|
|
|
|
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/18/2006 8:41:23 PM | You must not realize what you’re saying. There are plenty of immoral crimes that you’re glad the government has made illegal
Yes, I am glad that the government has addressed the crimes which I think are immoral. Unwanted pregnancy and fetus termination isn't a crime - at least not in this country.
You are not a woman and you couldn't possibly understand the devistation that unwanted pregnancy could bring. As a man, you have the choice to walk away... women are left to make all the decisions - dont' cast stones until you've walked a mile in their shoes.
You can't judge a person when you know nothing about their history or where they've been. It's Christian to bring all people into your heart - not spread hate by attacking them with your own morality
Baby inside the womb: “Pro-choice is my opinion too, I want to live. I feel that it isn't Christian to torture people for the mistake of being born.
Huh? They haven't been born yet - hello! If you want to see the torture of being born become a social worker and aprehend a child from a mother that didn't want them - it's not a pretty sight.
Funny how women will willingly sacrifice their health for the sake of sexual pleasure, but they don’t want to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy for the sake of saving a baby’s life even though going through with the pregnancy is usually a lot safer than their birth control.
No, they sacrifice their health because the men will not. Typical patriarchy.
You must not have heard about America yet.
LOL.. I wonder if you have.. "In God We Trust" - ever have a Non-Christian President? A black one? A Jewish, Hindu or even a Hispanic one? Nope because the USA is white, Christian and full of patriarchial and oppressive methods of conducting their country. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/18/2006 8:44:58 PM | Woah.
Glad I'm Canadian. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/18/2006 9:29:56 PM |
Funny how women will willingly sacrifice their health for the sake of sexual pleasure, but they don’t want to be inconvenienced with a pregnancy for the sake of saving a baby’s life even though going through with the pregnancy is usually a lot safer than their birth control.
Funny how many men don't want to use condoms, but they don't want to be inconvenienced with paying child support.
And just where did you get the idea that going through with a pregnancy is "a lot safer than their birth control?" | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/18/2006 11:02:01 PM | Early Christians condemned abortion, but did not view the termination of a pregnancy to be an abortion before "ensoulment", the definition of when life began in the womb. Up to 400 AD., as the relatively few Christians were widely scattered geographically, the actual practice of abortion among Christians probably varied considerably and was influenced by regional customs and practices.
St. Augustine (AD 354-430) said, “There cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation”, and held that abortion required penance only for the sexual aspect of the sin.6 He and other early Christian theologians believed, as had Aristotle centuries before, that "animation", or the coming alive of the fetus, occurred forty days after conception for a boy and eighty days after conception for a girl. The conclusion that early abortion is not homicide is contained in the first authoritative collection of canon law accepted by the church in 1140.6 As this collection was used as an instruction manual for priests until the new Code of Canon Law of 1917, its view of abortion has had great influence.
At the beginning of the 13th century, Pope Innocent III wrote that “quickening” —the time when a woman first feels the fetus move within her— was the moment at which abortion became homicide; prior to quickening, abortion was a less serious sin. Pope Gregory XIV agreed, designating quickening as occurring after a period of 116 days (about 17 weeks). His declaration in 1591 that early abortion was not grounds for excommunication continued to be the abortion policy of the Catholic Church until 1869.
The tolerant approach to abortion which had prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church for centuries ended at the end of the nineteenth century.7 In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially eliminated the Catholic distinction between an animated and a nonanimated fetus and required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.
This change has been seen by some as a means of countering the rising birth control movement, especially in France, with its declining Catholic population. In Italy, during the years 1848 to 1870, the papal states shrank from almost one-third of the country to what is now Vatican City. It has been argued that the Pope's restriction on abortion was motivated by a need to strengthen the Church’s spiritual control over its followers in the face of this declining political power. | |
|
Breaca
|
Joined: 10/26/2005
Msg: 205 | |
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 7:17:00 AM |
No, it’s not stupid. It’s not for everybody, it’s not for me, but it’s a matter of one’s personal relationship with God. I don’t expect you to understand…
I'm glad to see you're coming around. That you don't hold the only "truth" when it comes to the word and works of the Divine. Admitting that what you spout is your opinion, that how you choose to celebrate the Divine is your "choice", is the first step to recovery, brother. The second step is about taking responsibility for it.
Lighten up folks, there's a third way here, that says nada about abortion. It's an option called ADOPTION. It allows the woman to carry the baby to term without having the burdens of being a single parent. It also gives a couple who is yearning to have a child the ability to add a baby to the family. ADOPTION ROCKS!!!!
Adoption is another option a woman can look at when their right to choose is honoured. But, even still there is much a woman has to consider...
Historically, adoption homes became over crowded. Children were murdered (the famous Butter-Box Babies of the 19th century, are just an example), sent out to be used in medical experiments USA and others, used as slave labour on farms and in manufacturing, booted out of homes to survive on the streets long before they were prepared to look after themselves, etc.
Even today, adoption facilities, globally, are in appalling condition for the most part - overcrowding creates an inevitable “inconvenience” found by male dominated organizations around the world. Therefore, they rarely receive adequate funding by church organizations or government agencies. And again, today… only newborn children are attractive enough for adoption by many North American people choosing to adopt a child. Thousands of older children, children with disabilities or disfigurements survive without the love that many within the “adoption option” groups claim to have in abundance. And, there are never enough foster homes available either.
Clearly, there is not a singular option or choice that is ultimately workable for all. The posts on this thread only go to highlight, again, the tremendous stress and pressure placed on pregnant women. Why society doesn’t honour these women has always baffled me. For the most part, any option exercised by a woman who is pregnant is done so with great concern. It is not a flippant decision. They have the experience, compassion and decision making abilities we need our leaders. | |
|
Breaca
|
Joined: 10/26/2005
Msg: 206 | |
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 7:39:34 AM | late(tm)
I'm impressed with all the work you did to find that information! Thanks for bringing another aspect of this topic into focus. Wow! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 10:47:33 AM | By knees:
“Most of these women are too ashamed to talk to anyone within the first 6 days.”
I understand the trauma part but it is expected that every victim of a vicious crime take care of any physical injury that they may incur in the incident. Meaning, if they get a cut on their hand or leg – they always would take care of it, correct? They don’t let themselves bleed to death just because they are traumatized. So, why they can’t remember to prevent any possibilities of becoming pregnant?
By knees:
“I don't believe God would have wanted women treated in such a mechanical way.”
I am not sure if you believe in God or not. Seems like you may believe but have some little doubts. Correct me if I am wrong.
Remember, God will judge everyone in the best possible manner. If you believe women are treated in a disadvantageous way – then God will take care of any such natural imbalance on judgment day. Maybe woman’s good deed will count as double as opposed to the men’s good deed. I am just guessing because God didn’t provide us with the knowledge of how he will judge except that it will be extremely just. So there is no need to feel a woman’s position as unreasonable. God will make up for everything.
By knees:
“I think that if there is a god, he gave women the brains to understand that they have the option of abortion out there if they should deem they need it.”
The whole point of most famous religion is --- ‘Abortion is not allowed except in extreme scenarios.’ God talked about killing of born and unborn children as a great sin. In some interpretations the religious people bans it completely.
Based on my research IMO - that is totally their own understanding of their religion. People’s (including mine) conclusion may not be accurate in the details. But since God talks about killing born or unborn babies as a bad thing in most famous religions – it got to be *illegal*. No ifs or buts about it! That is the basic thing, after that fact you can search for exceptions.
However the exceptional scenarios should be considered with great caution. Many religious people are not willing to look for the exceptions. It is easier to have a simple law then look at every case and decide upon the exceptional scenarios. That is why sometimes in some religion the so-called religious figures accept it and sometimes reject it. Though out the hundreds of years different rulers and dictators have passed laws and introduced them as religious beliefs. We need to look into the God’s original words that are available to us and come to our own conclusions. Remember the final word is up to God on every matter. People (including me) can only provide you with their understandings. Do your own research and you won’t need the people.
Anyways, by keeping religion out - it is still illogical that women have the option of abortion whenever they deem the need.
A women has every right to prevent herself from getting pregnant *before* actually becoming pregnant. But once pregnant – her choices are very limited. It is no longer - ‘her body and her decision’, now another ‘body’ is involved. Once pregnant - her act would directly stop another human being from coming to this world for his chance. Analogically speaking – the unborn has a ticket to come to this world but his selected mother slams the close on his face and prevents him from coming. It is quite sad really!!
Abortion means > “to abort’!!
As I said - other than rape and sickness – any other reason can be handled if the pregnant woman only chooses to take the challenge. She can always put her baby for adoption. It is my opinion that God allows us to be in distressful situations to test us. This world is a testing ground. This life is our second chance. The women who can successfully pass their tough situations IMO will be rewarded. The opposite may apply to those who fail. However, everything is up to God.
*My next reply on this thread will be to Feral. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 11:39:06 AM |
it is still illogical that women have the option of abortion whenever they deem the need...other than rape and sickness – any other reason can be handled if the pregnant woman only chooses to take the challenge
It is illogical that those who can never become pregnant set themselves up as experts on what is involved in pregnancy, childbirth, or abortion, not to mention judging the circumstances of others.
you believe women are treated in a disadvantageous way – then God will take care of any such natural imbalance on judgment day. Maybe woman’s good deed will count as double as opposed to the men’s good deed. I am just guessing because God didn’t provide us with the knowledge of how he will judge except that it will be extremely just. So there is no need to feel a woman’s position as unreasonable. God will make up for everything.
Reminds me of the old song, The Preacher and The Slave:
Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:
You will eat, bye and bye
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray,
Live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 11:53:19 AM | I am not sure if you believe in God or not.
Being sure, is subjective. You don't have the monopoly on "truth", ...or God.
Anyways, by keeping religion out - it is still illogical that women have the option of abortion whenever they deem the need.
A women has every right to prevent herself from getting pregnant *before* actually becoming pregnant. But once pregnant – her choices are very limited.
This is not logic, it's an expression of intolerance via self-righteousness.
The whole point of most famous religion is --- ‘Abortion is not allowed except in extreme scenarios.’
Definitions and exceptions have changed over time, not based on theology, but political realities faced by the church. This is clearly illustrated historically. The church changed it's mind to suit the church, not it's followers, or God.
However the exceptional scenarios should be considered with great caution. Many religious people are not willing to look for the exceptions.
This is true, those who believe the ovum to be inviolable upon conception would be right in not having an abortion. However, the question of exceptions to "inviolable" creates a hierarchy of "exception" which is purely subjective.
As I said - other than rape and sickness
How is this the fault of the product of conception?
There are basically three positions people take regarding the morality of abortion:
1. Abortion is morally wrong, personhood begins at conception, any act that interupts the process is murder
2. Abortion is morally justified in some cases, but not others. except in very rare cases where it is required to save the life of the mother. These cases might include a tubal pregnancy where the zygote remains in the fallopian tube (where the mother will die if an abortion is not performed) and the removal of a cancerous uterus. These cases might include rape, incest, or extreme physical, mental, or economic conditions.
3. Abortion is morally permissible in all cases where the mother and doctor agree.
If indeed, there is a directive to protect life from the "very moment of conception."
How can any exceptions be made without contradicting the terms of this definition?
It either is or it isn't, ...... there is no gray area here if the whole premise is to "protect the unborn" There are those who would define personhood at conception, and turn around and then deny the rights they've just insisted on for the unborn, to make their agenda a better "sell". Clearly this is trying to hold a belief, ...only when it fits their agenda. This is truth?
Let's consider the 2nd moral stance.
If exceptions are to be made to the idea of inviolable, then the premise of "abortion is murder", is based on flawed logic, the exception being based on a convenience of conscience. Yet, some people who hold this moral stance, with no other explaination save, "Because that's what I believe, so it must be the most moral position", would deny the same right for women to define where that line is drawn for themselves
Yet, clearly, once an exception is made for any reason of "conscience", there exists a descending hierarchical series of exception criteria.
- Threat to mother's life
to some this is the only exception, yet already, the once inviolable product of conception is now marginalized. Q.E.D.
- Incest
- Rape
Exception criteria doesn't stop there, once an exception criteria is allowed, the definition of termination post-conception = murder, has already been negated.
- Fetal health problems
- Unplanned pregnancy (failed contraception)
- other quality of life issues, youth, poverty, etc.
All have only one practical nexus of objectivity, .....the woman making the decision.
Yet, those who say that there should be no "reproductive rights" consider any exception, beyond their own point in the hierarchy, invalid; this isf "absolute" moral relativism via begging the question. To them, any woman who wishes to not gestate is a de facto "whore", for not sharing their particular convenience of conscience. The sole criteria for their self-proclaimed moral superiority over strangers, whose circumstances they couldn't know, is: "Because that's what I believe, so it must be the most moral position" Allowing for the second moral stance, then insisting that the only valid point of exception for everybody is your own personal one, and everybody should conform to it regardless of their cirvumstances and their OWN personal idea of a valid exception = Intolerance via hypocracy.
Then there is the first moral stance, no exceptions regardless of personal belief and circumstance:
While the absolutists in the moral position in the first example are by far the least sympathetic, most intolerant in regards to women's rights; (and so most worthy of contempt) , they are the least hypocritical in their assertion that "abortion is murder" if the product of a sperm and an ovum is inviolable.. Intolerance via absolutism.
To see how this moral stance plays out, read this:
http://www.crlp.org/pr_01_1130salvador.html
In Canada, where there are no restrictions, this is the third moral stance, there is less abortion 2:4, per capita when compared to the US, ...which represents the 2nd moral stance. This stat is from the UN.
Some religions in Canada consider abortion to be a moral choice. Other religions teach that fetal life is sacred from the moment of conception and should never be deliberately ended, regardless of the circumstances. People have different personal moral views about abortion.Polls show that 79% of Canadians consider the abortion decision to be a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Tolerance via tolerance.
Banning abortion doesn't stop it, as is evidenced by the back-alley butcher abortions which occur in El Salvador, and the outside the country abortions of the wealthy class.
So in reality, Canada, with no legal restrictions on abortion, has half the abortions per capita as the US
According to 2002 statistics.
Cite: http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/hea_abo_percap?=-1&id=NAM
As for El Salvador, a country with a policy influenced by the Catholic church, re: Life begins at conception.
Moral stance #1
No stats are available, as there is "no abortion", ...officially.
However, El Salvador has an infant mortality rate of: 24.39/1000, The US 6.43/1000 , Canada 4.69/1000
Cite: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
What does this say about what God wants?
| |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 12:44:26 PM | Shadowdancing :
If you are going to quote me, use it in the right text. I was referring to date rape, and you used my quote to suit yourself.
With regards to me believing in god...I want to believe that there is something after death. I will not call myself a Christian though because the word has been ruined for me now. I have had too many negative experiences with different denominations of the Christian churches, not to mention narrow minds who try to force their opinion on me OUT of church. Also, the bible, full of literal examples and quotes from so and so...LOL...I consider the words of the bible to be nothing more then CHristian Mythology, not unlike greek mythology or anything else in that category. Anything written in the bible is just the opinion of the man who wrote it. Any argument that is God based is like water off a duck;'s back to me.
So, I'm glad you decided to write a paragraph that started off with "Keeping religion out of it," but even then, I feel as though you're hitting only one side of things. You want to make is so women have no choice, yet you don't seem to want to say anything about the fact that its men who have planted the seed in the first place. IN a lot of senerals, the woman has very little choice. I was incouraged by my parents and the father of my child to have an abortion. I ended up living in a hospital for a month, and then a shelter for a month because no one wanted me or my baby. Can you imagine 100% of women in this situation wanting to go through with 9 months of this torture? I doubt it very much. And if I had not been able to get out of that catholic home, I am not sure if I would have gone through the pregnancy myself.
The decision in itself is capable of driving a lot of women insane. I don't expect you to understand, how could you? You will never know this pain, you are a man with an opinion on how insignificant women and their opinions are...all of us will burn in hell in your eyes. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 5:14:57 PM | And, often and again, apparently, the question falls to asking, is abortion permissible, yes? Seems a straightforward question which, by logic, can be worked out. But, who's to arbite the case? Call it immoral, fine, but in relation to whose morals?
For my part, it's interesting. I won't say I'm not passionate about the subject, particularly when it is yet another proving-ground in the human rights melee. But, it's true, I'm male, and will therefore never fully comprehend or realise the immediacy of its relevance to women, or the possible effects one would undergo losing this right to self-determination to the lust for control of others.
Here, then, is my point. The law recognises murder as the intentional termination of the life of a sentient individual by another. Death penalty notwithstanding, this could be applied in the later stages of pregnancy, true, but this is (at least, in my understanding) not the time in which a woman or doctor would consider the option. Earlier in the development of a foetus, there is no brain, no sentience, hence termination would not be murder. This is under the rubric of interpretation by the doctor and mother, and no one else save whatever deity the woman may worship. I don't even believe the doctor's god would necessarily come into play, since the woman can (and, if there is a conflict, most probably should) seek a different physician. That's the point where religion enters into it.
All opinions aside, even if morality is to enter into this in an absolute and all-encompassing manner, yet again, the origin of the base morality should be determined. If the regulation and/or legalisation of abortion is to be carried out by the state on behalf of any set of morals or moral guidelines, that state would be tacitly embracing a particular religion. Simply not viable in the case of the US. Except to those who would desire the country to be dedicated to a particular god, which thankfully, is illegal.
Bottom line, it's going to be the mother's decision. If she wants to get an abortion, she's going to, be it legal, illegal, safe or otherwise. Handing a woman in this situation a healthy pile of "you're evil for even contemplating that" is not going to help, even if it does "save" the baby. I just gotta agree with IWarrior. Education is key. And that includes finding out at what point a foetus becomes sentient. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 5:43:12 PM | Re. Adoption. I think adoption should be given as one of the choices available. Yes, overseas adoption agencies do have problems. However there are long waiting lists for infants, especially white infants, at adoption agencies here in the US.
Unbiased counseling with all options being made available should be given to women who find themselves dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Each woman is going to have her decision to make, and I agree with the posters who say that this should be a private matter between the woman and the doctor. Frankly, we are never going to stop abortions, no matter what laws get passed. Before abortion was legal here in the US there were many back alley abortions and women attempting to abort themselves with coat hangers.
Ways to discourage (but never take the choice away--it is the woman's choice) surgical abortions: Make contraceptives readily available, comprehensive sex education in the schools, and make ALL the options, not just abortion, made known to women.
Here in Mass, the safe haven law was passed in which women who give birth to a baby outside the hospital and are unable to care for the baby can drop the baby off at a hospital, fire station or police station without worrying about incriminating herself. Then the baby becomes available for adoption.
--DW | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 7:12:01 PM | Re. Adoption. I think adoption should be given as one of the choices available. Yes, overseas adoption agencies do have problems. However there are long waiting lists for infants, especially white infants, at adoption agencies here in the US.
In the sexual health world adoption is always offered as an option, but not enforced against the mothers own decisions.
Ways to discourage (but never take the choice away--it is the woman's choice) surgical abortions: Make contraceptives readily available, comprehensive sex education in the schools, and make ALL the options, not just abortion, made known to women.
You are certainly making a valid arguement, but when councilling a woman who is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy, it isn't fair to discourage or encourage anything. You have to put any of your beliefs on the backburner and let them talk it out. Often they make the decision for themselves without even asking for a list of options.
At the center where I volunteer contraceptives and also a physician is available for patient with STD's who wish to remain anonymous is always availabe. Also, there has been a rape nurses clinic established which allows the victims of rape to avoid hospital registration and waiting rooms. All of that is done in the clinic with the nurses and other than the nurse only those who the patient wishes to be there (although often they only have one of us volunteers are present) - That project is called SANE (sexual assault nurse examiners). There a victim is given the sexual assault exam, the morning after pill, STD prevention and also given a referral for councilling, they can also make a police statement IF they want to.
HAVING TO REPORT IT IF YOU GO TO THE HOSPITAL IS NO LONGER TRUE, SO PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T LET THAT DISCOURAGE YOU IF YOU HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED!!!
We also do a lot of work in researching and giving presentations at local high schools. Statistics are showing that the problem isn't awareness anymore. Teens know more than most adults these days and they are certainly becomming more sexually active than ever before. The problem is alcohol, drugs and thinking that they are invincible against STD's and pregnancies.
As long as there are men and women, unwanted pregnancies will always occur. For example,many African Cultures forbid their wives to use any form of birth control and the men also refuse to wear condoms, the same happens in many cultures and religions.
It's important that an anonymous service is available to these women where adoption certainly is NOT an option. They do not want to have yet another child and their partner most likely would never allow them to give the child up for adoption. I've noticed (although this is just my own observation) more and more married women having abortions that their husbands know nothing about. What does this say about a marriage if they have to keep something like that private?
All opinions aside, even if morality is to enter into this in an absolute and all-encompassing manner, yet again, the origin of the base morality should be determined. If the regulation and/or legalisation of abortion is to be carried out by the state on behalf of any set of morals or moral guidelines, that state would be tacitly embracing a particular religion. Simply not viable in the case of the US. Except to those who would desire the country to be dedicated to a particular god, which thankfully, is illegal.
Oh Federal. I don't care if you like me or not - I'm lovin you right now..lol
Religion is certainly loosing the battle of being anti-abortion. Society needs this service! It doesn't matter if it's right for you - you can't deem what's right for another person.
As I've said before.. If you want to see what happens when a mother keeps an unwanted child you will probably never get over the horror. Abortion would have been the loving option for some of those poor children because the scars will never heal for them.
OP | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 7:39:22 PM | | Abstinance is of course the fool-proof way. I can't understand why people can't control themselves either. It would be nice if younger people abstained, but teaching abstinance doesn't work. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 7:43:41 PM | I totally agree with everything you said, ocean.
It really hits home when you mentioned unwanted kids and the horror their lives become. Dealing with the unwanted help of child youth and family welfare, i've come across a few familys that really should have considered another route then to bring these children into the world. I met a mother today who told me she was a crack addict. As soon as her child was born she went on a 28 day binge, took 1 week off then went on another 28 day binge. My heart broke when i heard this. Her child couldn't have been well looked after during this time. I also have my doubts as to whether or not she was clean while pregnant for the whole 9 months.
However, I'm sure everyone around her while she was pregnant just assumed that she would always keep the child. She's so young, she coudldn't have known what she wanted.
She's clean now, or so she says, and you can tell she now loves her little girl...
I'm not saying she ever wanted to have an abortion, we never discussed that. And this is just along the lines of "unwanted children". So,...sorry if I have strayed from the topic a little. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 8:43:58 PM | Hi Knees:
Child, Youth and Family are almost always unwanted in people's lives, but the relationships that can be created through your social worker can become invaluable to you. Use it to your advantage. It can help you so much - by this I mean by creating avenues for free education, child care,housing etc. Just try to remember that they are there to HELP YOU, not to make your life hell... once they start doing that, it's time to get a new social worker. Social Workers themselves want to help, not harm and preserving the family unit is the most important focus of Child, Youth and Family.
It's funny - the very first social work coarse that I took - the prof said "welcome to the unwanted helping profession"..lol.
I'm sure that she does love her little girl. Just because parents have issues never means that they don't love their children. I can see how your heart would be broken by what she told you. She may very well be clean to even have admitted it.
Not to say that her choices have always been best, but from my standpoint (based on what you've told me), her issues do not make her a bad mother.. she obviously just needs a lot of support and friends like you who are understanding. She's also showing determination by staying sober. Crack addiction is one of the hardest things in the world to kick - just the fact that she told you means that she is trying to move past it. I'm not sure I'd reveal something like that about myself unless I wanted to change.
This is what I'm saying about not judging people. You met her and her story was awful, but when you get to know her you realized that through all her bad life choices and issues that she does love her child.. you would never have known that without getting to know her.
For reasons like this I stay pro-choice. You have to walk a mile in another's shoes before you can ever judge. Nobody knows another persons own personal struggles.
OP   | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 9:08:21 PM |
Abstinance is of course the fool-proof way. I can't understand why people can't control themselves either. It would be nice if younger people abstained, but teaching abstinance doesn't work.
Have you gone through adolesence? lol. It's rough!!!!
OP | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/19/2006 9:14:08 PM | I know you're going to be one of those social workers that will be welcomed in peoples homes. I've met one so far. It's just that the ratio of good ones to bad ones isn't so great.
I bet that if any man who was pro abortion had walked in my shoes 2 years ago he wouldn't be so quick to say abortion is morally wrong.
Night all:) | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/20/2006 1:33:33 AM | "but sperms and eggs are living , so has not life already started at the point of conception ?? ...since if were allowed to continue a child may be born.
Excellent point!!!
It is very obvious that both sperm and egg are living at the time of conception."
---read next item---
(oops) | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/20/2006 1:33:57 AM | Wouldn't this line of reasoning also make all ejaculatory emissions murder as well.... and having your period???
Get real people. You have to draw the line somewhere.
If you want to state manmade laws (because even those commandments most of you cite so often and highly are manmade) then remember that a person is not legally recognized as a person until they are born. Yes there have been movements (mostly by religious groups) to change this (ie El Salvador) however, until a person has been recognized as being BORN (birth certificate) they are not in legal existence. Therefore can not be constituted as murder!!!
Not that I agree with abortion- but its the womans body- thus should ALWAYS be the womans decision. Not a religious organizations or a governments-
For example-in Canada- it is a matter only relevant between a woman and her doctor. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/20/2006 6:15:44 AM |
Lighten up folks, there's a third way here, that says nada about abortion. It's an option called ADOPTION. It allows the woman to carry the baby to term without having the burdens of being a single parent. It also gives a couple who is yearning to have a child the ability to add a baby to the family. ADOPTION ROCKS!!!!
There are thousands of unwanted children in adoption and care homes in every country there is, the demand for Adoption is only a tiny fraction of the supply of children up for adoption. Are you willing to pay the extra tax to support a massive increase in care facilities I wonder?
And Late(tm), excelent post, well done. You would make a good lawyer  
Just thought I would also add that the maternal death rates in some countries are not a minor amount, in Afganistan at present, the maternal death rates are 1.7 to every 100 live births.
"Illegal abortion is one of the major direct causes of maternal death. 44% of
women in the developing world (outside of China) live in countries where
abortion is allowed only to save the mother's life. Another 10% live in
countries where abortion is totally prohibited. Sadly, millions of women
unable to obtain a legal abortion on the basis of life-threatening
circumstances have subsequently died from the complications of an illegal
abortion."
So as is evidenced by the numbers, Abortion is not just a morality issue, it is very much a health issue.
"Three groups of women face the highest risk of pregnancy-related deaths --
those at either end of their reproductive cycle, those who bear children in
rapid succession, and those who have more than four children. Due to
biological factors, women under 19 and over 35 are susceptible to
complications of pregnancy. Women giving birth to children spaced less than a
year apart are twice as likely to die from preganancy-related causes than
those who have children two or more years apart."
http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0230.htm | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/20/2006 10:17:53 AM | By Feral:
“Thanks for the laugh. I can always use one.”
Well, one man’s understanding of a religion is another man’s laughing matter. What can I say!! I didn’t have any intention to get involved in a prolonged and continuous conversation on this topic. I don’t get any pleasure out of discussing this topic because when I see so many people in favor of this practice I feel even worse. I do understand the woman’s position on this (to some extent) and (boy!) Am I glad I am not a woman!! (sorry! If that sounds childish).
I have read some of your posts, so IMO the religion I am consulting won’t make any sense to you anyways. So what is the point in providing explanation? It will only provide you with more laughing material.
I am NOT here to promote any one particular religion. IMO most religion consist great moral teachings, but it is in their interpretations - where people went astray. I try to do my own research to the best of my ability. I like to hear and read but I don’t necessarily depend on existing conclusion by other people --- religious and unreligious alike.
I am not here to fight to death to prove that I am right in my conclusions and you should start believing in my findings
Making sense to you is not my primary mission here because I already know I can never succeed in there.
Since I don’t know where you stand on fate, it is illogical to provide quotes. In my experience between different faith - people don’t care about quotes from other religion.
By Feral:
“have certainly heard a pile of it from humans presuming that their interpretations speak for divinity.”
If someone claims to be of the same religion – that is the only time we should worry about whether interpretations are matching or not. Otherwise it doesn’t matter what other people think about their own religion because you won’t listen to them anyways. It doesn’t matter how they interpret their doctrines.
I did not say – “Believe my conclusion or you are doomed”. Read the last line on my post #147. I clearly said… “Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and reasoning. Good luck to you all in finding the truth.” So what does that mean? It clearly means – Search for your own answers and you can have your own opinion!!!
If you believe in God and if you believe in any of his revelations then you will agree that – all we have in today’s world is just some words in some of these books that claim to be revelations from God. IMO it is absolutely OKAY to look into those books on our own and interpret the words by ourselves. We don’t have real prophets right now to explain it to us. I generally don’t rely on religious figures of different religion to tell me anything, I chose their words very carefully. If you read religious doctrines then you are entitle to your own conclusions. Just like you are entitled to read someone’s post at this site and get your own understanding of it.
Even within most religions - people interpret the teaching differently. That’s why there are so many sub-divisions in the religions. Different religious figures don’t agree with each other. I normally do my own research and try to figure out the different verses and reasons behind God speaking about certain things. So far I have tried to consult three primary religions at various times. Whatever makes sense I take a look at them. Recently I am leaning towards one religion because it has provided me with many of my answers.
I am basically not a religious person and I still have a long ways to go before I officially indorse any religion. But if you want to see the verse I am talking about and want to know which religion then I will let you know. But it is unlikely that many people care to know because everyone has their own religion or in many cases - no religion at all.
Anyways this topic is something I had previously thought about (based on certain verses) and I remember my findings.
The religious doctrine I consulted clearly talks about abortion as an immoral act and describes pregnancy basically from the implanted embryo stage.
Before that - it is described as just a “drop”. So, I had to figure out when the implanted embryo stage begins and it is clear that it begins between 7-12 days post-ovulation. So the safe period of the six day scenario is a logical conclusion IMO.
Please check my next post and consult any embryology book if you like. You will see that the implantation of the embryo stage starts at least about 6 days after the fertilization of the ovum. The implantation actually happens between 7-12 days after the fertilization. IMO Until the leech like entity attaches itself to the body of the mother – it is okay to get rid of it and stop the process. So in conclusion 6 days is how much time a rape victim or anyone has to do what she needs to prevent pregnancy. Because once implantation stage starts then the process of birth is in full motion. IMO anyone can use this six day limit, but it applies better for the rape victims because they usually know from day one that they don’t want to get pregnant by their rapist. Most others don’t worry in a similar fashion on those early days.
After showing its basic instinct and attaching itself to the mother - the new life form starts its journey to its completion from that point. To stop this process after that “implanted embryo” stage - when it has the characteristics of a leech like entity would be interfering with the process and killing of a future baby.
This leech like entity that shows the similar formation and characteristics - is a life form in my eyes. Sentient or not doesn’t matter because it certainly seems to be alive to me, it tries to survive by attaching to the mother’s womb and retract what it needs to survive. The survival instinct is already established at this point. So, letting it survive is the most moral thing to do. That is all.
By knees:
“If you are going to quote me, use it in the right text. I was referring to date rape, and you used my quote to suit yourself.”
Guilty as charged! In my defense I have to tell you I didn’t think that deeply when I took that part from your post. I thought it applies to everyone raped. Most women are embarrassed initially after being raped. So I guess I did make my case on a wrong implication provided by you. Will try not to do it again!
To Late:
I wish I had more time to get into details. But I have to tell you that your post is pretty well written and makes my opposite view very clear to me. Not many have been able to do that.
You can already guess that my views are not the same and I wish I had more time to rebuttal.
By Late:
“How is this the fault of the product of conception?”
It is not the product’s fault but if the mother is sick and she dies then the product dies too. That is why the exception. There are no more exceptions but that six day scenario is for everyone and primarily for the rape victims IMO.
Check my next post (if you may) and you might see my point. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/20/2006 10:20:22 AM | Once again, abortion is wrong because we need to figure out when the survival instinct is first shown by the future baby. It has nothing to do with the sentient issue because that is a religious issue and not everyone believes in religion.
But if you do believe in souls then – remember no one can kill a soul anyways. So it is irrelevant to think that – the only way one kills the future baby is by performing abortion. Yes, that is one way to kill but you can also kill at a much earlier stage.
It is important to realize when the pregnancy actually starts. Once the new entity (a future human baby) shows its instinct of survival – a mother should no longer be allowed to kill him. It would be murder at that point. It is that simple.
In my opinion one gets impregnated when the entity (blastocyst) attaches itself to the host and starts to act like a leech like entity and shows sign of survival instinct.
Let see the process of pregnancy up to the stage the entity attaches itself to the host…
300 million sperm may enter the upper part of the vagina. Only 3 million (1%) enter the uterus. One sperm penetrates the surrounding wall of Oocyte (an egg). At the end of this fertilization Zygote is created. So far this fertilization process takes about 24 hours.
Zygote begins to divides into sixteen cells and becomes a Morula. It leaves the fallopian tube and enters the uterine cavity. 3-4 days gone by after fertilization.
In Morula - cell division continues. With the appearance of a cavity in the center, it is now called Blastocyst.
Around the sixth day the Blastocyst hatches from the egg (Oocyte) and breaks free from its wall which is called Zona Pellucida. Now the Blastocyst enters the uterus. An implantation site is now created for the Blastocyst there on the uterine lining of the uterus. The repeated process of hormonal stimulation continues and the ovary does what it takes to facilitate the implanting Blastocyst.
Now between 7-12 days Blastocyst successfully implant itself to the host’s (mother) uterine lining of the uterus and new capillaries are created and thus the circulation begins. The creation of placenta is usually finish by the 13th day.
That in my opinion - is too late!!!
It is very clear that the future baby is showing signs of survival like a leech like entity. It has similar formation and characteristics. If is could talk – what do you think it would say? It would be – “I want to survive and I want to eat and I want to grow, please don’t kill me”!!!
Any attempt to abort *before* Blastocyst attaches itself to the host (mother) – is quite acceptable IMO because before six days - it is in cell formation.
A rape victim knows she can get pregnant, so she can do what is available to abort the process before the attachment begins. This is why anyone including the rape victims can stop pregnancy before the 6th day period, after that it is too late. After that it would be killing of a future human entity.
But if the mother is sick and possibility of her dying or any medical reason is present to endanger the lives involved then the option is there to protect the initial life form. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/20/2006 10:42:55 AM |
A rape victim knows she can get pregnant, so she can do what is available to abort the process before the attachment begins. This is why anyone including the rape victims can stop pregnancy before the 6th day period, after that it is too late. After that it would be killing of a future human entity.
But if the mother is sick and possibility of her dying or any medical reason is present to endanger the lives involved then the option is there to protect the initial life form
This has always bothered me. You can't say that something is morally wrong and that you will go to hell unless....
There are no exceptions. That is why it is okay for any woman who feels that it is her only option to do so.
You aren't taking into consideration what unwanted pregnancy can do to a normally healthy and mentally well female. It could potentially destroy their lives, not to mention the future life of her unborn child.
OP | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 4/20/2006 12:07:46 PM | I wish I had more time to get into details. But I have to tell you that your post is pretty well written and makes my opposite view very clear to me. Not many have been able to do that.
You can already guess that my views are not the same and I wish I had more time to rebuttal.
Okay, theological questions aside, as your argument is implied as being from the frame of reference of critical thinking alone:
There is one considerable difference between our views.
You do not allow for the one person in the issue to decide for herself; the moral, religious, and quality of life issues, which by their very nature, are purely subjective to the outside observer, and only objective to the owner of the uterus.
The argument you make is not grounded in any objective absolute aside from process, probability, and nature, so let's consider process, probability, and nature.
Now between 7-12 days Blastocyst successfully implant itself to the host’s (mother) uterine lining of the uterus and new capillaries are created and thus the circulation begins. The creation of placenta is usually finish by the 13th day.
That in my opinion - is too late!!!
It is very clear that the future baby is showing signs of survival like a leech like entity. It has similar formation and characteristics.
The "future baby" shares the same qualities, with the exception of higher functions in nervous systems, as does a tapeworm ("a leech like entity" = your analogy),which, is actually further developed in this regard, at this point in time. And, as with the tapeworm, if the process is allowed to continue the very final result is the same, death. Another similarity is the parasitic nature of existence of both is not a symbiotic one, if the host is unwilling.
The difference between the two is what happens along the way, a tapeworms life is pretty much a static and unvaried one from those of it's species, and by degree, consistant with it's existence pre-implantation. The implanted blastocyst however; might gestate, and be born, and live a life that may be full of love, luxury, and a legacy which serves to enrich it's fellow man, ...or, hatred, suffering, and even the curse of humanity known as war. The surity of a good life or a bad life is still largely dependant on the nurturing environment that is most likely if the blastocyst is not considered an unwanted event in life by it's host.
However, this is only if the implanted blastocyst survives gestation, which statistically, much like the survival of the product of conception; is still 60% likely to fail to gestate. Should the process complete itself to birth, survival is still contingent on the attitudes of the host's society's view of women's rights. Another germane variable at this point, as those societies which take away a woman's right to reproductive rights ALL have higher infant mortality rates, and quality of life for mother and child alike, ...this can be exponetial in degree.
Regardless, as your cut and pasted argument is not concerned with the issues of God or"soul", it is self-evident that the concern isn't possible extinction of the species, how is implantation the one criterion of existencial validity in regards to the process, if statistically; the probability of "nature" is spontaneous abortion?
Further, if the eventuality of the process is death anyway, by what reasoning is this the point of no return?
If is could talk – what do you think it would say? It would be – “I want to survive and I want to eat and I want to grow, please don’t kill me”!!!
Same as the tapeworm ("a leech like entity" = your analogy).
This is why anyone including the rape victims can stop pregnancy before the 6th day period, after that it is too late. After that it would be killing of a future human entity.
entity
n : that which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)
How can there be a distinct existence when existence ie: viability (ie: living), is impossible without a willing host?
The clear vertex in the lines of reasoning is the willing host, as she is the source of 100% of the organic material in the further development of the blastocyst via parasitic relationship, how is the issue of existence not recognizant of the right to self-determination regarding the autonomy of the hosts own uterus, and source of 100% of developmental sustanance.
- To the willing host, the blastocyst is rightly defined as "baby".
- To the unwilling host, for whom further development of the collection of organic matter, devoid of self awarenes, sentience, and viability is not wanted for myriad reasons unique to the respective host, the blasocyst is not a "baby", it is a blastocyst.
Before you write me off as a cold and dipassionate "baby-killer":
Consider:
As a parent, I have experienced procreation from the frame of reference of:
- Desire to procreate
- Planned conception, with a like-minded and willing mother
- Participation in nurturing both mother and child during gestation,
- Delivery of the child (my hands were the first to welcome her to the world, ...no doctor was present, this too was planned as we used the services of a mid-wife, who facilitated the birth, but, only as needed should there have been complications),
- Primary care parent to a child for her entire life prior to enetering school,
- Commitment to the life of my child, and her well being; until I draw my last breath.
You see, I would define the beginning of my daughter's life at a point even before conception, I regard the eventuality of her existence as being valid at the point of when I knew I wanted her to exist.
My daughter may someday have to make a choice, and here is where the real difference in our perspectives diverges.
My daughter is the single most important thing in the world to me, barring any unforseen tragedy, she will some day be a woman. As such, it is my duty as a father, and a human being; to advocate for her right to self-determination, and autonomy in regards to her being.
And, to my last breath, I will defy the efforts via willing or unwilling misogeny, to oppress her and define her existence as a slave to any state, church, or entity other than herself, just because she has a uterus.
This, to me is the true meaning of pro-family/pro-life.
| |
|
|
| Page 9 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 
