Topic awaiting preservation: Abortion, continued.

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).]

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?"