|
|
|
|
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/4/2007 5:53:28 PM | For all those opposed to abortion based on their reading of the bible please read Numbers 5:11 to Numbers 5:28
this is God sanctioning Abortion | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/5/2007 1:55:18 AM | No its not god sanctioning abortion, this forum is a load of people manipulating the bible to suit themselves and their own beliefs!
God believes this, god believes that.....
No, YOU believe and your trying to justify yourselves by looking for something in the bible that makes you feel that your right in your OWN belief because everyone is scared of going the man made myth called hell.
Have some balls, stand up for what YOU believe is right, whether it be abortion or not.
If god was so forgiving surely your alleged places in the man-made myth called heaven would be secure? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/5/2007 11:04:50 AM | Tis not a crime against God. God understands when a raped woman does not wish to have the child of her attacker. God understands when a person does not want to have children.
God agrees with those who choose abortion, and holds nothing against them. If they don't have kids, he says "So be it!"
I AGREE WITH YOU 100%, IF A WOMAN IS RAPED AND THE RESULT OF THAT IS PREGNANCY SHE CAN ABORT, TO AVOID UN-WATED PREGNANCIES BOTH WOMAN AND MAN SHOULD USE CONTRACEPTIVES, IF THE CONTRACEPTIVES FAIL , YES THEY HAVE THE OPTION OF ABORTION, IN MY OPINION, PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST ABORTION SHOULD ADOPT AS MANY ORPHANAGE'S CHILDREN AS THEIR INCOME ALLOWS THEM, STOP WHINNING AND BE PART OF THE SOLUTION. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/5/2007 11:13:42 AM | Abortion
Posted: 9/5/2007 1 18 AM
No its not god sanctioning abortion, this forum is a load of people manipulating the bible to suit themselves and their own beliefs!
God believes this, god believes that.....
No, YOU believe and your trying to justify yourselves by looking for something in the bible that makes you feel that your right in your OWN belief because everyone is scared of going the man made myth called hell.
Have some balls, stand up for what YOU believe is right, whether it be abortion or not.
If god was so forgiving surely your alleged places in the man-made myth called heaven would be secure?
This is a woman with BIG BALLS as an atheist I agree with your opinion 1000%. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/6/2007 10:19:18 PM |
IN MY OPINION, PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST ABORTION SHOULD ADOPT AS MANY ORPHANAGE'S CHILDREN AS THEIR INCOME ALLOWS THEM, STOP WHINNING AND BE PART OF THE SOLUTION.
That statement makes NO sense at all. A person can have an objective moral claim or an objection about an issue without being required to act upon it.
What would you think if I said to you..."I'm going to kill my 3 kids unless YOU agree to adopt them"....or if I said..."Unless you agree to marry my wife, YOU have NO reason to oppose me abusing her".
See how silly your statement becomes with your kind of rational?
Because surely, my kids and my wife have VALUE, “Independent” of how I treat them.
The same is True for the developing person in the womb.
At present, 2 Million American Families are waiting to Adopt. This TRUE figure was put out by The National Center for Adoption in “response” to a Pro-Abortion “claim” that Only “WHITE” babies are wanted for Adoption. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/16/2007 5:37:54 PM | | It is not a crime in the UK or most parts of the U.S, therefore it is NOT murder!!! | |
|
| red rum
Posted: 9/17/2007 7:13:46 AM | Abortion doesn't make you "un-pregnant", it makes you the mother of a dead baby.
Abortion is murder. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/17/2007 3:22:58 PM |
Abortion doesn't make you "un-pregnant"; it makes you the mother of a dead baby.
Abortion is murder.
Fortunately your personal values, be they spiritual or otherwise, do not constitute a legal definition, and that was the poster's point, which is still valid. Under the law of the UK, USA and Canada, abortion does not constitute a murder or infanticide, so no, unequivocally in the English language, abortion is NOT a murder, no matter how many dullards and buffoons who choose to kill the English language by using one word inappropriately when another is the one to be used.
You could say "I believe that because the unborn fetus is a person that abortion is morally equivalent to murder." As to that, such an issue is not in the realm of fact but in the realm of philosophy, medical ethics and time...and it is still, thankfully one best decided by a woman and her physician and not ranting religious fanatics who really have no business deciding what a woman's reproductive rights are in this day and age.
Otherwise what you are saying is ungrammatical, value-driven gobbledygook. Abortion does in fact render someone "un-pregnant" if we want to use that clumsy construct, though you cannot be the "mother of a dead baby"
Maybe you should write some of these words down in really large letters on a placard where they could be used to terrorize a few people outside an abortion clinic besides just lovers of the English language, hmm? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/17/2007 9:23:36 PM |
themadfiddler: you cannot be the "mother of a dead baby"
Can you be the father of a dead baby? My girl was born of an emergency c-section - I was quite startled to see her gray, non-breathing form yanked from her mother's body. With perfect clarity I can remember the moment were her ashen gray body became rosy pink with her first breath. Depending on the definition of 'dead,' I may have been the father of a dead baby for about a minute or so. That experience was a big part of why I'm working towards an RN degree. But I digress, moving right along....
85 For Fighting: Abortion is murder.
Thanks for letting us know your opinion on the definition of murder. Most would disagree with you though. Murder is illegal, abortions aren't.
A lot of things could be considered murder by some and not by others - such as surgery gone wrong, putting pets to sleep, even picking your nose is killing live cells.
jfbmeister: Think about it! The RIGHT TO CHOOSE! Pro Abortion people HAD their choice. They chose NOT to keep their knees together. What they want next is for the state to tell them " Oh, it's OK honey, it was just a FETUS.
I never met a pro-abortion person before. I met lots of pro-choice ones though. Alternatively, I also met a lot of people that think their opinions should be forced on others rather than let them make their own personal choices.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/colombia/story/0,,1861532,00.html
So at the age of 7, that girl chose to be raped by her stepfather for the following four years and intentionally got pregnant (following your reasoning here). But now that she 'chose' to get pregnant, you apparently feel that her power to choose should be stripped from her and force her to bring the baby to term. Personally, I think that 11yr old girl has gone through enough and should be spared the additional burden of raising her rapist's child. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/17/2007 9:55:07 PM |
Fortunately your personal values, be they spiritual or otherwise, do not constitute a legal definition, and that was the poster's point, which is still valid. Under the law of the UK, USA and Canada, abortion does not constitute a murder or infanticide, so no, unequivocally in the English language, abortion is NOT a murder, no matter how many dullards and buffoons who choose to kill the English language by using one word inappropriately when another is the one to be used.
Your inadequate definition of the "word" (and the meaning by which he used it) is very one-sided, especially when you define the use of a word in the English language to mean only one thing, but not to mean the conveyance of "the act" at all. IE...Murder. So I guess we'll play the game. You say....Fortunately? for whom? Certainly not the "Aborted".
But herein lies the question. "What is it that is being Aborted"?
You dismissed his statement based on what? His personal values? To dismiss personal values of someones belief system because you happen to believe YOUR way, does not mean that you are correct in your belief system and that only your opinion matters.....which is really where you were going with all your semi-eloquent "wordsmithing" and name-calling. Very typical of Pro-abortion rhetoric...
“Personal Values” are OK...but “Values” must be based on something...If a Value is to be adopted into your “Belief System”, it should be grounded and rooted in FACTS and TRUTH. Science provides us the “Facts” we need to form a sound Philosophical View.
And to use the Law to define the meaning of a word is simply misleading because the legal system is imperfect in so many ways. For instance...It would seem to me the continuous debate over abortion since Roe v. Wade (in the USA) means that the issue certainly is not settled. Besides, if the Court were the final arbiter of morality, then the Dred Scott decision of 1857 affirming slavery would still stand. But we all know now that Dred Scott was a bad law. Likewise, many think that Roe v. Wade is a bad law. Legal decisions are overturned all the time.
You could say "I believe that because the unborn fetus is a person that abortion is morally equivalent to murder." As to that, such an issue is not in the realm of fact but in the realm of philosophy, medical ethics and time...and it is still, thankfully one best decided by a woman and her physician and not ranting religious fanatics who really have no business deciding what a woman's reproductive rights are in this day and age.
Seems like you have a biased, anti-religious agenda here. But I'm sure there are many Anti-Abortion atheists out there that have the same view about Abortion as a religious person does.
Anyway, you use the realms of philosophy, medical ethics and time to attempt to debunk the Anti-Abortion side of the issue. Thats either a big mistake or you really don't know what you're talking about.
With Philosophy....if you look at the Philosophical differences when comparing the “newborn” to the "Developing person in the womb"…you will find ONLY 4.
1.) Size
2.) Level of Development
3.) Environment
4.) Degree of Dependency
NONE of which are Morally Relevant to DISQUALIFY the developing person in the womb as being Fully Human.
1.) Size…Yes, it’s True…the developing person in the womb is “smaller” than the newborn. But since when, does Size have anything to do with the "Rights" that people have? MEN, are generally Larger than WOMEN…Does that mean men have MORE rights? (what do you think, ladies?) Is Shaquile O’Neal, MORE of a person, than Barbara Boxer…simply because he is Larger? I don’t think so…
2.) Level of Development…Yes, this is True…the person in the womb is Less Developed than a newborn…but does that matter? A 4 year old girl is Less Developed than a 22 year old college co-ed…but does that mean that the 4 year old is Less Human than the co-ed, simply because she hasn’t Developed her Reproductive system? We think of BOTH as being EQUALLY Human, don’t we?
3.) Environment…Yes, the person in the womb is in a different Location, than the newborn…but again, does that matter? WHERE you are has NO bearing, on WHO you are! Did YOU, stop being YOU…because you went from one Location to Another? Did that “change” in Location, affect YOUR “status” as being a Human Being? How can Location, then, matter?…How is BIRTH the “magic” moment to become Human? It really isn’t…
4.) Degree of Dependency…Yes, it’s True…the person in the womb is MORE DEPENDENT, than a newborn. But does that matter? If Viability is what Makes us Human Beings…then ALL People, who DEPEND on insulin, heart pace makers, kidney machines, or Anything to “sustain” their Life, would have to be “declared” Non-Persons, along with the Person in the womb…because they would be NOT be Viable either.
With Medical Ethics....Life begins at Conception. There is NO Doubt in the MEDICAL and GENETIC “communities” that Individual Human Life begins at “conception”. No one will tell you, in a “scholarly” article or in “testimony” in court, that Individual Human Life can be Demonstrated to Begin at ANY OTHER POINT, than Conception. Even Planned Parenthood's late President, Dr. Allen Gutemacher, made the observation about Life beginning at Conception. He said “he couldn’t believe there was anyone out there that didn’t know this.”
Since Conception was discovered, in 1824, by “Modern Biology”…and No One has disputed it since. (except for Pro-Abortion rationalists and apologists)
With Time....I don't understand what you mean by "Time" as a realm for the rationalization for Abortion. Do you mean as "Time" goes by, Philosophy and Medical Ethics (and even Science) will discover evidence that the person in the womb is Not Fully Human? I don't think so...in fact, I think the findings will support the factual Humanity of the developing person in the womb.
Now you say...and it is still, thankfully one best decided by a woman and her physician and not ranting religious fanatics who really have no business deciding what a woman's reproductive rights are in this day and age.
And I say...Thankfully? and Best? for whom? Certainly not the Aborted.
Otherwise what you are saying is ungrammatical, value-driven gobbledygook. Abortion does in fact render someone "un-pregnant" if we want to use that clumsy construct, though you cannot be the "mother of a dead baby"
Here, I agree with you that elective Abortion does in fact render a woman "un-pregnant". However, Everyone in the Abortion Debate “agrees” that abortion Kills Something. Both sides “agree” on that!……But whether or not it is “Right” to take the Life of any living thing, depends entirely, on WHAT that “thing” is…that is in question. Thus the debate...
Maybe you should write some of these words down in really large letters on a placard where they could be used to terrorize a few people outside an abortion clinic besides just lovers of the English language, hmm?
I see you continue to attack. Perhaps you also should select your words more carefully when defending YOUR Pro-Abortion stance. Fortunately and Thankfully and Best for whom? Certainly NOT the Aborted. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/17/2007 10:38:28 PM | To rockondon
That experience was a big part of why I'm working towards an RN degree. But I digress, moving right along....
And of course I had no intent to discount your experience or that of others in a similar situation as you might well imagine, but as you can see from the superstitious rhetoric that follows in the post after, littered with a host of loaded-language, logical fallacy, and a variety of appeals...it's a varitable slippery-sloped-trail of breadcrumbs into this thread's token troll cave, to be followed at one's peril.
response to q1stman...
Anti-religious bias? If by that I believe your rights to practice your religion end at your front door and not public policy, yes, most certainly. No one has the right to impose their particular superstitions over the society at large while we are a civil and democratic society that operates by rule of law. Your assumption that because I do not agree with your particular agenda that I must therefore be an atheist is equally offensive. Christian morality is hardly the only game in town. Nevertheless, my own spiritual beliefs extend to the end of my own nose, and I don't suffer them upon my fellow beings.
The language describing the law of murder is quite clear. No amount of obfuscation on your part will change the fact that as no one is being charged with murder, trying to semantically redefine abortion as a murder is simply not on - no murder is occuring...so far, the only murder that occurs around abortion clinics is from armed religious fanatics assassinating abortion doctors from cowardly attacks at a distance while under guidance from what they believe to be their Deity. I think that so far is the only thing you will find "everyone" to be in agreement on without straying into the argument from popularity fallacy. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/17/2007 10:53:34 PM |
q1stman: ...Pro-abortion rhetoric
lol, the irony. Congratulations by the way, this is the shortest hypocritical statement I've ever seen.
q1stman: Seems like you have a biased, anti-religious agenda here
Seems like you have a biased pro-religious agenda here.
Abortion is a personal issue, there's no need for religion to muddy the waters. Also, if the followers of a religion try to impose their will on others, it is not anti-religious to tell them to take their foot off their neck.
q1stman: And to use the Law to define the meaning of a word is simply misleading because the legal system is imperfect in so many ways.
and let me guess, we should adopt whatever definition you've created to support your argument?
Wiki says "Murder is the illegal killing of one human being by another." And abortion is legal.
q1stman: NONE of which are Morally Relevant to DISQUALIFY the developing person in the womb as being Fully Human.
Irrelevant. Nobody's DISQUALIFYING anybody as being fully human.
If a cop kills someone in self-defense, that isn't considered murder. Perhaps you feel the dead guy was disqualified as human?
q1stman: However, Everyone in the Abortion Debate “agrees” that abortion Kills Something.
That's a meaningless statement. In the few seconds it takes you to read this sentence you kill about 10 million blood cells. We kill 'somethings' all the time. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/18/2007 12:37:56 AM | | what really bothers me is that bunch of guys, those so called politicians, gather together and decide for women whether they should be allowed to abort their children if they wish. RIDICULOUS! just as everything else is. who the hell do men think they are, that includes men in this thread who oppose abortion, to decide for women and their future. If you could get pregnant, then it would be your own choice. I don't care what bible or anything else says. they sure look down on women as inferior. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/18/2007 4:36:13 PM |
Anti-religious bias? If by that I believe your rights to practice your religion end at your front door and not public policy, yes, most certainly. No one has the right to impose their particular superstitions over the society at large while we are a civil and democratic society that operates by rule of law. Your assumption that because I do not agree with your particular agenda that I must therefore be an atheist is equally offensive. Christian morality is hardly the only game in town. Nevertheless, my own spiritual beliefs extend to the end of my own nose, and I don't suffer them upon my fellow beings.
Public policy is just what it is....public policy. And I believe that includes everyone, including people of Faith. In a Representative Democratic Society, candidates that control legislation, run for office and get elected. Along the way, they appeal and pander for votes. They make promises. It's all part of the process. Now at least your honest with your anti-religious bias. It's funny that exclusionary candidates who share your view regarding people of Faith are not. Why is that? Could it be that what you tout is EXTREME, out on the fringe or unbalanced?
Now if you re-read what I posted, I never said you were an atheist. In fact, I believe it was you who brought God into the debate. Thats typical of closed-minded Pro-Abortion rhetoric, however, that don't ruffle my feathers. Either you're confused about who you are and you're belief or non-belief system....or you're just plain intolerant and ignorant to people of Faith. Now thats not very Democratic, is it? Nor is it very nice.
The language describing the law of murder is quite clear. No amount of obfuscation on your part will change the fact that as no one is being charged with murder, trying to semantically redefine abortion as a murder is simply not on - no murder is occuring...
Obfuscation is the “corruption” of language, logic, reason and thought in order to confuse an issue or topic. Where did I do that? I think Semantics through your "word-games" is your ONLY “defense” to rationalize Abortion. I present an opposing view to yours, debated with imperical scientific evidence and sound philosophical reasoning. Wouldn't it be more rational (and less emotional) to have a discussion about "what" is actually developing in the womb, instead of bantering? It seems like you've already come to a conclusion on the matter without adequate facts backing it up.
so far, the only murder that occurs around abortion clinics is from armed religious fanatics assassinating abortion doctors from cowardly attacks at a distance while under guidance from what they believe to be their Deity. I think that so far is the only thing you will find "everyone" to be in agreement on without straying into the argument from popularity fallacy.
Killing an abortion provider or bombing a clinic is definetely wrong. However, that being the only murder that happens around an abortion clinic is still up for debate. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/18/2007 5:12:29 PM | rockondon
Seems like you have a biased pro-religious agenda here. Abortion is a personal issue, there's no need for religion to muddy the waters. Also, if the followers of a religion try to impose their will on others, it is not anti-religious to tell them to take their foot off their neck.
Gee....I don't remember bringing up religion or God in this debate. Seems "God" is the "whipping-boy" for the Pro-Abortion side, however, I don't believe He was participating in the conversation.
and let me guess, we should adopt whatever definition you've created to support your argument? Wiki says "Murder is the illegal killing of one human being by another." And abortion is legal.
No. I've got a more practical idea. I think that Abortion is not as "complex" an issue to discuss.....thats IF you stick to the topic…In fact, it may be quite simple to resolve. The MAIN issue from the Anti-Abortion side regarding Abortion, are the Answers to 2 "simple" questions…1.) "What is IT?"… 2.) "Can I kill IT?"…Anti-Abortion people believe that the answers, to those 2 "simple" questions will trump, all other considerations in the Abortion Debate. It's just SOOOO difficult to find a Pro-Abortion advocate to stick to the topic.
Irrelevant. Nobody's DISQUALIFYING anybody as being fully human.
If a cop kills someone in self-defense, that isn't considered murder. Perhaps you feel the dead guy was disqualified as human?
Huh?
That's a meaningless statement. In the few seconds it takes you to read this sentence you kill about 10 million blood cells. We kill 'somethings' all the time.
Perhaps you need some "brushing-up" on cellular life to give meaning or a new perspective to the statement. Just because your blood “cells” contain Human Genetic Material, does NOT mean that they have the “Inherent Capacity” to BE a FETUS, an INFANT, a TODDLER, an ADOLESCENT, or an ADULT. Blood Cells, that that you think you "think-away" or kill by reading a statement  , DO NOT POSSESS, that “Inherent Capacity”. The “conceived” Zygote does.
The “conceived” Zygote is a Different kind of Human Genetic Material. It is a purpose-driven and self-integrating entity, that is in command of it’s own Development. It is an “individual” Human Being…an “individual” Human Person. Developing!
“Inherent Capacity” means that "Nothing more will be added" to that Entity to Make it a Human Being. It has Everything “programmed” within it, from the beginning. (Conception).
Sperm and Ovum, Left to themselves, will Die. They DO NOT possess the “Inherent Capacity” to BE a Human Being. ONLY when they “undergo” the Conception or Fertilization Process, do they become “Individual” Human Beings and Human Life “begins” to Develop. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/18/2007 5:20:38 PM |
Now at least your honest with your anti-religious bias. It's funny that exclusionary candidates who share your view regarding people of Faith are not. Why is that? Could it be that what you tout is EXTREME, out on the fringe or unbalanced?
...
Either you're confused about who you are and you're belief or non-belief system....or you're just plain intolerant and ignorant to people of Faith.
You would dearly hope so... alas you will have to construct your strawman argument without straw or clay...
Go build it and knock it down elsewhere. I never once stated that I am anti-religious, nor implied it. I did state that I am against the use of religion in the determination of public policy particularly those of moral determination and specifically those of reproductive rights and extend that same caveat to my own spirituality.
Now if you re-read what I posted, I never said you were an atheist. In fact, I believe it was you who brought God into the debate
While I certainly implied religious fanaticism was at the heart of the arguments of many in the anti-choice campaign in post 588, you confirmed it for me when you stated:
Seems like you have a biased, anti-religious agenda here. But I'm sure there are many Anti-Abortion atheistsout there that have the same view about Abortion as a religious person does.
As to this:
I present an opposing view to yours, debated with imperical scientific evidence and sound philosophical reasoning.
I think as don illustrated nicely, that mass of logical fallacy wouldn't pass for an argument in your spare time...when you cobble one together, do bring it up. But as to the poster's point of law, contrary on the point though you wish to remain, it still stands. No laws being broken, no murder. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/18/2007 5:40:57 PM |
"Tis not a crime against God. God understands when a raped woman does not wish to have the child of her attacker. God understands when a person does not want to have children.
God agrees with those who choose abortion, and holds nothing against them. If they don't have kids, he says "So be it!"
I would first off like to quote what someone said. Who are we to say that god understands anything that has to do with humans sacraficing other humans? Don't you think that if someone is to kill another human and it's considered sinful, that killing an unborn child whether it harms the mother or not is just as wrong? It's written in the bible that god is an all seeing and forgiving lord, but who's to say that he would forgive someone for killing one of his children? I mean isn't it written in the bible that we shall not kill another? Killing an embrio whether it's a child or not is still maticulously killing another "living" thing. Does it or does it not say that god loves all his children? It's not in our power to guess what god understands. Nor is it in a human comprehension to understand what god understands. I'm sorry but I think that killing another living thing whether it's a child at certain stages or not is still wrong. Why should we be given the power to kill another living being? Another thing also, is tell me exactly where it says in the bible that if a "couple" don't want children that they don't have to have any. .. because I don't remember reading that. It's our right to chose to not have kids, but it shouldn't be a right to have sex and then decide all because a child doesn't fit into your "perfect" plan which by the way isn't so perfect, and then to kill a child because you're not ready. You should've either A) Not haave had sex, or B) use a condom... | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/19/2007 10:08:31 PM | | The abortion debate mirroes ante-bellum American society- is it property or a human being? Maybe the abortion advocates will lobby for a 3/5 citizenship rule | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/20/2007 12:55:15 AM |
Who are we to say that god understands anything that has to do with humans sacraficing other humans?
To allow the notion of God to enter into the abortion debate is reall a matter of "begging the question" as it presupposes the existence of and nature of God as well as such an entities set of moral rules to reflect those of the questioner. Horrible logical fallacy arises from this. We cannot know if there is a God or not, or if such an entity has any interest in us or our reproductive patterns in any way, shape or form.
The abortion debate mirroes ante-bellum American society- is it property or a human being? Maybe the abortion advocates will lobby for a 3/5 citizenship rule
Only for those that lack the basic capacity for reason and demonstrate it regularly...some may qualify for as little as 2 or 1 fifth depending on thier use of logical fallacy. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/20/2007 1:04:59 AM | Ok whether people think god agrees with abortion or not - thats what THEY think, and no-one will ever truly know....
But my question is - What happens to the children of raped mother's?
You see it in the news, children being raped.... An 13 year old was raped not so long ago in supermarket toilets...
So, she gets pregnant - what do people want her to do then? have a child at 13?
Just curious...
Is children having children ok then? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/22/2007 4:47:15 AM | *sigh*
How disappointing. I can understand that abortion is an extremely loaded issue. And I applaud the OP's efforts to reconcile it with the common perception that "God doesn't like abortion".
But honestly? This is a troll.
To those who attempt to discuss it rationally: you should know better. Nobody arguing the murder point is ever going to concede, even with examples like rape/incest victims, crack babies, risk to the mother, and other such examples that would make abortion seem to be a better option. These people want to see it as murder, regardless of any circumstances.
To the zealots: you can have this thread, and go on prattling about murder-this and life-begins-at-conception that. But you know what? Every single one of you would get bored if everyone else agreed. Without a counter-argument, there's no point to a discussion.
To everyone: honestly, I don't think I have yet had the displeasure of reading any thread with as much slander and ad hominem attacks. A healthy dose of shame is in order here. Where is the civil discussion? What happened to agreeing to disagree? I've been guilty of slander and attacking-the-poster-not-the-post too, but this is rediculous. There can be no understanding, no coming to terms, no real progress if everyone is badmouthing each other.
That being said.
In my admittedly short life, I've had to deal with abortion firsthand: one that I knew about, and offered my perspective on, and one that I did not. In the first case, I was in no position to become a father. It would have been a grave disservice to the child to have me as a parent at that stage of my life, due in large part to my use of drugs and anger-management issues. My g/f-at-the-time and I discussed the matter, and reluctantly agreed to the procedure: I say reluctantly because, despite my being a rather worthless human being at the time, I selfishly wanted to keep the child, until I finally saw just how miserable the poor thing's life would be because of my baleful influence and lifestyle.
The second was by far the worst. As a man, I have no right to dictate how a woman treats her body: and until the fetus can survive on its own apart from the mother, it is ultimately her choice how to treat her own body, thus I cannot tell a woman either to have, or not to have, an abortion. Yet, it was disrespectful in the extreme, IMO, for this then-g/f (not the same one as in example 1) to proceed without telling me... in fact, I never knew she was pregnant. At the time, I had a relatively good job (though there was little prospect of advancement), we had made plans to wed, her parents adored me, and I had gotten off thejunk: both the illicit and the prescribed.
The point then, is this. The decision to get an abortion, despite what the zealots and pundits think, is EXTREMELY SELDOM a "I didn't use a condom, so I'll just yank the thing out". It is always a difficult and painful decision, made worse by the stigma attached to it. A stigma so extreme that it leads to infants being abandoned in dumpsters and street corbers, or children being born to people who have absolutely no capacity to be decent parents. Have any of you who cry "murder" seen a pregnant 9-year-old? Or expereinced the heartache of watching a child suffocate because their lung tissues, irrevocably damaged by meth use from the mother, were too underdeveloped to function? Have you seen a child so small it could fit easily in a man's hand, surrounded by hundreds of feet of tubes, struggle to even get a flicker of a heartbeat? Have you ever seen the broken look in a child's eyes that can only come from severe physical and mental abuse?
Have any of you ever had to weigh the decision of whether or not to have one?
I highly doubt it.
Good day to you all. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/22/2007 7:24:25 AM | Trippy, I applude the bearing of your soul. When people become faced with making personal choices the big arguments fall by the wayside.
Ultimately there is no right or wrong. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 9/30/2007 9:16:12 PM | | the alleged words of Christ according to the Christian Testament " Who are those who do not want me as their king? Bring them all to me and kill them in front of me" . This from your loving , sinless prophet .... give me a break. That's hypocrisy from the founder of your quasi-religion. As far as the "Old" Testament , it clearly states that until the moment of live birth , the fetus is potential life . The mother's life is absolute life , and if any harm should come to her because of the potential life , it shall be removed , limb by limb if neccessary . There's your religion backfiring on you one again. Besides , religion should not have dominion over our laws. Here's a novel thought : If you are against abortion ..... don't have one! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/5/2007 12:54:59 AM | People really get passionate about this issue.For some reason,it's not an issue I'm passionate about one way or another.I feel sometimes it's more of a woman's issue,the argument over life vs. what a woman can do with her body.Some talk of the intimate connection between an unborn child(fetus) and the woman carrying it.I've seen women nurture their pregnancies and I've seen women who treat it like it an alien growth or disease.As a male with no religious or moral points on the issue,I look at it a bit differently.Here's another perspective that no one thinks of.
I'm a guy approaching 50,been in my career almost 30 years.Every day I find myself competing more and more with kids half my age.Some of these young snots end up in management positions because companies are getting cheaper and cheaper.I find more and more breaks are given to younger and less experienced folks because they work cheap and management wants to mold them in their own image.
I'm not concerned with the unborn fetus.I'm concerned more about what it grows up to be 25 years down the road.At least if it's aborted,that's one less bit of competition I'm gonna have to face in the next 2 decades.One less potential middle management snot I might have to deal with or one less street thug that may mug me in my old age.
Right to life folks are forever going on about how sacred an unborn child is,but you don't hear too many of them offering to support the unwanted babies being born every day.If you're preborn,you're sacred, if you're preschool,you're screwed.I'm more concerned with the living babies and children and what they may become because no one wants them then I am an unborn fetus.
The anti abortion folks who argue the morality behind stem cell research have obviously never had to deal with some of the azzholes I have.I've met many people who would've served humanity better as embryos for research than human beings. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 10/5/2007 4:38:40 AM | The most rational words spoken yet:
The point then, is this. The decision to get an abortion, despite what the zealots and pundits think, is EXTREMELY SELDOM a "I didn't use a condom, so I'll just yank the thing out". It is always a difficult and painful decision, made worse by the stigma attached to it. A stigma so extreme that it leads to infants being abandoned in dumpsters and street corbers, or children being born to people who have absolutely no capacity to be decent parents. Have any of you who cry "murder" seen a pregnant 9-year-old? Or expereinced the heartache of watching a child suffocate because their lung tissues, irrevocably damaged by meth use from the mother, were too underdeveloped to function? Have you seen a child so small it could fit easily in a man's hand, surrounded by hundreds of feet of tubes, struggle to even get a flicker of a heartbeat? Have you ever seen the broken look in a child's eyes that can only come from severe physical and mental abuse?
Have any of you ever had to weigh the decision of whether or not to have one?
I highly doubt it.
I have not had to make this decision, thankfully.... but I have held a few friends before and after the procedure, let them cry on my shoulder.... and I couldn't agree with you more Trippy.
 | |
|
|
| Page 24 of 35
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 |
|
Home
login 
