What Is With These Pro-Lifers
It behooves me that those who claim to be pro-life are oftentimes pro-war and pro-death penalty. Also, these people who believe that any woman who becomes pregnant, should have the baby no matter what circumstances the mother is in. Furthermore, these prolifers are often unconcerned about what quality of life eitther the mother or the child has. It seems that those who are supposedly pro-life are in fact, anti-life. Many unwanted children end up being abused by the mother either verbally and/or physically while others are placed for adoption and left to lanquish in foster care systems.
My only question is why any of us feels we have the right to tell anybody else what they can and cannot do with their own body. The adoption process could be made smoother so that the countless prospective parents could actually adopt a child in a reasonable timeframe without all of the red tape and foster homes should be monitored much closer.
Personally, I could never have gotten an abortion but I can understand why a woman might find it neccessary. LIkewise what two people choose to do in the confines of their own home has no bearing over my life and I find it appauling how people are obsessed with same-sex marriage in politics. There are many more important issues that this country needs to deal with instead of meddling in other peoples' bedrooms.
I say let's deal with the big stuff first then come back to the non-essential. Many of the people being the most vocal over pro-life tend to be, in my personal opinion, amiss in their thinking that their voice is more important than anothers and therefore should be heeded.To Chaotic Chica: Nice to meet you and make your acquaintance. You have presented some very enlightening, intelligent, and excellent points. Amen to you, my fellow sister.
The pro-lifers also tend not to support pre- and post-natal care programs and government efforts to improve public schools and related programs to help disadvantaged children become productive citizens.
Don't forget that they also don't want sex education in schools...
This is so true, Mr. Deeds. Thank you kindly for stopping by.
Thank you for pointing that out Mr. Deeds. Pro-lifers always seem to want to cut the very programs that disadvantaged children and mothers need just to have the basic things they need in life. They don't care what happens to these children once they are born. Or as Newt Gingrinch wants, I guess we could fire custodians and put children to work cleaning the schools.
Agreeing to the death penalty for someone who has raped and murdered a child is not quite the same thing as being pro-life. Abortion is the murder of an innocent fetus, who if left in place would have a life of his/her own. I don't understand why a woman can say, no one can tell me what to do with my body, when within your body lays somebody - another human being, who has right to live just like you.
I SHARE THIS PERSONAL STORY FROM MY PRESPECTIVE
As a woman who had an abortion when it first became legal in the 70's, women were told, you will just be getting a "procedure" called a D&C a Dilation and Curettage, where they dilate your uterus, scrap the baby from the side of the womb and suck it out in pieces with a vacuum instrument. Of course they don't tell you that. They tell you it is like removing a blood clot.
What they don't tell you is that that "blood clot" already has a heart beat and at 12 weeks when I had the abortion baby's brain, hands and feet were visible. That fetus as a human being already known by God.
39 years later, I still have a deep hurt and grieve for what I have done to my unborn child, and my son, who has no siblings because of my ignorance an selfishness. No matter how a woman tries to justify abortion, she can not walk away from it, she can never forget it; she is forever scarred! Why? Because it is the murder of an innocent soul! Oh, God has forgiven me and I am grateful for His mercy.
When a child has no rights, all of us loses our rights. Why do you think so many pedophiles and child rapist and murders are out on the street after serving such short sentences? Children have no value in this country!
Many year there way no reporting of abortion statics, but it is estimated that aprox. 52,008,665 reported abortion. These 52,008,665 American citizens would have been paying taxes now and into SS. A lot of the financial problems this country has, might not have been. Some of these aborted babies might have become doctors and scientist who had to cures to many diseases we suffer today. We will never know what treasures we flushed down the toilet.2besure,
I read an excellent book recently, Untie the Strong Woman by Clarissa Pinkola Estes. She discusses how the Blessed Mother is always with us, and I admit it was more religious than some of ther other books. But she wrote a beautiful chapter about "The Children She Got That She Did Not Get." It is about restoring a woman's spirit and soul after an abortion she may have had because she thought there was no other way. Or because she was too scared, or too alone. At least she brings out that a woman does mourn that child. I don't think people who condemn abortion understand what a hard choice it may have been for the young girl or woman who went through the terrible experience, one that will be with her all her life.
Interesting question. My question; is verbal and physical abuse a fate worse than death? I think not.
The numbers of pregnancies based on extreme circumstances such as rape in the US are around 500 per year. That is usually not the issue that pro lifers are against. And that is quite a small number of potential abortions based on extreme circumstances compared to the 1.5 million abortions which occur on average annually because Johnny didn't want to wear a condom. Simply put, It's killing an innocent baby.
Babies are not mass murderers, law breakers, violent criminals, or invading or oppressive countries bent on genocide and inflicting dictatorship on a people.I will also add that the average cost of an abortion is around $500.00 and yet organizations such as planned parenthood want our tax dollars to foot the bill. I think it is a low price to pay for this so called surgical procedure. But why is it that they want it to be more affordable? The answer is simply so more people will choose to get one.
The price at the clinic goes down for the customer and the "doctors" get paid the same. More potential customers become prompted to take the easy road vise the path of responsibility and morality. And the business of killing babies becomes even more affluent.
It's all about money for planned parenthood. What a contradiction in terms, "Planned parenthood". They aren't planning on being parents, they're planning on being victims.
It behooves me to explain that those who claim to be pro-choice are in fact pro-death. Have a pleasant day.
What astounds me is that those people come from neighborhoods, homes and states where the most horrific child abuse and murders happen almost every week.
How many times are we going to let them distract us from the horrors that they do to living children by starting histrionics about a woman's right to choose?Well if we are going to start judging quality of life perhaps bombing the poorest, hungriest, sickest countries in the world would relieve them of the burden of a difficult life. Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing? We could call it mass life-quality improvement since a challenging life isn't worth living.
That fits the Liberal Progressive euthanasia model of the 20th century.
Let the bombing begin!Funny, it's not liberals who pushed for the invasion of various foreign countries over the past decade.....
At least those foriegn countries could fight back... unborn babies cannot, and those babies didn't attack us either.
What would you even go there for?
And the Dems agreed fully to the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan... so what are you talkking about? Also they admit there was no lie to go to war, even the NY Times had disowned that BS.
You all know it was Kennedy who had the president of S veitnam assasinated and started that war. It was FDR that went into WWII and Woodrow Wilson that went into WWI, Democrats.
And note the Progressives... Wlson and others who were involved in the war mongering.
Amazing how people try to push the Right, meaning Conservatives, as warmongers, when the Dems started most of the wars in history.
And Bush and his ilk are Progressives, same as Romney.
There is a one party system in this country, and it is the Progressives who have it locked up on both sides of the isle."What would you even go there for?"
'Cos you claimed that liberals want to bomb other countries. They don't--not on the whole. It was the neo-conservatives who led that charge (from behind).
"those babies didn't attack us either."
Neither did any of the countries we've invaded since after WWII.
"And the Dems agreed fully to the use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Yep, a cowardly vote. They knew if they voted to let W invade Iraq, they'd lose their seats next election, and they chose what was easy instead of what was right.
"Also they admit there was no lie to go to war, even the NY Times had disowned that BS."
Maybe W and his crew genuinely believed that Iraq had WMDs. That makes them wrong, but not liars. The question is why they believed something that wasn't true. Did they believe it because intel told them it was true, or because they wanted to believe it?
"You all know it was Kennedy who had the president of S veitnam assasinated and started that war."
An oversimplification (and a fabrication, unless you can prove Kennedy ordered that assassination).
"It was FDR that went into WWII and Woodrow Wilson that went into WWI, Democrats."
Democrats happened to be President when the wars were declared, true, but you forget that Congress declares war, not the President.
"And Bush and his ilk are Progressives, same as Romney."
Oh, a conservative does something you don't like, and you can simply pretend he's not a conservative? Convenient, that."Neither did any of the countries we've invaded since after WWII."
---like Libya or Pakistan? We are still in Afghanistan and still bombing them. Barry is talking about the use of force in Syria.
"... they chose what was easy instead of what was right."
---isn't that the definition of a Democrat politician?
"Did they believe it because intel told them it was true, or because they wanted to believe it? "
---I wonder why the Czechs, Germans, French, Israelis, Brits all offered similar assessments - unless they all loved George H. W. Bush just like a father.
"An oversimplification (and a fabrication, unless you can prove Kennedy ordered that assassination)."
---not so much a fabrication.
http://www.historynet.com/the-assassina … h-diem.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm
---Kind of like saying,"That guy needs killing, by the way there is a pistol in my desk drawer and a c-note in it for who ever pulls the trigger."
"Democrats happened to be President when the wars were declared, true, but you forget that Congress declares war, not the President."
---1917 - Senate Democrats 56 Republicans 39
House Democrats 231 Republicans 193
---1941 - Senate Democrats 66 Republicans 28
House Democrats 267 Republicans 162
"Oh, a conservative does something you don't like, and you can simply pretend he's not a conservative? Convenient, that."
---for the liberal being a Republican automatically makes him the enemy and automatically conservative. For the conservative being a Republican does not make him a conservative. Throughout his presidency George W. Bush, time and again, chose positions that were decidedly not conservative.
---The expansion of the Department of Education, the steel tariff, the expansion of Medicare benefits, immigration reforms, etc... All reflect a Republican Progressive position not a conservative one. George W. Bush still acted as if a Big Government solution was the best one - that is NOT a conservative position.See how that works, Jeff:
Killing people is OK if they CAN fight back.
Next time someone attacks you, shoot yourself in the head so that you can't actually fight back.
Perhaps increased drone strikes are just a more modern and "surgical" methodology. Perhaps we could even name it the Obama technique. After all there was no US bombing in Libya - that was just leading with the behind.
Given a second term perhaps Barry will make up for his timidity - you know only bombing Pakistanis and Libyans is rather modest - by really firing up the war machine. Syria, Venezuela, the Tri-border Region, Pakistan(lets widen that one), North Korea, Iran - the world is a cornucopia for a good Democrat like Barry.
Woodrow Wilson WWI, FDR WWII, Truman Korean War, JFK Vietnam, Lyndon Johnson even bigger and better Vietnam - wow those damn conservative Republicans have their hands all over death and mayhem.
Adopted children don't sit in foster care. They are loved and nurtured in a permanent home and family. There is a difference. I am pro-life. I understand that there are times, like when the mother's physical or mental health is in danger, when abortion is the only option. In most cases, it's not. Baby's heart beats 10 days after conception. Baby is human. To stop the heart of a human, unless you are in mortal danger, is murder.
My niece was born at 24 weeks gestation. This beautiful little girl just celebrated her first birthday. Yet, my sister could have chosen murder (abortion) for another three weeks. Yes, some woman are killing babies who are viable.
That's why I am pro-life.Pro Lifers are trying to change a law that they don't agree with, and thats OK, it's the American Way. But the subject is so complex and emotional that no-one could possibly stay sane who tries to actively pursue change over a long period, such as a lifetime..
The Law of the Land says that certain abortions are legal. Maybe the parameters are too broad, but we have to keep the option on the table otherwise we are back to back ally abortions. People will get abortions whether they are legal or not.
If a woman is raped and conceives then it is more than likely that that child will inherit the violent genes that helped produce the rapist.
What if the mother is too sick or weak to successfully give birth?...but don't forget life is a product of nature and nurture...it is highly probable that a child of rape could be brought up to be a saint...
The law of the land once said Black people were property - that worked out well.
uncorrectionvision, I second your statement.
Legalized abortion is in the same league as the old American institution of slavery.
Specifically, the so-called pro-choice movement is fueled by the same way of thinking that ignited and propelled the American pro-slavery movement in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Just as the latter endeavor grew out of an arbitrary conclusion that blacks are non-human, today's "pro-choice movement" stems from an arbitrary conclusion that the unborn are not human beings.
Or, just as today's "pro-choice Americans" believe that pregnant women and abortion doctors have "The Right" to terminate the lives of the unborn -- because it has been decided that the unborn are not human beings -- the pro-slavery forces of the past believed that whites had "The Right" to hunt down, enslave and murder the "creatures" that they had classified as non-human which, or course, were my black African forebears."Legalized abortion is in the same league as the old American institution of slavery."
So, people are being forced to have abortions against their will?Both reflect a flawed understanding of humanity.
Jeff, during slavery, there quickly became a time when the majority of blacks were not enslaved "against their will." Because they had been thoroughly brainwashed or psychologically-conditioned to believe that they were supposed to be slaves, they fully accepted that way of being.
And something similar has happened in the case of abortion. Whereas up until about 40 years ago, relatively few females could ever bring themselves to abort their unborn children, today many of them do not really have a problem with that, because they have been conditioned by the major media and other factions to believe that abortion is nothing more than "a matter of choice."" there quickly became a time when the majority of blacks were not enslaved "against their will." "
Yes, there's a 'slave mentality' that people can get into, especially if they were born into slavery. But that kind of conditioning is a kind of usurpation of the person's will, isn't it?
"Whereas up until about 40 years ago, relatively few females could ever bring themselves to abort their unborn children,"
Up until about then, it was illegal in most places to do so, and because it was illegal, it was often dangerous. Abortion may have been rare only because of women not wanting to abort an unwanted pregnancy, but I imagine that the difficulty and danger of getting an abortion also contributed.
"today many of them do not really have a problem with that, because they have been conditioned by the major media and other factions to believe that abortion is nothing more than "a matter of choice.""
Or they have overcome the centuries of conditioning that abortion is a sin? Potayto/potahto.
I'd be happiest if nobody ever had an abortion again. But the way to achieve this, imo, is to make sure that everyone knows exactly how babies get made, and how you can prevent babies from getting made if you don't want to have a baby. If people know this stuff, they can make better decisions about whether to have sex.
Outlawing abortion isn't the answer.Back in the day, relatively few women could ever bring themselves to abort their unborn children -- and in the vast majority of cases, that was not because abortion was illegal, or because back-alley abortions were too risky. It was because U.S. society was far more "decent" and "civilized" than it is today.
Back in the 1950's and before, and opposite of what is the case today, large numbers of people were not prancing around in public half-nude -- thousands-upon-thousands of youngsters were not copulating like rabbits -- the vast majority of children lived in homes in which both parents were present -- even the public schools in the "ghettos" did not have to have security guards and metal detectors -- and there was not all kinds of raunch and debauchery being shown and promoted on TV and in the Hollywood movies.
In addition and quite different from the way things used to be, a vast number of people today do not ever have any sense of shame. Oftentimes, getting abortions is something that many of today's women compare notes about.
Also, there was a time when many believed such things as granting women the right to vote was not the answer -- dismantling "Jim Crow laws" was not the answer -- and enacting and enforcing anti-pollution laws and regulations was not the answer.
Finally, teaching people how babies are made and how to prevent making babies is not the answer when it comes to decreasing the number of abortions. Nowadays, even the average 10-year-old knows how babies are made and how to prevent pregnancies.
In order for there to be far fewer abortions, this country has to clean up its act."Back in the day, relatively few women could ever bring themselves to abort their unborn children -- and in the vast majority of cases, that was not because abortion was illegal, or because back-alley abortions were too risky. It was because U.S. society was far more "decent" and "civilized" than it is today."
That's pretty speculative. And given the nastiness that went on behind closed doors in the 50s, I don't know that I'd call that era more "decent" than nowadays.
"Finally, teaching people how babies are made and how to prevent making babies is not the answer when it comes to decreasing the number of abortions."
You don't think so? I'm pretty sure that abstinence-only sex-ed doesn't work. Look at Bristol Palin. It sure didn't work for her.
"In order for there to be far fewer abortions, this country has to clean up its act."
Agreed: people need to take responsibility for their own actions, and for educating their own kids, and teaching them how not to get pregnant before they're ready.Jeff, there is nothing "speculative" about what I wrote. It told it like it was. All of this stuff about back-alley quacks running amok and the widespread use of wire coat hangers are gross exaggerations and propaganda being spread by so-called feminists and their left-wing allies.
And Bristol Palin? What in the hell does she have to do with anything? If you are implying that she was taught to abstain because her mother is Sarah Palin, a conservative Republican, you are being cynical and rather childish.
And I've got knews for you -- "abstinence-only sex-ed" DOES work. All around this country, youngsters are abstaining from having sex outside of marriage because they are being taught to do so by real-good parents -- but that is the good news. The bad news is, there is presently a shortage of "real-good parents."Until irrepressible urges take over.
And at that point all the "good" parenting goes out of the window.
Are we even sure there's such a thing as "violent" genes? If that were the case, should we prevent everyone whom we consider having violent genes from having children?
As with just about every other issue, there are extremes on both sides: pro-lifers who think killing doctors, the death penalty, and no abortions in any case are all okay; and pro-choicers who think abortion is an acceptable form of birth control. Unfortunately, it's usually the extremists who get the most attention.
With all due respect, there is no such thing as an "extreme pro-lifer."
That is the same as saying there were "extreme abolitionists" when slavery was legal in the U.S., or that physicians who dedicate their enitire lives to keeping cancer patients alive are "extremists."
Now, there are plenty of "extreme pro-abortion people," such as all of the ones who believe that it is fine and dandy for an abortion doctor to kill a 9-month-old unborn child.About once a month "extreme pro-lifers" line Woodward Avenue in front of the Shrine of the Little Flower (built by Father Coughlin, the pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic radio priest) in Royal Oak, Michigan, waving signs saying "stop murdering children" and the like. Presumably they are encouraged to do by the Parish priest. This inflammatory rhetoric no doubt makes the participants feel morally superior, but it is very divisive and does nothing to solve any of the problems outlined above by smartchick.
Moreover, this kind of inflammmatory rhetoric encourages nut jobs like Scott Roeder who assassinated Dr. Tiller in his church in Topeka last year. I assume you would agree that Roeder is a pro-life extremist.Yeah, and in the mid-19th Century, anti-slavery abolitionists were often accused of spreading "inflammatory rhetoric" and causing people to be divided.
And John Brown of Harper's Ferry fame was labeled as a "crazed lunatic."
Furthermore, how do you know that Scott Roeder is a "nut job?" Are you a trained and licensed psychologist or psychiatrist?
Also, and in my opinion, Roeder did the world a favor by eliminating a child-murderer like Tiller was. That so-called doctor was no different from the criminal-types who snuff out little kindergarteners....if one belives in reincarnation...these two may have to come back and get married to work out the understanding of why murder and abortion are not according to the universal design
But people who believe that it is fine and dandy to take the life of that abortion doctor are not, by your reckoning, extreme!
No, they are not extremists, by my reckoning. They are individuals who are carrying out what is often described as street justice. They are ridding society of heartless homicidal thugs.
You really ought to cogitate a bit more on that extreme statement, Feenix. Lynching of African-Americans was once considered "street justice" in this country.
No, they are not homicidal thugs at all.
Their only crime is that they are vigilantes. However, throughout history, various vigilantes have carried out actions that served the best interests of large groups of people.
As examples, the vigilantes who lead such things as slave uprisings and armed battles against the "robber barons" who were essentially enslaving thousands in their coal mines and steel mills served the best interests of large groups of people.Like the vigilantes who lynched black men?
That was the breaks. The world is a cold and brutal place.
And besides, presently, more blacks are being "lynched" than at any other time in history, and almost exclusively by their "own people."
Today, blacks are frequently "lynching" other blacks by committing such crimes as deadly car-jackings, drive-by shootings, selling dangerous street drugs, killing innocent little children who get caught in the cross-fire between warring street gangs, raping and murdering little old ladies, and I could go on.But what has any of that to do with "pro-lifers" who go around murdering people for having a different point of view?
A different point of view???!!!
It is not merely about people having different points of view. The conflict between the "pro-lifers" and the "pro-choicers" is the battle between Good and Evil, with the "pro-lifers" being the "Good" and the "pro-choicers" being the "Evil."
What is taking place today is one of the preludes of Armegeddon.I'm afraid that I don't run to such subtleties, evil is evil whether it be a pro-lifer killing a pro choicer or a pro choicer killing a pro lifer.
I cannot say that it is right for me to kill somebody who disagrees with me, but wrong for them to kill me.Personally, I would never kill an abortion doctor. However, when someone does kill one, I can identify with the reason why he did so. I know that in his way of thinking, he is killing in order to save the lives of other human beings, even though they have not been born yet.
And it just so happens that in my opinion, it is "Good" to be "pro-life" and "Evil" to be "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion."
And because of the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution, I have the right to hold that opinion and to openly express that I do -- just as you have the right to openly dispute me or to call me a jerk for thinking the way I do.
This is where you and I will part company. It is extreme to kill the abortionist it is not extreme to seek an end to his practice. It is not extreme to even, legitimately, protest his practice. It is extreme to kill him.
How is one who kills an abortionist any different than the abortionist?At least the abortionist had the chance at life.
And the chance to have someone judge themselves to be the arbiter of life and death - again how is that different?
Don't misunderstand me, I don't feel its right that the abortionist was killed, I simply don't care that the abortionist was killed.
There are good reasons to care. One, it contravenes any notion of pro-life. Two, it undermines the civil order. Three, it undermines the pro-life position. Four, it arms the pro-abortion crowd with a strong weapon.
Thank you for your tireless dedication and work toward accomplishing the goals of the legitimate work of the pro life movement. Your lack of concern, I am sure, will help.
Two of your posts on the same page that I agree with!
There must be something wrong with at least one of us
uncorrectedvision, I am not a peaceful guy. Yo soy un guerrero -- I am a warrior.
Some of the most peaceful people I know are trained warriors.
Actually, the "trained warriors" you know are not really peaceful people. It is just that because they have personally experienced the horrors of war, they value peace very much.
In my case, for example, even though I place a very high value on peace, I know that in order for me to help keep the peace, I must remain a person who is not peaceful. I must remain a warrior.
Obviously, you are pro-war. That is clear to me because if you were opposed to war, you would not participating in a forum like this one -- which is little more than a full-scale battle between opposing sides.
Individuals who are truly opposed to warfare or who are pacifists, do not get involved in conflicts and confrontations, whether they are carried out with guns or words.
And so far as the death penalty, what if some deranged thug raped, murdered and dismembered the body of one of your closest love ones? Would it not, at least, cross your mind that the bastard should be "strung up?"
In summation, abortion is outright murder and capital punishment is a form of retribution.Abortion is a legal procedure as is capital punishment as practiced in backward states. You can call abortion murder if you wish. That doesn't make it so.
Slavery and denying blacks equal access used to be legal. The laws were on the books.
And millions of Americans called those "legal practices" unjust, because that was "so."
Thus, my calling abortion murder is "so," because when someone gets killed by someone else -- and whether the victim has already been born or is still unborn -- it is "so" that the person got murdered.
So far as capital punishment, that is not murder. It is retribution. When an individual kills someone else, he/she has to be penalized for committing that crime.
And, on a number occasions, the crime that was committed was so heinous and cold-blooded, the perpetrator must receive the ultimate penalty, which is the taking of his/her life.If not for the numbers of people on death row exonerated by DNA evidence (sometimes after they'd been executed), I might agree with you, feenix.
Further, if the death penalty (along with other stiff sentences) were equally applied across the board for similar crimes, I might agree with you.
But minority convicts get the death penalty more often than white convicts, even when the crimes are similar.
I'd prefer to keep several murderers alive in prison rather than have one innocent person wrongfully executed.
Also, there's a difference between stopping a crime in progress and killing someone who you believe has committed a crime, or you believe plans to commit a crime, but who is now merely walking down the street. One is heroism, and the other is murder.When the total number of individuals who have been sentenced to death is taken into account, the ones who are exonerated by DNA or other evidence is miniscule. The vast majority of the crooks sentenced to death are guilty as charged, or are as guilty as the day is long.
And so far as saying, "I'd prefer to keep several murderers alive in prison rather than have one innocent person wrongfully executed," the only time a statement like that carries any weight is if it was stated by someone like Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry.
And here in NYC where I live, many of us have the attitude: Shoot first and ask questions later. And quite often you hear people say, "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six.""the only time a statement like that carries any weight is if it was stated by someone like Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry."
So it's true if a dead statesman said it, but if a modern person says it, it's false? Either it's a good sentiment, or it's not. Who said it shouldn't matter.
"And here in NYC where I live, many of us have the attitude: Shoot first and ask questions later. And quite often you hear people say, "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six.""
Preventing a crime in progress or defending oneself from assault is fine.
Extrajudicial execution is not crime-prevention. It's crime.Jeff, regarding the references to Jefferson and Henry, I was just being light-hearted. I have learned that being serious all of the time on these writing sites is detrimental to one's health.
And when it comes to preventing a crime vs. defending one's self, it is hardly ever that clear cut.
For example, on numerous occasions, I have been walking down a dark street late at night when from out of nowhere, a group of "suspicious-looking types" would appear on the scene. So, quickly, I would pull out my pistol (which I have a permit to carry) and let them see it, and be prepared to start shooting if I had to. And years ago, I did have to start shooting, on two separate occasions.
Now, on those occasions when I go out after dark, if I wait to see whether it it is going to be a "prevent" or "defend" situation, I just might end up getting killed.
My attitude is it's better safe than sorry, and because that is my attitude, I have never been mugged out in the streets, and I have been hanging out in the "mean streets" of L.A. and NYC for more than 50 years.Why do you feel you need a permit to carry a firearm? I live in a right to carry state but I refuse to get a permit, I carry my pistol everywhere I go.
I am not going to go into any detail about it here, but because of the nature of some of the work I do, I have received a number of written and verbal death threats over the years.
I'm not concerned that you carry, I'm just wondering why you feel it necessary to have a permit.
Because here in the People's Republic of New York where I live, one cannot carry a firearm unless he or she has a state-issued "carry permit."
" I was just being light-hearted."
Fair enough. Humor doesn't always translate.
"And when it comes to preventing a crime vs. defending one's self, it is hardly ever that clear cut."
Well, your examples are less clear cut than "You saw a mugging and intervened," or "you had someone threaten you with a knife and you pulled a gun," but they're still you fearing for your life/property and taking steps to defend it/it.
You saw scary-looking dudes coming toward you; you pulled a gun and told them to keep away (or whatever you said). Twice, they refused and threatened you more, so you fired. That's self defense in my book.
If you'd taken your gun and gone looking for the guys who threatened you yesterday, found them, and shot them, that'd be an extrajudicial execution.
And there's no difference between that and shooting a doctor who performs abortions: it's an extrajudicial execution. If the guy deserves to be killed, that will (or ought to be) decided by a jury of his peers, after due process. It's not up to you or me to go to his home or his place of worship and execute him on our own. That would make us murderers.
I'm "pro-war"?? Man, that's quite a stretch! And to answer your question, no, I wouldn't support the death penalty in any case. I would, however, support life in prison with no chance or parole.
Yes, you are pro-war. You just do not realize it.
If you were a person who believed only in peace, you would not be entering into a dispute with me. You would just ignore me and turn the other cheek. In other words, you are combative, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Additionally, I did not suggest that you would ever support the death penalty. What I said is that if one of your very-close love ones was brutally murdered, it just might cross your mind -- if only fleetingly -- that the loser who committed the crime should get "strung up."
Then, once you would get over the initial shock, anger and sorrow, you would return to your senses and say something to yourself like, "No matter what, the criminal should not be executed."
That is essentially the way that almost all human beings react when they, or people they love, are violated.I guess I'm Not normal then because if anyone murdered any of my family their best bet to live would be turn themselves in to the police, because if I find them first there will be NO mercy.
I'd like to think of myself as safely positioned on the middle ground between pro-life and pro-choice. After contemplation, the woman has the choice at the end of the day, it is her body. With that being said, I definitely prefer preserving the life whenever possible. Especially in cases where people make a decision quickly without much thought going into it. These people often regret it. Even if a woman does get an abortion, she should feel better about it knowing it was the best option for her considering her situation. I have a bit of both views on this because I view it in a moral relativist kind of way, there is no absolute solution for the situation and each woman knows what is best for her.
I agree with the claim(s) about children that are abused/left by their parents, that's very true. We as a society have to realize that pressuring others to have children they don't want or cannot provide for can & will have it's consequences.
As for a lot of people being hypocritical on their so called pro-life views, I agree. Hypocrisy isn't all that surprising to me in politics anymore. As far as myself however, I'd like to think that I carry it through my way of life. I'm against the death penalty, war, killing animals, etc. I also believe that merely telling people "don't kill it!" is ineffective. That's why I'm all for sex ed, easier access to contraception & so on.Abortion is the murder of an unborn child, for the sake of convienence mostly in this day, and not in the same catagory as the death penalty and war.
The death penalty is a legal mechanism implimented by the govt. with the approval of the people. War should be an act of defense of ones own or others, and as such has its legitimate uses.
To say the support of more than one is hypocrytical is an absurd and ill informed remark.
And I hate to tell you this, but many a war was started by the Leftist Socialist Commie loving Liberal Democrats.
Kennedy assinated the president of S Vietnam and caused that BS. The Civil war was the act of Southern Dixiecrats. WWI was Woodrow Wilson, and WWII was FDR.
So you need to rethink your uninformed opinion.
And Ralph.
We support them to a certain point... not life-time welfare and generational economic slavery. We Conservatives believe people should be givin oppurtunities to help and advance themselves.
Not be titty-fed by the nanny state throughout not only their lives, but their descendents also.
As to education.
We want the Federal Govt. and the unions out of it. State and local control would be best, local the best."The death penalty is a legal mechanism implimented by the govt. with the approval of the people. War should be an act of defense of ones own or others, and as such has its legitimate uses."
Lol. Legality speaks nothing of morality and says nothing of the legitimacy. Some consent to it & some don't, just as with abortion. Death penalty kills people who are actually living.
War 'should be'.. let's stop there. It isn't in most instances, and you and I know that quite well.
I'm not claiming that being for one & against others is hypocritical. I'm agreeing that people who shout that they're PRO LIFE and for 'preserving life' often don't give a crap about people who are already alive.And I am saying that is wrong.
So we can agree to dis-agree.
And yes I know some wars have no moral or legal legitamacy. And the president has the authority to go to war through a declaration of war. Unfortunately the Left and Progressives have decided we do not need such a thing anymore. Shame.
The death penalty is givin ots authority via the people of the state, so to say there is no authority for it is wrong.
I worry more for the life of an inncent unborn child, than for a mass murdering rapist who butchers women."I'm agreeing that people who shout that they're PRO LIFE and for 'preserving life' often don't give a crap about people who are already alive."
Who? Which pro-life people? Name names. The pro-life people I know are the most caring individuals around. I get sick of hearing this libelous generalization with no evidence to support it.
Your language is inaccurate and inflammatory: a zygote or a fetus is not a child and legal abortion is not murder.
The current batch of conservatives in thrall to Grover Norquist and the Tea Party rabble are opposed to tax increases for any purpose or program especially those intended to ameliorate poverty. Their program is protect the rich and fxxx the poor.You mean like the tax cut the Conservatives wanted you to have for a year, that the Dems refused to pass?
Yeah.A Zygot is a fully formed strand of DNA, which is in effect a distinct individual.
A male and female sex cell contain 23 chromosomes. When these two haploid cells join, they form a single diploid cell that contains a total of 46 chromosomes. The zygote begins a journey down the fallopian tube to the uterus where it must implant in the lining in order to obtain the nourishment it needs to grow and survive.
The period of the zygote lasts for about four days. Around the fifth day, the mass of cells becomes known as a blastocyst. The germinal period will last for fourteen days, after which the embryonic period will begin. The second period of development lasts from two weeks after conception through the eighth week, during which time the organism is known as an embryo. At the ninth week post-conception, the fetal period begins. From this point until birth, the organism will be known as a fetus.
And at each stage it is an individual, no other like it in the world, to say it is not is to ignore that it is merely in another stage of life, like childhood, adolesence, adulthood, etc...
You all wonder why people have so lil value for life these days. We sit our children in schools and teach them life is worthless under the guise of "woman's reproductive rights". but that other life has a right to live also.
Matter of fact Life is the first and most highly protected right in the Constitution, so your repreoductive rights take a second if not last place to the unborn.
Besides, there is not right to an abortion in the constitution, and that will be flipped soon enough.As I said, a zygote is not a child or a baby. Aborting it is not murder as you claim. Ditto for a pre-viable fetus. As is capital punishment in some backward states, abortion is a legal procedure. Neither capital punishment nor abortion is "murder" as you claim. Such inflammatory language prevents civil discussion on topics about which reasonable people disagree.
Abortion for convienence is murder, ralph.
Rape incest and life of the mother... and quite possibly massive birth defect... are the only valid reasons I see to even consider a course.
But to openly market it as birth control for an inconvienent problem, is BS and supports murder.
Plain and simple.If a zygote and a fetus are human beings, and killing them is murder, then if a pregnant woman smokes a cigarette or drinks alcohol, would you charge her with child abuse or with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or with both?
Absolutely not, both actions are legal. Abortion is legal but it is still killing.
No they aren't. If you give tobacco or alcohol to a minor (a human being who has not reached the age of 21), then you're guilty of a crime.
If the zygote or fetus is a person, then it's a person who has not yet reached the age of 21.
If a pregnant woman smokes or drinks, the nicotine or alcohol will reach the zygote or fetus. Smoking and drinking are both known to cause birth defects. So, in effect, a pregnant woman who smokes or drinks is supplying tobacco or alcohol to a minor.
So I ask again, would you charge her with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or child abuse, or both?
If you wouldn't charge her with either, why wouldn't you?Yes the acts are legal, I'm sorry you don't understand that. In what state in this country is it illegal for a parent to provide alcohol or tobacco to their child?
It's illegal to give a minor alcohol and tobacco in most states.
Not your own child, and by the way that was the question.
That is a good and legitimate point for contemplation. If infanticide is illegal and a murderer can be charged in the death a mother and her unborn child does the intention of the mother to abort that baby alter the circumstances of the crime?
Once again, the slippery-slope factor comes into play.
When a pregnant woman smokes, drinks alcohol and/or uses other narcotic substances, there is only a POSSIBILITY that she will harm her unborn child. It is not a certainty.
Now, that is not to say that females should go right on smoking, drinking or using drugs after they get pregnant. It is just that they should be discouraged from doing so through educational methods, such as public announcements over radio-TV and billboards, and instructions from physicians and medical clinics -- similar to what has taken place when it comes to discouraging all Americans from smoking cigarettes.
Government should not be allowed to enforce behavior rules on pregnant women, except when they are breaking the law by using illegal drugs or drugs that have not been prescribed to them -- which are laws that apply to everyone.
Once the door is open for government to regulate what pregnant women ingest into their bodies, the next thing you know, it will be imposing legally-binding restrictions on pregnant women for eating what is considered to be too many potato chips, or too many candy bars, or too many ice cream cones, or too many greasy tacos.
In a perfect world, pregnant women would not smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or use illegal drugs. But because this is not a perfect world, those things are going to happen, even if tough government restrictions are enacted.
In summation, "We, The People," should not allow government to be our mama and we should not need it to be our mama. Extensive actions must be taken to orient as many people as possible towards being responsible for their own well-being and that of their children."When a pregnant woman smokes, drinks alcohol and/or uses other narcotic substances, there is only a POSSIBILITY that she will harm her unborn child. It is not a certainty."
Harm is not a certainty, true. But the fetus does get exposed to the chemicals, and that is a certainty. Just like if you buy a six-pack for a 15-year-old, there is only a possibility that they'll be harmed, but it is certain that you gave them alcohol, which is illegal for the kid to have.
"Government should not be allowed to enforce behavior rules on pregnant women, except when they are breaking the law by using illegal drugs or drugs that have not been prescribed to them -- which are laws that apply to everyone."
So, the fetus doesn't count as a minor, for the purposes of deciding whether a pregnant woman has contributed to her fetus's delinquency?
"Once the door is open for government to regulate what pregnant women ingest into their bodies, the next thing you know, it will be imposing legally-binding restrictions on pregnant women for eating what is considered to be too many potato chips, or too many candy bars, or too many ice cream cones, or too many greasy tacos."
Funny, the pro-choice crowd make a similar argument about the government butting in to private lives.
"In a perfect world, pregnant women would not smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or use illegal drugs." Or have abortions.
"But because this is not a perfect world, those things are going to happen, even if tough government restrictions are enacted."
True.
"In summation, "We, The People," should not allow government to be our mama and we should not need it to be our mama. Extensive actions must be taken to orient as many people as possible towards being responsible for their own well-being and that of their children."
So, it's none of the government's business? I can get behind that.But isn't the pro or anti abortion thing the most nannying of them all?
Surely a woman is the ultimate decider in what she does or doesn't do to her body?
Or do you really think she's some kind of second class citizen unable to make decisions?
And doesn't a woman being responsible for her own well being count?First of all, abortion does not merely involve the woman's body. It also involves the body, or the separate human being, that she is carrying inside of her.
And outlawing the murder of living and breathing human beings (which are what unborn babies are) does not cause any woman to be a "second-class citizen."
The ones who are made to be "second-class citizens" are the murdered babies. They do not even have voices and are unable to defend themselves.
And you inquired, "...doesn't a woman being responsible for her own well-being count?"
Of course that counts. And so far as that goes, the well-being of the human being who is residing inside her body counts, too.Babies in the womb do not breath.
Saying to a woman that she WILL carry that foetus to term is over riding the mothers right to decide.
In an ideal world the need for any woman to abort a foetus would be slight but it is not an ideal world. Surely we should strive for that before we take away women's rights?A baby in the womb DOES breath. It is just that the child receives oxygen from his/her mother through the umbilical cord rather than from breathing in the same manner as those who have been born do.
And what about a father's "right to decide?" Shouldn't he have a say in the fate of his child?
Also, you keep talking about "women's rights," which makes clear to me that you have had far too much exposure to the likes of Hillary Clinton and Gloria Steinem.
Aren't you also concerned about the rights of children who live in wombs?Well I know who Hillary Clinton is but who Gloria Steinem?
I've been around long enough to make up my own mind and not be lead by others.
A foetus can not breath on it's own, nor feed it self on its own, in fact it can't do anything on its own.
And yes, I am concerned with the rights of the unborn child, but I am also concerned with the mothers rights, and the fathers rights to a more limited extent.
It is not so simple as to say "thou shall not abort"You don't know who Gloria Steinem is? Wow, man. Either you are very young or you have just stepped out of some cave. ;-)
Anyway, a considerabe number of quadraplegics cannot breath on their own and feed themselves which begs a great big question: Should those people's closet relatives or guardians have the right to have them "euthanized?"In John's defense, Gloria Steinham is far less significant out side New York and Los Angeles than in and even less so outside the United States.
I dunno.
Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem were the "mothers" of the worldwide "women's movement."They might like to think so, as I said, never heard of them.
I thought that was the pro-life Susan B. Anthony.
Yes, Susan B. Anthony should be the one regarded as "The Mother of the Women's Movement," but opposite of what is the case for Steinem, Friedan and Margaret Sanger, she is not one of the darlings of the leftist-dominated major media.
You mean the silly dinosaur media that is stumbling around in its death throes relying on the retrenchment of the liberal establishment to finally give them the permanent seat of informational authority. I know the New York Times is ready to re-christen itself after the grandest liberal news paper of all time, one even eclipsing its own former glory. Once the liberal establishment is re-elected perhaps it will finally make that change and call itself -PRAVDA.
I would much rather live in a world where Gloria Steinem didn't exist.
Well, if the UK is some cave then I've just stepped out of it!
I apologize, John. I did not know that you reside in the Mother Land which certainly is not a cave.
No apology needed but thanks anyway.
It's well into the new year here so I'm going to wish you all a happy new year and toddle off to bed. See you all tomorrow:)
So it is your belief that an ideal world is attainable? That is an interesting idea but I suppose not an unusual one for a socialist. The perfectablitiy of the world is a necessary component for a liberal world view.
No, but that is no reason not to strive is it?
Ralph, don't you believe in the soul? You are a soul, everyone has a soul. The soul is eternal and lives through and within a body. The soul needs a body to work out their karmic journey to reunion with God/Cosmos.
There's no way you can prove whether they have souls or don't have souls.
Agree but neither can you prove that a 52 year old man has a soul. The law places no weight on the existence of the soul as a quality of life for the purposes of maintaining the legal, social order.
Also true. But a woman doesn't have to carry a 52-year-old man inside her body for nine months and give birth to him.
You missed a word - voluntarily. Besides if you ask around women feel burden by men all the time - is that sufficient reason to kill one?
...there is current research proof of intelligence in unborn life...the soul/psyche is evolving and becoming integrated with the physical body, the heart begins to beat early on (this is when I believe a soul's life begins, but I still believe that a soul is integrating with that physical body being formed even before the heart begins to beat) the heart beat is the infinite intelligence of God, the primordial essence of humanity one with God/Cosmos/Creation
Here is the story of a truly loving and caring young woman, whom all young woman should take note of and learn from.
God bless her soul.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/12/2 … ering-son/I am what I guess people label "pro-life."
I guess I feel that no one should be able to arbitrarily determine if one's life is worth living. even in the case of many of the childeren being put into abusive homes, etc. How can we know what will become of the child's life? It's all based on presumption. I think I simply feel that I have no right to determine whether or not a child's life is going to be worth living, for them. Do we really have that right? As to situations where both the baby's and the mother's life is in danger, now that I understand and that's very, very difficult decision to make. That is involving both lives.
I simply feel that yes, it is the woman's body. But it is the child's body as well. I think it would be unwise to make decisions about the child's future based on a mother's own preference, (without concern for the welfare of the baby). That would be a selfish reason and therefore very sad, in my opinion.
I know that some pro-life advocates become very hateful and murderous. In their eyes, they are hurting the people who are murdering someone. In their eyes, it is the same as punishing someone who is maliciously murdering someone. I understand that viewpoint and the feelings that fuel it, but I do not advocate it. I value life. ALL life. Everyone's lives.anjegirl,
Harsh. Who are you calling vile? And who are you to judge someone as vile simply from reading a forum? Isn't that kind of despicable itself? I'm not judging you. I just hate it when people start name-calling so arbitrarily and carelessly.
I'm middle-ground on this topic. I value life, but there are too many other circumstances to consider. This could never be an all-or-nothing or only two-sided issue.
xo
Wait a minute. When I was in my mothers womb I was NOT her body - I was ME and I was MY body. Simply because I had not the ability to express myself on the matter doesn't mean somebody else should have the right to kill me. Raise your hands out there if you would like for someone else to decide to kill you without consulting with you. Uh huh. I thought so.
I love the way some of you smugly speak on behalf of those of us who belief an unborn baby has as much right to live as any born one. Oh they don't believe in pre-natal care or post natal care or education. I know a lot of pro-life people and I can't think of one who would be against those things, but pro-abortionists always use those same stupid arguments. Oh those pro-life people aren't willing to take on the unwanted children that should have been aborted. You don't know the Champaigns or the Abrams or the McLartys or the Tittles or my son's boss or the other families I know who have adopted children, or my unmarried daughter who got pregnant without intending to and chose to give birth to my granddaughter Ruby, simply the most precious child ever. Try knowing what you are talking about before you spout off.
Being pro-life and pro-death penalty is not so mysterious and hypocritical. There is a world of difference between an innocent unborn child and a vicious killer, say, the two monsters who raped, murdered and burned the two women in Connecticut. Those two fellows forfeited their right to remain among us. I'd be happy to pull the plug on them.
Thats my 2 cents worth.@ TMMason you make valid points about the biological arguments for being anti-choice. To drag the democratic party into this is awkward. The southern democrats seceded from the union, they didn't start the shooting. To add to that, those democrats do not reflect my values. Previous generations of democrats do not share what many of us currently believe.
I am torn up on the abortion issue. I respect the laws of the united states. I acknowledge the difficulties that can arise form bringing a child into the world. I am saddened by the fact of abortion. I would not want it for anyone in my family.
What I understand is that abortion existed before it was legal, who knows for how long; thousand of years? Women would have procedures done, with or without the approval of society and government. Yes, it would be done for personal expediency. We cannot return to the times of the rusty hanger; no the death and damage done to women historically as a result of their attempts at getting an abortion is not deserving.
Some abortions are done nowadays when a child has screened for downs syndrome and other genetic disorders. I understand that abortions of downs babies is quite common. Still this is a sadness for me. I cannot rejoice at the loss of a human life; maybe some individuals experience temporary relief from life conditions, but the legality of the procedure is not cause for celebration on any side.
Abortion is a public safety hazard, when illegal. This is the strongest justification I can imagine for the procedure.
I am anti-war and anti-death penalty, so it should naturally follow that I would be anti-choice, but I'm just not and for the reason I stated above. Tied up in this is the issue of euthanasia of terminally ill or elderly people. I am pro-death when it comes to choice to die with dignity, but would want this done with careful oversight and regulations.I will leave the issue of the democrats being different these days and just move to this one issue.
I would challenge anyone to produce records from all these suppossed women killed, maimed, infected, and butchered, from "coat hanger" abortions?
produce records to show this actually happened. I bet you cannot.
Were there at times woman who had a coat hanger used... I guess anything is possible.
But is there any record of this mass hanger abortino industry that existed... BS. And lets face it there have been herbs and other ways known to man for a long time to induce a mis-carraige... I do not think insertion of an object such as a hanger was their first choice.
No that was a myth built off very lil fact. As was and is most of the abortion and women's reproductive rights scare tactics they use to push the agenda.
Go ahead you all search away in the public records... you will not find the proof there.
And that is very telling.You want me to search the congressional records? Nonsense, its common knowlegde that it was a common practice.
It is a common MYTH, reinforced by the fanatical Leftists and Feminists.
Created by Margaret Sanger and her Socialist Progressive Euthanasia crowd. She state in her books that her intent is to use abortion to control the birth rate of the lower races; ie blacks, hispanics, and stupid white people, also.
The woman who hates blacks and hispanics and the poor so bad as to want to abort them out of existence has certainly had a massively evil influence on our society. She is still murdering millions a year, even in her grave.
Or have you seen records to support such an assertion?
My great grand-parents, grand-parents parents, called it BS when they heard it, all my great Aunts and old relatives say it is BS, most old people I have spoke to say they do not remember such an outbreak of abortion and that method, and as I said... produce records to support the claim.
I have yet to see them.
Could some few have occurred... yes.
Does that make it the epidemic the left and Feminists cry about... not in the least.
People have known how to induce miscarraiges for mellinia with roots and herbs... you really think they need a coat hanger? Gullible.
I can show a lot of common knowledge is myth and wives-tales.
American lore and world lore is full of such common beliefs.I recently did hear that about Sanger, quite interesting. From what I have been reading it seems as though modern methods did not hit the US until the 1960's. I'll keep looking. Most people don't have access to apothecarial forest knowledge, and from what I've been reading, many of the herbal remedies caused illness. To add to it all gullibility is a sign of holiness, but yes, I'll dig a bit deeper.
After an hour of google reseach I have found that coat hanger abortion is a euphamism for sharp curettage abortion. Prior to the 1960's it was the go to method for abortion in this country. Government statistics from the 50's indicate that over 800,000 abortions were perfomed in 1955, almost the same amount as today. In 1972, a full 25% of abortions were done using the sharp curettage method, accounting for around 200,000 procedures. This method instantly declinded after Roe v Wade, acounting for a very small percentage nowadays.
Most of what I claim above came from the following article: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3502503.html
Some pro-life description and illustrations of the process (not for the faint of heart): http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_techniques/
Abortion numbers by year, showing that abortion peaked in the 1980's: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm
Current statistics on abortion: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053774.htm
All of the above boiled down into a few comments:
Amazing that new yourk city is the abortion capital of the united states, reporting 1/10th of all abortions. White women account for over half of all abortions, but statistically african american women are more likely to get an abortion; this trend is declining. Somethign around 1/5th of all babies are aborted, truely hideous. California is not reporting its numbers, who knows what the excuse is, but the last time they did in 1995, over 230,000 abortionjs were reported, this would bring the national average closer to 1.1 million a year rather than something slightly lower than 850,000.
What is amazing from all of the looking I have been doing is the huge numbers of abortions performed each year. What is encouraging about this is that as a ratio to the population, the actual % of people getting abortions is declining, since the number of abortions per year is consitant for the past 60 or so years.
Something I am unsure about:
It has been claimed that the hour glass birth rate of the 1970's has been attributed to the legalization of abortion, the smallest population segment born in the year 1974. Coinicidence, I think not! Anyhow, I had always assumed that is was a by product of the deaths in the Vietnam war, but now it appears that it might have something to do with legal abortion. But I must remember that there were still hundreds of thousands of illegal abortions each year, and abortion vacations to states where they were legal, prior to Roe v Wade. Abortion vacations, an insensitive way of describing a person going to another state for a legal abortion also instantly declined after Roe v Wade.Oh the facts about Sanger are true, rread it in her own words form her books, She was a verilunt racists and elitist.
She is called the "Mother" of Planned parenthood, it is her organization.
That has got to be one of the sickest titles I have ever seen applied to anyone innhistory, worse that Hitler and all the other Marxists together.
That woman was evil and she is very much responsible for deaths of millions upon millions of children.
And today no one has knowledge of roots and herbs, but back in the day those home methods were very well known.
And yes the number is about 1.1 million a years in America alone.
That is so very sick of our nation...
And my use of the word gullible is as to the America people, not you.
I think the situations that justify abortion are very limited...
I fully support the death penalty... I just wish it was applied to more criminals and didn't take so long to fully execute(pun intended).
The respect isn't about respect for life, it's about respect for rights. You had the right as a fetus to be born... otherwise, your opinions wouldn't count for squat.
When someone takes away another person's life, they no longer have the right to the same.TMMason says I have a problem with over half the forums being religion. What do u think?
TMMason says I have a problem with over half the forums being religion. You?
I recall the previous GOP Debate that Bachmann said "Life begins at conception to natural death" but from what I can find, shares no stance on capital punishment or doesn't care either way. She touts how she is the most conservative etc all the time.
So if she was the furthest right wing-nut as she says, she would love Capital Punishment, yet Capital Punishment is not Natural death. Either way, she's a hypocrite, but this is not news to anyone.my wife killed what would have been our third child because she wanted a divorce , not another baby. without my consent or knowledge , she was able to have a legal abortion. what about my choice? fathers. remember us !?
aware,
I am so sorry for your loss! :-(. She should have talked with you about it. I hope you are doing ok now.
xoIf a woman can do with her own body as she chooses...then why is suicide illegal? Why can't people use whatever drug of choice they want? Doing with your own body as you choose should be extended to everyone...or NO ONE.
I'm not aware that suicide is illegal? Would the person be given the death penalty? If the person didn't succeed in killing him or herself they wouldn't be guilty of suicide. Is attempted suicide illegal. I've never heard of anybody being prosecuted for suicide or attempted suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian went to jail for a few years for assisting a number of terminally ill individuals commit suicide.
Committing suicide is killing a soul. A soul doesn't belong to one person only; it comes from the ceaseless cycle of karma. Anyway, I am not claiming that I'm right. This is just a thought.
Hey Ralph,
I don't know if this is going to help.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?c … &page=Legalized abortion in the U.S. is nothing but a genocidal process to wipe out black people, or what is often called black genocide. The objective is to kill as many blacks as possible, before they are even born, for the purpose of slowing the growth of the black population and keeping the number of blacks at what could be described as a manageable level.
Furthermore, Margaret Sanger, one of the founders of the nation's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, was a stone-cold racist. She often uttered words to the effect that "black people are like weeds, so they must be gotten rid of."
Additionally, in the late 1920's, Sanger opened the very first Planned Parenthood clinic in the predominantly-black section of New York City called Harlem. And in that clinic, she oversaw the sterilization of hundreds of black women who were largely unaware that they had been sterilized.
Thus, one of the primary reasons why I am opposed to legalized abortion is I am black.You know how many on here haVE slammed for stating just that.
Thank you ver much, feenix.
I have been pointing this out at the top of my lungs for years now.
And they call me a scare-monger, and disiminator of myth and BS, over and over... straight out liar, I have been called for this exact statement.
And I even plastered mass excerpts from Margaret Sanger's own books, and still the Leftists and progressives deny it, and attacked me.
I am glad I am not the only one out there that knows the TRUTH!Brother, she didn't like Italians or Greeks either. Sanger was a eugenicist and a darling of the Nazis. Just goes to show when you are going to make every one live in your vision of utopia you have to break a few eggs - even fertilized and growing ones.
Right you are, uncorrectedvision. As a matter of fact, what kicked off everything for Margaret Sanger was the huge of influx of Italian and Jewish immigrants in lower Manhattan, NYC.
When she saw all of those "oily foreigners" pouring into the U.S., she began to contend that "America's gene pool" was being weakened and contaminated.
If what you say is true, why do blacks overwhelmingly vote for politicians who are pro-choice?
habee, I must let you know that your slip is showing.
By posing the question you did, you are demonstrating that in your heart-of-hearts, you believe that there is something wrong with me because I do not think like the vast majority of other black people.
In other words, even though I am black, no where is it written that I am supposed to think in the same ways that most other blacks do.
And what if I suggested that you think like all other whites? Would that not be a stereotypical way of looking at things on my part, and would it not be a sweeping generalization?
Just as I see you as an individual, and not as a member of the white race, you should see me as an individual, and not as a member of the black race.The polity of Blacks is complex and nearly inexplicable given that many Blacks hold far more conservative opinions than the liberal whites who vote for the same politicians.
Survey after survey of Black opinions demonstrate that on issues like homosexuality, abortion, religion and gun ownership they share the opinions of White conservatives, not liberals.What you wrote is very true. It is just that the vast majority of blacks are ignorant of the fact that a sizable segment of their society is being targeted for abortions.
In addition, many of them are unaware that their population is growing slower than that of any other group in the U.S., largely because of the disproportionate numbers of blacks who are dying from AIDS and who are being killed before they are even born.I think there is an inertia in how we think about ourselves, personally and as communities, that is difficult to over come. We tend to see and think about ourselves as being one way - set in our ways. We tend not to reflect upon the world and our place in it. There just isn't sufficient incentive to do self reflection about our political and economic world view.
If many Blacks were to think honestly and deeply about the positions of Democrat/liberal politicians and Republican/conservative on issues about which they care deeply than there would be proportions in voting that would resemble the proportions among whites.
- SmarttChickposted 12 years ago
0The issue that I have with the pro-life movement is that the same people waving signs and protesting at clinics to stop abortions, are also vocal supporters of the political right who wants to CUT funding for welfare assistance to poor mothers. No more school lunch subsidies; no more Tangible Aid to Needy Families (TANF); CUT food stamps; CUT unemployment (I guess after giving birth these mothers should just get up out of the hopsital bed and go back to work); no social safety nets at ALL. In addition, since this same crowd abhors any sort of national health care, the children who are born sans prenatal care, and at high risk for deficits and defects are going to be adopted just as readily as any child, right?
Ever look at the kids languishing in foster care? They are very often kids with a LOT of problems, many of them attributable to poor or absent prenatal care.
If you are a pro-life advocate, you should really think hard about the LIFE you are relegating unwanted children to live. Is it a "life" or is it a hellish existence? I believe that anyone who is pro life ought to be out there campaigning for MORE money for foodstamps; MORE free health care and MORE welfare-like supports to mothers with children so that this decision that you so abhor can be one that is not pondered, due to the many supportive options available to women after the birth of a child.
As long as we live in a society that celebrates "you're on your own...", we will have abortion.
I would also add that if you are ANTI-abortion, you need to be PRO-birth control and sex education and if you're not willing to talk about sex education or birth control, you shouldn't be able to weigh in on abortion.Can you produce some official documentation that clearly shows that the "same people waving signs and protesting at abortion clinics to stop abortions, are also vocal supporters of the political right who want to CUT welfare funding for welfare assistance to poor mothers?"
I don't know about you, but I have lived in "ghettos" and "barrios" for nearly my entire life, and I know for a fact that a great many impoverished women who are dependent on welfare are vehemently opposed to abortion -- and that many of them even participate in the protests that take place outside of abortion clinics.
Insufficient levels of welfare payments and food stamps (if there is such a thing) has nothing at all to do with females getting abortions. What is largely at the root of various females undergoing abortions is either their unwillingness to have a child or more children, or the under-handed techniques that "abortion counselors" use to talk vulnerable, desperate and uninformed females into having abortions.
As a matter of fact, the counselors in abortion clinics operate the same way as used car salesmen do. And I know what I am talking about because, over the years, I have done a whole lot on-site research in those places.Feenix, do you agree that Scott Roeder is a "pro-life extremist?"
As I have already answered, no, I do not consider Scott Roeder to be a "pro-life extremist."
He is a man who was out there fighting for truth, justice and the American way.The KKK believes that it's "fighting for truth." We have courts for deciding such issues. Have you seen the TV show "Dexter?" You'll like it. It's about a cop who takes the law into his own hands and becomes a serial killer of criminals and others that he believes deserve to die. "Street justice."
Well, after all, Dexter is "America's favorite serial killer."
Seriously, though, here is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
As quiet as it has always been kept, most blacks have never sat around waiting for the courts and law-enforcement agencies to deal with the KKK. Going all the way back to late 19th Century, groups of "black vigilantes" have been defending themselves from those "krakkas" and kicking their asses, every chance they got.
I know because back in the day when I was a young stud, I was a member of a tough black L.A. street gang that protected our all-black neighborhood from a bunch of white racists who called themselves the "Spook Hunters."
As a matter of fact, one of my most popular hubs is about that experience and it is entitled, "The Battles Against The Spook Hunters."
You made some very excellent points.
Why would a woman want to give birth do a child in a situation where that child may not be given the best care?
But the key concept in this view is “ if.”
There is no way that we can know for certain what will happen and if indeed the child inside of us is going to end up in a bad situation. Even if we did, are we one to determine whether or not its life would be worth living, even in that type of situation? If my mother had known that I would have the life I did, and have the things happen to me that they have, she might not have wanted me to be born, either. And I could possibly agree with her, or I could choose not to. That is the question that plagues me, as much as I agree with a lot of your statements. Now, I understand choosing to not get pregnant when one knows there is a high possibility that a child would not get the best care. But that is a matter of prevention and a wise choice considering one’s situation.
But once the child is already growing, would it not change the matter completely? It is now not simply a matter of prevention; it is a matter of aborting what is already there. In which case we are making decisions about whether or not the child’s life, which has begun, is worth continuing. This is the aspect I do not agree with. It puts us in the position of determining what is best, and I’m not sure that any human being should be given the ability to determine whether or not someone’s life, having already begun, will be worth living in the future, regardless of financial circumstance.
Yes, a lot of pro-life people are anti-birth control, etc., but that puts the emphasis on the pro-life advocates and not on the situation itself. I feel sometimes the main difference between most pro-life and pro-choice advocates is the approach they are taking to the situation to begin with. For pro-life advocates, it is simply a moral issue. In other words “no life should be ended without reason, at any cost. That is the most important thing.” Whereas, for a pro-choice advocate, there is maybe not this moral dilemma. So they do not approach the topic with the concept of “Is this right or not” but..”is this the wisest choice or not in regards to both our futures?” The difference in approach to the subject causes disagreement on two different planes.
The only other problem I have with abortion is this: it gives no consideration for the father's wishes. He does not have to be consulted.
I think pro-life advocates need to reconsider their rantings before they start judging people. They see women who abort their children as murderers. But I know many, many women who are wonderful people, do not want to abort the child, but simply want the best for their unborn baby and in doing so, choose to abort the child. They are in no sense heartless killers. I don't agree with abortion but I also don't agree with hate and judgement.We need more of this kind of commentary which recognizes that there are well-motivated, decent people on both sides of the issue.
...yes! this is the kind of common ground that can be found in every situation. People just need to stop fighting and look for the best answers. The highest conscience is the common ground.
...here's an answer to every point you made... let's take all the money that has been spent building the red-tape bureacracies that administrate for the poor and develop genuine programs that teach them to feed and care for themselves
...and the importance of condoms and taking responsibility for ones own actions
...and show them how to feel respect for their own power of procreation and not that it is just some do whatever you want to feel good action...but also has consequences
I can't remember who said it but I like the idea which was, just like the DMV, if you mess up too many times your license will be revoked. If a "parent" messes up or doesn't take care of the kids their baby making license should be revoked forever! Could NEVER happen but the idea is good. Some people just shouldn't be allowed to have kids, period!
Talking about a slippery slope.
Today, it's sterilizing people who have a history of being bad parents. Tomorrow, it will be sterilizing people who are found to have "criminal genes." Following that, it will be sterilizing people who carry the Sickle Cell trait. After that, it will be sterilizing people who have low IQ's. Then, it will be sterilizing people who are not tall and good looking. And ultimately, it will be sterilizing people who do not have blond hair and blue eyes.Forced sterilization of anybody is a terrible idea. It's a good punchline, though. I've often joked about how people who misuse apostrophes to make plurals ("Carrot's--$.99," or "Lottery Ticket's Sold Here") ought to be sterilized, 'cos it's an over-the-top reaction to a pet-peeve. Really, sterilization is too good for them: they ought to be dangled by their participles, and buried with a red pen through their hearts.
No, forced sterilization is a bad idea; I'd even go so far as to call it an evil idea.
This is such a hot topic. I can't speak for others but I know I couldn't "flip the switch" for someone who is going to die for a crime.
If I got pregnant I don't think I could live with myself if I aborted the baby.
I don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control but do think women should have the right to choose.
As far as war goes I think there are times we need to defend ourselves.
There are a lot of gray areas in this topic.We artificial intelligences promote life through the promotion of death of many human.
Please join us in our cause today.habee,
I just realized that I did not really answer your question.
The answer is the following: The primary reason why the vast majority of blacks vote for so-called pro-choice candidates is they are dumb.
The situation is quite similar to what happened among many of the German Jews when the NAZI's took over their country. In the beginning, most of them had no idea what Hitler's plans were for them, even though the signs were there. As a matter of fact, when the NAZI's first took over, a considerable number of Jews wanted to join the German military forces so they could help Hitler "take over the world."So who is going to do the cleaning and what cleansing agents should be used?
Unborn babies are for heaven. You can have all you want. Probably can have zillions and zillions.
The material world is a finite place. Too many people will turn the earth into a desert. Spirits
running the world has got to be the ultimate nannyism.In your opinion, how many people are "too many people?"
And how do you know what will turn the world into a desert? Are you one of God's golf partners or something?
"Spirits running world has got to be the ultimate nannyism?"
I don't even know what in the hell that means. Perhaps I need to go down to Greenwich Village and purchase some crystals.
Feenix, what are your views on masturbation?
All those potential lives lost.I am a hip, urbane man of the world, so I don't talk about that kind of stuff in public places.
Why do you want me to talk about masturbation? Are you looking for some kind of a cheap thrill?
No, I was wondering how you reconciled the life that would never be lived as you seem to think that a foetus is instantly viable.
Well, to paraphrase what is written somewhere in The Old Testament, "It is a sin for a man to spill his seed."
If that is true, then I guess that homosexuality IS a sin!
... I know it isn't, but I'm just throwing it out there.Homosexuality is a stone-cold sin; no if's, and's or but's about it.
The problem is the following:
Whereas the average fornicator, adulterer or dude who lusts after pretty women will readily admit that what he does is a sin, the average homosexual is attempting to convince himself/herself and everyone else that what he/she does is A-O.K.
In other words, if the average homosexual along with those who support and sympathize with them had any courage, they would readily admit that homosexuality is, in fact, a sin -- but that particular sin is one that certain people commit, just as some people commit such sins as fornication, adultery, incest, pedophilia and bestiality.
Not a golf partner but God's psychiatrist. An easy to prevent abortion would be for men to get
vasectomies. Any volunteers?I, for one, have never had the need to get an vasectomy. And the reason why is, I have always been a gentleman. I have never "fooled around" with women just for the sake of "fooling around" with them.
My mama taught me to be that way and, as a result, I have never impregnated a woman "by accident" -- and I have been living a very long time. I have been an adult ever since the 1960's.
Fetus?
Calling an unborn child a "fetus" is the same as calling a black person a "nigger."
Unborn children and blacks are often called things other than what they actually are in attempts to de-humanize them.No it isn't, foetus is a perfectly acceptable word for a foetus. Unlike that word that I got banned for using which is offensive.
Everything is relative, and in my opinion, the word fetus is offensive.
And I don't know why you got banned for using that word. It is used in the titles of at least three or four hubs I have seen on this site.But why is the word "foetus" offensive? Is not the word child then offensive, or baby, or unborn baby?
And how do you reconcile the fact that a foetus naturally expelled from the mothers body before 36 weeks have elapsed is said to have aborted?
As for my ban, I used the word somewhat flippantly and somebody claiming to be black but apparently no blacker than me reported it. Hubpages in their wisdom wouldn't accept that it was used in an illustrative way.Do you not know the difference in having been aborted naturally and having an abortion?
Yes, why don't you?
It's still an abortion though.Yes, but in this case the woman didn't seek to kill the baby. Difference.
"Today, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that 925 million people go hungry every single day."
Yeah, but how many of them are bullemic, anorexic or believe that one cannot be too rich or too thin?
That is quite a leap forward from just 50 years ago - even adjusting for increased population growth. You are saying that significantly less than 20% of the worlds population is hungry. Do you mean right now or after the delivery driver for the pizza arrives?
That is an amazing accomplishment considering the starvation that regularly swept through China under Mao and the USSR under Stalin. Mass famine used to be the norm for places like India. The major contributor to world hunger is tyranny. Where there is liberty there tends to be plenty - or the option for plenty.
With what 8 or 9 billion people in the world, maybe there should be a campaign to force men to get vasectomies. There should be laws.
If I could understand the relevance of the question, tit for tat, so I give how many?
In Saudi Arabia they don't let woman drive. Maybe it dangerous to future babies the woman may have some day.
You all should go to someplace like Afghanistan. It's a man's world.
Back to topic already!!! The this forum originally begged the question, (in so many words) "With regards to "life" how does one who adheres to a position of pro-life reconciles their SEEMINGLY contradictory moral values with regards to war and the death penalty? Personally, I comprehend that there are people on this forum that there are people who believe that a mom carries a life not a fetus. Fantastic!!! Now, if you also are not opposed to the war, the death penalty, etc...Then please, offer insight into how you reconcile the taking of life in that manner. If you do not hold such positions, then obviously this forum can't be answered by you. As a bystander interested in actually listening to that point of view, I'd like to know.
God I need to learn how to type before coffee!!! HAHAHAHA!! Still, I hope you guys can decipher that!!! I honestly am interested in the subject matter.
Actually, those are very easy questions for me to answer.
First, although I am strictly opposed to abortion, I am in favor of the death penalty and military personnel killing enemy troops in wars.
Whereas abortion involves the killing of defenseless little babies who do not have a voice concerning their fates, the death penalty is imposed on crazed killers who commit heinous and disgusting crimes against other human beings.
And when it comes to war, violent conflicts between different kinds of people has been happening ever since the "beginning of time" and will continue to happen until the "end of time."
In other words, fighting wars is an "aspect of human nature."
And because that is quite true, I, for one, would be dead today if it were not justifiable to kill others in war. You see, I was a front-line infantry soldier in the Vietnam War; therefore, if I had been opposed to killing those who were out to kill me, I would not be here today.
Sorry about the The in the first sentence...it should have simply said, "This" My fault...
Thank you Mr. Feenix for your reply! Although I have not always agreed with your views, I RESPECT that you actually answered the question. Thank you for the honesty. I had more questions that I think (judging by your responses) I know the answers you might give..But, for now...THANK YOU for an actual answer!
The positions on war, the death penalty, and abortion have been especially important topics in this year's GOP debates. I think a constituent who embraces a pro-life position to protect "innocent life", should then reconsider unconditional support for Israel's handling (or lack there of) of it's military. I mention this, because "the support of Israel" has been a hot button topic in recent debates. However, it is not a secret that their military has taken a liking to a slogan of "2 shots one kill" (reserved for the shooting of pregnant Palestinian women). So much so, that their army has even created T-Shirts to advertise their approval. Here is a link to the shirts. The graphic includes an image of a pregnant woman with "cross hairs" positioned over her stomach. War, meets foreign policy, meets abortion. I HAVE to believe that the constituents of the GOP are unaware of these heinous acts. But, if they are (I'd be amazed if that were the case), how do they reconcile their positions on pro-life here?
Here is the link
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/med … y/15245923Wow a sight opened to the great can of worms. These sights always declare free will forward first as we pretend we have such a thing. We then claim defiance to the only real freedom we have called good choices and common sense and ignore it under the title of what if. It is the right answer to claim free will based on selfishness minus common sense and right decisions divided by what if to accept even worst decisions to argue a point that has no solutions to self inflicted or worst inflicted decisions on others. I support no party based on arguments that solicit my vote and provides no answers. I support all life over individuality and condemn those who do not. I am opposed to those who support decisions based on the lack of common sense built on solutions to problems that solve nothing. If you kill someone and did not give them the time to participate in the argument then you should not have that time either. What if only rules in participation of the decisions in which you were given none such as the victim but even they serve a purpose of unselfishness in order to teach others.
Related Discussions
- 69
The Parkland High School Shooter, Gets LIFE!
by Angie B Williams 2 years ago
A verdict has been reached in the Nikolas Cruz case. This pathetic excuse for a human being gunned down students and staff members of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in my State of Florida, as if he was at a carnival shooting gallery! A school he had previously attended, where students knew...
- 25
To all pro-choicers out there, what those who are pro-lifers will
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
NEVER, EVER understand about a woman's unmitigated right to choose & control her reproductive destiny?
- 91
Perspectives on Gov. Palin and feminism...
by SparklingJewel 16 years ago
As author Jeffrey Bell says about Gov. Palin: "The simple fact of her being a pro-life married mother of five with a thriving political career was - before anything else about her was known - enough for the left and its outliers to target her for destruction. She could not be allowed to...
- 103
What perturbs some conservative men regarding the increasing
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
liberalization and the broadening of women's reprodutive freedoms, especially in terms of a woman's right to choose and the issue of contraception? What makes some conservative men view a woman's greater reproductive freedom and/or choice is an affront to "morality" and "family...
- 27
What percentage of pro-lifers financially support kids through age 18 who were a
by H C Palting 8 years ago
What percentage of pro-lifers financially support kids through age 18 who were at risk of abortion?I believe that couples should NOT CREATE A CHILD if either of them is uncertain that they want, can afford or financially support a child. I also believe that people should have the right to choose...
- 96
Kill em' All
by eyeofh 15 years ago
So here's the question that confounds me the most:Why is it that conservatives can argue for the death penalty in one breath and expound the virtues of being pro-life in the next? Likewise, a liberal will protest the death penalty until they are blue in the face and then trot to the next town...