Can we please have a discussion about this, not a debate free-for-all against the 'other' side?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9CCpvj6 … dded#t=141
I guess all I can say is...Asher Kade is back!...to suck on the sweet teat of Hubpages...sweater than all others...
awww, my dear fellow...I am now on http://www.allvoices.com/users/AsherKade
most works being that of hub pages until a couple of weeks from now when new material arives in my head. as I said prior, I am only contributing to the enrichment of forums, which obviously lack a little intelligence and great morals.
No reproductive care does not mean abortions. Reproductive care for women includes: pap smears, prenatal care, HIV/STI testing treatments and cures, vaccine services, breast exams, mammogram referrals, vaginal infection testing and treatment, HRT, birth control consultations, treatment for incontinence, treatment for various reproductive conditions such as ovarian cysts or uterine fibroids, emergency contraception, resources, referrals, and patient education and even more.
So, where does abortion come in in the health care system?...it is not part of what pro-choice call reproductive care?
Yes, it is a part of "reproductive care" but reproductive care does not equal abortions. In regards to planned parenthood, approximately 3% of their health services are abortion services. But the question isn't regarding pro-life/pro-choice. It is "Does abortion=reproductive care?" and the answer is No. Abortion services are one portion of women's reproductive care, while there are many many other services that women's health incorporates.
ok, so I do not want to pay for abortions, but I do agree to pay for other reproductive care for other women and that is my right of conscience.
I have no problem allowing all the other people that want to pay to help women get abortions do so...that is their right.
It would not be so hard to make that distinction within a health care system...it makes no sense for people to argue about this point...all have the right to their conscience.
Do you think that all of a sudden you will be paying for abortions? Currently 1/3 of Planned Parenthood's funds are through government grants.
Yes, it is a shame it has taken this long for everyone to become aware that their taxes have been used against their conscience in what they consider an extreme.
but back to the point, it seems like a good idea to me to allow people the right to their conscience now that they have found out what they didn't know before.
The problem is that once the tax money is out of your hands, the government can and will do whatever they want with it. Since our politicians have to get reelected, it's not beyond the pale to see some of them pushing to use some of that money to pay for abortions because some, many or all of that politician's supporters may also support unlimited abortions. That's when you start hearing about rights and sexist conspiracies and women's right to control their bodies, etc. What was once a personal decision has now become this political weapon of mass destruction that will end up God knows where, doing God knows what kind of damage to politics, society, etc.
Unwanted foetus could rather be defined as a disease.
I'm not going to justify an unwanted pregnancy as a "disease" sorry.
No ,it should not be defined as such. Strange thing to say btw.
The choice to abort a fetus is a personal decision. The problem is that under some universal healthcare plans those would be paid for by tax funded insurance. In other words we all would be forced to pay for abortions. That's problematic. Some people are seriously opposed to abortion and forcing them to pay for something they are that opposed to will not bear sweet fruit. If you think things are contentious now wait until you start hearing stories about sex change operations, boob implants, abortions, etc. being performed. It might not happen today or next year or even ten years from now. When you make something free, sooner or later you'll never be able to meet the demand because the demand for free is infinite.
So what's your plan? Take a poll?
The point is, 97% of those funds are not for surgical or abortion procedures. Planned Parenthood is responsible for much much much more.
How would you like the government to allocate funds based on conscience?
Some people are ok with women having abortions for medically necessary reasons just not as a method of birth control. So then take that 3% and take out the women who use the procedure for a medically necessary reason.
No, I don't think the government should allocate, I think they could give us the choice, vote yes, my taxes can go toward abortion, OR no, my taxes can not go toward abortion except to save the life of the mother (which is an extremely rare case)
I wish everyone else could accomplish half as much
it's like, why can't we have the choice to see that our taxes goes in the direction we want on the big issues? I think it would be good for our system for people to decide what they think, openly and freely without judgment.
I want my taxes to pay for abstinence education and sex education...then youth will have clear choices while they decide how they want to act in life.
It is so ridiculous to fight about who is right and who is wrong...let people choose from clear and non-judgmental choices
which brings me back round to Planned Parenthood's definition of reproductive care...do they promote abstinence as a choice?
I don't want my taxes going toward a biased system.
I have to admit, I am ignorant on what they offer...I am coming round to learning how to find the common ground on issues and about what I used to call the "other side".
Why didn't they know this before?
It is available in black and white. And has been.
The nature of true democracy means sometimes having to eat shit on something you believe in in the name of compromise.
Conservatives hate abortion funded by tax dollars because it "kills babies."
Liberals hate their tax dollars funding our military doing "what needs to be done" abroad because, ultimately, that kills babies too.
Both sides want to condemn baby killing in some instances, but are okay with it in others. It's not really about baby killing so much as it's about how well you formulate the language with which you talk about what you are okay with letting get done.
We're all hypocrites. The only thing worse than being a hypocrite is calling other hypocrites out for hypocrisy.
Although you are usually right on target and always eloquent about it, Shades, on this one....eehh.
I think perhaps you have to be a woman, ie, to fully appreciate the situation.
I think you might have missed my point, or, perhaps more likely, I said it poorly, Lita.
What I meant is that, both sides accuse one another of baby killing. Each side defines what constitutes baby killing, and has a logic and passionate, deeply abiding belief in why "their side" has justification. Neither side will allow the other side any "truth," because it is an emotional, passionate, spiritual/patriotic... intangible set of morals that abides outside of reason despite how totally "obvious" the logic of either opinion is depending upon where the OPINIONS lie.
I'm not judging either side. Frankly, I see both sides, from both sides, meaning, I totally get all four sides. If I were a woman, I would not want to give birth to a child I did not want.. would not want to carry for nine months and feel growing in me something that was possibly runious to me.. or worse, an abomination.. depending on how/why it was conceived. On the other hand, I can see how, if I believed in supernatural creatures/beings who passed judgment on us and to whom we owed eternal salvation assuming we follow rules etc, I would not be willing to dash that relationship or risk His/Her/It's wrath. That would be "wrong" by divine decree. I get it.
Same for the war thing... I get preservation of our culture; us vs. them... I'm animal enough to even go, "Hell, yeah, screw them bastards!" from time to time. But I also know that, for all the "screw them" on our side, is equal and opposite "screw them back" on their side. Governments and faiths create hate that one on one knowledge never supports, ever. People are people. I get all of that.
My point was larger, more removed ... perhaps too much so, in my isolate, observing artist world.
I know that was long, but, I value your opinion, so, thought I would make another stab at saying what I meant.
Yeah, , I better understand where you are coming from...and how you are approaching this.
But how do I explain the feeling of not being allowed to control things that are fundamental to your life and person? Sex and your own body? Because I think this is what the quote, quote, 'life' stance represents to women.
War? Well, yeah...see what you are saying...and you are right about the usual break down of sides. To me it is apples and oranges, though, and although I'm generally peaceable, I wouldn't classify myself as a pacifist. Defensive actions are sometimes necessary.
Like when the most innocent and vulnerable are under attack...
I think you get at the heart of it... with the "feeling of not being allowed to control things that are fundamental" to life and person. What makes the two connect for me is that. And again, as an observer more, I see how furious and impassioned people get when control of their lives is taken from them.
-- If control of your body is taken from you, it is infuriating.
-- If control of your soul/spirit is taken from you, it is infuriating. (This requires belief in a soul/spirit, which, as you know, I don't buy into quite like the religionist do, but I recognize the existence of that and count it as "real" given that it is clearly real to them.)
Therein lies where I see the parallel. But, yet again, I view it from a certain distance and it seems that some value one more than the other, and neither side is quite willing accept that the feelings of their "opponents" (for lack of a better term... or too lazy to seek it). It's as if one side just is incapable or unwilling to believe that the intensity of that "other" belief/value is as powerful/important/compelling/moral as the one that fuels such fire in their own hearts.
From the outside perspective, both sides are furious about the lack of control... about having to bear to outrage of unfathomable wrongness put upon them, or having to bear the outrage of being responsible for outrage put upon others. To me, that creates a symmetry of outrage that should provide common ground and yet, perplexingly, does not.
"Control" of what you can do with your body is restricted for EVERYONE.
The fact of the matter is--there is, for lack of a better term, a middle ground (though that term is actually incorrect in usage...but most people understand it this way, so I'm using it) for both these extremes, and MOST people fall into that category, frankly, as far as belief on either sides of these issues.
I'd also say that your words highly echo the language of our current president, who actually won the office by trying to collapse these dualisms semantically and was somewhat successful in it, .
I have a serious issue, however, with certain posters who create extremism (and if you will, verbal violence), simply by their own lack of knowledge (and obvious true lack of interest, or they would present themselves better), or categorically untrue statements. Anybody who doubts this should please read my hub on doublespeak...which includes the inhumane use of language. Frankly, I feel those who use such language don't deserve to be spoken to on the same level as I would address others.
The information they'd have me give them, or 'debate' is available on the internet for those who seek it. If a college freshman/sophomore can figure out the various stances and arguments for and against (which is when I did it), then these 'adults' can do that, too. I'm not THAT interested in adult remedial education, .
The fact of the matter is, abortion, in a long past history (and this has been covered in length, I believe by other intelligent posters here, such as Sweetiepie) has been sanctioned by common law and use, not to mention even sanctioned in most religions (including and especially the early Catholic church), to the third trimester or 'quickening' stage of a fetus. Viability is an important reference point, it would seem, in most people's understanding.
Suggestions/statements that a woman (most women...whatever), would terminate or have the choice to terminate a pregnancy a few days before it is due I find disgusting on so many levels I feel no need to say anything. Seems to me that is a statement, perhaps, of a potential psychopath--why would anyone answer it? Equally disgusting is the overplay of partial birth abortions as common procedures by the 'life' movement. It's so disingenuous as to be partially a lie--nay, it is a lie.
And as far as war and killing is concerned, sigh, from this vantage point, saying what I just have said, I really see the comparison as something of a false dilemma. Apples and oranges. One issue deals with human beings in my mind (war...and I have said, I'm not exactly a pacifist), and the other with potentiality of life (which exists, frankly, with every act of intercourse). I find the two things really, completely unrelated...except, as you have (as always) eloquently stated, in the minds of those who think in extremes/ black and white.
In the extremely rare case when an abortion is necessary to preserve the life or the medical health of the mother, yes, therapeutic abortion (what it's called in those cases) is a part of reproductive health care.
Elective abortion, what accounts for the vast majority of all abortions, is done mostly for social or monetary rather than medical reasons, so I don't think it strictly qualifies as any kind of health care. Unless non-reconstructive cosmetic procedures such as botox injections count as health care too.
Because no one is going to agree completely on the "right" side of the big issues. If it was up to me, Planned Parenthood would get more money
I added some more to the last post...did you catch it?
Does PP offer abstinence education and sex education?
First one, like I said was just my opinion; second one, there is already thousands of private organizations that support and help fund Planned Parenthood, and in my opinion they should donate even more money (or be more organizations)
Planned Parenthood does have abstinence as a portion of their sexual health presentation and patient education program. In my previous post when describing reproductive care all of the components I mentioned are offered as services/education by Planned Parenthood. That is what makes up that 97%
From what I have learned and seen of Planned Parenthood presentations, they are quite comprehensive with abstinence as a component.
Well, I will just have to check that out. It will be interesting to see what kind of "spin" they have on abstinence. I am sure it will be different than the "spin" of the life-care centers that are pro-life.
Have you studied the pro-life perspective on abstinence?
Umm. Didn't know there was one?
I teach sexual health to college freshman and worked for an Ob/gyn office. Just because someone is pro-life, or a center does abortions doesn't mean they change the definition of abstinence. I'm not sure what you mean.
I think I might. A more pro-abstinence sorce would define abstinence as the best, bar none, for avoiding unplanned pregnancy for the young and unmarried, something people really that determined to avoid pregnancy should practice. A less pro-abstinence source wouldn't disagree with that, but might downplay the benefits of abstinence vs. "safer" sex or portray abstinence as unrealistic or even undesireable.
I agree that opinions don't change what abstinence is. They just can affect what we say it is.
From what I have learned and seen of Planned Parenthood presentations, they are quite comprehensive with abstinence as a component.
colebabie:if I was still contributing to hubs, you would be one of my biggest fans...you absolutely are the most awesome person!!!!!!
you're sweet. I love the forum...kinda...but I;m still writing @
you've seen everything there probably but in two weeks or so I'll have more....Cole....I just didn't like everything that ws going on with hubs...don't be sad!
ir doesn't matter what you are, man or woman,killing ppl, born or unborn is wrong. Close your legs, go on birth control, or give your baby up for adoption. Don't ask me why I feel this way. It's my personal business for my convictions. But believe me when I say I have a strong understanding, grasp, and passion about this.
I am always curious why those who are morally against abortion have no qualms about people dying in battle, or owning assault weapons. In many circumstances a woman's life is in jeopardy unless she obtains an abortion, and how do you determine whose life is more important? A woman should have the right to choose, and it really is none of our business what our neighbors decide on. I may not get an abortion myself, but I deeply believe all women should have this option open if they need it.
People dying in battle are defending their nation with the understanding of possible consequences. People may own assault weapons for various reasons, but neither of them are the most innocent and vulnerable members of society.
The vast, vast majority of abortions are NOT carried out under such conditions, and the vast majority of people who do not support abortion unconditionally are open to (real) life-threatening circumstances.
Of course it is.
All life is vulnerable and important to me. Whereas I do support our country defending itself when needed, to me death is still death. Killing someone in combat or shooting someone breaking into your house is murder, even if you were protecting yourself. Often veterans are very troubled when they come back from war after seeing so much death and carnage, so every human has a degree of vulnerability. Many veterans are paralyzed for life and must use a wheelchair or power chair to get around, so war can make someone vulnerable too. Adults may not be innocent as babies, but all life is valuable to me. I especially like the song by Sting about how the Russians Love their children too.
Today this can be applied to Iranians, North Koreans, or anyone that is considered an opponent. We may not agree with a person's ideology, but life is important in all culture. Of course there are some extreme examples like the Taliban recruiting young people to be terrorists, but even in Afghanistan many women rile against their sons joining these groups. Life still has value, and who determines which life is important than someone else's. I may not agree with abortion on a personal level, but that is my moral choice. You nor I have no right to tell others what they should or should not do with their bodies. We would all do better to stay out of our neighbors' bees wax more often, in my opinion.
On a moral and ethical level it is still murder. Of course in battle you must kill, but if you live according to certain faith based teachings this is still murder. It may not be murder according to your faith, but many still consider any killing to be murder. Self-defense and battle gives you the right to protect yourself, but on a moral level I would not even participate. You see I am a pacifist and I do not believe in killing someone under any circumstances.
Yes it can be according to the faith or beliefs of some people. Some religions such as the Quakers, The Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Amish refuse to take part any any wars because they view all killing as murder. Other people are more secular and do not agree with any type of killing because of their ethics. You may not like that some people feel this way, but you cannot dictate the beliefs of others. Understand?
you never mentioned the baby's rights or what the baby may want or need...
I think that women deserve more support for any and every option, for when they truly feel supported then and only then can they go deep and decide for themselves what to do. too many decisions to abort are made out of fear and lack of support, to the point where their mental health is affected, and that should not be a situation to have to contend with at all.
first and foremost, males and females need more information from all perspectives on making the choice to have sex in the first place. (when its not an abuse situation).
and, even though, like in my case, I would have preferred to have not had a child by a particular father...it was my responsibility to have not allowed pregnancy, had sex with him in the first place, since he wasn't taking any responsibility...
learning to have enough self respect and a sense of responsibility for one's own reproductive power, and individual freedom and strength to say no, is part of that first and foremost information
After reading through these posts I resisted the urge to shoot my mouth off ( I am getting soft) and opted to get a better understanding of the question asked. I first went to Planned Parenthood's website and found this:
"PROTECT WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE
Anti-choice groups have stepped up attacks on women's health. Tell Congress to protect women's health care."
So it seems that they equate abortions to womens health care and define it as such. Clicking on the article brought this:
URGENT: ANTI-CHOICE FORCES ARE HIJACKING HEALTH CARE REFORM
Anti-choice groups are trying to hijack health care reform, jeopardizing women's health for their own political agenda. And this time, the misinformation they spread could result in taking away existing benefits from women and denying them access to the trusted providers of their choice."
Again they suggest that abortion is health care and do not have issue with any other facet of the healthcare debate yet they point to the " political agenda" of others.
How does terminating a pregnancy equate to reproductive care? This is like calling wood burning forestry science.
Additionally I do not quite understand the comparison between guns and abortions other than the emotional espionage used in both issues. I would suspect that many NRA members would agree that there really isn't a need for a gun that shoots 300 rounds per minute to shoot quail. I would also hope that many pro choice people would agree that late term abortions are horrific. The problem is that if anyone gives an inch, the other side will use it as leverage against the whole issue.
The current issue as pertaining to the healthcare reform isn't about the legitimacy of abortion as much as it is about who is going to pay for it.
Why is it that we are supposed to stay out of other peoples business only when they want us to? Why is it my business to pay for someones abortion, pay for their kids education, pay for their clunker to junker, failed mortgage, healthcare, gas bill, education and/or food? I remember seeing a new piece several years ago where a congressman was proposing a law that would limit what types of foods people could buy with food stamps. He wanted to reduce the amount of junk food people were buying. The reporter then asked to obese women if they supported the measure in which they replied " Ain't nobody gonna tell me what kind of food I can buy." What ever happened to the term you can't have the cake and eat it too?
Some lawmakers feel making laws against what people buy with food stamps would help stave off childhood obesity and other abuses of this system. Whereas I do not support that particular legislator's stance as people will find junk food anyway, there is a big difference here. I am proud to stay out of other people's business, and when you try it it makes you happier. Control freaks are never happy because they are constantly foisting their morality on other people. I did not support the war in Iraq, but I did not stop paying my taxes over it. I do not support all the ridiculous additions they make to certain buildings in already affluent communities, but I still pay my taxes. Some people just complain too much, period.
I am much less irritated by having someone try force their morality on me than I am by them expecting me to pay for their lack of it! I still love you baby!
So if you saw someone stab someone else to death in front of your house you would just write it off as their "business" and feel even happier for it? Good neighbor...
I think you are little extreme and lack a bit of common sense. I would call the police like any good citizen in that circumstance. However, if you think about it you know what I mean about staying out of other people's business, and a lot of it has to do with refraining from asking such absurd questions.
How obtuse can you be? When I mentioned staying out of people's business it has to do with their health and bodies, not with criminals. Despite your personal feelings about abortion a woman going to a clinic cannot be compared to a person stabbing others on the street. I do not agree with abortion personally, but you have no control over women obtaining these. Making abortion illegal simply drives women to obtain unsafe conditions where they can get it done. Through out the history of the world women have had used plants from nature to induce abortion, so this has been practiced for along time. In some women's journals they even talked about it as a form of birth control, which most modern women would not do.
Hmmm... woman can't smoke pot, inject heroin, inhale cocaine...
Should they be able to do those things with their bodies as well?
Should they be able to sell a kidney? They can't do that with their body either.
Should they be able to walk around naked at the mall? They can't to that with their body either.
Really, until the pro-abortionists embrace *all* the things that "women can do with their bodies", they are just angling for political power and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Complete hypocrisy.
Since you are not woman this sounds all really biased to me. As I said I personally would not obtain an abortion, but it is a woman's individual choice whether should does or not. All of the narrow agenda reasoning in the world cannot take away that this is a woman's choice, and not yours. I think this makes some men really mad, but that is the simple truth.
And all the insistence in the world cannot change the fact that you are talking about a "choice" that involves more than one person. We are not talking about clipping toenails.
It's all political. They couldn't care less about babies or a woman's choice. When they defend a woman's choice to smoke crystal meth, then I'll start to listen. Until then it's all a hypocritical power grab that panders to the uninformed.
A few of the women here, , are EXTREMELY well informed elitists, Nicomp, and I would wager have seen to it they have read, understood and considered every angle when it comes to this issue.
And it is your extremely biased and uninformed opinion that we don't care about women's choice or babies.
Sorry, you lost me. I'm not sure what point you are making.
I am extremely biased; you'll get no argument from me on that point. I am completely biased toward the life of the baby. I'm also right.
I don't presume to be introducing new arguments here. Obviously the extremely well-informed women here have considered every angle. No one would every imply that the pro-abortionist leaders are stupid or ill-informed. However, they are hypocritical and duplicitous. They know that as well. They don't care about a woman's choice any more than I do. They care about amassing political power by exploiting anyone who will follow them.
a woman does not get pregant by herself. The man should have a say.
Good point. We can extrapolate the abortionists argument; if it's a woman's choice to have the baby, then she has no right to demand child support of any kind. The man gets to choose if he wants to participate.
Of course this concept is nonsense because there's a child's welfare at stake, but it logically follows from the abortionists line of thinking.
I disagree on this one because unless a woman is in a solid relationship with the man she should not be obligated to get his approval. There are so many different circumstances where it would not be suitable for a woman to wait around to get a man's approval, so I believe ultimately it is up to her to decide because it is her body. As I said I do not believe in abortion personally, but I do not believe in owning guns either. If people believe the Constitution supports their rights to gun ownership, free speech, and many other rights, then we have to accept the decision that women make. We may not agree with it, but we have to understand this is their legal right to determine what they do.
If a woman is not in a solid relationship, she should use birth control. I really do understand that many men would not make good fathers. BUT, the baby, is NOT YOUR body. What you choose to do before you get pregnant, is up to you. Condoms, pills, not having sex...all up to you. I completly understand your point, that you personally, would not have an abortion. AND you feel you should not put your decisoin on ohters but, really, no matter how crappy a one night stand is, the guy does have a right to say if his child is killed or not. OBVIUOSLLY..(i cant spell) and I am not talking aobut rape.
I remember reading an article in Newsweek years ago about a married woman who decided to get an early term abortion because her baby had a birth defect. She was Catholic and struggled with this decision, but decided to terminate the pregnancy. I think babies and life are beautiful and I could not do that myself, but ultimately I support the Supreme Court decision in Row vs. Wade, which I do not see being overturned.
I do agree that women that are not in secure relationships should use birth control, but sometimes people are young and naive. Other times birth control has a defective rate, and women end up having to terminate the pregnancy. Most women I have talked to did not get abortions on a whim, and usually only did so when the baby had a major birth defect, or the pregnancy was complicated their health. Abortion is not something people do for fun, and I have to accept that some women want to make this choice. The Supreme Court supports their right, and so I do too. I support your stance, I am just sharing mine.
And therefore the innocent unborn should be sacrificed?
The Supreme Court supports a woman's right to get an early term abortion. If you have read any of my comments you would have seen by now I do not agree with this, but this is their Constitutional right. However, I see you are sticking with your stance, and I know I will stick with mine, so this back and forth is really accomplishing nothing.
You seem to have trouble maintaining focus. I didn't ask about Roe v Wade.
Actually if you know anything about this issue the entire focus is Row vs. Wade, which upholds a woman's right to get a early term abortion under any circumstances.
The right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to shoot and kill anyone who is an inconvenience to you.
Yes, I am biased. We are all biased. It's part of life. If you ever voted in an election, drove past one restaurant to get to a different one, turned down a invitation for a date, then you are also biased. Did you marry the first guy who asked you out?
I'm also smart enough to recognize that you don't have the debating skillz to address my points, so you attack me. It's called an ad hominem attack; you imply that because I am biased, my points are invalid.
Your argument for killing babies is hypocritical and I predict you will again resort to obfuscation rather than attempting to refute my points.
Honestly I find you like to put others down, and then get insulted when they point this out. You demand people to do things, and then try to turn it around. Really I am not impressed by this very rigid world view, and that is not an attack of any kind. You have made it perfectly clear you feel your way of viewing this issue is the only way, and that is not exactly what I would consider stellar debating skills. Also, once again you try to insult my intelligence by saying you see I am not smart enough to debate with you, so get over it.
I am not impressed by any man who has to resort to those put downs. Yes, I believe you are too biased, and there is such a thing as being too biased. I may not agree with everyone's decisions under the stars, but I have enough distance and objectivity not to make their decisions my personal battles. This is my take on these issues only, and ironically I do support your decision to feel differently. You, on the other hand, just resort to your insulting tactics. Of course I am not surprised considering you were the person that emailed me demanding I put a comment capsule on my hub.
Yeah, you know I think you are right with that first sentence, . Still, I don't understand how even a person like that can 'enjoy' the kind of exchanges he has over and over and over again here... Asking questions or whatever. It is mind numbing!
I decided to pitch in my two cents worth despite my obvious liberal lean...I believe that love, respect, nurturing, and health of a child is more important than whether they are alive or not. For example, I don't believe a mother who drags her kid on the floor of a department store or a mother who kills her children should have them in the first place. Of course, I don't believe in abortion, but if a parent doesn't want the child, then it would be in the child's best interest to take it away.
So when your neighbor kills someone and you just look the other way you are happier? Ok.
That is fine dear . However, most people in need of insurance are not even contemplating getting abortions. Many women who had to get abortions, or felt they had too, regret it afterwards. Personally it is a woman's choice because it is her body, and men will never really be able to understand this.
You mean they were alive and had the chance to make choices and feel regret? How wonderful for them.
Since you are not a woman I really think you have no room to speak.
Of course, life is only an issue that relates to women.
When it comes to abortion it only relates to the woman going through it. You really need to get over thinking it has anything to do with you. Of course I will not keep you from participating in your annual abortion rally, but I think you might sway a few more minds by keeping an open one.
I try to put up with his comments, but I have stopped posting somewhat because it is mind numbing. I saw him even going up against people who generally support his more conservatives stances, so the way I see it he really does not care who he alienates. Of course I suppose it is easy to hide behind the face of a cute puppy rather than say these things to people on the streets .
Seroquel might be the answer, .
But, due to its side effects, lol, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
I am not very familiar with this drug, so I would have to read up on it .
Don't feel bad, people on the streets hear the same opinions.
Or maybe "he" doesn't change his opinion based on partisanship? Is that hard to understand?
cant see the video. I do know a few people who have had abortions. I am not going into my personal thoughts on abortion, but I would say they are not good for your reproductive health, based on whats happened to the people I know. So, to answer the first question...no.
ANYWAY! The point...any point...that the "Life" movement has is moot. Check the Supreme Court. Check POTUS.
Check the development of birth control such as Plan B, that will indeed cut down on legal abortion within the first trimester of conception.
I realize this message is a little above the heads of the trolls, what what the heck.
Good point. Obama characterized a baby as a "punishment" during the campaign. He clearly stated that if one of his daughters got pregnant he would not want them "punished" with a baby.
However, he shouldn't even have commented because he's a man.
Your comment about the Supreme Court tickles me. If the Supreme Court reverses itself or if an anti-abortion constitutional amendment is passed, I suspect you'll quickly reverse field on that position.
We are trolls because we disagree with you. ad hominem again.
Incorrect. I have a job to get to... And I'm telling you in all sincerity, you lack basic information. My (lol, paid) time is better spent elsewhere.
But I believe Cole, however, is more than well qualified to fill you in on anything regarding these issues that you would like to know.
Well, yeah. Thanks for remaining a fan. I don't mind disagreement or even fights... As long as you don't go the way of Tksensei, lol
What's up Lita? Yeah... I don't have work until 5
Please, please refute my points. No one has tried, yet. It's tedious to be called names and told I'm uninformed. Teach me something by addressing my points.
And again and again and again and again and again...
It seems to be a favorite fall-back position for some folks who 'feel' strongly but can't support their views.
"I know I'm right but I can't explain it." Oh well.
I'm still open to an explanation. If there's a pro-abortionist out there who can verbalize their position and doesn't consider them self above my question. It's very simple:
Does "A woman's right to choose what to do with her body" extend to smoking crystal meth or selling a kidney? It not, why not?
Does "A womans's right to choose what to do with her body" extend to one day before the due date of the full-term baby? It not, why not?
Well. I will answer your anti-women's rights question.
Should a woman be able to smoke crack? Absolutely. That should be her choice.
Should she be allowed to abort the day before the birth - No.
All you are doing is demonstrating your total lack of education. I am sorry you do not understand the difference between a late term abortion and an early one.
Perhaps if your parents had sent you to school you might have been able to. Oh well.....
Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' ...
Another ad hominem attack from The Troll. is there anyone here who can interact on an intellectual level?
What a christian response. I answered your questions as requested. Oh well..........
Sorry you lack the education. I can help if you like.
Would you like to know the difference?
No - I thought not.
You're nothing if not consistent. I love you just the way you are!
And I love you just the way you are too. We need more like you - The best argument ever. A few more like you and religion will be done with forever.
I meant what I said though - You seem genuinely uneducated and ignorant of science. I know this because you do not seem to understand the difference between a 3 week old fetus and a 9 month old one. Or why it is legal to abort a 3 week old one, but not a 9 month old one. I can help. Really - I think so much about you and feel your pain. Ignorance is not bliss.
I assumed this was because your parents kept you out of the school system to teach you from the bible instead of real facts. I apologize if that is not the case.
I hereby offer to help with your education. And I am sure there will be a few others to jump in and help too. I am sure Lita will help - she is really clever. I know she has a lot of degrees and all - but that is what happens when you get an education.
It is not too late - you can learn. I will help. Honestly - no strings attached.
All you have to do is ask.
I am here for you.
Please use small words. Being a Christian and all, I am obviously baffled by this sciency stuff.
Is this the religion forum? Is this a thread about religion? Please try to manage your fear a little better. Please.
A question to all the well-informed pro-abortion women out there:
do you support "a Womans Right to Choose" on the day before the baby is due?
The baby's due date is tomorrow; it an abortion still the woman's choice?
If you don't, then your position is hypocritical.
I think you are uninformed on the ins and outs and basically, possess no sensible information characterizing the pro-choice movement... And that the question is a little beneath me. Plus, I'm in a hurry.
Do some basic reading. Then get back to me.
Thank you for validating my expectations. You can't debate my points. It's been fun and I learned something. See ya!
PS> Check your profile. I'm still your fan.
Um, wrong. ? Jeez. Some of us do have real jobs. A job, ahem, not to sound elitist, but where I get paid to write and place stories in national/regional magazines. Uhh....what do you think is more important to me, taking part in simplistic arguments on message boards, or going to work?
I'm going to address you, with this, Cole, concerning ad hominem attacks...
Heaven forbid we even mention the logical fallacy, because that's the reason tk started attacking me in the first place--because I would use these terms and try to debate logically.
He doesn't deserve any real replies...but if others want to reply to him, that's fine. It's not in my best interest.
Yep. Your right to swing your fist usually ends at another person's nose. Your right to do whatever you want with your own body should end when it harms another body.
However, the pro-life view actually does acknowledge there is a difference between a 3 week embryo and a full term fetus, as there are differences between infants, adolescents, and adults. What it doesn't acknowledge is any bearing these differences have on a human organism's right to live.
Mark is not a troll. If you think he is a troll, you don't know what a troll is.
You might find him bombastic, mercilessly assertive, sarcastic, supercilious and all sorts of other things that amuse the crap out of me. But he is not a troll by even the most liberal application of the term.
The American Academy of Family Physicians believes physicians should seek to, through extensive patient education and counseling, decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. However, should a woman become pregnant, it is her legal right to make reproductive decisions. Just saying!
Off topic, but enough already.
It seems some people are just unequipped to 'debate' anything. Some people see every opposing point of view as an "attack" or "hatred" or "inhumane verbal violence" ( x 10) that simply must be attributed to gender or "education" or whatever other childish 'how dare you disagree with me!' justification they can think of. This results in pointless whining or even more pointless passive-aggressive whispering into one's sleeve instead of discussing the issue at hand.
Honestly if anyone is whining it is you and Nicomp. Both of you have implied that several people are making ad hominem attacks, when in reality they just have opposing opinions. I really am not insulted by anything you have to say at this point because it is pretty much the same over, over, and over again. Your agenda is a very narrow Republican one without much room for accepting others views on abortion. Both of you have mentioned you hope Row vs. Wade is overturned, and seem fixated on this point.
You are probably a nice person in real life, but you really have little or no idea what an ad hominem attack is. I will try to explain, perhaps someone else will benefit; when a person suggests I have no little education or deficient education in order to belittle my points, that's an ad hominem attack. You see, the appropriate way to gainsay a point would be something such as "I think you're wrong, and here's why" Instead, I get "Your stupid, so you're wrong" or "Your parents didn't educate you, so you're wrong".
What you need to be able to understand is the difference between an attack on the messenger and a refutation of the message.
I am a nice and intelligent person on here and in person. I, on the other hand, am not really worried what you think about me. I know what an ad hominem attack is, and that is not what I am doing. Sorry if you are mad that I am calling you out on your narrow agenda, but you are the one who initiated this by sending me an email demanding I put a widget on my hub. Personally I really do not even care what you think about any issue on here because your opinion is the only one you consider valid.
Now you're drifting again. I never implied in any way shape or form that you were guilty of ad hominen attacks on me or anyone else.
I am truly sorry I commented on your hub. I made no demands, rather a friendly suggestion. Most people include a comment widget on their hubs. If you choose not to, that's fine.
Your last comment, above, shows just how closed-minded you are acting. We practically begged you for information to support your opinion. I was very interested in your opinion and how you formed it. Eventually you admitted that "you" were the source and that ended the discussion.
In a way you have, but I am sorry you did not see this. Noticed you always like to imply I am drifting, but maybe this is a defense mechanism on your part. When my sister was little she used to make us say certain things over again because she liked a certain word or phrase. You seem to have a need for people to act a certain way, but this is a forum and not a movie script. We are people, and I cannot drift as I am not wired to deliver responses that can telepathically determine what you want to hear. I actually support your right to go out and protest this issue, but you in turn need to support the choice of women that feel they are the only ones that have a say when it comes to their sexual health. In other words the woman has the choice and not you.
Fair enough. We will agree to disagree. I think it's a baby and you think it's a potential inconvenience.
Actually if you had read some of what I said I do not think that. I do believe life begins at conception, but I also believe in free will. I refuse to foist my moral beliefs on other people, and since we live in a secular society this is not appropriate. As long as you are not impregnating women that might get abortions this is not something you really should be worrying about. Even in the 1800's Christian American women induced abortions with herbs and other plants, and many did not view this as murder. Just google it and you will see women have been performing abortions for years, but in the past it was seen more as birth control since there were not as many methods as there are now. Most modern women I talk to do not consider abortion birth control, but a drastic measure. Most actually regret it, but I support their Constitutional right to figure this out for themselves.
Free will is everyone's right. You cannot demand or even beg someone to do what you like.
Everyone has the free will to decide what their opinions will be. People are capable of making up their own minds about issues, even if you do not agree with their opinions.
Then I guess that unborn child has the right to live long enough to exercise that free will, huh?
I am talking about people that are old enough to think, walk, and make decisions. As to whether you agree with abortion that is a personal issue.
What if I told you that the belief that life begins at conception is based on biology rather than religion, and that many atheists and agnostics also believe life begins at conception?
Well, I don't know about SP, but I'd ask what your qualifications are to make such an assessment. You know the contents of all (or even most) hearts and minds?
It's a philosophical curiosity for me, that one sort of life is more valuable than another. And, you're right, that it does require some black and white thinking to appreciate the nuance of it.
The rest, my opinion on abortion as a lone issue, seems to run pretty close to yours, so there's no point in just agreeing with you in long sentences. This issue, like most polemics, does always seem to have people piping in who don't do any reading, though, and that is irksome to no end. Too bad their isn't some sort of clause under the 1st Amendment that requires people to inform themselves before they get to speak. A lot times Freedom of Speech really just turns out to be freedom to expose one's idiocy.
Yeah, Shades--the freedom of speech issue is a point of philosophical curiosity for me...and I have a half written hub on it if I ever get around to doing all the required research and reading it needs so that I can finish it. I spend so much time writing things anyway...I suppose coming to the forums is more about interaction.
Again, there is a balancing act between polemics concerning the political right of free speech, too. And I appreciate the points you made, and actually agree with you. My surprise comes in the fact that there seem to be so many who take short cuts in thinking.
Also, I was sorta responding around, and to, a couple people in the post to you...as I'm sure you saw. There is a story behind this, lol, and I don't want to, you know, get banned from the forums. See my one hub on the letter vs. the spirit of the law for a >probably too nuanced<, lol, satire/take on that. ...The sentences are sorta long, but...I don't think too bad.
You remain the master, .
Have you considered that maybe it's because you keep drifting?
You support his right to protest but you demand that he think the way you want him to?
No, but he and you both need to realize legally women can obtain abortions without your consent. You are free to picket about it, or write hubs against it, but women still have the right to choose for themselves.
Good, I don't want you to be.
I don't believe that I have. You should be careful about attributing comments to others.
You and Nicomp seem to share a similar stances on many issues, so it was hard to tell. Sorry I insulted you.
No. MY point is that I am not interested in debating or much talking to YOU, TK. I like people who actually say something, ie...and very much admire somebody who can frame a good verbal argument, with nuance and evidence of having read a couple things...EVEN of an opposing viewpoint. I'd even go so far as to say I think arguing is fun, .
Sorry to say, but I don't find you fun. That's OK, there are plenty other people here on Hubpages that I'm sure find you fascinating...(lol).
If I have said I am not interested in debating you, but I am sure others may want to and find you fascinating, how is that 'ad hominem?'
(Besides the fact you don't like the use of debate terms previously and started to attack me when I did use those terms?)
I am simply saying, NOT interested in debating you...not in my interests. But I'm sure many others are, , look on the bright side!
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah
what was the thread subject again?
ohhh, I remember abortion and reproductive care, have we covered all the pertinent points now?
if you all want to have a debate on what you and how you say what you say, let's start another thread and call it "He said, She said"
My mama taught me that it took greater humility and honor to stop a pointless interaction
^No. I actually saw a site for a group called something like the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-life Leaugue.
OK. I'll buy that. Sure. Can't say it changes anything or my views, though. Cannot speak for SP.
It is always a good thing for someone to learn from a situation. If they something another doesn't agree with or thinks is stupid, they will learn. Just as the other person, hopefully, will learn to be kinder, or more patient, or not so full of themself that they look down upon the other in their ignorance or stupidity.
Learning by real experience is always beneficial...just as much, or more than just reading information.
btw, in my studies of celibacy of monks and nun types of the different mystical orders. The reproductive "seed" of male and female is considered sacred, so maturbation that produces ejaculation in males is not an accepted "pure" action, and the releasing of the egg in females is handled as an honored time...both actions or non-actions as the case may be...are part of the concepts of keeping ones-self pure for the natural energy flow of the "chi" in communion with heaven and earth for the purpose of returning to a transcendent state, in body, mind and soul.
One transcends from the human state to a "higher" state of being...I even heard it referred to as the transfiguration that Jesus went through before his resurrection
so, my connection-point being that as the seed its-self is sacred, so is the act of intercourse and the conception...all being the unique components for bringing forth human life...the ultimate purpose of God...to prosper...
What amazes me philosophically is how otherwise tolerant, open-minded people who wish for a more egalitarian society let themselves get away with segregating one group of living human organisms from the rest, denying their status as living human organisms despite biological evidence, and supporting laws that arbitrarily decide members of this group are not people entitled to human rights.
Maybe it's "black and white thinking" of my own, but if an organism meets the biological criteria for being a living organism, it's a living organism, not a "potential" life. The only organisms that can qualify as "potential life" may be viruses. Anyway, I don't see any difference between an unwanted embryo and a civilian who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time during war, except maybe that the civilian war casualty is less likely to be intentionally killed.
How true. Many pro-abortionsts are strongly opposed to capital punishment. Seems like a bit of a contradiction.
That is because they understand the difference between a 3 week old fetus and a grown man.......
Speaking of contradictions - I notice a lot of religionist anti women's choice people are in favor of capital punishment
Seem almost hypocritical.
Yes, you are now a full 4LOL troll (copyright eric graudins)
I understand that one has is a convicted societal offender and the other is innocent, guilty of nothing but the possibility of becoming inconvenient.
Ah, so you are not "pro-life" as such, more "kill the bad guys and I trust my government so much I believe no one is ever killed on death row who did not deserve it, but save the cluster of cells that has a 50/50 chance of becoming a human being. Not that I want to adopt them or anything," sort of thing.
Bit too long to go on a bumper sticker though.
Odd that you are so against the government you trust to convict and murder your criminals being in charge of health care.
And call your self pro-life.
I didn't give my position on capital punishment. You can do better than making stuff up about me!
Well, excuse me if I leaped to an unwarranted conclusion. Please do tell me what your position is.........
I have, probably in the last 10 years or so, reversed my position on capital punishment. I can't condone it any more.
Honestly, I don't have enough respect for you to get into this any more. I an sick of being trolled by you and attacked for positions that have nothing to do with the thread. You don't present facts, rather you launch unsupported personal attacks that do not advance the discussion in any way. It's a pattern I see from you across all the forums.
You insist on injecting your fear of religion into every discussion and it's become tedious. If your goal is to annoy, you have succeeded. Have a good one.
I admire how you can cut to the chase. Yep, that says it straight on.
Nobody is denying that having an abortion is not killing an embryo. At least not me, and not those, I don't think (obviously you can be engaged, and have low information) who understand the issue. Nobody is denying that the choice to have an abortion isn't a decision that needs to be entered into after personal reflection--therein the crux--'personal reflection and choice.' As Naomi Wolf has stated, using Jewish principle and thought (and I'm sorry but the actual term escapes me), there is sometimes the idea of the 'best good,' or the between two wrongs, choosing the the greatest good.
But the point is, what we are talking about is an embryo and not a fully functioning human being. Common law and religious law broadly speaking (I'm talking about the mainstream and that which has been put into the canons accepted academically and institutionally, etc. and from which policy has generally been determined, and not other religious or spiritual beliefs hinted at necessarily) has NEVER recognized a nonviable embryo and accorded it the same rights as a human being. Just a fact.
Scientifically/biologically speaking, also, 30-60% of embryos are spontaneously aborted within the first trimester. This is nature's way of ensuring, often, that pregnancies that will probably not make it to term due to problems genetically, etc., do not do so. So it would seem nature/God would sometimes have a simpler logic than what some people would enforce on each other.
The issue also cannot be treated with the same thinking as towards a war casualty victim because it involves something so personal and fundamental as reproductive and bodily freedom for women and privacy issues.
Hundreds of thousands of non fully functioning human beings are delivered via natural child birth each year. My daughter was not fully functional when she was born 8 weeks early. Left to her own devices, she was not viable.
She starts high school next week. She took the pre-ACT college entrance exam as a 6th grader and scored in the 98th percentile of everyone who took the test that year.
She functions pretty well these days.
I shudder to think what would have happened if the fully-functioning human being pro-abortionists had been in the room when she was delivered.
That makes absolutely no sense. It was you and your wife's choice to have your daughter.
You take words and whole ideas out of context.
I'm sorry, but I for one like to speak to someone who at least understands what I'm talking about. If you are not trolling for effect, then seems to me as the above statement pronounces that you must live with a lot of fear or something... Sorry for it, but this kind of fear isn't the issue under address here.
If it makes no sense to you, then we have no common ground to continue this discussion. We will agree to disagree. I was using your terminology: "fully functioning human being." The issue is perfectly clear to me and I suspect you feel the same way. We both tried.
You state/imply that an 'abortionist' upon delivery of your daughter would have killed her. That's just...I'm sorry...ridiculous.
It is ridiculous rhetoric. Inhumane language. Out and out falsity.
And of course we can agree to disagree. But lets not pretend you addressed or even understood what I was saying... And yeah, a difference/outlook that fundamental, to me says I waste my time talking about it, which I said before.
It also says you are lack information about the issue and the laws of the land. What I'd say is there is absolutely a time and place for Mark Knowles approach, . He got it right.
The largest actively pro-life religious organizations in the world also oppose the death penalty. They do not believe that one's level of development and to some extent even a criminal past have any bearing on the right to live. On the flip side, I know a lot of pro-choicers are more (albeit mercifully not completely) consistent in their belief that life is not an inalienable human right.
Question to the the pro-abortionists...
If you see an obviously pregnant woman with a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other, do you:
1. Stride self-righteously into her personal space and remind her that she is probably doing irreparable harm to her fetus?
2. Order her another round because she has "a right to choose" what to do with her body?
Leave her alone to do her own thing. What do you do?
For the record, I'd thank God I was not her child. Some people are not meant to be parents.
I think that says a lot if you think about it a little.
Question to the manipulative, disingenuous questioners...
If you see a conversation taking place where one of the participants constructs absurdly fallacious false-binary chunks of rhetorical spew and props them up in the guise of legitimate exchange of ideas, do you:
1. Stride self-righteously into that person's personal space and donkey-punch them in the taint for such flagrant disingenuousness?
2. Clap your giddy hands and roll about wallowing in the juice of that sort of rhetorical bile?
They would not - as most of them claim they do - do this in un-cyber space.
'cept in Kentucky...........
Well, that sure is some constructive discussion right there...
We shall see. I won't hold my breath, but I'm glad you appreciate my attempt at intervention.
<wink at Lita and grin>
See, after I ignored the sarcasm part (which was fun, by the way), the point was... and I can't believe I actually have to explain this, reverse, double-secret sarcasm is not that hard to follow... that we "shall see" if my poo-pooing this sort of bad argumentation with satire has an impact on the tenor of the debate, which is unlikely, but... anyway. Yeah, the fast ones just go ripping by people sometimes.
Another question to the pro-abortionists...
A mugger assaults an obviously pregnant woman, causing a miscarriage. Obviously the mugger is guilty of assault on the woman and should be prosecuted for that offense. However, he's not culpable for any damage caused to the little glob of cells with a 50/50 chance of becoming a baby, right?
Incorrect. As the law stands currently (and to my knowledge...I do not claim to be an expert), he is culpable for damages. He is not, however, guilty of murder.
Again, this rhetoric you use is incendiary.
there have been many cases where the assailant was charged with a double murder or double assault...the victim(s) may have been later along in the pregnancy as well...
to me, abortion is just as much a spiritual, and an emotional concern, as a physical concern
The soul is "connecting" spiritually with the mother (father and family sometimes) before conception. But the mother much more because of the actual physical connection, that will/could occur.
The whole idea of the soul as the immortal concept of being, that has the need of the physical vehicle to live a life to balance one's karma, is foundational here.
We are multi-dimensional beings...as the ancient Chinese said...we are spiritual beings having a human experience.
You have the right to your opinion and beliefs/choices. Others do as well, Jewel. And I do not necessarily agree with you. Simple math...free choice.
good ole free will choice...couldn't live or die without it
no actually I believe I am completely right on that issue...not anyone's particular specific circumstances...but on the concept that we could not die or live without free will choices being made...not just our own, but others' as well.
Medically a missed 'abortion' is one that spondaneoulsy aborts ( miscarries)
Yes that falls under Reproductive care ,though I havent even heard of it described that way in the first place.
Actually - it is not working for you. Unsurprising.
Works for everyone else just fine. Well - the non trolls anyway (99.7% - at least - it is said in Fox news.......)
An education perhaps? Too broke - Papa Obama will oblige.......
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
regardless of where one stands on the abortion issue...how could any American citizen stand for allowing their tax dollars or be forced in their work ethic to be used for something that is against their deepest...
by Stump Parrish6 years ago
Did anyone get the e-mail on this?According to the Faux News network America became an anti-choice country recently. //The abortion debate has returned with vigor to Congress after many years of dormancy, and the result...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
Modern Day version of sewinga big red "A" on a adultress's dress -- like in The Scarlet Letter.Like Megan's Law, we could call it Hester's Law. Ann Coulter will say ANYTHING to shock people.How much you wanna...
by My Esoteric2 days ago
Statistics show, as of 2013 anyway, that:1. Reported abortion rates in the US is the same in 2014 as it was in 1973, pre-Roe v Wade. "Reported" is key because a very high number of abortions prior...
by Asa Schneidermann2 years ago
Before, it was all kind of fuzzy. We knew that abortions took place in Planned Parenthood facilities and fought against it, but other activities were unclear. Now, we have clear, undeniable evidence of the evil - and I...
by American View4 years ago
The President of the United States Asks God to Bless an Abortion FactoryOBAMA: Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It's not going anywhere today. It's not going anywhere tomorrow. ...
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.