Topic awaiting preservation: New Nomination to US Supreme Court

Many who are anti-abortion can see a light at the end of the tunnel with the confirmation of this nominee. I can only say many prayers may be answered. I have been praying for a reversal since 1973.



Alito would be fifth Catholic on Supreme Court

By Jerry Filteau
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- If Judge Samuel Alito Jr. is confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court justice, it would be the first time in history that the majority of justices on the nation's highest court are Catholic.

President George W. Bush Oct. 31 nominated Alito, a former U.S. attorney in New Jersey and for the past 15 years a judge on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He is widely regarded as a strong conservative on an appellate court that is considered among the most liberal in the country.

The 55-year-old judge is likely to face strong Democratic opposition because on the appellate court he opined that it was constitutional to require wives to notify their husbands before having an abortion. That opinion came as a minority dissent in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, a landmark case contesting Pennsylvania's 1989 Abortion Control Act.

The Supreme Court in 1992 upheld most of the Pennsylvania law but agreed with the appeals court majority in striking down the spousal notification provision. In the Supreme Court's ruling the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist quoted Alito in his dissent against striking down the spousal notification portion of the law.

On the other hand, in 2000 Alito joined in a ruling striking down a New Jersey partial-birth abortion law as unconstitutional. In his concurring opinion he said Supreme Court precedents required a health exception for the mother to make the law constitutional.

In a case of church-state interest, Alito wrote the majority opinion of the appellate court in ACLU vs. Schundler, upholding a New Jersey city's holiday display that included a Nativity scene and menorah, on the grounds that it also displayed secular symbols including Frosty the Snowman.

In another religion-related case, he ruled in 1999 that the Newark, N.J., police department could not bar Muslim police officers from wearing beards for religious reasons, since the city permitted other officers to wear beards for medical reasons.

If confirmed, Alito would be the 11th Catholic in U.S. history to sit on the Supreme Court and would become the fifth Catholic justice on the current court, forming for the first time a majority of Catholics on the nine-member court.

Other Catholics currently on the nation's highest bench are recently appointed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Past Catholics on the Supreme Court included two other chief justices, Roger Taney, 1836-64, and Edward White, a justice from 1894 to 1910 and chief justice, 1910-21. Other former Catholic justices were Joseph McKenna, Pierce Butler, Frank Murphy and William Brennan Jr.

Alito was named to take the place of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who last summer announced her plans to retire as soon as a successor is confirmed.

In his nomination speech Bush called Alito "one of the most accomplished and respected judges in America."

The nomination came just four days after White House counsel Harriet Miers, who had been nominated Oct. 3 to succeed O'Connor, withdrew her name under heavy fire from conservative groups who form the core of Bush's political support. They were concerned that she had no court track record to back administration claims that she would bring a conservative judicial philosophy to the bench.

Alito could face the opposite problem. Observers believe that if Democratic Senators judge him too conservative their shaky political agreement to avoid minority filibusters to block judicial appointments could break down.

The day before Alito's nomination Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed fears of a filibuster by Democrats if they oppose a nominee's position on abortion. "The topic which dominates the discussion, as we all know, is a woman's right to choose," he said.

Alito was born April 1, 1950, in Trenton, N.J. His late father, Samuel Alito Sr., was an Italian immigrant. His mother, Rose, who turns 91 later this year, was a public school teacher.

After graduating from Princeton University, he attended Yale Law School, where he was editor of the Yale Law Journal and earned his law degree in 1976.

After a year clerking for U.S. 3rd Circuit Judge Leonard Garth, Alito spent four years as assistant U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. He went on to become assistant to the U.S. solicitor general in 1981, deputy assistant U.S. attorney general in 1985 and U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey in 1987.

He was only 39 when he was appointed to the federal appeals court in 1990. Bush said that with 15 years on that court Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years."

Alito's wife, Martha, was a law librarian when they met. They have two children: a son, Philip, in college and a daughter, Laura, in high school.

I also support our new freedom destroying overlords.

Dan @ Code Town

It never ceases to amaze me the number of so-called 'good-xians' who are desperately hoping for a rturn to the day of back-alley abortionists and all the misery, pain and death that represents.

Fortunately though, it seems un-likely RvW will be reversed as even amogst the religious. there are many who support and recognize the need for abortion on demand.

If it was reversed, well the cross border traffic to Mexica and Canada would be impressive and finacially rewarding for both countries.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

[Apparently] being one of the few here who lived through that era, I have to agree with you Diogenes.

quote:

---

It never ceases to amaze me the number of so-called 'good-xians' who are desperately hoping for a rturn to the day of back-alley abortionists and all the misery, pain and death that represents.

---

.



-- not necessarily stoned... just beautiful.

quote:

---

It never ceases to amaze me the number of so-called 'good-xians' who are desperately hoping for a rturn to the day of back-alley abortionists and all the misery, pain and death that represents.

---

Likewise it never ceases to amaze me on how the number of caring individuals allow unborn children to be slaughtered in the womb in the most painful way. Who is seeking relief here, the mother or the unborn child? The little one also feels, pain and misery in the womb. Back alley abortions are over-rated. The mother is seeking a quick fix to a problem they think they have. I don't feel sorry for them.

^^ Yep... the pinnacle of morality. What more can you say. Well actually a lot more. Here's just a bit.

One of this nominees rulings on the court of appeals but overturned by the 'Supreme' court was that a woman should be required to notify her spouse / father if she was going to have an abortion.

This mind-set doesn't, and others holding similar, don't seem to ever, take into consideration situations where such a statute/law, legitamizes abusive relationships.

Yes..certainly the woman, most usually the case, can but not always secure a restraining order and even if she does... well we all know how well 'those' work don't we.

"Well damn... I didn't think he'd kill her but thank the lord she didn't have an abortion... and thank you god for judge alito you answered our prayers.''

Yep... the pinnacle of morality alright.

(Edited by NoJive on 11-01-2005 21:16)

quote:

---

jade said:

quote: I don't feel sorry for them.

---

No... we know you don't and that truly is the saddest part of this whole thing.

quote:

---

I don't feel sorry for them.

---

That is the cornerstone of xianity, right there, folks!

Forget the message from God, from Jesus, from all the prophets, from all the saints. That little quote up there, that is xianity. If you don't believe what we do, then we don't give a damn about you. In fact, you deserve every bad thing that we and life can heap on you.

Thank you, Jade, for that very valuable insight.

I never bought into the "Lets sympathize with back alley abortions women will have to re-endure" idea that left wing feminism wants generated. I use to see both child and mother as victims in past times. . Now in these times with much education out there, I see the child as the sole victim of a murder. I belived it should be referred to as "back alley murders" where helpless infants are the victims. The mother can change her mind but the child is given no opportunity to do so. I do feel a sadness for the act one resorts to rather than take a responsibility. I am sorry for the one who can't take cover and run and is immobile when the harmful painful act is done.

quote:

---

That is the cornerstone of xianity, right there, folks!

---

Its typical for you to take my comment and run with it to prove your point about all Christians and they being hypocrites. You are true to form. Do you ever break out of your mold? I repeat I don't feel sorry for the persons who take an innocent life when given the opportunity to change their heart. We are to shake the dust from our sandles and pray for their souls when they have harden their hearts.

Before you start a victory celebration, jade you may want to consider this man's history in ruling on abortion cases. He is by no means predictable in exactly how he will rule regarding particular abortion cases. The following Christian Science Monitor article states the following:

quote:

---

- A 1991 challenge to a Pennsylvania law requiring married women to notify their husbands before seeking an abortion. The court struck down the restriction. Alito dissented.

- A 1995 challenge to a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking to use Medicaid funds to abort a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest to report the incident to law enforcement officials and identify the offender. Alito provided the decisive vote striking down the abortion restriction.

- A 1997 challenge to a New Jersey law that prevents parents from suing for damages on behalf of the wrongful death of a fetus. Alito ruled that the Constitution does not afford protection to the unborn.

- A 2000 challenge to New Jersey's ban on so-called partial-birth abortions. Alito struck down the law based on a recent Supreme Court decision.

---

Take particular note of the third case mentioned: "Alito ruled that the Constitution does not afford protection to the unborn.

I am still learning about this man and how he would fit in with the Supreme Court. I have long held the opinion that just because a judge is conservative does not mean that it will bring the downfall of Roe vs Wade. So far what I have seen is someone who upholds constitutional law and I view this to be a good thing. Abortion is not the only issue that the Supreme Court makes decisions on and I think it is very, very important to remember that.

quote:

---

Its typical for you to take my comment and run with it to prove your point about all Christians and they being hypocrites.

---

You said it, not me.

And yes, you are a h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e Jade. The bible does say, that he without sin should cast the first stone. And isn't it the providence of your God, to judge? Love your neighbor?

The point is, that history is full of exactly the same xian behavior that you have demonstrated here in this thread, with that comment and belief. You just merely prove that it is still around, that it is also present in modern day xianity, something that you have vehemently denied in previous threads, saying that the crimes of the past are past.

Right on WS.

It is the typical xian belief that since the got pregnant they must suffer through the prgnancy.

No matter it may have been rape or incestuos rape, iof she is pregnant it is her own fault, she is evil and sinful and must pay for her crime.

This attitude does not even begin to take into account the sort of life the child may have if born in sich circumstances or even if to a "properly narried woman", who already has a number of kids and simply can't afford or handle more.

A child born of rape or incest will be a constant reminder to the other of the despicable event. Human nature is such it is not surprsiing such children are often hated from birth for just that reason and go on to lives of abuse and pain.

But the good xians never take such things into account. Dogma must be followed.

jade is not only a hypocrite of the first water, she is a hateful and hate-fiulled, disgusting individual and deserves no more pity than that she affords the women she despises.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Jade, I'm very curious with "... in these times with much education out there, ..." Education in and of what? Seriously... what are you talking about when you say ' much education out there.' ??

N-Jive

Education in regard to family planning, no sex before marriage, ABSTAIN, instead of have sex with whom you want, when you want without worrying about the consequences.

quote:

---

jade is not only a hypocrite of the first water, she is a hateful and hate-fiulled, disgusting individual and deserves no more pity than that she affords the women she despises.

---

Dio
Where is there a cause to call me hateful and disgusting??? Because you disagree with me.
Aren't you guilty of what webshannon accuses me of being? Are you thowing stones as well as he is?


If Christians are hateful, all of us in the billions that think like me are in danger of loosing our souls since we are so hateful, disgusitng etc.... In your ideology since you oppose my belief regarding abortions, you must feel you are on the right side of the fence which represents kindness, and compassion to the mother but not the unborn child which lives in the womb???? Where do you draw the line on what is of good and what is of no good?

In the face of adversity, the ones who will live forever will be the ones who remain faithful to truth for the sake of love no matter how twisted society has disguised truth for the sake of evil.

Abortions are of evil. Evil want abortions to continue as long as evil is allowed to exist I hate evil.

See, you hate yourself. 99.9% of abortions do no more than remove a slippery mass of cells from the womb about the size of your thumb.

There is no cognition, no ability to live outside the womb, no sense of feeling.

You hate-mongers have produced doctored images to convince the gullible every abortion is a living-breathing cognating individual.

I note you fail to address the issue if unawnted children. One should note, you anti-abotionists are not exactly lining up to adopt these unwanted children you would foist on woman who, for a variety of reasons, either may not or should not be having children.

The there is the fact the state has no business telling a person what to do with their body.

T'aint nobody's business but their own.

That means it is none of your business what a woman does with hers.

Oh, you are hateful alright, in the most pious fashion.

If you hated evil, as you claim, you would be picketing the Vatican demanding they rid themselves of pedophiles. That crime is abominable, but no less so than the ongoing protection of said pedophiles by the Vatican and other religious orders.

Man's evils are part of man's make-up, churches put themselves above these earthly frailities but suffer seriously from hypocrisy.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Dio. Everyone has ideologies about life and your no different from the thousands upon thousands of others who try to push their own or voice their own. What makes you so different? How you view me and others who follow like me does not make it better for me. It just makes you feel better to vent your fustrations out on what you alone think about the issue of religious on what ever denomination they belong too. I doubt you have anything good to say about any organized religion. Or is it just the Catholic Church. Better watch it, pretty soon they will have control of the highest court in the land. Your points are made but your posting to the wind. Organized religions are here to stay and voice their ideologies which may filter into the laws of the land as rule eventally. Thats why its good the religious follow in large sect numbers, because they are more powerful that way spritually and and in earthly matters. There are many secret societies secualar societies, agencies, organizations, groups in the USA who may do the same thing. I wonder if you have a problem with them also. The humane society, The Society for the performing Arts, the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, ACLU, college fraternities, PETA, MADD, VFW, Actors Guild, Lesians Alliance, NWACP, LULAC, ALA, ARP, NAFTA, GAY Alliance. NOW, just to name a few. Do you have a problem with any of these I mentioned also? Eveyone is free to choose thier way even if you have a personal issue of dislike. All try to push for change and follow their own idologies. I think you just have a problem with the Christian God is what I am getting from you an others.

(Edited by jade on 11-02-2005 20:33)

What color is the sky on your planet, jade? is the weather nice?

They sky is black DL, it rains blood there and the winds sound like the screams of women dieing from botched abortions.

I see you are still avoiding the issue jade. Perhaps it is just fine with you that priests continue to rape children, so long as no woman has an abortion?

BTW, I live in a much more enlightened country and have no fear of your catholic judges.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

jade said:

Eveyone is free to choose thier way even if you have a personal issue of dislike

---

Keep that in mind while trying to tell women what to do with their own bodies.

quote:

---

jade said:

Thats why its good the religious follow in large sect numbers, because they are
more powerful that way spritually and and in earthly matters

---

Okay... reign in the Jihad brigade, Jade. That's the closest thing I've seen to a point blank statement about a Christian Army in a long time. (Stated as such because you said it and you're christian, not because I'm anti-christian, I'm not against anyone). It sounds like you're saying if we can't win you over to our faith though prayer we'll force you over under our sheer weight of numbers. Dangerous ground. Very dangerous ground. There is no better way to obliterate yourself than by uniting your enemies and a new crusade will do just that.

A second point... stop equating Religion and Ideology. They aren't the same thing. Ideology describes an arena of open thought, theories, and an ebb and flow of thinking and changing attitudes around a specific topic or topics while considering the ideas and thoughts of people outside of or in disagreement with the idealogy itself. The goal being to find an answer. Religion is a following of a SINGLE train of thought based on static dogma from ages past and all of the topics that are related to, and influencing said religion are drawn from within with little or no input from outside (or inside for that matter) the religion itself. Religion provides THE answer, Ideology provides a path to AN answer.

GD

(Edited by GrythusDraconis on 11-02-2005 22:06)

quote:

---

jade said:

Or is it just the Catholic Church. Better watch it, pretty soon they will have control of the highest court in the land.

---

Are we in for another inquisition?

quote:

---

jade said:

I think you just have a problem with the Christian God is what I am getting from you an others.

---

Not just the Christian God, but any god!

All faiths want to spread their beliefs, escpecially Christianity. Yes, we are on a crusade to evalngelize and spread the news of our faith. We have a been in existance for 2000 years spreading the same messages 24/7 since. It is in our interest to grow and grow and grow. So yes in large numbers matters. For us the whole world to follow Chrisitan thought is ideal. Yes we belong to a spiritual army trying to obliterate evil. Have you ever heard of the Blue Army? Its a group of crusaders affliated with the promise to spread the love of God thru the Virgin Mary. Heard of the Knights of Columbus? They do the same thing the Blue Army does. Though there are different sects of Christianity that kinda differ on some issues, we all point the same way. Methodist, Lutherans, Eposcipilians, Church of Christ, Greek/Russian Orthodox, Baptist, Non-demininational, Morman, Presbyterians, etc all want earthilings to be Christians. Thats what we strive for. So what else is new. WE constantly think of ways reach out and this has been its processes of faith since its inception going all they way thru its evolvement thru history. The Christian faith is constantly evolving with the times That is why it survives. What the faith was in its infancy, though it has not changed its dogma, still changes in its attitude in reaching the masses. ANd it has been very successful. Though you may not agree and are free to disagree because you have a personal opinion with religion in general it still continues to grow.

Jade: although one can easily pick what you're trying to say from that paragraph, I think your diction accidently betrays everything you attempt to say. Watch out for these words and phrases, specifically, and your point may come across much more fluently: "crusade to evangelize," "we belong to a spiritual army," "group of crusaders...[spreading] love."

It's interesting that you include the Greek Orthodox church in that list. You might also include the Jesuits. Both are a curious bunch. They stand out from the other listed denominations in their methodology. Whereas the Roman Catholics (I include you in this statement), Lutherans, Baptists, etcetera, all evangelize with piety, the Eastern Orthodox church has adopted a different approach: to proselytize in a passive, and accepting manner. By example. You have a tendency, as do other non-religious members of this forum, to take extravagant stances on issues which causes nothing but faction.

What does this have to do with Alito? (Which is, of course, the topic.) It's interesting that the majority of Mier's opposition came from the far right. Left wing ideologues were surprisingly silent, as in the Roberts nomination. It's my personal opinion that Roberts and Miers were, in a sense, a blessing from Bush (gasp!). Although I do not support 99% (give or take) of Bush's policies and judgments, it seems he almost went out on a limb to appease the left in these cases. With Miers we had a right-of-center female judge to replace a much-respected dead-center female judge. Not a far-right judge. Similarly, with Roberts.

It's sad to see Miers replaced with Alito. If it were my decision, we would have two more Ginsburgs. Perhaps though, it's the conservative's turn at the supreme court, like it or not.

cfb

There are crusades that are in existence as we speak in tents and in stadiums and in halls all across America. Ever heard of Billy Graham crusades? Why are you afraid of words. There are physical armies that try to obliterate communism, oppression, evil, tyranny, etc. So there are spiritual armies trying to obliterate sin by prayer. We, as Christians are in a serious war always doing battle with the enemy Satan. And Satan's evil is very real ro us. In my sacrament of confirmation I promised to became a Chrisitan solider to uphold the truth of faith no matter how adverse it may seem in the culture of the times. The majority of the Christian faithful crossing all denominations are in coummunion with this belief.

To many of us Christian faithful, to have one more conservative who is against abortion, etc is going towards winning the battle against the horrible evil of aborting innocent babies. With his confirmation, we see a hope in our desire to change an injustice to tiny humans. Sure there are other important issues out there to be debated,etc., but the issue of abortion is a primary issue that preceeds all others, simply because it regards the most innocent fragile human life. We believe the power of prayer has helped in getting Bush elected so as conservative, he could choose a conservative court, which could unbalance and change the course of the court. I strongly believe he choose Miers and knew she would not be accepted, but it was a ploy use in the scheme to elect another conservative, and a Catholic, because Bush is a fetus friendly President. His aim is to reverse Roe vs Wade.

Bush is a Bush friendly president, his aim at this point is not to get impeached. He will cheerfully use your religious bigotry to further his own ends, just as Billy Graham uses people like you to furtrher his.

I await, with some considerable interest jade, your response to my earlier statements about the vatican and the popes protecting, defending, denying, hiding and essentially approving, through such actions, the depravity of pedophilia in your church.

Which actions, one may say with some confidence, would seem to me to cause considerably more anguish to the souls of living beings (were they to exist) than to the few thousands of senseless cells which represent 99.9 of all abortions.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

I await, with some considerable interest jade, your response to my earlier statements about the vatican and the popes protecting, defending, denying, hiding and essentially approving, through such actions, the depravity of pedophilia in your church.

---

you won't get it. I've asked for the same for the past two years with no actual response other than redirection and insult/attack.

which seems to me answer enough i guess...

^Yup. She seems incapable of accepting that the Church is guilty of crimes against Humanity.

quote:

---

jade said:
The Christian faith is constantly evolving with the times That is why it survives.

---

Well, maybe some sects of the Christian faith are evolving, but the Catholic Church... not so much. They remain the same old misogynistic and patriarchal group of white men they've always been.

quote:

---

jade said:

So there are spiritual armies trying to obliterate sin by prayer. We, as
Christians are in a serious war always doing battle with the enemy
Satan. And Satan's evil is very real ro us. In my sacrament of
confirmation I promised to became a Chrisitan solider to uphold the
truth of faith no matter how adverse it may seem in the culture of the
times. The majority of the Christian faithful crossing all
denominations are in coummunion with this belief.

---

Just as a thought, you might want to leave the house a bit more and join this thing we like to call the "real world." It's not as filled with boogey men as you seem to believe, and at the same time, it is. You however, seem to think more of the hypothetical "Satan" type than the real life flesh-and-blood sorts.

EDIT - Oh yeah, almost forgot the reason I highlighted part of the quote above! Things must have changed in the 25 years since I got out of grade school and was confirmed. I definitely don't remember avowing to become a Christian soldier of any sort. Confirmation was a just that - the young adult was confirming the promise their parents made for them at Baptism to be raised and part of the Catholic faith. No mention of soldiers there.

quote:

---

Jade said:
To many of us Christian faithful, to have one more conservative who is
against abortion, etc is going towards winning the battle against the
horrible evil of aborting innocent babies. With his confirmation, we
see a hope in our desire to change an injustice to tiny humans. Sure
there are other important issues out there to be debated,etc., but the
issue of abortion is a primary issue that preceeds all others, simply
because it regards the most innocent fragile human life. We believe the
power of prayer has helped in getting Bush elected so as conservative,
he could choose a conservative court, which could unbalance and change
the course of the court. I strongly believe he choose Miers and knew
she would not be accepted, but it was a ploy use in the scheme to elect
another conservative, and a Catholic, because Bush is a fetus friendly
President. His aim is to reverse Roe vs Wade.

---

First off, the government has no business getting into the reproductive business. None at all. It's not their concern, and until the collective government is raising and supporting any and all children, they need to butt out. Plain and simple.

Second, here's a hypothetical question for Jade - what if RvW is overturned, and women are forced to carry unwanted children to term? Will the pro-lifers be there to support and help raise those unwanted, unloved, neglected and abandoned children? Are you going to open your doors and home to these children and raise them? What about when they turn to lives of crime to support drug habits, or other such "hard luck" stories? How about if any of them commit murder and/or are given the death penalty? Will you be there to support them? Or are you going to rally against the death penalty as well? Oh wait, if they are bad people, committing crimes and killing others, then they are evil and need to be punished perhaps?

There are any number of reasons for a woman to get an abortion. Not all of them involve being careless or stupid. Birth control is not widely and affordably available to all and sundry, and as for education... well.. first we'd have to get the kids into schools and actually teach them for that education to stick. People don't want their kids getting sex ed in school because that's bad and nasty! Not my kid! Yet the parents aren't doing their parts in teaching their children themselves necessarily. And aren't woman that are more educated less likely to have an unwanted or accidental pregnancy, while the dropouts, trailer park queens, addicts and, in a few cases, the overly religious, the ones having all the babies lately?

The Christian belief is that every sexual act should be open to the option of reproduction, meaning no contraceptives. And I'm sorry, telling people not to have sex for pleasure is misguided and frankly stupid in the extreme. Sex is a basic human drive. Telling someone not to do it unless it "means" something isn't going to work. That is a revelation that each person has to come to on their own - whether or not the morals taught to them while they were growing up are actually important to them or not. I know this because I went through that very revelation after my freshman year of college. I decided that all the stuff I'd been taught in my 12 years of Catholic schooling meant something after all; and that came after I began stepping away from the church and my beliefs.

Anyways, back on topic of a sort - Government does not belong in the bedroom nor does it need to be involved in any pregnancy issues.

_____________________

coeur de feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

(Edited by RhyssaFireheart on 11-03-2005 08:57)

Nice post, Rhyssa. Unfortunately, you are blowing wind on deaf ears in this case. Such arguments and reason have been pointed at Jade before.

she'll probably just side-step the issue, or go off on a tangent and avoid it altogether, as she has always done, when faced and confronted with reason and logic.

Religous ramifications aside, and to perhaps, further explain Jades elation with this nominee... she does, if I'm not mistaken, work in a District Attorney's office somewhere in Texas.

Now the ramifications of that and the possibility of others in that office, specifically prosecutors, sharing an even remotely similar mindset... well that's bit scarey.

Texas sports the most densley populated 'death row' in the US. I'm wondering who's working in the other DA offices.

She is likely a 'friend' of Dumbya's.

DL, you are right of course, but it might be fun to keep hammering her on the subject just to see her avoid it.

So how about it Jade? Got the balls to answer the issues instead of ripping pages out of the "Xian Zealot's Handbook" and flinging them at us?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Not that I want to throw a wrench into another abortion discussion... okay I'm lying - yes I do. I am curious as to what others think of Alito as a nominee to the Supreme Court.

I'll admit, I follow business news much more than events and politics. But from what I've heard, Judge Alito typically follows the letter of the law. The buzz about him is that he likely wont ever choose to change a law, or go against one, and sways to the side of caution when it's not particularly clear which side the law is on.

Good for businesses.
Bad for anti-abortionists.

From what I can tell, he's definately not an extremist, and I don't think the fact that he's catholic will mean much in his career on the bench. He seems to be a judge first, then a catholic.

He's replacing O'Conner, right?

Now maybe I missed it, but Roberts replaced the Chief Justice.

Where was THAT thourough debate?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

Jade? Oh Jade? Stil hiding under the pulpit?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

There wasn't much of a debate on that situation I feel because it was a conservative justice replacing another conservative justice. The current situation is about a judge who has a very conservative history replacing a judge who has a history of being a swing vote. There also wasn't much uproar over Roberts nomination and subsequent confirmation, because Roberts is a generally middle-of-the-road kind of guy. Okay, so a little right of middle, but the point is there were very few from the democratic side that were screaming and hollering.

This thread took a bend towards abortion. There seem to be a lot of people who think this should be the deciding factor on judgment of Alito. (Not necessarily here, just in general.) My personal feelings on this are that the Supreme Court has more purpose than deciding abortion issues. Yes, it's important, but c'mon people there is more to the US than Pro-Life/Pro-Choice.

From what I remember of my Civics classes, the separation of powers dictates that the Legislative branch creates the Laws, and the Judicial branch interprets and for lack of a better term, enforces Law. The Supreme Court is the ultimate say on the Consitutionality of a law. It is not up to the Supreme Court to repeal R v W, that is up to the Legislature to do. Until legislature does so, it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to make rulings based on the law that exists as a constituional amendment. At this time, abortion is legal, and there are no provisions in the Constitution to afford protection to an unborn child. Any Justice who does not understand and rule based on this is overstepping his bounds.

So, as I see it, repealing R v W should not even be a topic for discussion when dealing with the Supreme Court. It is not their role. Any of you out there who have made a better study of American Civics, feel free to correct me... I most certainly concede that I could be completely off base!

Dan - Thanks for your opinion, that has been my general feeling on Alito so far as well.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Now maybe I missed it, but Roberts replaced the Chief Justice.

Where was THAT thourough debate?

---

It seems you are still having trouble with the whole discussion board concept

1) there was, in fact, conversation about roberts.

2) if you feel there should have been more, or if there hadn't been any, and you feel there should be, start one!

3) the 'debate' going on here is mainly a result of the implications made by the person who opened the topic - not necessarily because of the nomination itself.

The issue has also become a larger one in general because of the increased publicity surrounding the latest events.

Moon Dancer: although theoretically the Judiciary system is limited to interpretation, the specific "interpretation" of "interpretation" has been confused. The power of the courts in the 20th century has been greatly expanded beyond its original intention. Think of interest groups who act through the judicial system, pioneered by the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Other more recent examples include Romer vs. Evans, in which the courts struck down legislation approved by the Colorado legislature. Examples of this "judicial activism" include many beneficial rulings, as well: Brown vs. Board of Education and Roe vs. Wade (I forget...Lawrence vs. Texas was another high-profile case as well, I think).

However have we not seen all branches of government expanding their influence? From 1920 to 1980 the power of the executive branch increased, decreasing after 1980 and increasing again following the 2000 election (especially in light of 9/11). The legislative branch has also expanded its power, however court cases such as US vs. Lopez and US vs. Morrison show a distrust of the legislative branch. Similarly, the judicial branch as gained prominence as the role in "interpretation" has expanded.

quote:

---

. It is not up to the Supreme Court to repeal R v W, that is up to the Legislature to do. Until legislature does so, it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to make rulings based on the law that exists as a constitutional amendment.

---

Is not Roe vs. Wade a perfect example of such activism? It has been affirmed and reaffirmed in subsequent rulings, however it has been argued (repeatedly) that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in ruling state-affirmed laws outlawing abortion "unconstitutional." This doesn't negate the necessary or beneficiary nature of such a ruling, however.

And I repeat the sentiment:

quote:

---

Any of you out there who have made a better study of American Civics, feel free to correct me... I most certainly concede that I could be completely off base!

---

because I myself don't pay too much attention in Civics, although the info is rather fresh in my mind =p

quote:

---

cfb said:

that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in ruling state-affirmed laws outlawing abortion "unconstitutional."

---

It is not possible for the supreme court to overstep it's bounds when ruling something unconstitutional.
Its job is to make exactly that kind of ruling - to make sure the constitution is upheld.

The constitution supercedes the state's rights to make law.

I never stated it was, I merely said it was argued. Many (including justice Ginsburg) view Roe vs. Wade as denying the abortion issue a "democratic" or "legislative" chance at success - i.e. the court ruled in favor of overturning anti-abortion laws, denying the movement a more "legitimate" (legislative) chance at success. I think it comes down to ends vs. means, and which is more important.

I've read this thread with great interest. Many speak passionately about the how this man will cause our country to change.

I am not a Xian nor any other thing but a man who if forced to identify his religion would answer something like 'Judeo- Christian-apathetic agnostic. I think thats not the point in this Judge discussion.

What will be the affect of this person, if confirmed, on the continuing attempt by the government to abort OUR freedoms. How soon before the people in power decide that our rights of ranting on this forum must be restricted as a brief example.

Yes, I to have an opinion on abortion - not sure why, I'm male - but I think there are lots more important issues than Alito's views of abortion. Lets look at some of those before we burn him at the stake.

quote:

---

cfb said:

I never stated it was, I merely said it was argued.

---

Ok....

the point was brought up, whether it was yours or someone elses, so I responded....

=)

Say, anyone seen Jade?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Diogenes, do you have anything more productive to add to this discussion than simply trying to goad Jade?

Hitting a chord Moon?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

Hitting a chord Moon?

---

I really don't get you dio.
What chord could you possibly be striking, other than the annoyance of derailing yet another thread with continued arguments about preist abuse?
(keep in mind I am someone who has pushed the issue plenty myself - but....c'mon. not every thread can focus around the same issue....)

Always keep 'em guessing.

It is not the issue of priestly rape of children, but jade's refusal to address it, which I find currently of interest.

There is also a surprising avoidance of the priest topic by all but a few of us.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Interjecting it into every conversation will only increase that problem...

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

Hitting a chord Moon?

---

No, actually. I just find it a little juvenile to continue to call out to a specific individual after 15+ posts have gone by after said individual's last post and the conversation has very definately taken a different turn. This is a topic about the nomination of an individual to the US Supreme court. It is not about one person's inability to accept and understand the gravity of certain actions within the Catholic Church. If jade's response to your questions are so important to you, start a "Where's Jade?" thread.

Back on topic... I did some additional research over the weekend, and I have to amend an earlier post where I alluded to abortion being part of a constitutional amendment. Abortion is not part of any amendment, the RvW decision was based on several existing amendments relating to privacy.

quote:

---

jade said:

I don't feel sorry for them.

---

jade, I don't think our faith affords us that luxury. But I can certainly understand the sentiment. Feeling rage toward anyone who would intentionally hurt or kill innocents is buried deep within most of our consciences. This is one of those cases where we must remember to hate the killing while remembering to love the killer.

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

If you hated evil, as you claim, you would be picketing the Vatican demanding they rid themselves of pedophiles. That crime is abominable, but no less so than the ongoing protection of said pedophiles by the Vatican and other religious orders.

---

Dio, I am appauled at your lack of concern for the human life that exists in the womb. In fact, all I can think of is jack-booted Nazis terminating those they deemed unworthy of the status of human.

But I will agree with your point that I believe it is a worse sin (more harm done) to abuse young children than to abort 1st trimester fetuses. I've explained my theological reasons behind this in other threads.

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:

First off, the government has no business getting into the reproductive business. None at all. It's not their concern, and until the collective government is raising and supporting any and all children, they need to butt out. Plain and simple.

---

Um... who do you think raises all the unwanted children in our society? Do you pay taxes? If not, then that may explain your words here. Government money goes to support all these broken families, single parents, and children caught in it all. I think the government should very much be concerned about these trends in our society because if the next generation is not being raised properly, then it is society itself that is at risk. The government is in the business of self-preservation as well it should be!

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

I am curious as to what others think of Alito as a nominee to the Supreme Court.

---

From what I have seen so far, I am very happy with this nominee. The simple fact that he has been called "Scalito" because he shares Justice Scalia's views comforts me. I was not real comfortable with Chief Justice Roberts precisely because he's middle-of-the-road as you point out, MD.

I favor justices who will do their best to avoid judicial activism. I want to see a court that will stick to its intended purpose and that is to judge whether or not laws written by the legislative branch are constitutional. I believe Alito agrees with this approach, and that is why I support him.

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

...It is not up to the Supreme Court to repeal R v W, that is up to the Legislature to do. Until legislature does so, it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to make rulings based on the law that exists as a constituional amendment. At this time, abortion is legal, and there are no provisions in the Constitution to afford protection to an unborn child. Any Justice who does not understand and rule based on this is overstepping his bounds.

So, as I see it, repealing R v W should not even be a topic for discussion when dealing with the Supreme Court. It is not their role. Any of you out there who have made a better study of American Civics, feel free to correct me... I most certainly concede that I could be completely off base!

---

MD, R v W is bad law and it will be repealed eventually. Why do I say that? Basically, because the Warren court overstepped it bounds by making law! The legislature cannot change a law that the court wrote when it came up with R v W. Remember that R v W goes far beyond saying abortion is a right, it goes on to spell out in detail developmental stages of the fetuses and considerations of their destruction relating to trimesters.

You point out that you recall from civics courses that the Supreme Court is supposed to judge the constitutionality of laws and I agree with that completely. They have absolutely no business writing laws as that is up to the legislators who are accountable to the voters. Justices have their seats for life and are not accountable to the people and should not be dictacting law to the masses. This was one of the problems our founders were trying to avoid from England where judges had tremendous power.

In order to come up with R v W, the court had to invent, interpret, or whatever you want to call it, a right to privacy in the Constitution. Based on that concept they ruled that abortion was constitutional right. I think the court had to stretch far too much to get to that ruling and the issue of abortion belongs at the state level where the people can have their say. Having unaccountable judges passing laws by decree is not my idea of a healthy republic.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-08-2005 22:17)

Your concern for "innocents" seems somewhat selective to me. What about the mothers who, for any variety of reasons, should not have children?

Where is your xian concern for these poor women? Are they not flesh and blood, do thay not bleed, are they not conscious and aware they are being hurt, unlike a foetus which is unaware?

Where is your rage against those who would force these women into lives of poverty, pain and abuse and very likely the children they bear as well?

Oh forgot, you and jade are those people, no wonder your rage is tempered in that case.

As for raising unwanted children, it is a good thing the government has SOME programs in place, because there is a noticable shortage of xian organizations stepping forward to help them.

As for RvW, the only reason such a law is required it to save people from the likes of you and jade.

In a rational society, un-influenced by narrow-minded religious nutbars, the question of what a woman does with her body would not be so much as a subject for discussion over a beer let alone intrusion by a group of people who believe in mythological beings and a collection of old shepherd's fireside tales.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

Where is your xian concern for these poor women?

---

It is in my words and the money I send to support a local pregancy care clinic for women faced with unexpected, unwanted, or otherwise crisis pregnancies.

May I ask where is yours? And, no, simply telling them to remove the inconvenient life form from their wombs hardly counts as a loving and caring solution

The reason killing the fetus is not the best solution is based in the pain and anguish that many women face after having taken that step. Despite all the propaganda designed to cover up the guilt, most women know that aborting a fetus is not simply the removal of "a slippery mass of cells from the womb" as you say.

When a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy it does not just involve her body but also a unique and developing human life. The best solution is one that results in a healthy outcome for both of them. President Clinton was on the right track when he said abortion should be safe, legal and rare. That last bit is what the pro-choice hordes forget, or worse, reject.

Outlawing all abortions is hardly the solution either. I do not share in that position. On a topic a difficult as this one, middle ground is the only workable solution for a society such as ours. Safe, legal and rare is what I support.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

abortion should be safe, legal and rare. That last bit is what the
pro-choice hordes forget, or worse, reject.

---

I have to say that based on my experience that is patently false.

I have known people who have had abortions.
And, although I do know that they exist, I have never known anyone who has done so lightly. I have never known anyone who has done so without guilt - sometimes massive amounts of it.
I have never known anyone to go into the situation casually, or without regard for the child.

Obviously, the best scanario would be that these people who know they cannot raise a child never became pregnant or never got anyone pregnant.

Equally as obvious is the fact that this scenario will never play out as well as we would all like.

The point comes down to the simple fact that the government does not have the right to tell a person that this fetus growing inside of her must come to fruition.
Personal views aside, the government does not have that right. A woman has the right to choose, and that should never change - period.

When I speak of pro-choice hordes, the last person I had in mind was a woman faced with having an abortion. I'm sorry if that point was unclear.

I am referring to the extremists who not only want abortion to remain legal but actually advocate women to have abortions. You will find this sort of practice occurring in your local planned parenthood offices regularly.

DL, on what are you basing your point about the government not having the right to make law about abortion? Isn't this just your personal opinion?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

quote:

RhyssaFireheart said:First off, the government has no business getting into the reproductive business. None at all. It's not their concern, and until the collective government is raising and supporting any and all children, they need to butt out. Plain and simple.


Um... who do you think raises all the unwanted children in our society? Do you pay taxes? If not, then that may explain your words here. Government money goes to support all these broken families, single parents, and children caught in it all. I think the government should very much be concerned about these trends in our society because if the next generation is not being raised properly, then it is society itself that is at risk. The government is in the business of self-preservation as well it should be!

---

I'm well aware that my tax dollars support unwanted and abandoned children in society today. I probably pay more in taxes than many because I don't get to take that discount for having children. However, there is no real way of knowing how many of those unwanted children were born because their mother chose to not have an abortion, or could/would not have one for moral reasons of some sort.

Government money goes to support many of these families because of a sense of entitlement. Personal responsibility for one's actions is passé for most people, and education overall is sadly lacking in many parts of the country. When the news article about the 39-year old woman having her 16th child came out, I was appalled. Partly because she is only a year older than I am, and partly because anyone would seriously want that many children. BUT - her and her husband chose to have a family that large and are supporting themselves, not relying on government handouts. In contrast, when I read news stories about women on welfare without jobs and having multiple children, frequently by different fathers... that crap pisses me off.

The problems in our society aren't going to be fixed by allowing or denying abortion. This particular issue is a good one because it does stir up so many emotions and brings out debate in almost everyone. It's inflammatory, it makes good press. But when children in many places aren't even receiving a marginal education, worrying about whether or not someone can have an abortion isn't the most important concern. Here's an example for you - I live in the Chicago suburbs and fairly recently there was a report released about reading scores in the Chicago area public schools. The administration was pleased because there was a 6% increase in reading tests. Sounds awesome, right? Except that was an increase from 36% to 41% (IIRC the numbers)! How can anyone be pleased with that? There are still over half of the students not reading to their educational level, much less beyond it! Hell, I remember being so proud of myself when I was taking those standardized tests and being told I read at a 12th grade level when I was only in 8th grade.

And I'm not trying to hijack this abortion debate into different areas (unlike Diogenes) based on purely religious/non-religious meanings. Religion, if applicable, needs to be part of a person's personal decision in that regard, but it should not be the basis for the overall general decision for the public. Some argue that the father should also be involved in the decision to have or not have an abortion, but as a co-worker correctly pointed out - as long as the man has the option to just walk away and remove himself from the equation, then it needs to remain the woman's choice solely. I'm not saying either that men shouldn't be involved, because many couples can and do discuss their options together.

Life itself has become considered as disposible at all levels, not just for the fetus /unborn children (pick which flavor applies) in the womb. Society is fucked in so many ways, yet we also can't deal with the bigger picture and instead focus on something that inflames our emotions and beliefs that we think we can affect in some way.

_____________________

coeur de feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

Very well put, RhyssaFireheart, I find little to nothing I disagree with what you just said.

Making abortion legal or illegal is far less effective than fixing the problems that cause them to happen in the first place. It's a never ending struggle to be sure and the best we can do is to keep hacking away at it and fighting back the darkness.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Last nite on the PBS program Frontline 'The Last Abortion Clinic' presented what I thought, a well balanced airing of 'both' camps.

While Roe v.Wade is the case we're most familiar with there are several other cases I found interesting, specifically... Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. It would seem it is this case that has, at least in part, allowed "state-mandated (abortion) clinic 'regulations' that has shut but one clinic in Mississippi and other states are mandating similar 'regulations.

This link takes you to the homepage and I see that Thursday 12pm et. the program will be available online. Till then 'Interviews' provides basic positions of both camps... and there are a ton of other good links.

For pro-choice it's pretty disturbing for pro-life a time to 'thank the lord.'
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

DL, on what are you basing your point about the government not having the right
to make law about abortion? Isn't this just your personal opinion?

---

Well, when it comes right down to it, you can say that *everything* is a matter of personal opinion.

But if something is growing inside my body, that makes me the only one who can make a final decision about what to do about it.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

When I speak of pro-choice hordes, the last person I had in mind was a woman
faced with having an abortion. I'm sorry if that point was unclear.

---

well, who do you think a lot of people comprising the 'pro-choice hordes' are?
And while I know there *are* people like those you describe, it seems ridiculous that you seem to sum up the pro-choice point of view in general as being the way you describe.
Also, having made use of my local planned parenthood services when I was younger, I can't agree with your assessment of them either...

Again, in my personal experience, the people fighting for a woman's right to choose are by no means promoters of abortion, and in many cases do not condone the action. It's a matter of having that choice, having that right - it's not about having the abortion, but being able to if that's what it comes to.



(Edited by DL-44 on 11-10-2005 00:05)

Right on DL.

Which takes us back to my and other's original point, that it's no-body's business but the woman's.

Full stop.

It is arrogant and ignorant to the extreme, for some religous follower to presume they have the right to force their unfounded beliefs on another person.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

When I speak of pro-choice hordes, the last person I had in mind was a woman faced with having an abortion. I'm sorry if that point was unclear.

---

When you speak of the "pro-choice hordes" the FIRST person you have in mind should be a woman faced with having an abortion!

quote:

---

Again, in my personal experience, the people fighting for a woman's right to choose are by no means promoters of abortion, and in many cases do not condone the action. It's a matter of having that choice, having that right - it's not about having the abortion, but being able to if that's what it comes to.

---

Spot on! I couldn't agree with this more.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

And while I know there *are* people like those you describe, it seems ridiculous
that you seem to sum up the pro-choice point of view in general as being the way
you describe.

---

There are plenty of people like what I described on the pro-choice side and I see, read and hear them on interviews in the media and demonstrations. I'm thinking about the representatives from NARAL and similar organizations. I'm also thinking about the Eugenics movement and the early views of planned parenthood about keeping the minority population "in check". But it is also true that there are horrible people on the pro-life side who are pure embarrassments to the cause.

I spoke out of emotion and anger at the absurd rhetoric that is so often heard by the pro-choice spokesholes. I believe there are far more people in the middle who want to find a reasonable middle ground solution for our society and the polls I've seen back that up.

I apologize for characterizing the whole pro-choice side in the way I did and thank you for calling me on it.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Again, in my personal experience, the people fighting for a woman's right to
choose are by no means promoters of abortion, and in many cases do not condone
the action. It's a matter of having that choice, having that right - it's not
about having the abortion, but being able to if that's what it comes to.

---

I suspect your personal experience reflects the people who favor a middle ground solution. I sincerely trust that you appreciate that there are two individuals involved when a woman is faced with the question of having an abortion.

Because of that, I believe it is in the interest of society, friends, family, the father and the woman herself to see a healthy outcome for both if at all possible. This means that aborting fetuses for sex selection, convenience or other similar reasons is not widely supported by those who favor the middle ground.

But we know that most abortions are done for convenience. How does this square with Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" goal? My main question for you is are you concerned about the number of abortions performed in this country every year? If so, do you think it is in society's interest to find ways to reduce that number? And if you don't think government can pass any restriction on abortion then what do you favor to improve the situation?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-10-2005 17:17)

It is about a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body, Bugs. Personally, I am generally against abortion - but I support a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body.

I don't feel that society or the government should be attempting to tell a woman what she legally can or cannot do with her own body. Because history shows, if a woman feels she needs an abortion and is desperate enough, that she will do it, no matter what the cost and there is no power on this earth that will stop her from doing so!

To make things much more humane (why endanger both lives?), and because I deeply feel and support a woman's right to her own body, I feel the way the law is now is how it should remain.

If you happen to have a realistic alternative, one that works, I (and I would suspect more than 90% of all women who are considering abortion as well) would like to hear it.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

WS, the law right now allows abortions up to the 9th month. We basically have abortion on demand right now. How can it be described as anything but extreme? Where is the middle ground and how does it support "safe, legal and rare"?

Let's take one example as a test case, would you favor outlawing abortions for the sole purpose of sex selection?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

it is, of course, very convenient to your position to quote the radicals amd ignore the mainstream.

I feel fairly confident 9th month abortions are almost un-heard of and then only in the most extreme cases where both lives are under dire threat.

However, all your bleating does not address the simple fact...it is none of your business what a woman does with her body.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

(Edited by Diogenes on 11-10-2005 21:12)

quote:

---

Let's take one example as a test case, would you favor outlawing abortions for the sole purpose of sex selection?

---

As I have tirelessly said and supported, Bugs - a woman should have the right to decide what is done with her own body. My personal, private feelings have nothing to do with the issue.

How can you call abortion on demand a mainstream position? Or are you? It's nothing short of extremist.

All the polls I've ever heard about abortion show that the mainstream position has most early abortions remaining legal while prohibiting abortions based on late term, sex selection and a means of birth control.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

How can a handful of simple cells, forming a simple organism be granted more privilege than almost all complex life forms in our world? Until it has developed into a recognizable cognitive human, a fetus is far less than a person. It's not even an animal, in many stages it is less complex than even bacteria and viruses.

If we are to say that early stage fetuses have a right to life, then almost all living creatures do, and we should really think about our treatment of plants and animals.

After it has developed into a living human, then it should be protected, no earlier.

Lets take it a step further. Should I feel guilty when a girl I am with uses a morning after pill? Should she? Maybe I?m one of those ?extremists? but I take this very lightly. Not only have I not raised objection, I didn?t even think about it afterwards.

Edit: I should make more clear, I don't support late term abortions for any reason. Once a baby is... a baby, it has the same ownership of its body that we all have, and has the same right to life.

(Edited by Dan on 11-10-2005 22:22)

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:Some argue that the father should also be involved in the decision to have or not have an abortion, but as a co-worker correctly pointed out - as long as the man has the option to
just walk away and remove himself from the equation, then it needs to remain the woman's choice solely.

---

Your co-worker must have been a woman!

The man or father of that life, is forever monetarily connected to that life. Or at least for 18 years of that life. And if being monetarily connected, is not the point, all I can say is, "Try it yourself". All I'm saying is get a DNA test, you young men out there, if your told that YOUR THE FATHER!

(Edited by Zynx on 11-11-2005 01:32)

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:Life itself has become considered as disposible at all levels,

---

Like the Death Penalty? Dam Skippy! Some people should die!

Aside from that, this planet can not sustain a perpetual increase in life. I did not research it yet, but I dare to say that life on this planet, exceeds death. All I'm saying is that life can not be allowed to infest this planet, without some sort of control.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

Bugimus said:Because of that, I believe it is in the interest of society, friends,
family, the father and the woman herself to see a healthy outcome for both if at all possible. This means that aborting fetuses for sex selection, convenience or other similar reasons is not widely supported
by those who favor the middle ground.

---

Then society should B better off by stopping imperfect births? I mean in the interests of "society" we should make sure there is a "healthy outcome". All I am saying is that, U can't pick and choose, based on hindsight!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

Just a thought/question that I would like to pass on...

"If (Lord Forbid) Your Wife (or Future wife) got Raped...and became pregnant...what would you do?

Would you keep it...or Not

There is a reason for everything...that much is sure.

And if Abortion was/is outlawed... I hope there?s a limit on it (Aborting a 6-8 Month Baby...is just dang wrong...)
The way I see it...The Moment Its Little Heart starts beating...It is Alive.

Both Sides has there Points.... But unfortunately.... everyone is So Strong in something... there mind is closed and basically NOTHING can change there mind... and Once that happens... they are lost to there own belief and are Blind

.......................................
There Is No Impossable, just People Not Intellectual enought to accept it

quote:

---

Zynx said:
--------------------------------------
quote:RhyssaFireheart said:Some argue
that the father should also be involved in the decision to have or not
have an abortion, but as a co-worker correctly pointed out - as long as
the man has the option to
just walk away and remove himself from the equation, then it needs to remain the woman's choice solely.
--------------------------------------
Your co-worker must have been a woman!

The man or father of that life, is forever monetarily connected to that
life. Or at least for 18 years of that life. And if being monetarily
connected, is not the point, all I can say is, "Try it yourself". All
I'm saying is get a DNA test, you young men out there, if your told
that YOUR THE FATHER!

(Edited by Zynx on 11-11-2005 01:32)

---

Nope, co-worker was a man, and a father of 2 actually.

And as you said, you have to have proof of some sort that the man is truly the biological father, as well be willing to put the child through having the DNA test done. PLUS! once all that is done, good luck collecting if the father doesn't want to contibute. Garnish his wages? Sure, if you can. Why do you think Deadbeat Dads are such a problem in the US (and maybe other countries, I don't know honestly).

Let's not forget the spiteful and vengeful women who use their children as ammo against the fathers, and twist and manipulate the kids outlook to suit whatever they feel is appropriate. Don't believe me on that last part of parents manipulating their kids? Try this article on for size --> http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1231684&page=1 WARNING! May get your really pissed off.

Anyways, back to the kids... I know about a lot of that sort of thing because the lives of my two younger brothers could be soap operas. The middle bro had DCFS brought down on him because his crazy ex-wife felt like saying he was abusing their oldest son, and she later admitted that she was lying. My youngest bro is paying child support, for a kid that he has no contact with, nor does he desire any because it was a result of the two participants being drunk out of their gourds and neither using any brains before enjoying themselves. And I'll be the first to admit I think my youngest bro is a moron in that case.

_____________________

coeur de feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

quote:

---

How can you call abortion on demand a mainstream position? Or are you? It's nothing short of extremist.

---

I never called it a mainsteam position

My position on the issue was made clear many times in such debates before. If the fetus is capable of surviving outside of the womb, then clearly one should not abort it.

At the risk of being tiresome, you are all ignoring the basic fact it is none of your business what a woman does with her own body.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I soooo could get into a heated debate over abortion, but frankly I don't have either the years to do so or the patience. Being a male I do feel that it is not a man's business what a women does with her body in this regard, and that RvW will not be overturned anytime soon.


I would hope that in the chance Abortion is banned I say that all of the women who are forced to have the child should leave it on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is a powerful image and would probably work to create a compromise between Pro-lifers and Pro Choicers.


The constitution is a wonderful document that is intended to define the National Government not what a female does with her body.

---
By reading this you have just spent a second of your time

(Edited by Patrick on 11-11-2005 10:56)

To clarify first off, I am not a commie liberal from Austin. Liberals and Conservatives are both idiot in some respect. I like to think of myself as a more Carlinish when it comes to Politics.

quote:

---

There are crusades that are in existence as we speak in tents and in stadiums and in halls all across America. Ever heard of Billy Graham crusades? Why are you afraid of words. There are physical armies that try to obliterate communism, oppression, evil, tyranny, etc. So there are spiritual armies trying to obliterate sin by prayer. We, as Christians are in a serious war always doing battle with the enemy Satan. And Satan's evil is very real ro us. In my sacrament of confirmation I promised to became a Chrisitan solider to uphold the truth of faith no matter how adverse it may seem in the culture of the times. The majority of the Christian faithful crossing all denominations are in coummunion with this belief.

To many of us Christian faithful, to have one more conservative who is against abortion, etc is going towards winning the battle against the horrible evil of aborting innocent babies. With his confirmation, we see a hope in our desire to change an injustice to tiny humans. Sure there are other important issues out there to be debated,etc., but the issue of abortion is a primary issue that preceeds all others, simply because it regards the most innocent fragile human life. We believe the power of prayer has helped in getting Bush elected so as conservative, he could choose a conservative court, which could unbalance and change the course of the court. I strongly believe he choose Miers and knew she would not be accepted, but it was a ploy use in the scheme to elect another conservative, and a Catholic, because Bush is a fetus friendly President. His aim is to reverse Roe vs Wade.

---

This sounds like a page out of the Pat Robertson's Handbook. Throughout history thinking of this nature has caused more death, pain, and sorrow than anything else, yet these are all things that Jade here is against. Answer this Jade, where is you hard proof that an embryo or fetus can truly feel pain or think for itself. Something that your God said or Dubya said is not proof by the way, although Im sure you believe it to be.

I will admit that during the last trimester a baby is capable of conscience thought, and it is a cruel endeavor to kill a baby at that stage. Im personally against abortions in the Third trimester, and that is why I think a woman should be able to make up here mind about an abortion before this and if she isn't then put the baby up for adoption or raise it. But consider Jade what would become of the fetus or embryo, it will be used to help the sick and dying people who could benefit from the stem cells from its death. So technically abortion can create and heal life.

This topic also brings up something else. What would be a crueler fate, an abortion or a life of Down Syndrome or worst. Some abortions are done because of this fact. This is not me condemning those who are living with a mental retardation, rather I am hoping to prevent the continuation of this unfair condition.

---
By reading this you have just spent a second of your time

(Edited by Patrick on 11-11-2005 11:23)

I am being perceived as unsympathetic to women who abort. I do in fact have sympathy for their souls after the act, but I do have no sympathy for the reason for the act, which deserves no aid. An aid that is a falsehood of love.


In the two years I have been on this post, as being the only Catholic in full communion with the Church I have been constantly been accused of being on the side of the priest who have been in darkness and those who did not make right decisions to cleanse the church of these horrible acts regarding the scandal. The approach to Jade has been, since she is Cath lets goad her constantly about the priest scandal to keep her on the defensive. And this is the only way we can attack her beliefs. I have always made a stand on my thoughts and feelings to these same individuals who constantly accuse me and there are at least (3) posters. For those of you who are new, I can only say you must refer to past archives on this subject and you will see my post. I will only reiterate this. People constantly fall short of the glory in their walk in life, but we can be forgiven and start anew as a people and a church. In the Church's past 2000 centuries, the scandal happened in this last century by a few individuals. It does not reflect nor taint other individuals who try to remain true to the gospels. The church will only now be strengthened she cleanses herself of those who would not do the will of God. A greater church now will be in focus as she resolves to show the goodness that she offers to all.

quote:

---

Nice post, Rhyssa. Unfortunately, you are blowing wind on deaf ears in this case. Such arguments and reason have been pointed at Jade before.

she'll probably just side-step the issue, or go off on a tangent and avoid it altogether, as she has always done, when faced and confronted with reason and logic

---

Web

You of all persons should know that what the Christian God is to Christians defies all reason and logic. We walk by intuitive faith of revelation. In us the spirit draws us to revelations in what is not tangible. No one has ever seen God to prove the existence, but nor can they disprove intelligent God's design. To many of us the world is an intelligent project that reflects a divine origin. And this project is still in process. Some are fooled by the atheism that they carry inside them. They imagine the universe deprived of direction and order, as if at the mercy of some chance. How logical is it that many people today are fooled by atheism & think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order. Through our sacred scripture, the Lord awakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project. We understand that the cosmos is also love. We believe this from Psalm 136 in its pointing to the created world as the place to find visible signs of divine charity. The signs of God's love are seen in the marvels of creation and in the great gifts he has given to us. The church teaches us to recognize in created things the greatness of God and his merciful love toward us. I am constantly filled with wonder on the mystery of creation. Our God must be a beauty greater than any that can be desired, the beginning of all beings, the source of life, the light of understanding, and inaccessible wisdoms. The presence of God in creation is a "cosmic revelation" available to everyone, and we try to understand this revelation. This is aided by our prayers. We believe our God is not a cold and distant God, but one shares and is in-love with his creatures. We believe what keeps us in orbit and suspends us in time is the love and mercy of God.

Its my view that a knowledgeable can become what arrogant is. This happens in many walks of life even with some religious and the reason is because we take pride in worldly knowledge. We place a super on knowledge in details, facts, when the higher road is to seek God's interpretation of Wisdom, which is true, right and everlasting. Solely because we are looking for or getting a glimpse of the intellect of God. Knowledge is the accumulation of facts and facts are very important but wisdom is the ability to put those facts together and use knowledge of these facts with insight. Right? When your cluttered with too many facts you may get a narrow perspective. To me, this is one reason why the scientific world so often rejects God. They too become confused. The Lord can not be documented. He is too big for the microscope. He is also too big for a telescope. He cannot always be intellectualized in a way that is "rational" (save for a few arrogant philosophers) and he is not seen in the clutter of details. How often in daily life to do we see knowledge leads to pride and pride causes blindness, boastfulness, attention to self & self love, an, idolizing human intellectuals, where as wisdom is humble, loves and searches for God in all things. I know knowledge is important and we are to seek it to know our surroundings, but we are not to elevate it more important than trying to find God thur religion. There are Christians who decorate their cars with a "fish" as a symbol of Christianity and inside the fish it often says "Jesus." Evolutionists counter with the emblem of a fish that has evolutionary legs and the name "Darwin." So they have made Darwinism their replacement for Intelligent Designer. Can anyone equate Darwinism with Christianity ? Is an incredible series of accidents in the millions of them more likely due to an intelligence of God. And maybe the Christian God? Could our complex body from digestion to reproduction be the product of accidents ? How about lizards that can turn colors to blend perfectly in with their surroundings? Is this an accident? And the humps on camels? How about the elaborate spigots in the neck of a giraffe (that keep it from choking)? Is it a mere coincidence that some creatures at the bottom of the ocean have lamps on their heads to see (or bioluminescence to attract catch to their tongues)? To not realized the conclusion of a force far more above a greater than the theory of Darwinism is not sensible. Wow, I am way off subject.

For those of you who are new to this forum there is a very good abortion debate in the archives if it can be found. I don't have too much time to post these days as I have been out sick and must catch up. But, many contributors to that forum gave some very interesting views. There were very few of us who are fetus friendly on that archive but all the same its very interesting.

quote:

---

jade said:

he approach to Jade has been, since she is Cath lets goad her constantly about the priest scandal to keep her on the defensive. And this is the only way we can attack her beliefs.

---

You are so full of shit it's not funny, Jade...

Full blown denial jade.

Sexual abuse by clergy has been going on since day one and not just in the catholic church.

Aside from that, DL said it all.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Could our complex body from digestion to reproduction be the product of accidents ? How about lizards that can turn colors to blend perfectly in with their surroundings? Is this an accident? And the humps on camels? How about the elaborate spigots in the neck of a giraffe (that keep it from choking)? Is it a mere coincidence that some creatures at the bottom of the ocean have lamps on their heads to see (or bioluminescence to attract catch to their tongues)? To not realized the conclusion of a force far more above a greater than the theory of Darwinism is not sensible.

---

I won't comment on the other...not sure what to call it that you posted. I reckon DL called it correctly.

*shrug*

To the part that I quoted.

quote:

---

Could our complex body from digestion to reproduction be the product of accidents ?

---

Yes - I wouldn't say "accidents" - I would say evolution Jade. We see the evidence all around us. Open your eyes and see it. It is easy.

quote:

---

How about lizards that can turn colors to blend perfectly in with their surroundings?

---

A perfect example of evolution and adaption, that perfectly depicts the pressures of an environment on a species.

quote:

---

Is this an accident?

---

Nope, it is evolution.

quote:

---

And the humps on camels?

---

What about them - evolution. Also a perfect example of environmental pressures on a species.

quote:

---

How about the elaborate spigots in the neck of a giraffe (that keep it from choking)?

---

And what about them? Again, a form of evlolution. I see no evidence whatsoever of something else.

quote:

---

Is it a mere coincidence that some creatures at the bottom of the ocean have lamps on their heads to see (or bioluminescence to attract catch to their tongues)?

---

Coincidence? No, again evolution. A small advantage, that lead to a better production rate, that eventually became mainstream. A great example of evolution and eviromental pressures on species.

quote:

---

To not realized the conclusion of a force far more above a greater than the theory of Darwinism is not sensible.

---

Really? So, direct evidence ofevolution vs fable and disinformation is not sensible for you?

You live in a strange world, where the imaginative is real to you, and reality and fact fiction. Well, that is your choice and you are welcome to it, as long as you keep it to yourself. I pity your children, however. I hope at least one of them has the strength to resist you and your beliefs.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

You live in a strange world, where the imaginative is real to you, and reality and fact fiction. Well, that is your choice and you are welcome to it, as long as you keep it to yourself. I pity your children, however. I hope at least one of them has the strength to resist you and your beliefs.

---

My worlds is not so strange. As you believe I live in the not so real world I may take that as a compliment as I am living to prepare myself for my next world.
I cannot keep it to myself. It is contrary to my beliefs to contain it and not share. Why do you think I am on this forum? I am compelled. I am willed. What I post comes from the one who sends me. The power to relate is a strong power that cannot and will not be silenced. Why do you think the world is full of people like me. Our hearts are open to welcome love. Love rejects no one.... where the heart is willing and able, the love of Christ can only grow, and grow and grow. My children are still growing in faith and wisdom. I gave them a strong foundation. They stand on some issues of the church and maybe wobble on some, but they are searching on their own to understand. They attend church regularly of their own free will as they have a frienship with Christ. Maybe its not as mature a friendship as they are young, but with prayer I hope they come to know the fullness of truth. They will marry and move on and take what I gave them to others. I hope.

I believe there are specialists who will be happy to help you with that compulsion jade.

No one here wishes you to alter your viewpoint, but if you persist in posting nonsense, you will have to put up with more realistic folks challenging your pretensions.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

I cannot keep it to myself. It is contrary to my beliefs to contain it and not share. Why do you think I am on this forum? I am compelled. I am willed. What I post comes from the one who sends me. The power to relate is a strong power that cannot and will not be silenced. Why do you think the world is full of people like me. Our hearts are open to welcome love. Love rejects no one.... where the heart is willing and able, the love of Christ can only grow, and grow and grow.

---

So, God knows everything, and He made us, and He knows all of the choices that we will make and which of us will go to Heaven and which of us will spend eternity in Hell. So what is the point of you trying to tell people to believe in God? He knows that some of us will believe in Him and some of us will reject him and some people will be somewhere in between. You cannot change that no matter how much you preach at us. If I am going to eventually change my mind, it won't be because of anything that you tell me, it will be because God pre-ordained that I would do that.




(Edited by briggl on 11-12-2005 00:40)

If there was a god ans she wanted us to believe in her, we would, we'd have no choice.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

I cannot keep it to myself. It is contrary to my beliefs to contain it and not share.

---

And this is where we draw the line, Jade. Your beliefs are yours, they are personal, and as long as you keep them to yourself, and don't attempt to force them on others, it is fine.

But you say that you are compelled to force your beliefs on others, furthermore, you feel you are justified to do so.

That puts us at war, for I will fight such with every fibre of my being.

You need to grasp that that type of behavior, mentality and belief is abhorent and anti-social. That the greatest crimes in humanity were based on exactly such mentality and belief.

You are the problem, Jade. The sickness, the cancer.

As much as I like these things I tend not to read through all of the posts so forgive me if I'm repeating something already here.


I ask you jade one question. Why must a person feel the need to dictate the desires of another. If i want to snort coke of a hookers ass while clubbing a baby seal I will go about my business, the one thing I would hope for is that I burn in Hell for it while you sit comfortably in Heaven, that is to say if there is really a heaven or hell.

My business is my thing and your disapproval is another, albeit that with this sort of attitude I could be mistaken for agreeing to murder, and honestly I do feel some people should be murder, like Carrottop, but that is neither here nor there.

I hope this made sense. Its nearly 5am here and im sleep depraved.

---
By reading this you have just spent a second of your time

quote:

---

But you say that you are compelled to force your beliefs on others, furthermore, you feel you are justified to do so.

---

quote:

---

I ask you jade one question. Why must a person feel the need to dictate the desires of another.

---

Because the Bible tells her so. It's part of the religion to "spread the good news".

Jade,

The personal problems you experience with the others on this board are YOUR OWN FAULT. It is an OUTRAGE that you think you can reduce it to being persecuted for being Catholic. It has nothing to do with your personal views and everything to do with your methods of interaction with others. How can you expect others to respect you when you refuse to respect them???

It seems to me you are far too interested in how YOU are perceived and far less interested in how our God is perceived. You need to wake up and start listening to the Spirit you say you represent and realize your personal status means nothing because His means everything. Respect for your faith may never come from the worldly, but you may very well garner personal respect from our friends here if you TAKE THE TIME TO EARN IT!

I have sat out of so many of these flare ups in the past but your last couple of posts have sent me over the edge.

I wish only to help you see the problem. If you take my words as just another attack, then what further can I say?



briggl,

I reject Predestination and firmly believe we are free to choose our own beliefs. From what I've heard from your posts, I have a feeling you're familiar with the passages in the bible that state salvation is open to *anyone* who wants it.

Also, there is *no* biblical justification whatsoever for *forcing* belief in God onto anyone. In fact, Xians are commanded that if one town rejects the message, we are to simply move on to those who are open to it. Yes, we are compelled to "share the good news" but never to force it down anyone's throat.

When it comes to living in a pluralistic society like ours where the people decide the laws. It is perfectly appropriate to fight for laws that one agrees with even if it restricts others. We have laws against murder, drug abuse, slander, etc. because without them we would have anarchy. Both the religious and areligious are welcome, and indeed obligated, to actively participate in our government of self-rule.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Seems to me there is something ironic in one religious fanatic lecturing another and quoting the bible to make the point.

Bug, it matters not a whit what you accept or reject in-so-far as religion is concerned, as it is all in your head in any event and philosophy aside, enjoys no residence in Casa Reality.

It is never appropriate to fight for "laws" which would force opinions based on myths upon those who do not subscribe to those myths.

Now, I am going to repeat this until you religious folk get the message it is none of your damn business what a woman does with her body.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

That last post was hardly for your benefit, Dio. I was quite aware how much pleasure it was going to provide you, but some things just need saying.

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

It is never appropriate to fight for "laws" which would force opinions based on
myths upon those who do not subscribe to those myths.

---

That is simply not the case. Unless you actually believe in having second class citizens that is. It matters not one whit whether a voter is Catholic or atheist when it comes to enjoying full rights in our society. You scare the sh*t out of me sometimes, Dio, because in so many respects you're thinking is just like a religious fanatic's the only difference being you substitute your own opinions for those based on some religious text.

Now please explain to me where in the US Constitution, or the Canadian equivalent, you find that phrase you so often cite? Patrick said it above, the Constitution speaks to government and not what a woman does with her body. *That* issue should be left up to the legislature and the court should remain silent on the issue just as the Constitution does.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're just unwilling to live according to the way our governments have been set up. When you find your opinions in the minority, I think you would favor having the judges overrule the people's will. I find that to be an abuse of the system.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I took no pleasure in your lecture at all, rather, I found it sad but indicative of what has been expressed so often here before.

Which point being, even the adherants to the folly of xianity can't agree among themselves about what it is or is supposed to be,

I do find it mildy humourous that you are worried because I have an opion considerably different than the mainstream.

That you havefailed to undestand where I am in that opionion does not surprise me, nor do I care.

As for the abortion issue. you steadfastly refuse to accept the basic fact that what a woman does with her body is not the concern of courts, government and most especially, the religious.

It is not 'the will of tjhe people' which is involved, it is the wil of the individual.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

That you havefailed to undestand where I am in that opionion does not surprise
me, nor do I care.

---

Actually, if I've misunderstood your position I *do* care. What have I misunderstood?

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

It is not 'the will of tjhe people' which is involved, it is the wil of the individual.

---

Well, that isn't always the case now is it? I pointed out examples where society does intervene in the activities of the individual. If we were all an island unto ourselves we wouldn't be having this conversation, but we live in a collective society and we all need each other to make it work.

I don't understand why you can't agree that Killing a late term fetus is not simply "her body". Scientifically speaking, it involves two individual humans capable of living independently. Now where is your willingness to deal with reality? Of course, you have to know this to be fact, so how do you square this with your conscience?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Dan said:

After it has developed into a living human, then it should be protected, no earlier.

Lets take it a step further. Should I feel guilty when a girl I am with uses a morning after pill? Should she? Maybe I?m one of those ?extremists? but I take this very lightly. Not only have I not raised objection, I didn?t even think about it afterwards.

Edit: I should make more clear, I don't support late term abortions for any reason. Once a baby is... a baby, it has the same ownership of its body that we all have, and has the same right to life.

---

Dan, I almost overlooked your points there. The hard part of your first sentence I quoted is determining when the state considers the fetus a living human. The US Supreme Court attempted to make that determination by setting up the trimester guidelines.

The main reason I would not call you one of those "extremists" is because you don't support abortion on demand up to the moment of birth. That is the position of Planned Parenthood and the leadership of the Democrat party here in the states, and yes, I consider them both very extremist on this issue.

You bring up not feeling guilty at all aborting in the early stages of development. I can understand the position and I think it is probably the majority position of the populace, but I personally cannot agree it is moral. I would not favor legislation to ban first trimester abortions. As you may know I stopped eating animals as a result of my personal beliefs that we should protect and support life. So you can just imagine how much more I would oppose killing the most helpless and innocent of humna life.

I'm encouraged to see several posters here opposed to late term abortions.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs, I understand your postion well, and I partially share it - but you have failed (and continue to, sadly) to offer a valid and realistic alternative to abortion!

Until that happens, we need to concern ourselves with the reality of the situation.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

I see Bug, you have shifted the argument from abortions in general to late-term abortions.

I would like to see some figures on the number of such abortions done on an annual basis in North America.

As mentioned earlier, I seriously doubt there are many on a per-capita basis and those are almost certainly done only in cases where the lives of one or both are threatened.

In my case, were I father to a child and in the 9th month was told the mother will die if the child comes to term (for whatever reason) I would reluctantly opt to save the mother. Very likely she could concieve again.

I believe your focus on late-term to be a red herring. I seriously doubt it is much of an issue, but does give the anti-abortion crowd an emotional hook. It also suggests to me they are losing the argument.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Bugs, Are you blind? Every chance Dio/DL get , they goad, berate, persecute me for the scandal. The only thing I can come up with is you feel the same way they do, you just don't post it. I am dissappointed in you. I must say I look at you differently. But I know that makes no difference to you.
What flare ups? Where in the world are you coming from in your regard to insults and respect. Do you think they really care what I post? No harm is being done. I mean no harm to anyone. I don't take them serious. Do I need to put a SMILEY FACE. So sorry. Here, I have been called here recently "full of Shit" by an athiest. Yet, I don't hear any kind of remark about it from you. I am surprised by your post. I never use foul language and consider anyone below me. Yet I am the one who is insulting and inconsiderate. I wonder what you are really trying to make me understand. I am supposed to be your sister in Christ. But, I seem to be your foe as well. Though you are articualte and knowlegable in some areas of Christianity, you never make a real stand for fear of being considered unlikeable.


But I want to ask you something, putting all divisions of Chrisitanity aside, what do you really believe? The love of Christ dictates, we stand firm and not wobble. There is no gray area regarding Chrisitanity. You are either a Christian or not. We, as successors to all Christians who were martyred for the faith and those who came before us to hold fast to the teachings of our faith are to spread the good news in the face of adveristy like Christ did. Though he was hated by many because of the way he stood for his father, which was very loyal, he never gave in. We are told to hang on and some of us by a slim thread, because there is hope even with the many evils of atheism in this world. And it will only get worst. Are we to say, do your own thing, believe as you do, as long as you hurt no one you will be ok? Or, are we to say, stop thinking as Satan would have you think. Repent...stop living a sinful life so you may have life eternal.


Those of us Chrisitans who have children are oligated to teach them the ways of the Lord for a solid foundation so as to avoid the many trappings evil will send. We are accountable to God. We will be asked to account for our lives and the lives of our children. " God will ask, did you teach your children to love me, did you let them know of my boundless mercy?

I came across a family member at a reunion, whos children are nomands, living with one person, then another without making any commitments. When they get tired of their friend or it just doesn't work out they move to another and another with no lasting relationship. They don't attend church, they are good people,but they lack the personal relationship which dictates discipline, love and commitment. Is it their fault? No. Its their parents. They never showed them the love of Christ by faith, love and understanding thru any religion. The married one, just had an affair. Her husband found out and its very sad. They have two small children. She feels she is justififed because she married early and didn't know what was out there. What kind of married promise commitement did she vow to uphold? This is the breakdown of a family. The beakdown Satan relishes in. Though it may not be so popular to be Christians, it certainly is where the God who rules the earth wants us to be.

Jade:

I've never encountered a 'catholic' so full of conviction as you. I dare say that when it comes to catholicism as practiced in North American you clearly are in the minority.

If memory serves, a recent survey of those who consider themselves catholic were quite at odds with the vaticans unrelenting position on birth control. Hold back, if you can the ...'well they're not catholic...then...' ...argument because as far as they're concerned they are, but.. they 'believe' the no birth control bit is something more than a bit antiquated...as they do about the other ritual of moving pedofile priests from parish to parish.

When I hear you and I do hear you Jade... I always hear you Jade... but when I hear you talk about satan this and satan that.... you really do sound as if you'd be a much more comfortable following falwell. Seems to me you're both similarly filled with the same amount of 'conviction' which is about four quarts too much.

quote:

---

I came across a family member at a reunion, whos children are nomands, living with one person, then another without making any commitments. When they get tired of their friend or it just doesn't work out they move to another and another with no lasting relationship. They don't attend church, they are good people,but they lack the personal relationship which dictates discipline, love and commitment. Is it their fault? No. Its their parents. They never showed them the love of Christ by faith, love and understanding thru any religion. The married one, just had an affair. Her husband found out and its very sad. They have two small children. She feels she is justififed because she married early and didn't know what was out there. What kind of married promise commitement did she vow to uphold? This is the breakdown of a family. The beakdown Satan relishes in. Though it may not be so popular to be Christians, it certainly is where the God who rules the earth wants us to be.

---

I want to make something perfectly clear here - I am married and I have a daughter. I am fully devoted to my family. I find the quoted above to be full of ignorance, arrogance, and condecension. One doesn't need to be a xian to have a strong sense of family (as the entire history of the human race has shown).

I truly feel sorry for you, Jade. You have my sympathy.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

jade said:

Bugs, Are you blind? Every chance Dio/DL get , they goad, berate, persecute me
for the scandal. The only thing I can come up with is you feel the same way they
do, you just don't post it. I am dissappointed in you. I must say I look at you
differently. But I know that makes no difference to you.

---

Have you ever considered therapy, Jade?
I mean that very seriously, and not mlicaiously. You have some *very* serious issues going on in that head of yours, and it may be time to find someone who can help you with them...

Agreed and without malice.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Bugs, I understand your postion well, and I partially share it - but you have failed (and continue to, sadly) to offer a valid and realistic alternative to abortion!

Until that happens, we need to concern ourselves with the reality of the situation.

---

Bugs, I am still waiting for a reply from you on this point.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

I'm encouraged to see several posters here opposed to late term abortions.

---

I think most people advocating abortion would agree on this. Except maybe in cases like Dio suggests and similar situations:

quote:

---

In my case, were I father to a child and in the 9th month was told the mother will die if the child comes to term (for whatever reason) I would reluctantly opt to save the mother. Very likely she could concieve again.

---

Another point. Aside from the rabid folks Bug likes to quote, I believe few people advocate abortions. I believe, they as I, merely fight for the right for the woman to make and have the choice.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I agree with Diegenes last statement. I don't think you will find people who are pro-abortion (although anti-abortionists claim this). You find people pro-choice. They want to give people the right to choose for themselves.

Bugs also mentioned some areas that there are laws that affect the individuals right to choose. I think drug laws is the one that stands out here. I also believe that drugs should be legal. It is another pro-choice issue. People have the right to choose what they wish to do with their own bodies, their own property, etc,.

While we have laws that limit peoples personal freedoms, this does not make these laws proper or correct.

Some of the other areas that you touch on are not person choice issues, but issues that have ramification on others. If you steal from someone you directly affect someone else.

I believe that personal choice is always good, and the good laws are the ones that allow people to continue to make their own decisions that can affect them both in positive and negitive ways.

Dan @ Code Town

Good sum up WM.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Right on WM. Choice is important. Unfortunately, there is no choice for the unborn child as to whether it lives or not. I know that sometimes children are unwanted. Historically those children were either aborted or left for wild animals to eat or some other cruel form of destroying a life. In an ideal world unwanted children would be matched with persons or places in need of children. That would eliminate the need and guilt of abortion if the child could have a home where he or she would be cared for. I think that if those who are pro-life want to attack this abortion issue, they should attack the cause, not the symptoms. They should try and create a good enough program that would eliminate the need for abortion. However, if there is a need for abortion, there will always be abortion. It has been going on for at least the past 2000 years, and will continue for the next 2000 if something is not done to stop it.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

Unfortunately, there is no choice for the unborn child as to whether it lives or not.

---

Of course there is. The Mother makes that choice, and bears the consequences thereof.

Or are you suggesting that the unborn have a voice and can make it known?

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

WS is correct, but James also makes a very good point.

Were more effort put to alleviate the root cause you would not have this issue. However it is much easier to stand outside of a planned parent hood calling the people walking into it sinners and murderers, and to yell and screem at those entering.

What can be done.

1. Understand that people are going to have sex, and they will do it unwed, try to make sure it is not unprepared
2. Offer education toward making sure all sex is safe, and provide condoms to everyone, everywhere free of charge
3. Change the ideal that being unwed and pregnant is evil
4. Offer no-hassel alternatives for those who will carry to term and then give the baby up for adoption

If you change from harassing people to helping them you will find much better gains in your "battle"

Dan @ Code Town

^ A-men!

As I pointed out before, should the Pro-Lifers offer a solid, realistic alternative, I'm sure that the majority of Abortions would become a thing of the past.

But they cannot.

So, in essence, they make the situation worse, not better.

I was always taught that if you are going to bitch and complain about something, you damn well better have a better (and workable, realistic) way of doing whatever it is you are bitching and complaining about. Otherwise, you should hold your peace.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

Not that I believe in the neccessity, or legality, or morality, of this, but:

What about the rights of a father? Is the embryo/fetus not half his, although it resides in the mother? Or is this a slippery-slope argument akin to "What's wrong with white pride?"

quote:

---

cfb said:

What about the rights of a father? Is the embryo/fetus not half his, although it resides in the mother? Or is this a slippery-slope argument akin to "What's wrong with white pride?"

---

I wouldn't say that it is akin to that issue, but....it is a bit of a 'slippery slope'.

In a 'normal' healthy relationship, you should be able to expect that the father's rights and the father's feelings and involvment should be considered.

The problem with making that a legal issue is that there are so many circumstances that are not in any way normal or healthy, and forcing a woman to abide by the decision of a man who has abused her (or who for any number of other reasons has no right to have much say, if any) is fairly close to the height of inhumane.

Bottom line really *is* that it is insider her, and not inside him...

cfb

It still gets back to whose body is it.

I'm from the camp that believes the day men can get pregnant abortion won't even be up for discussion except in defense department spending estimates.

quote:

---

I'm from the camp that believes the day men can get pregnant abortion won't even be up for discussion except in defense department spending estimates.

---

I can agree with that!

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

The father has no rights.

A man who does not wish a woman to have an abortion should have made sure that the woman would not decide to have an abortion before the man chose to have sex with the woman.


If the woman decides to have an abortion it is her body and her choice.

The father should not be having sex with a woman whom he does not have intimate knowledge of her decisions relating to the action, and if he does not have this information he is definately not the person that should be exerting any kind of control over the woman's choices.

Dan @ Code Town

Generally, I agree that abortion should be legal, at any stage before birth, I do have a few questions, which WM, seems to have helped me ouot;

quote:

---

WarMage said:The father has no rights.

---

Agreed. Only AFTER the child is born, does the "FATHER" have rights. Right after he PAYS of course.

quote:

---

WarMage said:If the woman decides to have an abortion it is her body and her choice.

---

Here's the crux for me. The woman can decide to allow the birth of the child, knowing full well that the FATHER will have to monetarily support the child! If the decision for a completed birth is the decision, then add us FATHERS into that original decision.

Or support the child your dam self!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

It is not about the child, Zynx. It is about a woman's right to choose.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

WebShaman said:It is not about the child, Zynx. It is about a woman's right to choose.

---

WS I agree that government should not force a woman to do what THEY wish. Now more than every it is the christian strongarm lobby, that is behind the changing of R.V.W. that I oppose.

Yet for the sake of argument,.......................................Who decides for the child?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

The Mother, since it is her body.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

Zynx said:

then add us FATHERS into that original decision.

---

The father is right there in the original decision: we decide whether or not to participate in the sexual activity that caused the pregnancy. When you do that, you essentially make the choice to accept the consequences, including the decision of the woman who gets pregnant.

If you don't want to have to support a child you have the choice to not get someone pregnant. You don't have the choice to force someone to have an abortion.

Exactly.

Dan @ Code Town

Precisely!

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Abortion is a medical procedure. So too is a blood transfusion. If Jehova's Witnesses had 'their' way that medical procedure would be illegal for not only women but all of us.

You might be tempted to say; ''.. Oh that's just ludicrous the Supreme Court would never let that happen.'

Well I put it to you there are but two impediments to imposition of their will on the rest of us. Their numbers and an effective 'lobby.'

Good analogy.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:The Mother, since it is her body.

---

"For The Sake Of Arguement";

There is more than just a biological event here, no? This LIFE includes other powers. Does the mother speak for the biological life a spirit, a soul, a mind?

Not to mention that I know of many people within my close circle, that are not capable of making simple decent decision, let alone intellectual decisions, or intellectual biological decisons, let alone spiritual decisions.

Ideas?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

DL-44 said:The father is right there in the original decision: we decide whether
or not to participate in the sexual activity that caused the pregnancy. When you do that, you essentially make the choice to accept the consequences, including the decision of the woman who gets pregnant. If you don't want to support a child you have the choice to not get someone pregnant. You don't have the choice to force someone to have an abortion.

---

quote:

---

WarMage said:Exactly.

---

quote:

---

Diogenes said:Precisely!

---

This is clearly a female copout. It disgusts me to think that a man making his decision beforehand limits him to being merely a donor, and a monetary entity. Perhaps this is just a way of dealing with all of the problems that exists on this issue. Throw money at it.

DL, your response sounds like a womans response? Have I pegged U wrong? WM & Dio, I think you are too willing to simplify the father's voice in these decisions. Why is it that once a pregnancy is fact, that the man loses his voice? While a woman harbors the birth it does take 2 biological additives to create this life. Simply because the woman harbors the creation of that life, should not cancel out a man's involvement.

Nor his deciion making abilities/powers. Try not to trivialize the insertion of money towards the development of a child, only trivialize a parents want for results.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

(Edited by Zynx on 11-25-2005 04:14)

Try to pay attention Zynx.

It is her body, her decision, Full stop!

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Zynx said:

This is clearly a female copout.

---

You are a very confused individual.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

DL, your response sounds like a womans response?

---

Your response sounds like a typical self-centered sexist pig. You don't have to be a woman to be able to accept the repsonsibilities you have, and to accept the consequences of your actions.

You want to be in the 'original' decision. I point out to you that are very much there in the original decision. If you don't want to deal with the possbile outcome, then you have absolute control over that original decision which will avoid it all.

What "throwing money" at anything has to do with the issue is quite beyond me. You obviously have your priorities pretty fucked up.

Your biggest concern seems to be ending up paying for your child. As a father I find your statements appalling and ridiculously childish, selfish, and all around deplorable.

The bottom line is very simple: you do not have the right to force a woman to have the child that is growing within her, and you do not have the right to force a woman to abort the child growing within her. If your desire is to avoid the responsibility of having a child, both monetary and otherwise, then you NEED to control yourself, and/or take the proper precautions.

Consideration of the father is something that any responsible woman, involved in a responsible relationship, needs to have.
But it is still her choice.
Period.



(Edited by DL-44 on 11-25-2005 05:08)

What he said!

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

The bottom line is very simple: you do not have the right to force a woman to have the child that is growing within her, and you do not have the right to force a woman to abort the child growing within her. If your desire is to avoid the responsibility of having a child, both monetary and otherwise, then you NEED to control yourself, and/or take the proper precautions.

Consideration of the father is something that any responsible woman, involved in a responsible relationship, needs to have.
But it is still her choice.
Period.

---

As a father, I can only agree. And keep in mind that I am divorced from my ex-wife (the mother of my daughter) and have been warring with her in concern of my daughter for over 6 years now. I have had girlfriends who got pregnant and decided to abort the child.

As I have said countless times before, irregardless of my feelings, the bottom line still remains (and well said, DL. That is indeed the bottom line).

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

FTSOA

quote:

---

Diogenes said:Try to pay attention Zynx. It is her body, her decision, Full stop!

---

LIFE, DIO is more than a woman giving birth. That life has a soul, or a spirit, or possible that life has BECAME by the hand of another/higher power.

If you denouce these ideals, then simply the biological growth within a females body is just that. Biological and yes, the woman has every right to decide on it's outcome.

Yet I do not believe it to be that simple.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

DL-44 said:Your response sounds like a typical self-centered sexist pig.

---

I guess I was wrong, this is surely not a typical FEMALE response.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:You don't have to be a woman to be able to accept the responsibilities you have,
and to accept the consequences of your actions.

---

Agreed, but those notions are legally/already set in motion against the FATHER.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:What "throwing money" at anything has to do with the issue is quite
beyond me. You obviously have your priorities pretty fucked up.

---

I don't claim MONEY to be a priority, but don't be ignorant, and deny it's involvement. And if money has nothing to do with it, then stop asking the fathers to support the children.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:Your biggest concern seems to be ending up paying for your child.

---

Again not my biggest point, but it is a point that you can not deny. Money for a child has nothing to do with the issue = Idiot!

quote:

---

DL-44 said:The bottom line is very simple: you do not have the right to force a
woman to have the child that is growing within her,

---

FTSOA, If I MUST pay, should I not have a voice? If not a voice to abort the life, then maybe a voice in denying monetary support?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:If your desire is to avoid the responsibility of having a child, both
monetary and otherwise, then you NEED to control yourself, and/or take the proper precautions.

---

Again you sound like a Mother hell bent on pointing out that all of the mans decision ability went the way of the mans orgasm! Once the EGG has been penetrated, does not deny a mans voice in the upbringing of this GROWTH.

You are completely aware that "MAN WILL PAY". But you are not allowing any rights unless HE PAYS. On either point how is that fair?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Again not my biggest point, but it is a point that you can not deny. Money for a child has nothing to do with the issue = Idiot!

---

If you consider DL an 'Idiot" on anything, let alone this topic allow me to call you 'One big dumb fuck.' As far as 'fuckupedness' goes you are right up there with Jade.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Once the EGG has been penetrated, does not deny a mans voice in the upbringing of this GROWTH.

---

Oh yes it does Mr. Fuck Up!

quote:

---

Zynx said:

You are completely aware that "MAN WILL PAY". But you are not allowing any rights unless HE PAYS. On either point how is that fair?

---

Fair??? What the fuck are you talking about? Life IS NOT FAIR PERIOD

Fair? Try this on for size. Woman gets pregnant has child. 'Man' does not know woman has child. 12 years later via supeona (sp?) man learns he is a father and law says father must pay. Father learns Mother is homosexual always was and that the sexual encounter was deliberate. Homosexual mother was culling the gene pool. Man still must pay. FAIR??? Well not for a fucking minute is it fair.... but that's the way it goes. BUT BUT BUT BUT.... Even if man did know woman was pregnant no "man"shall have 'legal' rights over the body of 'woman.' If the homosexual mother decided to abort that is her decision. In this particular case she did not and by my calculations my daughter is now 20 years old and I have never met her. Fuck off with 'fair' fuckhead... you know fuck all.

The next time you feel the urge to call someone an idiot put my name at the top of the list. Got it fuck head?

Thought I was finished... but I'm not... let me put it this way... if you think you have any rights... or any right to say what a woman does or does not do with her body you could just as easily say... 'I'm gonna buy myself a nigger.'

And while you're at it... move to Idaho... I heard Mark Ferman has a room to rent.

(Edited by NoJive on 11-25-2005 10:11)

Hehe...

We haven't had a good flame war for awhile.

*gets out popcorn*

Ok, peeps, let us back up and simmer down for a bit.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

Zynx, you are a fucking idiot, and I won't play along this time. Buh-bye.

Not quite right, he is a stupid, ignroant red-necked fucking idiot.

Firthermore, those are his positive aspects.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Zynx said:

LIFE, DIO is more than a woman giving birth. That life has a soul, or a
spirit, or possible that life has BECAME by the hand of another/higher
power.

If you denouce these ideals, then simply the biological growth within a
females body is just that. Biological and yes, the woman has every
right to decide on it's outcome.

Yet I do not believe it to be that simple.

---

Since you've obviously come late to the discussion thread and did not read the previous material, this is the crux of the issue.

Your belief in a higher power having anything to do with conception is just that - your belief. Imposing your beliefs on all women is the problem. I don't give a flying pigs arse that you think there is a higher power of whatever flavor imparting life/soul/spirit/ka/whatever into the dividing cells that will assemble into a tiny human being eventually. It is what I think that's important, if and when the situation would ever come up. And I'm trying to use "I" as a generic "woman's" voice, so to speak.

Kick-starting the biological processes that begin a new life does typically involve two people - one of each gender. Rather, it involves the necessary sticky by-products of each gender to start it - you don't need both to let the process run it's course (pregnancy). But, as someone previously mentioned, until men can go through the gestation period and carry a baby to term, then it must remain a womans choice, and only a woman choice.

In a perfect, ideal world, whatever decision the woman makes is based on solid discussion, thought and reflection. It should never be made on a whim or at a moments notice. If she is in a committed relationship, then not taking the views of her significant other into account would be cruel. If it was a one night stand or a fling, then the man really isn't involved in the decision making. But it is still a woman's decision to make, no matter what others might urge her to do.

A lot of the stigma of children and their status has changed over time and society's perceptions. Used to be that having a baby out of wedlock was a disgrace and something no nice girl would ever have happen to her. Now, it's a statistic to be counted. In previous centuries, people married younger and had children in their teen. Now - teen mothers are something to be prevented, because it takes time away from the extended childhood that kids have today and will usually lock the teen mother into a less .. comfortable or "enhanced" lifestyle... can't think of the words I want to use here.

Anyways, nothing anyone says about the whole abortion debate can change the fact that it is ultimately a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body.

_____________________

coeur de feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

Great post, Rhyssa. However, Zynx won't get any of it!

Yes, nice post Rhyssa. Well said.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

NoJive said:If you consider DL an 'Idiot" on anything, let alone this topic allow me to call you 'One big dumb fuck.' As far as 'fuckupedness' goes you are right up there with Jade.

---

First off, FUNK you very much, you diseased rhinocerous pizzal!

DL got it wrong when I stated that it was a possible motive for man to be only considered as a monetary entity. Meaning perhaps throwing money was just a way of dealing with all of the problems that exists on this issue. I brought it up, but I never said I agreed with it. And yes, if one thinks money has NOTHING to do with the issue of abortion, then they are an idiot. Also I did first ask DL and DIO if I have pegged them wrong. But instead on responding in a normal way they, and you included, you three took the "flame" trail with your disagreement with me.

quote:

---

NoJive said:Fuck, fuckhead, fuck, nigger, rights, womans body, blah, blah, blah blee-blah.

---

No really NoJ, tell me what you really think. Also, I know of many stories of wrongful fairness in abortion of the rights, of each parent. I just find it odd that any money upfront without any say-so in the issue, or any issue, should be furher examined. I know of men doing the right thing, and even though they have been DNA separated from that child, just becasue they signed the birth certificate, in good faith, and love for the woman, and the child, he must still pay. Why? Because the law does not allow an OUT, for DNA evidence to change the status of FATHER. SO he's stuck paying onbey, not to mention the money he has already lost. My story points to how money is used against the man, for reasons not quite understood, but are a gven when having a child. A given, WITHOUT rights. Again, not fair. I pay money, I want rights. Nor rights, no money. Althougth it sounds harsh, would you think of any other thing, that you would agree to, if it was not a life? A house? A car?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:If your desire is to avoid the responsibility of having a child, both monetary and otherwise, then you NEED to control yourself, and/or take the proper precautions.Consideration of the father is something that any responsible woman, involved in a responsible relationship, needs to have. But it is still her choice.

---

DL you are no doubt a father that has his convictions, and more than likely your decisions have worked perfectly for you. What about those who it has not worked well for? That simple assumes too much. It assumes that the man is a bastard, and wants no part in the childs life. It assumes that the woman is an outstanding human being, and that the man SUCKS! It assumes that the decision to have sex, shich resulted in the woman getting pregnant is more of a failure of the man than the woman.

You seem to be fighting for the rights more for the woman than the man. Perhaps you don't slave over a job, day after day, when 30% of that man's money is taken for a kid he has no rights, or no say so, in any aspect of that life, unless the woman gives him permission, or that he makes sure he apys up his end of the agreement? I don't see anything wrong with allowing a voice for the man if he wishes, and if he does not, then he loses rights. And that seems to work fine for the woman than it does for the man.

DEAD-beat moms do exist, and they still have the law on their side. I bellieve it is becasue the majority of judges, man or woman, believe that any chiold is better with the woman than the man. I'm here to tell that it is not a blanket rule that applies to all. Nor is this idea that by simply piercing the egg, the man is reduced to some monetary entity, with no rights.

If no rights, then no money. And if money is not an issue, then why all of the flack? Why all the screaming and yelling for money, but no return. SHouldn't I get something for my money? Why is that such an issue, that people are reduced to calling it evil, or wrong to think of it that way? Or to say that your just not concerned about the child then are you? Why when money is a part of the issue, and it is brought up, that everyone gets squimish, and or defensive.

Just my $0.02.

Rhyssa, I am still reading your level-headed post.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

briggl said:However, Zynx won't get any of it!

---

Good setup briggl.

Rhyssa, FTSOA, was meant to be just that. For The Sake Of Argument. A devils advocate if you will. You did assume a few things correct about me, but a womans choice was not one of them. I do agree that, first and foremost, any decision to be made is a womans choice. Period. The beliefs that I have nothing to do with a woman making that decision of hers. This includes the man and the government(R v Wade). I guess i was trying to allow show that as stong as people want to try and save the life of an animal, that such simple expectations also be considered with a womans decision. Not forcing those ideas, but considering them. So I do agree with much of what you have said, which makes me think FTSOA is not a term to use around here. I'll guess I'll stick to what I believe, or what I know. Actually I was trying to play the "advocate", to get answers to my own questions, and in hindsight, that was a BAD mistake.

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:Anyways, nothing anyone says about the whole abortion debate can change the fact that it is ultimately a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body.

---

Without devoting more of my blah-blah-blah beliefs about, "man-money-no rights-evil to think such things", I would like to ask this of Rhyssa.

Rhyssa, do you consider the health of that life an issue, if it contradicts the medical community? We know of people who believe that their prayers to heal are enough to help their child heal from whatever afflication they have. But Id like to include definitive medical issues, that conflict with a womans choice. Of course they should be decided on a case by case basis, but would that not be a voice for change against, "the fact that it is ultimately a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body."????

(Edited by Zynx on 11-29-2005 01:46)

quote:

---

Zynx said:

and more than likely your decisions have worked perfectly for you.

---

Making statements like that only helps to demonstrate my previous statement.
The only baseless assumptions I see in the recent posts here are yours.

(Edited by DL-44 on 11-29-2005 03:06)

[quote][b]

quote:

---

DL-44 said:Making statements like that only helps to demonstrate my previous statement.

---

On the issue at hand, DL, I guess that you make good money, in that MONEY for taking care of a child is not an issue for you. I postulate that you are a person who never had to decide about MONEY, when it came to supporting a child. I apologize DL, as I guess I pegged you wrong. I was only trying to show that your ATTITUDE on a MANs MONETARY SUPPORT, seems to more support the womans point of view than the mans. I found it confusing.

I see it like this; unless you understand how MONEY makes a difference, you will never understand the difference that MONEY makes.

(Edited by Zynx on 11-29-2005 04:06)

Your inability to comprehend what I've said is quite astounding.

Your wild assumptions are truly baffling.

Your desire to simply argue is mind-numbing.

quote:

---

DL, I guess that you make good money, in that MONEY for taking care of a child is not an issue for you. I postulate that you are a person who never had to decide about MONEY, when it came to supporting a child.

---

What , in all that DL-44 has written, leads you to this conclusion???

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Without devoting more of my blah-blah-blah beliefs about, "man-money-no rights-evil to think such things", I would like to ask this of Rhyssa.

Rhyssa, do you consider the health of that life an issue, if it contradicts the medical community? We know of people who believe that their prayers to heal are enough to help their child heal from whatever afflication they have. But Id like to include definitive medical issues, that conflict with a womans choice. Of course they should be decided on a case by case basis, but would that not be a voice for change against, "the fact that it is ultimately a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body

---

First off, I've never seen "FTSOA" before and had no idea what it meant.

Secondly, I've read your statement I quoted above several times now, and I still have no freaking idea what the hell you are trying to say and/or ask me.

Health of what life? The fetus? What is contradicting the medical community? It's been documented that mental health and well-being has an effect on physical health and well-being. Your brain can control how you feel physically, and thinking "good thoughts" helps people get well better when they are ill. So yes, prayer can help people get better because they believe in it. Is using prayer in place of having a triple by-pass practical? Not really.

And actually your example of using prayer helps to reinforce the idea that it is ultimately a matter of choice. People have the right to choose what they wish for themselves, as long as they are not deliberately harming others in the process. Most of society doesn't dispute this, except in the case of abortion because of the status of the fetus. Is it a human being or simply a parasitic growth in the woman for ~40 weeks or so? Should the rights of the fetus supercede those of the female carrying said fetus? By extension, why is the mothers/parents right to decide for the child fine after they are born (and is actually the law, I think), but not prior to birth?

These all come down to the status of the fetus prior to birth. And that status is debated endlessly based on religious dogma. The problems come in when some people what to push their views based on their particular religious dogma onto everyone else instead of allowing each person to make their own, personal decision based on their own, personal dogma, religious or not.

_____________________

coeur de feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

Briggl, I said that I was making assumptions of DL, I asked if I was "pegging" him wrong, I apologized to him when I was wrong about him, or his assumptions, but he seems to do no wrong.

He got it wrong about my comment with throwing money at an issue, but that didn't matter to him. And others believed him to be right about his false assumption, and that's where it took off with a good amount of "flame".

Too often it seems it is never his mistake when his makes the wrong assumption of another, on the contrary, it's the other person fault for making him make a false assumption.

As for your question, it was simply a bit odd for me to see how vigorously he defended the idea of money on the issue. In his defensive posts, I think he painted a dark portrait of how he views the MAN in this situation. To me, (And again I say perhaps) that seems to have a voice of a man who never had a problem with money with him becoming a father.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:First off, I've never seen "FTSOA" before and had no idea what it meant.

---

Ok, not my fault.

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:Secondly, I've read your statement I quoted above several times now, and I still have no freaking idea what the hell you are trying to say and/or ask me. Health of what life? The fetus? What is contradicting the medical community?

---

I was trying too hard to keep away from using certain terms, baby, fetus, child, unborn, and such. Sorry that wasn't clearer on my part. I was asking the question, that if the life of the fetus is in danger of death, baseed on the doctors at hand, but the woman still wants to try and take the fetus to full term, is it still her choice, even though there exists a 95% chance, that the fetus will die?

Also, what example of mine? "actually your example of using prayer helps to,....."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

He got it wrong about my comment with throwing money at an issue, but that didn't matter to him. And others believed him to be right about his false assumption, and that's where it took off with a good amount of "flame".

Too often it seems it is never his mistake when his makes the wrong assumption of another, on the contrary, it's the other person fault for making him make a false assumption.

As for your question, it was simply a bit odd for me to see how vigorously he defended the idea of money on the issue. In his defensive posts, I think he painted a dark portrait of how he views the MAN in this situation. To me, (And again I say perhaps) that seems to have a voice of a man who never had a problem with money with him becoming a father.

---

Man, you are truly messed up, and fixated to the point that you cannot see straight. I would seriously suggest that you stand down, and not only examine your own posts for the huge mistakes in them, but also DLs and others here for the sound information that they contain.

DL is not the only one who is, and has been poitning this out to you, Zynx, time and time again. I suggest you think about what that means and why that is.

" Perhaps this is just a way of dealing with all of the problems that exists on this issue. Throw money at it. " = Zynx
" What "throwing money" at anything has to do with the issue is quite beyond me. You obviously have your priorities pretty fucked up. " = DL

I never posted it as my priority, so how am I wrong?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:Man, you are truly messed up, and fixated to the point that you cannot see straight. I would seriously suggest that you stand down, and not only examine your own posts for the huge mistakes in them, but also DLs and others here for the sound information that they contain.DL is not the only one who is, and has been poitning this out to you, Zynx, time and time again. I suggest you think about what that means and why that is.

---

I guess I will take your advice and stand down. What with all of the "sound advice", i've been given like fucked up, sexist pig, Mr. fuck up, fuckhead, fucking idiot, stupid ignorant rednecked fucking idiot, shithead, and so on, it's no wonder I'm messed up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

If it weren't for the fact that you seem to turn every discussion into an endless and pointless argument, ingoring the majority of what is said for the sake of prolonging arguments....

I might go back and re-explain what has been said. You have made it clear several times now that it just is not worth the effort.

That you take offense at such words after the types of malicious insults you have lashed out with in the past is quite absurd as well.

quote:

---

" Perhaps this is just a way of dealing with all of the problems that exists on this issue. Throw money at it. " = Zynx
" What "throwing money" at anything has to do with the issue is quite beyond me. You obviously have your priorities pretty fucked up. " = DL

I never posted it as my priority, so how am I wrong?

---

You posted

quote:

---

Throw money at it

---

If you don't wish something like that statement to be considered directly coming from you, you need to state that. Nobody can read your mind. Look at what you posted, just what is there, not what you interpret into it.

Also, the fact that you keep bringing up the money angle, is pretty telling. It is obviously something that is important to you, or something that you wish to argue about. That makes it a fucked up priority, in and of itself.

Fact? Again DL does no wrong! Factual mistakes just don't exist for you.

I might have expected an effort if your assumptions were correct.

Key words here DL, "in the past". But it's nice to know you DO hold a grudge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

WebShaman said:You posted, "Throw money at it". If you don't wish something like that statement to be considered directly coming from you, you need to state that. Nobody can read your mind.

---

That's bull. So now I'm suppose to only discuss what I believe, and nothing else? That I should only bring forth ideas that are only my own?
And I if know of another idea on the issue, but I don't fully agree with it, then I should never mention it? WTF?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:Also, the fact that you keep bringing up the money angle, is pretty telling. It is obviously something that is important to you, or something that you wish to argue about. That makes it a fucked up priority, in and of itself.

---

Pretty telling? So people do make assumptions about a persons posts. So if your wrong about your assumption of me, then can I use profanity on you? And if you disagree with it, can I blame you for that as well?

WS, I thought it was, "Nobody can read your mind."

(Edited by Zynx on 11-29-2005 22:19)

Zynx, if you would make sense on occasion, maybe others would understand you and what you are saying.

Quite frankly, I can't make out how in the hell you come to such wacked out conclusions.

quote:

---

So people do make assumptions about a persons posts.

---

From what I have seen posted here from you, and others, I can only see assumptions on your part. And you seem unable to grasp this.

quote:

---

That's bull. So now I'm suppose to only discuss what I believe, and nothing else? That I should only bring forth ideas that are only my own?
And I if know of another idea on the issue, but I don't fully agree with it, then I should never mention it? WTF?

---

No.

Nobody has said different. But if you are going to do such, then you need to make damned clear that it isn't your belief or idea that you are mentioning to avoid miscommunication! The way you have presented the beliefs/ideas, one is under the impression that it comes directly from you. Since you are the initiator of the communication, the feedback that you receive should tell you that your message did not get communicated correctly, and you should have corrected the message accordingly - you did not. Instead, you lashed out at those who gave you the feedback. That makes you at fault, not them.

You need to take some basic communication classes.

quote:

---

Zynx said:

Key words here DL, "in the past". But it's nice to know you DO hold a grudge.

---

Sorry, but the keyword here is "repetition".

I do not hold a grudge, which should be quite evident in the patience you have been shown, even after your violent racist comments to WS a while back.

I simply grow weary of your games (or your ingorance, whichever the case may be).



(Edited by DL-44 on 11-30-2005 18:17)

On a more relevant note:
A couple of interesting news stories -

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/29/scotus.abortion/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/30/alito.ap/index.html

Looks as though those who fear Alito's stance on RvW are somewhat justified.

I think I'll look into investing in a chain of clinics along, but just over the border.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I think I need a break. ALL respects to you both. And to the possible many others.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:, I can't make out how in the hell you come to such wacked out conclusions.

---

I'm sorry but I do. I think I just need to verbalize them better.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:From what I have seen posted here from you, and others, I can only see assumptions on your part.

---

"pretty telling", isn't that an assumption?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:, one is under the impression that it comes directly from you.

---

I will try to verbalize my posts better.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:Since you are the initiator of the communication, the feedback that you receive should tell you that your message did not get communicated correctly,

---

Ok, I agree, but the feedback I FIRST received was profane, and vulgar, and incorrect. What message does that communicate?

quote:

---

WebShaman said:and you should have corrected the message accordingly - you did not. Instead, you lashed out at those who gave you the feedback. That makes you at fault, not them.

---

I completely disagree. They lashed out with profanity & vulgarity FIRST. So there was no point to correct my original message/statement.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:Sorry, but the keyword here is "repetition".

---

I can honor that, as long as you do the same for yourself.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:I do not hold a grudge, which should be quite evident in the patience
you have been shown, even after your violent racist comments to WS a while back.

---

"The patience you have been shown"? Is that some sort of GIFT you have given me? Not that it's any of your business anyways, but I think I am on a good path in re-building that bridge between WS and me. No I am not done, but I do continue to try and close that stupid-GAP that I created with WS.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:I simply grow weary of your games (or your ingorance, whichever the case may be).

---

DL, I assure you that I am ALWAYS posting with honesty! No games played here. Whatever your view of me, I can safely say that I am being as true to myself as I can be. Not good enough for ya? Not my fault.





And I'm spent.

C-ya in the funny papers!

(Edited by Zynx on 12-01-2005 03:30)

quote:

---

"pretty telling", isn't that an assumption?

---

No, that is an analysis.

quote:

---

DL-44 said: I simply grow weary of your games (or your ingorance, whichever the case may be).

Zynx said: DL, I assure you that I am ALWAYS posting with honesty! No games played here. Whatever your view of me, I can safely say that I am being as true to myself as I can be.

---

Then I guess it must be your ignorance, Zynx.

quote:

---

Ok, I agree, but the feedback I FIRST received was profane, and vulgar, and incorrect. What message does that communicate?

I completely disagree. They lashed out with profanity & vulgarity FIRST. So there was no point to correct my original message/statement.

---

Ok, boil that down so that it fits in a nutshell. You post, receive particularly nasty replies. A reasonable deduction would be that either you posted something so abhorent and misguided, that it warranted the replies or the posters in question were just being mean and unfair to you.

Since I know the posters in question (well, their "personas" here on the boards, anyway), I know it is not the latter.

When you recieve feedback of that sort, you relly need to re-examine your position and way of communicating, because if that is not the reaction that you had anticipated, then you have miscommunicated the message!

And irregardless of your childish response to the contrary ("They started it!" *pouts*), there is a good reason to correct the original message/statement - to be properly understood.

Also, you must take into consideration, that most on this board don't forget things that have happened in the past. In your case, you have burned bridges, caused verbal arguments, and been a source of trouble from the start. So don't go acting surprised, when you repeat such actions and get slammed on these boards, or get called for doing so.

It is your choice, how you act and re-act.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

briggl said:Then I guess it must be your ignorance, Zynx.

---

A WORD I'm not afraid of Briggl.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:In your case you have burned bridges, caused verbal arguments, and been a source of trouble from the start. So don't go acting surprised, when you repeat such actions and get slammed on these boards, or get called for doing so.

---

WS, even after that lame, racial, disgusting, and terrible post of mine to you, you have not SHOWN me that you hold a grudge. You are the only one above the rest of those here. I respect you for that, although I still want to make-a-mends on that issue. Why are you so ABOVE the rest of the Ozoners, I will never know. I just want to make it known that I do appreciate, and honor, your understanding. You are a MAN amongst men.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:It is your choice, how you act and re-act.

---

And I hope to show you and others, that I CAN change. WS, I thank you.

(Edited by Zynx on 12-03-2005 05:18)

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Perhaps I'm not as finished with this as I thought.

Apologies to the 'community' for my "profanities."

To you zinx there was nothing in print here that I would not have said face-to-face. I should have taken it to email... not vented/ranted in 'this place'

My bilgeswill was in response to what I believe to be the epitome of 'vulgarity.'

Money buys all.

Including human beings.

Ah hell No-jive, it had to be said and there is much credit and more truth in straight talk than mealy-mouthed platitudes and convoluted circumlocutions.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)