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

The "laws of nature", as you say, are very tough. Look at those places where there is no stable government/rational society. They are a bloody mess (both figuratively and literally).
The "laws of nature" are those that force us imperfect and selfish beasts to constantly look over our shoulder, on guard from attack, instead of focusing our minds on a productive task. Believe me, sister, you would not like to live under the "laws of nature."

As for the 'what if we are wrong' question -- that's easy, in fact one I've addressed with you in a previous conversation many weeks ago (the one where you insisted a Liberal Democracy would 'never' work). Science and the scientific method has built into it a methodology for finding better information. The only way to live is to make the best decisions we know how to make today based on the limited information we have today, and constantly remain vigilant in our pursuit of better knowledge tomorrow.

Let's reiterate:

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course religion and spirituality are important. You are so blinded by the supposed moral injustice that you see, that you cannot comprehend the distinction between what we are referring to as a legal issue, and what you are referring to as a religious issue. The two must remain separate.

The gist of this whole issue is that based on your religious beliefs, you cannot be persuaded that abortions should ever be allowed to happen. Our argument to you is not based in religion - our argument is based on the fact that not everyone's belief is the same, and a woman's right to make a choice should be protected.

The US government was set up to separate religion from secular activities. Yes, yes, I hear you, some people do live their secular lives religiously. But not everyone.

Therefore - you cannot enter legislation that takes away from people's right to make a choice. There is nothing in the Christian denomination in which I was raised that states that a woman cannot choose to make an end to an unwanted pregnancy. Just because Catholicism says that is so, means only that Catholics cannot terminate unwanted pregnancies. What Catholocism states is not the way it is for everyone. (And yes, I do realize that there are other denominations against abortion - I hope you take the point I'm making.)

When it comes down to it - you refuse to respond directly to direct questions regarding how laws affect all people - regardless of religious affiliation.

You obviously cannot be convinced that what is right for you, is not right for all people.

We are obviously not going to be convinced that what is right for you, is right for all people.

Therefore, it is pointless to continue this circular argument, however entertaining it might be for some silent readers... All I have left to say is, thank goodness our founding fathers chose to separate church and state.



Bodhi - Cell 617

Wait a minute Bdi.

What about the US form of exchange that says "In God we Trust"
and the Pledge of Alligence "one nation under God" Our founding fathers have not really separated church & state.

quote:

---

DL

Catholic dictatorship?
Is that how you see it?

---

Uh...no. I said if.

But I can see this is going to go the same way all discussion with you tends to go: nowhere =)
So I won't bother to explain or ask any further =)

The facts are up there ^

Read 'em again a few times Jade.

quote:

---

What about the US form of exchange that says "In God we Trust"
and the Pledge of Alligence "one nation under God" Our founding fathers have not really separated church & state.

---

it doesn't say 'in the CATHOLIC god we trust' or 'one nation under the HINDU god'... it just says GOD. to me, that means, whatever god the person reading it believes in.....
YOUR god...is NOT everyone's god!



__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

quote:

---

What about the US form of exchange that says "In God we Trust"
and the Pledge of Alligence "one nation under God" Our founding fathers have not really separated church & state.

---

Also, a note on the Pledge of Allegiance: The phrase "One nation under God" was not added until the 1950's during the beginning of the Cold War. It was inserted in direct response to Communist Russia's complete abandonment of religion. It was a form of psychological propaganda that was meant to make American's feel "superior" to their enemy. It was never in the original pledge. Here is a link to the history of the pledge. (I think though that this could belong in a thread all it's own.)

The fact of the matter is that though the founding fathers of this country used some religious phrasing in their documents, they were very careful to not specify a specific religion or denomination, as Lacuna stated quite well in her previous post. This is because though they were Christian men, they believed in the freedom of religion. The first European settlers to the New World came here to practice religious freedom, and this was the spirit in which the documents this country is founded on were created. Yes, it may have been freedom to practice the Christian faith in a manner different than the dictates of the Catholic or Anglican church. But note, that absolutely nowhere in the Constitution does it limit the right of freedom of religion to only within the Christian faith.

This is getting a little far afield from abortion, but please bear with me. If we continue to eek elements of religious morality into this government, as the pro-life or right-to-lifers or whatever the current p.c. phrase is, this government will cease to be what it was created for. The separation of church and state is paramount to this country's continued survival. Making abortion illegal on the basis of it offending someone's religion would open a door that best remains closed. It would only set a precedent that would eventually lead to the repealing of the freedom of religion amendment.

A closing thought, Jade- Should we fall down that slippery slope, suppose it is not Catholicism that wins the battle for the dominant faith. How would you enjoy living in a country that prohibited you from attending Mass on Sunday? Or, for that matter, practicing Communion? What about being told that under the dictate of Law, based on a theocratic government you could no longer practice intercessory prayer through the saints on pain of incarceration? Pretty scary world, huh?

[edit] oops, double post... [/edit]



[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 05-17-2003).]

Well MD or Lca

That does not change the fact that today you carry US bills in your purse or wallet that say "In God we Trust". Doesn't matter how it came to be. It is the accepted form of currency here and abroad TODAY. Wherever your carrying your US exchange your giving paper money stating a trust in the God of the United States of America. Now what about the people who worship cows or the budda or the black stone? How come they are not on the US form of currency too. Shouldn't the lawmakers correct a wrong and remove In God We Trust? If the US law is so concerned with religious freedom, why is this message still on the bills?

Now this God the founding fathers built this country on is and was the Christian God. And in escaping the religious persecution of the Catholic church, the early settlers were not able to stop the growth of the Catholic Church in America, which is the largest demonination in the USA today. I find that interesting. The Catholic church in its growth has evolved in to a worldwide faith of goodwill and love. I don't see it today as the same church of the dark ages. It would not persecute and dominate its followers in subjecting them to torture and death. Come on. Get with the times. I am amazed how some on the outside can never forget the past and relish in pointing out blemishes of a worldwide faith of believers for a time long gone.

The teachings of the faith (bible) predict one faith one body in future times, so I would say that it is likely that Catholicism will dominate. Maybe not in our lifetime, but till the end of time. Protestant demoniations are already incorporting catholic rituals in their faith. I was just reading that some are now practicing Lent for forty days too. We are very similar in beliefs with the Lutheran church and have an open dialogue with them.
Also in reference to the Eastern Orthodox churchs. The schism won't last forever.

So I can see a light at the end of the tunnel in regard to the end of abortions. And this also may not be in my lifetime. But I pray, hope and don't worry, because it is all in Gods hands.

First off, it wasn't escaping persecution from the Catholic chruch, it was the Anglican chruch. Not much difference, but enough.

Second, the fact that our currency says GOD and not YAWEH or Jehovah, in and of itself denotes an all encompassing entity. Not singularly the Christian God. Also, what about the fact that it was put on our currency well after the birth of this nation? The word God does not implicitly equal the Christian God. This will be the last time I say this.

Thirdly, as for the bible predicting one faith and assuming it will be Catholicism? I say that is horribly arrogant. As for Protestant denominations incorporating Catholic practices... which ones are you speaking of? Um Lent? Hello? This is something that has been part of Christian practice since the schism and before. Or are you talking about kneeling during services or lighting candles or crossing yourself with holy water?

quote:

---

It would not persecute and dominate its followers in subjecting them to torture and death. Come on. Get with the times. I am amazed how some on the outside can never forget the past and relish in pointing out blemishes of a worldwide faith of believers for a time long gone.

---

You know, I could really care less what the Catholic church has done in the past. Yes, it made some horrible mistakes, but that cannot be changed. However, what it can and is doing is trying to dictate US secular, government policy. This I cannot abide. Believe what you will but keep your Church out of my uterus.

[edit]fixing italics tags, pesky things[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 05-17-2003).]

yeah! what ^^she^^ said!!!

wow! jade, i'm amazed at how far you go to avoid answering the loads of totally legitimate questions put to you. i'm not in favor of abortion... so i'll not have one. i won't for one second be arrogant enough to think that *i* or *my god* knows what's best for the rest of the country. as far as i'm concerned jade, you have not made a case for your opinion, other than to spew forth loads of holy horseshit! i can be thankful that you're not making laws for our country
as for everyone else that's posted... thanks! there have been points made that i hadn't thought of... or just maybe not looked at from a different perspective. so to some extent, i've been enlightened.
good topic mobrul!


__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

You know MD. I don't look at my beliefs as arrogant. And the Catholic Church is not an arrogant institution. It is a matter of your opinion as how you view it. In that case there must be a billion & 1/2 arrogant ignorant people you call Catholics. Plus there are many denomations who are against abortion. Look at the 2nd largest demoination, the Islam religion. Do they advocate abortion. This faith is growing larger and larger also. How many people think like you? Because you don't believe in the doctrines in the institution that Christ founded you shudder at the thought it does and will infringe on your liberal way of thinking. I have to be free. I have to have free choices. I should be the ruler of my own destiny without the aid or guidance of any sect or ruling body. Or for that matter a God.
If you only knew how arrogant this sounds. Because you cannot fathom a large religious institution having influence you lash out and cry "ARROGANCE, ARROGANCE"

How small and petty this sounds. Look at the larger picture.

Even the heads of states & countries and for that matter the presidents of the United States of America consult with the Catholic Popes & church in regard to morality, foreign policy, peace & war. Not the Dali Lama or the Anglican Church or the Rev Moon. So indirectly this affects you too. This must make some cringe. I know we all can agree with Carl Bernsteins book on Pope John Paul II. That Pope John Paul II was responsible for the fall of communism in Poland which eventually led to the fall of communism in Russia. President Regan was working with the Pope thru an ambasador to bring down the fall. The Catholic church is the largest contributor to the poor in all local and foreign countries. In its arrogance you percieve it to have, how can it be so humanitarian? It seems to me what plays into the minds of very liberal minded people who lash out against the church is fear. Fear of the giant influential religious instituion that could possibly alter their way of living and thinking in the USA.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 05-17-2003).]

quote:

---

It seems to me what plays into the minds of very liberal minded people who lash out against the church is fear. Fear of the giant influential religious instituion that could possibly alter their way of living and thinking in the USA.

---

no dear.. if any particular church tried to dominate here in the US of A, there would be a major upheaval/ religious war? back away sweetie.. you are going from philosophy into silliness.. this is a democratic republic begun by men seeking religious freedom.. that is why religious freedom is one of the backbones of our society.. get a grip on reality girl, before your silliness drops into stupidity!

the church is not out of the woods. we have a priest and his order being sued here for child molestation.. and not that many years ago, the bank of rome (owned by the roman church) had to close down due to political (not religious) scandals..

you are beginning to sound like a drunk... not on alcohol (??), but on the "fabulousness/wonderfulness" of your beliefs..

[edit- make that: being sued (now, here in hawaii) for child molestation[/edit]

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 05-17-2003).]

quote:

---

I don't look at my beliefs as arrogant.

---

Of course you don't. Mainly because you never seem to attempt seeing a situation from somone else's point of view. Which leads us back to the arrogance issue again...

Jade-
The Catholic church is not an arrogant institution? I have one question to ask about that then. Why does it insist on trying to dictate governmental policy in every country it exists and even those it doesn't?

The Islam question: (First off, it is not a denomination, it is a religion in and of it's own right. A denomination is a division of a religion.) As to Islam not advocating abortion, I don't know enough about the faith to know if they do or not. (Any Muslims in here that can answer that question?) However, I do know that I haven't seen any at local anti-abortion protests.

I don't recall ever saying that I don't believe in a God. I do. But, I would never presume to force my beliefs on another human being, whether through proselytization or dictating law based on my beliefs. Herein lies the arrogance. Way earlier- and I'm not even sure it was in this thread- you stated something about not shoving Christ down people's throats. By changing US law to suit the tenets of your religion, that is exactly what you are doing.

No, I can't fathom a large religious institution having influence because it goes against one of the very things this country was founded on!!! And yes, I do fear it, because the moment that influence takes hold, the way that I live and millions of others in this country will change. And, this country will cease to exist.

And as for the Pope's involvement in the fall of communism, that's new to me. I'm going to have to look into that. And yes, the Dalai Lama has had some input into the ears of our government. I don't care about our leaders asking for advice from religious leaders. Many of them are very intelligent human beings. But, the problem lies when that advice trickles down into the lives of the people being governed. Please reread my last post regarding how life would be different under the rule of a differing religious authority. And then, if you are capable, put yourself into the shoes of the minority, of the religion that is being outlawed. (It won't hurt you, it's just an exercise.)

quote:

---

I know we all can agree with Carl Bernsteins book...

---

How can I agree with something I've never read? And furthermore, please refrain from statements like "I know we can all agree" no, we can't all agree, hence the discussion.

quote:

---

In its arrogance you percieve it to have, how can it be so humanitarian?

---

It is arrogant in it's humanitarian acts because it comes with strings attached. Not to the extent of we'll only give you food or money if you convert, but through guilt and proselytizing.



[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 05-17-2003).]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/18/unborn.victims.ap/index.html

I find this so very interesting. I can only say God works in mysterious ways.

Heh. Yes, I already saw that article...but it isn't a law...not yet, anyway. We will see...

And if it doesn't pass, just like the last two bills, then I guess God does work in mysterious ways...

I'd like to see you explain that...

Ok. Mr. Web. We will wait.

I would also add I was told the existing president of NOW (National Organizatiion for Women)says it was not a life and the case should not be considered a double murder, but the past president commented that it was a life and should be tried as a double murder.
Can't they get their act together or at least be on the same side.

Were you going to answer MD's post or just ignore it like so many others, Jade? You continually sidestep points that you MUST address if you want to keep any credibility with us as to holding to your convictions. If you can't answer these points you need to re-evaluate your position.

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 05-19-2003).]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 05-19-2003).]

Jade-
The Catholic church is not an arrogant institution? I have one question to ask about that then. Why does it insist on trying to dictate governmental policy in every country it exists and even those it doesn't?

MD
I will answer this with a question also. Why do rulers, heads of states and countries seek the Popes advice in matters? Officially, the pope receives heads of states and dignitaries of foriegn countries on a daily basis. Why do they deem him so powerful and why does the Vatican wield so much power? Why do you think the Pope even merits a visit by the President of the United States? The papal state of the Vatican is tiny compared to other countries. Could it be because when the Pope speaks, people listen. Why should they listen to a ruler who is all three branches of goverment in one. Who answers to no one but God and they still seek an audience with him.
Is Pope John Paul II a munilpulator or is he a wolf is sheeps clothing?

Lets look at Cuba for example. Fidel Castro asked Pope John Paul to come to his country for a visit. All of Cuba shut down for one day for the Pope's visit. Why? Both Castro and the Pope had been in talks preceding this visit for years. Since the Popes visit, Castro has sofen his view on religious freedom. I just read last week where there was a celebration of a convent opening by some nuns. Before in Cuba this was not possible. So the Popes visit did have a lasting effect on the Cuban people. Could a US President have the same effect without the use of force?

Jade
It is arrogant in it's humanitarian acts because it comes with strings attached. Not to the extent of we'll only give you food or money if you convert, but through guilt and proselytizing.

MD

Well then I guess you could say this about every religious organization that gives to the poor. And maybe the US of A too who is a leading country in this world in its acts of humanity to foreign countries. The US has an underlying ambition to westernize all of the world by its goodwill to mankind.

quote:

---

Well then I guess you could say this about every religious organization that gives to the poor. And maybe the US of A too who is a leading country in this world in its acts of humanity to foreign countries. The US has an underlying ambition to westernize all of the world by its goodwill to mankind

---

Perhaps arrogant was a poor choice of words with regards to humanitarian acts. What I think would be more appropriate is selfish. And you are correct, the US is not excluded from this.

With regards to your example of the Pope and Fidel Castro, I can really only take your word for it, as this is an aspect of history I have not studied. Does the "religious freedom" you mentioned only extend to the Roman Catholic Church, allowing its citizens to practice a religion once again, or does it involve other denominations of Christianity and other religions as well?

And as far as heads of state consulting the pope... I already stated in my previous post that I don't care if leaders seek his -and other religious leaders- advice. As I said, they tend to be pretty intelligent human beings. There were some other questions in that paragraph that I am choosing not to address in this thread. Perhaps another...

I asked a series of questions in a previous post, and I will paste it again here. If you address nothing else in this post, Jade, I ask that you please read and respond to the following because I would honestly like to know your answer.

(From 05-17-2003 02:41 AM post)

quote:

---

This is getting a little far afield from abortion, but please bear with me. If we continue to eek elements of religious morality into this government, as the pro-life or right-to-lifers or whatever the current p.c. phrase is, this government will cease to be what it was created for. The separation of church and state is paramount to this country's continued survival. Making abortion illegal on the basis of it offending someone's religion would open a door that best remains closed. It would only set a precedent that would eventually lead to the repealing of the freedom of religion amendment.

A closing thought, Jade- Should we fall down that slippery slope, suppose it is not Catholicism that wins the battle for the dominant faith. How would you enjoy living in a country that prohibited you from attending Mass on Sunday? Or, for that matter, practicing Communion? What about being told that under the dictate of Law, based on a theocratic government you could no longer practice intercessory prayer through the saints on pain of incarceration? Pretty scary world, huh?

---

Please don't tell me that the above scenario would never happen and give examples why. That isn't the point of the series of questions. I look forward to hearing your answer...

I know this thread has been inactive for a little while, but I found something that I thought might be of interest to some...

Here is a link that gives other religions']http://www.belief.net/features/0628_achart.html]religions' views on abortion. I thought it extraordinarily relevant and very educating.

MD - that link didn't come up, try this one

Jade, you are free to believe what you will regarding anything you like. All we ask is that you don't push your way of thinking onto other people. You continue to believe that it is your right to do so. That is what is arrogant. A single religious organization cannot inflict it's way of thinking onto the rest of the world (or even just a country, for that matter).

I am not Catholic for the specific reason that I do not agree with that church's way of thinking. And I have the freedom to make that decision; just as I am not Baptist because I don't agree with that church's way of thinking, or Methodist, or Presbyterian... come to think of it, I'm not even a Christian. But I live in the United States, which is a country built on religious freedom - therefore I can practice whatever religion I feel most in tune with, or none if that's what I want. My personal beliefs advocate a woman's choice to bear a child or not, as it suits her. You have no right to tell me otherwise.

The government of this country makes laws for both of us. Laws based on one belief system do not, and will never work for an entire country made up of so many different belief systems.

As has been said before, if you're against abortion, don't have one. But don't advocate taking away my or anyone else's ability to make that choice for ourselves. There's too many unwanted children in the world as it is. Have care for them if you must have a cause.



Bodhi - Cell 617

just two brief comments:

heads of state consult with catholic leaders because they have a ridiculous amount of influence. the catholic church has a huge population and as such are a formidable political group, and just like any other special interest group a smart government is going to listen to their needs/wants/thoughts.

my personal beliefs are against abortion, and one of those reasons is due to my faith. i cannot, however, in good conscience use that a reason to pass a law because each individual is entitled to their own religious beliefs whether or not i disagree. i do also believe, however, that an indvidual becomes an individual at conception, and for that reason i can support abortion being made illegal.

the real problem i have with abortion is that its so often used as a solution to escape consequence for an action. a family friend knows a girl whose in her mid-teens and has just had her third abortion. she's been taught that her promiscuity has no consequence, resulting in continued destructive behavior. is this a parenting issue? absolutely to some extent, no question there, but when parents fail to educate/enlighten of their children, at what point does society take a role in correcting that pattern rather than provide a short-term solution?

chris

MD
Please forgive my neglect in responding to you. I have been out sick awhile due to an allergic reaction. I have been kinda jade..ed due to lots of medication. Now that I am caught up with work I will devote a response.

Jade
This is getting a little far afield from abortion, but please bear with me. If we continue to eek elements of religious morality into this government, as the pro-life or right-to-lifers or whatever the current p.c. phrase is, this government will cease to be what it was created for. The separation of church and state is paramount to this country's continued survival. Making abortion illegal on the basis of it offending someone's religion would open a door that best remains closed. It would only set a precedent that would eventually lead to the repealing of the freedom of religious ammendment.

MD
Why do you feel the pro-lifers always think of abortion as soley a religious belief issue. In the debates regarding life of the fetus there is also the belief that abortion is wrong on the basis of ethics and morality. In society today there is such a disregard for human life because we deem life abortable. A wrong act can only bring about wrong and negative outcomes. For example look who suffers from the act of abortions the most today. Its the children growing up with the knowlege that to terminate life is ok. Why do you think teens are killing off each other in high schools. They themselves are victims of what the US Supreme Court decided in 1973. A society that believes in killing in any form can only do damage to itself and will not survive. ITs shows that the act of doing harm to a human is ok. So we both see our nations view of survival in different ways. Religious should not be called upon to dictate to you because you should know in your heart that terminating human life that has a right to come is wrong.

Women are co-creators in the process of human life. What an honor. The miracle of how human life comes to be in a woman is so awesome. For another person to cut up a woman's human person who is distinctly part of her is such a human tradegy. For every abortion a woman gets a part of her dies because what was part of her dies. I don't care how many years abortions have been going on illegally, its still has the same results. Be it indifference, shame or a shelfishness, the one who has to pay the price is an innocent victim.




closing thought, Jade- Should we fall down that slippery slope, suppose it is not Catholicism that wins the battle for the dominant faith. How would you enjoy living in a country that prohibited you from attending Mass on Sunday? Or, for that matter, practicing Communion? What about being told that under the dictate of Law, based on a theocratic government you could no longer practice intercessory prayer through the saints on pain of incarceration? Pretty scary world, huh?

MD
To tell you the truth I don't see my faith dictating those kind of laws. Catholicism has evolved away from the errors of the dark ages. I feel that in the future, the way of the world will see the error of abortion and a theocracy in the way you see it will not apply. They only way we can live in a peace and harmony is to be compassionate to all the unborn. Why can't we all be fetus friendly?

Bdi,

A womans right to choose life or death. So if she chooses abortion a death will occur right? Its a death of a human even in the making in the womb. To me the act of abortion is like a predator with a knife intent on killing an innocent person, and I have to try to stop the killing by talking the predator out of it or taking action. To sit by and not take action is like being an accessory to the killing. So the words " if you think abortion is wrong for you, ok, but don't force that beleif on anyone who wants to have one" is not how I am ever going to see it. I see the victims, they are saying "help me" save me". As long as I am breathing, I will always hear their pleas.

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-02-2003).]

[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-02-2003).]

Nobody has advocated abortion as a birth control method. I believe when this discussion began (been a while) it was discussed several times that abortion is not a decision to be made lightly. It definitely has serious effects on the woman involved, physically, mentally, and emotionally. In no way shape or form am I advocating that women should just go have an abortion just "because". It is a serious matter, not to be undertaken without a great deal of forethought and consideration of options.

Somehow, you seem to have the impression that just because we believe in the right to a choice, we must think that it's the only solution.

Jade - you have the wrong idea on that.

I only advocate the continued legality of abortion because for some women, it is the only choice they can make. And many of those women, will make the same choice regardless of the legality of abortion. The only reason to keep abortion legal is to prevent those women from doing further damage to themselves.

As you have shown throughout, you miss the point entirely. You are so blinded by your desire to wipe out what you see as a scourge, you miss the fact that there is indeed humanity involved here.

I'm through talking about it. All I can do is echo the statement that has been made before:
Thank goodness you are not making laws for the rest of us!


Bodhi - Cell 617

Jade- Sorry to hear that you were not well. I hope you are feeling better.

I don't feel that the anti-abortion movement is solely a religious issue. However, I do believe that the majority of the movement is driven by religion. I am going to step this away from the abortion issue - as this is something that we will never agree on - and try a different example.

I am using the Catholic Chruch as part of the example only because it is an institution that I am well aquainted with. I am not consistently bringing up examples regarding the RCC just to pick on you and your faith. I just wanted to make it clear that I do respect your Church and your faith, even though I do not agree or believe in it.

On to the example: Say the Catholic Church decided that because of the extraordinarily high divorce rate in the US, the Chruch was going to lobby the government to make divorce illegal - a federal crime. Now, it is already banned within the precepts of the Church - but for the best of humankind, the Church felt that divorce should be illegal outright - regardless of your beliefs. Now say the government acutally listened, and banned a practice that is not forbidden by all religions, only some. Would this be fair to those that don't follow that faith. Resoundingly, no. Would it create an uproar that could damage this country, and all that it stands for? Yes. It is not just the prohibition of the act... it is the principle of the precedent. If the government is willing to give into one religion's view of morality, what is stopping it from giving in to another? Nothing... Bleak outlook? Yes. But only because history has shown the "wisdom" of a theocracy over and over again.

Because of the rules written at the founding of this country, the government cannot give into the voice of a single religion. Or even a majority of religions that hold the same postion on an issue. Because by doing so it goes against the right of every American to practice his or her religion as they choose. Does it mean that someone's toes are going to get stepped on? You better believe it. The government must, by its nature, be a neutral ground. It cannot show favoritism. (That isn't to say that it hasn't in the past. It shouldn't...)

The creation of human life is an awesome thing. Where that life begins is another thing we will likely never agree on. I don't think that abortion can be viewed as the cause of our ills in today's society however. If, as you suggest, ending abortion would be all it took to gain peace an harmony... then by all means, sign me up. But the reality of it is, abortion is a result of disharmony. For a woman to never again seek an abortion would mean that medical perfection would exist to ensure both the well being of the mother and the fetus through the birthing process. It would mean that there would be no fear for a teenaged mother to carry her child to term-no stigma attached, no judgement upon her. It would mean that a man would never again rape a woman. It would mean that there would be no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy- either through a perfect contraception system or a perfect adoption system and again, no stigmas or judgements. That is what it would take to end all abortions.

quote:

---

Why do you feel the pro-lifers always think of abortion as soley a religious belief issue. In the debates regarding life of the fetus there is also the belief that abortion is wrong on the basis of ethics and morality.

---

And that's all good and well. Problem is, I haven't heard you talk about any reasons that aren't directly pulled from your religion. You constantly refer to god in your reasons, and that instantly nullifies your points in a conversation about what should or should nto be legal.

Make your point based on ethics and morality rather than on church doctrine and emotional response to graphic imagery, and you might get somewhere.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/920645.asp


Interesting Newsweek front cover & article. I see the rights of the fetus will soon be recgonized with the help of science and society.

The problem is that Ms. Marciniak was prevented from controlling her own reproductive system.
I find it interesting you would use this example to further the cause of self-rightous and dictatorial control over somebody else's reproductive system.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/920617.asp http://www.msnbc.com/news/920641.asp

Mbl.

I am not using the articles as examples. Just showing how the abortion righters are losing some ground. Just posting current events.
Notice that religion isn't the issue in the articles.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-06-2003).]

jade

quote:

---

I am not using the articles as examples. Just showing how the abortion righters are losing some ground. Just posting current events.
Notice that religion isn't the issue in the articles.

---

Interesting articles.. the first is an interview with a bioethicist:

quote:

---

you?re saying the embryo could be implanted without the natural parents? consent?
Sure. The embryo doesn?t encumber any longer the body of the woman. She?s not being affected by it. It doesn?t encumber her interests because she doesn?t have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. There?s a tricky question here as to whether the natural parents can have property rights. The law doesn?t ascribe property rights to bodies.

---

Property rights? What? There is no tricky question here.. The mother decides what to do with the fetus.. iI she decides to give it away, that would be her decision! Not some doctor or clinic or hospital! Who is this man to say there is a tricky question here? On the one hand he says the law doesn't ascribe property rights to the natural parents, but he omits saying that whoever gives the fetus away or implants it into another body would be the one assuming property rights over the fetus!

Beware the direction of your decisions.. One step to make a law saying an unwanted fetus is property and can be given away/taken and given away - to another law down the road (with the precedent that babies can be declared to not belong to the mother) that states any fetus can be taken from mothers unworthy (too poor, uneducated, etc.) of being mothers? Before you scoff, remember in China, one baby is the rule... So, yes, goverments can and do take their positions to extremes sometimes...

As for the second article..

quote:

---

Andrea Merkord and her husband, Sean, do not believe in abortion. But last year Andrea had laser surgery to cut off the blood supply to a pair of conjoined babies in her uterus. The twins were unviable, but were threatening the life of a healthy triplet. That baby, Thomas, is now 7 months old and healthy. Andrea doesn?t doubt her decision for a minute?but it continues to overwhelm her. ?Obviously the twins were terminated and that is hard to say,? she says in tears. ?Until you?ve been in the situation, you don?t know what decision you?ll make.?

---

Let's look at that last sentence again..

?Until you?ve been in the situation, you don?t know what decision you?ll make.?

If you see these two articles as furthering your position - I must say I disagree... if abortion were illegal, she could not have terminated the life of the twins in order to save the third baby - a situation which would have then threatened her life .. Having something dead inside one is a bit unhealthy

Having not been in that situation, you don't know what you would do.. You might also compromise your stated position.. something, I think, many women have discovered when they found themselves pregnant. For myself, I'm glad the Merkords had the legal option to safely terminate those two fetus', rather than have to seek an illegal option...

I ramble, it's late..

[edit- spelling, commas..]

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 06-10-2003).]

VR.

I didn't agree with 100% of the articles. I, for one believe in baby making the old fashioned way. I don't believe in the act of giving fertilized eggs to clincs to keep frozen. This only adds to life perplexities in many areas, in which you read. I don't believe in sperm donation for money. Here, I believe are men selling their dignity for dollars. And a woman using her womb to sell babies, I see the same way.

And in the case of the Mekords, I can only think that their whole life they will feel for the loss of the other two children. To me, if they were viable humans in the making, I would give it to God to decide for me.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 06-12-2003).]

I wonder if you take the same approach, Jade, to all medicine?

If your child has a fever, do you say "Well, let God decide" or do you give her some medicine to bring the fever down? Did you get your children immunized for measels, mumps, and rubella, or did you simply say "Well, I sure hope Johnnie doesn't get rubella, but let God decide"? For that matter, do you wear your seatbelt, look both ways before crossing the street or perform any other rational safety precautions...or do you just let God decide.

Somehow, humans ended up with a brain capable of logical thought. If one believes in a creator god (as Christians do), I imagine it would be easy to attribute the creation of the brain to that creator god. So, if your god gave you and the rest of human kind a brain with which to make decisions based on the best information available, why in the world would you refuse to use it? That seems irresponsible, regardless your religion or philosophical leanings.

The doctors, using their best equipment and judgement, made it clear that the conjoinded fetuses were 'unviable' and were threatening the existance of the third fetus. Why would you advocate ignoring modern science, technology and intellegence (given to us by whatever created us!), and 'leave it up to God', when doing so would almost certainly end up with zero live births?
That position doesn't make a damn bit of sense at all to me.

One day a flood hit a village on the banks of a river. A man who lived in the village realized what was happening, climbed onto his roof and began to pray to God to protect him and save him from the rising waters.
In a few minutes, a woman in a motorboat pulled up to the man’s house. Gesturing to the rising water, now almost half way up the side of his house, the woman yelled up to him, "Climb down into my boat! I’ll take you to safety!"
The man, rousing himself from his deep prayer, turned to her and yelled, "No! God will save me!"
The woman tried again, "The water is rising quickly! I may not be able to make it back before it covers your house – please come with me!"
Again, the man cried, "My Lord God will save me! I have no fear." Shrugging, the woman roared off, heading to the other houses up the street.
Time passed and the water continued to rise. Just as it reached the gutters of the man’s house, a helicopter swooped down and hovered over him. Looking up, the man saw a ladder swinging down at him and heard a voice cry out, "Hey you down there! The water is rising! Grab onto the ladder and we’ll take you to safety!"
The man shook his head vigorously and yelled over the roar of the propeller, "No! God will save me!" The men in the chopper protested but when the man refused to grab onto the ladder, they flew away, headed to help others in the village.
The water continued to rise up around the man and finally, a few minutes later, he drowned.
Coming before God in heaven, the man asked, "Lord God, when I was in peril I did not lose faith in you. Why did you not save me?"
God looked at the man, "I sent you a woman in a boat and men in a helicopter. What were you waiting for?"