Wrong. At the moment of conception a new human life comes into existence. It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent, defenseless human life. Always.
Apparently including when the fetus is non-viable and will die, and carrying it to term will kill the mother.
Yes, unless of course you are God. In that case You already know who will live and who will die, and I will not question You.
oh my so much nonsense. As I have said I think abortion is wrong but when the life f the mother is at risk or the child is a result of rape then it's absolutely ethical to have an abortion.
I agree; If I had a child through rape (God forbid) I probably wouldn't even want to look at it because it would bring back horrific memories.
So you say abortion is wrong, but it can be absolutely ethical... Think about that. It is nonsense.
Ethical;- "being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice"
That's pretty clear and not nonsense.
I agree. Our rules and standards are that we don't kill innocent, defenseless human beings. Abortion is not in accordance, and so it is not ethical. It is pretty clear.
And as per usual. Your to apply it to your life. Not others.
Not even if not aborting would kill the mother?
Ah yes, the ‘life of the mother’. It’s about time someone brings this up. This is the emotional rhetorical appeal that we always get when logic and reason can’t convince us that abortion is OK. And so the circumstances of this rare tragedy are used to justify abortion for any reason, for birth control, or at the whim of the mother. We cannot ignore the fact that abortion intentionally kills a human life. If we correctly place the value of human life above all else, we realize that the mother’s life is no more, and no less valuable than the fetus. We can’t reasonable argue that the mother’s life should be sacrificed for the sake of the fetus. Neither can we argue that the fetus’ life should be sacrificed for the sake of the mother. We expect medical doctors to protect life. They are to do no harm. We should never play God by deciding who should live and who should die. Sometimes in the effort to protect life, the baby is lost. That is a tragedy that is only morally acceptable if it is not intentional.
No, not using it to justify it for any other reason. I was just trying to find your limits. Again if continuing the pregnancy would end the mothers life and with it the foetus's life. You would consider it right to sacrifice both lives?
By this logic if I was attacked by someone who was armed and mentally ill it would be wrong for me to kill them in self defense, he is not guilty of anything, he is just mentally ill and our lives are both worth the same right?
I am Pro-Life; not for abortion but for the right to choose. Young women who are having emotional or economic instability and are pregnant should be allowed to not have the child without society giving her a dirty look. But I understand two people will never have the same opinions and this will probably only be possible in a utopian society, where everything seems perfect.
Eh, stop trying to re-define abortion.
Pro-Life means pro-life for the unborn, the Right to Life for that unborn baby. The "right to choose", or as the libs wanna say "abortion", is the right to choose to kill an unborn baby. If that's what you're for, then at least use the correct terms instead of trying to put the opposite label on it.
Just like killing an independent person, usually it's wrong but in self defense etc. its totally ethical.
It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent, defenseless human life. We resort to self defense when someone tries to deprive us of our rights by force. Abortion is never an act of self defense. On the contrary, abortion is always an act that deprives another independent person of their right to life. This person has committed no crime and is totally incapable of self-defense.
But an embryo isn't an independent person!
In fact, an independent person is exactly what it is. At conception, the embryo has it's own DNA, sourced from but independent of it's mother and father. It is irrational to state that it is anything other than what it is.
I invite you to see Atlas Shrugged, Objectivism and Abortion where I address this more completely.
An independent person is one capable of breathing on it's own, feeding itself, seeing for itself,none of these are possible with a newly conceived zygote.
Sorry, your hub is much too long to read at this time of night, tomorrow hopefully.
I take it then that you are in favour of women risking their own lives to self terminate?
Why breathing? Feeding itself? Seeing? Is it OK then to kill, infants because they are incapable of feeding themselves? Is it OK to kill anyone who is blind? Why do you make up these arbitrary abilities?
I am absolutely against any act that is intended to destroy innocent, defenseless human life. I don't know how I can make it any more clear. How is it that you take it any other way? Please read the hub I referenced above as it addresses all these and other irrational abortion arguments.
"Higher-level thought processes of humans, such as self-awareness, rationality, and sapience, are considered to be defining features of what constitutes a "person"."
To suggest that an egg is a human being is preposterous, it can't think, it has no self awareness it does not even have a brain for several months. It's a potential human being, just like a sperm is potential human being, it's one step further on but nothing that does not even have a brain can be considered human.
Out of interest, where did you get your quoted definition of a person from?
A sperm is not a potential human being. Of itself it is nothing but a sperm. It is not even a stage of human development. Combined with the egg, however, we have stage 1 of a human being (for want of a better term). And those stages will continue to unfold through that human beings life, ending in a physical and mental decline (very similar to stage 1 in some aspects) before it dies.
Human beings should not be defined by any single stage of development or decline, they are human beings because that is what happens when a sperm and egg come together.
So stop avoiding the question.
You make abortion illegal and it won't stop some women seeking abortions with the attendant risks.
You'll put the lives of real people at risk and for what?
Do you not think that this was a primary consideration of the legislators when they considered the question?
That my friend is not an irrational argument. It is logical.
The question is whether abortion is right or wrong even though it is legal.
John, you argue that it is legal, therefore it must be right. That is illogical.
Josak,you made up a definition for what is a life, a person etc., but even it doesn't work. A "potential" being of higher level thought processes... might describe me every night when I am sleeping. I doubt you'd suggest that it is OK to kill someone in this state. But that is exactly what happens with abortion.
I am the one who has answered the question:
At the moment of conception a new human life comes into existence. It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent, defenseless human life.
And I say that there are times when it is the lesser of two evils.
That's the gist of the argument. You say it's always universally wrong period and I say that it isn't.
As neither of us has any standing other than our own opinions then where are we at?
So by your logic, then, war is always wrong.
Because innocent defenseless humans are killed intentionally.
I wasn't aware of making that argument!
I did make the argument that some women would seek abortions whether they were legal or not and that this fact had probably been a major consideration in the minds of the legislators.
I do think you are taking a far too simplistic view of the whole thing, if every child were to grow up cherished and not wanting for anything I might share your view but that doesn't happen.
It has to be a woman's choice, a free choice without outside pressure.
Here on one issue at least, you and I are in complete agreement.
Taking away women's right to choose will lead to back-street abortions (and all that implies).
I find it ironic that there are some libertarians who are against abortion. They obviously think that freedom should only apply to the male half of the population.
I disagree with your definition, that's all a sleeping person does not use higher consciousness at all, to suggest that an a being a couple of centimeters big of flesh without a brain sensation, experience emotion etc etc. is a human is preposterous to me, you are free to feel that it is but don't think that it's a final and unarguable definition it is not.
I don't understand that reasoning. Abortion is 'wrong' but its okay if the mother has been raped? How would that right the wrong?
I'm pro-choice by the way. I just don't get the logic of protecting a foetus but not if one of it's parents is a rapist...?
At that point it's not about protecting the fetus but about protecting the mental health of the mother. just to clarify I am pro choice (as in i believe it should be legal) but I think it's unethical.
Ok but there doesn't have to be a rape involved for a woman's mental well-being to be an issue in deciding whether or not to terminate,. So why not expand your ethical definition to include 'when a pregnancy threatens a woman's mental health' , instead of just 'when she is raped'?
I think my comment said that it was ethical in the case of rape or medical issues the mental health of a mother is a medical issue and that should be taken into consideration, if I had just said it's ethical in the event of medical issues then readers would have assumed I just meant complications that are physically dangerous to the mother.
The question is whether abortion is right or wrong even though it is legal.
I’ve asserted that abortion is always wrong because at the moment of conception, a new human life begins to exist and that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human life.
Mighty Mom points to victims of war as though that somehow justifies the intentional killing of innocent human life. Except for that absurd comment, no one seems to want to defend the outright killing of humans.
MelissaBarret says something about the lesser of two evils and I suppose John Holden is on that same track in reference to women who will harm themselves with self-abortion. I’ve heard about cases of rape, or where the mother’s life is in danger. These all fail to show how abortion is the lesser evil. In any case, these are all just distractions and are irrelevant to the initial question about whether abortion is right or wrong.
I’ve heard several definitions of what constitutes a human life. A number of attempts use some arbitrary criterion such as ability to breathe, be independent or self sufficient, or have the capacity for reason. These all fail because for one, they are arbitrary, and for two, they can be applied to any among us.
I’ve asserted that conception marks the beginning of human life because at that point the person’s unique identity is coded in their DNA and does exist.
I’ve heard that no, it is just a mass of cells. Well of course a newborn baby is just a mass of cells.
I’ve heard that no, it is just a potential human, that it must develop before it becomes human. But a “potential” is something that has many alternative outcomes. A “potential” does not describe the fertilized egg that by its DNA-identity, has really only one outcome. In any case, even babies continue to develop after they are born and so the idea of “potential” completely fails to justify abortion.
So I am concluding that there is no rational argument against my assertion. It leads me to think that really, those who favor abortion are determined to avoid having and raising children for selfish reasons. I am lead to believe that it is really about defending a lifestyle. Abortion is one way of removing a natural consequence to a free-sex lifestyle. Those who disagree with me are defending abortion no matter what the consequences. I say the consequences include the intentional killing of innocent, defenseless human life, and that is always wrong.
As I said, I'm neither for abortion nor against it but I resent your suggestion that I'm selfish!
You talk about potential, what of the young woman with potential to do great things but who sacrifices that potential for a moment of ill considered pleasure?
It isn't only people who engage in a "free sex" lifestyle that become unintentionally pregnant, in fact they are the least likely to become pregnant!
What about the happily married couple who are in no position to bring up children?
And why this arbitrary point of conception as the beginning of a new life?
How can you even question a lesser evil when the woman's life is at risk?
I'm pro choice and I have raised two children, alone in the main. I believe Melissa is also a mother and John a father, so your conclusion that those who are in favour of abortion are "determined to avoid having and raising children for selfish reasons" has no substance whatsoever. As someone who has actually experienced pregnancy, morning sickness, two blood transfusions, three weeks hospitalization for dehydration due to morning sickness and a C section to boot. I can fully empathize with a woman who feels that she just can't go through with a pregnancy. Not to mention the economic hardship that can result due to bringing another child into the world, especially when you end up raising the children alone. But, perhaps, if you had a womb and you had actually experienced pregnancy and childbirth, oh and lone parenting, too, then you may have a little more empathy for those in that situation. As it stands, you'll never find yourself in the position of being pregnant. Perhaps that's why it is easy for you to make such judgements.
Actually I've stated several rational reasons in both this thread and others... you may disagree with those reasons but they don't make them irrational. I take personal insult at the "those who favor abortion are determined to avoid having and raising children for selfish reasons." As I am currently pregnant with my 5th child I think we can dismiss that idea. Especially since my entire life revolves around my children and their happiness/education. In addition my "free-sex" life really only involves my hubby and that doesn't happen very often as my three year old child that I wish to avoid raising sleeps with us.
Those who disagree with you are not defending abortion no matter what the consequences. I think that is a dangerous and completely untrue thing to say. I can't speak for anyone but myself but I will say that the consequences to having an abortion are just as real as having a child born into horrible environment...having a child born at the cost of a mother's life... or having a child that is born essentially a vegetable with vital signs. You say it is always wrong and that is your opinion... however making assumptions that those who disagree with you all fall into the category of "irresponsible parent who just wants to have sex without consequences" is at least in my case horribly incorrect. However if you have to demonize me to feel better about your decision have at it. Whatever gets you through the day I guess.
Well it seems I have struck a nerve. I’ve asserted that new human life begins at conception and that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent, defenseless human life. Why is it that so many people cannot accept this simple, objective reality?
I tend to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume all are capable of making reasonable and rational judgments. But then I hear that circumstances might just be too difficult and so it is better to kill by abortion.
I’ve suggested that perhaps people are motivated by selfish reasons. If that is true, it is apparently too uncomfortable to acknowledge. Apparently I insult if I suggest that sex makes babies. People take offense at this objective reality of nature. Why is that? I am called irrational by proposing that only those in a position to bring a child into the world ought to be having sex. Am I crazy? How dare I suggest such a thing! And yet why shouldn’t I expect people to consider reality, apply some sound reasoning, and choose to avoid acts that lead to what they consider to be an unacceptable mistake?
In this I am no less critical of men. Fathers are every bit as responsible for protecting their unborn children.
New human life begins at conception. That is the simple, objective reality of nature. There is no condition, circumstance or consequence that is so severe that it justifies the killing of an innocent, defenseless human life. It is always wrong.
I wouldn't say that you are crazy but I would say that you completely fail to understand human nature.
Quite often the very people who are in no position to bring up children are the most likely to resort to sex and the least likely to consider contraception (for financial reasons)
Pulp, Common People summed it up pretty well-
"you'll never watch your life slide out of view,
and dance and drink and screw,
because there's nothing else to do."
Have you heard the William Shatner version of that song? Sounds crazy right? But I swear it's better. Really captures the "I am not sure whether I want to sleep with you or punch you" feel.
No you really haven't. At least not for me. I've heard the argument before.
Yes you've asserted your opinion. To me it is an irrelevant opinion. For the sake of my opinion it doesn't really matter if life begins at conception. You have stated a subjective opinion not an objective reality.
No. You expect everyone to agree with you to be reasonable and rational. That is not a reasonable or rational stance.
Yes... that is exactly what you hear. That is exactly my opinion. And it is no less nor more valid than yours. Your experience says this is not true... mine says it can be.
Yes you have asserted that. I happen to agree that sometimes people are motivated by selfish reasons. Sometimes they aren't though. If you lack the ability to see how someone can make a completely unselfish choice that you don't agree with.
Yes... sex makes babies. I don't think anyone takes offense at that. Rape and incest also make babies. If you call rape and incest sex then that is your definition. I don't though. The insult that you gave me was that by being pro-choice that I personally didn't want the responsibility of children. That's obviously untrue. Just because I support the right to choose doesn't mean that I personally would abort or that I don't care for my children. That was stereotypical flawed thinking on your part. If you had any idea who you were talking to you would be ashamed at that assumption.
I honestly think you are being irrational because you are too overemotional to see any view but your own. It is also vaguely irrational to not recognize a personal opinion as a personal opinion rather than reality.
Possibly. You would have to see a professional for that answer though.
You are asking people to accept your reality and the reasoning you use within your world. That doesn't work because your world is not universal.
No it isn't always wrong because I said it isn't. My statement is just as valid as yours. There is nothing special about you that gives your opinions extra weight.
I'm fine with the definition that life begins at conception. I'm still for abortion. Is it a pleasant notion? No, but I am not one of those people who think the conception of a child trumps the woman or young girls life and future. I'm also not one of those people you are claiming is trying to defend a lifestyle of recklessness. I'm all for responsibility. I've only been with my husband for 13 years and married for 8. We are just now starting a family. I'm excited. But I am also aware that there are so many situations where girls are abused, raped, undereducated, or just simply make a mistake. I've had friends and relatives in those situations and I fully support them making the decision they made. They aren't immoral or uncaring or selfish women.
Also I don't think Mighty Mom was bringing up the war scenario to justify abortion but to question you on if you agree war is always wrong because by your logic it is. I was hoping you would answer that.
Do a agree that war is always wrong? I agree that nations should defend their people. I am absolutely against the intentional killing of innocent, defenseless civilians. So my position in that respect is exactly the same. In any case war is a different subject.
It is the absolute same subject.
In war--innocent babies, children and adults are killed.
If you shoot someone in defense of yourself...you have killed.
You give war this right, and self-defense this right. Abortion is the same right.
If men got pregnant...trust, me, this would not even be an issue.
Thank you for responding. War may be a different subject from abortion but when you make a definitive statement like the killing of an innocent, defenseless person is always wrong then any situation where that may occur is relevant.
I have only praise for mothers who chose to carry and deliver their babies. Congratulations MelissaBarrett! Congratulations autumn18! You give your children the gift of life, and what you do is truely good and right.
I agree with your comment.
Well my two cents, it's ethically wrong in most circumstances (I would not consider wrong in the event of rape or medical reasons) but I definitely do believe it should be legal.
i see no problem with abortions. unless you are a person who adopts new-borns, you really have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. i get a kick out of people who march against abortion but don't adopt then new born babies that women can't take care of or don't want.
Why shouldn't women be held accountable for their bodies BEFORE getting pregnant. All of my pregnancies were planned and I didn't have an accident. We have laws against eagle eggs being destroyed, but fetuces are not considered life? There are plenty that want to adopt and are going to other countries because babies are not plentiful here. My brother in law went to Russia to adopt 2 boys. Women should have a choice...get pregnant and have the baby....or don't get pregnant. No one has to lose and especially the baby that has no voice.
Snip all men...that will do the trick just as well...for, it's men who rape and impregnate....time we stop blaming women, and hold men responsible.
Make it a crime to have sex if not snipped. No More Abortions.
That's what you all want, right?.....Riiiiiiiight.
and last I knew...there are plenty American kids needing homes.....what's up with that?
Are you trying to adopt? I know that my brother in law tried to find children and there are so few that the waiting list was years. You have gone to the extreme and I didn't mention men...you did. However, everyone invovled should be responsible for bringing life into the world. If you don't want children, maybe you shouldn't have sex. That's how they are conceived you know. I'm not trying to argue with you...just put another opinion out there. I am a woman and against abortion. Not trying to change your mind..and you can't change mine...but let others have their opinion without getting snippety (no pun intended). Perhaps watching an abortion video would give you more insight. God bless and have a great day! I will not be replying again...no point.
Many years ago, in the early 1950's to be exact, my aunt became pregnant with her second child, she was delighted. Unfortunately, ten weeks into the pregnancy, she also discovered that she had TB. At the time this was treatable, but not if she continued with the pregnancy. My dads side of the family were Catholic, however, my dad told me that his parents, despite their religion, were in favor of terminating the pregnancy. They wanted to save their daughter and were also considering the little boy aged just two years, that she already had. My aunt decided that she would not, under any circumstance, have an abortion.
During her pregnancy, and whilst she became even more sick, her husband was having an affair with her best friend (so called) my aunt died when her baby daughter was just six weeks old. After her death, my grandmother and grandfather raised the children, her widowed husband took off. Two years later he returned with another woman on his arm declaring that he wanted the children, he just took them and wouldn't permit my grandmother or grandfather to see them, because his new wife wouldn't allow it.
Years later my grandmother met with Norman and Margaret. They told my grandmother about the terrible life they'd had at the hands of their father and stepmother. They were physically and emotionally abused, scarred. Margaret told my grandmother how angry she was that her mother didn't have an abortion, saying that she had no right to bring her into the world if she was not going to be around to look after her. Margaret's adult life was plagued by alcholism and she eventually committed suicide, aged just 42 years. Norman married three times, and made sure that each of his wives knew what it was like to be abused, as he had been. he died in prison.
The point that I'm trying to make, is that, while I'm sure there are many people who are glad that their mothers did not abort them, there are also those who arn't. And particularly, particularly, in a case where the mother will not be around to care for those children, we have to consider how this will affect that child. It's just not so cut and dried.
If you weren't trying so hard to prove your point, you'd have read my other posts and find that we agree. I haven't said everything is cut and dried and for the most part, I'm talking about women who, for one reason or another, don't use safe sex and think an abortion is a method of birth control. I read your further comments and as much bias as there is on the anti-abortion side, there is as much on the pro-abortion side. I'm just on the side of life when possible. I'm sorry about your cousins. It touched my heart, however, because your aunt loved her, she decided to give her life. She had no idea how it would end. However, many children are abused every year and that's another fight that is going on. Your story is an exception, not a rule. God bless.
I'm honestly not trying hard to prove a point, I think what I'm trying to say is that I can understand both camps when it comes to the children who were A) glad they were not aborted and B) wish they were. I know it's difficult to say because I don't know how it would have panned out, but if my cousins had been left with their grandparents, they could very well have been a member of the A) camp. And I'm definitely not blaming my aunt, I honestly believe she did what she thought to be the right thing. Margaret was just very angry and incredibly damaged because of her life experiences.
How nice for you that all your pregnancies were planned. Perfect lives are great.
My oldest son was a failed condom and my fourth child was an ear infection on birth control pills. My story pales in comparison to one mother that I worked with who got pregnant after her tubes were tied. Us irresponsible women of loose virtue are horrible like that.
And those terrible rape victims that fail to use protection... How unthinking of them.
Yet another case of "My world is flawless so I don't understand why everyone else's isn't. Must be their fault"
You have no idea what my world is like, but then, you're too busy trying to be sarcastic and cute. There are exceptions to everything. Nothing is perfect. However, there are many irresponsible women out there that know that if they get pregnant, there's a quick fix. The sarcasm you use along with all the excuses you have tells me that someone else has to be responsible for making things right in your wrong world. There would be less abortions if more women wouldn't be so careless. I'm not the dummy you have so sarcastically tried to make me out to be. I understand rape and the mother's life hanging in the balance. Do you honestly think that those are the only abortions? All I'm telling you is abortion is wrong...no matter how you look at it. It's a life that is being destroyed and that baby has no choice in the matter. I haven't had to deal with or know of anyone in a life or death situation at child birth, but I'm sure that the doctor would try to save both until it becomes clear that it's impossible. You are good at your own agenda....but then, you weren't aborted. I do know people who were almost aborted and the mother changed her mind at the last minute. They are both glad that the reverse decision was made. You can't ask those babies thrown in the dumpsters how they feel. I saw your other posts and purposely didn't respond to you because of this, but you found me and that tells me what you're looking for. You need to let others have their opinions even when it's not agreeing with you. No one wants to fight and argue, except maybe you and others like you...and you don't even know me. I'm sorry you feel the way you do and someday, I hope you will have a heart change, for your own sake.
The statistics are completely in your favor too. 99% of all abortions are nothing more than a form of birth control. The "life of the mother" scenario is a red herring, yet it justifies the moral failing of society's acceptance of irresponsible teen aged men and women.
The fact that people posses such a mob like aggression in their avocation of this practice shows that moral superiority is a symptom of both sides of the fence, hence they can not argue that truth is subjective.
The name calling, the "war on women" the intolerance in the classrooms, the suppression of ideological subversion, etc. are all a testament to the heavy contradiction of the so called "tolerance" of moral relativism that they preach.
The statistics are completely in your favor too. 99% of all abortions are nothing more than a form of birth control.
Excuse me, 93% according to statistics. It's still an appalling number.
Getting your facts from biased sites, either on the pro-life or pro-choice side, is sketchy. Actual objective facts and statistics are hard, but not impossible to come by, and more productive.
http://www.examiner.com/article/abortio … half-truth
This site may be a start.
It didn't address the statistic anywhere in the article.
I said this site is a good place to start when looking into the matter of abortion from a more objective viewpoint. It takes actual research, and not just going with biased sites that always "lay it all out for you." More accurate statistics of this nature are actually quite hard to come by. But that site provides good, objective resources (other sites) for mostly any info you might need, if you read it all the way through.
A thousand words, you took the words right out of my mouth, re biased sites. Furthermore, Moshka, the study (debatable as to whether we can call it that)) but I'll use that term for now. Specifically states that 93% of all abortions are the result of social reasons (then goes on to say they are unwanted or inconvenient) Well, firstly, having an abortion because it's inconvenient or the child is unwanted, does not equate to 93% of the women using abortion as birth control. Where does it state that those women have not used contraception during sex. Secondly, it's interesting that they define social reasons as not wanting a child or it being inconvenient. This study is deeply flawed. There should be some proper definition of what they define as social reasons, other than "ie. the pregnancy was unwanted or inconvenient"
You may also find this link of interest, Moshka.
The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons.
The themes of responsibility to others and resource limitations, such as ﬁnancial constraints and lack of partner support, recurred throughout the study.
Not because respondents were using abortion as a form of birth control.
Don't worry about my heart dear... It's likely larger than yours. If you are going to make arrogant stereotypical claims about an entire group of people who would make a different decision than yours then I am going to be there to correct you. Have all the opinions you like... feel free to express them... but don't stand around all personally insulted when someone expresses their opinion that is different than yours. The world doesn't work like that.
And I'm not specifically trying to be cute or sarcastic. It comes naturally to me. The cuteness is an accident of birth and the sarcasm is an inherent release valve that I use when I perceive that someone is being deliberately obtuse and/or attempting to mount a high horse of moral superiority. I also use it when I feel I am talking to someone who's intelligence is significantly lower than my own. In your case it is the high horse of moral superiority that brought it out.
And by the way... My life is almost utterly perfect. Sorry if you believe I have to be miserable to have a different opinion than your own. It might indicate a lack of knowledge of other life situations than your own.
Because there are situations where I think abortion is right for the girl/woman I am pro-choice. Whether or not I will ever be in a position to make that choice and what I would do is uncertain.
Your question highlights the polar world views here, without addressing the underlying currents that determine them. Preliminary to abortion is a swath of topics that, depending on the kernel we each sow and water, determines our crop of conclusions.
Is there a God? Does he/she/they have a plan/will that has been communicated to mankind? Are morals absolute or relative? What determines 'human rights'? Is there such a thing as the soul? Etc, etc
That said, in answer to your OP, I am against abortion, not withstanding the challenges such a position presents. Founded upon my current understanding of biblical Christianity, I cannot condone one evil as a solution to another.
I am not really for or against it. I used to be quite passionately against it, but I realized I knew nothing at all about the matter, even though I'm a woman. Morality is quite relative, no matter how many people want to rave about how it isn't, me having been one of those people. If Western religious people were honest with themselves, they'd recognize that morality within their religion is relative in many cases, especially in Christianity. But that's another conversation.
But I think abortion is more complicated than being "for or against" it. We have to ask ourselves if our personal feelings on the matter should have anything to do with the person who's actually pregnant. There are many different circumstances where abortion is considered, and they're not all completely selfish. Even if they are, it is that person's right. As much as I don't like the fact that a woman could be reckless and just abort a child whenever she felt like it, it is still her genuine decision. But most women aren't like that. As much as I would prefer that women consider adoption before abortion, my feeling on the matter shouldn't stop a complete stranger from being able to make her decision, her own personal, and probably well though out decision. We never know if it's reckless or well-thought out, but us making the decision for other people helps no-one. You may say that it helps the child, but I'm not sure. I'd rather not be born than be born into a home where my mother hates and resents me, or my daddy abuses me, etc. I know people get better from it. But not always.
How many people do we see who end up dead in an alley somewhere? Alone? Having ODed on some opiate to drown away all their sorrows? They're a person like you or me, yes, and valuable, but would it have been better (for themselves) if they'd never been born? Is having life itself more important than having a happy life? I don't know. I used to think so. It may sound harsh, but if you understand the tone and motive behind my question, you'd realize it's an important one.
I did say in one of my posts that I would never support those who have abortions as opposed to using birth control. I only used this example because there are so many people that seem to think abortion takes place in such situations. Personally, I think such scenarios are few and far between.
Abortion is complex, encompassing many individual scenarios and moral/immoral dilemmas. At its most rudimentary it entails two physical beings (mother and child); though this is debated. At its most complex it implicates community, legality, morality and God.
Some blanket bomb the problem with a one-size-fits-all credo. Still others would remove the burden of responsibility from all but the expectant mother. Some would have legislation geared to the mothers “rights”, others the child's, others on a case-by-case. Some appeal to higher authority, others to self authority, and some to majority rule. With such divergent world views, unlikely it is that unity will ever occur; and abortions will continue regardless.
Should the plight of a pregnant rape victim dictate blanket legislation on abortion law (1% of all abortions). Should the plight of the medically-at-risk dictate blanket legislation on abortion law (6% of all abortions). If 93% of all abortions are the result of inconvenient pregnancies, where does the real problem lay?
Should we be concerned at the underlying problem? About wilful life-termination promoted as solution to such a problem?
Maybe all this talk about the right and wrong of abortion is a red-herring, maybe all this talk of legislation only a band-aid to a more pressing societal cancer.
Modern technology has afforded man-kind “solutions” to their “problems” that God and nature never did. So easy it is to see the availability of new “options” as justification of their validity.
Ref: http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abor … 20specific
The controversy about Roe vs. Wade never was about the substance of the ruling. The law was about whether DOCTORS could perform abortions, not about the legality of abortions.
Most abortion laws were written before doctors had antiseptic practices. They would sterilize their instruments, and often would go from handling a dead, or seriously infected patients to doing an abortion. Women were dying from doctor performed abortions. When antiseptic practices became normal, that ended.
When the Supreme Court took up the issue, they asked those defending the law, "What is the state's interest in this issue?" The need for the statute had passed.
Abortion is the oldest form of birth control. Until the 1830's, even the Catholic Church didn't prohibit them.
Every time I here this discussion, I think of Loretta Lynn singing,
One's toddling, one's crawling, One's on the way...
In some countries, like the Netherlands, this isn't even an issue. Children and teenagers get a thorough and proper sex education and have easy access to contraception.
The irony of this debate is that the loudest speakers against abortion are the same ones against proper sex ed and available contraception.
Abortion only necessary because society is so flawed, when this is fixed then abortion will not occur - as you say, those who scream the loudest are those who are also helping to prevent the progress of society toward this point.
To answer your question abortion is a monstorous evil that must be stopped by being banned. Women who have abortion can risk getting breast cancer as mentioned in this link.
http://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/08/08/a … st-cancer/
I personally am against it. It has too many moral and ethical ramifications for me. I am however not demanding that a woman should not be in control of what she does for herself. I also do not place any judgment on her for whatever choice she makes.
Myself and many others are against the idea of taking a human life because if our mothers decided we were not worth having we would not be here, It is not the child's fault how it was created.
I understand what you are saying but it is the mothers responsibility to raise or look out for the child. It is true that guarding against pregnancy is the most responsible way of avoiding an abortion is it fair to the child to be brought into an environment lacking the means and desire for the child to grow and mature healthily? Even if the child is given up for adoption is there always a good environment for that child to go too?
I had three children and while I was not ready for them I felt a responsibility to raise them through gaining custody through a divorce to their horrible mother. I became a better parent through time but I loved the boys and that was the key. What about those that don't care about their children?
Oh God I said that I was taking a hiatus....but I am going to interject this- no woman should ever be compelled to endure an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. It is far better for a woman to have an abortion then to have an unwanted/unloved child. It is insidiously inhumane to have an unwanted child when abortion is available. Too many children suffer needlessly because they are born unwanted. To force a woman to have an unwanted child is the apex of inhumanity.
Adoption for those mothers who do not want their baby, you don't always know what the parents are like in personality. Women who get pregant and did not want to get pregnant well they should not have slept with their partner or boyfriend. Obviously a women who is raped had no control of the situation. Rape is a horrible thing but it is not the child's fault how it was created if a women who has been raped does not want to have the baby then they should adopt it.
I recently saw a stat that there are around 500,000 children in foster care in the US currently. It's really lovely to think that you can put your kid up for adoption and they'll go to a loving home, but for half a million kids that's not a reality.
The argument that you shouldn't sleep with someone if you don't want to get pregnant just makes me livid. Women shouldn't have sex unless they're willing to have a baby? That's ridiculous on so many levels and I'm sure much easier for someone with a penis to suggest.
Kids in foster care are not kids who are "up for adoption". It is possible to adopt them, but they are primarily kids who were taken from homes that were harmful to them. I know, we went thru the system in order to adopt thru Fostercare. It is not easy. There will always be lousy parents (biological, adoptive and foster), as long as there are ppl on the earth.
I have a friend who is 22. She has an 8 year old boy. She told me that when she was 14 she told her parents she was pregnant. They asked her if she wanted to give it up. She told them if she was old enough to "spread her legs for a man" then she could raise her own baby. (A brave choice imo.) They are a tight family and they live together to form a support team. Now, there is a beautiful, loved, 8 y/o boy in the world today b/c she took responsibility for her actions. She didn't have to go that route, she could have given the child up for adoption. Ppl are lined up to adopt. There are WAY more families looking to adopt then there are babies.
I have another friend who actually was aborted and lived. She has cerebral-palsy. She should never have been able to walk, but her adoptive mother worked out her legs every single day until she could walk. Now she climbs those rock walls and sings with a voice that sounds like diamonds melting. She's amazing.
There is no reason a child ever has to be killed b/c an adult made a bad choice. There IS a choice! There are many choices, but one of them should never be to cut up, burn or suction a baby to pieces, who is safe in its mother's womb.
Let me make it clear, I do not condemn these women who have made this choice. My heart breaks for them. I think a lot of them suffer physically and emotionally at some point. I don't think they are happy about the choice. I just think they have not clearly realized all the options or repercussions. I have a lot of love in my heart for these women, and I also have a lot of love for their unborn children.
Regardless of what I was born I can tell you my mother shares the same belief I do about abortion. Reality is it is true when a man and woman sleep together their is a chance the woman can get pregnant even if protection is worn women who are single or in a relationship need to know If a women sleeps with a man and they become pregnant well it was because of sexual intercourse with a man simple as that. As for couples who split because the women is pregnant well again they should not have slept together. Not everyone sees abortion as a bad thing people need to see why it is bad like if everyone's mother did that the human population would go extinct, the former U.S President Ronald Reagan said "those for abortion are already born." Backyard abortions would go on if abortion was banned. Abortion is not a safe thing women can be mentally scarred by it and can receive phyisical side effects of it as well. The truth does not always get pointed out and like Australian Senator Eric Abetz who told the truth and those for abortion did not want to hear that their is a link between abortion and breast cancer and instantly did what they could to get him to back down. Backyard abortions are no excuse to have abortion legalized like certain drugs become difficult to combat so should those drugs be legalized because many lives have been lost because of the fight to keep certain banned drugs off the streets? Teenagers who sleep together not all of them are going to necessarily suffer trouble from their parents it varies adoption is a option it need to be clearly put out there and teenagers and couples should receive sex education. Teenagers need to know the risk of pregnancy if they have sex but if they didn't know the risk well if the mother should adopt the kid unless she wants to raise the baby. Pregnant women need to be given a great deal of support by society and at least in some places that is the case. If a women is planning to sleep with a man she should consider where she is in life and whether she really wants to have sex because getting pregnant is a possibility. I hope to be a dad one day after getting married but marriage and children are not a easy thing to manage many would agree. But dads and mum's are so lucky to have children my mother says to me having kids is the best thing about life. Professor Hugh Emy said at Monash University their is no excuse for a women to be a prostitute or to abort a baby women get support to prevent her from doing those things. Abortion is a money making industry it is digusting that people die because of money adoption needs to be embraced to the max as the alternative for women who do not want to raise their child. I do my best to stick up for the weakest and most defenceless human beings the unborn.
I don't disagree that people should be aware of how sexual intercourse and pregnancy work, but I do disagree that you should be forced between choosing to have an unwanted child or just completely abstaining from sex because birth control isn't 100% effective. Telling girls/women that it's not 100% effective is of course important. Some will choose abstain on their own terms, and many will choose to have an unwanted baby in the event that they get unexpectedly pregnant (as I did myself), but that's THEIR choice. I will never agree that it's a choice that should be made for a woman because she chose to be sexually active, used birth control, and fell into that small percentage of people who it just didn't work for.
I think it's simplifying it a bit to say that couples that split because of a pregnancy shouldn't have slept together. How exactly do you expect a woman to have the foresight to know that a man would walk out on her if that happened? I think a lot of times it comes as a complete shock. I know a girl who was actively trying to have a baby with her HUSBAND and once she got pregnant he decided he wanted nothing to do with it and he up and left. I'm not saying that she should've had an abortion as she obviously did want the child, I'm saying that sometimes women trust a man completely and when the situation becomes a reality they do the unexpected.
I'm not sure why we're talking about every mother getting an abortion and humans becoming extinct, as that would just never happen. There are millions and millions of people who want children and become pregnant by choice. Abortion isn't a fun fad where people who want children are just going to change their minds and think "oh, look how awesome and easy that looks, that invasive medical procedure appeals to me so much more than having children!"
As for your drug analogy, I'm actually completely supportive of safe injection sites that supply clean needles and a safe environment for drug addicts. Where I live, we have an area that is incredibly dense with drug addicts and the implementation of a safe injection site has lowered death and disease rates by a huge amount. In a perfect world we could provide counselling for everyone and stop everyone from making bad choices, but we can't. That's why I think it's important to give women a safe alternative if they've made a mistake or find themselves in a situation where they're desperate for an abortion. I think it's worth protecting those women.
Again, I completely agree with educating teenagers on sex and pregnancy, but telling a teenager "you should not have sex, even with birth control, because there's a small chance it will fail and you will have no choice but to have a baby" is damaging to sexual health. Teenagers are also generally not great with impulse control and risk assessment.
I would agree that I think adoption is a better alternative, and I think it's worth promoting (though I don't think it's as simple as many like to make out), but I also will just never support taking away a woman's right to choose which option is best for HER. I am not pro-abortion, I don't think it's an easy alternative at all and I don't love the idea of it by any stretch, but I do my best to stick up for a woman's right to choose what happens to her body and her right to be sexually active without being forced to have a child if contraception fails.
Your mother was against aborting you as was my mother with me and my brothers. By supporting women been able to have an abortion you are pro choice also known as pro abortion you are for abortion you support the idea of abortion. I am pro life because I am against abortion euthanasia and the death penalty all the way I support pro life politicians as well I am against stem cell research and cloning because it is linked to abortion. Where I live in Australia in the state of Victoria. Abortion is legal up to the moment of birth if two doctors grant approval some women and women with their partner or husband find it is too much to have a almost to be born child so they abort it because they changed their mind along the way and children get aborted alive and left for dead it is sickening and disgusting that abortion legalised up the moment of birth in 2008 withotu any amendments. Not all boyfriends and husbands walk out on their girlfriend or wife when they get pregnant trust is a fact in a relationship or a marriage but people can suprise you no doubt about that. I think couples should first marry then have a kid or kids things don't end up being that way all the time unfortunately. Lives are not always the same with others some marry, some don't marry, some have kids and don't marry, some marry and don't have kids. If couples married or not married know the risk and they have sex and the women is pregnant and despite her wearing protection well she still had sex and took a risk if a couple want to have sex with each other and they know what it is and they know what they are doing their is no law that stops them as long as both people in question are old enough to have sex regardless it is not the childs fault how it was created whether our parents wanted us it is not our fault how we were created. If two people in a relationship want to have sex they should take it slow and give time to think. Now women who have abortions can risk getting breast cancer not being able to have another child and can die as well https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/8-wom … -govt-repo , however they will not always get told that because some don't want the truth to get out and doctors can even lie about stuff like they might say the baby will have some issues. A doctor said to my mum that my little brother would be born normal with a massive kidney problem absolute lie he was born with down syndrome and he does not have a massive kidney problem. Some women abort children with disabilites because they do not meet the requirements of a normal human despite their being adoption. Some chidren with disabilites get aborted because
I hope one day for a world where adoption is embraced to the max as a alternative for women who do not want to raise their child and abortion is banned and those doctors who perform backyard abortions are sent to prison and adoption stops women from even having backyard abortions.
Some people with disabilities get aborted because of their condition which that by having a disability they are seen by some as not meeting the requirements of a normal human being they are seen as inferior. What rubbish the Nazi's saw the perfect human being as someone with blonde hair and blue eyes. The Jews and many others were not seen as meeting the requirements of that nazi description and it is the same case with abortion with those babies who have a disability and why they are aborted. People with disabilites such as my brother with down syndrome become rarer and are on the way to extinction courtesy of abortion and the ones born alive are seen as freaks by some in society. Regardless of whether it is a boy or girl with a disability or not, no baby should be aborted this man in this article in link attached is one of my many heroes http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state … 34z33.html
I can't say whether it is right or wrong because right and wrong is subjective. Anyway, who am I to make that decision? What I will say is that there are many reasons why a women might choose an abortion, and not all of them are entirely selfish.
Yeah right and wrong is subjective, that is why the OP asked what your subjective take on it was.
He didn't ask for our subjective take on it. He asked whether it is right or wrong even though it is illegal. Reading comprehension, Innersmith?
"Are you for or against abortion?" "Is it wrong or right?"
I believe these to be the same question in affect. By refusing to answer you are basically saying that the concept of right and wrong is irrelevant, which i consider to be quite dangerous. You are not arrogant by saying that abortion is moral or immoral, you are simply stating your view.
If what you mean by that is "I have my own opinion, but I wouldn't let that affect the decision of others" then fine, but please clarify.
I am for abortion. I am pro choice. However, that does not mean that I would support a woman, or man, that did not use birth control responsibly but felt they could just have an abortion in the event of pregnancy. Some people, however, will see abortion as wrong in any situation, even if the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy. That's a blanket right and wrong. I feel it would be wrong to deny a woman an abortion in the event of rape, etc. Not everyone would agree with my personal definition of right and wrong, tis subjective.
I think abortion is wrong because it is murder, if your mother my mother and everyone else's mother decided their child was not worth giving birth to. The human population would die out the former U.S President Ronald Reagan once said "I've noticed those for abortion are already born." It is not the child's fault how it was created. Their is adoption and paid parental leave to help out mothers.
Moral relativism is a falsehood taught in the institutions by liberal professors who posit the idea that there is no such thing as truth, which is in diametrical opposition to the goal of education (the search for truth). people like to sound intellectually enlightened by looking for diversity in truth, but the reality is in most cases truth is a constant.
So if you believe that being against abortion is a moral failing on my part then you contradict yourself in that you are truly only being selective concerning what is a constant and what is not.
What has any of that got to do with Hollie's post?
I must say I have never seen such a beautifully phrased yet effectively empty pile of bologna since Philosophy 101. My professor would have given it an F then too.
Firstly you assume that your belief is morally superior. There is no such proof that exists of that. There exists a very real possibility that your belief is a moral failing simply because it is a moral failing. If that possibility is true then those who disagree with you are not contradicting anything. They are simply correct.
Furthermore, it is ironic that the only way that you can be found morally lacking is by the terms of your own argument. Under the terms of "Moral Relativism" then your opinion would be valid. Therefore the only way you can be found wrong is by your own definitions.
In addition truth is subjective and relative. Therefore moral relativism has no conflict with education.
In your defense you did sound intellectually enlightened there for a second. Daniel Webster would be proud. However bullcrap is still bullcrap... no matter how pretty the box you put it in is
That is a very contemptuous response for one who believes that truth is subjective. I would think that you would be more accepting of the fluid "truths" of the community.
The constant is that you think your opinion is morally superior to mine, hence you don't really believe in moral relativism either.
It was not contemptuous just an observation of the obvious weaknesses in your argument. Nor do I think your opinion is inherently morally inferior to mine I just don't happen to feel it is morally superior either.
You are reading things that I haven't written. I assume because you have a preconceived notion to how this discussion is supposed to be going. Would you like to continue on your own? I obviously don't actually need to type anything for you to read it.
Melissa, you said that my comment was a pile of bologna, and bullcrap. That's pretty contemptuous and emotive in my book.
Nope... it reflected not a bit on you. You might be the wisest of all people but the particular argument you were using was inherently flawed. I was just calling a spade a spade. Your argument basically said that there was no gray area just right and wrong. It further said that you were on the right side and if we disagreed that we were inconsistent with our education. If you prefer the adjectives silly or nonsensical or even "completely not founded in any logic system known to anyone but yourself" then please replace bologna and BS with one of those adjectives. It all amounts to the same conclusion though.
So now my comments are silly, nonsensical, a pile of Bologna, BS, completely not founded in any logic system known to anyone but myself, and bullcrap. Who's the childish one?
Um... If you cannot take a criticism of your opinions then likely you. It is up to you to make the call on that one though. Is the problem that you would like me to use prettier words that mean the same thing or that I am pointing out problems with your opinion in the first place?
I already said that I could care less about your insults. The fact that your friend sits by and accuses me of being childish is a testament to the fact that the so called unbiased moral relativism that they are governed by is nonexistent. otherwise you and Hollie would not have diverted to character assassination when confronted with opposing facts and statistics.
It wasn't a character assassination, I just said that I thought that particular comment was a little childish and it was you that became all defensive and started attacking Melissa when I challenged you about the non-evidence you provided.
I didn't attack your character I disagreed with your ideas. There is a difference.
perhaps you need to re-read some of my posts. Nowhere did I state that that it would be a moral failing on the part of others if they were opposed to abortion. In fact, I think I may also have asked the question, "who am I to make that decision?"Truth means different things to different people, particularly where truth is not tangible, as in the is instance. Having said that, I can think of instances where the anti abortion lobby change their stance on the right to take a life, it involves guns and burglars. Is truth subjective to those people?
What you are suggesting then is that there is no difference between killing an innocent baby, and killing a convicted murderer? You hold a very peculiar version of the truth.
Let's leave the emotive language out of this, it's not an innocent baby, it's a collection of cells totally incapable of functioning outside the womb.
Sure it is. I suppose leaving "emotive language" out of the conversation would be the necessary step to take when disconnecting ones self from a very emotional and life changing decision. I'm sure that's what they do in abortion clinics when convincing a young woman to abort the "mass of cells" they are carrying.
I doubt if any abortion clinic anywhere in the western world puts any influence on patients whether it's to abort or not to abort!
You are right,it must be a very emotional and life changing decision and not made any easier by those who would have the mother in a state of guilt for "Murdering" their nice cuddly baby.
No, again you need to re-read my post. I didn't suggest that at all. I suggested that the anti-abortion lobby make the distinction between those two "truths" Keep up! Is the right to take a life always wrong, and a constant truth as you claim? Or is it Ok with you in certain scenarios? Perhaps you are the one with a peculiar view of the truth? Btw, you do have a tendency to put words into other peoples mouths.
I never put any words in your mouth, I'm simply coming to a conclusion based on your logic. But perhaps you meant something other than the death penalty when you talked about guns and burglars.
Of course taking away a life is not always wrong. But saying that anti-abortion lobbyists change their stance based on two completely unrelated situations is not a very linear path of thinking. but that's your version of the truth and my version is a little different. After all neither of us are objectively right or wrong about anything, otherwise truth its self might accidentally be objective.
What you are suggesting then is that there is no difference between killing an innocent baby, and killing a convicted murderer?
I din't suggest that at all.
So if you believe that being against abortion is a moral failing on my part then you contradict yourself
I didn't suggest that either.
You came to that conclusion based on your logic, not mine. I simply raised the point that some within the anti-abortion lobby feel that killing is justified in certain scenarios- I didn't suggest that this was either right or wrong. You just assumed that I was saying it was wrong.
Of course taking away a life is not always wrong. But saying that anti-abortion lobbyists change their stance based on two completely unrelated situations is not a very linear path of thinking.
Why is not a very? linear path of thinking, it's true isn't it?
You also seem a tad undecided as to whether truth is a "constant" or "fluid"
but that's your version of the truth and my version is a little different. After all neither of us are objectively right or wrong about anything, otherwise truth its self might accidentally be objective.
So we agree then, truth is subjective.
I laugh every time someone says this.
Truth is just like wisdom. It is universal in nature and is recognized when heard/seen or read.
Yep. But still means different things to different people, based on our experiences, biases and varying levels of reasoning.
The only thing it means Hollie is that ego is more powerful than most individuals realize. Nothing more.
Edit: or lack thereof, depending on who we are talking to.
No. Ego distorts one's understanding of wisdom.
No we don't agree at all. Abortion is not comparable to the death penalty or self defense because on the one hand one is protecting the lives of others or ones self by stopping a maniac from hurting you or someone else, where on the other hand you are killing innocents who have done absolutely nothing to merit the death penalty. Those paths are completely separate therefore truth is still objective.
Again, I didn't say it was comparable to the death penalty or self defense. This is a straw man argument.
If your version of the truth were truly objective, you wouldn't feel so emotive about this topic. Your views are based on emotion and your personal feelings about abortion-not objectivity.
Excuse me again for jumping the gun, what exactly did you mean when you said that lobbyists change their stance on abortion when it comes to guns and burglars? And what do the two have to do with each other?
And as far as coming across as being emotive, I rather think I was being rational and collected in my assertions. If I have mocked or offended in any way I sincerely apologize. Perhaps you were mistaking me with MelissaBarrett. Her response was infinitely more emotive than mine yet no one called her out on it. Could it be that the liberal crowd is just as emotive as the conservatives? Perhaps even a little more so?
I didn't say that anti abortion lobbyists changed their stance on abortion when it comes to guns and burglars, there you go again. I said that anti abortion lobbyists change their stance on taking a life in some situations. I neither compared abortion with self defense nor did I suggest that those who believed that it was ok to take a life in self defense were in the wrong..I simply highlighted that truth, and our take on right and wrong can change given a particular set of circumstances.
You have used emotive language because it is an emotive topic, for everyone, whether for or against. The truth to each of us is based on our personal feelings, experiences and biases regarding this matter, therefore, it is bound to vary from person to person. Right and wrong, or a truth, is subjective in this case. You didn't offend me at all. Not one of us can literally deal with this issue in a truly objective way, because of our value judgements, the topic is too controversial.
I have to say though, that I do think it's a little childish of you to start pointing fingers at other hubbers when this conversation was between you and I. And, I'm not a liberal.
Ah I see. you are saying that they change their stance on the taking of a life, however this is not true. They are for the most part very consistent with the definition of what is and isn't an acceptable cause of death. It still doesn't agree with the presupposition that nobody is objectively right or wrong.
And now you are accusing me of being childish for pointing out an inconsistency in this forum's collective objectivity? Please forgive me again for my "lack of wisdom", but I never called you a liberal. I think you were projecting a little.
My apologies for thinking that you were suggesting that I was a liberal. Not that I was offended by that, just wanted to clarify that I was not. I'm not suggesting that they are not consistent in their opinions, not at all. However, I do not agree that they do not change their stance on taking a life, given a specific set of circumstances.
I didn't suggest you lacked wisdom, where did you get that from? I did think your comments regarding another poster were a little childish, yes, given the conversation was between you and I.
Here is what you ask yourself.
Is it ok to kill a newborn? Why or why not?
What about a baby at 8months? 7? 6? 5? 4? 3? 2? 1?
At some point, your answer will probably change, and you have to examine that answer.
For me, I have my personal opinion that no abortions should be performed except in cases of rape. However, I would be willing to compromise and set the law at when the heart starts to beat. Anything after that and I consider it killing an innocent living child.
I am the product of rape and incest, my mother was only twelve and a half years old when she had me, under just about every criteria abortion would seem to be the answer.
Sixty odd years ago that choice was illegal, as the unwanted product of the rape and incest all I can say is I am glad that I was not aborted, for my life has value to me and my family.
God bless you.
I'm glad you were not aborted too. EVERY life has value.
My teenage daughter in high school did a Special Olympics thing with mentally challenged kids and she was really touched by it all. EVERY life has value.
Yes it does and in today's world is balanced by the rights of the living active person.
Not every pregnancy should result in the birth of a child. The implications on a global level would be absolutely devastating, in more ways than can be counted.
Yes, LIFE has value. You looking at from an individual perspective limits your global understanding. If every single human organism created resulted in a birth, there would be no resources and overpopulation of the planet would be so bad, that hundreds, upon hundreds of millions of people would die just from starvation alone. However, reproduction would out-pace those that die.
That's the problem with the religious folk, they don't see past themselves long enough to picture a global view.
I don't think anyone is 'yay, abortion is great, everyone should do it'.
The question is: when is it justified?
For example most people will agree with therapeutic abortion when death of mother and fetus is otherwise inevitable.
I am for abortion, totally!!
I think it should be the sole source of birth control practiced by all women of childbearing age.
Ladies, do you want to have to rely on some man having the coordination to put a condom on correctly and trusting it not to break.
Do you want to put hormones in you body that can cause health problems for you down the road?
Other forms of birth control are messy and a hassle and may not be covered by your health insurance plan.
Besides, none of them are 100% effective.
Nope, I say abortion is the only way to go.
It's just so easy and convenient.
And it works!
Ah, MM. Your unassailable reason astonishes me. And makes me say - Right on!
If I was pregnant I'd probably"; "definately" abortiy it "If" they would let me ??
Against it. When a life extinguishes you cannot get it back; the same manner once a life begins you cannot put an end to it. Is not your decision but your responsibility to make that life to shine as much as possible.
Totally concur with this! While I am staunchly prochoice, I strongly advocate using strong preventive contraception as any responsible and intelligent person would do!
I'm all for it. Pro-Choice because if it was your choice in the first place it should remain that. And without legal abortions what happens to medical abortions, ones that only happen for the survival of the mother?
I'm neither for nor against it. I'm pro-choice but that doesn't mean I'm pro- abortion. It means I'm for the RIGHT TO CHOOSE depending on one's circumstances and conscience. It's not for me to dictate or inflict my personal morality on anyone else, nor is it my place to judge anyone else. And it's not anybody else's place either, althought there are a great many people out there who fell it's their right to tell everyone else how they should live.
I am pro-choice. I believe everyone has the right to chose without being judged. I would not push what I believe personally on to someone else.
For myself, I don't think I could ever do it because life is life and I don't believe it's right or that we have the right to chose to end it. When my oldest son was a year old I was told he would be severely disabled, virtually like a toddler for life but I am glad that they couldn't of found out while I was pregnant with him because I feel sure there would have been a lot of pressure to have an abortion by people around me. But my son is 14 now and he has proved medical science wrong over and over. The idea that if things were different I could of killed him doesn't bare thinking about.
It is far too broad a topic to level down to right or wrong. Each case is as individual as the people involved.
What might be wrong in one situation maybe totally right in an other and to make a blanket law to cover all eventualities is impossible.
I think that makes me pro choice!
The most enlightening movie (a documentary) I have seen regarding abortion is entitled "Lake of Fire" and was released a half-dozen years ago.
A doctor sorts through a tray of fetal parts and finds a little hand and foot. Then he holds up a severed little head. One eye is bulging out like it's staring at the camera. Testimonies such as the one from the woman who says she saw babies stacked in the freezer at an abortion clinic. Good stuff like that.
Right after I saw that movie I started using condoms, had a vasectomy, and practiced abstinence as much as humanly possible. No abortions for me, thank you very much.
There are those who are for abortion who can dehumanise the foetus, pretend that it is not human, and only think of the here and now, turning a blind eye to the emotional consequences that can affect someone for decades afterwards.
There are those who are against abortion under any circumstance who can dehumanise the mother whilst they raise themselves up on righteous pedestal, turning a blind eye to the potential consequences of a child growing up unwanted, unloved, etc.
Before anyone quickly decides whether they are for or against, consider whether or not you ever been in that dreadful situation where you actually need to decide to go through with one or not?
My wife and I did have to make that decision; we faced severe Downs, Cystic Hygroma, and other issues. The pregnancy was knife edge as to whether it would miscarry. In this situation you may wish for a miscarriage to take away the weight of having to decide, but this only brings its own guilt for hoping it would be so. Should we intervene to maintain a life that might otherwise die naturally sooner or later, or intervene to end that life now?
The decision is with the parents and everyone's situation is different. Some are emotionally strong, others are weak, yet others can detach themselves. Some can cope others can't. Whatever the parents decide taking into account the impact on their lives, the quality of life and life chances of the child, nobody outside the parents has a right to pass judgement; they don't live in the parents' shoes.
If I ask why the strongest anti-abortion opinions seem to come from men -and women with dried up uteruses- I would be slammed wouldn't I?
My husband is great with his opinions on abortion... He acknowledges that he doesn't have ovaries so he has no standing to state his opinion.
I have noticed the exact same thing. It's easy to be self-righteous about abortion if it will never be something you have to make a personal decision about.
Its that nasty black and white... right and wrong... completely theoretical and personally inapplicable opinion that allows for nothing but a concrete mentality. It has a lot to do with being unable to imagine any life but your own.
My husband says the same thing actually! Livelonger, I totaly agree, it is so easy to be self-righteous about something you'll never have to decide in your own life, which is why it is so easy for those same people to make abortion illegal for everyone else.
Personally, I'm pro-choice, and I'm glad it was legal when I made my choice. Even if abortion is made illegal, it will still happen. Many women will chose back-alley abortions which may kill them. It should remain legal just for that reason, let alone all the other obvious ones.
Yes, abortion is not something new, it has been around as long as people have been having sex. Legal or not, it will not go away just because some people don't agree with it.
When the debate moves to the ugly talk about dead fetus parts, etc. that's when I stop listening, because I get it, I think everybody gets it. Nobody is saying abortion is a beautiful thing. If you are pro-life good for you. Don't have an abortion. Nobody will force you to.
Abortion is the hardest choice anyone will ever have to make in a lifetime. The point is that it will be done one way or another. Why not have it done safely? Forcing it back into the dark ages of the wire coat hanger doesn't even make sense. It only causes more pain to an already painful enough situation.
Have any of you ever actually been to an abortion clinic?
I was. This was more than 20 years ago. You walk in and talk to the financial person first. Of course, they want the money honey. So the financial person says the abortion costs $237, but we don't take cash, checks, or plastic.
You got to go to the bank a block away and get a money order for $237. $237 might sound pretty cheap to kill a baby, but like I said, that was some time ago.
Yeah, and you don't think the person at the bank a block away knew why you wanted a money order for $237? I got it pretty quick. They probably had a big stack of them just there waiting.
It got a lot worse after that.
The women who were sitting there waiting for the procedure laughing and joking about how many times they had been there annoyed me. The women who looked really depressed bothered me.
Your point being what? Were you somehow under the impression that everyone here thought it was ponies and flowers?
Apparently the women who were sitting there laughing and joking thought so.
I think your's was that since they were laughing and joking that they were callous murdering baby-killers that obviously didn't care about what they were doing and his was that he didn't see any such connection...
Have we got that straightened out now?
Actually, I thought their attitude was like "I don't have anything better to do today so I might as well get an abortion."
Wow... that required some serious forethought on their part.
"I'm going to be bored in 8 weeks so I'll get pregnant today so I can spend that day being put in horrible pain and spend a week or so after that in agony... beats going to the mall"
What's up with the horrible pain?
They all were walking out of there pretty normal.
Talking and laughing and saying, "See you next time!"
I find that very very difficult to believe... almost like something someone would make up to prove a point that they could otherwise not prove.
Any way a pregnancy ends is going to cause pain. That's a fact. Whether it is a 5 week miscarriage an 10 week termination or a live birth. The cervix has to open and the uterus WILL contract. That's just how the female body works.
Yeah.... even now the process is still very (for most women) painful and causes cramps for days and or weeks, it used to be even worse.
I am hugely skeptical about this story.
My point was simply to ask what was that story supposed to achieve? What does it mean to you and what should it mean to people reading it? In short I am wondering why you posted it.
Once again because everyone should face a situation exactly the same as you would/think someone should.
I laugh in horrible situations all the time. It's what I do. Doesn't mean I don't take it seriously just means that I show my nervousness/stress in a different way. I'll try to refrain from doing it the next time and simply just flog myself and gnash my teeth.
There is a condition that causes people to unconsciously masturbate when they are stressed/nervous, but you know what they say, different strokes for different folks
I've actually seen that when working with the severely mentally disabled. I've never witnessed it elsewhere though. Humour is actually seen as a higher level coping skill in psychology. It's a defense mechanism of course but it's a higher-functioning one.
Ya, I have been to an abortion clinic, and you know what, I don't remember that much from a negative experience like that. In fact, I wasn't really paying attention to anyone else there, I was a bit preocuppied.
"If you don't want children, maybe you shouldn't have sex."
There it is in a nut-shell.
But in America's eye...this only applies to women.
Men are free to have all the sex in the world....
Soooo, make it fair: snip all men, and voila--no more abortion.
If we did that.....abortion would not be an issue any more...trust me.
They would give it another name, and sanction it as a positive thing.
John Holden, you aren't serious are you...influence to abort at Planned Parenthood is strong...do a little research on the subject.
To those that are Pro-Abortion I ask you these questions...if you can answer them without name calling or "non answer" rhetoric.
When DOES life begin?
At what point would you say murder becomes murder? (conception, first trimester, second, third, right up til birth, after?)
Does the father of the unborn child have a say in whether their child lives?
Life begins when the foetus is capable of living outside the womb.
Murder becomes murder when somebody is killed unlawfully, that is the definition of murder.
Whether the father has any say in the matter very much depends on if he's around or not. If he is and in a relationship with the mother then I would like to think he does. If it's a case of the mother doing the rounds of the pubs trying to find him then forget it.
So, you do NOT support late term abortion? And, if medical technology allows first trimester babies to survive would you count this?
I was making the assumption that the father was aware of the pregnancy and that they wanted their child to be born.
I never suggested that I support abortion at any time, I try to understand what a woman might be going through and offer support, as I would if she decided to continue the pregnancy.
I try also to take a pragmatic view, if a woman is determined to end her pregnancy isn't it better that she should do so with full medical attention rather than a knitting needle, a hot bath and a bottle of gin?
Exactly John. Well said. I think the pro-life people have become so concerned with the fetus that hasn't even been born yet, that they forget the mother carrying that unborn is a human, already living in this world. To me, the life of one who already exists trumps the life of an unborn that has never experienced life yet.
John, you say life begins when the fetus is capable of living outside the womb? Why is that? Would you please explain?
What is to explain?
Before that the foetus has no life of its own and must depend on the mother for everything.
John, you're probably a good person but you just haven't thought this through. I'm not attacking you. I'm just challenging you.
So if dependency is the criteria for life, are you sure that a newborn infant is alive? Aren't they dependent too? Or what about the elderly who need constant care? Have they stopped living?
You need to explain it and I don't think you can.
No, I think it's you who is confused, when does life begin then, you tell me!
At the moment of conception a new human life comes into existence.
Why then? Why not before, after all the sperm and the egg are living organisms.
Actually it can take up to 24 hours after conception for the sperm to fertilize the egg.
Because before, they only have the potential. There are many alternative possibilities. Once the egg is fertilized, everything about the person is set and is coded in the DNA. Everything from, gender, eye, hair color, even what the person's fingerprints and other traits that we use to establish a person's identity, come into existence. This happens precisely at the moment of conception. Not sooner. Not later.
But the sperm and the egg are already encoded with DNA! And those traits take weeks, even months to develop.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's 48 hours.
I agree and you've articulated the thought so clearly. Karen
Maybe Melissa was unsure as to who exactly you were talking to, given that you'd replied to me, started discussing moral relativism and then stated that I was suggesting your view was a moral failing (neither of these points seemed in anyway related to my post). Can you see how that might come about? I'm also not sure exactly what I'm supposed to call Melissa out on, given the two of you were engaged in that conversation.
Well given the format of this forum how could someone possibly be confused as to who I was speaking to when your comment was attached to my comment? that's just an excuse for an inconsistency on your part, which is fine with me. But you did call me childish for referring to a person who you now admit was indeed attached to our conversation.
You seem to be confusing an internet forum and private messaging.
You are right, I am confused at the double standard here. If I mention you I am being childish, but if you jump into the conversation it's ok. If you recall, Hollie was the one who set up those rules, I however could care less.
I see no double standard there. I see you expecting Holly to somehow defend you from me... Which is confusing to me as I am neither attacking you nor does Holly have any control whatsoever over what I do.
I don't make the rules of the forum, Moshka. i simply said that I thought it was a little childish because of the way you said "perhaps you are confusing me with Melissa, her response was infinitely more emotive than mine, yet no-one is calling her out on it." I wasn't engaging in a conversation with Melissa, I was conversing with you.
No, I called you childish for referring to another hubber in a negative way instead of continuing to the debate the issues at hand.
Moshka, Melissa, Hollie, enough with all the bickering, can we get back on something like topic please?
Exactly...chill out It's a public forum, if you say something people disagree with prepare to be challenged.
Everyone is just so sensitive these days
Not necessarily you...
Of course I'm oversensitive... I'm pregnant There does that provide a great segway back onto topic or what?
Nope can't do it. My buy two abortions get one free coupon expired a couple days before I found out. Now I would have to choose between paying for an abortion and buying crack and come on lets get real here... If I spent all my condom money buying crack 6 months ago what makes you think I'm gonna go against the grain and use it for birth control now?
Crack is definitely the way forward. I've heard in the US crack can be obtained with food stamps anyway.
Random unprotected sex with guys in exchange for crack pays more rocks per hour. After all the welfare reviews and paperwork take so much time away from other things.
John, UW, you're right of course. However, in my defense I am a nutter.
Yeah, I've got to go anyways. I can't blow the entire Saturday with you all. Nice chatting.
And what of miscarrige? Is that murder? Or is it OK if nature intends it? Or God--if you so believe.
God sanctions murder of a fetus?
Indeed, the medical term for an early miscarry is abortion!
So they would have it illegal for a woman to miscarry!
What about if a child is not viable in utero? Should a mother be forced to carry until full term and give birth to dead child?
Okay... what if she is carrying twins and one dies but the other is alive... Is it cool to insist that a mother be a walking tomb for 4 or 5 months then give birth to a partially reabsorbed body?
What if a selective abortion of the not-viable fetus would pose a risk to the other child but not a certain miscarriage? If she chooses to abort the dead child and the other child miscarries is she then a murderer?
No, no and no. Odd though that you should bring this up. I was a twin (non identical) I landed in the uterus but my twin remained in the Fallopian tube (eptopic pregnancy) my mum had her fallopian tube removed at approximately 12 weeks into the pregnancy. She did not know that she had been carrying twins (no scans then) she kept insisting after the operation that she was still pregnant. The doctors told her she was wrong because she would have to have been carrying twins to still be pregnant and that that was impossible because no fetus would survive such a major trauma at 12 weeks (the op) she lost weight instead of gaining it, as I grew the pain for her was unbearable because it was putting pressure on the wounds. At 7 and a half months pregnant the doctors confirmed that she was indeed pregnant and induced me, before I killed her. She has admitted to me that she would have had me aborted if she had had the pregnancy confirmed, because she was in agony. I completely understand how she must have felt. She also had three other kids to care for. Apparently, I was a medical miracle!
My daughter had an ectopic pregnancy too....doctor said she could never get pregnant again. The she had another son.
We also call him the miracle baby!
Us miracle babies are definitely here for a reason. I also think this is why we should get second opinions when we feel we need to. Just because someone is medically trained does not mean they are always right.
No doubt, that dr should have listened to your mom. Moms know. That's how I know that it takes awhile for a fetus to become a baby. It's not an instant human.
I've experienced it 3 times....
any you men want to fight me on this?
You know LMC, when I was pregnant with my son I started to feel that I was carrying a boy around week 16 of pregnancy. When I had my five month scan I asked the midwife the sex of the baby, she wouldn't tell me because (she said) that their were lots of women in the area who might choose abortion because they were not carrying a boy. (I live in an area where there are lots of BME communities, British minority ethnics) But I still knew it was a boy, I just knew.
When I was carrying my daughter I also felt strongly, not right at the beginning, but around the 18 weeks mark, that I was carrying a girl. Neither were ever confirmed by the scan, but I knew. On both occasions I just knew.
My partner and I had been trying for about a year. I knew when we had achieved pregnancy,I don't know how, but I knew. I can still remember it to this day.
I also knew that she was carrying a girl!
You clearly have a dominant feminine side.
Yes, I look gorgeous in stockings and sussies
My dear, I'm sure you do look gorgeous in women's underwear...and hoisery.
R part of the brain:Reptile. The most ancient. Responsible for figh-or-flight reaction. Very territorial, paranoid.
I learned it in psychology class!
Honestly, there are worse scenarios. I don't think you're a tranny, but so what, share if you feel the urge.
I think it's sad the way abortion has become a form of birth control especially here in the United States. I also wonder what child has been destroyed that might have grown up to be a great world changing person. I don't see how anyone after having watched a young child just starting to walk could have an abortion I don't see. But I still think it's a woman's choice. But a hard choice. Think about who that little person could have grown up to be. Think about the life you just destroyed. That child will never know the joys of life. Think carefully about what you are doing.
I think most women in that situation probably think carefully about what they are doing. I have seen no evidence (that is reliable or authoritative), and trust me I've searched for it, that suggests that abortion has become a form of birth control. I don't understand why people are making that assumption. All the evidence that I have come across, both here in the Uk and the US, suggests that the overwhelming majority of abortions take place because of economic hardship and lack of support from a partner.
I work in social programs here in the USA everyday and here in the American south it is being used as birth control especially by young women. I know some that have had 2-3 abortions. I don't know what you would call that but birth control?????
But why? Is there no birth control available? That is the only reason that makes sense...is it abstinance only around there?
If birth control is avaliable---they would use it! Or maybe they can't afford it?
And if you're talking condoms....well, that's on you guys. AND condoms do break. And pills do falter....I know. Got pregnant while on them.
Just deal with the reality.....kids are having sex. Kids will have sex. Nothing will stop that. If you are anti-abortion, be pro-birth control!
having multiple abortions doesn't mean that the women have not attempted to use birth control as LMC says.
A woman has a right to choose to not get knocked up for sure. Does she have a right to kill her baby? In this country she sure does. Does that make it right? Not in my book it doesn't. Use all the words you want to obfuscate reality, the reality remains the same. It is killing.
So, let's say a woman is diligent about taking her birth control and one day it just fails and she becomes pregnant. Say she spent 10 years going to university to get a degree and is just starting out in her career. Say she would resent the baby she didn't want for taking her life in a direction that would make her miserable. Say her partner finds out she's pregnant and leaves her. Why should she be forced to drop everything in her life to raise an unwanted child when a man has the option of just walking away? I personally know of a few people who have gotten pregnant when they were using some extremely reliable method of birth control. It happens. Abortion is not always the result of stupidity or being irresponsible.
But I guess women just shouldn't be having sex until they're ready to have children, right? Some women spend their whole lives saying "I don't want kids yet but maybe someday" and then reach an age where it's no longer possible and they're okay with that. Should those women be forced to choose between sterilization as a young woman or just not have sex until they're no longer of child bearing age? Are we really okay with telling a woman that doesn't want children at this very second that those are her options?
But of course there's always adoption. Because nine months of pregnancy won't really change much, right? And what's one more kid in the hundreds of thousands already waiting to be adopted. Such a simple alternative!
I wouldn't be able to have an abortion myself, but that's just me and I don't expect every other woman in the world to feel the same way. I want every woman to feel that she is in control of her body and her life and that she has a SAFE way to end her pregnancy if she so chooses. Because let's be real - making abortion illegal isn't going to stop it from happening. You'll have scared teenagers who are afraid of their parents killing them if they find out they're pregnant that seek the procedure out from somewhere. And then you'll have those who are not nearly ready or capable of having children that are forced to do so and I don't know if you've really thought about this, but raising kids is kind of a big deal. Even some women who 100% wanted their kid crack under the pressure. I can't imagine how a woman in an unstable financial situation who didn't want a baby, who can't afford childcare, who can't find a good job, would cope with all of that. It just boggles my mind that we expect women to just "figure it out" or "deal with it" because it is not even remotely that simple.
Some people abuse the option and are irresponsible with their birth control, yes. I will never agree with that and I wish there was an ethical way to control that. But the option shouldn't be taken away from women who have been victims of failed birth control, or rape, or just one single misunderstanding or mistake because of the few who abuse it.
The proposal that the desire to have sex outweighs the need to be responsible for a possible pregnancy, seems to me the same logic as the desire to drive drunk outweighs the possibility that one might take a life.
No comparison! The urge to drink and drive has no biological imperative whereas procreation does. The drive to copulate can overcome all rational thought, even without alcohol.
Without doubt. My suggestion is that if you are old enough to have sex, you are old enough to deal with any consequences. Ppl have sex knowing that herpes and AIDS is a possibility, but they still "go for it." I totally agree with your point that the drive is strong, but it's like bungee jumping. Everyone who does it knows it's a tremendous thrill... but the rope can still break. Deal with it.
Sorry, but it is you saying not to deal with it!
If your rope broke whilst bungee jumping you wouldn't refuse medical intervention to put your life back in order.
Of course not... but I wouldn't blame the dude who hooked me up to the rope either. Should I ask him to give his life in place of mine? Our actions have consequences. We are not even speaking of rape, we are speaking of a conscience decision to engage in something that could result in a human life. It is up to each one of us to act responsibly. If you are not prepared to take care of a child, there are millions who are.
Actually, I'm not too interested in this argument.
I was just engaged by your likening the sex drive to a drunken driver which demonstrated as total a lack of understanding of human nature as the statement that all a woman had to do to avoid pregnancy was to grip an aspirin between her knees demonstrated a total lack of the human anatomy.
I'm not suggesting you don't take responsibility for a possible pregnancy, I am 100% pro-contraception. I think it's a bit silly to suggest that someone abstain from sex because they don't want a baby and there's a 1-3% chance it will happen even being careful.
Your analogy would probably be more on point if I were arguing that people didn't need to take any precautions.
I think of "silly" as a word for giggling girls and puns. I have never thought of it as a word for someone who feel they have to take a life unnecessarily.
I said it was silly to suggest women not have sex because there's a small chance their birth control fails and they don't want a child, not that having an abortion is silly.
I am talking about the fact that, unless your uterus has been removed... there is always a chance you can get pregnant. So have sex, don't have sex... that's between each person and God. But if you end up with child, don't take its life b/c it is an inconvenience. That is *not an excuse to end a life.
by A Thousand Words 6 years ago
Hello, fellow hubbers! So, this is something that's been bothering me for a while. First, I'd like to open that I am not a christian or religious person. I am simply me, a person trying to understand what people's stances on the matter and why it is a constant debate. To me, the answer is obvious,...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
Why do some pro-lifers INCESSANTLY PUSH their particular beliefs on those who are pro-choiceregarding abortion to the point of cyberbullying, even trolling the latter, trying to make them believing the way these pro-lifers do? Why do these pro-lifers insist that they are RIGHT in their...
by Jackie Lynnley 24 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by LailaK 6 years ago
The 2012 presidential election is approaching! Do you think that the new presidential candidates should support or ban abortion for women of all ages? Why?
by James Agbogun 8 years ago
Why do we need religion? We all know what is right or wrong. why can't we just do the good even when nobody is watching? Apart from the right and wrong, what else is available in religion?
by ahorseback 2 years ago
What do you think it seriously means for the future of America . Sensationalization BY the media certainly plays a big part , yet the media just follows the social -cultural pattern of decline , will America survive , will this decline reverse or simply re- cycle ? Is it...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|