OKAY... SO I WROTE A HUB ON ABORTION AND TIMOTHY LEFT A COMMENT (BELOW)
AFTER THAT COMMENT IS MY RESPONSE----- TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK AND WHO DO YOU AGREE WITH!!
timothy Carpenter says:
I don't really think that abortion should be able to be done. I come from a christian family and where I come from, we do not believe. This is like suicide. You are purposely taking the life of something that you brought into this world. You spread your legs and voluntarily opened yourself up, now take care of the life that you brought into this world.
Amber Musselman says:
Take what you just said and say it to a rape victim.. an incest victim. Look them in the eyes and say " you spread your legs now take care of it."
And what about those mothers who cant afford to bring a child into the world? Would you rather throw into adoptive care with the millions already who dont have homes. You can tell that child that you wanted them here so they can starve everyday because they dont have a family or a facility able to take care of them and feed them everyday and keep them bathed and warm every night because the lack of money and resourses for the already exsisting millions of foster children.
Would you tell that to the rape victim.... to the incest victim.... or to that child who barely has food or room to sleep at night?
Somehow I think you would look to the ground and press your lips tight together afraid to speak because only then, standing in their presense, knowing their story, would you feel their pain.
And only then would you begin to understand.
Amber, I am against abortion except for certain circumstances rape and incest . If a woman is raped then she should have a choice, if incest is involved which both are absolutely appalling then an abortion is necessary. I am against abortion if someone is using it as an excuse for birth control. Unwanted pregnancies can be avoided by abstinence and birth control. However if you are playing with fire and you do not take any necessary steps to avoid the situation, then you are accountable for your actions.
You and many other people have mentioned the use of birth control to eliminate unwanted pregnancies.
This a problem rooted back to the school systems in America and the education they give the children of this world. Most school opt to teach abstinence giving the students no information on the whats whys and wheres of sex. They are not taught about birth control and contraceptives and in most cases told that condoms don't work and that they need to abstinent to promote the traditional marriage.... which btw traditional marriage divorce rates are through the roof"... So on top of the pressure to learn for themselves and the lack of decent education this country is just adding to the abortion rate yet doesn't take the responsibility and makes abortions nearly impossible for those they have put in the situation.
I respect that fact that education should be a factor, however it is also parental responsibility to discuss birth control and abstinence, so we as parents are also responsible for teaching and discussing with our children the different types of birth control.
what about situations where the baby isn't viable? Or the mother ill?
I was going to address that, as to me that is also a special circumstance...
good - I agree with you.
I don't quite get the logic, myself, that "abortion is murder, but OK in rape / incest cases". It's illogcial, in fact.
OK, taking abortion out of the equation. (Again this may be different in England)
In the states (or in this state) if I kill a man in my house who is robbing me, it's not murder. In fact, I won't even go to jail.
But, if I kill him in my yard, after he has robbed me it's murder.
In the first case he's considered an imminent threat to me and my family. In the second he's no longer a threat.
So, the law distinguishes by circumstances what murder is and is not.
Logical ... probably not ... that's why we have lawyer jokes
It might or might not be - force, in order to be self-defence, has to be reasonable in all the circumstances.
If abortion is murder, it's still murder ethically if the mother was raped.
Well, my personal opinion is "only when it's a medical necessity" but I would really prefer that it be a local law/regulation/guideline as to what that necessity would be ... a clear medical necessity is "life of the mother in danger" ... rape ... maybe ... incest ... maybe. But honestly each case really is specific and the higher you go to make the law (i.e. Supreme Court) the less freedom you have to evaluate individual cases.
Oh, and here ... if the guy is in my house, reasonableness is presumed.
I knew a family, this would have been their fourth, where the baby would not have lived but a few minutes, but die a very painful death in those few minutes ... they chose to abort ... it tore them up so bad that they ended up divorcing.
I knew them "way back when" and met the man again after 20 years ... he told his story, tore me up. It was a no win situation. They both felt the it had been the "wrong" choice and evidently blamed each other... I didn't get a real clear picture about what actually happened. I only saw the pain.
I concluded from that event that sometimes there is no right answer and you just have to love people through the mess.
Agreed ..If the things comes to such an bad things then law should be in justice of the girl..
But I found in our country some people dont uses contraceptives..and hence suffers a problem of abortion as not able to look after those...so its very bad thing so law should be against those peoples.
other thing is that now there is stict action taken for the sonography..but before that people used to check whether it is girl or boy n if its girl then...so many have done abortions...
I am against such things,,...
Only 1% of abortions in the U.S. are chosen because of rape, incest or the life of the mother being in danger.
So I would have to agree with Timothy.
The word fetus comes from the Latin word meaning young one or young child.
Planned Parenthood should be showing young mothers this video instead of directing them to the abortion clinic.
12-year-old speaks out on the issue of abortion
There should be an adequate safety net for young mothers, especially if they are single. An adequate safety net should not mean an incentive to become a baby making machine. It's unbelievable the amount of money that goes into foster care. Spread it around fairly, without giving incentives.
I'm not sure any pregnant mother would want to listen to a 12 year old ranting, myself.
Sorry, MM, a fetus is not a child according to my dictionary, let alone an embryo or 2-celled zygote. And whoever put that little 12-year-old up to doing the video on abortion is guilty of child abuse in my opinion.
Check your dictionary again Ralph. A fetus comes after the embryo stage. Nobody put the 12-year-old up to doing the video on abortion. In fact she was encouraged to pick a different topic for her speech by her teachers and school officials.
She's obviously been brainwashed by somebody. I'm aware that the fetus stage comes after the embryo. After the fetus comes the baby, and after the baby, the child. The anti abortion nuts around here carry signs saying "Stop Murdering Babies" or "Children." Both are wrong on two counts--abortions aren't "murder" and fetuses, especially early term ones aren't babies or children. Secondly, many of these same right to lifers are staunch supporters of capital punishment which strikes me as a bit inconsistent. How about you?
Yeah I agree Ralph, that would be inconsistent. Regarding war too.
As far as her being brainwashed you could say the same for any belief. Evolution for instance. That is being taught in schools in the U.S. now, isn't it? Would you not call that brainwashing? I would.
I'm sure you would. I call it education.
Seeing we are talking about belief systems I believe the young girl in the video already has a good education regarding her beliefs.
Brainwashing. You keep using that word. It does not mean what you think it means.
You have given an invalid argument in favor of abortion that if one can not bring up child he or she should go for abortion.Can you advocate for killing poor or homeless with this same argument?
How can we have right (though legal in many countries) to kill one? What is the difference between killing a baby and killing an embryo? I can not justify the same.
It is scientifically proven fact that the embryo has life.
Stop killing babies prior to birth !!!
You make two very good points JYOTI. I have read that if the wealth of the planet was equally distributed amongst every person on earth we would all be millionaires (by 13 times if I remember correctly). I am not advocating a form of communism in any way. I am saying wealth could be distributed more fairly by less greed, better wages, better social contracts and the like.
Mike/Jyoti- I can give you both one news item about 7 years back in India where a girl who was made to have physical relationship with a boy in the pretense that he loved her and will marry her. But once the girl got pregnant he started avoiding her. The girl pleaded to the boy to marry her and but the boy turned deaf ear to her. Once the girl confided to her mom she was sent away to stay in another place (that girl had two younger sisters too). By then she was already 6 months pregnant. She consumed poison and died (along with the baby).
In different societies unwed mothers have different problems. In USA the unwed daughter of Sarah Palin (even if she separated from the baby's father as per the latest news reports) the girl and her baby don't have a social stigma and also her mother/father would support her emotionally/financially.
All those who take the moral high ground will they support the single mothers whose father is absconding. And usually those who do avail of such welfare benefits(which is hardly sufficient based on my conversation with a single mother) are also seen by some as the unwanted part of the society. Believe me the maternal instinct is the strongest emotion that's ever existed and no woman(at least most of us) enjoys ever having an abortion. It is absolutely the last resort. In some societies woman are treated like baby making machines(with no control even with there own body). When there is so much love/respect for some "unborn" baby then why not have equal love/respect for the woman who has to undergo the whole pregnancy and take the responsibility of raising the kid as a single mother.
I don't ever like to see abortions or divorces but I do understand those who do it since for some of them it may be the last resort.
Unmarried motherhood doesn't necessarily mean single motherhood.
Otherwise, I agree with every word you say.
It is very hard to digest your opinion. You have stated that the girl went with the boy intentionally for sexual pleasure. She was not forced to do so as in cases of rape. If it is not admirable in the society why had she gone for such pleasure? If she was so desirous why had not she courage to face the society? Why had not she taken the boy into task? She behaved cowardly to commit suicide (again suicide is against Indian law).
It is clearly her fault (of course, of the boy too).
Why should the unborn child be punished for fault of their parents? It is totally against natural justice. Some other has been punished for others' misdeed.
Late M.G. Mukherjee, the then Chief justice of Rajasthan High Court once commented in a forum against abortion (though he told that he was bound by the law and could not do anything against it). His comment was widely published in news papers.
Right of the unborn baby must be protected !
Suicide being against the law always seems daft to me. If it succeeds, then the person isn't worried about prosecution. If it fails, it's hardly going to help someone that desparate to add criminal charges into the mix.
Sir- I myself have said I am not in favor of abortion. But unfortunately that part was overlooked. Anyway sir in India I have grown up as a girl and since you find it so hard to "digest" then I would like to mention that most of the girls try as far as possible not to bring a bad name to there parents by there actions. Right from childhood girls have many dos and don'ts. But the same rules sometimes seem not to apply to boys as much as they seem to apply to girls. Even while walking in the streets we have boys who pass obscene remarks then in the public transport I don't have to mention what a girl faces. In spite of that girls try to get affection and do not want to lose the boy(who they think "loves" them). But it is the boys mostly who insist on the physical relationship rather than the girls. Mostly it is not as you categorically mentioned for "pleasure". As my grandma once said when I was a child that whether the apple falls on the knife or the knife falls on the apple it is the apple that gets harmed. Same way it is mostly the girls who get the bad name or characterized as "loose" character. In this case that boy got away with it but the girl was left to fend for herself with no emotional, material and social support. In western societies even unwed single mothers can avail of the state welfare but in India neither is there a state welfare nor for an unmarried girl legally any chance to get alimony/child support. More ever even if she somehow tries to face all the odds then in schools/society there is the issue of fathers existence which makes it very tough for the kid and the mother.
Since you have brought up the legal stand point then even in India Sec 309(which now only very few countries have suicide as punishable) was repealed for a while and again reinstated and most of the times the person is let off with a fine (my mom is a lawyer hence I do have some legal background): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_view … cide#India
Sir even if somebody is not directly related to us but we still can have some empathy for them. In hindsight even that girl must have regretted a lot but in reality there are many people who do make mistakes but then criticizing/condemning them isn't the solution but what can be done should be thought of. We never know when something similar may happen to someone near/close to us. I have the highest respect for you and I hope you don't take my words otherwise. I was just trying to give a different perspective as things aren't always in black or white but in reality sometimes there maybe gray shades that we may have to deal with.
Please kindly consider my point of view and forgive me if I have said anything to hurt you in anyway. Have a great day
Do you agree that an egg is not a chicken? Get it?
What if the woman is a victim, but has the baby and then kills him/her?
I'm anti abortion, I believe more options should be given to the victim such counseling, adoption, and just simply care so don't feel abortion is their only option. Much love and
Yes, if you believe in God; No abortion in bible, Torah, Koran.
And also in Koran if the woman has health problems in first three months of her pregnancy only could have it if the doctor thought that; but, not after 3 months of pregnancy.
; and the best no abortion if there is no crucial reason.
but God state that abortion; it's killing for a life.
Would you tell the little baby: "We killed you because you were inconvenient" ?
That would be impossible because zygotes, embryos don't have ears, and fetuses aren't yet babies until late in the pregnancy.
I think not. These are scientific terms for the development of any mammalian fetus, and as such, are the correct terms. Not 'baby.' It should also be noted that 30-60% of fetuses are spontaneously aborted within the first trimester of conception.
Could it just be, then, if one were so inclined to think like this (which, I should say, I don't, because the issue is far more complicated), that God is looking out for the nonviable--for whatever reason--ever being born?
Making the termination of a pregnancy within this time frame nothing more than something God wouldn't do himself.
And the argument that this is a willful choice to terminate life turns round again--as all purportedly given free will AND CHOICE. I should also say that we make choices every day that kill living organisms. We demonstrated our 'Godliness' in making choices and changes when we learned how to use our first tools.
Good point, I never looked at it like that.
And you don't think there's a difference when those choices involve killing human beings?
Why do you think one should be compassionate only towards humans and not animals? If you are hungry and capable of killing an animal like dog then it becomes meat for you and when the dog is hungry(likewise capable of killing humans) then we also can become meat for them. Just because we have certain intelligence doesn't make us any better than other beings. Just answer this question, which animal has destroyed earth most?
Yes, but for how much longer and in what condition.
I don't think we can know that, but my money is on for around 8 billion years from now and in whatever condition the constantly changing nature of the planet is in at that time. Probably pretty hot and barren at the end there.
Based on the two previous posts. Anyway it is a question of personal ethics/morality. Each individual has to make the choices and depending on the laws of the land act accordingly. Imposing our personal beliefs on others isn't appropriate. If I am a vegetarian and want laws to be enacted for others to be vegetarian too then it isn't appropriate. As long as it is legal it is up to an individual to make those choices.
I believe it depends on the situation of the preganacy. HOWEVER, they should never just be used as a form of contraceptive.
There was a british documentry about four women who had abortions and how it had changed their lives. The first had to due to medical reasons - foetus or her, I have no issue with this. The second could not afford it. The third had her whole life ahead of her. With these two I am undecided but curious as to why adoption was not an option. All three women were traumatised. The forth however made me feel sick. She had six abortions just because she didn't like condoms. THIS IS WRONG.
Mary Anne Warren said that a foetus is not a living being because it is not conscious and cannot form decisions of its own. It has no morals. Whilst it is in the mother it relies on the mother (specifically) to live. Once it is out of the womb it still relies on someone to look after it, however, that person does not have to be the mother.
Mary Anne Warren goes a step further to say that she believes the foetus is no better than a parasite if it is unwanted. It lives off the mother without the mother wanting it to do so. I'm sure if cancer could grow limbs and a face then we would all feel bad about cutting that out as well. The only difference is that the body naturally rejects the foetus after nine months and cancer is rarely rejected.
Judith Jarvis Thompson (another philosopher) said that you can call and acorn an tree but that does not make it a tree. She stated that it is the same with people.
On the other side of the coin, Marquis stated that it is not the killing which is wrong in itself. It is the removal of potential. This removal of potential is what makes killing wrong. Who knows what you are killing when you have an abortion in the long term; a doctor? A politician? A hero?
At the end of the day I believe in case of rape or incest then it is down to the mother to decide what she thinks is right. Until the baby is born it is physically part of her body so she has the right to do with it what she seems fit.
Although, at the end of the day, I am just an 17 year old classics, philosophy and english student. What do I know about such issues?
I believe everyone, if put under cases of severe pressure, will think long and hard (apart from that contraceptive woman on the documentry).
At the end of the day, if your pro life or pro choice it will always be easier for men to choose when it comes to abortions, however, it is not our place. It's like having a woman tell you to snip both of your testes off if they started getting a mind of its own. Ok, bad analogy but you know what I mean. You would suddenly feel vulnerable and scared. The last thing you want is someone telling you what to do.
I have no idea where I'm going with this now and the structure has broken down completely...but I'm sure you see my point.
...I think I do, in there somewhere...
In America we are suppose to be governed by a law declaring the Separation of Church and State. Timothy's moral issues should make his answer null and void. It is useless.
Abortion should stay legal according to the law.
I completely disagree with both of your statements above.
The United States was Founded on Christianity and the separation of church and state was developed to keep government out of the church not vise versa until twisted people decided that they wanted to warp the meaning of dead patriots for their own selfish gain.
by lowering the religous views in our schools and teaching our children that we come from apes or nothing at all how do you believe any human being could begin to think they had any value in life at all?
God gives us purpose because He made us purposefully.
As for the real question about abortion it is a complex thing but I personally believe that it is wrong to kill an infant inside of the womb unless the baby would kill the mother. But as stated there are many things that seem to make this topic complex I would pray about it and read up as best you can.
This is the funniest thing ever. All you need to do is look up a few quotes from the founding fathers about what they thought of religion.
"I know - let's tell the religionists we will keep church and state separate so they can practice their religion as they see fit without interference. They are too dumb to realize it will be a two way street."
Here is my take on the subject of abortion:
I understand the views of the victoms of rape and incest and understand the financial burdon of bringing a child into this world. I listen to the arguments and understand how that individual feels and how they can justify thier decision to abort thier child. I still have to disagree with it.
You see, once you are pregnant you have a living baby in your body. That living baby has never done anything wrong. They didn't ask to be there, they have never hurt anyone, they have never sinned, they are a complete blank canvas, absoultly innocent and pure.
Why should that innocent and pure baby be killed? If a person was raped, I have to believe in my heart of hearts that there is a reason behind the pregnancy. Regardless of if you believe in God or any sort of spiritual guide, there has to be a reason behind everything.
Maybe the rape or incest victom was supposed to get pregnant and have a child. That could be the destiny of the mother. I don't know, but I do believe killing an innocent child is not the answer.
As for someone who doesn't have the money or capability to bring a child into the world, they should be careful and make sure protection is always used. There is no excuse to abort a child for the simple reason of not being able to afford it. That is rediculous.
I am keen to know what you think gives you the right to have an opinion on what some one else does with their body?
In your heart of hearts there was a reason
I mean - what if in my heart of hearts, I believe people like you should be castrated and that should be made law?
Well ... first off, if you get enough people to agree with you, you'll get your wish, Down Syndrome people used to get that .... these days, though, you don't even need a majority, just a judge. Pay him enough money and the law says whatever he wants ... so hey get the sissors out with your wallet.
Second, unlike say, for example, shooting herioine, there is another human life directly involved in that choice that doesn't have any choice. Now, to answer the obvious objection, that argument only holds water for most people sometime after the first trimester. Still, if life has value, it does and if it doesn't, well then we get back to whoever has the biggest gun wins.
That's why I'm generally against regulation and for education ... and I think the regulations that need to exisit should be determined as close to the local level as possible. This particular battle is not won in the court room. It's won, one life at a time by actually giving a damn about each case, and not tossing them aside if they make the choice you don't want them to.
Well, Mark going off what you just said, what gives a person the right of rights to do anything to a babies body? We have freedoms as long as it does not endanger anyone. But I can guess you will say that it isn't a child yet, that conception doesn't count....
It is not even living, never mind being a child.
I think if the women does not want to carry until full term for what ever reason, then she should not have to as long as the termination is completed within the 20 weeks.
these are my views, ague with them all you want, just don't hold on for a reply.
Most abortions, except for very late term ones, involve zygotes, embryos or fetuses, not babies.
And this is where I knew the argument would defer...when is a baby an actual baby. I think not based off religion, that a baby is a alive from the moment of conception...
Let us examine what happens to the fetus at 3 months as per Science. The fetus wakes and sleeps, it digests and has bowel movements and he can breath amniotic fluid, swallow, can make a fist, has fingers and his vital organs are functioning. This is at 90 days. So, from a biological point the fetus is alive at this time, showing all signs of development.
Therefore, according to Islam, abortion is allowed under the following circumstances with in 3 months as the fetus becomes alive at this time.
(2) Fetal deformity such as anencephaly
(3) If the mother's life is in danger as a result of the pregnancy such as worsening of heart failure in congenital heart disease.
(4) If the pregnancy itself causes a disease such as toxemia of the pregnancy.
(5) If the new pregnancy causes severe depletion of milk and the existing infant is dependant on the mother's milk.
Yeah, and as soon as we find a rock on antarctica with microbes on it from Mars - Oh my god - LIFE!!!! which, of course, then gets ultra-protection from PETA.
Yeah PETA seems to have more concern for animals than human beings. I used to like Brigitte Bardot and Sir McCartney until they started to support the ridiculous ideas of PETA.
News reports just this past week were saying that an adoption agency went bankrupt leaving a pile of loving couples that had already paid in the lurch. It said the adoption agency went bankrupt because they couldn't get babies from Ethiopia anymore. Ethiopia! Imagine that, couples that want to adopt have to look for babies all over the world because we are killing our babies here in the west.
No matter how old the baby, fetus, zygote or whatever you want to call it is, murder is murder, bottom line. Some of these atheists and New Agers sure have some strange ideas.
For somebody who says he is an atheist, you don't seem to be able to read the issues very well in arguments.
It is not about the abortee's body, it is about the baby being aborted.
Is it a living soul ?
Or is it not a living soul.
Did the baby have anything to do with the mother's promiscuity, or rape, or incest ?
The abortee may have been raped by her great grandfather, brother, uncles, father, stepdads, and every other boyfriend in between.
Still, the resulting life from that rape had nothing to do with that rape. That life didn't tell his father, whoever it may be, to go rape my would-be mother.
That was the argument.
The baby, not the mother.
Now, personally, I don't care if the mother "spreads her legs" in a heartbeat (which by the way, according to Hollywood, is the way to go), or had to be threatened by a bolt cutter to do so by her great grandfather.
Unless it's somebody who swears to high heavens she's a Christian (which the poster didn't do, by the way) and happens to be a member of a church I go to, in which case, she won't hear a peep from me, I'm just out the door.
I don't care if she aborts every baby she carries in her womb, and that of her sister's, mother's, or neighbor's.
It's a fallen, self-centered world, that is why it is a God-rejecting world, it's a "my, me, I, mine" kind of world and you can see that from the arguments put up right here on this thread.
"What about if it was rape ? Should the mother have to this and that ? it's her body, yadayada".
No thought about the innocent life in that womb. It's about "me", "my life", yeah, like Billy Joel sings, "this is my life. go to hell with your life, and leave me alone". It's me. me. me.
For a religionist - you are pretty blind to the genuine issue. What life in the womb? lol A collection of cells that may - or may not - come to term.
Typical you have an opinion on what a woman may or may not legally do with her body. Fortunately your courts allow abortion and your opinion is just another worthless religionist opinion and women may do as they please with their own bodies.
Sorry you are not allowed to force your opinions on others any more. Oh well, as you say it is her body, her choice - not yours nor your invisible super being who tells you into your head that you should have an opinion. lol
Yeah, well. My Bible says that God formed babies in the womb, and that's the whole point of faith, and humility. To put one's trust in God for any adversity such as rape, incest, or just being plain dumb enough to spread one's legs because one happens to like the guy.
What you said was according to your faith, so go your merry way, and somewhere in eternity you will find out you were wrong, there IS a God, and I won't find out anything, because if there is NO God, heck, how can I know, according to you, I ain't got no soul, and my worthless body is rotting somewhere in the ground.
My opinion ?
Hell, like I said, for an atheist, you seem to be lacking a little more on the comprehension side.
I gave you a clarification on what the poster was saying, not what I was saying.
Now, somewhere in my "scholarly" discourse is my real opinion.
And that is: I don't care a leaking rat's butt whatever the woman does. If she aborts, she'll account for that to God, and she will live with that decision. If she doesn't, hey, drum roll and a lot of kudos to her.
Whichever way she goes, I don't give a flying BS.
Unless she happens to be in the same church I go to, when, like I said, I'm out the door, and nobody will even know why.
Our courts ? You're a real funny guy, Mr. Knowles. What, you living in Siberia ?
Well, you're entitled to your worthless opinion, yourself. Hey, that's what democracy's all about, right ?
Sure, they can. I hope you don't have a daughter, though, for your sake. I mean, hey, man, I care, you know, don't want you biting your tongue off when stuff happens and you have to say no to abortion.
Oh, I see, so according to your atheistic, liberal, educated, compassionate and democratic logic, participating in a discussion forum and venturing to give your view, is forcing one's opinion on another ?
Hey, Mr. Tambourine Man, the lady OP asked for "takes", remember?
And her soul, as well, whether the abortee believes in God or not. It doesn't change things. There is a God. And the only ones who don't believe in God are people like you who do not want the responsibility of accounting to anyone but your own god, you.
So, you think I should be lynched for having an education therefore being able to form an opinion ? You sure you're an atheist and not Taliban who think they're the only ones who should be educated ? I think you'll feel more at home in those times before women's suffrage and stuff. Hell, for all I know, you may secretly be a racist, wot ?
cheers, Mr, Knowles.
You have a good time wherever your country is.
I'm enjoying it here in the United States of America although really, if you go back to the 2nd Ammendment forum, this is the only country I felt a NEED, as opposed to want, to own a gun.
Not sure how you get lynching from laughing at you?
You misunderstood. I think your opinions are funny - I do not think you should be lynched for holding them. How was I not clear on this?
Your lack of education is obviously a part of it, but that is easily fixed.
There is no god, and I am pretty sure if there was, you would not be speaking for her.
My opinions are funny ?
So I entertained you.
Well, then, now, you should be nice to me, right ?
The old atheistic ad hominem ploy.
Goodbye, Mr, Knowles.
I thought you would sharpen my iron because you're an atheist, therefore dialectical in your views, but, nah, I guess I expected too much.
You have a nice day, now, though.
You and many other opponents of abortion misuse the English language. A ZYGOTE (A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zugōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zugoun "to join" or "to yoke") is a cell that is the result of fertilization. That is, two haploid cells—usually an ovum from a female and a sperm cell from a male—merge into a single diploid cell called the zygote (or zygocyte). A zygote is the first cell of a new unique organism that has DNA from the mother and father.
A ZYGOTE begins as a fertilized egg (ovum), and contains all of the genetic information (DNA) necessary to become a baby; half of that information is from the mother’s egg and half from the father’s sperm that has fertilized the egg. The organism in the zygote stage of life travels down the fallopian tube, while dividing to form a larger group of cells. This cell division is mitotic, and is known as "cleavage". All mammals go through the life stage of being in the zygote stage of life. After this life stage the organism goes through the life stages of an embryo, and a fetus. A human zygote exists for about four days, and becomes a BLASTOCYST on the fifth day.
The next step is when the zygote becomes an EMBRYO (the development of the embryo is called embryogenesis. In organisms that reproduce sexually, once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell, the result is a cell called the zygote that has half of the DNA of each of two parents. The resulting embryo derives 50 percent of its genetic makeup from each parent. In plants, animals, and some protists, the zygote will begin to divide by mitosis to produce a multicellular organism. The result of this process is an embryo.)
After about 8 weeks the embryo developes into a FETUS (In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development begins about eight weeks after fertilization, when the major structures and organ systems have formed, AND LASTS UNTIL BIRTH.)
Thus, abortions, certainly not early abortions, are not "baby killings" or "child murder" as claimed on the signs of abortion protesters.
would you happy to just call it 'killings' then? would that make ,right?
Why not call it what it really is? A woman choosing to have a few cells scraped out from her own body with a legal medical procedure?
Seriously - you religionists are your own worst enemies - what gives you the right to tell others what to do with their own bodies? Oh - I forgot - a god spoke into your head and makes you tell others what they should do.
Oh deary me. And you wonder why..........
It is difficult for a non-beleiver to understand Christianity since unlike Religion ,its values and faith are not rooted in Religion.
A Christian beleives his/her body belongs to Christ ,and since the Holy Spirit dwells there , it deserves to be respected.
Humanly speaking we wrestle daily with human thoughts and spiritual thoughts .
Christians know they are not perfect , but transformed slowly to be more like Him ( Christ)
An Atheists views are so depressing and miserable ,what is their purpose in life? if it just to live out these few years?
Do they not want more? Is this all there is then for them , all that they know is it? complete , based on theories?
What an empty life it must be ,oh dear !
There are lots of laws about what someone can do with their own body, <snipped name-calling>.
a baby you say? what is it instant, no I dont think so. My feelings are before 20 weeks its OK, as no life exists before this time.
I COMPLETELY agree with Adam. People definately think of the woman before the baby. When I talk to rape victims, I let know that though the woman has a right to make her own decision, she needs to careful dig deep into her heart and think about the baby.
And so many claim that there is no such thing as sin!
Incest? Rape? Abortion?
Oh, that's right, if it's "legal", it's no longer wrong, or a sin.
I don't think many claim that, more's the pity. But give us time, ok? I hold that sin is an unnecessary concept in that it assumes the existence of an offended god. Many of us get along fine with the notion of societal 'wrong-doing' and see no need to appeal to any divinity. We all live in society but we don't all believe in god. Therefore societal morality should hold sway over religious morality, because the first is all-encompassing while the second is exclusive.
Ah, but those of us who believe in the second also believe that the first is derived from it, thus the second necessrily must dominate the first ... except for those who think ... wait which is first and which is second ?
Sorry just in a bizzare mood today
Abortion must be stopped. Its the killing of innocent babies.
you need to read up.
and secondly... maybe if the damn republicans would teach safe sex in schools at an early age we wouldn't have this problem. regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong.. especially because it is not your choice to make for someone whether or not they should get an abortion.
That answer is too simple ... too black and white ... I am actively involved in pro-life ministry, and I'm here to tell you that signs and bumper sticker theology, even if they are 'correct' are not 'right'.
The issues go much, muich, much deeper. Her hub is well researched and has solid thinking behind it.
The minisry includes providing pre-natal care, education, finding families who will adopt and more ... if someone does make "the other" choice ... post abortion counseling and more.
Black and white laws and rules without a love for the women making the choice are more harmful than helpful. If the laws change, there will still be abortions, unless the hearts and minds are changed. If, however, hearts and minds are changed, permission becomes irrelevant.
You can't regulate that. You can only love that change into people. It's hard. It's messy. It involves heart break and failure. If the goal is to save lives, then life must first be truly loved.
This is a pro-life stance I can get behind!
A big part of my problem with pro-lifers in general is what I perceive to be their hypocrisy. So many pro-life advocates are loudly opposed to comprehensive sex education in schools, which has been shown over and over again in studies to be far more effective at reducing rates of abortions than abstinence only.
Not only that, but they're frequently the same people who complain the loudest about welfare and other social safety nets. You can oppose welfare or you can oppose abortion. You can't oppose both. Not if you have a working conscience, anyway.
If you oppose welfare, you should be thanking your lucky stars every time a woman concludes that she is not financially or emotionally ready to have a child and has an abortion, because more often than not, it's one less mouth on welfare. This woman is taking responsibility for her actions and you should be singing her praises, not condemning her as a murderer.
If you oppose abortion, you should be supporting social safety nets so women who aren't financially or emotionally ready to have a child don't end up permanently on welfare... or worse, snap and shake their kid to death one day when it's colicky and screaming and they still have no job and no money and no emotional support.
You can argue from now to eternity that women who are not financially or emotionally ready to have a baby should not be having sex (or getting raped), and I actually agree with that. But realistically, it is NEVER going to happen, so we need to help women who find themselves in that situation, not force them to go through with the pregnancy, and then abandon them to the world. That's just a recipe for misery.
I still think "abstinence is the best policy" should be taught, but I do agree that if other options are not at least enumerated and information on them provided, when people do discover that those options are availble, they will feel "betrayed". Give all the information they want. Then love 'em through it. People will listen to people who care.
My problem with welfare is that it keeps poor people poor. I truly don't think the system as it is works. And passing out more money won't help. See Star Parker's "Uncle Sam's Plantation" she explains it better than I do.
I don't think current "social safety nets" exist or that those that do are adeuqate ... they need to be created by people who care ... not just paid for but staffed with people who love. It's much, much harder. The "right" think is never easy.
That's why the other name for comprehensive sex ed is "abstinence plus." Contrary to what a lot of conservatives seem to think, they do encourage abstinence first. They just also give kids ways to protect themselves if they choose to ignore that very good advice, as something like 80% do by the age of 19.
That's certainly a legitimate argument, and I also prefer programs that put stronger emphasis on education and other ways of freeing oneself from government aid than welfare necessarily does. But "welfare" was the most all-encompassing term.
I agree again, but realistically, the federal government is the only entity large enough to make sure at least a basic level of services are available everywhere they're needed. Ideally, the gov should get out of the way of really good privately run programs, but if this sort of thing is taken care of exclusively in the private sphere, service is going to be too inconsistent to do any real good on a society level.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, I think the federal government is so large it can't do the job. You can't make people care, and nobody is as heartless as a faceless bureaucrat. I like Mother Teresa's approach ... one at a time.
Me too. I don't like abortion - who does?
But too many "pro-life" people don't seem to realise there is life after birth. Bdazzler isn't like that at all.
I agree with you ,we can't justify this with "correct" or "right".Sometimes what people do is not they want to do .maybe this is very paradox.but we should know what's our real goal.when we make some decisions ,we should take everything into consideration rather than with a subjective opinion.everyone will have some stress others can't understand .we should discuss it under different situations .I like this words -If the goal is to save lives, then life must first be truly loved.
Paraglider, many of us use the term "sin" to imply a moral wrong, as opposed to a legal wrong.
When we do so, no divinity is implied. For instance, to rape is a sin. To violate the speed limit is illegal, but not a sin. There is a difference. Some rules are universal among humans. Other are really, really arbitrary. The universal ones -- those with real moral backbone -- are the ones we call sin. That they may also be illegal is a completely different matter.
Aya - I know many use the word that way, but I also know aka-dj uses it in the way I meant. We discussed this at length on my 'I am not a sinner' hub. On moral issues, it is wrong for someone to imply he has god on his side.
It is not always possible to convey the fullest thought in a small post. To me, sin is not so much an "action" (athough wrong-doing is involved) but more a state of being. The Bible teaching is clear (enough) to me that we ARE sinners and therefore COMMITT sin, not the other way round.
So it's not a matter of believing in it or not, denying it, twisting it etc. I am a white, European man. I will never be a true Australian, or American or anything else.I am what I am. (Unless of course I have lots of money, and do a Michael Jackson).A good case in point! He will forever be a black (African American) or whatever the PC term is.
I am NOT a sinner, therefore I do not COMMIT sins. Therefore I am sin-less. You can speak for yourself only in this matter. You have no right to judge anyone else. Even your silly book tells you this.
Is that judgment of me?
By making a statement, am I making a judgment?
Well, the silly book does also say "All have Sinned" ... but the orignal intent of that was "nobody is perfect" the word "sin" has been blown way out of proportion.
But don't worry, I'm not judging you ... I will let you judge yourself ... (and you can be pretty brutally honest sometimes, so I really don't envy you that.)
I am my own biggest critic. An eternity in hell would be nothing compared to what I have already sentenced myself to.
That was kind of (well sorta kinda) like how C.S. Lewis described hell in his book "The Great Divorce" ... which wasn't really about divorce at all and was no help while I was going through mine, except perhaps to serve as a good distraction.
Also it is in line with the description of hell in the writings of Sadu Sundar Singh (who, it seems, inspired Lewis)
Weird as this sounds, I don't think that cruel answer to you even has anything to do with abortion. It's about control and hate. Antiabortionists deny this--they say its all about life and the teachings of Christ and so on and so forth, but most of these people would kick Jesus out of the way if they encountered him begging on the street. I don't see them out feeding hungry kids or housing mentally ill homeless people--it's embryos they like to rave about because that way they can look sanctimonious while acting hateful and cold, and they don't actually have to feel another person's pain--they'd rather cause it anyway.
I wouldn't pay any attention to it. if you write about abortion you'll get that.
abortion I wrote a hub today about abortion I understand both sides of the debate but if a fetus is nothing how come it gender can be defined. The right to choose should protect the right unborn little boys and grils to choose if the want to live or die or just because the have not devlope the ablity to talk they do not matter.
it doesn't matter what we think, abortion is legal and there is no turning back the hands of time, cased closed as decided by the Supreme Court
GT has a point...why are we arguing about this when its true. It is legal and that's just the way it is. And I am sure the Judge or Judges who decided this would not appreciate the critisizm of their "judgement call" literally.
The case is not closed because it is decided by the supreme court. Different countries have different rules and hubpages forum is global.
If anything is legal, that does necessarily not mean moral. Many countries provide safe heaven for many businesses that is illegal in many countries. So what is legal at one place may be illegal in another. Even if something is legal in a specific country at a point of time, may be illegal in the same country in another point of time.
Slavery was legal in many countries at a point of time, can you justify that? Laws changes..changes and keeps changing.
Humankind fraught for the rights of slaves, blacks and women in previous centuries. Now it is high time to fight for unborn babies.
The issue of life is the main reason why I call myself a moderate instead of a liberal. For although I am liberal on most issues, I consider myself firmly pro-life. Were it my choice, the only choice I could make is to choose life. The problem is that the way this debate has been framed, I don't have a choice, because it is a woman's right to choose. Since I am not a woman, I have no say in this matter.
Another point. Whether pro-life people like it or not, the Supreme Court already settled this issue with Rowe V. Wade. This should not even be an issue for candidates, but somehow it has become a litmus test. If you are pro-life, you can't be liberal. If you are pro-choice, you can't be conservative.
One way I can see that it is acceptable to give people the right to choose is because God gives us all free will. We are free to make decisions from the moment of birth onward. Eventually there are consequences, good and bad, for the decisions we make. So you could say that the Freedom to Choose is a God-given right. I just worry about people who make the choice to end a life, whether it is a fetus in the womb or a human being at the business end of a gun, or a killer who is being executed for his or her crimes. At the end of the day, someone is dead as a result of a human being's decision or choice to end the life of someone else.
Oh yeah, and regarding the original post that started this debate, it's not suicide if you kill another person. That is homicide. Get your cides right!
So go ahead! Let me have it!
The "get your cides right" comment was a play on words, because the author of the comment that inspired this debate said killing babies is suicide. I was simply pointing out that unless the babies are killing themselves, what the person really meant was that killing babies is homicide.
I had a serious talk with my cat...concerning abstinence and she took it real seriously...she sneaked out down the alley that night and whipped the piss out of a horney tomcat...well...thats what it sounded to me like anyway...
Just strikes me as people who have 'strong' opinions for whatever reason, but who have not done any valid questioning or research.
Well, I have a feeling that we might discover this child's parents just happen to be pro-life fundamental religionists.
Most 12-year-olds I have known (not in the biblical sense) tend to hold their parents belief system. I will be interested to see how she turns out as an adult. Could go either way - aggressive atheist rebel or running mate in the 2025 Canadian presidential elections
Yeah, I don't think there will be any middle ground for that one. As Ralph said - Child abuse. Religion has a lot to answer for.
Surely you don't equate teaching someone to think differently than you do (regardless of your own opinion of your correctness ... everyone assumes themselves to be correct) ... with holding a child's face against a hot iron or shaking a baby so hard it dies?
Teaching someone to have the same opinion as their parents is child abuse, but partial birth abortion is not?
I think the term "child abuse" in this case is hyperbole.
But yes - teaching some one to believe what you believe to use them for political gain is child abuse - and this girl is being used. How very christian. Anything to get your message across.
Abuse comes in many forms - one of which is evidenced in this video tape. An angry 12-year-old speaking out passionately about something she has (I hope) never experienced, and does not fully understand. Only time will tell if she can recover. Make Money here is using this video to push his political agenda.
Although you seem to think she fully understands the ramifications and commitment needed to bring a child into the world.
What has this got to do with "partial abortion"? there are laws against "partial abortion" .
I don't think I've ever advocated "whatever it takes" ... and for someone who's all keen on "don't judge me" you seem quite anxious to judge others, including using emotionally charged words like "child abuse" to do so yourself when it suits your purpose ...
My objection to the phrase is that it is "over the top" ... I still think it's hype .... for the purpose of advancing your political agenda.
No doubt .... and not only that, the video is also not terribly effective, which actually bothers me more. There are far better ways to advance the agenda.
I am quite sure I never said that, because I don't believe it. You now have my permission to stop putting additional meanings to my statements that I did not intend
There is an active move to overturn the law in the US. I'm glad to see that you seem to advocate keeping it illegal.
I'll plead guilty to "hyperbole" but not to murdering children.
I agree - questioning and forming one's own beliefs tends to come a bit later than 12.
How many children are starving and malnourished and mentally retarded from improper diet? The anti-abortion stance is pure sentimentality and really concern for oneself and how one should be a good person, without considering the overall reality.
12-year-olds absolutely have all the information they need to be informed, intelligent teachers and decision makers as well as, OMG, mothers, indeed, if the role was forced in anyway upon them. We should all listen to such wisdom and the world would be a better place.
Totally, like, wow.... (Sorry, but its Sat. night.)
You've added quite a bit of your own interpretation to what I said Lita with your Saturday night special.
And I would be perhaps stricter in my interpretation of abortion legality than Ralph in all actuality, limiting it to the 1st trimester--with of course, exceptions in regard to late term abortions with complications and regarding a woman's health.
It does not change the fact that this entire post and the video of this girl, is hugely, a universal insult to women. As are the discussions of the social issues in relationship to a woman's right to a legal abortion. I cannot take it seriously.
There can be no legality in abortions. Child birth is a natural phenomenon... ie., when two couple go together, their intention will not be to make a baby... it will be just for pleasure. But a child is created. This can only be termed as "natural".
For all natural things, God should be the controller. Man-made laws should not control natural phenomenon. Moreover, there are several ways to avoid pregnancy.. tablets, condoms, etc. Even after these things, if a child is created, it should not be killed.
"Right of the unborn baby must be protected !"
Right of children to starve to death, because they ar born to people who cannot afford them should be protected.
Forgive me, MM, but nobody in their right mind should listen to Fox News, Life News, or that other extremely right wing talk show whatever it is blog you posted.
It is well known that abortion (as any other minor surgical procedure) may cause some risk to a woman undergoing one. What the spin doctors who write these things do not say is that the risk of pregnancy or giving birth far, far outweighs that risk of a woman having an abortion. Doctors always formally use the 'risk' language for legal purposes. As in, "I am 99% sure that this lump is not cancer." But they won't give up that 1% so as not to be liable. Hence, there will always be some 'risk' involved in any language discussing a procedure like abortion.
If there is indeed such a concern about girls and women, I would like to see more of a response world wide to making sure the females that are already born get adequate education and are protected against specific crimes like murder, rape and physical abuse that are perpetrated against them on a daily basis. These are rights that SHOULD BE protected by any natural law.
Ok the night shift is here, I guess I can go home now. It is past my bewitching hour.
i believe in pro-choice. and by pro-choice i mean you have a choice to have sex or not and if you do, you should be responsible for whatever happens as a result. liberalism is about giving a voice to those who don't have the opportunity to be heard. killing something that will turn into a human being but for it's murder is silencing that voice.
and Capital Punishment is different how NewRepublican?
Speaking of capital punishment, New Mexico became the 16th state to outlaw it today. Michigan, home of the rational and tolerant intelligencia (RT&I), was the first state to abolish capital punishment--in 1846! (In case you wondered RT&I is secret top subgroup within MENSA even more secret than Skull and Bones. Oops! I'll have to change my name and move to another state!
States without the death penalty:
Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and New Jersey.
Plus NEW MEXICO!
Imagine that! A zygote murder trial with a jury of peer zygotes and NewRepublican as judge.
you are so funny. you should go on the jay leno show along with obama, the crowd will love you.
Well, let's not forget that the recipient of capital punishment, presumably has been accused and found guilty of something like murder with special circumstances.
This is quite a unique interpretation of liberalism! Where did you hear that?
You are far too kind with them, CW, far too kind. It is this kind of disconnection from reality and empathy that is often the problem.
In India, people are more sensitive in matters of culture and traditon. That is why girls are subjected to strict discipline and boys are allowed to go scotfree, if something happens. It is the female who is going to produce a child, and by that, continue our tradition. Even after so many upheavals, India and Indian society are in tact only because women are subjected to strict discipline. We should accept reality and not feel treated partially. Disciplined women only can produce a disciplined family and by that, a disciplined society.
Lita- Thanks for those compliments
Mr.Venu- Sir, It takes both boy and a girl to create a stable and cultured society. Mostly women are aware of the "reality" and even I know what canvas I have and what I can do with it? And fortunately there are many men who are progressive in there thinking and hopefully together we can continue the traditions/culture that you expect from our generation.
No one can get out of their tradition and culture. Those who want to stray out of our tradition or others who stray into our culture will finally see that their efforts are mere waste. We are living in a society and we have to fulfil others' expectations. In the process, if anyone see us going out of our way, the whole society will neglect us.
For example, the pub girl who was beaten up in the road, did not find any soft words from any quarter. Only some women who wantonly tried to show that they are progressive did comment in her favour (including Renuka Choudhury, Union Minister). But no one will let their kins go to pub to drink and dance with badboys. It is against our culture and that girl should be punished such that no family girl ever dare to drink and dance with boys.
Our govt., which is unable to take stern measures on terrorists, should atleast take stern action on tradition breakers.
Yes. God forbid that anything should ever change.
Stamp hard on those who want change! Including those who use such modern evils as the internet.
Need not stamphard. Just change them.
Internet was invented and not a culture which travelled through countries like pubdance.
Internet is a media and in noway can it be combined with ugly dances.
Compulsory changes cannot be changed... time, date, age, etc. cannot be stopped. But change of culture can and should and must be prohibited.
Why? Firstly, I don't think you can stop culture changing. But secondly, I certainly don't think you should "prohibit" anything of the sort.
Let culture change, if it is for good. We Indians used dhoties and sarees some 50 years before. But now it it pants and shirts. No haircut then. But it is now German cut. These have helped to improve the culture. But pubdance like things will help only to go down. I am not prohibiting anything. It is my concern only. We would like to adopt our own culture; not go innovative and land in trouble.
Let the culture change but it is better if it is upwards. If it is downwards it is not appreciated.
When it comes to rights of motherhood, caring and nursing facilities to women etc, yes. We want to protect rights of women but not at the cost of baby.
When it comes to baby killing (abortion), it is not at all acceptable to us.
CW, come to America. (Oh, you are already here.) You know, within the Georgian culture, there is a distinct diaspora, as well--this only partially due to the hand of the ex-Soviets still threatening that country.
It seems like some of the extremely talented and educated women who could not stand the strictures of the patriarchal society (ie, one I knew was refused marriage by her partner after a relationship involving pre-marital sex because he needed a virgin for a wife--no matter he 'deflowered' her), being who they are, and wishing to be who they are, came to the United States to become successful professionals with happy personal lives.
Ghandi, the world renowned Indian leader. Now what was his take on civil disobedience and the rights of women?
Not sure about the rights of women. But can only assume Ghandi's position by CW's silence. I know his take on civil disobedience. I'm not so sure Ms. Rosa Parks and Ghandi didn't ride the same bus in grade school.[kidding]
But what was Ghandi's views on woman and whether they should or should not have rights?
Civil disobedience was a tool that was used with tremendous efficacy by Mahatma GANDHI. But apparently, his views on it are already known. About Ms. Rosa Parks,alas, my knowledge is limited. What I know is that the year Ms Rosa Parks was born (1913) is the year Gandhi landed back in India from South Africa. One striking similarity is that both started their struggles on being refused seats in public transport (Gandhi in a train, and Rosa Parks in a bus)!
About Gandhi's views on women, well I guess a full hub may do some justice to that. One can say they were "suitably eclectic" for a person of his time and situation. In brief:
# About regressive systems in Indian society, especially those against women: "it is good to swim in the waters of tradition, but to sink in them is suicide".
# Seclusion of women: "Why is there all this morbid anxiety about female purity? Have women any say in the matter of male purity? We hear nothing of women's anxiety about men's chastity. Why should men arrogate to themselves the right to regulate female purity? It cannot be superimposed from without. It is a matter of evolution from within and, therefore, of individual self-effort".
# Prostitution: "It is a moral leprosy. The beast in man has made the detestable crime a lucrative profession"
# Relationships: "Woman is the companion of man, gifted with equal mental capacities. She has the right to participate in the very minutest details in the activities of man and she has an equal right of freedom and liberty with him. She is entitled to a supreme place in her own sphere of activity as man is in his".
"Woman must cease to consider herself the object of man's lust. The remedy is more in her hands than man's. She must refuse to adorn herself for men including her husband, if she will be an equal partner with man".
# Marriage. He advocated monogamy. "Marriage is a sacrament imposing discipline on both the partners, not a license for physical union".
# Widowhood: "Men have ordained perpetual widowhood for women and conferred on themselves the right to fix marriage with another partner on cremation-ground itself".
# Politics: It has to be seen in the number of his women followers, luminaries like Sarojini Naidu and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur. What is perhaps not widely known is that he had a vision of who should be the first prime minister of India (somewhat to the horror of his political proteges): An innocent, Dalit girl from a slum of New Delhi.
Henry- We went on a mini weekend vacation to a place nearby and couldn't get back to you earlier.
Sid- Thanks for that explanation and even I couldn't have explained as well as you did.
Lita- Thanks for those kind words.
I had to write some lesson plans for high school students on Ghandi, so my knowledge comes from that research--
He recognized the innate equality of both sexes as a matter of truth (or Satya). His wife was far less educated than him, but he strove to treat her with fairness and equality throughout his life.
Now I'm looking at wikipedia-- and it seems his views on sex (in my opinion) were a bit weird and controversial-- like, sexual relations are impure and he was striving to overcome that drive, but that is besides the point... Control, dominance and violence have nothing to do actually with sex in reality--but a lack of integrity, frankly, with those who would use it.
A really beautiful movie by an Indian-Canadian female director is "Water." It haunts you for a long time.
Yes Lita, his views on sex are actually very weird. But I guess there may be reason for that. Actually, he was nursing his father very diligently when he(his father) was on his death bed. Overcome by a sudden sexual urge, he went to his wife in their bedroom. While he was in the act, there was a knock on the door, and he was informed of his father's death. He felt forever guilty that he could not be on his father's side in his last moments. Late, when he was in South Africa, he and his wife decided, with mutual consent, to practice abstinence for the rest of their lives.
There are two books I would like to recommend if you are interested in learning more about MK Gandhi: 1) Freedom at Midnight by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, and 2) My Experiments with Truth, the Autobiography.
I really appreciate your input in this conversation, and I think CW will appreciate it, too.
I am sorry. I have actually supported what new republican wrote.
All those mothers who want to kill their baby should first think why that baby has come. What wrong have they done? For their wrongdoing, should a baby die? Before killing that baby, think why not kill yourself? If the baby dies, the mother will repeat the same. If the mother kills herself, it can be termed as suicide and not murder.
The sad fact is that this topic is even in discussion. Don't mistake me, I believe civil discourse essential to a civilization's growth. But have we strayed so far that we are allowing the murder of millions of children? This is not a political issue it is an issue related to the very fabric of the American nation. My gut turns every time I see a picture of a baby and think about the millions murdered that should have had the same chances we have. How can you look at the picture of an aborted baby and not simply know how wrong it is. Science has routinely proved that a baby immediately has a brain wave and its own pulse.
Having civil discourse with someone like you who calls abortion "killing children" or "murdering babies" is impossible. If you really want to have civil discourse I suggest you stop using such inflammatory and innacurate terms. Abortion is not murder and embryos and zygotes are not babies, let alone children.
Johnb, I notice that you are from the great state of Texas which is renowned for many things one of which is for being the capital punishment capital of the U.S. I hope I can safely assume that you are working as hard to ban capital punishment as you are to ban abortion??
They are indeed children. It has been scientifically proven that they have brain waves. Such brain waves indicate the simplest level of thought.
In some things you can presuppose a conviction, but in some cases civil discourse must be held regardless of one's perception of tone in a typed paragraph online.
Exactly how do "scientifically proven brain waves," make them children?
And I think Ralph's point is that you are not even attempting to have civil discourse, because that involves using civil language. So rather than advocating a return to slavery and forcing women to be raped by their fathers and forcing women to produce deformed babies against their will and raping underage girls to increase consumerism why don't you try have a discussion using civil language instead? Then it might be called civil discourse.
To change the subject slightly to stem cell research whose supporters don't accuse opponents of murdering or slaughtering or giving a death sentence to people whose afflictions with Huntington's or diabetes or Lou Gehrig's or spinal cord injuries by opposing possible cures for these dreadful diseases. In contrast to abortion, these discussions are carried on in a reasonably civil way.
BTW, Alexius, what's you position on capital punishment. Does your concern for the sanctity of life extend to possibly innocent people on death row?
How can a 3 cell zygote or early embryo have brain waves without a brain? Please explain. Zygotes are not children. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? You are using language incorrectly and inflammatorily.
Another impediment to civil discourse is that many anti-abortion proponents persist in calling those who support a woman's right to choose "abortion supporters." This is not an accurate characterization, because supporters of a woman's right to choose also support various efforts to reduce the number of abortions such as comprehensive sex education in public schools, making contraceptives more readily available, making morning after pills more readily available and so forth, measures that are opposed vociferously by anti-abortion activists with the result that the number of abortions is actually increased. Calling someone who believes that abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor an abortion supporter is analogous to calling a Christian Scientist a cancer or heart attack supporter.
You are answering the question by the terms you use. Many people do not believe that recent embryos are babies, or children.
I also think, although I wouldn't swear to it, that pulses don't come in to the picture until 7 - 8 weeks' pregnant.
Any suggestions? How is a "civil discussion" possible with people who call abortion "murder" and refer to it as "killing children" or "murdering babies." Legal abortion is not murder and embryos are not babies, let alone children. Don't you agree?
If your comment refered to my unkind remark to Mr. Commenus, I thought better of it and while I was in the process of editing it another anti-abortion fanatic replied to my original post. Apologies to AlexiusComnenus, although, upon reflection, he doesn't really deserve one after calling doctors who perform abortions and women who have them murderers.
Just a thought. What exactly is abortion? Is it the same a killing newvborn babies? What is the difference?
Just define those and start from there.
The difference is that a zygote or an embryo or an early term fetus is not a newborn baby. And there is a big difference between killing a baby and having an early term abortion or taking a morning after pill. People who use such inaccurate and inflammatory terms encourage whack jobs and make or allow them to feel justified in actually committing murder by shooting doctors and nurses in abortion clinics. In my opinion the use of such terms is not only innacurate use of English, it is irresponsible and as long as were talking about morality, it is immoral.
Are you not doing pretty much the same thing by such broad and sweeping statements? I am against abortion and truly believe that there is nothing to justify having an abortion. I have never picketed aboriton clinics nor have I taken an sniper shots at doctors ro nurses who do abortions.
Who takes morning after pills? Do you have a profile on them?
I would estimate that most smart up to date women (and their partners) have had the occasion to do so. Um, Sex 101?
Do you even know what Morning After Pills are?
Is that profile correct in the majority?
Most couples would know to use protection. Now I don't claim to know the average age of those who use a morning after pill, but it would seem to me that mostly it might be someone whow as out drinking and picked up a man or was picked up and went for a night of sex without really thinking it through.
It all boils down to responsibility.
I don't know much about morning after pills except that there has been opposition from Christian fundamentalists to making them available. As I recall there was a dispute about them during the Bush administration which resulted in the resignation of one of his appointees who disagreed with his position.
I have no doubt that you have never and would never harm a doctor or woman at an abortion clinic. But there are people who have, and my impression is that clerics who allow or encourage their congregations to carry signs referring to abortion as murder or child killing or baby killing are irresponsible because this innacurate, extreme, inflammatory language encourages mentally unstable people to engage in acts of violence which they might not commit if such language had not been used. I support the First Amendment rights of people to put whatever they want on their picket signs, but I don't think it's an effective or responsible way of promoting their views on the subject any more than was my lapse into calling AlexiusCommenus an unkind name.
Since your are asking me questions, let me ask you and the other anti-abortion advocates what is your position on capital punishment. Am I correct in assuming that you oppose capital punishment as strongly as you oppose abortion?
Capital punishment is a different issue altogether. a zygot, fetus, baby, has not harmed anyone at all. On the other hand prisoners who had murdered and raped have done harm and judgment must be made in some form or other.
Not sure exactly where I stand on capital punishemnt overall, but I think in some cases it is more justified than others. Of course then you have the whole deal of justifying killing another human being. When is it "just" to kill?
It seems to me that someone who believes so strongly in the "sanctity of life," to be consistent, should also be opposed to capital punishment. However, I've never seen anyone in front of Father Coughlin's Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, Michigan, picketing against capital punishment. And I don't recall any of the great evangelical protestants taking a position on the issue either. The fact that innocent people have been executed should be reason enough to oppose capital punishment. Why not let God be the judge?
God is the judge. He handed down judgments all through the Bible.
Did Jesus advocate capital punishment? What happened to "Judge not that ye not be judged?" Seems to me that both issues involve the taking of a life, according to your theory at any rate.
It's past my bed time with a final comment. I have absolutely no objection or lack of respect for people who oppose abortion on religious grounds or moral belief. They have a perfect right to do so. And I have a perfect right to disagree. My only objection is to the inflammatory and innacurate language some of them use. I object to this as a pedant because it is an misuse of the English language, but more importantly because it is inflammatory and incites violence against doctors and women exercising their lawful rights.
Judge not Lest ye be Judged.
I wrote that hub a few weeks ago. It tells more of the full picture than just one singled out verse.
This is my last post tonight. It is past my bedtime. I will check in later in the day.
Lita, I have read and commented opn LondonGirl's hub about abortion . I also wrote a hub on the issue of abortion myself. If you are interested in reading it, let me know.
Something I have noticed for a while is that men are far more likely to take the black and white view in relation to abortion, and women more likely to see infinite shades of grey.
Of course, there are women who do the whole "abortion is murder and a holocaust", but they appear outnumbered.
I wonder why this is?
It is a complete mystery to me that men should ever think their opinion matters in this issue, unless they happen to be doctors directly involved with a woman's health during pregnancy. There have always been abortions. There always will be abortions. Any legislation on the matter -- whether outlawing or legalizing it -- is relatively recent.
Men who see infinite shades of grey know better than to join these discussions, except (as now) to explain why we don't join these discussions...
Well ... Ralph, I do happen to believe it's wrong, that it is alive and needs to be protected ... we see people getting more upset about whales and tigers than pre-born humans ... if it's legal it's wrong, if it's illegal it's wrong... if people use highly emotive words, it's because they're emotional about it.
I'm done discussing it in general for the purpose of changing the laws ... it was wrong before Roe v Wade and it's still wrong, so messing with the laws is pointless. Making it illegal won't stop it. But that doesn't mean I like it being "legal".
Arguing legality or lack thereof is pointless, while there are so many deaths ... so I put my energy into addressing the individuals facing the issue ... ie I volunteer my time and energy at a clinic that helps women by giving pre-natal care, adoption assistance, community support for keeping their child, emotional support etc. Helps them care for the baby after they're born etc.
There's still choice involved, but the choice for life is more practical and attractive. I do these things because I believe abortion is murder. I believe it is killing children and I also believe that no amount of arguing about it and making emotional appeals will convince some people I'm right... while I'm arguing babies are dying ... it's a waste of time.
Using viscous words won't help because some women will make "the other" choice. Not life.
When women have made the irrivocable choice and need help coping with it ... that ministry is there as well, no condemnation, but no cover up either ... just healing and forgiveness.
Since I am the web master for the clinic, I repel about 1 attack a week launched by our political enemies on the web site ...either by anti-christian groups or by pro-abortion groups.
They are not trying to help women, they want to tear us down.
So while the discussion will go on and on, my advice to my pro-life friends is stop arguing and volunteer at a women's resource center. Make the choice for life more attractive and watch the change in attitude of your community. Laws reflect the heart of the people. Change hearts by having a tender heart and watch what happens.
Kudos to you for your volunteer work BDazzler. You are right too. It doesn't matter what party gets elected they have no intentions of repealing Roe v Wade. While the Obama administration extends the culture of death with plans to include late term abortions our only recourse is to support young mothers and families like you are doing.
Count me in as well. I think what BDazzler is doing is admirable. However, don't count me in on what Obama "extending the culture of death." I would be willing to bet that there will be fewer abortions under the Obama administration than under Bush because he will be doing more to prevent unplanned pregnancies.
Not sure Ralph, to me this looks more complicated than that, and I won't bet on the moment when fetus/baby gets consciousness. I do believe state should stay away from this, though.
I just wanted to remind that calling your opponent names does not help to get your point across
You are right on the last point. What do you think is more complicated? And as I pointed out Mr. Commenus is the one who is calling names--doctors who perform abortions and women who have them "murderers." In my book a murderer is worse than a cretin.
Well, unfortunately, though I would never call a young kid a name, Ralph has a point. It is completely impossible to have any kind of discourse with those who have been preached to since, probably, birth.
If anybody wants the scientific facts (which I doubt they do), or the cultural or historical realities (which I doubt they do), they can be supplied. It will not make a difference, however.
Calling women or doctors who perform abortion 'murderers,' frankly, is far worse, in all actuality, than calling somebody a 'cretin.' But nobody cares about that.
Lita, I was not saying neither good or bad, I was saying about help getting point across or hurts it. Granted, calling doctors names does not help either
And that might be inaccurate, too. And obviously attached to moralistic judgment that can be inaccurate.
This whole thing is such a bloody insult to women! (And men, too.)
And you're absolutely right, it does boil down to responsibility. The right kind of responsibility.
Wow, Ralph--look what you started... Oh, well, I'll save any more for a hub on abortion if I ever get to it. The whole thing was thought about and decided long ago for me. But obviously this is still an issue.
"I don't know much about morning after pills except that there has been opposition from Christian fundamentalists to making them available. As I recall there was a dispute about them during the Bush administration which resulted in the resignation of one of his appointees who disagreed with his position."
They are now available over the counter (or should be) in most states. They were once only available only by prescription, and in some states not at all. Of course a product of paternalistic morality--or whatever you want to call it. Many, many, many situations may be among the reasons that all kinds of different women and their partners might decide to use such birth control. Not just getting drunk and screwing someone (which is a huge insult to all women.)
Sir Dent doesn't know what the pills are, I would reckon.
HubPages, Ralph's post is lost in cyber space somewhere, Can you find it?
I imagine the same issues that were going on early Saturday are still going on.
I feel that since the Morning After Pill is now available to be easily used (what it amounts to is a high level of the same hormones found in regular birth control pills), there will no longer be as much prevalence of regular D&C (dilation and cuterage) abortions--ie, surgical.
Morning After Pills are taken within the first 72 hours (or 3 days, I believe) of any kind of sexual 'accident'--could be unprotected sex, could be failed birth control, could be, lol, a partner not very uh, confident. Anything. What it does is to stop the implantation of yep, a zygote into the lining of the uterus if fertilization has occurred during the single act of intercourse. That is the reason hard-core pro-lifers take issue with it, usually. Because it is birth control, possibly, after sperm has met egg.
This kind of birth control was not always available, of course.
And there are extremely varied reasons a woman would have an abortion. London Girl, here on hubpages has been very upfront on her decision to have an abortion. She has written a hub about it, in fact. Some reasons, in fact-- in my opinion, may be the most moral of choices.
I think that's right, but I have a vague idea that the sooner the better - the success rate lowers over time.
I have indeed - a difficult decision, but not the wrong one (I still think). And I have the defininte advantage of still being alive to think about it, which would not necessarily be the case had I not.
Coming into this discussion quite late -- not sure if Sir Dent and Ralph Deeds are even still online. Lita, you still here?
As long as men and women have been engaging in sexual relations -- which, of course, is as long as there have been men and women -- there have been unintended pregnancies. It's a fact of life. And there have always been methods (legal or otherwise) to "take care of" such pregnancies.
You can be completely responsible with your birth control and it can fail. It happens, and it's not all that rare, either. People are fallible. They have sex because it feels good, not always with the intent of creating life. They take risks and sometimes they lose. Some people are simply ignorant of the "facts of life" but have sex anyway. Good reason why we should be teaching the subject in school -- so kids will understand that when they engage in sex they could very well become parents. Just what we need, more babies having babies.
I find it very, very interesting that the only people on this forum arguing against legal abortion are men. Obviously you have never been pregnant. Obviously you have never been through the sheer terror of a late or missed period. Obviously you don't know what it feels like to have to make the decision to carry a baby to term -- with all that implies -- or to have an abortion. It's a gut-wrenching decision that is NOT made lightly by any woman.
In cases of rape or incest I can't believe that anyone would argue that the woman shouldn't be entitled to reclaim her own womb. She's already been victimized. Now she should have to carry the baby for 9 months and give birth? Just like that??? Excuse me, you have obviously never given birth, either. It ain't no picnic even if you're overjoyed to be bringing a wanted child into the world.
And what about cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy? Shouldn't she (and her husband/partner) have the right to decide whose life to save? Why should it automatically be the fetus?
But the bottom line is this. Early term abortions are not killing "children." At that very rudimentary stage of development, the fetus has literally 0% chance of surviving outside the mother's womb. It is not an independent being. IT HAS NOT YET BEEN BORN. It is still part of the mother's body. As such, it should be the woman's choice. And if the choice is made illegal, it won't stop women from getting abortions (as they have done for centuries). It will only make those abortions more dangerous -- in some cases fatal -- for women. Do you want the blood of those women on your hands??? I know I don't.
Thank you, MM. I'd gone offline to go to bed! But, yes. I find it very interesting indeed that it is all men arguing against legal abortion (and also am thankful for the men here who do support the right to choose). I cannot help but think that they don't have a full grasp on the, er, real life 'issues,' among other things, as you have done a good job outlining.
I agree with both you and MM.
Being pregnant isn't always a barrel of laughs. I was delighted to be pregnant with my now 3 year old son, and overjoyed when he was born. I was a perfectly healthy, happy 27 year old. But I threw up every day, often several times a day, for the entire pregnancy. And went to the loo all the time, and had backache, and looked like something Greenpeace would try to chuck back in the sea (I avoided beaches, just in case....)
All that sort of thing is one kettle of fish with a wanted pregnancy, but quite another otherwise.
To me, it is simply a matter of how over-populated the world is.
Well, in that case, why stop at the pre-born?
The actual (final?) solution has already been postulated:
http://www.americanliterature.com/Jacks … ttery.html
It's just as logical. And just as humane.
Who decides, (exactly) when a foetus is really a child, or not? Cosidering that every one of us alive right now, started exactly the same way. We (of course) were not aborted.
How many wonderful, incredibly superstar humans never got the chance to "BE", through someone elses decision?
What percentage of abortions are really neccessary, vs the ones for simply convenience? I doubt if the two were anywhere near one another, (ie 50:50 or the like)
Try looking up fetus and child in any dictionary. They aren't the same any more than a chicken egg is a chicken. Traditionally, a line has been drawn by some at the point that a fetus is likely to be viable outside the womb. I'm not sure where that is currently. Medical technology has been moving viability earlier and earler in pregnancy.
Each of us also started life as a twinkle in our fathers' eyes.....
<sings> every sperm is sacred.... <stops singing, to general relief>
"While the Obama administration extends the culture of death"
You gonna tell me when I can die as well?
"Culture of Death" is also over the top language. Has anyone the facts on the actual number of late term abortion performed and for what reasons? Does anybody know what the procedure is even, and why it might be performed? Using this this language towards the Obama Administration is such a stretch, if he were not a public figure it could be considered libelous.
And I'm sorry, and I'm sure BDazzler means well, and for some women it may (definitely a MAY) even help. However, there are and will be many others who have the information they need, make their own choices, live with their decision and feel they have made the most moral choice possible in having an abortion in their circumstances. It is NOT and should not be a paternalistic, "oh, the poor woman, we will help her to make her choice and deal with the circumstances." That is again, an insult to all women, and to the the partners who support them through their choice. Not to mention situations of great medical necessity I won't even go into here.
You are the one being insulting and conescending on several levels.
Come on BD - You have made it pretty clear that you are only interested in helping those women who have been cajoled/threatened/guilt-tripped into giving birth.
So, I think Lita's assessment is not far off. You have an agenda. You try to persuade women to do what you have decided they should do for whatever reasoning you decide to use. Kudos for helping them after wards, but talk about paternalistic and condescending........
I mean - what happens if they don't find adoptive parents. You look after the baby for 25 years? No - I didn't think so.
Yeah, I'm beginning to see exactly how you became as you are, Mark, . This is my first encounter that I really feel was something of a personal attack. I just don't see, honestly, how this argument can ever be an argument between equals, even--because of its very nature.
MM--Choice IS the operative word. And if the religious want to counsel in their own communities, that is fine by me. As long as it does not effect my rights.
I do think that Bdazzler's work is valuable. He's putting his money where his mouth is, and I'm sure there are women who need and benefit from this type of help.
I'm sorry if I am, but this is indeed how I assess the situation. The personal is political, to state a well-known feminist saw--and so maybe you should know both my little sisters have had abortions, and both would have been extremely insulted if they would have had to listen to any 'counseling' of any religious nature (as would their partners) in their situations.
I think you 'may' read my 'condescension' as perhaps a woman who knows her own mind, the facts, where she stands and for what reasons and you perhaps are not comfortable with that. As I said, I don't need the paternalistic rhetoric. I have never in my time on hubpages (or in real life, either) been considered 'insulting,' so I will take that as an insult, .
And just for good measure, can anybody state the number of partial birth abortions performed per year and for what reasons they would be performed?
The operative word in the discussion and the issue is and should remain CHOICE. Whatever assistance and support we as citizens of the US or our states or counties or cities or churches or whatever can offer in the area of reproductive options, so much the better. This starts, as Lita says, with comprehensive sex education. When an unintended pregnancy occurs, the mother (and father) should have access to counseling so they know all the available options and can make the most appropriate choice for them. Without coercion.
Without guilt or shame.
I believe adoption is a wonderful, wonderful alternative. But it's not for everyone.
There are still lots and lots of women having babies who have no business having them. I work with a lot of parolees. All addicts. Almost all have had their kids taken away by CPS. Oh yes, and they almost all have large broods. This is a good situation for
a) the mothers
b) the kids
c) society that is supporting both the mothers and the kids -- separately
I also have to pipe up on the issue of capital punishment. It seems to me hypocritical in the extreme for the same people who oppose abortion to favor putting convicts to death. I don't know the statistics, but I know that there is a LARGE number of wrongly convicted, innocent people on death row. Those are real people with real lives, not zygotes with "life potential."
I mean, heck, if you carry the argument against abortion to the extreme, you also should be opposing any form of birth control because it nips the potential of a new life in the bud.
by LailaK5 years ago
The 2012 presidential election is approaching! Do you think that the new presidential candidates should support or ban abortion for women of all ages? Why?
by Jackie Lynnley11 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by Kastle4 years ago
What is everyone's opinion on abortion? Should it be legalized that abortion is OK? Or in only certain circumstances? What do YOU think?
by Paul Swendson6 years ago
Is it possible for pro-life and pro-choice people to find any common ground? Too often, the argument becomes fixated on the morality and legality of abortion, which are both worthwhile topics. But in the end, I think...
by Chris Mills4 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
What do you think? Do you think it's okay to wait until you're far enough along in a pregnancy to see if you're carrying a male or a female? And if it's not what you want, get an abortion for that reason alone? I could...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.