life supporters fail to recognize is that we are not dealing with a simple moral question. What we are dealing with is a public health question - simply due to the fact that there is no way to prevent illegal abortions from occurring, and thus endangering not only the lives of the women who choose to terminate a pregnancy, but in many cases, the ability for that woman to have children when the time is right for her to do so.

And in your long post, you still did not answer Mobrul's question:

quote:

---

Can we make laws based on MY spiritual beliefs?
Would you accept them?
I've asked before if, based on my vegetarianism, you would accept the criminality of eating meat. You didn't answer. It would be nice to get an answer from you.

*Would you support or oppose a law banning the slaughter of animals for human consumption?*

---

Animals are life too, if you want to go there - I don't eat meat either. So in mine and Mobrul's utopia - if you enjoy a juicy steak or burger, well, you're just immoral - killing an animal to sustain your own petty, selfish life. For shame! (That's "YOU" collective, mind you - not a personal attack, but think about it anyway...)

Think very carefully about how much religious thought you really want to bring into the laws that are created. They are for you AND me, and Mobrul, and WebShaman, and anyone else who lives in the US. And by virtue of living in this country, we are not required by anyone to share the same religious views. Therefore, any laws that are put into place, must take that into account.

Make it safer, educate the public more on how to prevent pregnancy (including abstinence), but DO NOT make it illegal. No pictures you can show me, no Christian dogma you can teach me will convince me that making abortion illegal will make unwanted pregnancies go away. It will only create more suffering for the women who feel that this is their only solution. And a public health problem that the government will then have to deal with.

Bodhi - Cell 617

quote:

---

You know my oppostion to abortion is for me a religious issue and I know there are many religions out there, but tell me which sect thinks abortion is ok and is a good thing? What sect in our society will agree with you.

---

Jade, I don't think anyone here has stated that abortion is a good thing. It is an unfortunate and sad fact of life. I guess in some obscure fashion abortion can be seen as a selfish act. But let me ask you something... Do you do the will of God and live by your Christian values as a completely selfless act, or does the reward of heaven mean absolutely nothing to you? The point being is that even the most selfless acts have selfish roots.

A woman's choice to have an abortion is not an easy one. (Now I know there are some out there who have had multiple abortions and could really care less.) But for the majority, even those who are terminating a pregnancy that originated in a rape it is still a very hard decision. And what of the husband who agrees that his wife should have an abortion because continuing the pregnancy would very likely kill the mother? Abortion is not something doctors recommend lightly.

quote:

---

A Planned Parenthood employee will tell and unmarried teenager that it would be a fate worst than death to put her child up for adoption.

---

I don't know which one you were at, but the one that I went to had all type of options. Hence the name "Planned Parenthood". There was certainly more reading material about the alternatives to abortion that there were advocating the procedure. And all of the employees that I spoke with advocated the alternatives. (No, I was not in the clinic looking for an abortion. I simply asked all the questions before something unplanned occured so I would know all my options.)

bohdi-I agree with everything in your last couple of posts. (umm... except for the vegetarian thing... please don't take my steak away! )

*AHEM*

Wiccan's don't have any issue with abortions... If you want one, get one. If you don't, don't. But don't EVER force someone to get one, or stop someone who wants one from getting one. It is THEIR choice and THEIR responsibility. THEY will reap the consequences for their actions. So lets make my religious views law... everyone can do anything they want, until they're hurting someone. Then they are wholly accountable for what they've done.

quote:

---

"we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are CREATED equal and that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights - of LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Who would be the creator in this statement" Would it be GOD and would God be the endower? If so, how does God endow us?

---

It could be god... I'm more for going to my mother and father as my creators though, at least of this life that exists as it is now. They helped shape me and protect me and give me the right to become myself.

quote:

---

I would want an ammendment to the US constitution that will give equal protection under the law to all living humans from the time their biological life begins at conception and to natural death. It might look like a long shot, but I believe in the future it could happen. It would first be a good thing if the goverment gave each state the rights to determine abortion themselves. This would take out the federal judges completely.

---

Therein lies the problem... no one can decide when a human's biological life begins. And the states already govern this issue on their own.

quote:

---

A Planned Parenthood employee will tell and unmarried teenager that it would be a fate worst than death to put her child up for adoption.

---

I find that to be primarily unbelievable and a more than slightly alarmist stance to be taking. A planned parenthood employee will tell the mother-to-be what her options are and find out what the mother-to-be wants or thinks is best for her. I do agree that adoption laws should be looked at... I think there are far too many children being 'passed around.' I still weant to make sure they end up in good homes however, hence at least some of the red tape neeeds to stay.

quote:

---

You know legalizing abortion was sold to us so it would be the cure to our social ills, but women are still having illegimate babies, there are still single moms, there is still violent crime, teen suicide and terrible teen dysfunction and many children still on welfare. Why isn't aborting helping society?

---

Firstly... it isn't here to cure social ills. It's here to give womena better choice than back alley abortions. The reasons that there are still single mothers is because some women CHOOSE not to have an abortion. Violent crime, teen suicide, teen dysfunction, and children on welfare are not really applicable to this arguement. These are ills of society as a whole that society needs to work on. Abortion was not proposed as the answer to all of these problems. If you truly think that then you are more beyond reason then I thought.

quote:

---

Now if your into casual sex & sex anytime you want it, you would think to use a contraceptive. Just because the liberal minded think that sex is ok outside of marriage doesnt mean its ok. Look at diseases, possible pregnancy, etc it involves.

---

I'm not into casual sex. I think it's more fun when you put some effort into it. I do try and get sex as often as I can, however. I'm not promiscuous and I'm not married. I do only sleep with one woman though. It would be foolish for us to not be careful at this point in our lives. We are not prepared to have children right now. The reason that we sleep together is because that is one of the myriad ways that we express our love for one another.

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 05-16-2003).]

The 'creator' could also be a natural process...and the inalienable rights natural rights...to be self-evident, so to speak. So no, I don't really see a direct reference to religion, or a God (or gods) here...and definitely not a reference to the christian God. Otherwise, it would state that.

Also, the issue of abortion is not a religious theme, irregardless of those who wish to make it so. Rather, it is one of sociatal law (this has been mentioned, time and again...how long must this be reinforced?).

In a society, that doesn't necessarily hold the sanctity of Life as the highest position (like the US - consider that we do have the death penalty, and are willing to go to war in Iraq), I think that using such 'arguments' are irrelavant here. One has the right to Life, Liberty, and Happiness, so long as it is not adversely affecting others! As the unborn child could have an adverse effect on the mother, then I see no real problem with allowing abortion for exactly this reason. As to what is an 'adverse effect', because of this issue, it is largely for the individual in question to determine that! As a society, we have the right to determine when the life that is affected is, in fact, a life...for the door swings both ways. And for us to do this objectively, we choose Science, to do this, for it is the most objective tool that we have.

So, the current laws that we have regarding abortion (though there are those on both sides of the fence that disagree) are good enough, IMHO. The Laws do not swing to the far right, and do not swing to the far left...therefore, more people are covered...and the issue, as a whole, is justly served on a basis of the majority.

Changing this, is dangerous, IMHO, for then the laws will no longer be those that serve the majority, but that of the minority at the cost of the majority. This cannot be a just set of laws, obviously, when only a minority are enjoying the 'benefits', at cost to the majority. And the costs to the majority would be (and were, in the past) high...and are often a matter of life and death.

The great thing about the laws, as they now stand, is that abortion (to a point - determined by Science as to when a life is self-supporting) is not enforced in this country...it is one of free will. Thus, no-ones rights are being violated, here. To those, who do not wish to have one, they don't have to. To those, that do, as long as the criteria are met, they can under safe and humane conditions.

MD - I would only take it away in my utopia... Since we don't live there - I don't think you have to worry about it!

It is also true, that because of the rights we have as people in this society, Jade, you also have the right to protest, peacefully, against things you think should be changed. No one is denying you that right. Protests have brought about many good changes.

But when you protest, remember to protest about things that will help society to improve - not things that will put us back into the dark ages. When I think about the things that women have tried to do in order to terminate an unwanted pregnancy during times when it was illegal - I simply shudder. And no amount of protest will make that go away.

Picture this, since you're so keen on images:
A 14 year old girl alone in a bathroom, using a coathanger to rid herself of a pregnancy that occurred because some teenaged boy couldn't understand the word no. She feels it necessary because she fears how her parents and society will look at her, a teenager with a baby; her life is ruined. Picture that same teenager several hours later, bleeding to death on the floor because in her desperation she tore herself internally.
This sort of thing happens. It still happens. Much less frequently because abortions are legal now. Not everyone has the comfort and support of a loving family or other social group. Laws have to cover those people too.



Bodhi - Cell 617

Animal Abortion Clinic

Anchorman Peter Rivera: Welcome to News-channel 6. Out top story today takes place at the newly opened AA Clinic (Animal Abortion Clinic). Protesters and supporters have gathered outside. But before we take you to the action, we have a News Channel 6 exclusive interview with the clinic?s controversial proprietor, Dr. Algore Vorkian. With the interview, here?s Hillary Clift.

HC: Dr. Vorkian, what gave you the idea to open up an Animal Abortion Clinic?

AV: Animals should have the same rights as people. Women have the right to abortions, so animals should have that right also.

HC: How do you respond to your critics who claim that, for example, a dog abortion, is the senseless killing of innocent puppies.

AV: It?s simple. The female dog?s right of choice outweighs the potential puppies right to life. Remember, the puppies¾ I mean fetuses¾ are only potential life until they are completely born.

HC: Yes, but aren?t they usually fully formed, with paws, ears, heartbeat, and hair?

AV: Technically, yes. But the courts have ruled that it is only "potential" life and not protected by the SPCA and animal cruelty laws until birth. The one exception to this are animals on the endangered species list. It?s illegal to abort them even if the animal mother so desires. Nature?s right to diverse speciation over rules the animals right to abortion.

HC: I see. Nature?s right to have a variety of species is greater than the animal?s right not to have babies, which in turn is greater than the babies? right to life?

AV: Exactly!

HC: What procedures do you have to perform abortions.

AV: Our techniques are similar to human abortions, with a few modifications and different names. The most common methods for human abortions are the Suction Aspiration, D & C, D & E, and Saline injection types.

HC: Could you describe some of these techniques?

AV: Well, in the suction type, we insert a powerful mini-vacuum into the animal?s uterus. The vacuum has a suction force some 28 times greater than your normal household vacuum. Using this device, we suck out the contents of the uterus¾ placenta, fetuses, and whatever. The contents are sucked into a container to be disposed of.

HC: It sounds rather barbaric.

AV: Remember, these are not living animals, they are only potentially alive. This is no worse than what goes on in human abortion clinics every day and you don?t hear the media calling that barbaric.

HC: Haven?t some animal mothers been seriously injured as a result of this procedure?

AV: Well, we are not required to keep statistics on these matters. I?m sure there are injuries, but we are not sure about the extent of these injuries.

HC: What about the other procedures?

AV: Well, we use two other procedures. One is the saline injection. We call this "fried puppy" method.

HC: Isn?t that rather heartless?

AV: The method or the name?

HC: Both!

AV: Well, the name is a way for us in the business to divert ourselves from the seriousness and the implications of what we are doing. As for the procedure, it burns and poisons the animals so that they look shriveled and "fried."

HC: You mentioned two other procedures, what is the other one?

AV: We use the C & V procedure for pedigreed animals. This is the same as a D & C abortion for humans, only we changed the name to more aptly describe the procedure.

HC: What is C & V?

AV: Well, just as a D & C (Dilation and Curettage), a sharp knife is inserted into the womb and the fetuses are cut apart and then removed. We then re-assemble the body parts to make sure we have them all. We do not want to leave any parts in the womb in order to prevent infection in the pedigreed mother. This can be difficult to do when there are multiple fetuses, especially if there are 5 or more puppies¾ I mean fetuses.

HC: Isn?t this method a little cruel?

AV: Possibly, to the uninitiated. But it is quite effective. For example, in a seven-puppy pregnancy, usually six are mutilated beyond recognition, while only one is vacuumed with its head or legs still intact. When you compare that to human abortions, which almost always leave some recognizable body parts, you?ll find that our method is much more efficient.

HC: By the way, you said you call the procedure C & V, not D & C. Why?

AV: Like I said, we renamed the procedure to more aptly describe what happens. We call it Chainsaw and Vacuum.

HC: What are your future plans?

AV: we hope to open up AA Clinics nation wide so that every animal can exercise its right to control its own body. For too long now, animals have had no other choice. It was get pregnant and let nature take its course. Now the animal can have a choice that nature does not allow.

HC: But earlier you said that nature?s right to diverse species was greater than the animal?s right to have an abortion. Now you are saying that the animal has a right to go against nature.

AV: Well, yes. There is a difference between what is good for nature as a whole and a specific event, such as a birth, that takes place within nature. You see, there are no absolutes in nature.

HC: What about spaying and neutering?

AV: Those are still choices, but I think we have the better solution. This way the animal does not have to fear the consequences of never being able to bear offspring. That possibility is still open. We are giving them an alternative¾ a choice for all free, open-minded, self-serving, animals to have an abortion if they want to. We have a slogan, "Abort an animal a day, watch the strays go away."

Anchorman PR: Now we go live to the AA Clinic where correspondent Dan Brokaw is reporting.

DB: Thank you Peter. I?m standing on 34th Street right across from the newly opened clinic. As you can see, both supporters and protesters are marching out front voicing their opinion on the clinic.

PR: Dan, who seems to be in charge of the protests?

DB: well, there are several animal rights advocacy groups who are opposed to the clinic. They are fearful that this will be the first step in a slippery slope devaluating the value of animal life. They seem to be spearheaded by the SPCA, which sees the clinic as promoting cruelty to animals. Earlier, I talked to the head of the SPCA, James Audubon.

Break to Interview

DB: Thank you Mr. Audubon for speaking with us. Tell me, why are you so opposed to the Animal Abortion Clinic.

JA: For several reasons. First, it is cruel to the mother. No one wants to admit it or talk about it, but abortions are harmful to the health of the mother. Animals that have abortions have psychological, almost guilt like symptoms, when the abortions are performed. At least 1 in 10 experience physical side effects that are detrimental the animal?s health.

Then, too, it is cruel and inhumane to kill the fetuses in such an inhumane manner. We know that the fetuses are capable of feeling pain before they are born. Therefore, an abortion, inflicts severe pain to the fetuses.

DB: But aren?t they just that, fetuses, and therefore, not really animals in the fullest since.

JA: Listen, they were distinct organisms from the moment of conception. They were alive from that point and therefore, to harm them on purpose is tantamount to cruelty.

DB: But I thought the courts decided that life doesn?t begin until birth.

JA: Actually, they determined that it might begin at viability, but viability is an ambiguous term. Science tells us that life begins at conception. You can?t argue with science unless you use emotionally charged stories coupled with erroneous facts.

DB: What do you say to those who charge you with hypocrisy? You know, you are in favor of the death penalty for animals. The SPCA "puts to sleep" thousands of animals every day. Isn?t this cruelty to animals?

JA: This is not cruelty, this is doing them a service. We are alleviating their suffering. Since their quality of life has diminished, it seems best to go ahead and euthanize them. This is a far cry from killing, say, a puppy that still has a good quality of life ahead of it.

DB: But wouldn?t Dr. Vorkian, the head of the clinic, argue that he too is promoting the quality of life?

JA: What do you mean?

DB: Well, wouldn?t he argue that he is providing the mother a better quality of life by offering her an abortion. She is not burdened with caring for the puppies or nursing them. She can go ahead and get on with her life.

JA: Maybe so, but it doesn?t follow. What is more important, her quality of life or the puppies? right to life?

DB: What about those who are using physical, even violent means to protest the clinics?

JA: I guess you are referring to groups like Operation Salvation. While we sympathize with their position, we disagree with their methods and think that they will actually do more harm than good. Even if they were justified in their actions, which I don?t think they are, their method is not going to help us win this battle in the long run. Violence will not prevent cruelty and senseless killing. It will only promote it. It is hypocritical to use violence against humans to prevent violence against animals.

DB: How do you plan to protest then?

JA: Well, I am sure that we will try to use the judicial system if possible. The science technology is available to prove our position if we can get a court to hear our case. Second, we will continue to try to educate the masses showing what abortion is really like. It is amazing how many change their minds after hearing a presentation of the facts.

DB: Thank you Dr. Audubon for being with us.

DB: Peter, things are heating up out here. The animal rights people are almost at an evangelistic fervor as they march in front of the clinic while the clinic supporters are hurling all kinds of epithets at the protestors.

PR: Dan, have you been able to talk to any of the crowd?

DB: I?m heading over to the clinic supporters right now.

DB: Hi! This is Dan Brokaw with Channel 6 News. Tell me, why are you out here in support of the clinic?

CS1: These fanatical, animal extremists are going to take away my animal?s freedom. My dog has a right to do with her body what she or I want her to do. Besides, my dog is only 1 year old and is too young to have puppies. She?s not ready for the responsibility.

CS2: Yeah, I already have 3 dogs. I don?t have room for any more.

DB: Why not give them up for adoption?

CS2: Too much hassle.

DB: You just said that your dog has the right to do with her body what you or she wants. Why do you have a say in it? Shouldn?t it just be the dog?s choice?

CS1: Listen, the dog is mine. She can?t make this decision on her own. She needs me as a counselor.

DB: But aren?t you only providing her with one option, without showing her the other possibilities?

CS1: Listen, I?m giving her the best option. If it?s the best, why tell her about the others?

DB: What if it?s not the best?

CS1: Listen, I decide what is best. I?m more educated than my dog. She needs my counsel and I say abortion is the answer!

CS3: Besides, we need abortion because many of the fathers won?t take responsibility for their actions. In many cases we don?t even know who the father is.

DB: Is that the puppy?s fault? Do you punish or kill the puppy for the father?s negligence?

CS3: Listen, until it is born, it ain?t no puppy, it?s just a fetus. It?s just an unwanted consequence of animal behavior.

DB: So the solution is to kill the consequence instead of curb the behavior?

CS3: It?s not killing if it isn?t living. Yes, we should try to curb the behavior, too. But animals are going to do it anyway! We need some sort of solution.

DB: There you have it Peter. I?ll report back in a minute from the other side.

PR: Thanks Dan. While we are waiting for Dan to cross the street, let me tell you that the police are in the area to make sure that violence doesn?t break out between the two groups. Also, armored guards have been called in to escort the clinic?s first deposit to the bank. According to sources inside the clinic, the clinic made over $26,000 in its first week of operation. That translates into 1.3 million dollars per year. I think Dan is ready for his report.

DB: Thanks Peter. I?m here with Eleanor Boxer. Eleanor, why are you out here protesting the clinic?

EB: It is unconscionable to think that we would allow this barbaric murdering of innocent animals to be taking place in our city. Listen, there are plenty of homes willing to take these animals in. These mothers?s are being so selfish. They are only thinking about themselves, not their offspring.

DB: But isn?t it their right to have an abortion if they want to?

EB: Do I have a right to murder? No. This is nothing more than people and animals ignoring the plain facts of the situation. There is no way that you can say that the "fetuses" are not lives that deserve protection. You can?t argue against it scientifically, theologically, logically, or morally. It is pure selfishness, irresponsibility, and money that fuel the abortion side.

DB: But hasn?t the Supreme Court decided that this is a right granted by the Constitution?

EB: I have two responses to that. The Supreme Court was wrong. A bunch of liberal, judicial activist judges made law while ignoring the evidence at hand. They admitted that if it can be proved that the fetus is indeed a life, then the "appellant?s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus? right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment." Well, it can be shown that it is a life and therefore, the arguments used should be considered moot."

Second, abortion stops a beating heart. By the time you know that the dog is pregnant, the puppies? hearts are already beating. It?s not just a mass of tissue, it?s a beating heart with lungs, blood, eyes, paws, and a cute little tail.

DB: Isn?t that Barbara Rodham over there?

EB: You know her?

DB: I?ve been following the animal rights movement for quite a while. Wasn?t she jailed for protesting the first AA Clinic when it opened last year in New York?

EB: Yes, she was. Do you know why she was arrested?

DB: I read that she created quite a scene when she presented the mayor of the city with a bag full of aborted puppies.

EB: Yes. She was trying to show in a real way, the awful, horrible nature of animal abortions.

DB: But isn?t that a little gross?

EB: It?s the procedure that is gross and uncivil, not showing the result of the procedure. No one complained too much about Spielberg?s movie Private Ryan even though it was very explicit. So why not showing a real atrocity. The left doesn?t mind showing blood and gore if it fits their agenda (even when they must re-interpret the facts), but they don?t like it when it contradicts their position and proves them wrong.

DB: Well, Peter, there you have it.

PR: Thank you Dan. Before we take a commercial break and come back for the weather, let me urge you to join us tomorrow night for a special report on the Anti-animal Abortion Movement.


This tidbit I found reflects to me how people equate human life with animal life. There is a big difference. Man is created in the image of God and animal subject to man for his pleasure. This would include eating animals, fish, fowl and having animals as pets. To equate the two is to dehumanize the integrity of the human person. Are we going to be eating aborted fetuses as well one day.

You know Morbul, I don't see the religious connection between veggies and an aborted fetus.

In my religion, people fast all the time, go without meat for days, weeks, months. I would say consuming veggies all day is a dietary issue in regard to ones belief or pursuit. In a religious fast some aim to sacrifice or do without for a cause. I do not aim to push the masses to fast and do without, however, if they would I believe this would be a better world. If you cannot distinguish between the issue of abortion vs vegetarianism then I am in a wonder. Abortion is a choice of a great evil and injustice to humanity, whereas eating veggies is choice of diet. One harms, the other doesn't.

I stated in my last post of abortion also being a civil and human rights issue. Along with my religious view on abortion.
One doesn't have to follow an organized structured religion to understand that terminating life in the womb is wrong. In the science and reasoning of determining life, the goverment has adhered to scientist. Must some presume that science(men) be the Gods?

This is what I don't understand - you are still trying to base this LEGAL matter on your RELIGION.

All of your arguments become completely pointless as soon as you say "because 'god'..."

You don't understand Mobrul's vegetarian analogy, because being a vegetarian is based on Mobrul's spiritual beliefs. He, along with a great number of people around the world from various religions, do believe that animal life is not ours to take, and that they were not put here by god for us to do with what we wish.

You made the case yourself for how absurd it would be for him to force his spiritual beliefs on you via law.

Why can't you see that it works the other way around as well??

There are an awful lot of valid questions that you are once again refusing to answer Jade...

DL


Oh. So a human fetus being aborted in the womb is less important than animals? An animal is of greater value to mankind, that some vegetarians feel they cannot eat of it? So I would even think to dictate to all mankind from a religious perspective not to eat meat so the world would be a better place to live? Excuse me if I do not understand this concept. A animal sacred but potential life not sacred? What is this world going to? Cats and dogs?

And like Morbul's spiritual belief (if that is what it is) designates he should not eat meat, my spirtiual belief is don't kill a possible DL-44, because he could have a value and destiny in this world. But then again so would a cow? I can't even think that being into veggies is comparable to the act of abortion.




[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-16-2003).]

That's the whole point Jade!

YOU have your spiritual beliefs.

Everyone else has their spiritual beliefs!

Would we make a law that nobody can eat meat, because that's what some people's spiritual beliefs say?

NO. that's the point.

YOUR spiritual beliefs are yours. Mobrul's are his. Neither of them is fit to be law strictly because of what those spiritual beliefs are.

Whether or not you can understand someone else's spiritual belief is totally irrelevant. On second thought, no - it's exactly the point: it's why we don't base our laws on our religion. If we lived under a catholic dictatorship, we could do that. Thankfully for everybody, we do not.

Can you understand that?

Jade - We ARE animals. We may be at the top of the list of animals but we're still on that list.

quote:

---

my spirtiual belief is don't kill a possible DL-44, because he could have a value and destiny in this world.

---

Good, Jade. Follow that belief. Don't force me too. If it is felt that a 'potential DL-44' would be more accepted/better off in another shell with a mother that wants him then someone else (i.e. the mother) will deal with it.

You have NO rights as they relate to me. I have EVERY right to defend myself from your deprecations.

How can you not see that you need a reason beyond religious persuasion before this can possibly be acceptable in a real world scenario?

You need to read further back than one or two posts as well. You miss a lot.

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

All this talk of vegetarianism and abortion makes me feel like having unprotected sex with a ribeye...

:::krets.net:::

DL

Catholic dictatorship?
Is that how you see it?
I think most catholics have the free will to be one.


I don't see abortion as a catholic issue as much as I see it as a mankind issue. For a better world, I would say don't kill off potential mankind like herds of cattle.

In the words of Mother Theresa of Calcutta,
"As long as there is abortions in the world, there will be no peace in the world"

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-16-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-16-2003).]

[edit: damn! I must learn to type faster.]

The issue is not comparing abortion to eating meat. That is not it at all. The issue is comparing my hypothetical act of forcing my spiritual beliefs (through law) on non-believers and you wishing to force your spiritual beliefs (through law) on non-believers. That is the comparison.

If you agree (and I think you do) that it is foolish for me to force my spiritual beliefs on you, you MUST agree that it is equally foolish for you to force your spiritual beliefs on me.

The issue is not the nature of the spiritual belief. The issue is the very act of using law (government) and all the force that goes with it to mandate a religious/spiritual act upon someone else.

It is just as wrong to force someone to take communion, prohibit someone from taking communion, force someone to attend a mass, prohibit abortion, force someone to attend a wiccan sabot (or whatever the hell they call their dancing around naked things ), prohibit someone from taking a pilgramage to Mecca or prohibit someone from eating meat.

You may force your religious beliefs on me and my children the instant I may force mine on you and yours. Deal?
'Til then, I'm very happy with the Bill of Rights just the way they are. You are welcome to not have an abortion anytime you wish. I am welcome to not eat meat anytime I wish.



[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 05-16-2003).]

LOL, krets... You just made my day!

Dangit, Mobrul... Very nice post... and just ahead of me.

And perchance did you mean dancing naked around things.... although dancing around naked things is fun too.

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

Mbl.

If we were to visualize a world without religions, common sense would tell us at least some of us to understand that we are not alone. There is a maker of all persons and things out there in the cosmos. Would it want us to determine thru the United States Bill of Rights that we are doing the right thing? Is a man made goverment law more important than a universal natural law? Which would you adhere to? The laws of nature or the laws of goverment? If you would adhere to both thought & reasoning, how would you determine if this science/government is right for us as people in regard to determining when life begins in the womb?

My common sense tells me that nature made us all... and natural law dictates that the strong survive and the weak die off. Nature also dictates that we (humans) aren't any more special than other animals. Smarter? Yes. More special? No.

Some animals kill or abandon their young when they are unable to care for them. Cruel? Maybe. necessary for the mother's survival... more than likely. Granted this isn't the exact cases we're speaking of but it's still a point you refuse to see.

You're "god" has no power over me. Your faith can't dictate laws for those who don't believe in your faith. To do so would be a return to the crusades and the dark ages. When this country turns to religion (any religion) to make all of it's decisions... sigh... that's the day the world runs red with blood. If everyone agreed... then sure... but we don't. how are you going to get to the everyone agrees point? Make it illegal to be anything but what you say? Kill the unbelievers? Those are really the only avenues open to you. Convincing people who are perfectly happy in their own beliefs doesn't work. Passing a law against abortion on reasons of conscience or faith is a step down a road to slaughtering unbelievers and/or making unbelievers criminals. I can't stand the thought of that. I have to live in fear every so often when someone decides that witchcraft is the work of the devil and witches should all be rounded up and put in jail. I refuse to support something as dangerous as a first step initiation of religious dicatates to the legislative branch of government. It's dangerous to everyone's freedoms and directly dangerous to me. In your religion... I am the enemy. I am the epitome of the enemy. I am first on the list. Explain to me again why I should let your faith dictate laws that affect me?

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 05-16-2003).]