»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Abortion
| The Alley |
|
Abortion |
|
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina 
|
It is wrong, it is murder. I want to discuss this. And I promise to cut the sarcasm because of the seriousness of the topic. The "inspiration" or should I say fuel for this bonfire of a thread is Local Rebel's statement to me to challenge his webpage. I willingly accept and throw down the glove. And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Edward Grant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Abortion is the ending of a human life, ( it’s a not an apple or a pear), by the mother of that human life while he or she is within that mother’s womb . . . and I personally have no problem with that so long as no one pretends it’s anything else. I think murder is a legal or moral term which may not apply here. By the way infanticide was commonly practiced in the centuries before around the world. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
You're dodging the challenge Edward -- unless you think Abortion is a silly topic for a thread. But, allow me to help you -- this is the text from my site on Abortion: quote: So, build your case Ed. A declaration is not an argument. Refute the information I present. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"I think murder is a legal or moral term which may not apply here." So when a child is aborted, it does not live, correct? It's life is prevented... That sounds like murder to me: the prevention of life. "By the way infanticide was commonly practiced in the centuries before" Yes it was, and so was decapitating and burning women at the stake; and wearing chastity belts. That arguement doesn't stand, they were wrong back then as well. Thanks And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"You're dodging the challenge Edward -- unless you think Abortion is a silly topic for a thread." Ha, you're a natural instigator. I'll review the material and post in a little bit. And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
'"By the way infanticide was commonly practiced in the centuries before" Yes it was, and so was decapitating and burning women at the stake; and wearing chastity belts. That arguement doesn't stand, they were wrong back then as well.' Triage . . . It' easy enough to talk such in a fat country. I have respect for a mother then who exposed her last six babies so her first six might live to see maturity. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"It' easy enough to talk such in a fat country." That's not necessary Huan. I won't respond to such nonsense. There is no need to be insulting. Ugly responses won't help your point. "I have respect for a mother then who exposed her last six babies so her first six might live to see maturity." I'm not sure where you are getting at with this. Are you saying that a woman aborted her last six children to save her first six? You need to clarify if we are going to debate. And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Ok.. but, I thought you already read my site and were prepared to debate. What John means by 'exposed' is the practice of infanticide by exposing a newly born baby to the elements. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"Ok.. but, I thought you already read my site and were prepared to debate." You're one of a kind my man. Really, I want time to collect my thoughts. I like to process my thoughts before spitting them out, you should try it.  "What John means by 'exposed' is the practice of infanticide by exposing a newly born baby to the elements." That might be the cruelest thing I've heard. That's absolutely evil. I guess adoption agencies are just a myth. That is murder no question. Anyone who argues that needs to read a dictionary. And I have no respect for a woman or man who does that. "I have respect for a mother then who exposed her last six babies so her first six might live" Maybe she shouldn't of had 12 KIDS IF SHE COULDN'T TAKE CARE OF THEM! It's irresponsible. And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
From LR's website: quote: You're begging the question here. I could just as easily say that the translation "miscarriage" is a convienient attempt to justify abortion. The question is, should the Hebrew language be translated as "miscarriage" or as "premature birth"? Pointing out that miscarriage has never meant premature birth is a very shabby attempt to argue which word it should be ... We already know that they don't mean the same thing. The fact is, the Hebrew word "yatsa" is a very general term which means to "go out", "appear", or "bring forth". It does not carry the same specificity of meaning as the english word "miscarry", which means obviously that the fetus would necessarily die and then come out. If you admit the term is ambiguous, then you have to consider the remainder of the verse which says "... yet if no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life ..." (NKJV) Taken in context, who would consider a miscarriage a small injury or no harm? Close friends of mine suffered through a late term miscarriage and it was devastating. Also miscarriages (other than early pregnancy) involve a presentation of a deceased human body with hands and feet and eyes, giving poignancy to the text when it mentions those things ... and adding difficulty to the text if we're going to insist that the fist part of the verse meant "miscarriage". So the whole passage taken together strongly leans toward the interpretation of premature birth. But there are those who will insist that the word itself (meaning "depart from" or "coming out") is ambiguous enough that it tecnically could mean miscarriage. I give them that, but they are ignoring context enough that I can present a fairly strong case that what the pro-lifers are saying is the best interpretation. And that is only the immediate textual context. Next you have the rest of the Bible to square with. I could, in more detail, refute your misuse of passages out of Job where a despairing sick man despairs of life and compares himself to a miscarried fetus, but I think the misapplication is obvious enough. Though the Bible doesn't speak directly into the practice of abortion, it's overall statements about human life, and the unborn, make an attempt at pro-abortion theology dubious. It's not only the Biblical account of life which attests to the wrongness of abortion, but also the difficult existential realities surrounding it. I don't know of a woman who's had an abortion, and hasn't regretted it, or felt guilty. Misdirected social censure and conditioning or an operational and offended conscience? More later ... (Ed why'd you have to do this?)  Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: It was your choice Ed. Obviously I very carefully researched and processed my thoughts five years ago before creating a web page with references and posting it on the web. But, you indicated you were ready for this. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I question how carefully Reb. I'm ready! You didn't miss my post did you? Stephen. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I know LR. No one could form a good debate that quickly. Your work on your page is, I have to admit very thorough, wrong: but thorough. I mean it when I say this, but I'm starting to like you. You challenge everything I say (needlessly yes) but still this is a good learning experience, for the both of us maybe. And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Steph, you said that wonderfully! It's good to have someone on my side. And why did I do this? Well, I've wanted to for a while but never had the gumption. I guess LR gave it to me. Cheers And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ed, I never said I was on your "side". I just try to tell the truth. I'll tell you when you're wrong too. Just know that I respect and love my ideological opponents. I know this is a tough issue for many women, and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Since I've already discussed it and demonstrated some understanding of the translational / interpretational task before us, I felt that I would also post a link that touches upon the one scripture which is most commonly misused by pro-abortionists. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700 Stephen |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Sorry to be interrupting your life Stephen but glad to have you, Let's take a look at different interpretations of Exodus 21:22 (NKJV) Exodus 21:22 " If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine.] (NASB) Exodus 21:22 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. (KJV) Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine]. (CEV) Exodus 21:22 Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. (TEV) Exodus 21:22 "If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. (RSV) Exodus 21:22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (JPS1917 OT) Exodus 21:22 And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (Rotherham) Exodus 21:22 And when men strive together and push against a woman with child, and she miscarry, hut there is no other mischief, he shall, surely be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him, but he shall give it through judges. (BBE) Exodus 21:22 If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges. (GodsWord) Exodus 21:22 "This is what you must do whenever men fight and injure a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely. If there are no other injuries, the offender must pay whatever fine the court allows the woman's husband to demand." The actual English translation seems to be anyone's preference -- which is my point entirely. You can't use the Bible to make this case. If you want to talk about verse 22 you have to talk about verse seven. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Nice try Reb, but I already conceded the ambiguity of that particular word. I won't concede however the ambiguity of the immediate context which you didn't respond to. And I also won't concede that demonstrating that one passage is nebulous, proves that the Bible does not suppy the answer. The pro-life argument is not built upon one lynchpin scripture, but rather the scriptural view of human life, which is sacred. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'm afraid I'm not following you at the moment Stephen... I posted the entire verse. If you're referring to this statement quote: That's a great question. Moreover -- who can consider a pre-mature birth at the time of Exodus to be anything but a mis-carriage? And, why is it only to be compensated for financially? Scholars disagree. But, there is little disagreement in verse seven. If you want to talk about the Bible presenting a picture of the sanctity of life you have to talk about verse seven. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Not really. I think the fallacy is yours which says that if one subject comes up in the Bible then every subject must come up. Slavery is not a simple question in the Bible. Neither is God's forbearance. But that God chose to begin with the Jews within their social order and customs, and even gave mitigating rules concerning it, does not nullify any statements against abortion. Bringing up every possible argument about human dignity, before we even get started good, is obfuscation ... (not that we wouldn't get there eventually )Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Survival of pre-term birth is possible, perhaps even without modern medical intervention. But I think the important thing to note about the verse is that it doesn't preclude miscarriage from happening ... hence "if there is any harm... life for life". In that case a miscarriage would not be merely compensated for financially, but with a man's life. Only if "no harm", would financial restitution be made. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Why should your interpretation be exclusive Stephen? There is no single 'Biblical view of life'. But, construct yours. Explain the contrast between your present interpretation, the Vatican's modern interpretation, and the early Church's interpretation(s). I haven't looked at your resourse yet -- I apologize -- I will tomorrow. I'm an old man. I'm going to bed. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I'm not denying differences of interpretation even among those that oppose abortion. However there is more evidence for a substantial unity, than otherwise. Unless you're edging toward that deconstructionist stance of "no truth to be interpreted", and "it's anyone's guess". In that case, your use of the Bible is questionable to begin with. But I'll be looking forward to your contrasts anyway. But by all means old man, go get some rest. (ding ding) Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: What statements against abortion? quote: Perhaps then, Stephen, you would like to document for us this sanctity of human life? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: For now, mine and Ed's ... the Pope, Muslims, Protestant leaders, and countless other pro-lifers. But didn't I already mention that the Bible does not directly address this? (We could discuss the possible reasons why- not least the popularization and elevation of abortion to clinical efficiency in modern times) But it's probably similar to the practice of pederasty which is not directly mentioned in scripture. It would be foolish to say that such a practice cannot be solidly denouced based upon Biblical principles of sexual and human morality, just because it isn't directly mentioned. quote: I can Ron indeed. I figured most of the scriptural references would end up being discussed in reaction to Reb's refutation of the main scriptures used to argue pro-life on his website. Give it time. I know you're trying to force my hand early, but when have you ever known me to skimp on threads? (My wife's the one who does that. I have to beg her to buy new clothes) Lastly, I'm not just here to argue from the Bible alone, (though I think that it is the foundation for life being sacred). A host of religious and non-relgious aspects combine in the anti-abortion argument. (yawn) Guess I'm not as young as I thought. I'm right behind ya Reb. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
While I certainly don't want to minimize any statements by you, Ed, and countless other pro-lifers, Stephen, the quotation of yours that I questioned was taken in the context of the Bible and God's forbearance, both of which you chose to use as a prologue. Essentially, though, we're in agreement -- there are no scriptural "statements against abortion." While that certainly doesn't legitimize abortion, clearly it also can't be used to condemn it. I think you're going to find yourself similarly at a loss should you try to use the Bible to prove that human life, in and of itself, is <Sodom> sacred. Unless, of course, you're using one of the more secular definitions of sacred? That would, perhaps, be ironic if not terribly convincing. Perhaps, though, we should save your demonstration of the <Gomorrah> sanctity of human life for another thread? It's only relevant to this discussion, after all, if we first agree on a definition of what constitutes life and when it begins. I think few today would argue that life is <the Flood> without value, but a respect for life doesn't necessarily mean I should call a priest for Last Rites every time I trim my nails or otherwise dispose of a little DNA. Every living cell, after all, carries the potential for life. (And isn't it interesting that those most willing to argue the <first born sons> sanctity of life are the first to denounce the creation of it through any but their own means?) Oh, and one last thing. Only wimps need sleep. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ron, That was brilliant. I started laughing out loud half way through the piece. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
More later, But Ron makes the agonizingly careless conflation of divine activity and human. A God who is able to raise the dead, and even redeem the life he takes, and who is perfectly holy and righteous may judge as he sees fit. He never said "I shall not kill". While some may question Theodicy here, at least the distinction should be made for the purpose of proper Biblical exegesis. Again, a complication and confusion of the argument in my opinion. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I think the confusion, if any exists, Stephen, is introduced by your use of the word sacred. Once you do that, you no longer get to exclude God. After all, idolatry aside, we don't get to determine what is or isn't holy. He does. Again, it's not really relevant to this discussion. It's also not relevant to this thread that you just set God up as a "Do as I say, not as I do" Father and opened the door to the possibility that God could also lie to us any time He chose. No, God never said, "I shall not kill," but I think He did say, "I shall not murder." I also think that distinction goes a long way towards explaining why life, in and of itself, is not sacred, is not holy, and has never been the purpose of God's plans. To live is not to convey sanctity. None of which matters to this discussion, however, unless my finger nail clippings are deemed to have a life apart from mine. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote:This attempt at reductio-ad-absurdum is problematic since you are the one equating fingernails with a baby in in utero ... not me. The difference should be obvious, but I will be back later to explain in more detail, and also show that you've conveniently slurred over the God/creature distinction when it comes to retribution judgment and dealing death. Stephen |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Everyone: I'm not sure why the majority of this thread has to concern itself with the Bible as the ultimate arbiter of whether or not abortion is wrong. I disagree strongly with pro-life advocates who argue that a Biblical understanding of life is a critical component to the pro-life argument. The same people, wrongly I think, try to argue that the U.S. is a Christian nation on the basis of the Declaration of Independence's appeal to the "Laws of Nature's God" (i.e., the Biblical record) as a basis on which the U.S. claimed its governmental sovereignty. That's just plain wrong. Actually, and oddly enough for me I find my views more akin to Thomas Paine's political philosophy, I think science and logic are far more effective tools. If we accept the legal definition of murder as the premeditated, deliberate, and intential killing of a person with malice aforethought (accepting felony murder doctrines as well and disregarding, for now, mitigating factors that reduce killing others to manslaughter), then the issue is narrowed to whether the fetus ought to have standing as a person, and therefore be afforded Constitutional protections. I think a fair legal compromise would be to allow a medical standard of fetal viability (i.e., when a fetus, with medical care, is reasonably expected to survive outside of the womb) to determine when a fetus is entitled to due process protections (i.e., if a fetus is a person entitled to due process protections, then they cannot be deprived of life without due process of law). Sure, this standard is somewhat arbitrary (and potentially a moving target as medical science improves), but I think it is more logically consistent than arguing that a person is only a person if not connected to a uterine wall by an umbilical cord (as Hawke seemed to say on his website). I'd recommend Francis J. Beckwith's "Politically Correct Death" for a fairly comprehensive treatment of the quality of logical arguments for and against abortion. To be fair, on the other side of the argument, you have David Boonin's "A Defense of Abortion." Jim |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Gentlemen, May I, from experience: This topic always becomes laced with every notion under the sun, primarily, because there will never be a world agreement, global practice or universal law, expansive cultural or social norm, or all-embracing spiritual standard or belief that will encompass or control each individual's viewpoint upon the act of abortion. With that said and understood, I offer my own viewpoint without challenging another's, simply because I have no right or ability to control what another woman keeps or disposes of any more than what she eats or doesn't eat. Food for thought, from experience, is all I share: I asked myself this question: If I cannot will a person to live,then how can I rightfully will a person to die? Was I speaking of my babies? No. I was speaking of my babies' father, when I was carrying our twins. He chose another life over and above being my husband or a father. He walked out/ abandoned me, and began destroying himself with drugs and alcohol. There was nothing I could do, but carry my twins, alone. I had no control over anyone, but myself. Talk about mixed emotions! I wanted him to die. I wanted him to live, a healthy normal life. I wanted him to love me, like he said he did, as I thought he did, or else I wouldn't have married him. I wanted him to love his babies. I wanted him to hurt, as I hurt, and I wanted him to be afraid and desperate and lonely, and a plethora of other negative things that I suffered while broken-hearted and devastated. I know he suffered, from different things for different reasons. I also suffered the anguishing loss of one of my babies. I couldn't will her to live either. Miraculously, my second daughter survived, even though the doctors had every scientific reason why she shouldn't be alive. She was born at 23 weeks gestation and extremely tiny, though she possessed a spitfire will to make it, and she is still a spitfire today. As extremely grateful and blessed as I am with her presence in my life, I must be honest. I cannot sit here and paint myself as some kind of Saint. I was never more screwed up in my life than when I carried those babies. Did I consider abortion? Of course I considered it. More than once. Being loving, hard working, morally and spiritually upright wasn't feeding the son I already had. I had no clue how I might feed/clothe/shelter 3 babies by myself. Due to my husband's quest in "finding himself," complete responsibility found me. The banks, finance companies, and the landlord were at my door every day, wanting money and repossessing nearly everything I had. My health had failed me, mentally, emotionally, and physically, and I had a son, sitting there, looking at me every day, with the bluest eyes that kept me fighting to be there for him. I was more torn than a country at war. I collapsed plenty of times and I have no idea how I got back up. Each day was a virtual blur of hopelessness, need, routine, what's next? why me? what if? how? I can do this, I can't do this, where is God? Who is God? What have I done? I deserve this. I don't deserve this. They don't deserve this. I'm a failure. I'm not going to give up. I give up. I didn't give up. but Pieces of me died. Yes, there is more than one way a person can die. There is more wrong with the world than abortion though I do feel abortion is wrong it's no more wrong than expecting an expectant mother to carry the weight of a child/children Alone. Is it murder? With my personal feelings aside, the word "pregnant" needs to be redefined, before murder can be properly associated, because a woman can't be a little bit pregnant, though, according to scientific study, she can carry something that can be a little bit human. We can address every faith and belief or scientific finding, known or new, but personal struggles form an ambiguity that becomes more trusted than whatever another tries to sell as the absolute truth. Example: I don't believe in abortion, but can I prevent resulting pregnancies from rape or molestation, and provide for all needy children. No. So I am being ambiguous and egocentric if I cannot provide a solution for the innocent, and yet expect the innocent to adhere to MY standards. This is human, and very faulty (and if anyone wants to refute this, please do so)—It is also Godly. In the way that humans have painted our God to be. That God, is not my absolute truth. I believe I had help, yes, from a higher power, because something or someone had to be bigger than me to help me get up everyday, very pregnant as I was, guiding me and introducing me to the right people, protecting my every step, but I still suffered loss. Do I feel punished or forsaken? No. I feel lucky. But I'll Never feel lucky enough or special enough to make decisions for another on pregnancy, Sirs. because pregnancy is required, thus far, in order to bring forth life. Abortion isn't even the beginning of our troubles. It's terribly controversial, and it seems to overshadow more destructive acts such as rape/molestation/and abandoned children. We can even count out illegal acts, and just look at the population of grandparents, who are now raising a second generation, even third generation children. Where are their parents? How is this happening? It's not just teen pregnancy. These are adults, who have left their children to pursue more important things. I think we need to look at the ugly truth of what Parenthood has become and what it means to some children, because abortion is a by-product of that truth, and it's a preoccupation for some that think they can give birth to the world. I'm sorry I'm only able to provide a perspective that seems double-sided. No matter how much I love my children, I can't make someone else love them or make them love their own, and perhaps it isn't even a question of love, because it takes a hell of a lot more than love to raise a child. peace~ Reg |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well, it would seem young master Edward has yet to make a single argument here.  quote: Ok.. let's look at what People in the Bible do in a few passages; Numbers 31:17-18 (New International Version) 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. So, while killing all the male children all the women who are pregnant and potentially pregnant are to be killed without regard for the fetus. Judges 11:29-40 (New International Version) 29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." 32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. 34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break." 36 "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry." 38 "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. From this comes the Israelite custom 40 that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. quote: What is the scriptural view of human life we are to take away from Jephthah the Gileadite? Genesis 38:24-28 (New International Version) 24 About three months later Judah was told, "Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant." Judah said, "Bring her out and have her burned to death!" 25 As she was being brought out, she sent a message to her father-in-law. "I am pregnant by the man who owns these," she said. And she added, "See if you recognize whose seal and cord and staff these are." 26 Judah recognized them and said, "She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn't give her to my son Shelah." And he did not sleep with her again. 27 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 28 As she was giving birth, one of them put out his hand; so the midwife took a scarlet thread and tied it on his wrist and said, "This one came out first." So, punishing a prostitute takes precedence over protecting her fetus! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I don't think it is Jim. At least -- it isn't in my thesis -- quite the opposite is the case. It is rather that I say it can't be used to make the argument one way or another -- and Stephen is attempting to persuade us otherwise. quote: I'm not sure that I seemed to say that -- I think I said 'Some' say that. In practice there isn't room for the paper this thread isn't printed on between our compromise positions Jim. Interestingly enough though -- some of the 'Some' who would say that were the Israelites in Old Testament theology. Adam became a living soul when God breathed into him ( I know you know this Jim -- I'm being pedantic for the sake of thread coherence) and in Halacha (Jewish law) .a baby...becomes a human being when the head emerges from the womb and breathes. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life'. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Edward, We live in an extraordinary place of wealth, confidence and expectation. We for example do not fear crop failure, and no one is as poor as will starve except by ignoring or refusing the assistance available, ( I know). In Narrow Road to the Interior, Basho relates how he and his fellow traveler came upon an abandoned two year-old child in the woods. He comments about how sad it was that the parents were compelled to such an extreme, yet he relates that all he did was throw the child a small packet of food and move on . . . In some villages infanticide at birth was practiced in Japan until well into the nineteenth century as a matter of group survival. I think we have to be careful in our judgments. I will give you this: when the termination of human life is a function of convenience rather than dire necessity then the whole value structure is thrown into doubt for human life to my mind is the ultimate value regardless of the adjectives attached to it. John |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Concerning the replies of Ron and LR ... The reason I have brought up abortion from a scriptural view first, is simply because Reb has lengthily challenged the assertion that the Bible supports a pro-life position rather than a pro-abortion one. Secondly, it was because the thread didn’t start with legality, but with the ethical question, as Ed didn’t use chilly legal terms like “homicide”, but throaty and emotionally charged words like “murder” and “wrong”. I didn't choose to address the Biblical because it is my only argument for pro-life, but because it is nonetheless an important one and foundational in the sense of providing a moral framework which most in reality agree with ... even Ron, who aptly reminds me that God doesn’t murder and neither should we. Let me illustrate ... Earlier Ron pointed out that God in the Bible has communicated, in effect, "I will not murder". And somehow this was supposed to refute my assertion that God's acts of executing justice (ie, the first-born of Egypt, Sodom, etc ...) are very different than a person committing abortion. Actually it contradicts Ron’s original take that such wrathful episodes in the Bible prove that there is no “sacredness” for humanity. It proves the opposite, for critical minds. Think with me a moment ... Like Brad, I think Ron's writing is superb. The wit and satire is impeccable (I'm still stinging ). But the substance is altogther different. In reality, I can thank Ron for bolstering my argument that life is sacred (not unconditionally or autonomously sacred), when he pointed out that God's acts of taking life are based upon righteous judgement, rather than murderous intent. I never said (or even hinted) that life was autonomously "sacred" or of inherent worth, without relation to God. That kind of claim could actually serve as the very definition of "profane", and is a more humanistic idea than Christian. So Ron has only erected a straw-man that he can knock down. But the very fact that I concede that God sometimes takes life away, that he has a unique role concerning life and death, should make it clear that I am not claiming some kind of autarchical consecration for humanity. No intrinsic worth here Ron, it's all dependent upon the "imago Dei". But if there’s one thing I can agree on, which Ron said, is that even if we agree on the sanctity of human life, and that we shouldn’t “murder”, we need to ask the question as to what constitutes a human being ... rather than being adjectively human, such as a toenails might be described. And for that I will be presenting what I think are pretty good arguments that a fetus, at whatever stage, is a human being. More later ... Now concerning Reb: I’ll leave it at this concerning the Biblical statements he’s made: It’s easy to lose the forest for the trees, especially when those trees are dug up, and taken out of their particular grove. And without visiting every scripture you've commented on right now... I’ll simply say .... (more personally here, as a “Dutch Uncle” might be) For you to quote the Bible’s account of Judah’s reaction to his daughter inlaw’s pregnancy (especially when she was pregnant by HIM, in an episode where she was misaken by him for a prostitute) in order to suggest that the Bible even begins to begin to condone killing her and her unborn child, takes the cake. It’s been a while since I’ve seen an attempt made from such a tattered and confused context that you've implied. Are you simply ignoring (or expecting others to ignore) the fact that the Bible is not a one dimensional book of moral platitudes, but that it is also often a book of historical narration, and that therefore we shouldn’t assume every instance of reportage involves endorsment? It makes it even worse for you when the context of this entire passage is about Judah’s folly, rather than his righteousness. “You are more righteous than I” were his own words. And if this wayward man doubted his own righetousness, how much more God? Really Reb, you lost me here. You can do much better than that. But thanks to Jim, I did come across a good article which explores the fallcy of the theological claims of pro-abortion. I find it is very sound exegetically, and though I could ferret out the details myself, I would rather post it as an addendum to what I’ve already said. The Bible presents a pretty strong case that the unborn are fully human beings. (And I don’t have to convince you that it says not to murder). For those who want to seriously prove that the Bible does not have an anti-abortion case whatsoever, this will be a good article for you to ponder. And for others who aren’t sure either way. http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/bibsac.pdf more later, Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-30-2006 12:45 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
REb: quote: Not that I think later Jewish improvisations hold the weight of scripture, I still would find this surprising, if it is as you say. And I would like more than your word here, could you provide a reference? humor me. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: The forest IS every individual tree Stephan... I don't have time to dig them all up -- let's just talk about the one's we're walking by. quote: The point here is not that Judah fathered the child -- but that had she actually been a prostitute, or merely unfaithful, as was evidenced by her showing pregnancy after three months, she would have, by law, been executed. You can start here for a Halacha source http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/abortion.html and here; quote: To be fair though -- look for other early Christian extant materials Stephan... like the Didache from the middle of the second century CE -- clearly commands against abortion and calls it murder. But, you'll have to figure out why these texts weren't canonized and why the early Church DID have a different view of ensoulment and abortion issues as described in my text. |
||
|
hunnie_girl
since 2006-06-18
Posts 2567Canada |
yes, true it is murder. i agree on you with that. I think it is wrong but I think it is ok if the child will have a problem, ie: mentally challenged, a deformity, adjoined twins, etc. I don't think it is right to have a child like that where they wont be socially accepted. Otherwise i think you should have to deal with your mistakes. Although i think no child should be thought of as a mistake!!! there is my opinion. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: No man can determine the soul of the baby inside the womb, nor will I believe in any God that operates purely by that man's determining. Does anyone really want any human to determine the soul of a baby? When it comes to religion, women seem to be mouthless vessels in the harbor of men's seed. I'm beginning to believe the great flood was just as symbolic of such as it was a wipe-out. I don't need scripture or science to convince me that babies are more than water in a bucket, though the bucket is more questionable, since the importance of women falls second to the importance of the depositing male, biblically, and please don't label me a man hater for stating my opinion. I worship a good Father. I have to believe in a soul. It keeps me from sinking into the same dark oblivion my child would be in if I didn't. I'd also hate to think I barely missed the cut-off period of soul handouts according to some scriptural beliefs. And the breath of life theory greatly disturbs me for all mothers of stillborn children. Yes, the soul deeply affects the argument for me, but as far as being a tangible basis for legislation? No way. These things would also have to happen or be halted. 1: A person has to believe in a soul for the rules to apply. 2: gender selection discard (widely practiced in many parts of the world) 3: terminating a child with a congenital anomaly or birth defect. (I don't feel they are soulless) 4: termination to save an adult mother. 5: termination to save a child impregnated by a sick adult. 6: Separation of church and state, tricky, de-separation? re-de-separation? respiration of church, I'm confused. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Reg, There are different strands in this one thread. There is the legal. But there is also the ethical and existential. I don't think Hawke was trying to recommend legislation based upon someone's idea of "ensoulment". Though with the moral question, like you, I think all such arbitrary designations of "soul" only prove that even those who know there is a soul, don't know when. A strong argument to stay with the sign that God and nature has given us with conception. If you know, but you don't know when, play it safe. And if conception seems like just another arbitrary point, science itself affirms that it is a totally new organism genetically speaking. Stephen |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Thank you Stephen, and I want to clarify that I understand that Hawke was only providing info/reference, but there are many who feel law goes hand in hand with religious belief. Marriage, Eye for an eye, etc. but this statement: " If you know, but you don't know when, play it safe," taken in a different context, could also be applied more often with regards to unwanted pregnancy. Contraception highly helps to reduce the need for abortion, but there again, there are religious standards against it and the education involved. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
[Insults removed - I'm giving a bit of leeway in the other thread, since it's all but ruined any way, but please don't presume it will extend beyond that thread. Remain civil or don't remain; those are the only two choices you'll be given. Thank you, Ron.] Unlike the rest of you, I won't use the Bible. [edited] Not to mention how many different bibles there are. The Baptist one, the Methodist, Mormon, Presbyterian, Lutheran or Catholic; there's too many to work from. My approach to the subject is very simple and it always has been. "Is a human life being destroyed?" Yes "Is someone, say... the mother, destroying a life?" Yes "So life is being prevented?" Yes "Is it killing?" Yes I fail to see the difference between a mother killing her one year old kid and aborting her baby. Just because the child is unborn and still in the womb doesn't mean he or she is not living. And you all know it. Everyone knows it. Life begins in the womb. Did you hear me? Life! IN THE WOMB! The kid is alive and kicking with eyes, fingers and a brain. Unless you believe that life just magically starts as soon as the baby hits the surface than you can't argue it. Destroying a human life is murder. Let me ask... If the child wasn't aborted, would he have been born and have grown up and got married and had kids of his own and live and be a human being? YES! But no, he was aborted and was robbed of life. Life was taken from him. Some ask: "What about rape victims that become pregnant?" The kid had nothing to do with it, why should he be put to death? Did the baby rape the woman? HELL NO!!! The man did, so why isn't he put to death? He's jailed and the kid is killed. Is that right? A kid will be born with defects, so let's just kill him for mercy. Ha, what a load! Should a mentally challenged forty year old be killed for mercy? If he is killed, the killer would be arrested. A handicapped baby is killed, the killer will be arrested. People have problems but that doesn't mean they need to die. I have bad eyes, should I be knocked off? When I was a kid, I had severe hallucinations that landed me in therapy, should my parents have killed me for mercy's sake? Huh! Tell me. Abortion is killing. Forget the bible and all that other jargon. Typical... beating around the question with overcomplicated bull. Times were different when the Bible was written, it can't be used here. People figure, if they can't see the kid, it must not be alive. If it's still in the mother, it must not be alive. A small part of me doesn't blame the mothers. When they become pregnant unwantingly, they are scared out of their minds. Sometimes abortion is the only option they think they have. NO, I blame the doctors who provide it and the facilities that facilitate it. They are death dealers. Baby killers. Murderers. That's all I have to say about that. [This message has been edited by Ron (12-31-2006 01:13 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
rwood: quote: You're probably aware that I myself don't think religious ideas need to be completely divorced from Government. (thankfully they never have, since even our concept of human rights is religiously based) But that being said, it can be wrongly applied, abused, and taken too far. But either way, at least we can agree that there needs to be education and social reform surrounding the issues of pregnancy and parenthood. However, the question of whether abstinence teaching or contraception teaching is best remains open, seeing that both practices would lead to a decrease in unwanted pregnancies. But that's probably another thread entirely. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Hello Regina, it doesn't seem I've seen much of you since the last time we did this about 5 years ago -- good to be talking with you again. I think the issues above were exactly the impetus behind Roe V. Wade... it didn't have anything to do with hating men -- it had to do with an absent man -- and other men telling her exactly what she could and couldn't decide for herself. I wonder, given the hardship you've been through personally, and because you made the choice for yourself -- if you think it would have made it better or worse for you if Roe V. Wade hadn't become the law of the land and you felt that you had no option at all. Very interested in your thoughts there. Obviously there are faiths and denominations that render women to second class status when it comes to the theological, and an ancient overlap of religious systems and government would extend that into personal liberty as well in some systems. What do you find the present climate, in this system, this country, and Tennessee to be for women? Given your later comments about ensoulment and birth control -- I'm also wondering your views on birth control methods that prevent implantation vs. prevention of conception. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I don't think they CAN be divorced from a process that allows religious diversity. It is rather, ironically, the theocracy that would seem to eliminate religious ideas from government ... but, I suppose that's another thread Stephan |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Glad you're finally back Edward. Although the personal attacks don't bother me directly, they simply aren't allowed here at PIP, so, it may be better to edit them before they run the risk of getting your thread locked. quote: I thought this all started because you were going to debate my website? Show me any twisting with a detailed explanation please. quote: What is the difference between life, human life, and a human being? A corpse is fully human. Life does begin in the womb, I don't think there's anyone in this debate, or any statement on my site that would say otherwise. Is it your contention though -- that a human being begins when it is kicking, has eyes, fingers, and a brain? What about a zygote? quote: What about the rights of the woman and her life? She doesn't get a say? For the rest of her life she has to be the mother of a child she didn't choose? Is that right? quote: At what point, in your opinion, does fetus become equal to a forty year old male in rights under the Constitution? And, why? quote: So, then, not in so many words -- you agree with my thesis. quote: This is a complete misstatement of the issue Edward. The question is not whether or not the Zygote or Fetus is alive. It is rather, when does it become a person deserving Constitutional protection. If it is incapable of surviving outside the womb -- is it yet a person? quote: Well, that borders on scary Edward. But let's take a look at Rabbi Briskin's scenario: quote: Should this couple be allowed to make their choice with physicians, family, clergy, and according to their own conscience, privately... or do you get to do it for them? |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"I thought this all started because you were going to debate my website? Show me any twisting with a detailed explanation please." [edited] I said the Bible can't be used because it can be interpreted so many ways. Off your website, I'm debating that you agree with abortion. "Is it your contention though -- that a human being begins when it is kicking, has eyes, fingers, and a brain?" [edited] "What about the rights of the woman and her life? She doesn't get a say?" Does a woman have a right to kill her 5 year old? Again I fail to see the difference. "For the rest of her life she has to be the mother of a child she didn't choose?" I've asked before, are adoption agencies myths? Maybe she shouldn't have had sex if she didn't want a kid. And if it was rape, then there comes the adoption thing again. "At what point, in your opinion, does fetus become equal to a forty year old male in rights under the Constitution? And, why?" [edited] If you can kill a baby scot-free, why not kill a forty year old? And the rights of the Constitution? The kid’s a human. Why shouldn't he be protected? "So, then, not in so many words -- you agree with my thesis." More or less, I don't think the bible can be used here. I said that. "It is rather, when does it become a person deserving Constitutional protection." It is a person to begin with so right away I imagine. "If it is incapable of surviving outside the womb -- is it yet a person?" If you get in a car accident, God forbid , and you have to be put on life support and oxygen and are incapable of living without the hookups are you still a human? Or did you magically transform into something else?"Well, that borders on scary Edward." Really? Saddam killed people and was blamed and hanged for it. The docs kill the babies; I fail to see the difference. And your story, if the kid died in the womb then it died in the womb. What do you have to say about aborting healthy babies. You seem to avoid the question. Why don't you try answering some of the questions for a change instead of giving more questions? [edited] [This message has been edited by Ron (12-31-2006 01:18 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Since this is the closest you've come to actually formulating an argument let's just start there. The question isn't whether or not I'm human. The question is about the personhood of a single cell that is incapable of replication outside of a womb or artificial incubation. It has no eyes, fingers, feet, nor brain. It only has a unique DNA pattern. It is a human cell. Is it a person? If so-- why? What if it isn't yet implanted? I don't stop being human after I'm dead. What are my rights though -- when I can't function without artificial life support and I'm incapable of rendering my own decisions? quote: Does a mother stop being a mother after the child is adopted? quote: A zygote is neither a baby nor a forty-year-old. They are all human. Ron's toenails though, are human. It's your opinion that a zygote is a person. Why does your opinion take precedence over those who would say Constitutional rights should be conferred when a fetus is capable of survival outside the womb? |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Listen, if you're just going to answer questions with more questions then we won't get anywhere. Why don't you directly answer anything? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Let's review Edward. What's causing you to not get anywhere is your constant equivocation. You were going to debate my website, which I prepared and documented -- for anyone in the world to see and debate if so inclined. You've yet to make a single argument about my website. Instead -- you make declarative statements without documentation or even logical construction. I'm answering your questions and asking more questions in order to attempt to put together your argument. Once you have an argument then this will be a debate. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"What's causing you to not get anywhere is your constant equivocation." Lol, I'm ambiguous? Me? You can't answer a damn question and I'm ambiguous?! "You were going to debate my website, which I prepared and documented" When did I say that? [edited] "You've yet to make a single argument about my website." [edited] I want to talk about abortion! Read the thread header! "Instead -- you make declarative statements without documentation or even logical construction." Which of my statements are illogical hawky? "I'm answering your questions and asking more questions" Which questions do you answer? I can maybe count three or four. "in order to attempt to put together your argument. Once you have an argument then this will be a debate." I've got an arguement and you don't want any of it [This message has been edited by Ron (12-31-2006 01:22 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Yet more equivocation... but, I'll answer just for the occasional reader who doesn't have the background... right here; /pip/Forum6/HTML/001464-2.html#42 you did insult me (again) to which I challeneged you to 'Debate it'. Which you accepted -- we all speak English. Your intent was to debate my views on abortion -- as posted on my website. Instead -- you've regaled us with declarations based on presuppositions to which we all have not agreed. quote: Very simple -- yes it is -- 'Is a human life being destroyed?' is the central question of the abortion issue, and merely answering yes is not making an argument. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ed: quote: Ed, you shouldn't be surprised at this in a forum like this. Ever studied Socrates? Questions are a great way to reveal the weaknesses and strengths of arguments. It's a good method as long as it doesn't denigrate into the skepticism of the sophists. Reb, More about abortion later. I'm on my break at work, and it's almost up! Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The fact is once there is humanlife with its own human body, that is a human being. That is now his or her human life and human body as a human being, not just a sperm, zygote, or a body part in the mother. The fact of him or her still being in the womb, and being so dependant on the mother doesn't make any difference to the fact. The child out of the womb is so dependant on the mother's choices too. Human life + Human body = Human being. You can't change that. People only complicate the issue so far that they may no longer see or face the simple truths anymore. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Let’s add another consideration; that being that abortion may also be an element in a culture committing a subtle form of suicide. I’m thinking of Europe where several nations are facing a projected severe decline in their populations which can only be made up by the immigration of those who do not share their cultural values. . |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Stephen~ quote: Yes, and I respect your consistency, and I can agree with you with what you mention and certain aspects that religion advocates, such as: "The golden rule." Though hunter gatherers got that right part of the time. But I can't forget my existence here in America is partially due to my ancestors fleeing religious persecution. We can get it all too wrong. That's why I feel any democracy that might cater to my religious beliefs is terribly faulty. Religions are not democratic. Each feels they are higher on the ladder in God's favor than the other. and when I apply this to the thought of abortion, I cringe, because no matter how wrong I think it is, I cannot rule the conscience of another. That's why abortion is so easily debated at as right/wrong. The baby doesn't have a voice yet. A hardship/technicality of human growth and development. Forgive me, I'm wrong, there are cases of aborted babies who lived. Correct me if I'm wrong again, but I think that children are rated 3rd as citizens. So their voices mean very little even after the fact, which is both necessary and extremely sad. quote: Amen. It would also help our daughters immensely if they were more empowered with a deeper sense of self-esteem and self-respect. Everyone makes better choices when they are in a better frame of mind to do so. Dearest Reb: Yes, it's been a long time, though I read here, often, and I enjoy the views. Thank you. Abortion is definitely a topic I don't shy away from. quote: Honestly, countless women prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs Wade found a way to abort, and if that was what I really wanted to do, I'm sure I would have found a way too. R vs V made it easier and safer, not sure about better when it comes to the mental and emotional suffering a woman privately endures. Roe vs Wade is a lesson for both sides to me, due to the issues of (McCorvey's) rape, fight for an abortion, recant of rape, full term birth,(due to the time taken by the courts) and then her conversion as a pro-lifer and her claims of being a pawn for ambitious lawyers. Whew! BUT: Personal freedom was established, on paper. No matter what's on that paper--I will do whatever I feel I have to do for me and my own. I may suffer, I will suffer, I do suffer, but it's my choice, or I'm put in a position where I have to make a choice, alone. quote: Great question. My answer for all three categories is: We live in a patriarchal and male dominated society. You can find that in our politics, religion, the NASDAQ and private sectors of business, and our social stratification and structuralism of the "ideal family." So, I make my own climate. I pursue life (as though I have the same rights) as anyone else. Sometimes I run into a haze, heat, or a storm, just like everyone else, maybe for different reasons. But we all need a lesson from time to time. Tennessee presents as much opportunity as anywhere else I've lived. It's easy to say that the south has more obstacles with their bible belt mindset, but that's unfair. It's stigmatized that way and the only way to grow past that is to remain steadfast and dedicated to betterment. I see the women here trying, along with me, to better themselves whether there's ready support or not. quote: I'm sure implantation prevention evolved from embryo attachment in an ectopic situation -which is a serious and life threatening condition for women. So I can't rule that out if they have a history of it, but if conception is allowed, but then thwarted as an alternative means for birth control? That's just weird to me, to allow conception, but then no attachment. If I'm following the process correctly. I think that's playing a little too close to baby for me. peace~ Reg |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
(It should be noted here that the most adamant pro-life proponents will claim 'miscarriage' means go into labor early and deliver a baby pre-maturely. WHAT????? THat is THE stupidest thing I have ever heard. My cousins who are twins and three now were born three months early,but they lived and are fine. They talk,and walk and did everything at pretty much normal late, the girl was a little late in talking but she was born really tiny. Just because they are premature does not mean any harm is done. I think it should be women's choice whether to have the baby or not.THey are the ones who have to have it. If it is not a good enviroment for the child to grow up in or they are a child when they get pregnant they really should abort. Why have the child when the child might grow up only knowing drugs and gangs when in a couple years when they are old enought to be legal adults they will be in a safer place and be able to care for a child as the child deserves. If they are a teen why save that one life then when in the end the child will grow up with a mother who is barely not a child herself and in the end the mother may lose her life too,after all she will be up at midnight taking care of a baby when she should be sleeping to go to highschool. Also if women are raped I think they should have the option not to have a nother mans baby. Is that really fair to punish them and the child because the father commited a crime ? Think about it, most kids get adopted young and if kids have been involved in drugs or gangs because they didn't know any better who will adopt them. Friends of mine , neighbors actually in Italy, the girls are adopted. Two girls fourteen and twelve, but they were adopted really early. They had first birthdays with their adopted parents. Had they been older than say 6-7 their chances would of been way less.BUt most young parents or people who put their kids for adoption may not be able to get to a place to have their kids adopted before the child get too old. Say they have a kid, the kid and they are doing fine till the child is about 4. The mom gets fired or kicked into the streets the kid grows up with gangsters and drug dealers and killers. Then she finally gets out of the slums when the kid is turning eight, she worked to get them out and she decides to put the kid up for adoption so they could go to school and turn out good, but the kid at 8 , they arent so cute anymore, they aren't tiny, they aren't overly bright. Without that most people wouldn't look twice at the kid. The kid would grow up in an orphanage and maybe when they turn 18 goto the streets again. Had she waited and not had the kid maybe she would be living in a good area, have a steady income , have friends and family ,support and she could take care of the kid. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
God's acts of taking life are based upon righteous judgement, rather than murderous intent. Sorry just want to hear how you can say that. Was God's act of taking life based on righteous judgment during the holoacaust, siearra leone civil war,darfur, stalins killings, wars,gang wars, Columbine such like that. What was right about taking those live? When did the innocent children during the holocaust commit a crime worthy of death, worthy of being deprived the right to grow up have children, be someone? How can God justify mutilating and killing all those children during the Diamond wars? Making those children die in diamond mines and in battle before they were even out of middle school? Why do the women and children and men deserve to die in darfur ? Is that righteous? Stalin really had the right to massacre as many as he did? I am sure the soldiers fighting in Iraq will feel mighty comforted by hearing that because God feels it may be right he might take their lives any old time at random. What about the young teens who die in gang wars because they were taught nothing else?because no one cares to teach them..So they die for their ignorance? What about Columbine? The sisters,brothers,friends,heroes,girlfriends,boy friends, students, who died for their only crime being not being sick and deciding to go to school that day? Are car accident deaths right, why should a baby and a working mother die because a drunk driver decides to have a night of fun with alchol and still drive the next day? What about freak accidents where children make a mistake and drown or fall out of a tree or play a sport and slip up with a little thing but they fall and don't ever get up? Righteaous Definiton Morally right or justifiable,virtous Is it morally right for God to try and justify taking away any of those lives. What about a little girl,, who loved to laugh and smile, who could charm anyone, a child who touched everyone did she deserve to die? A five year old who already knew what she wanted in life who only wanted to be alive, whose only mistake was - playing tag with her six year old brother near an elevator when he tried to tag her and she fell beneath the elevator and it smashed her, was it really right to deprive her of the thing she loved most ? That child was my best friend. I personally cannot honestly take the words, fair,right,virtous, righteaous,correct, morale , for the best , and apply any of that to her death or do the situations I discribed. Hopefully neither can you. Does even God have the right to take innocent lives and call it righteous? People die, God takes their lives ..Yes but is it justified by anything..NO.. What ever reasons there are if any for them to be dying at this moment are not known to us and never will be. The best we can do as humans is use the one gift we were given ,ability to adapt and change with new ideas. Dying is a part of life. Dying is fair only in that it doesn't take lives because of race,religion,age, intelligence, background,hopes, or dreams. But it isn't fair to those that go on. You could say its fair because it doesn't choose or that everyone has a time but for the sake of the loved ones lost the most we can do is not believe it right so we have the willpower to fight death for the ones who still have yet to live. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
If the child wasn't aborted, would he have been born and have grown up and got married and had kids of his own and live and be a human being? YES! Wrong, if she isn't aborted she has the chance to grow up in a bad situation to die of O.D to live in the slums, to not become anything solely because she doesn't know there is anything else to be. If she is aborted, maybe later the mother will have another child, and they will get those chances. It won't be the same but she can only support one and the second actually is allowed to dream there is something out there and to think it is in reach. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
If you get in a car accident, God forbid , and you have to be put on life support and oxygen and are incapable of living without the hookups are you still a human? Or did you magically transform into something else? If you are and you don't want to live any longer would you consider euthansia and assisted suicide wrong? If a doctor helps someone like that kill themself , is that doctor wrong.If a doctor helps kill the child because the mother is going to die if she has the child and maybe the child will too, is the doctor still wrong. So you will save the child and sacrifice the mothers right? Is that equal either. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Wow, you must like replying. Well, I’ll try to reply to your four posts in one long one, lol. You made some interesting statements and I’ll try to cover them all. I hope you have enough time to read it, I wrote quite a bit. Thanks “I think it should be women's choice whether to have the baby or not.THey are the ones who have to have it.” So should they also have the right to kill their children whenever they want? What you’re saying is, the mother birthed the kid so she can do whatever she wants with it. So if her five-year-old won’t behave in a restaurant, can the mother kill the child? I think not. No person relentless of their title (mother, father, general, soldier, leader, no one) has the right to take another’s life. “If it is not a good enviroment for the child to grow up in or they are a child when they get pregnant they really should abort.“ That’s an awful thing to think. If that was the case, then hardly any babies would get to live. That is a complete lack of respect for human life. “Oh, I have a car payment and the mortgage is really getting on top of me, I might as well abort my baby, and maybe leave my toddler in a dumpster and sell my teenager to a pimp.” Does that sound right? “Why have the child when the child might grow up only knowing drugs and gangs when in a couple years when they are old enought to be legal adults they will be in a safer place and be able to care for a child as the child deserves. If they are a teen why save that one life then when in the end the child will grow up with a mother who is barely not a child herself and in the end the mother may lose her life too,after all she will be up at midnight taking care of a baby when she should be sleeping to go to highschool.” Ok, I’m trying to decipher this. The first part about the drugs: If the parent is negligent and exposes their child to drugs then there you have it. So the key is to raise them correctly. The second part: I guess you mean the mother should wait to grow up. Maybe this says that teenagers shouldn’t be having sex. I can’t get in trouble saying this because I’m a teenager myself: Teenagers are irresponsible and dense. They think they should have the right to do certain things but they don’t and they can’t seem to understand that. “Also if women are raped I think they should have the option not to have a nother mans baby.” The sentence I agree with in a different way. If a women is raped she should have the decision whether or not to RAISE the child. She has no right to kill him/her. ““Is that really fair to punish them and the child because the father commited a crime ?” Is it fair to kill the child for something the father did? I’ve said this again and again. Adoption agencies are not myths. Leaving a child with a hospital or fire station or church is not an awful thing, it’s better then killing. “Think about it, most kids get adopted young and if kids have been involved in drugs or gangs because they didn't know any better who will adopt them” There are government programs to help those kids. There are people to take them in. “she worked to get them out and she decides to put the kid up for adoption so they could go to school and turn out good, but the kid at 8 , they arent so cute anymore, they aren't tiny, they aren't overly bright. Without that most people wouldn't look twice at the kid.” You need to realize that you are thinking in an extremely cynical way. Children are not puppies. People don’t just adopt because the kids are all cute and cuddly. They adopt because they know another human being needs them. They adopt so that the child can grow up knowing a family. “Had she waited and not had the kid maybe she would be living in a good area, have a steady income , have friends and family ,support and she could take care of the kid.” Correct, “had she waited.” That is on the money. People should not be having children is they aren’t able to support them, it’s downright irresponsible. “Was God's act of taking life based on righteous judgment during the holoacaust, siearra leone civil war,darfur, stalins killings, wars,gang wars, Columbine such like that. What was right about taking those live?” Do you honestly think that killing was from God!? How can you think that? Did God invade Poland and send Jews to the Auschwitz? No it was Hitler. Is God responsible for Stalin’s killings? No you said it yourself, Stalin is. Did God hold up the Columbine school? No, some messed up kids did. “When did the innocent children during the holocaust commit a crime worthy of death, worthy of being deprived the right to grow up have children, be someone?” I absolutely love that you said this. This is my point exactly. What crime did a child commit to deserve to be aborted, to be ‘deprived the right to grow up have children, be someone?’ “How can God justify mutilating and killing all those children during the Diamond wars? Making those children die in diamond mines and in battle before they were even out of middle school?” Like I said, God didn’t do that. I don’t know how you can think such a thing. Did God send the kids to mine for diamonds? NO!!! And if you ask: “ Well, why didn’t He do anything about it?” Because He gave us free will and said He wouldn’t interfere with our lives. “Are car accident deaths right, why should a baby and a working mother die because a drunk driver decides to have a night of fun with alchol and still drive the next day?” Are you kidding? There is a reason it’s called an accident. Some people don’t drive well and some horrid people drink and drive. It’s not about fairness. “Dying is a part of life. Dying is fair only in that it doesn't take lives because of race,religion,age, intelligence, background,hopes, or dreams.” So is it fair to abort children? You said it’s not right to die under those conditions so how can it possibly be right to kill a child? Dying is a part of life, a part that God has nothing to do with. He has a part with you after you die. Contrary to what you said, God is not going around with a shotgun killing people. God doesn’t kill people, people kill people. “Wrong, if she isn't aborted she has the chance to grow up in a bad situation to die of O.D to live in the slums, to not become anything solely because she doesn't know there is anything else to be.” Then “she” shouldn’t have been kept there. Her parents should have had enough brains to take her away from that through adoption or any means necessary. And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
“I think it should be women's choice whether to have the baby or not.THey are the ones who have to have it.” So should they also have the right to kill their children whenever they want? What you’re saying is, the mother birthed the kid so she can do whatever she wants with it. So if her five-year-old won’t behave in a restaurant, can the mother kill the child? I think not. No person relentless of their title (mother, father, general, soldier, leader, no one) has the right to take another’s life. What if the mother is say 13 my age or fourteen or younger than 18? do they still have the baby? Is that fair to the mother or too the child? Sounds like you don't care about the mother or the child and to you it only matters whether the child lives to be born ,not whether it lives to turn 1 or lives to go to school or any of that. I don't think your solution or mine is the perfect fix. One way a unborn child dies the other a mothers life is destroyed maybe. O.k, killing is wrong. But if it is wrong for abortion then why is it o.k to kill in a war we didn't need to have? How can our country justify killing innocents who are born but we refuse to give a women a choice that she deserves to make because she aborts her child? |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
“If it is not a good enviroment for the child to grow up in or they are a child when they get pregnant they really should abort.“ That’s an awful thing to think. If that was the case, then hardly any babies would get to live. That is a complete lack of respect for human life. “Oh, I have a car payment and the mortgage is really getting on top of me, I might as well abort my baby, and maybe leave my toddler in a dumpster and sell my teenager to a pimp.” Does that sound right? THis is differnt if the mother got pregnant through a gang related thing or lives in the streets do you really want to make the mother put her blood through what she goes through? Could you really stomach watching a child be born and 2 years later have the child get got in gang war and shot? I have lost alot of people who didnt deserve to die and it ain't fun. I'd rather lose the child I never knew than have the child and love thm and know them, then watch drunk teens get mad and start fighting and shoot up my child because they were shooting on my street. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Why have the child when the child might grow up only knowing drugs and gangs when in a couple years when they are old enought to be legal adults they will be in a safer place and be able to care for a child as the child deserves. If they are a teen why save that one life then when in the end the child will grow up with a mother who is barely not a child herself and in the end the mother may lose her life too,after all she will be up at midnight taking care of a baby when she should be sleeping to go to highschool.” Ok, I’m trying to decipher this. The first part about the drugs: If the parent is negligent and exposes their child to drugs then there you have it. So the key is to raise them correctly. The second part: I guess you mean the mother should wait to grow up. Maybe this says that teenagers shouldn’t be having sex. I can’t get in trouble saying this because I’m a teenager myself: Teenagers are irresponsible and dense. They think they should have the right to do certain things but they don’t and they can’t seem to understand that. REality check not everyone can choose everything about what is going to happen . What if she lives with a on drugs father and abused mother or the boyfriend or who lives with her is a drug dealer or a druggie or she is addicted to drugs? So expose them to that. Well if they are going to be having sex then be safe about it. I don't see anything right about if no one is getting pregnant of anything. What if its too late and the mother is already pregnant , what if she won't be able to have the child and raise it right |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Also if women are raped I think they should have the option not to have a nother mans baby.” The sentence I agree with in a different way. If a women is raped she should have the decision whether or not to RAISE the child. She has no right to kill him/her. THe child probaly won't get adopted the chances aren't that high. What if she'd rather spare the child growing up motherless and in an orphanage? |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
“Is that really fair to punish them and the child because the father commited a crime ?” Is it fair to kill the child for something the father did? I’ve said this again and again. Adoption agencies are not myths. Leaving a child with a hospital or fire station or church is not an awful thing, it’s better then killing. O.k leave the child where everyone around has something elese to do and really doesn't care and let them end up dying anyway. But what if the mother doesn't want to have the child |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
“Think about it, most kids get adopted young and if kids have been involved in drugs or gangs because they didn't know any better who will adopt them” There are government programs to help those kids. There are people to take them in. The govt could care less about street kids, long as eventually they vote for them and give money. People who would disregarding background age and race are few and far in between |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
“she worked to get them out and she decides to put the kid up for adoption so they could go to school and turn out good, but the kid at 8 , they arent so cute anymore, they aren't tiny, they aren't overly bright. Without that most people wouldn't look twice at the kid.” You need to realize that you are thinking in an extremely cynical way. Children are not puppies. People don’t just adopt because the kids are all cute and cuddly. They adopt because they know another human being needs them. They adopt so that the child can grow up knowing a family. Count up , actually no. The children more likely will get adopted for being cute. There are more people who get attached and decide oh lets go adopt a cute kid. than people who do it to be helping |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
And if they are raped or didn't mean to or are young? |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Was God's act of taking life based on righteous judgment during the holoacaust, siearra leone civil war,darfur, stalins killings, wars,gang wars, Columbine such like that. What was right about taking those live?” Do you honestly think that killing was from God!? How can you think that? Did God invade Poland and send Jews to the Auschwitz? No it was Hitler. Is God responsible for Stalin’s killings? No you said it yourself, Stalin is. Did God hold up the Columbine school? No, some messed up kids did. You guys are the ones who made the point about god taking lives righteously. And that wasn't so much directed at you but asking the ones who originally said it |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
When did the innocent children during the holocaust commit a crime worthy of death, worthy of being deprived the right to grow up have children, be someone?” I absolutely love that you said this. This is my point exactly. What crime did a child commit to deserve to be aborted, to be ‘deprived the right to grow up have children, be someone?’ If the mother might die having the child |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
How can God justify mutilating and killing all those children during the Diamond wars? Making those children die in diamond mines and in battle before they were even out of middle school?” Like I said, God didn’t do that. I don’t know how you can think such a thing. Did God send the kids to mine for diamonds? NO!!! And if you ask: “ Well, why didn’t He do anything about it?” Because He gave us free will and said He wouldn’t interfere with our lives. um, yah but we could of used some interfering and the rest of the Freakin world just stood by..Cowards.. ANd I repeat that was for the ones who mentioned the God taking lives thing |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Are car accident deaths right, why should a baby and a working mother die because a drunk driver decides to have a night of fun with alchol and still drive the next day?” Are you kidding? There is a reason it’s called an accident. Some people don’t drive well and some horrid people drink and drive. It’s not about fairness. FIne neither is abortion then. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
“Dying is a part of life. Dying is fair only in that it doesn't take lives because of race,religion,age, intelligence, background,hopes, or dreams.” So is it fair to abort children? You said it’s not right to die under those conditions so how can it possibly be right to kill a child? Dying is a part of life, a part that God has nothing to do with. He has a part with you after you die. Contrary to what you said, God is not going around with a shotgun killing people. God doesn’t kill people, people kill people. God is the all powerful one. Stop it then. |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
WHat if they can't? It isn't that easy to walk away from a live you grew up in, if you are in a gang or people more shady they won't understand it as saving your child. If you know nothing else ,even if what you know is bad , its hard want to leave what is fammiliar |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
Going to mention my other points? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Rhea, please make one post at a time, not a dozen in a row. Thank you. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
"Dying is a part of life." So why is medicine, (for primary example), so devoted in determination against it? |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
“What if the mother is say 13 my age or fourteen or younger than 18? do they still have the baby? Is that fair to the mother or too the child?” Ok, let me tell you something that you will hear a hundred million times in your life and every time will be true. Life is not fair. The only thing we have to survive life is to try and follow what is wrong and what is right. Now, certain people today, try to fudge around with what is right and wrong. Of course certain things aren’t crystal clear as to what's right or wrong, but the basic things are simple. Killing is wrong. “Sounds like you don't care about the mother or the child and to you it only matters whether the child lives to be born ,not whether it lives to turn 1 or lives to go to school or any of that.” [Edited Unnecesary insults removed - Ron] Let me ask you a question: Do you think every child dies when it’s born? It sounds like that's what you're saying. If the child dies, it’s the negligence of the “parent.” If the parent is a child (and 13 is the age of a child) then first off, they shouldn’t be having sexual intercourse. And if the child parent thinks they’re mature enough to be having sexual relations then shouldn’t they be mature enough to know what to do with the baby? Well guess what, they don’t know, because they are unintelligent and immature. Children should not be having children. “One way a unborn child dies the other a mothers life is destroyed maybe.” How do you figure? How would the mother’s life be destroyed? Walking around pregnant would already hurt her life enough. Pregnancy is quite obvious. How would birthing the child destroy her life? She has the child and gives it up. At least he/she would have the chance to live and see the age of 1 and go to school. Do you know what DCF is? Department of Children and Families. That is a government funded organization that puts unwanted children in foster homes and even let’s families adopt the children. (1-800-96-ADOPT) DCF removes children from abusive homes and their main goal is to help children and families, hence the name. “O.k, killing is wrong. But if it is wrong for abortion then why is it o.k to kill in a war we didn't need to have?” [Edited Unnecesary insults removed - Ron] First off, what does the war in Iraq have ANYTHING to do with what we’re talking about? What? Nothing, absolutely nothing, it’s totally irrelevant. That’s like me saying “What about Colin Powell?” when we’re talking about colon cancer. [Edited Unnecesary insults removed - Ron] I love how you said “Killing is wrong, but…” That is such an askew statement. Killing is wrong period. “How can our country justify killing innocents who are born but we refuse to give a women a choice that she deserves to make because she aborts her child?” Your own statement disproves your whole argument. You’re asking: “Why do we have a right to kill in Iraq?” Well, why should women have a right to kill her baby? It’s no different. Neither has a right. “THis is differnt if the mother got pregnant through a gang related thing or lives in the streets do you really want to make the mother put her blood through what she goes through?” Absolutely not, the girl should give up her baby to someone who can take care of the child. I believe I already mentioned the establishments suitably for taking a baby. “Could you really stomach watching a child be born and 2 years later have the child get got in gang war and shot?” What the heck is a child doing in a gang war at 2 years old? Did the mother bring the kid to the battle? What, did she have a shotgun in one hand and her kid in the other? And according to you I could probably could stomach it because, and I quote, “you don't care about the mother or the child.” Well, I do care very deeply for both mother and child so no I couldn’t stomach it which is why it’s absurd to think that a mother would expose her kid to that. “REality check not everyone can choose everything about what is going to happen .” Ok, here’s a reality check for you: No you can’t choose what’s going on and that’s why you do something about it. Let’s look at slavery. People didn’t choose to be slaves but they worked to correct to it through autonomy, bravery and enough head sense to know what to do and what they were doing was right. “What if she lives with a on drugs father and abused mother or the boyfriend or who lives with her is a drug dealer or a druggie or she is addicted to drugs?” Huh, again, I’m trying to decipher this. First off, if the mother is taking drugs while pregnant, the kid probably wouldn’t survive in the womb. Yes, the mother would probably abort but that doesn’t make it right. She could’ve had the child and given it to the right people so the child could have had a better life. But that little baby never got the chance to live. “Well if they are going to be having sex then be safe about it.” Yes, safe sex is essential. But teenagers shouldn’t be having any kind of sex. Condoms only go so far; a girl can still get pregnant. “What if its too late and the mother is already pregnant , what if she won't be able to have the child and raise it right” This will be the last time I’ll say this because I don’t want to be redundant. If she can’t care for the child then she should give it up to the right people and organizations; THEY ARE ALWAYS THERE. “THe child probaly won't get adopted the chances aren't that high.” Where did you get that idea? Again, that’s a very cynical thing to say. There are so many programs working to get placements for all kids. “What if she'd rather spare the child growing up motherless and in an orphanage?” That’s not her right to do so. Ok, well what if I want to spare that homeless man from living on the streets and I kill him? Do you think I’d be prosecuted? YES! I was watching to news the other day about a bunch a guys that killed a homeless man, they were all jailed. Do you see my point? You can’t just exterminate a human life to spare suffering. And another thing, the child very well might have a mother and a good family through foster care or adoption. The chances are much much higher than you think “But what if the mother doesn't want to have the child” What if a mother doesn’t want her teenager anymore? Does that give her the right to kill? I think not, no, I know not. “The govt could care less about street kids, long as eventually they vote for them and give money. People who would disregarding background age and race are few and far in between” I think you’ve been watching too much TV. There already are government programs to help kids, yes even street kids. Don't get me wrong, I loathe politicians. I'm so despised by the goevernment, I'm a nonpartison and refuse to vote. But they do on occasion do things. People wouldn't vote and give them money if they didn't do anything. There are many ways that children are being protected. And why do you only use gangs, street kids, and drug addicts for examples? “The children more likely will get adopted for being cute. There are more people who get attached and decide oh lets go adopt a cute kid. than people who do it to be helping” That is very very wrong. You are wrong with that. People do it to help, I should know. “And if they are raped or didn't mean to or are young?” ?? “You guys are the ones who made the point about god taking lives righteously” I was never involved in that discussion. “If the mother might die having the child” Ok, it’s not the 1800’s. It is a rarity for a woman to die giving birth nowadays. Yes it still happens but rarely. Hospitals aren't fairly tales. “um, yah but we could of used some interfering and the rest of the Freakin world just stood by..Cowards..” Would you want God interfering in your life? That’s not how He works. At least not now. ”ANd I repeat that was for the ones who mentioned the God taking lives thing” Yes I realize that but I am still not understanding your claims about how God kills. “Was God's act of taking life based on righteous judgment during the holoacaust, siearra leone civil war,darfur, stalins killings, wars,gang wars, Columbine such like that. What was right about taking those live?” You are saying that God maliciously kills and that's a false comment. And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." [This message has been edited by Ron (01-11-2007 11:59 PM).] |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I didn't post any insults Ron. Well, at least I didn't think I did. Sometimes I can get too sarcastic and forget the guidlines. It's the Irish and German in me, I guess. Sorry about that, I'll try not to let it happen again. Cheers - EdAnd I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
[Edited Unnecesary insults removed - Ron] Let me ask you a question: Do you think every child dies when it’s born? NO,never said that . I said that a thirteen year old shouldn't be having a child. But no thirteen year old can handle having a child, none.!! And what if they arent having sex they got raped or they were mislead . It sounds like that's what you're saying. If the child dies, it’s the negligence of the “parent.” When did I say that? I said if they have the child and they are in the streets and they can't take care of the child nor get the child somewhere safe , the child could die. If the parent is a child (and 13 is the age of a child) then first off, they shouldn’t be having sexual intercourse. And if the child parent thinks they’re mature enough to be having sexual relations then shouldn’t they be mature enough to know what to do with the baby? Well guess what, they don’t know, because they are unintelligent and immature. Children should not be having children. O.K first off teens(thirteen year olds and others) should not be having children because they are too young and should be going to school and going to movies and going to parties and growing up. It doesn't have to do with being uninteligent(which they are not) or being immature(which some aren't) while they may not be mature enough or knowledgeable enough to handle a child, that isn't why they shouldn't have it. “One way a unborn child dies the other a mothers life is destroyed maybe.” How do you figure? 1.Trauma 2. responsibility 3. loss of innoncence\child hood 4 guilt for giving the child up if they choose to do so, that it is their flesh and blood they are giving up. How would the mother’s life be destroyed? If a thirteen year old or any teen has a child, there life will not be normal from then on. Whether they give it up or not! They won't go back to school and get treated the same, nor will they have the same friends nor will thit be easy to cope with the work in school that piled upwhile pregnant. Walking around pregnant would already hurt her life enough. Pregnancy is quite obvious. Not really, not till a certain point in the pregnancy and I am referring to an abortion in the first three to four months. At least he/she would have the chance to live and see the age of 1 and go to school. And if she can't get him to somewhere that can take him if she lives in the slums. Do you know what DCF is? NO but now I do thanks. Not all foster homes are great for kids its better to be adopted to an good family. ANd if they can't get their child there . “O.k, killing is wrong. But if it is wrong for abortion then why is it o.k to kill in a war we didn't need to have?” Sorry I meant why is it o.k to kill in war at all? [First off, what does the war in Iraq have ANYTHING to do with what we’re talking about? That people can justify that war but not abortion . But that is off topic considerably, sorry mistake to bring up. Won't do that again. I love how you said “Killing is wrong, but…” That is such an askew statement. Killing is wrong period. Referring to the stupity of the ones disaproving abortion and being o.k with the war. That was phrase wrong, really badly. I didn't mean to type that about innocents being born and such. “THis is differnt if the mother got pregnant through a gang related thing or lives in the streets do you really want to make the mother put her blood through what she goes through?” And if she can't give the child up. A father who is on drugs or an alcholic might not want to give up the child he sired. ANd gangs aren't going to let the offspring of someone affliated with them or with them get out of the slums. “Could you really stomach watching a child be born and 2 years later have the child get got in gang war and shot?” What the heck is a child doing in a gang war at 2 years old? Should of clarified that , I meant a child wandering into the crossfire or having the ones fighting go near where the child is not paying attention. Did the mother bring the kid to the battle? Course not. What, did she have a shotgun in one hand and her kid in the other? CAn questions get any stupider? All though I didn't clarify that comment by me enough. And according to you I could probably could stomach it because, and I quote, “you don't care about the mother or the child.” I know you care about the child living, I realize that. its the mother it doesn't sound like you care about. Well, I do care very deeply for both mother and child so no I couldn’t stomach it which is why it’s absurd to think that a mother would expose her kid to that. I repeat she might not have a choice. “REality check not everyone can choose everything about what is going to happen .” Ok, here’s a reality check for you: No you can’t choose what’s going on and that’s why you do something about it. Let’s look at slavery. People didn’t choose to be slaves but they worked to correct to it through autonomy, bravery and enough head sense to know what to do and what they were doing was right. Yep but by the time the gangs are willing to give up the child of a member or the people who are on the other side of the law might not want her going anywhere near authorities. “What if she lives with a on drugs father and abused mother or the boyfriend or who lives with her is a drug dealer or a druggie or she is addicted to drugs?” What if the father or boyfriend won't let her give up the child? “Well if they are going to be having sex then be safe about it.” Well at thirteen certainly not, they should be legal adults I think. BUT if they are in HS like junior or senior and being safe, its not great but its better then them doing it at 14. “What if its too late and the mother is already pregnant , what if she won't be able to have the child and raise it right” THEY ARE ALWAYS THERE. Oh really, than why are the any kids living on the streets. You said yourself they take them out of bad households. If livingont he streets isn't a bad household or living off drug dealing or something like that or living in the slums , I don't know what is. “THe child probaly won't get adopted the chances aren't that high.” But its not easy.(I don't mean by that kill the child cause its not easy I just mean its harder to get good placements for children who aren't of ideal age or looks and such. “What if she'd rather spare the child growing up motherless and in an orphanage?” That’s not her right to do so. Its her body.YEs it is, Shes the one who has to go through having the baby and caring for it till she gets it to a place that will take it if she can get the child there. “But what if the mother doesn't want to have the child” And if the mother was raped and doesn't want the child or can't handle it or the mother is a teen and just doesn't want to have the baby. “The govt could care less about street kids, long as eventually they vote for them and give money. People who would disregarding background age and race are few and far in between” And why do you only use gangs, street kids, and drug addicts for examples? Because those are the ones in danger of not making past toddlers if born. That is very very wrong. You are wrong with that. People do it to help, I should know. I said that. Some people do, but not as many as those who do it on whims unfornately. It is sad and if there was a way to change that, I would go for it in a hearbeat. Curious, How would you know? Were you adopted or have you adopted?(here I am curious not debating.) “And if they are raped or didn't mean to or are young?” ?? “You guys are the ones who made the point about god taking lives righteously” I was never involved in that discussion. I said I meant that toward Ron(I think was involved, I apologize if you weren't) and whoever else was involved. “If the mother might die having the child” Ok, it’s not the 1800’s. It is a rarity for a woman to die giving birth nowadays. Yes it still happens but rarely. Hospitals aren't fairly tales. Um no, if the woman has cancer or the baby will be born with cancer or if there are complications to the birth. “um, yah but we could of used some interfering and the rest of the Freakin world just stood by..Cowards..” Would you want God interfering in your life? That’s not how He works. At least not now. I'm sure sierra leone wouldn't have minded someone stepping in. But we still all stood by which is who I called a coward. ANd that is a personal major pet peeve that really makes me mad so yah. ”ANd I repeat that was for the ones who mentioned the God taking lives thing” Yes I realize that but I am still not understanding your claims about how God kills. I didn't say that i said God take lives. If he wants us to learn well people learned during the holocaust he could of stepped in and tried to stop it or we could have, which we didn't try to meaning to. And I am sorry about all those posts i was trying to take care of each thing one at a time but for now on I'll just post in one big thing. Sorry to all those who had to read all those posts and didn't want to. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Life is life and in this country we give the right that life should be terminated so long as it resides in the mother’s womb and is ended by her consent, (the father’s opinion one way or another is ultimately irrelevant). There are already six billion people in the world. So let abortion take the place of smallpox. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Check out this link. http://www.abortionmarketingexposed.com/ |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
ah, I see... a slick marketing campaign complaining about the slick marketing campaigning of 'abortionists' I love the method -- preach to the choir -- convince them their way of life is threatened -- give them someone to blame for that threat -- keep feeding the oxytocin to them -- get them to donate... Do you really think what he's doing is fighting abortion on demand Denise? Televangilism has become E-vangelism. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yes I do, L.R. Participation in the teleconference is free of charge except for the price of the phone call which could be long distance. If it is long distance for you and you can't afford it then you can use your cell phone if it has the nationwide local option and free nightime calling or you can opt to receive a tape of the teleconference, free, via email in about 24 hours afterwards, which is my option. And David Kupelian is not a tele-evangelist. He is an author and also the managing director of worldnetdaily. My sister sent me this link. She volunteers at a teenage crisis pregnancy center, for those who want options other than the abortion "choice" which is pushed by Planned Parenthood. And the counseling is free of charge to the girls and their parents. She was informed by someone that used to work for Planned Parenthood that birth control pills are now available to teenage girls in high schools, without parental knowledge or consent (as is being put in contact with and scheduled for an abortion through Planned Parenthood), via the school nurse who can't even otherwise dispense an aspirin without parental consent. And that the pills are the lowest dose possible and do not offer the protection to these girls that they think they are getting, leading to more business for Planned Parenthood. They have even performed "abortions" on girls who were not pregnant, telling them that they were. People need to learn as much as they can about this organization that purports to be helping people, when what they are really doing is creating and perpetuating the "problem pregnancies" that keep the cash flowing in. If someone has a daughter whom they suspect is sexually active, it would be better to have a private ob/gyn counsel with her and perhaps prescribe a birth control pill that will work more effectively. And if the teleconference sponsors ask for donations, well, it would be voluntary, and for a good cause. Better than the tactics of Planned Parenthood who require cash or credit cards up front first. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If the information is so vital Denise -- why put up a very slick teaser and delay getting this information out until Tuesday -- I mean -- it could stop abortions in the meantime if he just posted it on the web -- he's obviously web capable and he has a web publication - he could run a story. What's the significance of this 'conference call'? Oxytocin. Team building -- the feeling that you're a part of something -- a sharper division between 'us' and 'them'. What you don't see -- because you're one of the 'us' in this case -- is that 'them' aint listening to him at all -- because he's calling 'them' the enemy. This kind of activity does nothing but promote division -- not to mention the E-vangelist. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It was on his website and in his book. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53760 He has also been on various talk shows. This is a teleconference that he has organized for those who wish to know how they can help to get the truth out there more widely about the deceptive practices of the abortion industry. After all, not everyone watches Fox News and the Christian Broadcasting Network or reads Wordnetdaily. This type of activity might expose the truth that few know about unless someone organizes others and arms them with the information to share with others. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So he wants you to wait until Tuesday to start proselytizing? he could youtube it, blog it, email it, shucks Denise -- by Tuesday he could have snail mailed it to you... why a conference call? why not just have a pre-recorded message you can call any time of day or night? why do it THIS way? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Because thousands of people are expected to participate. Aren't most meetings anywhere preplanned ahead of time? It lets people clear their schedules, prioritize their obligations, get their thoughts in order. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Please explain the mechanics of this to me Denise -- thousands of people 'participating' in a teleconference -- you're all going to introduce yourselves to each other-- tell where each is from -- your favorite flavor of ice cream -- ? how will this 'work'? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Local Rebel Why don't you participate and find out what it is and what it says, instead of trying to judge it according to your suspicians (however reasonable those may be)? I think a book deserves to be judged by more than just its cover. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
LR: You're an engineer aren't you? Don't you have to take continuing education courses to maintain your certification? Aren't some conferences offered via internet feed or telephone for credit? Don't hundreds of other engineers participate in such conferences? I don't get it. What's so tough to get about the mechanics of this guy's teleconference? Jim |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The answer to your question Jim -- is yes -- there are teleseminars in engineering -- like this one for instance... http://www.ivthome.com/shop/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1865, with the appropriate question and answer session -- but, no -- not for hundreds, and certainly not thousands of 'particiapants' -- how does one field questions from thousands of participants Jim? I don't get that... But, I do get why he wants to do it that way.... as I stated. quote: I understand where you're coming from here Ess -- but, in critical thinking axioms don't stand up under analysis any more than any other statement would. While I'm standing in the checkout line at the supermarket and I read a tabloid headline "Armageddon will begin on February 14, as millions die in new St. Valentines Day massacre in Iraq" or "Angelina Jolie Pregnant by Space Alien -- Brad is Furious" there are evaluations that I can make about that tabloid. When my local television station puts a teaser headline from the nightly news on a promo that goes something like "Child safety seat recall -- find out which one at 11" -- there are conclusions that I can draw from that. What if I need to put my child in a safety seat before 11? What if mine is the one that's been recalled? Obviously this television station cares more about promoting its newscast than it does about the safety of my child. Shouldn't that kind of information be disseminated immediately? If we look critically at Kupelian -- he first of all claims that his information is going to finally bring an end to abortion once and for all. Wow. That's pretty big stuff. quote: Wow! Shocking information. It's going to end abortion once and for all -- shouldn't we get started right away? I don't know how long ago he put up that invitation -- but, Denise posted the link on the 12th. He has important, urgent, critical information that's going to change the world on Friday. But, it can wait until Tuesday. In fact... we can read a can of peas, a can of carrots -- and we can judge what's inside. His shocking information -- the "abortion industries fraudulent marketing campaign" is this an argument against abortion at all? The pharmaceutical industry uses deceptive marketing -- they reformulate an existing drug when the patent runs out so they can get a new patent and lobby Doctors to prescribe the new drug that has no generic so they can protect their margins -- does this mean we don't need pharmaceuticals? Denise's hearsay anecdotal evidence; quote: If we assume both are true -- it has no more bearing on the debate than Pharmacists diluting cancer medications would have on a debate about whether or not humans need to take medicine. He's merely building an ad-hominem attack instead of making logical arguments. Ad-hominem attacks are great for preaching to the choir, building a team, and consolidating power -- (and selling books and raising money) but don't really convince your opposition of anything at all. Why do I need a 70-minute seminar to tell me how to tell my friends about Kupelian's books and articles? After all, Laura Schlessinger infers the very existence of our country is at stake.. Why wait till Tuesday? |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Rebel, I agree with you 100%. I can't stand Televangilism and people like that. You're right, if the information was that conclusive and important then it should be posted. He's promoting himself. And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I may be wrong, but most teenage girls reflect on most serious things for about 5 seconds and then move on to something else. Even with entertainment, they still take about 5 to 10 cell phone calls, eat microwave pizza, do their nails, and find anything remotely responsible to be a complete and utter bummer to their day. They might be caught by the highlighted fractions of statements, but I agree. He's pushing his book. If the teleseminar helps at least one, it's a positive thing, but not if it's a lead to take advantage of those that are at a disadvantage in making wise decisions. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
[It sounds like that's what you're saying. If the child dies, it’s the negligence of the “parent.” When did I say that? I said if they have the child and they are in the streets and they can't take care of the child nor get the child somewhere safe , the child could die.] I didn’t say that you said that. I said that I said it. If a child dies (unless by a disease or illness) then it’s the parent’s fault. If a child is hit by a bus, the parent wasn't watching him. If a little girl gets kidnapped, the parent wasn’t watching her. Plain and simple. "O.K first off teens(thirteen year olds and others) should not be having children because they are too young and should be going to school and going to movies and going to parties and growing up. It doesn't have to do with being uninteligent(which they are not) or being immature(which some aren't) while they may not be mature enough or knowledgeable enough to handle a child, that isn't why they shouldn't have it.” Well, for one thing, you seem very mature and intelligent for your age. But mostly kids that age aren’t as bright as you. When I say they aren’t intelligent enough, I mean they aren’t smart enough to care for another human being, especially a newborn. And I agree, kids should not be having sex and getting pregnant. “One way a unborn child dies the other a mothers life is destroyed maybe.” How do you figure? 1.Trauma 2. responsibility 3. loss of innoncence\child hood 4 guilt for giving the child up if they choose to do so, that it is their flesh and blood they are giving up.” Ok. #1. Yes, the trauma of finding out she's pregnant would be immense. #2. If they are choose to have sex, then they need to know that they have to be RESPONSIBLE enough to take care of their child. #3. Loss of innocence? If a young girl is having sex, her innocence is pretty much gone to begin with, that you can’t argue. #4. You think the guilt of giving her baby away would hurt her? What do you think the guilt of aborting the child would do? Most women deeply regret aborting. “ANd gangs aren't going to let the offspring of someone affliated with them or with them get out of the slums.” You seem to only talk about gangs. How do you feel about a suburbanite aborting her baby because she doesn’t feel like having it? “Should of clarified that , I meant a child wandering into the crossfire or having the ones fighting go near where the child is not paying attention.” Rhea, that is my point. Why would a responsible or even rational person let their little child wander around in a neighborhood that is known to have gunfights? And children never pay attention. They don’t know what attention is. It’s the parent that’s not paying attention but should. “its the mother it doesn't sound like you care about.” I suppose it may sound that way, but it’s not true. I care very deeply for mothers and women and everyone for that matter. I grew up with my mom, two sisters and aunts, so I’m closer to women than anyone else. I respect women, and I think women who consider abortions need to respect the child inside them, the person within them. “Oh really, than why are the any kids living on the streets.” Why are there over 200,000 homeless people in New York? These questions don’t always have answers. “Its her body.YEs it is, Shes the one who has to go through having the baby and caring for it till she gets it to a place that will take it if she can get the child there.” Yes it’s her body but you have to understand; the human inside her is not her life. The life inside of her is a totally different human life. Yes, she and a man created the child but the child is a separate entity, a separate person. She and the father have the obligation to protect the child. “and just doesn't want to have the baby.” What if she has the child and after five years she doesn’t want her kid anymore? Does she have the right to kill her kid? I know I’ve said this before, I feel that we’re repeating ourselves. “Curious, How would you know?” I dealt with DCF as a kid. I know for a fact that they help children get out of horrible situations in life. “Um no, if the woman has cancer or the baby will be born with cancer or if there are complications to the birth.” Yes but that’s cancer, not abortion. The child can still be helped maybe and if not, then who are we to play God? Who are we to say this person should die because it would be better that way? When did people decide that they have the right to take lives away and play God? “If he wants us to learn well people learned during the holocaust he could of stepped in” No He couldn’t of. He gave everyone free will and it’s their decision how to use it, good or bad. If God interfered with the life of this world then we wouldn’t be free. I see why you say that and I too have felt this way but it’s for the best that He doesn’t. “And I am sorry about all those posts i was trying to take care of each thing one at a time but for now on I'll just post in one big thing.” I don’t care, as long as you get out all your thoughts. And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Huan... "Life is life" You say that like it's no big deal. "and in this country we give the right that life should be terminated so long as it resides in the mother’s womb and is ended by her consent." Yes this country gives that right but does that make it the right thing to do? Do you agree with every "right" this country gives? "There are already six billion people in the world. So let abortion take the place of smallpox." So women should kill their babies for population control? I shutter to think. Thanks And I said to the devil, "You better leave my spleen alone." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR: quote: Any one of these alternative ways of communication you mentioned can be used for self promotion and greed. So I'm not so sure about judging motive based on any of these, including an "E-conference". I'm not defending this guy or his ideas (as I am unfamiliar with him), but just saying, respectfully, I think you might be nitpicking. If it were something to defend the "rights" of women to abort, would you still discount it sight unseen? Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Sure he can use them for self-promotion -- but he can also get the information out instantly -- which is what one would expect if this information has the kind of impact that he claims. And, I get spam all the time from orgainizations that want to protect womens' rights -- they use sensational headlines to try to get me to click in -- but -- last time I looked -- those rights are already protected. They get clicked -- right into the spam zone. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
LR: In venues like this one, participants usually phone in or email questions and the presenter answers as many as he/she can. It isn't uncommon. Jim |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Right, and there are screeners taking the calls and e-mails -- and they try to consolidate them - but -- in a 'conference' of, Denise said thousands so lets say 2000, the odds of any participant actually getting to participate are .0005% per question taken. Assuming the presenter takes 10 (which would be a lot!) that goes up to a whopping .005% chance for the 'event'. Which, calls into question the value of doing it this way -- since this is primarily a one-way communication. Who benefits from this format? Being a 'participant' is like calling yourself a participant in the Super Bowl because you watched it on television. Using an on-demand medium would be a far more efficient (and altruistic) method to disseminate vital information in all ways but one -- oxytocin. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I was mistaken. The number of participants was listed as being in the hundreds, not thousands. I misread it. My apologies. I think there is a difference between marketing techniques, which are in and of themselves a neutral factor, and what is being marketed. Is what is being shared truthful, helping people to make informed decisions, or is what is being marketed deliberately deceptive. I think that is the crux of the matter and where any judgments need to be made, not on techniques, per se. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Deception is deception Denise -- it would be an easy sell to convince me that a business or non-profit was acting in its own interest to the detriment of its customers. And, I'd be just as mad as you about that. But that doesn't effect the debate over Constitutional rights of individuals, or, when a fetus becomes a person. Since that is the case -- wouldn't it be better to, instead of talking about trying to eradicate a Supreme Court decision -- by talking about 'Abortion' in generic terms -- to shift the debate to specific issues; Abortion on Demand Paternity Parental Notification Patient's Rights (which includes information) Public Funding Contraception Morning After |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I don't think so Reb. Because the question of whether not the unborn are human beings will always affect these peripheral issues. Not that these issues can't be discussed. (They should be discussed.) It's just that the central question must be the nature of what is "aborted". But I'm afraid to you, that would entail a too "general" discussion. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't have any objections Stephen -- and why would that stop anyone anyway? Go ahead take me somewhere we haven't been.My observation isn't that it's 'general' -- it's that it's settled. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'Angelina Jolie Pregnant by Space Alien -- Brad is Furious' I wonder if she'll be getting an abortion? |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
I may be wrong, but most teenage girls reflect on most serious things for about 5 seconds and then move on to something else. Even with entertainment, they still take about 5 to 10 cell phone calls, eat microwave pizza, do their nails, and find anything remotely responsible to be a complete and utter bummer to their day. Um yeah you are wrong about that sorry. When did I say that? I said if they have the child and they are in the streets and they can't take care of the child nor get the child somewhere safe , the child could die.] I didn’t say that you said that. I said that I said it. If a child dies (unless by a disease or illness) then it’s the parent’s fault. If a child is hit by a bus, the parent wasn't watching him. If a little girl gets kidnapped, the parent wasn’t watching her. Plain and simple. What how is it all the parents fault? And if the child is playing at a friends house and the police chase people in a gang down the street and the child accidentally gets shot? Is that the parents fault too.. WHat about if a drunk driver runs into them.. Well, for one thing, you seem very mature and intelligent for your age. But mostly kids that age aren’t as bright as you. When I say they aren’t intelligent enough, I mean they aren’t smart enough to care for another human being, especially a newborn. And I agree, kids should not be having sex and getting pregnant. Thank you for the compliment but no kid is smart enough to have another kid. “One way a unborn child dies the other a mothers life is destroyed maybe.” How do you figure? 1.Trauma 2. responsibility 3. loss of innoncence\child hood 4 guilt for giving the child up if they choose to do so, that it is their flesh and blood they are giving up.” Ok. #1. Yes, the trauma of finding out she's pregnant would be immense. #2. If they are choose to have sex, then they need to know that they have to be RESPONSIBLE enough to take care of their child. (And if they didn't choose and they didn't know any better because they were never educated. ) #3. Loss of innocence? If a young girl is having sex, her innocence is pretty much gone to begin with, that you can’t argue. (Not if she doesn't know better) #4. You think the guilt of giving her baby away would hurt her? What do you think the guilt of aborting the child would do? Most women deeply regret aborting. Then she never knew the child and she may not regret that till way older if ever..If she has it she will always regret giving it away.always “ANd gangs aren't going to let the offspring of someone affliated with them or with them get out of the slums.” You seem to only talk about gangs. How do you feel about a suburbanite aborting her baby because she doesn’t feel like having it? (That is wrong. If she wasn't raped, she knew better, she is over 18 and she can take care for the baby and her life and her family and income won't suffer immensely than she should have the baby.) “Should of clarified that , I meant a child wandering into the crossfire or having the ones fighting go near where the child is not paying attention.” Rhea, that is my point. Why would a responsible or even rational person let their little child wander around in a neighborhood that is known to have gunfights? And children never pay attention. They don’t know what attention is. It’s the parent that’s not paying attention but should. (Its RHIA.just to point out but they may not be able to help where they live. Children die everyday on the streets because there parents work and the kids are with a neighbor or by themselves and the wander. And if the ones fighting go near the child.And the parent is elsewhere assuming the child is safe because somene is watching them?) “its the mother it doesn't sound like you care about.” I suppose it may sound that way, but it’s not true. I care very deeply for mothers and women and everyone for that matter. I grew up with my mom, two sisters and aunts, so I’m closer to women than anyone else. I respect women, and I think women who consider abortions need to respect the child inside them, the person within them. “Oh really, than why are the any kids living on the streets.” Why are there over 200,000 homeless people in New York? These questions don’t always have answers. People can take in kids to live with them and raise them if they are adults and homeless its harder to care for them. “Its her body.YEs it is, Shes the one who has to go through having the baby and caring for it till she gets it to a place that will take it if she can get the child there.” Yes it’s her body but you have to understand; the human inside her is not her life. The life inside of her is a totally different human life. Yes, she and a man created the child but the child is a separate entity, a separate person. She and the father have the obligation to protect the child. And if she can't? “and just doesn't want to have the baby.” What if she has the child and after five years she doesn’t want her kid anymore? Does she have the right to kill her kid? I know I’ve said this before, I feel that we’re repeating ourselves. NO, but the child already has a life in the world and is already growing and experiencing “Um no, if the woman has cancer or the baby will be born with cancer or if there are complications to the birth.” Yes but that’s cancer, not abortion. The child can still be helped maybe and if not, then who are we to play God? Who are we to say this person should die because it would be better that way? When did people decide that they have the right to take lives away and play God? (So no we let the woman die by having a baby who will die anyway with cancer or what? Its both, if she has an abortion she may live.) |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR: quote: Really? Settled? In what sense do you mean? Merely that the law stands as it is? That's a far cry from settled. But if and when we ever get stricter laws concerning abortion, I'll certainly remind you of that comment with a twinkle in my eye ... though I don't think I would ever try to use the mere status quo as an argument for what is right. Fact is, there's a big debate in this country (in spite of fluctations in law) of whether the unborn are human beings. And that is the hinge upon which all other discussions swing. Stephen. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
rhia~ I commend you for your involvement and input on such a tough topic. "Um yeah you are wrong about that sorry." Okay. My statement was directed to the abortion link, and the techniques of the site. I felt it wouldn't have a high appeal to teens, which may be good or bad. Though, after careful consideration of my statement, there's an upside and downside to being wrong. Upside: Most teens are mindful, mature and responsible with their time, interests and attentions. Does this more properly apply? Downside: Expecting teens to be somewhat carefree and caught up with ordinary youthful things is wrong. Though I feel there's nothing wrong with talking to friends on the phone, pizza, painting nails, etc..avoiding excess. According to studies, attention span is a very real problem for many teens, so my comment contains unfair or exaggerated time periods, though multi-tasking contributes to the amount of time spent among interests and tasks. I've not talked to or raised any teens that enjoyed cleaning their room, doing dishes, or homework, and some refuse. I realize a good balance is hard to establish. It usually takes an adult who is involved, dedicated and devoted to help ensure a youth's progress and success into adulthood. Even adults need a network, because they make plenty of mistakes and have to answer to them. It's a shame when a person's immediate and personal network, becomes a disembodied voice or a cold campaign of information. But, sadly, that's the cold hard facts of life for many. Teens concern me, because abortion is a hard topic for adults to handle on their own. So I'm not picking on teens. I'm interested and involved. Their lives are just as important as those who are in the position of caring for them. There's a mass of info out there about safe sex for teens. There's a mass in support of abstinence. There are examples all around us, why each should be applied. How can all of that escape the attention and support of thousands of teens per year? Is it because teens have tuned out what's happening all around them? Do they feel that intercourse is conveniently in the free-zone between youth and adulthood? Say, somewhere between naivety and some sort of social/environmental push in the direction of adult? I'm just going by what you said about "not knowing any better," and issues of home life, street-life, society in general. I'd like to hear what you have to say about these things. If my questions are unclear, I'll try to clarify, because I want to understand how any teen doesn't know any better when it comes to consensual matters of sex. Is it possible that teens claim unawareness, naivety, youthful stupidity when the consequences arise, because it's convenient? What do you feel are the reasons, when America is bombarding the airwaves, magazines, television, net, educational and institutional arenas, and every other media and society driven effort there is about teen pregnancy? Thank you, Reg |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
If they are having sex they don't understand how bad of an idea that is. Its not consensual untill they are eighteen. They don't understand what they are doing and givinb up\gaining at the time. They should wait till if they do get pregnant or if something bad happens they do know how to handle it . They need to def be educated on the topic better and learn how to make the right decisions from their parents and teachers. They shouldn't be having sex and if they are then they don't know any better. IF they are seventeen on the verge of eighteen then there is less of an excuse. For the most part they don't understand |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The boy who cried wolf was heard well enough. He just wasn't believed. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
rhia~ Thank you. You seem to have strength and knowledge on the topic of teen pregnancy and the prevention of it. I hope you reach out to all those around you that may not have such an advantage. Your voice and your mind is so important. State laws vary on the age of consensual sex. Some are listed as 16. I think we can both agree that's too young, but unfortunately there's not much anyone can do, once the doing is done. I'll tell you a commonality among the girls who I talk to and care for is poor self-esteem. Many mistake the attentions of a boy to be something they need more than self-respect. Adults can fall into the same trap. Another thing some of the girls have in common? They were home, alone, a lot, and said they were simply bored and disappointed with life. Womanhood (to them) seemed like a natural step, having to spend so much time on their own. None of them felt they were doing anything unnatural or harmful. It's almost as if their bodies meant nothing, and their future was already non-existent. So yeah, I can see where you say they don't understand, but it's still so heartbreaking when such promising youths are broadsided by too common an occurrence of pregnancy. And don't get me wrong, I think there are way too many adults who are being very poor examples and irresponsible parents as well. I already mentioned how thousands of grandparents are raising a second generation, They know somebody has to care for those children. So I highly agree about parents and education. Again--a network of support. Effectiveness still seems to be a problem though. Here's a link that might interest you or you might already have some knowledge of: http://www.girlsinc.org/ic/page.php?id=1 This organization has been highly beneficial and educational for girls and their parent/s. My daughter and I mentor at our local program. They always need more volunteers. Take care, Reg Ron~ Too true and too sad. Babies are second to Babes (beautiful women) and sexuality is pushed up and out in everything from deodorant to Doritos. How do we get any message across as serious and believable. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The teleconference was very informative. I guess I would say that the basic message was that as more and more people become informed as to the deceptive tactics and the lies upon which the abortion industry was founded and continues to flourish, the demand for abortion will decrease as hearts and minds are changed by the true facts surrounding the issue. More girls and women will come to see that the fetus is much more than a blob of tissue as more pregnancy crisis centers obtain and utilize the 4-D ultrasound machines now available. Thanks to such advances in medical science that can disprove the contentions of the abortion industry, it is highly unlikely that if Roe were being decided today that it would be decided as it was in 1973, which is also an encouraging thought. I was also heartened to hear that one of the pregancy crisis centers, in the Chicago area, I think, just celebrated its 30,000 saved baby. So there is progress being made in the pro-life movement despite Roe, and that progress will continue as more and more people become informed via the grassroots efforts of the pro-life movement until eventually the tide will turn against abortion on demand through the dissemination of truth, whether Roe is ever overturned or not or whether a Constitutional Life Amendment is ever passed or not. Although Mr. Kupelian's book was offered at a reduced rate, I didn't feel that the sale of the book was the reason for the teleseminar. I feel that the message was to educate yourself and others, and to volunteer your time, effort, and resources, as you are able, to the pro-life movement. If anyone would like the link to the 70 minute teleseminar you can email me and I will be glad to forward it to you. Earth's crammed with heaven, and every common bush afire with God, but only he who sees takes off his shoes. Elizabeth Barrett Browning |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
How do tactics effect a debate Denise? quote: Yes I'm speaking legally Stephen. There aren't fluctiations in Supreme Court decisions. You have 7 of 9 appointments by conservative, pro-life Presidents who haven't moved the ball since Roe. But, obviously there is debate between people like us -- it just doesn't have any real effect on the core issue. Stare decisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis is the policy of the U.S. legal system. The odds of reversing Roe are not high and at best less than even. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm not really sure what you mean, L.R., but if I think I know what you're asking, my reply would be that an actual and honest debate can't happen unless it is undergirded with TRUTH. Now, enjoy the game! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Thanks Denise -- I will... Argue the arguments instead of against the arguers then...although the vituparation/ invective is a longstanding tradition of the Progymnasmata we tend to do better with thesis. The way to counter an argument is with data. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I agree, L.R., but I also see nothing wrong with exposing the deceptive practices and falsehoods in conjunction with conveying the accurate data. The lies have been perpetrated for so long that many people just assume they are true without a second thought. By exposing the Abortion Industry for what it is, and the lies upon which it was founded and thrives, just might lead some people to start to question long held assumptions, especially the post-Roe younger generations who have known nothing else. |
||
|
A Romantic Heart Member Ascendant
since 1999-09-03
Posts 5496Forever In Your Heart |
God is in control of life and death, he holds the keys to it, only HE knows the FUTURE and what is best, God is love, What if Mary was forced to have an abortion, Would Jesus still have been born to save us all from our sins, yes!(Another Virgin) but he knew the future and he knew Marys heart,she would carry Jesus and birth him life, because God has a purpose for each life conceived and brought forth in the womb,(God is in control and uses what or who he wants to bring forth what he sets out to be fullfilled or accomplished) even before you were born, I knew the number of hairs on your head, declares the lord (Scripture) God places each child, each soul for a reason, a purpose, we don't know that reason at the moment, but maybe that child will grow-up and be the next child to end cancer , etc. It is not for us to judge, for God knows the plans he has for each and everyone of us, Jer.29:11 "I know the plans I have for you," says the Lord, Plans for good and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. IT is our CHOICE to choose to follow Jesus, his ways and his teachings, we have a free will, God gave us free will, he is not a dictator. If you make someone love you they don't really love you, but if they CHOOSE to love you, they really love you. Jesus died for all the babies that never got to live, and he died for all the mothers who made a bad choice to kill those babies, he loves them too, he forgives, because his mercy and grace and his love is so deep, his love is eternal. There are couples out there who are praying for a child to love and hold, who can't have natural children, but God has a purpose for them to adopt children , they are all Gods children anyway, he is just allowing us to be the overseers for them, everything I have is Gods, he gave it all to me, and all of it goes back to him. So who are we to take a life and kill it? We don't know the knowledge of the future. When sin entered into the world through Adam and Eve, then there was life and death, good and evil, right and wrong. For they tasted of the knowledge of good and evil. God told them not to eat of that tree, but they CHOSE to eat and disobey, when they could have had life eternal and without hate, without murder, without all the evil, they thought they were smarter than God, and chose to do what they wanted, not what God was trying to tell them for their own good, because he loves us.They could've had a life free from death, but sin and disobediance brings forth death. So God was telling them something for their own Good, like our parents told us, they didn't listen and now that is why we have death, once born it is ordained for man to die. To everything there is a season, and if you have life, you have death, if you have good you have evil. Heaven is the only place without sin, for God cannot look upon sin.Jesus was without sin, until he took on the sins of the world, our sins at the cross. Then he gained the keys to heaven and hell, to life and death, he rose on the third day and was brought back to life, and now lives forever in heaven. His Holy spirit lives inside each believer, each believer is to be christlike...to do what Jesus would do....Jesus wouldn't kill babies yet to be born. That one child, one life, could be the next Billy Ghraham or the next president, next inventor of something we need. We destroy ourselves with unintelligence. On another note, I was born with a birth defect, I am so glad my mother didn't have me aborted because I wasn't perfect, neither is she, you, or any of us, Jesus is the only perfect one. The doctors told my mom that I would need special tubes in my ears to hear, speech classes, braces, surgery.etc. Thank God, Praise the Lord Jesus, she trusted God and prayed for me, I didn't need tubes, I didn't need speech classes. I made A's and B's in school, I was told I could pursue a career in modeling, but I live for Jesus, I not only talk and get up to speak in front of people , I sing and write songs for Jesus. I help people who are less, who are in need, because I know, I have been there, I know what they feel and what they are going through,(They feel unloved, unperfect as to the worlds standards) I am sent to love, and give love, show love, Gods love to all. His love is unconditional.He loves me they way I am...not for who I am , but for what I am in him for him. He loves you just the way you are and knew that 2000 years ago when he died on the cross, he died for all the people that had been, were, and were yet to come, he died and took your place , the palce of your children and grandchildren, he knew we would all sin, and he took our punishment before God so we wouldn't have to, he loved us so much to die for us, WHO would die for you? your mother? father? best friend? who would lay down their life to save yours? and if saving lifes was so important to Jesus, that he suffered and died on the cross for each life, that was or ever will be, then we should hold life just as precious and save each life that we can. If I didn't have the birth defect, I would have been arrogant and prideful, selfish, non-loving, giving. The scar on my face keeps me humble, and it allows me to hear and see the suffering of others. Prideful and arrogance is what Satan was cast out of heaven for, by God himself, because he wanted to be God. Sound familiar? Who is in control of your life? you or God? I found out the hard way....GOD is in control of all things Great or small! Even if you love him or not, accept him as your Lord and savior or not....God is in Control! We are not God...and never will we have the love or the intelligence he has. What a blessing....go here! /pip/Forum29/HTML/002134.html J. M. Barrie, the playwright, may have said it best when he wrote, “God gave us memories so that we might have roses in December.” [This message has been edited by A Romantic Heart (02-06-2007 11:48 PM).] |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
My real mom, constantly reminded me while growing up that she almost went for a then, very illegal and very dangerous abortion. I am so so thankful she didn't and that I'm here and had the chance to experience life, love, birth, bringing up my own child, now a grandchild, friends, writing, horses, the ocean, and all the wonderful things I've seen, felt and touched. Last night I saw a program about a woman who was raped years ago...she seriously at that time, contemplated abortion...but instead, gave her baby girl up for adoption. That Baby Girl turned into a fine upstanding, intelligent, beautiful woman, who went searching for her birth mother...now, years later, she has found her birth mother and both of them are so so thankful to be together...to laugh, to love, to experience life together. They now work together giving seminars to girls who are contemplating abortion. The mother herself explains, I was so young when I was raped, confused and afraid, and a virgin teenager. She couldn't go through with abortion and decided to give the child up for adoption, now she is so thankful she did, and so much more is her daughter. I disagree totally with abortion...for very personal reasons.. Time changes people, and at the time, when children are getting abortions, they or they're parents are only thinking of a quick fix to the problem, in my way of thinking, abortion is an action of convenience only. Later, much later in life, when girls grow into a women, they remember the abortion they've had, and for the rest of their life, live with deeply rooted reservations, guilt, sorrow at the loss for a decission they made when they were young...some seek out help dealing with the now overbearing guilt, some will never forgive themselves...some always wonder...and yes, some have no reservations...b/c they convince themselves it was ok to do. Long story short...no matter what happens in our lives, somehow we get by, and we will make it...child or not...but what I'm suggesting here is, before any one person suggests to a young girl to have an abortion, I believe they should think very long and hard about the consequences. Children are our purpose to a great degree... I did have it pretty rough growing up, but there were those who had it much rougher then I did...we all get by, it molds our characters...and I turned out ok...with some minor flaws...  , that I'm still working on...but, bottom line...I'm so so happy to have been here, to have experienced, and to be alive, thank God, my birth mother, was not able to go for that abortion. Thank God I'm writing this so called testimony right now...and thank God for the family across the street who took me into their home and treated me like they're own child.Everything happens for a reason, even birth defects...we learn to deal and cope...and if we can't there is always a couple out there who are praying for a child to hold, care for and love. My cousin was 15 years old when she conceived her first child...she is fine today, and by the way, still married to the same man, all her children are respectful, mature people...they were great kids...it depends on the mother, and all those involved raising those kids...but all children, in my book, deserve a chance at life, as to me, there is no greater gift, then life and living. Again, we've sadly become a nation of quick fixes and instant gratification...I wonder if we could be loosing the ability to actually deal with the root of problems...problem solving...working through them and living up to our wrongs, accepting responsiblity and doing what we have to do...regardless of our bad choices. I'd also like to say, I know two families that have had down syndrome retarted children...they to feel very strongly against abortion... These are simply my thoughts on the subject of abortion...I really have not read all the above. [This message has been edited by LeeJ (02-09-2007 12:22 PM).] |
||
|
rhia_5779 Senior Member
since 2006-06-09
Posts 1334California |
What if I said I might not believe god exists at all? If god knows what is best , so are you saying that when people die its for the best. How do you know the fourteen year old who dies as a runaway wouldnt be the next president or such? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
