Perhaps you should write a hub about it. This is *hub*pages.
yes, in a Hub. Your opinion is immoral, others may not feel so. If anything it is Personal Choice, not for others to make for that person.
assuming you are a believer, then hate the sin, love the sinner, and as the song says; ? "Let it be"
we do not step in to Judge for God, he said so, remember??????
Trolling is wrong and immoral and should be punished by a rain of dead trout that spring automatically from the USB ports of any person engaging in such an activity.
Because they do not like Conservative opinions on Abortion spouted on this site. Looking at the reality of what you do when you slaughter the innocent is alot for anyone to take and still feel good about themselves.
Hope that helps.
Trolling is coming to a site without planning to use it for its core purpose, and starting inflammatory threads.
The little score on your avatar is a rough measure of how much Hubpages thinks you are doing what you are meant to on their site.
This is a forum, where people share thoughts, not a hub. I'm sorry I pissed you off then, I didn't expect you to be so narrow minded. I just wanted to know what other people thought. And yes, I'm new.
I am not. And my score has been high and low and low and high... so do not worry about the biters Kyle. If your Conservative in your views I would suggest you get used to it. On this site no Conservative statement goes un-abused.
You are correct. This is a forum and you have a right to post any topic you wish to discuss.
If you had been here longer you would realize that users with no hub who start a lot of hot threads generally turn out to be spammers or trolls.
This is a forum for hubpages, a site for hubbers (people who make hubs). Being here just to create a stir in the forums would put you in the latter (troll) category (i.e. mainly here for the lulz).
I am not pissed off, it just gets a little dull to see the same thing happen over and over.
Kyle, until you can bear a child, this is none of your business. You don't deserve to have an opinion on the matter.
That is absurd, Emile. Men have as much right to their child as any woman.
No. Not until it is born. Prior to that, it is inside her and a part of her. Would you argue that you have part ownership of her liver?
Anyway. That's the last I'm going to say to you on this topic. It is, truly, none of your business.
Wrong... from the moment of conception a father's Right to his child exists. It took two to create that child, and that child is 50% his DNA. And you want a man to have no right to any part of it... except to give you money when you give birth. That speaks volumes about Leftist women in this day and age. Money money money... gimmme gimmie gimmie... they love materialism, but hate children. What a sad world.
You are a funny guy. Let me horrify you with my philosophy here.
Men have no rights. Period. The laws of our land give men freedom to do as they please, when they please, when it comes to children. So, you have no rights.
As to women. I abhor women who use children as an albatross around men's necks. If you are not in a relationship and you have sex and get pregnant. My theory is; what was free stays free. Men should not be forced to pay child support period. If the law was changed, so that men had a say in whether to carry a child full term in a situation like this, women would stop attempting to use this to trap a man. If he chose to divorce himself from the process, then the woman would have to bear the full brunt of the responsibility for her actions. You'd see a whole lot less unplanned, unwed pregnancies.
I would never, in a million years, have considered an abortion if I found myself in an unexpected predicament, but every woman has the right to make her own decisions for her own body, without the pathetic and disgusting bs attached to it that the religious insist on.
Your God never said put a ring through someone's nose and drag them down the path you think is right. If you took half a second to read your Bible without a pair of holier than thou assinine and pathetically egotistical blinders, you would see that, at every turn, God says chose, but please chose me.
Oh, and I believe it also says judgement is His and His alone. But, i've noticed here that most of the religious think they are on the same footing with God himself, so that might explain your attitude.
"Men have no rights. Period. The laws of our land give men freedom to do as they please, when they please, when it comes to children. So, you have no rights."
What?... that has to be a mis-statement. It doesn't make sense, we either have Rights, or not.
And the law of this land does not give the man a Right to do as he pleases regarding children.
And no-where have I said women are property and should have a nose ring... that is just your assinine hyperbolic illogical thought process there.
I said men have as much Right to their child as women, and that is a fact. And my issue is not with being able to tell women what to do... it is with the fact that no-one has the Right to commit murder and Life begins at conception. Period... so do not assume you know what i think, or how I treat women. Also, If you do not want to raise the child, then it is up to the father, or grandparents. but murder is NOT an option for anyone.
And I do not judge people. But I do not lie to someone either, I state what I think and believe, period, no PC here.
"As to women. I abhor women who use children as an albatross around men's necks. If you are not in a relationship and you have sex and get pregnant. My theory is; what was free stays free. Men should not be forced to pay child support period. If the law was changed, so that men had a say in whether to carry a child full term in a situation like this, women would stop attempting to use this to trap a man. If he chose to divorce himself from the process, then the woman would have to bear the full brunt of the responsibility for her actions. You'd see a whole lot less unplanned, unwed pregnancies."
And we agree totally there. And I am glad to hear that you would never consider Abortion... you are a very good women and person for that.
Don't be a twit. You knew exactly what I meant when I said men have no rights. They have no rights when it comes to unborn children.
And yes, the laws do give men the right to do as they please. If you choose to be a dad, then you are. If you chose not to, that is perfectly legal too. Money does not raise a child. Even if child support is paid, it doesn't mean anything to the child.
I wasn't talking about nose rings in women's noses. I was talking about nose rings in general. You have no right to decide what is right for another person, male or female, on any level. When you start imposing your morals on someone else, that is a nose ring.
You have no way of knowing when that fetus becomes a separate human being. Imposing your personal opinion through terror and intimidation is abhorrent. Women who are faced with that decision do not need hateful and spiteful things thrown at them. They are emotionally distraught already. Your lack of consideration for that human life is appalling.
If you were concerned, i would think you would be willing to adopt the children you are hell bent on forcing women to have, but I would bet you haven't. As do no Chrisitians. It would take away all the time you need to sit in judgement of everyone else.
You have no idea who or what I am; but judging by what little interaction we have had you do not, in my opinion, know what good is. So your attempt to pay me a compliment is of no value to me.
No one has the Right to commit MURDER.
And yes, Society does have a Right to outlaw MURDER, and we will. Roe Vs Wade will be over-turned soon. I hope that make you happy. It does me.
End of story. All your hyperbolic BS ranting doesn't change that.
And you have no Idea how many children I have or have adopted... so get a life. And talk about hateful... listen to yourself.
Well, I certainly agree that murder is wrong. Abortion is not murder in the eyes of anyone with the ability to see the truth. Those blinded by a hateful religion will never see the truth.
I'm not being hateful, it's simple honesty. And it's obvious from your statement that the only thing you have done on the topic of unplanned pregnancies is condemn and harrass poor women who are already emotionally fragile. That is so sad.
But Roe Vs. Wade will never be over turned. That fact probably eats at you, but it's a fact. You should learn to live with it.
Even when I was an Atheist, I knew it was MURDER.
It has nothing to do with my religion, but that is the easy out for you. So you stick to that. LIFE is the most valued treasure we have... and you do not get to throw it away like trash.
And I have not harrassed anyone... so give that BS a rest. And yes, Roe is on its way out.
And you slaughtering, MURDERING a man's child is not hard on his emotions? What a laugh... you poor lil things... oh woe is me. A murderer is a murderer. No differences in them.
And yet you trash life. You don't know if a fetus has a soul or not. It doesn't matter. This is just another opportunity to lord your opinion over another human being. Beat a poor and scared pregnant woman down with your personal belief. How very Christian of you.
You are just too funny... you should do stand up.
I do. I make a decent living on the side. Making jokes about right wing, conservative Christians is very popular. Easy too. They provide so much material just being themselves. I get a lot of my ideas from these forums. If you're ever in the Baltimore area let me know. If I'm working that weekend, I'll give you some free tickets to the show.
Good, then you found your niche... caus it damn sure ain't debating.
Huhahaha.. there is that humor again... ah your so funny. As If the Leftist hate spewed by you and others on here, is so much better than the westborough Baptist people. You all are about the same in my book. Don't give your side too much credit.
See? That's what I'm talking about. Fantasy. I don't spew hatred. I'm simply pointing out that the law of the land shall remain the law of the land. You keep calling us murderers. You can't see the obvious. But, that's ok. I'm sure I speak for the loving leftists when I tell you. Get a life.
yeah... no hate in any of your posts... now you sound like Chris. Well I have said all that needs to be said..
Whats funny is the Democrats once murdered blacks and said it was okay because it was legal... same mentallity today, different target. The most defensless and innocent of targets.
And I think you do.
I wasn't saying you are a Dem. My point was the laws are not always right.
Okay if you do not, then you do not. I apolgize for not believing you. I should take you at your word, even if I do not agree with you.
Emile, We have alimony laws to protect vulnerable women from predatory men who would otherwise take what they wanted and get away with it. Saying you abhor women who get pregnant to trap a man sounds horribly misogynist. Surely those type of women are a tiny minority. How many more women are out there who have found they've been duped by men taking what they want and leaving them alone?
"...the woman should bear the full brunt of responsibility for her actions... "
what, go back to the good old days where women were judged for being pregnant out of wed-lock, but men could get away scott free? Is this what feminists fought for?
Leaving the responsibility solely in the hands of women and not demanding the equal responsibility of men, you would not only be causing the abortion rate to rise, (since women could not guarantee being taken care of), you would also be widening the gap back up between men and women. It would be disastrous.
lizzieboo, I completely disagree with you on so many levels.
First, women are not children. I am sick of them being treated as such. It is not difficult to take responsibility for your own body, and your own life. Birth control is not rocket science. I think it is obvious that there are still plenty of women who use pregnancies to push a relationship along.
I have no idea what any feminist expects out of life. I do believe though, that women consistently use children as weapons against men. I've seen it enough to know. The children are the victims. Every time. You can't force someone to be part of a child's life. A woman making a choice to become pregnant and forcing a man to become a part of something she decided to allow to happen is just as unfair to the man.
Taking responsibilty does not mean the abortion rate rises. It would fall, if people were forced to take responsibilty for their own actions at every level.
Edit. I didn't see your statement about women being taken care of. I can't relate to that. I've never needed to be up taken care of, or wanted to be taken care of. I would think less of myself if that is what I saw in a man. That is not what I want in a relationship, so I would say, again, women need to grow up. How can you expect equality if you are expecting to be taken care of?
errrr... not being to pedantic, but surely half of that child is bearing the father signature DNA and, if left unobstructed, will be half his child, and as for saying ONLY when it's born, that just proves that you believe basic rights supposedly star with the first breath, which is nonsense.
Abortion is the number one cause of death in the USA, and as a result of abortion laws you now have a native resident population which is rapidly sinking below the level of replacement, and where your culture and traditions will be lost forever, replaced by whoever can gain entry and will breed quickly.
When you make claims like that, which are patently false, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously. Your credibility shrinks to zero and anything you say is highly questionable and most likely a silly fabrication.
Seriously, you may want to take another stab at that one.
In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI).
Deaths and Mortality
(Data are for the U.S. and are final 2007 data; For the most recent preliminary data see Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2009 [PDF - 674 KB])
Number of deaths: 2,423,712
Death rate: 803.6 deaths per 100,000 population
Life expectancy: 77.9 years
Infant Mortality rate: 6.75 deaths per 1,000 live births
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 616,067
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 135,952
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 127,924
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 123,706
Alzheimer's disease: 74,632
Influenza and Pneumonia: 52,717
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 46,448
So I will stand with my statement.
Yes, I'm sure you will, no matter how patently false the statements.
Obviously you missed the 1.21 million abortions that took place in the U.S in 2008, way more than deaths by heart attack, the main LISTED cause of death.
Of course they like to keep the killing of unborn children off the radar, it's probably too contentious.
Puts the lie to the left and their, safe legal and rare, argument. Abortion is no more than another immorallity pushed on us and on our children as acceptable and good.
And the issue of Abortion is the bussiness of all Americans. That is the Social contract we live under here emile. You don't like it, to bad.
Or, more precisely, they understand a whole lot better than others who make patently false statements based on their religious beliefs.
We all live under the same social contract Beel. And Society as a whole and our Constitution determine our laws.
And to deny that is absurd. Go read some Sociology on Social Contracts and Law. We are all in it together, and we ALL have a say.
Stating a statistic has no bearing on religious beliefs.
Over ONE MILLION CHILDREN are killed each year deliberately by the state and their mothers.
That is a fact.
Fewer people die of heart attacks, that is also a fact.
Where is the religion in those statements?
Religion comes in when you use the word children in place of the appropriate term. Fetus. That is what you are talking about. This is not a child.
Killed. That is a volatile word. Used purposely, on your part, to raise the emotional level of the person you are talking to. Your religion causes you to use that term.
Religion should not and, in America, will not determine what our society determines to be in the best interests of its citizens.
So you deny that unless man or miscarriage intervenes, your 'fetus' will be a living human baby nine months later?
The word fetus was introduced to make the whole killing aspect more acceptable, it was a dupe introduced to dehumanise the act of killing your own child, and leans heavily towards the fascist concept that anyone considered sub human can be killed at will.
My dictionary causes me to use that term, the child is killed, how else would you describe it... terminated, same thing, aborted, same thing, the child is killed by a doctor with the consent of the mother, who has normally been inspired by some Planned Parenthood genocide centre.
That statement precludes the fact that within one hundred years, (and possibly in your lifetime) as your abortion statistics and lower than replacement birth rates indicate, you will have an Islamic States of America in place.
So ethnic breeding rates do have a bearing on your civil liberties, or reduction of them.
You can't use fear of Islam in an abortion debate. Well, you can, but I can assure you; we'd be speaking spanish before we turned to Mecca to pray. You obviously aren't American, or you'd know our immigration statistics.
It's like I told lizzieboo. This is a freedom of choice issue to me. No one has the right to tell another human being what to do with their own body. Period. I don't personally believe in abortion. I was never forced to look that in the eye, and I doubt I would have made that choice. But I would fight, every step of the way, to allow any woman to make it. It is her choice. Not yours. Not mine.
You can use any word you choose to attempt to make it sounds any way you want and I would always support another human being's rights to make their own choices, even if those choices would equate to mistakes for me.
I honestly believe your stand is completely opposed to the stand the one you claim to follow would make. If you took the time to think 'what would Jesus do' you would never have conducted yourself in this manner, on this topic.
Currently the USA has a birth rating of 2.06, which is just about sufficient to replace your selves, and yes I am not American, but I understand your Hispanic immigration rates, which could keep you out of the relegation zone (and probably already is) in birth terms.
It is a fact that Islamic families breed at a higher rate than Non Islamic families do, and Islamic leaders frequently have stated that Islam will rule because of this fact.
I do not fear Islam.
And my point is that once two people create life, semantics go out of the window.
Yes the law allows for this 'right to choose' and as such it is a woman's right, but the fact that lawyers and vested interest groups have been successful in forming a law, does not make it ethically correct, and ethics are important.
Until such time as ethics take precedence over popular activism, I agree it is her choice but normally an uninformed choice in the way that the pro abortion lobby have loaded the situation and attack any challenge to that 'right'.
In reality, we have no rights whatsoever, only privileges extended from individuals and our governments.
You are correct that NOBODY has the right to impose their will on ANYBODY else, except maybe our unborn children in your opinion, but the fact is that if we accepted this logical conclusion, we would live in anarchy, where the strongest would prevail, which is not a good scenario.
However, with abortion, the strongest have prevailed and the weakest, innocent life, is taken for convenience (and you can assume that I do accept that there are instances where killing an unborn child is the lesser of two evils)
So you support the right of serial killers to select their victims at random?
Because that is the logical conclusion to your argument that we should respect ALL peoples rights to 'make their own choices'
Once you step off that platform, you then enter the arena of who does have the right to impose restrictions on others, and to what level should those restrictions apply?
I do not doubt your honesty or integrity, your arguments are clearly well thought out on the issue and reflect your personal opinions on the issue.
'What would Jesus do'
Matthew 25 31:46 sums that up:
When the Son of Man comes in His glory (His majesty and splendor), and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
All nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them [the people] from one another as a shepherd separates his sheep from the goats; and He will cause the sheep to stand at His right hand, but the goats at His left.
Then the King will say to those at His right hand, Come, you blessed of My Father [you favored of God and appointed to eternal salvation], inherit (receive as your own) the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you brought Me together with yourselves and welcomed and entertained and lodged Me,
I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me with help and ministering care, I was in prison and you came to see Me.
Then the just and upright will answer Him, Lord, when did we see You hungry and gave You food, or thirsty and gave You something to drink?
And when did we see You a stranger and welcomed and entertained You, or naked and clothed You?
And when did we see You sick or in prison and came to visit You?
And the King will reply to them, Truly I tell you, in so far as you did it for one of the least [in the estimation of men] of these My brethren, you did it for Me.
Then He will say to those at His left hand, Begone from Me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels!
For I was hungry and you gave Me no food, I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink,
I was a stranger and you did not welcome Me and entertain Me, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit Me with help and ministering care.
Then they also [in their turn] will answer, Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?
And He will reply to them, Solemnly I declare to you, in so far as you failed to do it for the least [in the estimation of men] of these, you failed to do it for Me.
Then they will go away into eternal punishment, but those who are just and upright and in right standing with God into eternal life.
That is what Jesus DID say.
I choose to try to obey that command, and that means trying to defend "the least [in the estimation of men] of these" who are killed for convenience and the desires of our eugenics leadership.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCM … r_embedded
You may not fear Islam, in your mind. But you show a deep prejudice toward the people of that religion by your comments. I don't fear anyone. This is a nation of immigrants. It is not unreasonable to assume that the 'face' may change at some point.
I agree, ethics are important. But the religious, you included, appear to want to pick and choose what constitutes ethics. Only those that agree with yours are considered ethics, by your definition. That is narrow minded and wrong. This issue has more to do with the freedom of a woman to make her own choices, for her own life than it has to do with lawyers and special interest groups. As long as you turn a blind eye to a woman's freedom, you will never understand this issue.
Semantics. Call it what you will. You have no right to deny the woman the same privileges afforded to men. Her privilege is to make her own decisions. Not to have others force an opinion that will change her life forever, in a way she is not ready to have it changed.
This is an unthought through opinon that doesn't warrant a response.
That is a completely foolish statement. You take one thing that is legal and compare it to something that is against the law. That is no different from arguing that a person should be allowed to drive drunk, simply because I support the right to drink.
As to your post of scripture; this is the hallmark of zealotry. Christianity, as it appears to be practiced, is a surface understanding of the points. I have no intention of finding anything in your scriptures in support of this argument. It would serve no purpose. I will say, that from my recollection Jesus told people to clean up their own acts and not worry about others. He made a point of calling the religious who lived in the scriptures and used them to enslave the faithful vipers. As long as you sit in judgement and try to drag others along the path you see as right, you don't get the point. You follow the cherry picked words of your God, not the obvious will and intent.
No, that is your thinly veiled, patently false statement of belief.
Both anti-religion and anti-life: what a surprise!
Interesting response. So we should breed out of fear of other ethnic groups taking over?
Sorry. I notice your avatar is a guy. The issue of abortion is none of your business, unless you are discussing it with a wife or daughter. Unless you want me to start taking an interest in your body parts and telling you what to do with them. Or, you could grow a womb. That would give you the right to an opinion on women's issues too.
Think it's been clearly covered that the rights of the unborn child is equally the right of the father.
If you chose to decide that the father of your child has no rights, so be it, best thing to do is never have any sexual relationship that could lead to an innocent life being taken to suit your wishes.
If a man 'assists' in creating life, it's his responsibility as much of the mothers, and look at my post above, the parents lose their mutual rights to self will when they conceive a child, and the child gain the important right to protection.
It's how humanity got this far.
By the laws in the United States you are wrong. You are welcome to vote your conscience. It has been my observation that those who agree with me are in the majority.
What decisions I might make are not the question here. The question is, who do you think has the right to force another human being to bow to your personal opinion of what they should do with their body? It is male arrogance to think this is any man's right to voice an opinion other than a husband to his wife.
"who do you think has the right to force another human being to bow to your personal opinion of what they should do with their body? It is male arrogance to think this is any man's right to voice an opinion other than a husband to his wife."
So the percentile chance of creating life from a random sexual encounter between two irresponsible people deprives the unborn child of all rights?
Whereas when the parents happen to be married, the child gains the right to protection by the father, if he can persuade his wife to not kill the child.
OK, think I see how your mind works.
No. you don't see how my mind works. This belief in a separate human life and soul at conception is your belief. It does not make it fact. If you want to pretend that it is fact with your wife, you are free to do so. You do not have the right to involve others in your fantasy, against their will.
My belief is that from the point of conception, unless either a miscarriage or abortion occurs, a child will be born.
If you put it in religious terms, unless God or man (sorry I mean mankind)intervenes, a child will be born.
Or in non religious terms, unless Nature or Humanity intervenes, a child will be born.
The fact is excepting miscarriage (and we have experienced three of them) from conception onward it takes a deliberate act of killing the child before it can be born, to deprive a child of living the life they are entitled to live.
Conception is NOT a matter of personal choice, it's a fact of life (and death)and the moment two people create life, that life should be protected.
There are obviously medical reasons why life may be taken, specifically to protect the actual life of the mother.
My mother was advised to abort me, for her own safety, she chose to take the risk and we both survived.
The parents rights to chose stops at conception, then it becomes their responsibility to protect what they have created.
Well, my mother had three, what she labeled 'miscarriages with the assistance of a doctor' before she became pregnant with me. These were necessary for her health. Had I been number four, I wouldn't begrudge her for it.
To put it differently; dogma is personal. Facts are universal. Whether you agree with the law, or not; it is a fact that it is law.
This badgering of innocent women by the Christian right is abhorrent and needs to be stopped. It is spreading hatred for hatred's sake. Badgering includes calling them murderers. I cannot fathom what emotions these women are going through already, but they should not have to deal with that.
Agreed, these women should not be badgered at the clinic gates, they should be counselled EQUALLY before making the decision.
It's probably the most delicate point in time for a woman, she discovers she is pregnant, should feel joy and fulfilment, yet has fear for the future due to the lack of commitment from the father, or the fear that she will be throwing away her career prospects and still have no commitment from the father, so she seeks Planned Parenthood, and meets some 'nice' women who give her totally biased information designed to get her to kill the child.
It's a tough situation, but killing the child for it, actually taking revenge on the ONE person who is innocent, seems to be the wrong answer.
As for calling them murderers, well they are not in your secular society, as the law gives them the legal right to kill inconvenient children, so they are not murderers, they are however child killers, and that's a fact that seems to come back to haunt them after the even (in my counselling experience) and needs to be confronted and dealt with before they can move forward again.
That's why the 'pro choice' lobby are so vehemently against 'pro life' groups, because telling it as it is makes them look bad when the mother realises what she has done.
Sure women can put on a brave face and say their abortion/s were for the best, but they never deal with what they have done internally, until the confess it to God and themselves, accept the guilt (which God will take from you) and start afresh, knowing then that killing your child is not the answer.
As suspected, you rely on religious beliefs rather than reality to put forth patently false conclusions. Well done.
Deleted. Accidentally posted an inappropriate topic for the community here. Sorry.
LMAO, two minutes difference in threads where I am being accused of being too liberal and too conservative.
I'm dead serious, if the O.P. in this thread does not immediately make a hub about this topic, I shall pray (or hope fervently depending on his religious affiliation)that every public bathroom he visits for the rest of his life is out of toilet paper.
Your right, it is the bussiness of all Society.
Stop it Mr. Mason. I have already explained this once. Do not make me repeat myself. It isn't any man's business.
Yo do not get to tell me what to do... Your own logic. . And yes it is Societies Right to determine the legality of such issues as Abortion. As it is other Social issues also.
Ok..ok. We'll continue this battle in the voting booth of we have too.
How about we agree to dis-agree, Emile. I have no personal animosity against you, we simply do not agree. And that is not so bad a thing... is it?
Your mother wears army boots TM!
There that feels better!
I see you have strong beliefs on abortion TM.
I am passionate about many things E. You know that.
And don't pick on my mom's boots... they look a lil stupid, but she is old ad has a right to indulge.
Happy to hear you still have your mom. I miss mine.
I miss mine too, earnest, and sometimes completely out of the blue. Like now. She was awesome. I have a feeling your mom was quite an interesting woman...and it appears to have rubbed off.
Thank you, sorry your mum is gone too MC.
I'm confident that she was a remarkable woman.
My mother was educated in a convent, played piano very well, loved her kids, and married a man who gave her twins (my sister and I and a younger brother with downs syndrome.
We didn't know much about diabetes and the connection at that time, and mom found out about her diabetes after Tony was born.
We came up hard, and at times dirt poor. My mom was more suited to marrying a banker, but preferred the reckless motorcycle stuntman/ soldier/logging contractor/technician/mechanical engineer guy that was my dad I guess.
When I recount the work my father has qualified in with no formal education to speak of people are amazed. His technical experience saw him working on tied down rocket firing for the Military in later life. Dad lived a dozen lifes, my mom would have preferred one life.
Life has been full and rewarding for me. But.. I miss my mom and her love.
Our coming up sounds fairly similar, as do our mothers. My mom was also diabetic. And, you have a twin?!? How neat! My sister has twin boys. And, just so we don't go completely off topic from the OP that no longer exists...lol...my mother considered aborting me, but changed her mind. I'm so grateful.
I love the way you say that - your dad lived a dozen lives, but your mum would have preferred just one. I often feel that same way about my parents.
I love getting to know bits about the lives of fellow hubbers. I think it's what makes us respect each other even when we disagree.
Thanks for sharing that!
You're welcome. I don't mind people knowing about me if they ask or share an interest in people as we do.
I appreciate your tolerance of my disbelief.
My goal is to love - without condition - and tolerance of another's belief or disbelief without criticism is a part of that, in my opinion. Not to mention, most of the unbelievers I've met here are just as tolerant IF someone isn't trying to convert them or convince them that they're the devil, you know?
We share that goal. I believe in love, I am lucky enough to be around the love of 5 children every day.
I need nothing more than the love I have apart from somewhere clean and dry to sleep and my health.
AGREED! I couldn't have said it better myself. We better be careful, earnest...someone will see us in accord and think we've both crossed to (deepens voice) - the other side.
I think we may have gone off subject a bit too, but the fact that we were not aborted may hold us in good stead!
Not a bad thing at all. Spirited debate and a handshake when it's over. My kind of disagreement.
So is there any support from the OP on his argument that abortion is wrong and immoral? Or has he pulled an Elvis and left the building? Or maybe gone to write a hub on the subject.
If you think abortion is wrong and immoral, don't have one.
End of debate.
As I said, this topic didn't work out quite well as many people didn't think I should post it here, so I deleted it. I'd gladly make a hub soon though if you all want me too. And thanks Mason for sharing my views If only they were more people that are as open minded as you.
I think you should, obviously you feel strongly about the topic and that is usually the best place to start.
Yes. If only.
Well, I'm off to write my hub on the invention of the "sarcasm" font.
Hey Kyle. This looks like an excellent idea for a hub. You are bound to get tons of traffic. Even if you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Just kidding. You have your right to your opinion.
Abortion is something shared between the mother, her family and her doctor. No room for government or clergy.
...and the unborn child.... or do they have no rights?
If YOU can look after the fetus, bear the discomfort, bear labour pain and bring the child up, at least with the comfort you enjoy, yes the future might be born child have right
Did that, my sons mother abandoned him and I raised him alone for 8 years until I met my wife, so I know a little bit about single parenthood and responsibility, indeed it was raising my son that matured me greatly.
Being a single parent meant I was unable to work full time, which meant we were poor most of the time, and that was OK, because I knew I wanted to be the father I wished I could have had for myself, and got to share the life that I wanted to have lived with my father.
My son is 22 now, and works with underprivileged kids in NYC for the last three years, I am immensely proud of him.
His mother would have aborted him, I hung out for him to be born.
Unborn children have rights from the moment they are conceived, and paradoxically we (the parents) surrender our rights at the moment of conception, when our progeny become paramount.
Yes killing unborn children is considered legal, and it is, in the present climate, a woman's right, but it's still killing an innocent human being, however we dress it up.
For those that are open to the idea of reincarnation...
The soul chooses who the parents will be before conception. At the time of conception it links itself to the woman and over the next nine months it will attach itself to the fetus slowly. If, for whatever reason, the mother decides to end the pregnancy, the soul understands the situation and either waits for death, or leaves on his own accord (miscarriage). That same soul might wait until the opportunity arises to come back to the same parents, or might look for new parents altogether.
I personally, don't like the idea of abortion, and I suffered a lot four years ago when I had a miscarriage, after having several dreams with the soul that was reincarnating. It was a traumatizing experience and we haven't tried having kids up to this day.
I also believe that the decision of abortion should be made by both parents, of course, as long as the father is in the picture and willing to stick around if he wants the baby.
Without stating my personal views on the issue, quicksilver that number seems a little high. Is that including medically necessary inductions (I.E. tubal pregnancies, etc) where the baby/embryo/fetus/human being/sack of cells would not be viable but continuing the pregnancy would harm the mother?
And does it also include the pill that is given to rape/incest victims that prevents the implantation of the fertilized egg?
Actually there has been at least a million abortions a year for at least the last decadde. I don't know where he quick got his #s but the sound about right to me.
How many abortions per year in the US?
In: Abortion, Statistical Information and Demographics.
In the USA; 1,3 million a year
Worldwide: 43 million.
Source: Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence in 2001 and 2002, Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2005 accessed May 17, 2005.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_abor … z1PSNiqYcx
And I am sure it has gone up since then.
Even the NAF, National Abortion federation agrees...
Each year, almost half of all pregnancies among American women are unintended.1 About half of these unplanned pregnancies, 1.3 million each year, are ended by abortion.1,2
There are many myths and misconceptions about who gets abortions, and why. The fact is that the women who have abortions come from all racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and religious backgrounds. If current rates continue, it is estimated that 35% of all women of reproductive age in America today will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45.
That is a pathetic and shameful thing to have in this country.
Melissa, than number came from The Guttmacher Institute, who describe themselves as:
The Guttmacher Institute is a leading authority on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and worldwide.
The CDC have similar figures listed for differing years.
Since Roe v Wade America has killed 45 million unborn children.
If that alone does not make people think, I really do not know what will.
Thank you TM, but that doesn't really answer my question about the definition of abortions for the statistics. There has, historically, been a difference between the statistics of prolifers and prochoicers.
Those are straight abortions from clinics... not emergency tubals or the pill. That would only chalk the number up, Mellissa. I will look for #s on the other two for you... give me a minute though, I am in the middle of another hub regarding Sen McCarhty..
*smiles* I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but that still doesn't tell me whether medically necessary terminations and the preventative pill are included.
Thank you TM, I tried a cursory look up and didn't find anything. I'm doing a hub as well... coincidentally its related to pregnancy
and I didn't see attitude (on those posts at least
Can we all agree, at least, that some people should not breed. PERIOD!
http://noquarters.blogspot.com/2009/08/ … ed-to.html
I've written on the issue (and removed the links as was suggested)
To summarize: anybody who thinks the abortion debate is about murder doesn't understand the issue, at all. The issue is about who gets access to safe health care. IMHO, this isn't some subjective thing, it's defined by the logic of the situation.
If you believe abortion is murder, then you must, logically, believe that all women who seek abortions should be put in jail for life. That should be interesting.
Look, most reasonable people believe abortion is a last resort. Nobody wants an abortion. However, the question eventually comes down to providing safe health care for all rather than condemning the financially disadvantaged to unsafe health care. Regardless of legality, abortion will always be an option for the middle-class on up.
Actually I believe they are deluded by the Leftist immorallity that has been propagated by the Left in this nation for more than 90 years, and therefore they just do not know better. Like the white racists Dems in the South who were raised to believe blacks were inferior and that they could kill them because it ws their right.
Same logic, different targets.
And I do believe in access to Abortion for medical neccessity, rape (though I do not see how it is the childs fault and why the child should die, but)... and for incest, but with the same qualifier, and certain birth defects.
Where do you see that.
I stated clearly I believe that it should be an option for rape, incest, and birth defects or life of the mother. Then I added that in my opinion I cannot see why the child should die for rape or incest he/she did not commit, and I do know that a doctors duty is to both his patients, mother and child, in the case of the mothers life, but it is her choice untimately if she wants to try to give birth or not.
I think you just want to argue with me...
By adding that opinion, you imply that you think that is how it should be. But, I actually thought better of that post and deleted it. You caught it before that happened.
I don't want to argue with you. I don't want to argue about this at all. It is simply that I find myself flabbergasted by your opinions on the subject.
But I have the Right to my opinions. As you do to yours, Emile. I am sorry, truely sorry, if they offend you, even though I know you won't believe it, but I have the Right to offend with my opinions also.
That is what the first amendment is all about.
And I do not want to argue either... but I have my opinions and I won't be cowed down, or beat back by anyone on here because they do not like them. I will defend YOUR right to say what you want, though I may hate it, with my life. Or anyone else on heres right to speak freely.That is what makes this nation great. You said it yourself yesterday.
Right back at you, right wing man. I have the right to voice an opposing opinion. It is simply sometimes I feel like we're on that movie Frequency.You are a voice from the very distant past. I thought that our society had risen above that type of mentality.
You are a living testament to my spyrograph multiiverse theory.
Ahh the good ole days. Yes we had our problems, but that doesn't mean it was all bad.
Tell that to women, minorities and the poor. They might not call them the good old days.
Are you sure promoting your hubs here is a good idea? It is against the rules as far as I know. Anyway will be creating a hub soon, not sure whether I'll pick this topic or not though.
If you believe that abortion is murder, please illuminate us and tell us what we should do with the following:
1. Women who seek abortions
2. Women who have abortions
3. Doctors who perform abortions
4. Men who leave pregnant women
I assume that you must believe that they should be tried and prosecuted as murderers?
FYI, I'm not trying to be bombastic or anything, but anti-abortionists NEVER seem to address this issue.
1. Women who seek abortions
Should be correctly counselled about the other options from killing your child
2. Women who have abortions
Well as the laws stand, they do no wrong legally, but they need counselling to deal with the real fact, which is that sooner or later they WILL come to understand they killed a child of their own, and will need some help then. Of course the abortionist will not be there to assist, neither will the pro choice folk.
3. Doctors who perform abortions
If they do them now, they are legal, so it's only their own consciousness, that is in any case seared so hard it cannot feel anything, which could stop them killing women's children.
If it were illegal, and a doctor killed a child, yes they should be r\tried for murder then.
4. Men who leave pregnant women
Should be charged with an offence of abandoning responsibility and dealt with however the law decided.
But there is an issue, where the man had a random sex encounter with a previously unknown woman (i.e. the one night stand)who then claims parenthood. For both are equally to blame but the mother may not even know the fathers name.
Nice questions designed to ensnare folk, but once again focussing on the word murder.
Abortion is legal in the USA, that's a fact, so it's not murder, its infanticide, or if one were taking the overall figures into account, you could call it self inspired genocide, either way its killing innocent children who deserve to be protected, not ripped from the womb by suction or force, and disposed of in the trashcan.
That's why pro choice folk react so badly, they hate the reality of things, especially if it may stop one child being killed by their mother when she understands what she is about to do, and what it will mean to her later, when the shock has turned to horror.
I addressed it earlier in this thread. But I will repeat myself and address your other points also.
As to women...
Actually, I believe they, our daughters and women, are deluded by the Leftist immorallity that has been propagated by the Left and Progressive Right in this nation for more than 90 years, and therefore they just do not know better, even though they SHOULD.
Like the white racists in the South who were raised to believe blacks were inferior and non-human, and that they could kill them because it was their Right. How do we condemn someone for doing what they were raised to believe was right... they do not know it is wrong, because their ideas of right and wrong had and have been so sickly twisted.
I would not imprison any woman who had an abortion before it was out-lawed again. So as far as for while it is legal... I would do nothing, it is their "legal right" to go and have the service while it is legal.
After it is illegal, if you went out and had an illegal Abortion within the borders of this nation, then you break the law and there are criminal penalties, fines or jail, that would have to be decided by the legistlatures and the American people.
As to women who seek Abortions... they are legal right now, and so my answer above stands.
If they were illegal, and a women sought an Abortion, then there is always Canada, or giving birth, and giving the child to the father, or grand-parents, or up for adoption. As far as the Social Economic costs of Adoption, we give out alot of money in foriegn aide to countries that hate us, and that would be better spent suppporting American children who have nothing and no-one.
As far as Doctors who perform Abortion. They would be out of bussiness once it was illegal. And if they illegally Aborted a child, they would be prosecuted for unlawful termination of a Life. Again the penalty would be set by the Legistlature and the American people.
And I do believe in access to Abortion for medical neccessity, rape (though I do not see how it is the childs fault and why the child should die, but)... and for incest, but with the same qualifier, and certain birth defects, and life of the mother, and I know that it is the Drs responsibillity to save both his patients, mother and child. But in the end on that one, it is the mothers and fathers responsibillty and choice.
Men who leave prgnant women. That does not neccessarilly mean the man does not want his child. I know alot of men who would have raised their own child had the woman simply carried that child full term, and i believe most women, once they behold their child in the flesh, would be loathe to surrender that child to anyone and would choose to raise him/her themselves.
If the man doesn't want the child, but the woman keeps the baby, then child support and all the other obligations of a father apply and the laws are there to have it enforced.
And I believe Abortion to be murder, I do not believe women to be "murderers", because as i said, they have been twisted in thier morals and understanding of the value of human life. That would be like imprisoning every white man in the South because of what they did, even when we know they were raised to believe it was right.
I think that answers your questions, Crank. If not let me know and I will expound upon the subject and attempt to be more specific and clearify my positions in some fuller capacity.
TM you should expand on what you believe more often. This is no where near as radical as I first thought.
So if a man raises his child to rape women, then when the kid grows up and rapes women, he shouldn't be held accountable? That is what you are saying. You are excusing slave owners because "they didn't know any better." They didn't know that enslaving a human being was not a good thing? Really? You are saying it is cool to be a racist as long as you were raised to be a racist. Yeah...a great human being you are.
Not really, some folk are raised to be ignorant, TM was illustrating a point, my son works in the Brooklyn projects, trying to stop children being abused,they get abused because seeing folk sell drugs for a 'living' seems normal, taking drugs seems normal, getting pregnant early is normal, and killing or being killed is normal.
That is YOUR countries reality in the heart of NYC, so what IS normal?
In fifty years hopefully someone will recognise that killing our children is NOT NORMAL, but for now, it's a civil rights, personal choice issue, not an ethics one.
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?
Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Good for you for answering, but you both kind of missed the point.
Both of you want abortion outlawed as it is murder, so let's say tomorrow abortion is made illegal in this country.
History proves that women who feel they need abortions will continue to seek them. Women who can afford them will go outside this country. Women who cannot afford them will pursue options in back alleys and through other unsafe means. You can argue with this assessment if you like, but this is historical fact and likely to be repeated. So, how would you (not the American people) choose to prosecute the following:
1. Women who obtain an abortion through illegal means in this country. That would be first degree murder, wouldn't it?
2. Women who go outside the country to get an abortion. They live here but are violating our laws. Do we treat them the same as women who get abortions in our country? Again, first degree murder right?
3. Anybody who performs an abortion.
4. A women who attempts an abortion but is unsuccessful. That's attempted murder, right?
5. A man who fathers a child, whose act of leaving the woman, contributes to her seeking and getting an abortion.
I think you're side-stepping these issues. You want this ideal world where abortion doesn't take place. I'm curious how you would choose to enforce the law.
Actually I would like a world where:
We accepted that killing children was immoral and extremely short-sighted as a 'tribe'
Where we recognised that much of the pro abortion lobby were either willing or unwitting tools of the eugenics lobby.
Where it was ONLY legal to kill a child when it was the lesser of two evils, i.e. the mother would probably die (and possibly both) were the pregnancy be allowed to go full term).
Where all potential abortion situations were treated with the gravity such a decision requires, and the mother was given EQUAL access to all aspects of the issue.
Where as a 'tribe' we took care of unwanted babies, rather than killed them. There are countless families seeking to adopt.
Where men and women were educated to think through their actions rather than be encouraged to do as they please and danm the consequences.
There are consequences for wrong decisions.
As to people who break the law, well that is what we have juries for, and no jury is required to find anyone guilty JUST because they broke a law, the onus is on them to decide to do so.
If someone killed their child and was put on trial, the circumstances would or at least should, prevail in the juries findings.
Produce one rpeort, Police, Health Dept., or other-wise, (a valid report, not propaganda from PP or the Letists Progressive establishment, that shows the mass die off from back alley Abortions you all profess to have occurred.
I have yet to find one. Did back alley Aborttions occur? Probrably, a relative few of them. Considering we have known of roots and alternative ways to induce an abortion for centuries, they aren't as common as the left would prortray them as.
Give me a few to wake up and I will roll through your questions Crank.
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?
Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I find you very amusing. And I like how you and aguasilver are avoiding my questions as I presume you both support capital punishment for murderers.
So, let me just make one point you both don't seem to get.
Nobody wants an abortion. Nobody thinks abortion is a good solution to any problem. Everybody would be happy if there was never a circumstance that required one. I think we can all agree, yes?
Here's what both of you don't get: the murder issue is irrelevant to the argument. It has nothing to do with why abortion is legal in this country. You can keep beating that drum and I'm sure others who don't understand the issue will answer, but it has nothing to do with it. I've already explained why.
And TM, I don't know which Ann Coulter books you're getting your U.S. history from, but it's very funny. For the heck of it, let's review some popular progressive legislation of the 20th century:
child labor laws, national parks, collective bargaining, women's right to vote, social security, integration of the armed forces, civil rights, medicare, women's rights, gay rights.
Now let's review conservative social legislation of the 20th century:
See, your argument in opposition to Progressive social agendas is ridiculous because, as a conservative, you don't support ANY social legislation because a conservative, by definition, supports the STATUS QUO. In other words, conservatives were against eliminating child labor, giving women the right to vote, collective bargaining, social security; etc. You're against everything that changes the status quo.
So, there you go.
I answered your questions. You seem to think your just going to keep lining them up, and I will spend all my time on your ?s, as if I am taking an exam I must pass. Too bad...
Everyone here can see I answered them. You just do not like my answers, or the fact that I won't jump up now and answer the next series of them.
What a laugh you are, talk about amusing.
Yes over a million women a year have that unwanted trouble because of the Liberal Leftists Progressive immorallity they have been raised to believe as true. Got pregnant, don't worry, go abort. That simple.
Now you try to say, -oh you didn't understand what I asked-... yes I did. As far as the man leaving a woman pregnant. He should not go to jail if she goes and brakes the law by getting an illegal procedure. Simple.
And I am doing other things, I don't fell like wasting all day playing liberal games like these today.
And one more thing, aguasilver:
I agree with everything you said in your previous post. I would like that world too.
We could get into another discussion entirely about what it's going to take to make people responsible or if that's even possible. History suggests it probably isn't.
Abortion is wrong and immoral ?????
There are no simple answers.
Which is worst A teenager receiving an abortion OR
Forcing that child to have the baby and then becoming abusive or neglectful towards their child because of the financial and social difficulties associated with being a single mother,
The field of potential husbands, or life mates have been greatly reduced.
In most cases, if she remains a single parent, she resigns herself to a life of poverty.
She often thinks less of herself and of her child.
Often, forcing a child to become a mother creates the situation for child abuse or neglect.
Where are those people that shamed her into being a mother when she needs them the most?
Most often they are still preventing other abortions, when they haven't finished the jobs they have already started. Helping to turn a babywoman into a grown up mother.
Is abortion wrong? Of course it is.
As is attempting to raise a child that you know you can't take care of.
If abortion is a religious issue; it is an issue between the woman and her God if she has one.
Here is a scenario to consider. Excuse the language, I am not expressing a belief or judgment. Just using terms that I have heard.
A woman is a sinner of the worst kind. As some people might say, she is already going to Hell.
And now she becomes pregnant also. Who has the right to impose their morals upon this sinful woman by forcing her to carry this unwanted child to term.
Would this not be a sin perpetrated upon the child, when we force that retched sinner (not my words) the opportunity to inflict misery upon an innocent child?
I’m just saying that there are so simple answers, to this problem except, don’t get pregnant when you don’t want to. After that, there are no perfect resolutions.
What are your thoughts?
I'll check them out later if there any.
Right now I gotta go take care of survival stuff.
by fred allen 6 years ago
Can morality exist without a divine authority?Without absolutes who has the authority to establish moral boundaries? If there is no divine standard, can there be such a thing as morality or right and wrong?
by LAURENS WRIGHT 5 years ago
Is there a right or wrong without religion ?Killing, stealing, cheating or dishonest acts are throughout the world. Without truth and justice, is there a right and wrong without a religion or supreme justice for a basis of thought? What has happened to the mentality of the people who...
by TahoeDoc 7 years ago
Do you believe religion is needed for morality? Is the bible the only guide to morality?If you believe these things, do you really think you would go around commiting crimes and immoral acts if the bible didn't tell you not to? I actually give (most) people more credit than that, don't you? If this...
by The Filipina Digital Entrepreneur 2 years ago
Is it right to argue with our parents when we think that what they are doing is wrong?
by SpanStar 6 years ago
Having declared ourselves as free thinking righteous believers (meaning we understand the concept of a right and wrong).* Would curtailing shock jock radio announcer's verbal expressions over the airway be immoral?* There are those who say the death penalty is immoral, is it?* Some say not allowing...
by ChilliWilly 5 years ago
Stealing is immoral, right? But what if stealing was the only way to feed a starving child?
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.|