My first post of awesomeness
Hey! This is my first post on Blog America! Anyway, a little on me (who else matters?):
I'm a Catholic Christian teen who's views lean towards the right. I guess that's all you really need to know about me at this moment.
Anyway, my other blog is this little piece of awesomeness.
Anyway, I thought I would post some (hopefully) thought provoking opinions of mine:
"I'm against abortion except in cases of rape and incest -" So are you saying that if a baby isn't a result of normal sex, it doesn't actually exist? That's absurd.
"I'm totally pro-life -" The word "pro-life" is viciously grating on my nerves. I'm pro-birth and anti-suicide, but I honestly think "pro-life" is too broad a term. For instance, I'm totally against abortion and assisted suicide, but I love playing action-packed violent video games and I support the death of terrorists. So if I was 100% pro-life, I wouldn't be playing Half-Life 2 or Ghost Recon or supporting the demise of terrorists. That's the equivalent of a person who's 100% against killing animals playing a game in which you blast away cows. Just a little food for thought.
My stance on the "Support our troops" attitude - Nothing pisses me off more than people who claim to support the troops but do not want them brought back. Hello, in case you haven't noticed, MORE TROOPS ARE DYING EVERY DAY!! They're just sitting in Iraq rotting away while Bush isn't doing anything! The President seriously needs to take action and do something ultra productive soon, or remove the troops all together. In the mean time, claiming that you support the troops while they sit there dying isn't being patriotic or helpful. Instead, find a way to support the cause of getting them back.
Late Notice: My "opinions" on the war were pretty much fake. I was playing devil's advocate to prove a theory of mine, and what do you know? It worked!
Cats - They suck. They just sit there plotting your demise. Trust me, cats are pure evil.
Just a lil' something. Leave a comment or two and I'll mail you a lollypop. ;)
posted by Brian @ 11:08 PM
78 comments
78 Comments:
Brian, I'll go easy on you because you're a young'un. We are winning the war in Iraq. Progress is being made every day. Don't let the propaganda of the left get to you, my friend. It'll be okay.
What war, NC? Are soldiers in a trench battle with IEDs? No! It's an occupation now, not a war.
However Brian, the soldiers are doing an important job of rebuilding Iraq-they aren't sitting on their arses.
Why are you against abortion? If you give me a reason to support your opinion I can explain why I disagree.
Cats rock. They know they can be lazy and get away with it, and they aren't dumb enough to find chasing sticks the most fun thing in the world. You know they're almost as smart as you-it's obvious from their eyes. As long as you don't treat them like babies they'll respect you back.
So, are you saying that if a baby isn't a result of normal sex, it doesn't actually exist? That's absurd.
No, I don't believe the argument is that the baby "doesn't exist". It is that the woman should not have to carry to term the child of a man who violated her. She is already going to be emotionally traumatized for life! She may also now have to deal with an STD or AIDS! You want to force her to live the next nine months with a constant daily reminder of what happened?
What kind of a sadist are you? I think the woman needs to concentrate on healing herself. You think it's easy to recover from a rape? I think it could give a person nightmares and emotional problems for the rest of their life!
I'm pro-birth and anti-suicide, but I honestly think "pro-life" is too broad a term. For instance, I'm totally against abortion and assisted suicide...
I am 100 percent in favor of people being able to die with dignity. Why force a person with a terminal illness -- a person who could be in constant excruciating pain -- to live as long as they possibly can?? What if they can no longer use the bathroom by themselves and need someone to clean them? What if all their money is being drained away -- money they would prefer to see go to their children -- and not used to keep them in their awful state?
Regarding brain dead patients -- or anyone in a comatose state from which the doctors predict no recovery. If the person has a living will -- then there isn't a problem. If not, then the decision (to remove the person from life support) should be left to the spouse or the parents (in that order). What happened with Terri Schiavo was complete nonsense. Her husband wanted her to die with dignity and that is what should have happened -- without all the court battles, or Congress butting in.
My stance on the "Support our troops" attitude - Nothing pisses me off more than people who claim to support the troops but do not want them brought back. Hello, in case you haven't noticed, MORE TROOPS ARE DYING EVERY DAY!!
I agree with you on this one.
...Bush isn't doing anything!
He's the one who sent them there. I think they will be staying (and dying) until we get a new president -- One that listens to what the majority of Americans want.
In the mean time, claiming that you support the troops while they sit there dying isn't being patriotic or helpful. Instead, find a way to support the cause of getting them back.
Right on! I don't see how anyone can call us unpatriotic because we want to prevent soldiers from being needlessly killed. These (almost) 2000 young men and women had their whole lives in front of them! Why are we continuing to sacrifice their lives? Our remaining in Iraq is only fueling the insurgency.
Cats - They suck. They just sit there plotting your demise. Trust me, cats are pure evil.
While I prefer dogs, I don't think cats suck, or are "pure evil".
Sol, if you think for a moment that IED's are the only thing the soldiers are fighting, you need to read http://avengerredsix.blogspot.com.
It's not just explosives hidden in the road or in dead carcasses. There are actual groups of men (women too, on occasion) with guns that need a dose of high speed lead poisoning.
My heart aches for any woman who has been raped and in the process has become pregnant. She is absolutely a victim...but she's not the only one.
That unborn child didn't ask to be created in that manner anymore then that woman asked to be raped. So why should it have to pay the price for what one sick individual did? Are not all children born innocent? Maybe you can't bring yourself to raise that child, but at least give it a chance at life with a family willing to love them as their own.
As far as supporting the troops. To me, supporting them is showing respect for what they are doing, especially in Iraq. They are bringing freedom to a nation that has never had it. Are we so self-righteous to believe we are the only ones that deserve freedom?
I would ask that you talk to soldiers that have served or are serving in Iraq to get the real story. I have talked to several of them and have seen the pictures they have taken while there and it has opend my eyes to the truth. Our soldiers are making progress there and you do them zero justice by saying nothing is happening. Freedom doesn't come overnight nor without a price.
dk says he cares about women but is for killing babies. And then HE calls someone ELSE a sadist?
No, I don't believe the argument is that the baby "doesn't exist". It is that the woman should not have to carry to term the child of a man who violated her. She is already going to be emotionally traumatized for life! She may also now have to deal with an STD or AIDS! You want to force her to live the next nine months with a constant daily reminder of what happened?
What kind of a sadist are you? I think the woman needs to concentrate on healing herself. You think it's easy to recover from a rape? I think it could give a person nightmares and emotional problems for the rest of their life!
Let me ask you: What's more important, a reminder of something horrible or a human being?
What kind of a sadist are you thinking that it's okay to kill off a baby just because it's inconvenient? Also, the woman doesn't have to carry the baby for the rest of her life. She can put him/her up for adoption. I'm adopted, so I'm living proof that it is a practical solution.
And also, plenty of women have had emotional and psychological problems from aborting their baby. A lot of women live with guilt. Just something for you to consider.
I would ask that you talk to soldiers that have served or are serving in Iraq to get the real story. I have talked to several of them and have seen the pictures they have taken while there and it has opend my eyes to the truth. Our soldiers are making progress there and you do them zero justice by saying nothing is happening. Freedom doesn't come overnight nor without a price.
Actually, my cousin served in Iraq for a couple of months. Yeah, but seriously, how long do our soldiers have to stay in Iraq? How long before they can leave? Just a couple of questions...
"Let me ask you: What's more important, a reminder of something horrible or a human being?
What kind of a sadist are you thinking that it's okay to kill off a baby just because it's inconvenient? Also, the woman doesn't have to carry the baby for the rest of her life. She can put him/her up for adoption. I'm adopted, so I'm living proof that it is a practical solution."
If I assume correctly from your user name, you are male. Will you ever be raped and become pregnant as a result? What right do you have to tell any female that her feelings are not valuable, or that it is only "convenient" for her to have an abortion? She is a victim and if she refuses to carry a baby that was conceived as the result of a violation of her body, then that is HER choice, not yours or that of any other male. This will never directly concern you, and unless you were the result of a rape and were then adopted, your situation is probably completely different. I know several people that have been adopted and they all agree with me on this point.
Brian asked, "How long do our soldiers need to stay in Iraq? How long before they can leave?
They should stay as long as it takes the Iraqi people to be able to protect themselves. To pull out know would be a slap in the face to every soldier who has served, is currently serving, has died, or been injured during this war. By pulling them out now you are basically telling them that their sacrifices weren't good enough.
Just a reminder...our military are our greatest volunteers. No one forced these brave souls to serve their country. They have all joined on their own accord.
Maybe you can't bring yourself to raise that child, but at least give it a chance at life with a family willing to love them as their own.
That's admirable if that is what the woman decides to do. But what if she decides she doesn't want the baby? Should she be locked up to be certain she doesn't get an abortion?
What kind of a sadist are you thinking that it's okay to kill off a baby just because it's inconvenient?
Inconvenient? I think an unwanted pregnancy due to rape is a LOT more than inconvenient! Also, What "baby" are you talking about? A fetus is not a baby.
plenty of women have had emotional and psychological problems from aborting their baby. A lot of women live with guilt. Just something for you to consider.
I'm all for it being "considered". I'm not saying that it's an easy decision -- I'm saying that it's the woman's decision, and NOT the government's.
Lying comes too easily to them. Thank you, Bill "I never had sex with that woman" Clinton
First of all, I don't approve of a man who cheats on his wife. That being said, what man wouldn't lie in this situation?! Also, what does his cheating on his wife have to do with his job as president?! NOTHING. It was between him and his wife, and nobody else had any business asking. I think lying us into an illegal war in Iraq is a considerably more serious offense.
Freedom doesn't come overnight nor without a price.
The PRICE is too high! If it is "self-righteous" to believe "Iraqis don't deserve freedom"... does that mean our ultimate goal is to (forcibly) bring freedom to the entire world? I think that would require a draft -- and hundreds of billions more in debt. Do you think we should destroy the United States attempting to accomplish this goal?
They should stay as long as it takes the Iraqi people to be able to protect themselves. To pull out know would be a slap in the face to every soldier who has served, is currently serving, has died, or been injured during this war.
That's nonsense. What happens if that takes 10 years or more. What happens if we need to draft more soldiers for use as cannon fodder? What happens when our crushing debt causes a recession that kills people here in the United States -- because they're starving to death? Are you saying we should "complete the mission" NO MATTER WHAT THE PRICE?
Just a reminder...our military are our greatest volunteers. No one forced these brave souls to serve their country. They have all joined on their own accord.
More nonsense. I have two brothers who served the military (one currently in the National Guard). I know for a FACT their primary motivation was money for college (military service also looks good on a resume). They "volunteered" before the Iraqi war. Neither one of them voted for, or agree with bush.
Too bad the other 90% did, huh dkfz? Isn't it inconvenient how these damn wars get in the way of all of that free money? Who woulda thought that the military might actually be used to fight a war?
"They should stay as long as it takes the Iraqi people to be able to protect themselves. To pull out know would be a slap in the face to every soldier who has served, is currently serving, has died, or been injured during this war. By pulling them out now you are basically telling them that their sacrifices weren't good enough.
"
You do have a good point there. I never really took that into consideration...
"That's admirable if that is what the woman decides to do. But what if she decides she doesn't want the baby? Should she be locked up to be certain she doesn't get an abortion?"
If you think that choice is more important than a person, than you have some serious thinking to do.
Typical left. Putting feelings in front of logic. Listen, I care about other's feelings a lot, almost to a fault some times, but I don't put other's feelings in front of a human life. Let me ask you, what's more important, someone's feelings and emotions or your life[respond]?
And no, I don't think any women should be punished for having an abortion mainly because many of them don't know what they're getting into when they do get one (whew!).
"If I assume correctly from your user name, you are male. Will you ever be raped and become pregnant as a result? What right do you have to tell any female that her feelings are not valuable, or that it is only "convenient" for her to have an abortion?"
Have you ever been raped? Didn't think so. Now shut up.
I'll ask it again, what's more valuable, a human life or feelings?
They're there at least 6 months and most likely a year.
Shame on you for lying to try to back up a pointless point.
Whatever. I'm not lying, and I'm not left. I'm sick of people accusing me of being left just because I don't support some stupid politically charged war.
"Inconvenient? I think an unwanted pregnancy due to rape is a LOT more than inconvenient! Also, What "baby" are you talking about? A fetus is not a baby.
"
Than what is a baby? What's your definition of a baby? Does it have to have arms? Does it have to cry? If that's your bases (spelling?) for not thinking that a fetus is a baby, then you REALLY need to do some thinking. Does it have to have a beating heart? I hope so... http://www.bellybeats.com/
dkfz said: "I have two brothers who served the military. I know for a fact their primary motivation was money for college"
I'm speechless! So basiclly what your telling everyone is that your brothers were looking for a free ride to college, but God forbid they actually have to do what they signed up to do! What the hell did they think they were signing up for, the boy scouts!
You've just laid your cards for everyone to see dkfz! Typical liberal...give me what I want but don't ask me to sacrifice anything of mine to get it!
I get the feeling dkfz that there's nothing you would give your life to fight for. How very sad and cowardice!
So basiclly what your telling everyone is that your brothers were looking for a free ride to college...
You're speechless? NO, I'm speechless!
They did their job. Isn't that the way it usually works -- when someone accepts employment they expect to be paid. How is that a "free ride"?! I think they would be very insulted if you said that to their faces.
FYI there are many non-combat jobs in the Military. They worked with computers.
What the hell did they think they were signing up for, the boy scouts!
They damn well knew what they were signing up for could possibly be dangerous. However, the particular jobs they both signed up for were non-combat positions. That DEFINATELY does not mean that their jobs were unimportant or non-essential, or that they weren't difficult or didn't require hard work. I know for a FACT that they both worked hard and did a good job.
I am VERY insulted by your "free ride" accusations!!
"They did their job. Isn't that the way it usually works--when someone accepts employment they expect to be paid. How is that a "free ride?"
And the military gave them a paycheck for their work (that's how they got paid). Money for college is a benifit for serving and sacrificing for the military. Anyone who joins just for the college money but doesn't support what the military and its Commander In Chief are doing is a total hypocrite! Your basically saying, "I'm totally against what my employer is doing but I still want the money and benifits for helping him do what I consider to be wrong and immoral."
And I don't care that they signed up before Bush was in office! When someone joins the military they better damn well understand and be prepared for situations to change and be ready to serve whoever is in office without complaining! Whether they like it or not, it's what they signed up for! If someone can't do that, then they shouldn't join...college money be damned!
It must be nice to have enough money to do exactly as you please, never having to make any hard choices. I only said that my brothers were in the military and they did not agree with bush. I never said that they would refuse orders.
Do you think they are exact copies of me, and that they would agree with everything I post here? Why do you feel the need to insult people you don't even know? Just because they are in the military and don't agree with bush?!
You think everyone in the military must agree 100 percent with whatever bush decides is the right thing to do -- Otherwise they're a hyprocite? Your thought process must be really twisted to lead you to that conclusion (typical for a Republican).
I do know that if I were ever in that situation I would refuse (I don't think they would have, but I would). I would not kill for bush. I would not fight in his illegal and immoral war.
...doesn't support what the military and its Commander In Chief are doing is a total hypocrite!
Twisted Republican BS nonsense!
Do you think there is nobody in the military who disagrees with the bush administration's decisions?
It sounds to me that you are saying that unless every soldier is a brain washed robot who follows orders without question they are traitors. I know free thought is discouraged in the military, but that is just insane.
Maybe some of the people pounding keyboards or driving forklifts might have voted for Kerry but the guys pounding sand and killing terrorists sure as hell didn't!
Maybe some of the people pounding keyboards or driving forklifts might have voted for Kerry but the guys pounding sand and killing terrorists sure as hell didn't!
I say you're full of sh!t.
https://lists.mayfirst.org/pipermail/portside/Week-of-Mon-20040920/006539.html
BACKGROUND: The military vote in the presidential election
Written by Donna Quexada
Tuesday, 21 September 2004
Ann Scott Tyson in Tuesday's Christian Science Monitor surveys the military vote, and reports that more will be voting Democratic in 2004 than many suppose. (Many are so young that it will be the first time they have
voted.) -- Tyson cites a 1999 survey by Duke's Peter Feaver suggesting that the officer corps is 8-1 Republican, but that enlisted personnel are pretty
evenly split. -- She also cites anecdotal evidence that Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" is affecting how the troops in Iraq view the war and the president.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's "tense relationship" with the military is also said to be a factor. -- Many soldiers are willing to speak out to reporters. "Nobody I know wants Bush", says an enlisted soldier in Najaf, adding, "This whole war was
based on lies".
"[For] 9 out of 10 of the people I talk to, it wouldn't matter who ran against Bush -- they'd vote for them", said a US soldier in the southern city of Najaf, seeking out a reporter to make his views known. "People are so fed up with Iraq, and fed up with Bush".
Obviously that soldier is a hypocrite. (A note for the denser among those posting here: I meant that sarcastically.)
dkfz said: "It must be nice to have enough money to do exactly as you please."
For someone that doesn't like people passing judgments, you sure do a fine job! I didn't get a free ride to college! Paid my own way using student loans that I am still paying off 5 yrs later!
"Do you think they are exact compies of me..."
I'm sure the apple don't fall far from the tree.
"You think everyone in the military must agree 100 percent w/ whatever Bush decides is right..."
Nope, sure don't! I'm sure there are plenty of people like you in the military that probably joined in the hopes of gaining a lot while giving very little in return. You know, the ones that say, "give me a desk job so I can take full advantage of everything the military has to offer w/out having to get my boots dirty." I'm sure there are hypocrites in the military. Just look at good ol' Kerry!
nightcrawler said, "Maybe some of the people pounding keyboards or driving forklifts might have voted for kerry but the guys pounding sand and killing terrorists sure as hell didn't!"
My point exactly...I couldn't have said it any better! Thanks!
For someone that doesn't like people passing judgments, you sure do a fine job! I didn't get a free ride to college! Paid my own way using student loans that I am still paying off 5 yrs later!
No, you missed the point. I was talking about making decisions regarding your future. You decided to go into debt. My brothers decided to take advantage of what the military was offering. 4 years of service in return for nominal pay up front, and college money after.
Maybe some of the people pounding keyboards or driving forklifts might have voted for kerry but the guys pounding sand and killing terrorists sure as hell didn't!
My point exactly...I couldn't have said it any better! Thanks!
Military Service: Only Republicans need apply? If you tell the recruiter you're a Democrat you'll be rejected? What about when Clinton was president? Did the military only consist of Democrats then?
I suppose you think that -- unless you are willing to sacrifice your life -- you don't belong in the Military. Even if your sacrifice is for a cause you strongly disagree with. Your argument makes no sense. However, I'm sure that won't stop you from persisting with this nonsense.
My problem is with the people that join the military only for its benefits and not its dedication and service to the American people. My problem is with people joining the military during peace time and then having the nerve to complain when they are called on to fight! That's my problem! I could care less if your Republican or Democrate!
However I'm sure this won't stop YOU from persisting with YOUR nonsence!
Yknow dk you've done nothiing but be rude this entire time. Also I think you are a dirty liar. Your profile says CEO. What company? I wouldnt think a hotshot like you would have time for this.
I'm insulted and he calls me rude. But you are right, I should buckle down and get back to work. I'm wasting entirely too much time here. BTW: my business is none of yours. I know better than to divulge any personal information here.
Bull, you are lying, you are NOT a CEO. Come on dude a 33 year old CEO. Yeah right. Get back to mopping floors.
What I do for a living doesn't have anything to do with the conversation. Even if I did mop floors that certainly would not render my opinions worthless.
I'm surprised you didn't say I work at a fast food Resturant. That's usually the "insult" Republicans use to degrad a person's stature. Although -- being a teenager -- you may very well work in the fast food industry... so that's probably why you didn't go there.
Go ahead and insult me again -- I'm not giving you any personal information. I see now telling everyone my brothers were in the Military was a mistake.
Actually the fact that you lie hurts your credibility which was what I was getting at. And since when do 15 year olds work? Not too often. I never said that your brother was bad. If you were telling the truth, which I doubt, then I appreciate his service, but I dont have to agree with you. I dont care about personal info. I dont care about you. But I know you're lying and it kills your credibility. Here's a question. What does "your company" make? I doubt you'll answer quickly because you're lying.
And the fast food thing, there's a difference between a 15 year old and a 33 year old's jobs. Do you even know about today's world?
I'm not responding to your demands for information, end of discussion. Why do I have to have "credibility" to state what my opinion is? Whether or not you believe I have family members who served in the military -- I could care less -- I wasn't claiming that this fact lent more credence to my opinions.
Do you even know about today's world?
Frankly, I find your insults pathetic. I'm through with this discussion.
Ok fine whatever. Please read my comment in the post, "Here's a good example of UNPATRIOTIC." Basically it says I'm done arguing with you. It leads nowhere. I'm more reasonable then you and you are a moron. Say that you won, go ahead, I don't really care anymore.
DFKZ didn't win. DFKZ never wins. That's why he's so ticked off. He came to Let Our Voices Be Heard and called Rebekah a "Terrorist". I have only thrown off one person from commenting on either of my blogs. He has been warned. Unless he apologizes to Rebekah he will be thrown off. My patience does have it's limits. Just letting you know, DFKZ, in case you come back here before you go to Let Our Voices Be Heard.
By the way Brian, most people who love dogs hate cats. Most people who love cats hate dogs. I love both dogs and cats. They both are wonderful creatures who have irritating and ingratiating habits, just like us humans. Try 'em, you'll like 'em! :)
"Have you ever been raped? Didn't think so. Now shut up.
I'll ask it again, what's more valuable, a human life or feelings?"
Are you serious? Is that how you're going to choose to debate? By telling those with opposite views to shut up? I haven't been raped. But it is a definite fear of mine, especially now that I am legally a ble to be in situations (parties, etc.) where rape is more likely to occur. If I were raped, MY LIFE would be important. MY LIFE is a human life, and comes first. An abortion, in the first weeks of pregnancy, is not killing a person. It is removing a bundle of cells. Again, MY LIFE is valuable, and this is not a situation that you will ever have to deal with, unless you are the rapist. And you obviously wouldn't care in that situation, either.
allisoni balloni: Brian's remarks were insensitive and obviously being a woman myself I too have the same fear you have. I think the older we get the more we become aware of the dangers...which is kind of a good & bad thing.
My only pause with what you said is that when talking about abortion you said "it is removing a bundle of cells." Are you aware that at just 18 days after conception the baby's heart begins to beat? At six weeks brain waves can be measured, at 8 weeks the vital organs are functioning and finger prints are formed. All this is happening before a woman is even allowed to have an abortion. That's not a "bundle of cells." It's a living growing human being.
When I was your age I too was pro-choice and had a few friends that had abortions. My reasoning for being pro-choice was based more in fear then rational thinking. Fear of what my family might think, what my friends or peers would think, and fear for my future. Fear makes it easy to ignore doing what we know is right.
It wasn't until someone shined a bit of a different light on the issue that got me to thinking and questioning why I believed what I did. What she said to me was, once that child has been consived God has given it a soul.
Now I'm not sure of your faith or if you even believe in a higher power, so this may be completely lost on you, but I just wanted to put a different view point out there to consider.
I am pro-choice because a baby is an incredible responsibility to take on, and shouldn't be forced on me if I am raped. There is no argument in my mind over that--no victim should be further victimized by the government. It is not their place to interefere. If you don't want an abortion, then by all means, don't have one. But if you become pregnant against your own will, there is no reason why you should be denied access to abortion.
allisoni: I wasn't taking issue with your choice so much as I was your statement about an unborn child being just "a bundle of cells." That claim is incorrect.
I agree with Corie. An unborn child is not just "a bundle of cells." An unborn child is a life.
Even in the ealiest stage, when the sperm meets the egg, it is potential life. A gift. You have the choice to either reject the gift or appreciate it. I know, at an earlier age I didn't feel this way. I think with age comes more wisdome. Feelings can never be more important than potential life. Certain "feelings" make us selfish. If "feelings" were all important, Jesus would never have died on the cross to save us from our sins. But I'm an old fogy to most of you here, and I don't expect I'm cutting any mustard. I used to think that a child of rape should be aborted. I was raped by a gang of six at the age of fourteen. That was in 1954. Abortion wasn't even an option back then. I didn't even know what "abortion" meant. Only people of money knew about it and how to get someone to perform it. So I would have had no choice -if I had come up pregnant - which I didn't, as to whether or not to have the baby. I would have had the baby and been a social pariah.
Like I said, this is a very touchy issue. Would I have wanted a baby at fourteen. Of course not! Would I have given it away? Absolutely, because at the time I was monitarily helpless and would have been forced to. Would I have wanted to? No, I can't even imagine wanting to give my baby away after carrying it for 9 months, forced to or not.
I think the bottom line is that we cannot legislate morality. Either you are born with it or you are not. It's way too easy for me to sit here now, safely, at the age of 64 and pass judgement on other people. I can't do that without being a hypocrite. This is hard, but at the time of the rape and at the age of 14 - if abortion had been an option - I believe I would have taken it. Knowing what I know now (or believe now) I would not. No danger there. I don't believe I'm going to be in a situation to be raped but one never knows. I remember it hitting the news that a 94 year-old was raped. Rape isn't, after all, about sex. I just know without a doubt that now, if it were possible for me to get pregnant -even if I were raped -I would have the child. After already having spent my life and raising three children and another adopted child I would not truly appreciate the "gift" but I would not abort. I can tell you this honestly: I would consider it a true miracle and a gift from God because I have had a partial historectomy and physically it's an impossiblity!
Bad knews for my oldest daughter... I'd give it to her to raise! Missel... are you listening? :)
Just kidding about that last comment, just so you know. It would be a miracle and I would consider it as such. I couldn't possibly give it away!
"An unborn child is a life.
Even in the ealiest stage, when the sperm meets the egg, it is potential life. A gift."
Ceritanly a baby is a gift. I plan to have children of my own not THAT long from now and of course I realize how valuable a life is. However, a BABY is NOT formed when the sperm meets the egg. That celle then has to implant itself in the uterus before it can even begin to form a fetus. A potential life, you say? Is male masturbation illegal? Is the use of a condom illegal? With the the argument you are presenting it can easily be argued that both of those practices are also destroying the "potential gift of life," as the sperm is being disposed of. So many people have this idea of a living breathing child being murdered, and that is simply not the case.
Sorry... I was talking from the heart. You have taken me way to literally, or I wasn't being clear. I do realize the egg has to ovulate. And I apologize, of course, just meeting the egg doesn't cut it. However, I was baring my soul here and skipped certain technicalities. For heaven's sake woman, do you just love to argue, or what? Couldn't you even feel the sincerity of my post?
I think people like allisoni like to say that an unborn child during an abortion is "just a bundle of cells" because it helps them justify their actions.
Yes allisoni the very first few days of a pregnancy not much of anything is going on but you are missing the whole point here! A woman cannot have an abortion until at least 9 weeks after conception. Between conception and that 9 week mark there is plenty going on as I stated in my first comment to you. Obviously you choose to over look that and go on to try and change the subject with your ridiculous argument about masturbation and condom use which had nothing to do with what was actually being said to you! Why? Because you know your comment about "a bundle of cells" is bogus.
And here gayle was trying to reach out to you and at least try to find common ground w/ you by sharing her story and you just slam right into her. Jeezz girl!
To justify my actions? I have not had an abortion, and am not saying that abortion for convenience is at all moral or correct. I read Gayle's story and I thought about it, but her and I have extremely different views because of our individual experiences, feelings, and opinions. It is easy for a married woman with children to say that she would keep the baby if she were to get pregnant, but there is a difference between that and having a child not conceived out of love. There are currently children ALL OVER THE WORLD waiting and waiting and waiting to be adopted. Unless adoptive parents are waiting for a certain child (such as an American baby) to be born, there is nowhere near a shortage of children to adopt and love. Even in that case, I find it hard to imagine that there would be much waiting for the parents involved.
I certainly see the concern about abortion, don't get me wrong. I do feel that abortion after consenual, unprotected sex, is purely out of convenience. However, I would rather have the woman undergo a safe and legal procedure, rather than attempting to take care of it herself. It will happen, no matter what the law says, and safety should really be the first concern. To overturn a law because of moral feelings is not exactly consitituational or necessary, as there will never be an agreement as to what is and isn't the right thing to do.
allisoni: Thank you for explaining a little more of your opinion on this. I still don't agree with it, but I respect your view. And I'm sorry if my comment about "justify your actions" made it seem like I was saying that you had had one, that wasn't what I was trying to say at all. I meant the justifaction of abortion in general. I think it's safe to say that the majority of abortion procedures done in this country are done for convenience purposes rather then because life or death, or rape purposes.
You said, "to overturn a law because of moral feelings is not exactly constitutional or necessary..." I guess this is were we differ. All the laws we are to follow in this country are based on "moral feelings"...killing, stealing, raping, lying (I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea). No one says these laws are unconstitutional or unnecassary. I don't see why abortion should be any different. When a woman becomes pregnant she is carrying a living growing human being that should be protected like the rest of us human beings.
I believe women have choices (and I'm only talking about consensual here, not rape). They can choose to not have sex and they can choose to protect themselves during sex knowing full well that it's not 100%(it's the chance you take when you make that choice). Once you've made your decision, you should have to deal with the consequences.
I'm tired of people doing whatever they please and then not being prepared for the repercussions of those actions. I do believe if abortion were not an option women would definitely think a lot harder about the choices they make and there would not be many putting themselves at risk. Of course there are exceptions to every rule and there will be those that will still do what they want and when they find themselves pregnant will choose to have one done illegally, that's the choice they make. We have control over choices we make and when we make them we need to be prepared for whatever follows.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051028/hl_nm/abortion_depression_dc
Abortion doesn't raise depression risk.
New York - Among women with an unwanted pregnancy, those who carry the pregnancy to term are more likely to experience later depression than those who terminate the pregnancy with an abortion, new study findings suggest.
Well-designed studies have generally shown that abortion does not contribute to an increased risk of depression, Dr. Sarah Schmiege and Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo note in their report in BMJ Online First, published October 28.
-----
Gayle said... DFKZ didn't win. DFKZ never wins. That's why he's so ticked off. He came to Let Our Voices Be Heard and called Rebekah a "Terrorist".
Of course I never win! Almost everyone here is a Republican! Why would I have ever thought there was any possibility of my "winning". Nor am I "ticked off"... frustrated sometimes, but nothing that transpires here is worth getting angry over. FYI Gayle, I most certainly did not call anyone a terrorist -- and you know it.
dkfz said: "...the woman should not have to carry to term the child of a man who violated her."
Well it's obvious you never talked this over with a child-of-rape. Life is precious! I don't mean to minimize the horror of rape, but why should whether the baby lives or dies depend on the emotional conditions that existed at the time he was conceived? He's still an innocent human being & deserves to be protected under the law.
---------------
"She is already going to be emotionally traumatized for life!"
You're right! So why compound her trauma by putting her through the additional trauma of killing her child? (It's true, 1/2 of the child's DNA came from a cruel rapist, but the other 1/2 still came from the mother herself! He is still her child. Why kill him?) What is solved by intentionally driving up the body count??
----------------
"She may also now have to deal with an STD or AIDS!"
An abortion will still never reverse this unfortunate condition.
----------------
"You want to force her to live the next nine months with a constant daily reminder of what happened?"
Rape is terrible, no question. But it's not so bad as remembering for the rest of her LIFE that she took the life of her own innocent child!
------------------
"You think it's easy to recover from a rape?"
No one ever said it was easy. But murdering the baby isn't the answer. What the rape victim needs is love & support, not an appointment with a serial killer.
"Why force a person with a terminal illness--a person who could be in constant excruciating pain..."
This appeal is vastly overrated from a medical standpoint. Current methods of pain management are very effective and only in very rare cases would this be an issue. Concern about pain isn't the real difficulty here. It's a stalking horse for the REAL issue: the financial burden. "Why is MY INHERITANCE being wasted on that invalid!?" Also, the spiritual value of human suffering is vastly underrated because it is so poorly understood by most people.
---------------------
"What if they can no longer use the bathroom by themselves and need someone to clean them?"
There is a great deal more to the intrinsic dignity and value of human life than wiping your own ass! (Think of babies in diapers.) Real love for another person easily gets beyond this sort of thing very quickly.
-----------------
"What if all their money is being drained away--money they would prefer to see go to their children..."
Ah, now we get to the REAL issue, don't we. Is this the actual truth, or is it rather the children who have a marked preference concerning the best way to spend all that money?
--------------
"...the doctors predict no recovery."
Doctors have no crystal ball and are proven wrong in this kind of prognosis all the time. It is also not unreasonable to question the doctors' motives in making it. ("We need that bed... we could use his organs for transplants... insurance coverage is running out... a lethal injection is MUCH cheaper than medication...")
--------------------
"...Terri Schiavo...her husband wanted her to die with dignity...without all the court battles, or Congress butting in."
Sorry, but you've been duped by the dominant "culture of death" (or maybe you're a willing participant in it). Michael Schiavo was a rogue who wanted her out of the way, and Judge Greer had a political & social agenda to push.
Allisoni said, "What right do you have to tell any female that her feelings are not valuable..."
Um, excuse me, but isn't LIFE on a somewhat higher order than FEELINGS? The Declaration of Independence states that life is an "inalienable right." Feelings are important, but they aren't inalienable. Sorry about that.
---------------
"...if she refuses to carry a baby that was conceived as the result of a violation of her body, then that is HER choice..."
What about the body of the baby, the actual life that hangs in the balance here. You keep forgetting about the BABY!
Corie said, "By pulling [the troops out of Iraq] now you are basically telling them that their sacrifices weren't good enough."
No, it tells them "Oops! We made a mistake. Sorry! Bad judgment on our part. Inaccurate intelligence, you know. No sense leaving you out there to catch a bullet or a loose grenade... Um... We could sure use your help down on the Gulf Coast..."
------------------
"No one forced these brave souls to serve their country. They all joined of their own accord."
Please understand. I don't mean to minimize the valor or sacrifice of our soldiers in Iraq, etc., but I'm sure al Qaida says exactly the same thing about their suicide bombers and other insurgents.
Ah, now we get to the REAL issue, don't we. Is this the actual truth, or is it rather the children who have a marked preference concerning the best way to spend all that money?
So you would want all your money drained away to keep you alive just a little longer? You'd rather see your hard earned life savings go to hospitals, doctors, and nurses, than to your own childern? I know I wouldn't. You think the government has the right to deny people the right to decide how they leave this world? I do not condone murdering the eldery so their heirs can get their money faster. I was talking about a person's choice to exercise their RIGHT to die with dignity! You want to take that RIGHT away because you think you know what's best for them?! is that the situation?
BTW: I noticed how you ignored my post which factually stated that abortion does not put a woman at a higher risk for depression...
Sorry, but you've been duped by the dominant "culture of death" (or maybe you're a willing participant in it). Michael Schiavo was a rogue who wanted her out of the way, and Judge Greer had a political & social agenda to push.
That's all complete nonsense. I haven't been "duped" by anyone. Judge George Greer is a Conservative Republican whose ruling had to do with what the law said. His ruling had NOTHING to do with a personal agenda. Michael Schiavo is a loving husband who wanted what was best for his wife. He acted according to her wishes.
What about the body of the baby, the actual life that hangs in the balance here. You keep forgetting about the BABY!
What baby??
Life is precious!
Don't you mean HUMAN life? Never mind the FACT that we are overpopulating this planet beyond it's carrying capacity. Never mind that other forms of life are going extinct at an alarming rate. The ONLY thing of any importance is HUMAN life. That kind of arrogance really angers me.
Ah, now we get to the REAL issue, don't we. Is this the actual truth, or is it rather the children who have a marked preference concerning the best way to spend all that money?
Does this issue only mean anything to you when there is money involved? What if the terminally ill patient has no money? If they choose to die -- are you OK with their decision then? Or are you going to pay to keep them alive against their will?
Missel said: "Only after a blood test was it determined that I was pregnant and emergency surgery was performed. Had I not gone to the emergency room that day both I and the baby would have died. It WAS an emotional time for me, but I didn't feel the least bit guilty about it, and I still don't. Am I going to burn in hell for eternity because of this? Doubt it. Now blast away!"
I'm afraid they were too wrapped up in their ongoing discussion to bother to blast you! I'm certainly not going to blast away at you, and not because I'm your mother but because I would respond the same way to anyone went through what you went through the same way: Of course you're not going to burn in hell for eternity because of it! I don't think anyone here believes you should have died to save the baby, at least I hope not! Also, there's a real good chance the baby would have died whether you did or not. And I'm certainly glad you didn't... "die" that is.
Bye the way, I don't know whether you know this or not, the same thing happened to me before you were born, and I didn't feel guilty about it either. I wonder if that sort of thing (tendency toward ectopic pregnancy) is genetic? In any case I have never believed that if the choice is between the mother's life or the babies, that the mother should die. After all, babies need their mothers, right?
Does this issue only mean anything to you when there is money involved? What if the terminally ill patient has no money? If they choose to die -- are you OK with their decision then? Or are you going to pay to keep them alive against their will?
I agree with you here dkfz. The last thing I want is more government control. If this person wants to die, let them die.
But the thing I have with abortion is that the baby doesn't choose to die, the mother chooses for the baby and that is again, a higher power making decisions for you. It's not government, but it's the same idea.
But I mean if the baby or the mother is at risk, then by all means abortion is okay. But if it's the mother doesn't want the kid or it was rape, then I think the baby should go under adoption.
So now you've got my opinion on things.
I wasn't done, I just had to get to bed.
Corie said, "Maybe you can't bring yourself to raise that child, but at least give it a chance at life with a family willing to love them as their own."
To which dkfz responded, "That's admirable if that is what the woman decides to do. But what if she decides she doesn't want the baby? Should she be locked up to be certain she doesn't get an abortion?"
Wow. Let's unpack that one.
If one person is determined to kill another, he (or she) will find a way to do it. (Just as a person who is determined to kill himself will generally find a way to do it--the old .45 between the eyebrows does the job, no point sullying the medical profession.) We shouldn't pass laws to facilitate (much less encourage) it, though. What if I decide I don't want to put up with Grandma or my cranky 6-year-old? Is it OK for me to decide to have them "eliminated" too? ("You have no idea what they put me through!") We shouldn't pass (or keep) laws that say, in effect, that (for some) death is preferable to life, that killing them is an OK option.
I'm all for CHOICE, as long as it's kept in perspective. But we're not talking about what car you might buy, deciding where to go to college, or whether you really like that outfit you just bought or to get rid of it. This is about taking an innocent human life! Cancelling another innocent life is not a reasonable or morally valid decision (which is why the arguments favoring abortion are ALWAYS appeals to our EMOTIONS, never to reason).
----------------------------------
"What 'baby' are you talking about? A fetus is not a baby."
STOP PLAYING WORD GAMES!!! Irrespective of the term you use, it is a living, genetically distinct & innocent human being! "Fetus" is merely a technical medical term describing its stage of development. It is still a CHILD! Although "baby" does imply that it has already been born, it need not mean that necessarily, and it is the more familiar term. (Old terms for pregnancy were "with child" and "having a baby," remember?)
-----------------------------------
"I'm not saying that [abortion] is an easy decision -- I'm saying that it's the woman's decision, and NOT the government's."
I'm sorry, but when it comes to the taking of human life, it is most certainly the government's business! In fact, that is the government's #1 business--to protect life! The government regulates what medical "treatments" should & shouldn't be legal all the time. Why is abortion so special, so...sacred??
MissEl said, "You cannot legislate morality."
This is a fallacy (equivocation). It is true only in the sense that laws alone cannot change people's hearts to be moral. But laws deal only with behavior. (Except for "hate crime" laws--let's not go there (yet).)
Virtually ALL legislation is about morality. You know, stuff dealing with what you're not allowed to do...like stealing, enslaving, dangerous handling of a motor vehicle, abusing & selling of harmful substances, and killing. If you can't legislate morality (in the sense of moral behavior), then what is the POINT of legislation at all?
---------------------------------
"I also do not believe that I could carry that child for nine months and then give it away. For some women that is just not an option."
Yeah, you're right. Since you put it that way... Better to kill it than to give it away for someone else to love. That way, you won't ever have to wonder to yourself, "Gee, I wonder if she had a happy 5th birthday..." Instead, you'd know for sure, "Oh yeah. She's dumped in some landfill."
Allisoni said, "MY LIFE is a human life, and comes first."
This is another hyper-emotional appeal and presupposes a false "either-or" dilemma, rather than a "both-and" possibility. Every doctor's responsibility is, first to DO NO HARM, and then to make every reasonable effort to save BOTH the mother AND the child. This "life of the mother" dilemma is extremely rare in normal practice, but is still a favorite legal/political ruse to heighten emotions and quell reasoned discourse. Basing broad legislation on rare exceptions is bad law.
The actual risks in a typical abortion are much greater than carrying the child to term in a typical pregnancy, despite the propaganda to the contrary (I'm sorry, there's no nice way to say this: they're lying). In the case of a true medical emergency (such as the tubal pregnancy--and my own sister had TWO, destroying both her tubes), there has NEVER been any law tying the doctor's hands, saying he HAD to let the mother die to save the baby. A good (conscientious & experienced) doctor will try to save the mother's life, of course, but there will also be a doctor (team)--someone--on hand to also take the baby & make a reasonable effort to save him too. (If the baby doesn't survive, his body should still be treated with the same respect shown to any deceased adult--even a bum who dies on the street in his own vomit deserves that much respect--not just thrown out in the trash.)
-------------------------------
"An abortion, in the first weeks of pregnancy, is not killing a person. It is removing a bundle of cells."
So you say. But that is a philosophical judgment (opinion) on your part, not a medical fact. The human embrio is not just any ol' bundle of cells. Even before it implants in the uterine wall, it is undeniable human, genetically distinct from the mother (not a "part of" her own body, but a separate one that naturally depends on her for its continued existence--much as a newborn infant does as well), it is very much alive & growing very rapidly, and (if left alone) will soon be recognizable for the thing it was all along--a new human person. (A new sprout from an acorn isn't necessarily recognizable as an oak tree either, but it is just the same.)
This is what we know from biology and medical science. Now, politics--that's another matter....
You people who favor euthanasia or assisted suicide need to Google "hospice" and do a little research. This has always been a viable and legal alternative to extraordinary or costly "keep 'em alive no matter what" treatments. Your arguments are full of holes. No one has ever been forced to undergo extraordinary life-sustaining treatments & anyone can elect to forgo them and "go naturally," being treated only to manage the pain, even if that hastens the death process. (However nourishment and hydration are always to be considered ordinary means and can NEVER be withdrawn while the patient is alive, even if they are given by a feeding tube or IV. Food and water are NOT medical treatments, self-serving medical/legal opinions or rulings to the contrary notwithstanding.)
(I am speaking of basic, ordinary, general principles here. I am not going to argue about the odd exception of "My cousin Harold's 95-year-old next-door neighbor was sick, & the geezer's kids FORCED the doctor to keep him alive, even though he didn't want it (blah, blah, blah)...")
the Green Flash said... What if I decide I don't want to put up with Grandma or my cranky 6-year-old? Is it OK for me to decide to have them "eliminated" too?
Of course not. Your comparrison makes no sense, as you talking about murder. Abortion, while not an easy decision, is not murder.
the Green Flash said... STOP PLAYING WORD GAMES!!! [in reference to my correction when someone erroneously called a fetus a baby]
I'm not. I don't understand people who feel they have the RIGHT to judge another person's decision which is none of their business -- not only the right to judge, but to FORCE them to do what THEY think is right.
the Green Flash said... Gee, I wonder if she had a happy 5th birthday..." Instead, you'd know for sure, "Oh yeah. She's dumped in some landfill".
You are just playing the GUILT card. See the article I posted above. It states: "Well-designed studies have generally shown that abortion does not contribute to an increased risk of depression". Why isn't the mother depressed? My guess is because she doesn't feel guilty.
Abortion, while not an easy decision, is not murder.
What might lead you to say that? Normally, when a human life is taken without justification, we call that murder. Is there a reason that abortion shouldn't be labeled with the same term?
You are just playing the GUILT card.
No, Flash is just playing the guiltier card. Earlier it was said that a mother would feel terrible for the rest of her life if her child was given up for adoption, becasue she would never have the opportunity to see the child again. Which is not neccesarily true.
Flash just said that the adoption option is far less condusive to guilt, and then stated a truth about what would happen to the baby in case of abortion.
Turn-about is fair play.
It states: "Well-designed studies have generally shown that abortion does not contribute to an increased risk of depression". Why isn't the mother depressed? My guess is because she doesn't feel guilty.
This, my friend, is crock.
I do apologize, but it really is. First of all, this one study stands alone against thousands upon thousands of women suffering from post-abortive trauma.
And for that matter, it wasn't half as well done as it, or the MSM seems to hope. Their main goal, said right up front in their study, was to prove that the dozens of other studies done about abortion and depression were wrong, and hey! They managed to get the right results! Fancy that! Objective science? Maybe...
In any case, the study only covers something like 20 or 30 years of life, and the post-abortive oppression can even take years longer than that to hit. I know a woman who got an abortion in the 50's, and was a staunch abortion advocate until about 5 years ago, when she hit that depression.
And the women who conducted the study admitted themselves that there were a lot of factors that they didn't take into account, they just hoped had nothing to do with the effects. And they also said that there was probably an underreporting of abortions, but waved it off and continued their "well-designed study".
I'm sure that now we all know that abortion doesn't cause immense emotional and psychological problems, as a murder normally would, all of those hundreds of post-abortive care clinics and pro-life groups that help women through that depression can just close down and go away. Apparantly they are no longer needed.
I know a woman who got an abortion in the 50's, and was a staunch abortion advocate until about 5 years ago, when she hit that depression.
That sounds like the CROCK to me.
I'm sure that now we all know that abortion doesn't cause immense emotional and psychological problems, as a murder normally would.
You can continue to LIE if you like, but your Point of View does not equal FACT.
Hey, dkfz, It's really mature of you to call MA a liar just because you don't want to believe a story that discredits your claims.
Grow up.
I know Masked Avenger personally, and he wouldn’t lie about a serious issue like this.
Thanks, Brian.
DKFZ, your reply/refutation was incomprehensible. Why do you think that story sounds like crock? Although I cannot put you in contact with the woman mentioned, please go and check out Silent No More. It's an entire organization of women who have had abortions, and realized afterward that they were in error, and that they were depressed about the murder of the baby.
In other words, solid evidence of a widespread existence of something we refer to as post-abortive depression.
You can continue to LIE if you like, but your Point of View does not equal FACT.
My point of view on what? What am I lying about? The existence of post-abortive depression? That abortion counts as murder? That the Yankees, past and present, as a large collective unit, should never be spoken of in polite society?
Please explain at earliest convenience.
You're lying about your point of view being fact -- You declared the article I posted to be a "crock". Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean the researchers are liars whose only goal is pushing their pro-choice agenda (or pro-murder as you would most likely call it).
Abortion isn't murder. Abortions are legal. Nobody is going to jail or is being charged with a crime for having a LEGAL procedure performed. Of course, if you had YOUR way that would change. However, it is legal now, and has been for the last 33 years [Roe v. Wade -- a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion].
I find your story about a woman who felt guilty 40+ years later unlikely -- Not unlikely that such a person exists, but that you personally know such a person -- unless you counsel women who have had abortions -- It's probably a story you READ.
Why would I be interested in "Silent No More"? Some women feel guilty years later -- that means ALL women should lose the right to do with their bodies as they choose? People make tough decisions every day for which there is a chance they will feel regret. Your arguments don't make any sense.
Hey, dkfz, It's really mature of you to call MA a liar just because you don't want to believe a story that discredits your claims. Grow up.
I believe there are some women who later feel regret. The story of this one person "MA" claims to know does not "discredit" the article I posted.
My "opinions" on the war were pretty much fake. I was playing devil's advocate to prove a theory of mine, and what do you know? It worked!
What was your theory and how did you "prove" it? What about your opinions regarding cats -- do you really think they are "evil", and "plotting your demise"??
I don't think you "proved" anything -- I think you should refrain from participating in adult conversations henceforth... YOU need to do a little growing up first.
dkfz, MA already enjoys more maturity than you will ever see.
You're lying about your point of view being fact -- You declared the article I posted to be a "crock".
But that declaration was not a lie, nor was it untrue. Truth never stems from a point of view, the opinions should always follow the truth, as best the opinion-maker is able.
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean the researchers are liars whose only goal is pushing their pro-choice agenda (or pro-murder as you would most likely call it).
The reason I don't agree with it is because of the very fact that it was a badly done, inconclusive study, that *was* designed to show abortion in a positive light. Go find the actual study, and notice how short and rocky it seems. As I said before, the women in charge did it badly, and admitted it. The study study isn't crock because I think badly of it, but the reverse.
And for the record, I rarely refer to 'pro-choice' people as 'pro-murder', mostly because it just makes people angry and confuses the issue, not because it isn't true. Mostly, I'll use their term of pro-choice, or pro-abortion, because that is more to the point. Don't you find it funny how most pro-choice folk think that the only choice should be abortion?
Abortion isn't murder. Abortions are legal. Nobody is going to jail or is being charged with a crime for having a LEGAL procedure performed.
The legality of abortion doesn't make it moral. Laws can change, and even our perspective on laws, but the basic ideas of right and wrong don't, even if we have forgotten them.
"Wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it. Right is always right, even if nobody does it."
I think the above came from the able mind of Bishop Fulton Sheen.
One such everlasting precept that every decent society has followed is that murder is wrong. Abortion is murder. Therefore, abortion is also wrong.
And it is murder, my friend. It is an innocent human life being wrongfully stopped by another for the sake of convienence.
The whole abortion argument hinges on the hope that a pre-born person isn't a person yet. That doesn't do the trick when trying to disprove that abortion is not murder.
Roe v. Wade -- a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion.
Well, that's nice, and would be an excellent argument for the legality (Again, legality still doesn't denote morality) of abortion, were it not for the simple fact that there is no 'constitutional right to privacy'. At best, there is an implied right to privacy, but even then, it would definitely come after the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Privacy is a good thing, as long is it is not infringing on the rights of others, as abortion does. The mother's right to privacy is outranked by the baby's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I find your story about a woman who felt guilty 40+ years later unlikely -- Not unlikely that such a person exists, but that you personally know such a person -- unless you counsel women who have had abortions.
And despite your assumption, I do, as a matter of fact, work occasionally with women who have had, or are considering abortions, with both sidewalk counseling, and just raising money for bigger local organizations that need people to counsel those suffering from post-abortion depression. And I also go to prayer services outside abortion clinics on a regular basis.
(And no, we're not the nutters who scream at girls going in, and wave about bloody pictures or anything. Those folks are quite effective in scaring girls away from abortion, but I don't think they help the issue much in the long run. We just stand on the sidewalk, say a rosary quietly, and leave.)
So I do know quite a lot of people who would have great stories for you. I know them personally, and have even witness several astonishing things during my work in the pro-life arena.
Really, I'm not just pulling things out of thin air, trying to deperately to prove my position. I have evidence, and thus I come to a conclusion.
Why would I be interested in "Silent No More"? Some women feel guilty years later -- that means ALL women should lose the right to do with their bodies as they choose?
-------
I believe there are some women who later feel regret. The story of this one person "MA" claims to know does not "discredit" the article I posted.
The point was that a lot, if not *most* women who have abortions wind up depressed because of it. Take for example, Norma McCorvey, the Roe in Roe vs. Wade. She was the champion of abortion rights at the time, and has since realized she was in error, and is now vehemently pro-life. And the Silent No More campain is a huge national movement, not a few random depressed women. It's not an occasional occurance, it is a pretty regular thing.
NOW you have proof of my lack of maturity.
Wonderful. But I assure you, maturity suits you much better.
The mother's right to privacy is outranked by the baby's fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Nonsense. There is no baby to have rights. You can type, type, and type some more, but you aren't going to change my mind.
MY biggest problem with people who are anti-abortion is that they place such a HIGH value on human life. When you say that "life is precious" don't you mean HUMAN life is precious? Do you think that human life is so much more valuable that all other life forms should suffer and go extinct simply to make room for more humans?
I already know what your view is on abortion. I'd like to know what you think about other animals rights. Do you think they have any?
Another article for you to debunk:
http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_archives/articles/799-1.html
Ecologist Says Unchecked Population Growth Could Bring Misery
David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agricultural sciences, says the only way to manage the earth's population is to reduce the number of children per couple. He estimates that if people average 1.5 children per couple, the optimal earth population of 2 billion could be achieved in 100 years. Even slightly more children per couple will make the earth's number's swell in short order: "If we adopted a policy of 2.1 children starting tomorrow, the world population will continue to increase and 60 years from now we will have close to 12 billion people", he said.
Pimentel concedes that the findings of the report are disturbing: "I found that it's a lot worse than I had anticipated. I have children and grandchildren and, unless something is done, the future doesn't look too bright", he said.
Nonsense. There is no baby to have rights.
Then why do people get abortions in first place? I was under the impression that it was because the mother didn't want the baby. Perhaps I was wrong, and women are getting abortions because it's a popular thing to do, and it feels nice to have somebody go rummaging through your body and cutting stuff out.
That's what I was talking about before, when I said that the abortion movement rests on the weird hope that a fetus isn't a person. But it is undeniably a person, as far as I can tell. Why do you think it isn't?
You can type, type, and type some more, but you aren't going to change my mind.
Well, that's a terrible attitude to have. Personally, I'm always quite open to the possibility that I'm wrong, and that somebody is smarter than I. Otherwise you wind up smothered by pointless dogma that doesn't make sense.
The only time I won't listen to somebody is when they're telling me what I'm thinking. I don't mind people what they think, or what they think I should think. But telling me what I think gets on my nerves. Take for example:
When you say that "life is precious" don't you mean HUMAN life is precious? Do you think that human life is so much more valuable that all other life forms should suffer and go extinct simply to make room for more humans?
First of all, you're presuming that I've said "life is precious" when I actually haven't, anywhere on this site. That presumtion is correct however, I do think that life is precious. And I don't only mean human life is precious, I think that life in general is precious, and not to be squandered. And it is certainly a tragedy when we humans presume that we should be allowed to smash all other life into bits to make way for us. That's not how it should be. We should be taking care of the rest of life, animal and plant, as best as we can.
With that said, human life is more important that animal life. If I had to make the choice between saving the life of family of cats and a family of people, I would not look twice at the cats.
Just a fact. People are more than just exceptionally clever pieces of meat, or some sort of really cool ape. We're people. The very fact that we can bother to argue about the possibility of our superiority over the rest of nature shows that there is something different about us.
Another article for you to debunk:
Thank you again for telling me what I think. Just because you posted one article that I found preposterous doesn't mean that I'm automatically going to disagree with everything you say.
Really, I don't know much about the subject of world population and it's effect. I think it makes sense that if 6 billion people are going to keep having kids, we're going to wind up with one heck of a lot of people, and we could very well wind up doing something very stupid in our efforts to house and feed all those people. But that doesn't mean that having a lot of people automatically means the end of the world.
I do think that strict population control is a bad idea. We need to come up with a solution that will fit the increase of people, not an amount of people that will fit a solution.
Eh, sorry, Avenger. I was the one who said "Life is precious." He must have been whining at me (or he gets confused about who he's talking to...).
the abortion movement rests on the weird hope that a fetus isn't a person...
It's not. It is a POTENTIAL person, nothing more.
Personally, I'm always quite open to the possibility that I'm wrong
Bullsh!t. You're telling me that there is a possibility that I could convince you that you are wrong? You have your mind made up just as much as I do.
But telling me what I think gets on my nerves.
I really don't care.
...I don't know much about the subject of world population and it's effect.
How convenient. My advice: continue to remain ignorant on the subject -- for you to learn more would only interfere with your black and white stance on abortion. People who live in the REAL world realize that tough decisions have to be made when we are faced with problems that have no easy answers.
that doesn't mean that having a lot of people automatically means the end of the world.
Actually, yes, I think that is exactly what it means. Not only are you not offering any solutions to this problem -- you flat out don't care. People with your attitude are dooming future generations to miserable living conditions including extreme poverty and starvation. In my opinion that is a LOT worse.
the Green Flash said... Eh, sorry, Avenger. I was the one who said "Life is precious".
You're probably right -- but I'm definitely not going back and re-reading your posts to confirm that. As I said, I really don't care.
It's not. It is a POTENTIAL person, nothing more.
...Okay, fine. So, besides reiterating my point for me (the abortion movement is based on the dogmatic mantra that a fetus isn't yet a person) you haven't none anything else with that statement. Why not explain a little bit more?
Why do women get abortions, if not to stop the process of having a baby? What is it that makes you so sure that an unborn baby isn't a baby? What's the difference between an unborn person and one that's out of the womb? When does a person stop being potential and begin the actuality of personhood?
Bullsh!t. You're telling me that there is a possibility that I could convince you that you are wrong?
Yes. That's how civilized people behave: open to improvement, and always ready to give the opponent the benefit of a doubt and listen fairly to his arguments.
You have your mind made up just as much as I do.
Oh. Good to know you can still read my mind.
I really don't care.
Similarly, it's good to see that friendly respectful discourse is still the heart of your being, and that you can be as respectful to me as I am to you. Wonderful to see such manners in a typically rude world.
How convenient. My advice: continue to remain ignorant on the subject...
As thankful as I may be for this advice, I hope you won't mind if I respectfully decline from following these ageless words of wisdom. I don't try to be ignorant, nor do I intend to stay that way.
I just just stating a fact. I really know very little about the subject. I'm a writer. There's no real reason why I should know much about world population dynamics. It's not my feild, and I'm not married, so it isn't really a big part of my day. But that doesn't mean that I'm willfully ignorant, it just means I haven't learned everything yet. Surprising, perhaps, but true.
-- for you to learn more would only interfere with your black and white stance on abortion.
Because as everybody knows, it's impossible for somebody to arrive logically at the position that abortion is a bad idea. All of us pro-life people have physically removed our brains, and now just stumble around in a biggoted stupor, oppressing women and ignoring all the facts, because the truth would destroy our regime.
People who live in the REAL world realize that tough decisions have to be made when we are faced with problems that have no easy answers.
You are absolutely right. Are you implying that I somehow do not partake in the pleasure of living in the real world, or that I somehow missed the fact that there are tough decisions to be made?
Not only are you not offering any solutions to this problem -- you flat out don't care.
Once again, I would like to remind you that I have no knowlege of this stuff, and therefore I have no ability to make an educated suggestion. I can tell you how to use proper grammar, how to charm and bemuse a reader using plain English, what is good writing and what isn't, and things of that nature. I could even show you a few of the authors that I wish I could better imitate, or that I really admire. But I have nothing to say about world population because of the simple fact that I am unqualified to speak about it in depth.
That doesn't mean that I don't care. I just don't have any thing to say, except what I've said already, that we need to think of a way to accomadate the people, not somehow force everybody for stop having kids. Or perhaps only permitting certain people to have kids. There's just something that seems distinctively evil about that.
Also, I think it would be good to note that changing the culture we live in might be a possibility. As Americans, we take up a lot of space we don't need, and use a lot of stuff that we don't need. Changing that trend would be a very large step toward at least holding off this population-induced crisis.
People with your attitude are dooming future generations to miserable living conditions including extreme poverty and starvation.
What do you mean?
Green Flash: I was the one who said "Life is precious".
It's true. I hadn't noticed that. Sorry for being snippy with you, DKFZ, I can understand what happened.
You know what -- I really don't care about abortions. Except that I think women should be able to decide what they should do with THEIR bodies. If it's a wrong decision then it's THEIR wrong decision to make. What really angers me are people who think they can force others to do what they want them to do. Is it because they think they are so morally superior to the people whose lives they want to control? I have very low tolerance for such people.
Of course you'll say abortion is murder, and we do "control" people in that we don't allow them to commit murder... but abortion is NOT murder! Why is a fertilized egg so magical to you? There's a possibility it could grow into a baby. SO WHAT? That possibility exists for EVERY egg produced by a woman's body -- Yet almost all (or, in some cases, NONE) of them will.
Similarly, it's good to see that friendly respectful discourse is still the heart of your being, and that you can be as respectful to me as I am to you. Wonderful to see such manners in a typically rude world.
What a sarcastic wit you have! You do seem more reasonable and polite than most of the people who post here... Honestly though, I am tiring of this conversation -- which is why I said I didn't care about getting on your nerves. Maybe it has something to do with YOU telling ME what I think:
Because as everybody knows, it's impossible for somebody to arrive logically at the position that abortion is a bad idea. All of us pro-life people have physically removed our brains, and now just stumble around in a biggoted stupor, oppressing women and ignoring all the facts, because the truth would destroy our regime.
No, I think the fact that YOU BELIEVE YOU'RE RIGHT has something to do with it. But, yes, I think anti-abortionists are oppressing women with this attitude. Some purposefully -- and they know it. Others don't see it that way -- but the end result is the same.
What do you mean? [re: overpopulation leading to poverty and starvation]
The article I posted laid it out pretty well. What's not to understand?
Also, I think it would be good to note that changing the culture we live in might be a possibility.
I don't think that's very likely. I think mankind is doomed. Eventually (perhaps quite soon) the human species will cause it's own extinction. But not before killing off a lot of the other life forms that inhabit this planet.
(sings) "Come, let us worship..."
Post a Comment
<< Home