|
|
|
|
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 2:22:37 AM | Ah now this is a touchy subject abortion. Well heres my point of view and most of you wont like it but its my point of view. And we all have our own points of view.
Abortion YES only if.
The child has a disability that will not allow it to live a "normal" life.
The woman was raped & didnt want the baby.
There are others but I wont go into them.
No to abortion if.
The people werent using condoms or other contraception.
The child is 100% healthy no disabilities.
I wait for you to wage war on me.  | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 3:36:34 AM | Abortion has always been a strong topic, some people are for and some people are against,
I believe in the right to terminate a pregnancy, not everyone is ready to be a parent, and contraceptives have been known to fail. Now you could be pro life, and argue that even in the womb it is a living being, but at what point? at 8 weeks a fetus isn't viable and cannot survive outside of the mothers body, at 12 weeks it's formed it has it's own heart beat, but once again it cannot survive outside the mothers body. at 16 weeks, 20 weeks, it still would not survive outside the mothers body, even though it is fully formed. I know of someone who at her 20 week scan found that all though the baby was perfect in every way bar one, it's heart, and the chances of it surviving for more than a couple of hours on delivery were 1 in a million, so the mother and farther made the heart breaking decision to terminate, so and 22 weeks she had terminated, her reasoning she couldn't have gone through the whole 40 weeks of pregnancy knowing at the end her baby would die, and how would pro life argue that? would you force someone to continue with a pregnancy knowing at the end the baby would die.
The problem with pro life is do they understand the full ramifications of forcing a woman who for what ever reason doesn't want her child to continue with a pregnancy, while the child is in the womb they are concerned but what happens to that concern once that child has been brought into this world, do you continue to have an input in the child make sure thay are clothed and fed, stimulated educationally, have toys, are you there when they cut their first tooth, speak their first word, take their first step, are you there when they have there first boyfriend/girlfriend, are you there to stop any abuse are you there to stop the mother feeling resentful on being forced to have a child she neither wanted or loved, you argue the case for adoption, but how many children are already out there in the foster care system because they aren't wanted, before you concern yourself with a new life being brought into this world, concern needs to be given to those already here, those who have been abused, those who have no parents, those who grow up without what many of our children take for granted the unconditional love of a parent, are you willing to take this child on upon it's birth, to take all the responsibility that having a child brings, to love it care for it and make sure no harm comes to it. or is your job done once it's been brought into this world, and you wipe your hands and move onto the next unborn,
Abortion has nothing to do with politics and all to do with ethics, and religious believe, would I vote for someone who was pro life NO, they have the right to their opinion but in no way do they have the right to force someone to carry on with a pregnancy that isn't wanted, unless they are willing to take on each child and be responsible for those children untill they are old enough to be responsible for themselves. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 5:30:16 AM | Being fiscally conservative, I fail to understand why other conservatives are anti-abortionist. (other than the fact that they're bible thumping fools) To me this makes no logical sense. I mean, a conservative stance means that you are against high taxation to fund things like welfare, and healthcare. As such, if women have free access to abortions, say in situations like a teen pregnancy, is it not more financially sound than to pay for her child for 18 years on welfare? Also, studies have found over and over again that children of teen mothers tend to do more poorly in school, are more prone to delinquency and even later on, adult criminal behaviour. http://www.jcpr.org/99winter/article6.html Look at the cost: welfare, early childhood intervention programs for children of teen mothers, juvenile courts and institutions, and adult courts and prisons. An adult prisoner costs the American taxpayer about 22,000 a year! http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/one_million/onemillion.html
So think about this next time you elect the likes of George W. You can't have a happy marriage of fiscal conservatism and an anti-abortionist stance. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 10:03:03 AM | Litmus tests questions/answers, whether on this topic or any other, are irresponsible when used to choose our leadership and representation. (I'm guilty of relying on them too often myself)
It would be my wish that they stop being asked and/or refuse to be answered.
That said, I'll step up on the soap box now.
There are scenarios, I suppose, that will warrant abortion, but not at one persons sole discretion, I'll concede that point. But we are still left with the questions of rights of the unborn vs. mother. If you refuse to believe life begins with the fetus or any time prior to birth, I guess this is a mute point.
Abortion-on-demand is a tragic offense to the rights of the unborn. Ensuring the rights of the unborn is not "forcing" a women to carry to term, it is compelling her to take responsibility for the life in her charge. We have many laws dictating the personal responsibilities we have in regards to the lives in our charge. Women have been given the responsibility by God/nature (take your pick) to foster life into this world. Abortion-on-demand is disregarding personal responsibilities at the cost of another's right to be alive.
The argument that these unwanted pregnancies results in more cost to the public, neglect/abuse, potential for criminals, ect., well,,, why stop at the womb in order to prevent the burden, pain, struggle, and suffering associated with those? Using that, the statistics and current conditions for many outside the womb would justify the murder of them at their mothers discretion. In other words, is that even a valid argument? Where else do we allow one person to determine life or death of another based on their social potential / quality of life, or is this just a convenient bonus for those who wish to keep abortion-on-demand legal.
Unless you make an ASSumption from the "God/nature" statement, I don't really see any Bible thumping, fire and brimstone, or God will getcha, in what I've written.
steppin down now...... | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 10:55:46 AM |
This ABSOLUTELY effects my vote. A candidates stance on abortion is a very good litmus test to determine whether they base their decisions on faith or not. If they are pro-life, they obviously base their decisions on faith. Any candidate who does this, can not be trusted to defend the separation of church and state which is so vital to a strong democracy.
I don't agree with this, I'm pro choice, and an atheist, but I know other atheists who are pro life.
One does not follow from the other.
Who says ALL atheists don't base their decisions on faith?? Faith is the danger here. Religion is just one sub-set of faith. Only a truly rational atheist (what I term a rationalist) follows a truly faith free existence. Faith is only safe when it's used in a responsible manner to propose new ideas to advance society. Faith is potentially dangerous if used any other way because it works to holds back progress.
Most atheists still follow faith in one form or another. Take a pro-life atheist. They have to be pro-life for a reason. Whatever that reason is, if they are pro-life in the first trimester, it can be proven that this opinion is based on faith, not rationalism.
If these pro-life atheists can be irrational on this important issue, they are far more easily swayed to be irrational on a host of other issues. They will NEVER get my vote.
Abortion isn't the only faith litmus test. If they are in favor of any important issue which weakens the separation of church (faith) and state, I would not want to vote for them unless they were the lesser of two evils. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 11:29:21 AM | "Where else do we allow one person to determine life or death of another based on their social potential / quality of life"
capital punishment ring a bell? Again, another crontradiction amongst conservative pro-lifers. Most conservatives are for capital punishment. Here we have a few deciding on the fate of a person based on the crime they committed. So is it that conservatives don't believe that women should have a say in what happens to a fertilized egg? That she isn't capable of making the right choice...? | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 1:55:26 PM | Thats right reallyme, it is utter hypocrisy to be pro-death penalty but anti-abortion. I am firmly against both the death penalty and abortion-everyone has spoken about the woman's social needs and health-as if that trumps the unborn child's right to life. Abortion is not right because a woman is not ready for a child-there are MILLIONS od parents who can never conceive-and would DEARLY love to be able to adopt a child-they could give that child up for adoption, instead of having an abortion.
And it is the same with a rape-if the woman who has been raped can not stand the sight of the child (for obvious reasons) then she can give the child up to one of the many loving couples out there with no child of their won. It is not a PERFECT or ideal solution-but it is certainly better than ending the unborn child's life.
And with effective rape counselling-studies have shown mothers can learn to separate their feelings twoards the rapist-form their feelings towards the innocent child who is a product of the rape. After all, it is not the child's fault how he or she was conceived-and killing the child is wrong.
Charlesedm is right-i am also an atheist- and anti-abortion, you do not have to be religious (or a radical right-winger) to believe in the fundamental importance of protecting human life.
the law should not interfere in matters of personal health or family problems-or women's issues. But the law MUST interven when a human life is at risk-and the fact abortion was still legal up unntil full-term (in some cases)-and up until 24-weeks in all cases is an outrage. Children can now be born prematurely perfectly heathily at just 20 weeks (and many have ben born sucessfuly at 22 weeks premature) yet abortion is STILL legal up to 24 weeks!! this is indefensible. if a child is able to survive outside the womb at 22 weeks-it cannot be legal to kill that child inside the womb at 24 weeks.
The supreme court's recent decision against the utterly barabric practice of partial-birth abortion (which no-one with a hint of morality could support) was the right decision.
I believe abortion should be a political issue-becasue the lives of thousands of unborn children are very important. And we need public debate on this
And politicians need to stop pretending that abortion is a feminist issue-many WOMEN oppose abortion also. This is not about men vs womens rights. The pro-life groups are 50% female in my country-millions of women strongly oppose abortion here-including many Christian and Jewish women.
The state does not have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies-but this is not about womens bodies-this is about the body of the child who depends on the law for protection.
The most important "human right" is the right to life, thats why the death penalty and abortion are wrong. And the most vulnerable members of our society are the children-they are the ones who need protection from the law the most. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 2:05:50 PM | And the fact we do not know when exactly an unborn child becomes a human being-is all the more reson abortion is wrong. If we dont yet know when exactly a child should be considered a human being (and naturally therefore cannot be killed) thenwe are taking a big risk by allowing abortion-when we are not sure whether the child we are killing is in fact a human-( i dont define a human by whether or not it can survive independent of another human-newborn children cannot survive independent of the mother-without food, nurturing and warmth they would die quicky-but it is illegal to kill a newborn child-yet it is legal to kill unborn children-even a few weeks earlier-this is utterly wrong.
Anyone who has seen how human those children look in the sonograms with new technology can see that it is simply wrong to kill that child. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 3:21:46 PM | I'm older, 54, old enough to remember when abortions weren't readily available to women. Old enough to remember some of the horror stories of what women did to themselves in order to abort the fetus they were carrying, old enough to remember back street abortions being preformed illegally, usually not by a qualified MD, not under sterile conditions, and with no follow up care. You younger women probably don't know the horror stories, uncontrolled bleeding, a poorly performed abortion that often resulted in not being able to bear children in the future, and other emotional and health issues I won't list here. But goggle how it was before legalized abortion. I don't like the idea of a women aborting a baby, but I like the idea of going back to how it use to be for women in my day even less. We are women, not breeders, no one should have the right to tell us what to do with our bodies. I feel for the unborn fetus, but the women's rights comes before the rights of the fetus in my opinion.
If anyone thinks making abortion illegal is going to stop women from aborting a child they don't feel they want to carry they are sadly mistaken. All that making abortions illegal or hard to obtain is going to do is send women back to the horrors of having abortions performed illegally, in nasty conditions or force them back to resorting to old wives tales on how to cause a miscarriage. I don't want women to have to go back to the time when risking their health, their life, by not being able to obtain a legal abortion was the only way to end an unwanted pregnancy. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 4:21:46 PM | And it is the same with a rape-if the woman who has been raped can not stand the sight of the child (for obvious reasons) then she can give the child up to one of the many loving couples out there with no child of their won. It is not a PERFECT or ideal solution-but it is certainly better than ending the unborn child's life.
And with effective rape counseling-studies have shown mothers can learn to separate their feelings toward the rapist-form their feelings to wards the innocent child who is a product of the rape. After all, it is not the child's fault how he or she was conceived-and killing the child is wrong.
Have you ever been raped? do you know how soul destroying it is for a woman to be forced to be held down pinned, probably a knife or some such weapon being held to her throat, to be punched time and time time again, how invasive it is, when you do come back and tell me that it isn't going to damage her even more to forced through an unwanted pregnancy that she hasn't asked for, to be told hey sorry that horrendous thing has happened to you, well for 40 weeks you are going to notice all these changes to your body, and guess what you have to have this child, you really don't have much choice, as it is she will be struggling to come to terms with the fact that she has been violently assaulted, she has to come to terms with the fact because of this assault she is pregnant, and on a daily baises as she feels her body change she will be reminded of this vicious assault, who the hell are you to tell me or any other woman that if she was raped she will be forced to go through the added trauma of a pregnancy, but it doesn't bloody matter because you can adopt the child out.
Millions of parents you say, give me the statistics the ratios, for how many children that currently exist in Forster care with no hope of having a stable home, I think you will find there is more children than there are supposed parents, example, Eastern Europe, new born babies been dumped in orphanages, laid out a trolley four shelfs deep,, five or six babies to a shelf, 2 year olds tied their cot, so don't you tell me their are parents out there. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 5:56:47 PM | there are children in orphanges with no parents. And what does that prove? it would be better to kill the children before they are born?
You say giving up a child for adoption instread of having an abortion doesnt wor-as adoption agencies are already overflowing-thats like saying we should have euthanasiaold -because there are not enough hospital beds.
Nonsense-i said the situation is not IDEAL-but NONE of those children in orpahanges however badly off they are-would argue they should have been terminated before birth. However bad an orpahange is-at least the child has a chance at life.
And as for rape-i never said it wasnt terribly traumatic-but i said that odes not mean the child has to be kiled.
What has the innocent child got to do with the manner in which he or she was conceived?
the unborn human has a right to life.
The mother's hate for the rapist is perfectly understandable-but not for the innocent child who is a product of the rape. i said it is not IDEAL-in an ideal world there would be no rape or abuse-and we would never have this awful situation. But the child should not be terminated-becasue of the mother's feelings towrds a rapist.
statistics have shown the way to deal with rape trauma-is not to encourage abortion-but to have better VICTIM COUNSELLING.
This can help the mother through the trauma of the rape-in fact research shows many women who terminate the unborn child's life after a rape-because they have recieved no help or counselling-often feel guilty about doing so afterwards-and have to receive counselling all over again. Rape is utterly apalling-but aborting an innocent child is not the answer.
That is transferring the feeling from the true object of the mothers disgust-the rapist-onto an innocent-the child.
Many rape vicitms would also like to murder their attacker- and this is completely understandable-but does the state give them the right to go and kill the attacker becasue they have been raped? Of course not-and we cannot give people the right to kill human beings-even if they have not been born yet. The most fundamental right is the right to life.
Evidence from psychiologists show women who are given proper help and treatment and therapy after rape-are MUCH LESS likely to want an abortion anyway. Similarly many rape victims (both male and female)committ suicide-but research shows if they are helped and givne the right support and care early on-then the risk of suicide is far lower.
I didnt say rape "doesnt bloody matter because you can adopt the child out"-i said a child's life still matters even if that child is the product of a rape.
So dont misrepresent what i was saying.
Alot of children in foster-care have no stable home-but having had an abortion instead of allowing them to be born is an outrageous solution to that. And most of these children are the product of teen pregnancies etc, not rape situations.
There are millions of prospective adoptive parents still waiting for permission to adopt-
who would give anyhting to have a child of their own. We dont live in an ideal world-but abortion is wrong-because we must protect human life-if we are to be a civilised society. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 6:16:47 PM | Now punkinpie-you say that making abortion illegal would not stop it happening-that is true-but making murder illegal has not stopped it happening either-does that meanwe should change the law?
You talk about dangerous backstreet abortions-and abortions carried out that are heath risks when it was illegal. This is all true-but this is EXACTLY the same argument people use to legalise hard drugs-they say making them illegal drives the dealers underground and puts people at risk as they ahve to use unsterilised needles-whereas if drugs were legal at least people using drugs could be monitored-and it would not be a health risk as there could be rooms set aside for them and hospital staff to monitor them. But no-one is going to legalise crack cocaine or heroin-because dangerous drugs must be illegal-to send out the message from society that taking them is wrong.
And society must send out the same message about abortion-that it cannot be right to take a human's life-even if that little human is totally dependent on the mother.Many women agree. The pro-life group of which i am a member has as many women as men-and Ann Widdecombe an MP ,is among many female MP'S who are trying to get the abortion limit reduced as a start.
In fact Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist and abortion advocate-has recently said she is rethinking her entire stance on abortion-becasue she has come to realise that the unborn child is no less a human than the "newborn" child-and should have the same legal protection. I respect her for that.
Outlawing abortion may not stop it-but a society where tiny children-the most vulnerable members of society-are not given any rights untill after they have left the womb-is not a civilised society.
We can debate when exactly a child becomes a human being-but anyone who has seen those sonograms can see that beautiful little human is as entitled to be protected from being killed as you or I. Children can now be born prematurely-and survive -at just 20 weeks , yet it is still legal to kill that child inside the womb-at the same age. That is barbaric. A child is considered a human when it is newborn-but not when unborn.
I hate the death penalty and abortion-a truly moral society puts human life before all else. And the foundations of such a society should be respect for the value of human life. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 9:20:00 PM | Ok tell ya what, I'll give the lives of those hundreds executed since it was brought back in 76, if you give me the millions of lives extinguished since R v W.
But going forward you also gotta give 1/100 the time and effort spent on each specific case investigating, gather evidence, reviewing, testing, more reviewing, more testing, another review, and lobbying governor before allowing the abortionist to do their job.
Nah,, I don't see abortion-on-demand as that complex an issue. Execution on the other hand, well there's a forum for that, I'm sure. Justice and punishment are defiantly more complex than whether innocent life has the right to be alive.
"I feel for the unborn fetus, but the women's rights comes before the rights of the fetus in my opinion."
Thank you for your honesty, Sweetie. But I can't resist adding three more cents.
"We are women, not breeders",, well when we get together,,, uhm,,, we tend to be, men and women that is,,, both of us roll the dice and take on additional responsibilities when we create another.
I am of the opinion that if abortions were limited by the standard of "immediate physical threat to the well-being of the mother" it would go a long way in preventing unwanted pregnancies. As for the "back alley" stuff that is spoke of,, what were the reasons and what were the numbers? I'm pretty callous on this one but , if you play ya gotta pay,, one way or another. But really, I don't believe any future corrections to the rights of the unborn would make those as "necessary" as before. Education, views on premarital sex, availability of effective contraceptives, reversible medical procedures, and other methods have changed a lot since R v W.
In the case of rape, I only have a very humble opinion, I find it hard to believe that taking the life of that unborn will reduce whatever harm was done to the victim/mother. I do believe the rapist needs to be held fiscally responsible either directly or indirectly for that child for 18-20 years,,, of course no hint of parental rights, that would be a debt that can never be forgiven and is completely separate from any other justice that finds him or reduction/degree of offense.
I feel for the mother, but the unborn's rights comes before the rights of the mother (or govt), in my opinion. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 10:12:56 PM |
, if you play ya gotta pay,, one way or another
Tell me how does a man "pay" when it comes to carrying a child, what price does he "pay" in those 9 months. What chances does his body go through ? It's the women who has to cope with the emotional and physical changes that occur during pregnancy, not a man.
A man impregnates a woman, he is free to walk away from the pregnancy , the woman should have that same right. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/21/2007 10:41:44 PM | indkyperson
"Ensuring the rights of the unborn is not "forcing" a woman to carry to term, it is compelling her to take responsibility for the life in her charge."
Hmm. The dictionary I looked up "compelling" in says this about it.
1. to force or drive, esp. to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him.
2. to secure or bring about by force.
3. to force to submit; subdue.
4. to overpower.
5. Archaic. to drive together; unite by force; herd.
–verb (used without object) 6. to use force.
7. to have a powerful and irresistible effect, influence, etc.
Different word same effect. And ofc
As it is now, abortion is legal.
How about, you pay, IF you were to get your way..... you would be the one to adopt and pay for the upkeep, education, medical and nurturing for all these extra people you want to see brought into this world.
"As for the "back alley" stuff that is spoke of,, what were the reasons and what were the numbers? I'm pretty callous on this one but , if you play ya gotta pay,, one way or another."
Gee, you want #'s on what at the time was considered illegal?
In my humble opinion. You want it changed, because of your opinion that it is life. Well, work on it from the other end instead of trying to force others to do as you wish. See Msg 22. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/22/2007 8:24:59 AM | Ahhhh,,, I was at the end of writing another post..... then the lights flickered and boom.
 
It was brilliant!!,,, probably would have changed the minds of all those in favor of abortion-on-demand and put the realization of the rights of the unborn on a fast path to become sealed in law,,, and now it's lost forever. 
Maybe it was the hand of God stepping in to allow human free will to decide their own individual morality. 
Maybe it was Satan steppin in to ensure hell continues to be supplied with the fresh souls of those who take innocent lives to suit their own selfish desires. 
Or,,, maybe we just blew a transformer.
In any event,, my opinions are out there,,, I'm done,,,,,,,,,,,,,for now.
 | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/22/2007 5:45:47 PM |
And the fact we do not know when exactly an unborn child becomes a human being-is all the more reson abortion is wrong.
I'm not sure which rock you've been sleeping under, but the scientific community is 100% sure an embryo is not a human being. We are also 100% certain an embryo has no brainwave activity or conscious in the 1st trimester. It has no identity.. and thus no soul. There is absolutely no scientific basis in which to call the abortion of an embryo in the 1st trimester as "murder". In fact, a PIG has far more of an identity of self than even an embryo after the 2nd trimester. Yet who cares.. it's somehow okay to murder a pig and make it suffer. Yet it's not okay to abort something which involves absolutely no suffering from something that has never had an identity to being with!
I'm as against abortion as any pro-lifer after the 1st trimester. But in the first 3 months of pregnancy, it's absolutely ridiculous to call it murder. It should be avoided of course because any surgical procedure involves risk. But to take the right away from a woman to have an abortion in the 1st trimester is absolutely irrational.
As I said above, reason ALWAYS rules at the end of the day. Ultimately the compromise on abortion will be to keep in legal in the 1st trimester only. After that, other factors would have to be weighed against what there is of the child's life. This solves the whole rape, incest problem and of course research on embryos. No hypocrisy at all. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/22/2007 5:52:57 PM | | Oh and by the way, whenever anyone has to use "God" or religion to argue their point, it's a strong indication they have a weak case. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/23/2007 8:33:48 AM | One as far as I'm aware no child has been born at 20 weeks and survived, and I'm sure if there were the whole world would know w about it, it kind of works like this, the further gone you are when you give birth the higher the chances of the baby survival, at 20 weeks their internal organs aren't developed enough to survive,
And I have seen ultrasounds, I'm a mother of four, so you don't need to tell me.
regarding your earlier post, we have things called synapse, it's called learning, from the time of birth children learn they are like little sponges they soak up everything, every bit of information that you give them,, and when they learn something fires in their brain to create for want of a better word Branch's, what happens when then information isn't there, these Branch's don't fire off and when you get to a certain age they are never going to, have you ever seen a documentary on the orphans in Eastern Europe, how new Born's were laid out on a trolley 4 or 5 babies on each shelf four or five shelves deep, when they get to toddlers they are tied to the cot to stop them climbing out, they have very little adult interaction, and because of that lack of adult interaction, they don't get information that is needed, their little brains aren't firing, so what you and I would take for granted, toilet training speech, isn't learned, and by the time they have got to five or six, the damage is already done, western aid workers went in, and to their horror they saw children 8 or 9 years old who weren't toilet trained they couldn't talk, they didn't know how to interact, is that what you want for any perspective new born, that sort of life, where for the rest of life they are dependent on another to do the simplest tasks for them, as parents we are duty bound to teach our children these things, we do it because we love our children, but sometimes you have to look at the best out of two evils. unless you have the perfect solution what other one do we have. I don't see any pro life stepping up to the plate to take on any new born that they have saved from termination,
And with rape, don't you think a women who has been raped has suffered enough, without the added problem of carrying an unwanted child to term, even if that child was adopted she's always going to know it. And for 40 weeks she is going to be tormented every single day. Every time she throws up, every time she feels that child move, every time she looks down and can't see her feet, then when she goes into labor and after wards when the baby gone and she fill up with milk. And what happens if the man who raped a woman is never caught, he has got away scot free and the woman is the one who has been punished,
You know it's easy for you to say that, but unless you have experienced it personally don't underestimate how a woman feels, reading about it and experiencing it are two different things, and also until it's your body you haven't got the right to tell me or any other woman what we can do with ours.
And as another post said, women aren't breeders, to pop them out on demand, men can walk away, what choice do we have? we most of the time are the ones left holding the baby, we are the ones who's body changes we are the ones who have to go through labor, we are the ones who feel the pain of a head crowning. And until a man can give birth he hasn't got any right to tell me what I can do with my body. | |
|
crayzy
|
Joined: 5/17/2007
Msg: 45 | |
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/23/2007 9:18:38 AM | It would affect me a lot I mean think laws can be change you put enough liberals or whatever groups in the seat of powers in the chambers and if they're not out voted they make the new laws pass to the gouverment... It would definetly affect me because I think that woman have the right to pick what they want to do with whats growing inside them (sorry but i don't consider foeutus until they are born) it's the woman and her partners choice if she has one to get an abortion... and someone that is against that and that has the power to dictate how other people feel and are in a position of control and think abortion is wrong can remove the choice for the female and her compagnon to have an abortion... I mean abortion is a choice whether you're agaisnt or not but I do beleive that if a politician is agaisnt there's a bigger chance that he'll want to change that law | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/23/2007 10:40:41 PM | well punkinpie you obviously havent read the story then-a baby wieghing 1 0z HAS survived after being born barely 21 weeks-type baby born at 20 weeks into Google you will see the case.
killing that child outside the womb as soon as it was born would be murder-so killing it inside the womb at the same age is murder also. Simple
you say a man can walk away from his responsisbilites-but a woman cant-well, there is of course a crucial difference between "walking away" from a child and actually ending a childs life.
You talk about womens bodies-this is about the childs body not the womans. And that innocent being MUST be given rights.
Youre commewnt about "no man will tell me what to do" is a silly feminist argument that has been explained away already-many WOMEN OPPPOSE ABORTION ALSO!! When are you going to get it-this isnt about women vs men-that is what some feminist groups try and turn it into-but even prominent feminists are against abortion. I could give you a list of excellent quotes from leading womens rights advocates from Amnesty International and other great human rights organisations-explaining why they believe abortion is wrong.
What youre whole argument about "rights"misses out-is what abouth the rights of a child not to be killed?
Are we such a selfish society that we unborn children lives mean nothing to us until they are born? A society that does not respect its childrens lives is a dangerous society.
And as for the earler poster-there IS proof a child is a human before three months-a child already has a discernible brainwave-AND a heartbeat before three months. And someone is considered dead when they have no detectable brainwave-so should be considered alive when they do have one-which is MUCH earlier than three months.
And abortion is still legal up to 24 weeks. That is outrageous
Now i never said it would not be painful carrying a child around if a woman has ben raped-BUT that does not mena it is better to simply KILL the child.
And i do happen to know alot about this area-becasue my friend, a psychologist, has worked in pregnancy counselling-and many women who have been raped often feel WORSE after an abortion-it increases the trauma.
You talk about rape-but where you are totally wrong is the assumption that having an abortion will make the rape vicitm feel better. It doesnt. I know becasue i have heard many cases where this happened.
And human life is the one thing the law and the state MUST protect.
You all talk about womens rights-but it is not ANYONES right-man or woman-to take away another humans life.
It is by definition a contradiction to say it is one humans right to take away another humans rights-the baby's right to life.
as humans we must have freedom-but not when that freedom infringes on the rights of another human-particualrly to something as fundamental as life.
I have seen images of unborn children at all stages-and it is the most horrible thing in the world to imagine that kid being put to death.
I am shocked so many so-called "liberals" are so callous when it comes to those unborn children in the sonograms-who they support killing. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/25/2007 8:39:55 AM | | For Christ's sake, it doesn't matter how long a fetus can survive outside the womb. In 100 years babies will commonly be conceived and incubated completely outside the womb. The fact you can take a fetus at 21 weeks today and grow it outside the womb only means we have progressed closer to this goal of totally womb-free baby production. Once this is achieved and popular in society, what will the religious fruitcake say then??? It will be common practice to discard embryos and fetus's before they achieve that magical point of consciousness. Embryo farming and discarding is already common practice in fertility clinics. Brain dead bodies are "put to sleep" all the time in hospitals already. So it's not a leap to put a brain dead fetus to sleep. It's sad that so many people are so blinded by faith, they can't see the big picture. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/25/2007 9:09:30 AM | ^
I am not a "religious fruitcake" but that analogy was very troubling and I hope you never become a doctor. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/25/2007 10:37:58 AM | For Christ's sake, it doesn't matter how long a fetus can survive outside the womb. In 100 years babies will commonly be conceived and incubated completely outside the womb. The fact you can take a fetus at 21 weeks today and grow it outside the womb only means we have progressed closer to this goal of totally womb-free baby production. Once this is achieved and popular in society, what will the religious fruitcake say then??? It will be common practice to discard embryos and fetus's before they achieve that magical point of consciousness. Embryo farming and discarding is already common practice in fertility clinics. Brain dead bodies are "put to sleep" all the time in hospitals already. So it's not a leap to put a brain dead fetus to sleep. It's sad that so many people are so blinded by faith, they can't see the big picture.
Yep,, why I am a right -to -life'r couldn't be made any clearer, Be afraid,,very afraid!!!
Define; Irony: a form of speech in which the real meaning is concealed or contradicted by the words used ... also... The 1st 3 words in post and the last sentance | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 5/25/2007 11:08:56 AM |
Yep,, why I am a right -to -life'r couldn't be made any clearer, Be afraid,,very afraid!!!
Be afraid of what?? Progress???? You wouldn't have that computer in front of you, nor would you be likely to live more than 35 years if society didn't progress. Maybe your faith is blinding you to the true forces at work in the universe. The evidence is all around us. Just be open minded to what history and nature has to tell us.
Define; Irony: a form of speech in which the real meaning is concealed or contradicted by the words used ... also... The 1st 3 words in post and the last sentance
I'm glad you were able to pick up on that. There's hope for you yet! Just let go of faith a little to apply critical thinking to reality and you'll see the big picture. You'd be closer to "God" than any faith can ever be. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
