Re:ABORTION is GOOD

[sodaknomad]

Life begins at conception. Therefore, abortion is murder. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/badrazz.gif

[LanceALott]

Soka: Life begins at conception.

LaL: Oh, I don't know about that. I know ALott of Republicans and English majors who have never experienced life at all.

[truelies]

Yukon is just angry that his momma could not find a coathanger.

[SENOR DON GATO]

I am definetly for keeping abortion legal and the decision the domain of the woman - but I would not go so far as to say it is "good". Just necessary.

It can be lessened by the teaching of proper methods of birth control to our youth and to teach them that sex is not a game.

But 13 and 14 year olds raising babies is a recipe for disaster.

[ilovelucy]

Senor

Meow. (i love cats)

Sex is very much a game in this society and there is no turning back from that unless one turns off the media entirely.

Abortion was always somewhat an option over the ages, but not one lightly taken as a pill or a method of redemption from raising a child borne without desire--because the best of human desire rests on the desire for family and for stability and not from sexual gratification for the sake of scratching the proverbial itch which is always there in most of us.....we are human,　no less, no more.


To legalize abortion--to codify it, give it merit, crededentialize it, condone it, substantiate it, glorify it, openly pursue it and etc, is to wish upon our children and our grandchildren a world in which life simply is as meaningful as the process by which we go through any functions of being mere humans and denies them the insight that life has meaning of any real value beyond the obvious and the mundane.....

In other words, it kills the spirit of the sanctity of life itself...

imo

lucy

[lgllady]

8)I think that it's good thing that abortion is legal. That way abortion will happen in a safe environment, with minimal risks for the woman involved.
Most women who have abortions have very good reasons to do so. And even the women who see abortion as just another form of contraception should just go right ahead in my opinion. Because really, they are among the last people on earth capable of raising a child properly.

It is quite apparent that pro-lifers, you know the type people like MUSHman, mostly care about life up until babies are born. After that, what happens to them is really inconsequential... because really, what we need more of in this world is unwanted children..
Oh, and as for having a child from a rape or incest... yes, that's a great idea. Pass on those violent genes. And when your child asks you 'Who was my daddy?' you get to say 'I really don't know, but he was pretty strong and violent' .

What gives anyone else the right to decide what happens in a woman's life? 8)



I certainly wish you were educated.

Multiple abortions can sterilize a woman. Multiple abortions too close together can kill. I know a girl that died last March because she had abortions too close together. Unfortunately her planned parenthood counselor told her she was being lied to by everyone when doctors told her that another abortion so close to the last might kill her. She was 15. PP fought and won a lawsuit to keep her mother and sister from talking to her about the danger she faced (laws against parental notification you know). Without an adult to talk to except for the PP counselor, she had no alternative opinion and believed them when she was told that the doctors who said she had a good chance of not surviving this abortion were all pro-life wackos.

Unfortunately, the first her mother heard was the hospital telling her that her 15 year old daughter was dead.

Now tell me how great abortion is.

I am not against abortion. I do think that abortion is overused. Overused to the detriment of the woman. Because the risk of sterilization is so great, (I know of many women who fell into this) I have often wondered if abortion doctors also had significant interests in fertility clinics.

[ilovelucy]

We rarely hear this side of things....

How awful for her mother.....

Ah, freedom to choose, freedom to choose, freedom to, freedom.....

We are having our other freedoms eroded as we speak, but this freedom manages to go unscathed and unanswerable....how convenient the mind of the nation works.

[wendy]

Freedom is also living with the concequences of the actions you take. Just because the majority of people feel something is good...or bad...doesn't make it so.

[ilovelucy]

Wendy.

That is a very wise statement, but not surprising from you.

[Deckard]

If the baby heart beats,it has a soul.

[SENOR DON GATO]

If the baby heart beats,it has a soul.


I suppose you can prove that?

Different cultures and religions disagree on when a fetus is endowed with a soul. I can understand how Catholics believe abortion is wrong since they belive in the soul from the time of conception.

The flip side can be seen in the Jewish faith where abortion is permissible. And even other religions believe the soul enters the body at quickening.

I guess one answer is just as good as another.

[wendy]

WENDY & LUCY,

How many abortions have you bimbos had ?


Hi sweetie. How are you this evening? :)

[Meshuga Mikey]

Oh if you had only been born alive PUKON~!!!what a much different world ,.....well you would have~!!

I would still think your an asshole but somethings never change~!!

[Meshuga Mikey]

Yukon is just angry that his momma could not find a coathanger.

GUESS WHICH ONE PUKON IS~!!!! OAKAY OAKAY?

http://people.delphiforums.com/artcruncher/LostChillensAT.jpg

[Meshuga Mikey]

WENDY & LUCY,

How many abortions have you bimbos had ?


Hi sweetie. How are you this evening? :)


Thanks Nurse Wendya~!! we all thank you~!!

[SENOR DON GATO]

WENDY & LUCY,

How many abortions have you bimbos had ?


Wendy's right. This is not the same Yukon from NM. So who is he/she ? Where is that right-between-the-thighs-guy?

If the baby heart beats,it has a soul.


What about a heart transplant? Are you taking one soul and putting it into another body?

[ilovelucy]

Bug

The human soul does not reside in the human heart muscles.

Yukon
Why does it matter how many abortions, if any, we have had? How many have you had for that matter?

You have much to say about what Americans should think and feel. When was the last time you paid US taxes? Analogous, no?

Bug

The human soul does not reside in the human heart muscles.

Yukon
Why does it matter how many abortions, if any, we have had? How many have you had for that matter?

You have much to say about what Americans should think and feel. When was the last time you paid US taxes? Analogous, no?


Of course it doesn't, I was responding to the statement if it has a heart beat than it has a soul. What is a soul anyway?

[greginboise]

I would point out that people who have had heart transplants have reported having dreams that can only be related to the donor, and craving foods that the donor liked.

Oh, and that in Yukon's case, abortion would certainly have been the right choice.

[ilovelucy]

A heartbeat is indication of life and all that is human life has some sort of soul, in my opinion....

[SENOR DON GATO]

I would point out that people who have had heart transplants have reported having dreams that can only be related to the donor, and craving foods that the donor liked.

Oh, and that in Yukon's case, abortion would certainly have been the right choice.


I think that is a bunch of malarky.

[jeny]

Abortion is a tragedy... It really is. It used to make me sort of sad, but now, having had a child inside of me, it makes my heart ache. Not simply for the child, who really never gets a chance to understand, but for the mother, who has been sold a bill of goods which is mostly lies. There are options, and if the pro-lifers spent the same amount of time working FOR the mothers and children instead of waving around gross pictures, the options would seem more viable to young, desperate scared women.

Frankly, when an unplanned pregnancy occurs, abortion should be the HARDEST option merely because the other options are so easy, but that's not the way it is...

Abortion is irrelevant and too much time is taken up by others condemning others for something that is none of their fucking business.

[jeny]

SENOR, like my new avatar? :D

[greginboise]

I would point out that people who have had heart transplants have reported having dreams that can only be related to the donor, and craving foods that the donor liked.

Oh, and that in Yukon's case, abortion would certainly have been the right choice.


I think that is a bunch of malarky.


I only report what I see/hear/read.

[arod]

http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/earlymem.html

The documentation of learning and memory months before birth is surprising. Some of this has been made possible by direct ultrasound observations of fetal behavior. Twins can be seen developing certain gestures and habits at twenty weeks gestational age which persist into their postnatal years. In one case, a brother and sister were seen playing cheek-to-cheek on either side of the dividing membrane. At one year of age, their favorite game was to take positions on opposite sides of a curtain, and begin to laugh and giggle as they touched each other and played through the curtain. Parents interested in prenatal communication have taught their prenates the "Kick Game." When babies kick, the parents touch the abdomen and say, "Kick, baby, kick!" When the baby kicks, they move to a different location and repeat the invitation. Babies soon oblige by kicking anywhere on cue.

[jeny]

I played the kick game, without much success to be honest. But the baby reacted to the cat's purr for sure.

[Right Wing]

8)I think that it's good thing that abortion is legal. That way abortion will happen in a safe environment, with minimal risks for the woman involved.
How safe is it when many women bleed to death in these abortion mills? Even if the woman does survive the abortion, there are mental and emotional traumatic side effects, as well as health risks like breast cancer and infertility. I would not call these minimal risks and the child has a 100 percent fatality rate. One dies with every abortion.


It is quite apparent that pro-lifers, you know the type people like MUSHman, mostly care about life up until babies are born. After that, what happens to them is really inconsequential... because really, what we need more of in this world is unwanted children..
The parents may be unwanting, but the child is always wanted by somebody. Many prolifers support adoption as well as other abortion alternatives.


Oh, and as for having a child from a rape or incest... yes, that's a great idea. Pass on those violent genes. And when your child asks you 'Who was my daddy?' you get to say 'I really don't know, but he was pretty strong and violent' .
Genes do not cause violent crime. We all have a free will. If someone decides to committ a violent crime, they are evil and need to be punished. Yes, a life should be taken when a pregnancy occurs due to rape. However, it should be the life of the rapist, which is forfeited, not that of an innocent child.


What gives anyone else the right to decide what happens in a woman's life? 8)

Then, does this mean nobody can tell a woman not to drown a person, stab someone, or run someone over with a car?

RW

[Lazarus]

8)I think that it's good thing that abortion is legal. That way abortion will happen in a safe environment, with minimal risks for the woman involved.
How safe is it when many women bleed to death in these abortion mills? Even if the woman does survive the abortion, there are mental and emotional traumatic side effects, as well as health risks like breast cancer and infertility. I would not call these minimal risks and the child has a 100 percent fatality rate. One dies with every abortion.


It is quite apparent that pro-lifers, you know the type people like MUSHman, mostly care about life up until babies are born. After that, what happens to them is really inconsequential... because really, what we need more of in this world is unwanted children..
The parents may be unwanting, but the child is always wanted by somebody. Many prolifers support adoption as well as other abortion alternatives.


Oh, and as for having a child from a rape or incest... yes, that's a great idea. Pass on those violent genes. And when your child asks you 'Who was my daddy?' you get to say 'I really don't know, but he was pretty strong and violent' .
Genes do not cause violent crime. We all have a free will. If someone decides to committ a violent crime, they are evil and need to be punished. Yes, a life should be taken when a pregnancy occurs due to rape. However, it should be the life of the rapist, which is forfeited, not that of an innocent child.


What gives anyone else the right to decide what happens in a woman's life? 8)

Then, does this mean nobody can tell a woman not to drown a person, stab someone, or run someone over with a car?

RW


Welcome Right Wing. Abortions ought to be very rare. I don'y see how taking the life of an unborn baby"fixes" the crime that was perpetrated by rape or incest. If anything, it would seem to compound the problems.

I can't fathom why any woman would wait six or more months to seek an abortion. But I suppose that we are talking about a certain segment of the population where the elevator does not reach the top floor. If birth control failed, then I can see how a person who did not want the pregnancy might be motivated to "deal" with the issue within 1-2 months after the first missed period. And I suppose that the victim of rape or incest might be similarly motivated in that they did not seek to become pregnant.

Again, I don't see how an abortion would solve anything, but if we start with the premiss that the woman did not want to become pregnant and that pregnancy was imposed upon her against her will, then it might be reasonable to conclude that there exists a limited right to allow the woman to make herself "unpregnant" without carrying a baby to full term.

I believe that the government has the power to proscribe abortion beyond that period of time when the rights of the woman to control her body must yield to society's interest in protecting the innocent--the unborn.

Nowhere in Roe v. Wade will anyone find the idea that a woman has an absolute right to abortion upon demand into the fourth month of pregnancy and beyond. With the passage of time within a pregnancy, such a practice is tantamount to infanticide.


(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163 , 164 .

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163 , 164 .

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164 ; 164-165 .


From Roe V. Wade...
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[Group+410+U!2ES!2E+113!3A]^[Group+citemenu!3A]^[Level+Case+Citation!3A]^[Group+notes!3A]/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?firsthit

Viability is that point when a baby may survive apart from the mother. With the advances of medical science, that point is making Roe. V. Wade increasingly moot. With the abortion pill, this "problem" might just disappear from view. One must keep in mind that certain forms of birth control, for example, "the pill" induce what amounts to an abortion. Most women on the pill never realize that that had become inpregnated. RU486 acts somewhat differently than the Birth Controll Pill, but it also induces an abortion--but again, the woman might not even realize she was actually pregnant.

[truelies]

On a purely pragmatic basis, if abortion is OK why not allow infanticide or the killing of the handicapped or dependent elderly also????? What claim do the weak really have on the strong? Extending from there if my group needs your land for 'living' space' why should WE hang back in the Struggle for Survival? If you are not one of the Folk and we are stronger than you, what claim do you have on us?

Bottom line, I think that if you are unwilling to recognize the universal conception to natural death bounds of shared humanity, then you proclaim yourself to be a first class hypocrite if you object/squeal unfair when taken as prey by one stronger than yourself.

[Lazarus]

On a purely pragmatic basis, if abortion is OK why not allow infanticide or the killing of the handicapped or dependent elderly also????? What claim do the weak really have on the strong? Extending from there if my group needs your land for 'living' space' why should WE hang back in the Struggle for Survival? If you are not one of the Folk and we are stronger than you, what claim do you have on us?

Bottom line, I think that if you are unwilling to recognize the universal conception to natural death bounds of shared humanity, then you proclaim yourself to be a first class hypocrite if you object/squeal unfair when taken as prey by one stronger than yourself.


Every sperm is sacred? ::)

[sodaknomad]

Yukon is just angry that his momma could not find a coathanger.


The best part of Yukon ran down daddy's leg.

[truelies]

On a purely pragmatic basis, if abortion is OK why not allow infanticide or the killing of the handicapped or dependent elderly also????? What claim do the weak really have on the strong? Extending from there if my group needs your land for 'living' space' why should WE hang back in the Struggle for Survival? If you are not one of the Folk and we are stronger than you, what claim do you have on us?

Bottom line, I think that if you are unwilling to recognize the universal conception to natural death bounds of shared humanity, then you proclaim yourself to be a first class hypocrite if you object/squeal unfair when taken as prey by one stronger than yourself.


Every sperm is sacred? ::)


Did not say that sperms & eggs are just cells. The combo is however a unique human being.

[Lazarus]

On a purely pragmatic basis, if abortion is OK why not allow infanticide or the killing of the handicapped or dependent elderly also????? What claim do the weak really have on the strong? Extending from there if my group needs your land for 'living' space' why should WE hang back in the Struggle for Survival? If you are not one of the Folk and we are stronger than you, what claim do you have on us?

Bottom line, I think that if you are unwilling to recognize the universal conception to natural death bounds of shared humanity, then you proclaim yourself to be a first class hypocrite if you object/squeal unfair when taken as prey by one stronger than yourself.


Every sperm is sacred? ::)


Did not say that sperms & eggs are just cells. The combo is however a unique human being.


So, let me get this straight. A sperm and an egg meet in a fallopian tube or in a Petrie dish and the two gametes form a zygote--and despite the fact that neither zygote has imbedded itself into the wall of a uterus, THAT is a human being--a descendent of many people and entitled to inherit a share of a decedant's property? Of course, if it does not get imbedded into a uterus very quickly, it will die intestate and there will have to be a probate hearing in order to decide what to do with the zygote's potential inherited wealth, right? ::) ;D :o ;)

[truelies]

Laz

As far as I am concerned the only logical place to say that human life has begun is conception when in fact the full genetic structure is present. To select some other point is simply to cater to the various hedonists who infest this world living in fear that one or another of their precious pleasures might be compromised. If that does not suit you go to God and take it up with Him.

Abortion is good and it's legal.

Ball buster. You do it poorly.

[BrandonL]

As far as I am concerned the only logical place to say that human life has begun is conception when in fact the full genetic structure is present.
So, is a skin cell from my finger human? After all, is contains my entire genetic structure.

[wendy]

Welcome Right Wing. Abortions ought to be very rare. I don'y see how taking the life of an unborn baby"fixes" the crime that was perpetrated by rape or incest. If anything, it would seem to compound the problems.



I've never had an abortion and I've never viewed it as an easy way out of a problem. That said, if I were raped, I would absolutely seek out an abortion if it were necessary. No person should be allowed to have the power to tell a woman she must carry and bear her rapists child.

I do agree with you regarding the abortions at 6 months, ect.. It doesn't take a NORMAL woman 6 months to realize she's pregnant. ::)

WINDBAG,

You don't need to worry about having an abortion. Who the hell would be hard-up enough to sleep with you ?

[wendy]

WINDBAG,

You don't need to worry about having an abortion. Who the hell would be hard-up enough to sleep with you ?


Hi Yukon. :-* :-*

Are you having a wonderful evening? :)

WINDBAG,

You don't need to worry about having an abortion. Who the hell would be hard-up enough to sleep with you ?


I see you have your mentor as your avatar, you have so much in common, for instance, Hitler had one ball and you have no balls.

[Lazarus]

Welcome Right Wing. Abortions ought to be very rare. I don'y see how taking the life of an unborn baby"fixes" the crime that was perpetrated by rape or incest. If anything, it would seem to compound the problems.



I've never had an abortion and I've never viewed it as an easy way out of a problem. That said, if I were raped, I would absolutely seek out an abortion if it were necessary. No person should be allowed to have the power to tell a woman she must carry and bear her rapists child.

I do agree with you regarding the abortions at 6 months, ect.. It doesn't take a NORMAL woman 6 months to realize she's pregnant. ::)


I know I posted much, but later on I also mentioned that if one assumes the premiss that a woman has the right to control her own body--to decide whether to try to become pregnant, to decide to refrain from sex, or to engage in sex but use various methods of birth control--then if her method of birth control fails--despite her best efforts to not become pregnant--it happens and I have two nieces and two nephews because of it--then surely the woman has the right to end a pregnancy that was not wanted to begin with. I continued that if a pregnancy was imposed (rape/incest) upon a woman, then surely a woman has the right to seek the termination of that pregnancy if she desires it--not an absolute right to abortion on demand, but a qualified or limited right to her health--even mental health--early on within the pregnancy.

However, from my perspective, I do not see how the trauma of an abortion can help the victim of a rape or incest--or the developing baby for that matter. It seems to me that it only compounds the violation of the woman to violate her again in that particular way. Now, in addition to the anguish of having been violated by rape or incest, it is quite likely that the victim will feel some guilt as the aggressor against the aborted baby. Maybe it is just me, but if I were a woamn, and if I were raped, then I would probably carry the baby to term, then give the baby up for adoption if I felt that I could not care for the baby properly--give the child the love all babies need--due to the trauma of the child's conception.

Again, I am not questioning the RIGHT of a woman to have an abortion under such circumstances, but I am questioning the WISDOM of it. However, as a man, I don't think it is my place to impose my "wisdom" upon a woman who finds herself in a situation that she did not "bargain" for. Again, without the life experience possibility to guide me, I am afraid that such a decision is best left to the victim, her family and/or her health care advisors--but not tooooooo long after the fact.

[Lazarus]

Laz

As far as I am concerned the only logical place to say that human life has begun is conception when in fact the full genetic structure is present.


From a purely biological point of view, there is truth in your statement. Okay? :)


To select some other point is simply to cater to the various hedonists who infest this world living in fear that one or another of their precious pleasures might be compromised.


Actually, I think I cited a very pertinent example of just how absurd this world would become if every zygote became an heir UNDER THE LEGAL SYSTEM if society viewed the unborn as "human beings" under the law--from the moment of conception. The consequences are much worse--women would be saving their menstrual flows--sending them to laboratories in order to ascertain whether their were any microscopic "children" there who could be claimed as tax credits or dependents, etc. Of course, they would be entitlted to Social Security death benefits. ::)


If that does not suit you go to God and take it up with Him.


You are entitlted to your opinion, and I am entitled to try to illustrate just how nutty or absurd the world might become if your way became the everyday way that the world was ordered. A funeral for every zygote. Social Security death benefits for every menstrual cycle where a zygote can be detected. Multiple tax exemptions for dependents--maybe even credits--but perhaps that is only the case if the zygote was alive on Dec. 31? ???

Then there are all the estate laws, probate, the rights of the zygote to inherit property and share in estates. The list of societal conundrums are nearly endless.

What it comes down to this is the question of when does the zygote attain the LEGAL status as a "person"? Killing a person is unlawful. Killing an animal that is not a person is, generally, lawful--although due to certain enviro laws, the gestational of other species probably enjoy more protections than the gestational of the human species. ;D

My point is that for most of recorded human history--only LIVE BIRTHS were considered "persons". Pushing that defintion back into the womb to the point of viability seems to make sense in certain contexts. Pushing beyond the point of viability to where you would take it seems to be a recipe for societal chaos or disaster.

If you don't like it, then you can talk to God about it, too. :)

[truelies]

I doubt the legal system would have a bit of trouble adjusting to the recognition of the biological reality that human life starts at conception.

Tax deductions for kids inutero on 31December? Why Not?

No the only folks who would have problems are those who just don't want to have to take responsibility for their drunken rutting.

[Lazarus]

I doubt the legal system would have a bit of trouble adjusting to the recognition of the biological reality that human life starts at conception.

Tax deductions for kids inutero on 31December? Why Not?

No the only folks who would have problems are those who just don't want to have to take responsibility for their drunken rutting.


::)

[kathleen]

How safe is it when many women bleed to death in these abortion mills? Even if the woman does survive the abortion, there are mental and emotional traumatic side effects, as well as health risks like breast cancer and infertility. I would not call these minimal risks.

And you know this how? Personal experience? Or is this something you have read about? Are you assuming that all women that have abortions have traumatic side effects? What kind of side effects? Regret? Sadness? Anger? If these emotions are so traumatic shouldn't they be avoided in all situations, not just in abortion cases?

The parents may be unwanting, but the child is always wanted by somebody. Many prolifers support adoption as well as other abortion alternatives.

This doesn't explain why there are over 500,000 American children in foster care - most of them waiting to be adopted. Where are all the prolifers that apparently want to "save" these children? Or is it really just the unborn they wish to protect - once the children are born it's someone else's responsibility?

[kathleen]

As far as I am concerned the only logical place to say that human life has begun is conception when in fact the full genetic structure is present.

Disregarding the Raelians, the technology for human cloning will eventually be in place.

As Brandon has mentioned earlier, this means that any human cell has the potential to become a new human being.

If we are to agree with the typical christian and/or pro-life criteria, you would be committing murder every time you shed a skin cell.

Need to take a piss? You are flushing thousands of potential humans down the toilet (urine contains human cells which have the full genetic structure).

What would your God think about your murdering ass then?

[Julia]

Abortion was always somewhat an option over the ages, but not one lightly taken
as a pill or a method of redemption from raising a child borne without desire...
That's what I thought, too, until I started researching the history of contraception and abortion.

I was surprised to learn that throughout history, women of all races, cultures, and continents have known how to control their own fertility. They taught each other which herbs to use for contraception and which herbs to use as early abortificants to cause menstruation. That knowledge was passed down for generations until politics, religion, and physicians (the early AMA) caused it to be suppressed. Controlling one's fertility was as simple (and routine) as asking her "midwife" which herb to ingest.
Different cultures and religions disagree on when a fetus is endowed with a soul. I can understand how Catholics believe abortion is wrong since they believe in the soul from the time of conception.
I was also kind of surprised to find out that the Roman Catholic Church's stance on early abortion was pretty tolerant until Pope Pius IX changed the distinction of "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Until then, oral sex was considered a worse sin than terminating a pregnancy before "quickening." I know there can be some debate over what may be discrepancies between Canon Law and catechism, but imo the entire history is important knowledge to consider.

[truelies]

Yes, abortion AND infanticide AND killing of the dependent elderly/handicapped have ALL been common in many places and Cultures. Along with slavery, human sacrifice, war for booty and the systematic rape of the women of a defeated enemy. Yes, the TCC once excused early abortion and at the same time burned human beings alive who were thought to be secret Jews or witches or maybe just guilty of reading Erasmus. Our ancestors did LOTS of horrid things for which they bear the guilt. That does not excuse US for killing a unique member of the human family just so that we can enjoy our rutting witout consequence.

[wendy]

This doesn't explain why there are over 500,000 American children in foster care - most of them waiting to be adopted. Where are all the prolifers that apparently want to "save" these children? Or is it really just the unborn they wish to protect - once the children are born it's someone else's responsibility?


They are adopting infants. They will leave the country to find babies to adopt while ignoring older children.

Think about it.

[truelies]

There maybe 500k children in fostercare, but MOST of the are NOT available for Adoption. Further a high proportion of these children are Black and the Agencies dealing with adoption are loath (at the proding of the various 'civil rights' groups) to place Black children in White homes.

[sodaknomad]

WINDBAG,

You don't need to worry about having an abortion. Who the hell would be hard-up enough to sleep with you ?


You know, Yukon, you're starting to piss me off.

[arod]

Disregarding the Raelians, the technology for human cloning will eventually be in place.

As Brandon has mentioned earlier, this means that any human cell has the potential to become a new human being.


Not so fast, kiddo.

On a technical level, the definition of homo sapiens heretofore has been undergirded by the fact that the species is always a product of sexual reproduction, so you can't blithely assume that what appears to be a human IS human just because it has human DNA.

On an psychological level, a prerequisite for humanity is soul or consciousness. There is no particular reason to suppose that a human clone would posess this crucial attribute.

[BrandonL]

On an psychological level, a prerequisite for humanity is soul or consciousness. There is no particular reason to suppose that a human clone would posess this crucial attribute.

You have no basis for this statement-since there are no human clones (unless you believe the Raelians). There's no reason to suppose that a clone would not have consciousness.

[arod]

On an psychological level, a prerequisite for humanity is soul or consciousness. There is no particular reason to suppose that a human clone would posess this crucial attribute.

You have no basis for this statement-since there are no human clones (unless you believe the Raelians). There's no reason to suppose that a clone would not have consciousness.


Actually, I think I do. As far as anyone knows (keeping God out of it for the moment) a human soul is the product of the love of one or both parents. A clone would be the product of someone whose essential attitude is to try this and see what happens, and if we don't like it we'll kill it.

Beyond that, let's say we clone a "human", and it looks, walks, talks, and generally acts human. How do we know whether it posesses human consciuosness? Before you answer, consider that some people think animals have souls.

[ilovelucy]

Which brings me to a question.

If a clone is a baby which is cloned from a pre-existing DNA of someone (I assume that is what clone means), then is the clone merely a replica of the pre-existing person or does the clone have his/her own characteristics apart from that from which he/she was cloned?

If the clone is a replica, what are the implications for that soul--would the clone imbody the same "soul" as the one from which he/she came or would the clone have a different "soul", and if the latter be true, then from whence comes the soul of the clone?

just curious, really.

[arod]

Which brings me to a question.

If a clone is a baby which is cloned from a pre-existing DNA of someone (I assume that is what clone means), then is the clone merely a replica of the pre-existing person or does the clone have his/her own characteristics apart from that from which he/she was cloned?

If the clone is a replica, what are the implications for that soul--would the clone imbody the same "soul" as the one from which he/she came or would the clone have a different "soul", and if the latter be true, then from whence comes the soul of the clone?

just curious, really.


The question seems to presuppose that the clone has a soul. Why would you make that assumption?

Which brings me to a question.

If a clone is a baby which is cloned from a pre-existing DNA of someone (I assume that is what clone means), then is the clone merely a replica of the pre-existing person or does the clone have his/her own characteristics apart from that from which he/she was cloned?

If the clone is a replica, what are the implications for that soul--would the clone imbody the same "soul" as the one from which he/she came or would the clone have a different "soul", and if the latter be true, then from whence comes the soul of the clone?

just curious, really.


The question seems to presuppose that the clone has a soul. Why would you make that assumption?


Let's assume the clone is human, alive and functioning. Does it have a soul?

[arod]

Let's assume the clone is human, alive and functioning. Does it have a soul?

If by "human" you mean in the genetic sense, my guess is no.

[wendy]

Let's assume the clone is human, alive and functioning. Does it have a soul?


Do you have a soul?

Can you prove it?

Let's assume the clone is human, alive and functioning. Does it have a soul?

If by "human" you mean in the genetic sense, my guess is no.


This is a deep theological question, if it's a human clone and alive than it must have a soul. If it's void of a soul and alive than is it human?

[ilovelucy]

No, I believe all humans have a soul, for better or for worse... :)

So, if the clone is from a pre-existing "human" then might the clone share that pre-existing soul or would it be possible for the clone to somehow "conceive" another soul...

Then, again, some of you feel, the clone is simply genetically or mechanically human, and void of soul...

I recall the Sean Young character in "Blade Runner" who was given a memory and had emotion, although she was a replicant....did she have a "soul" because she had the capacity for love or did she not?

[arod]

Do you have a soul?

Can you prove it?


Before that could be proven, a definition of "soul" would have to be agreed on. Care to take a shot at it?

[ilovelucy]

There you go, lonestar. You are in league now with arod in questioning whether or not the clone is actually human.

good question.

[ilovelucy]

Shall we be somewhat amazed when the clone grows up and becomes a Christian?

[arod]

No, I believe all humans have a soul, for better or for worse... :)

But doesn't humanity require more than genetics? And what else does a clone have BUT genetics?

[arod]

Shall we be somewhat amazed when the clone grows up and becomes a Christian?

Why? Aren't there enough soulless "Christians" out there already?

Let's define soul. Here's mine. Spirit beings are souls; the two terms are synonymous.

If a human clone lives than in my opinion it has it's own soul and not possible to have a 'cloned soul' since the spirit of man comes from God.

[ilovelucy]

arod.

There are no "soul-less" Christians only misguided, and sometimes "heartless"people who think they understand the faith they profess, but perhaps they simply do not, for whatever reason...

All humans have souls, imho and great capacity for good and evil regardless....

There is a great fragmentation of spirit in most of us.

[arod]

Let's define soul. Here's mine. Spirit beings are souls; the two terms are synonymous.

I suppose I'd agree with that, but it's problematic for those who don't acknowledge God.

If we can agree that soul is something that we have but that animals don't, how is that differenece observable? Here's my idea: disrobe in front of an animal, and watch your reaction. Then remember a time when a stranger caught you fully or partially disrobed, and recall your reaction. Why the difference?

[ilovelucy]

easy, arod. Animals don't tell....:)

[arod]

easy, arod. Animals don't tell....:)

Please, Lucy - I'm serious. You can look that animal in the eye with perfect calmness. Not so the human. Why?

[ilovelucy]

Because we are self-conscious with humans who are likewise self-conscious with us.

Animals are accepting and are rather oblivious in a way--they do not judge us unless we mistreat them or show fear and hostility toward them (a dog always knows someone who likes them, even if he doesn't return the favor immediately--cats are probably the same, but one never really knows with a cat...)

Let's define soul. Here's mine. Spirit beings are souls; the two terms are synonymous.

I suppose I'd agree with that, but it's problematic for those who don't acknowledge God.

If we can agree that soul is something that we have but that animals don't, how is that differenece observable? Here's my idea: disrobe in front of an animal, and watch your reaction. Then remember a time when a stranger caught you fully or partially disrobed, and recall your reaction. Why the difference?


People who don't believe in God don't believe in a soul so it's not a real problem, you either believe a soul is your spirit and it's who you are or you believe a human is nothing but flesh and blood and no different than anyother animal only smarter.

I had to laugh at your example, I pictured Yukon naked and the expression on the sheeps face. ;D

Man has a conscience, plain and simple. Animals are what they are, they operate on instinct. Since humans have a conscience there reaction is based on learned behavior.

[ilovelucy]

Besides, if Eve had not mucked things up in the Garden of Eden, we would be like simple animals and not know that we were in the buff, anyway....no?

Besides, if Eve had not mucked things up in the Garden of Eden, we would be like simple animals and not know that we were in the buff, anyway....no?


That's a whole 'nother discussion. ;D

[ilovelucy]

:)

[ilovelucy]

There might be a separate thread on clones, by the way, since the abortion issue seems to have been hijacked...

LUCY,

Hypothetically you have a 16 year old daughter and she goes out for a walk one spring evening. As she passes the park a gang of colored soul-brothers jumps her, dargs her into the bushes, and gang rape her over and over. As a result she becomes pregnent with a BLACK baby, the result of rape. Would you condem her if she chose to abort the montrous fetal tissue from her body or would you enocourgae her ?

[Meshuga Mikey]

[quote author=Yukon l


posited the usual MIND FART


[/quote]

http://people.delphiforums.com/artcruncher/FuhrerTHIS9.png

YOU LEARNED WELL GRASSSHOPPER ~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jeny]

This doesn't explain why there are over 500,000 American children in foster care - most of them waiting to be adopted. Where are all the prolifers that apparently want to "save" these children? Or is it really just the unborn they wish to protect - once the children are born it's someone else's responsibility?


They are adopting infants. They will leave the country to find babies to adopt while ignoring older children.

Think about it.


Also, many (older) children in foster care cannot be adopted out because their cases are mired deep in the family court system.

I've said it before. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the math. Tens of thousands of Americans are going to the expense and hassle to adopt babies from other countries. Tens of thousands of babies are being murdered in this country every year. Simple math will tell you that if those babies were not murdered they would not go unwanted.

I am certainly aware of issues of race surrounding adoptions. My wife and I were open to the idea of adopting a child of another race but there are elder members of my family who still refer to black people as colored folk. It is not that they hate blacks but they don't know any and they wouldn't accept one as one of "us". It would not be good to bring a black child into an extended family like that. That is why we insisted the child be white. My family has accepted our adopted son as though he has always been there.

I tend to side with Kathleen in wondering where all of the other pro-lifers are when it comes to looking after the orphans in this country. They spend inordinate amounts of time, energy and money trying to save the unborn and do not seem to do much for the orphans.

BTW Jeny

You are quite correct but I think you would be amazed at how quickly and thoroughly those cases become unmired when adoptive parents come along.

The courts do not terminate parental rights (TPR) until a new set of parents come along. That is why you don't hear the term orphan much any more. The court leaves the paperwork designating the (alleged as the case may be) sperm donor and egg donor as the legal parents of the child. The TPR and adoption occur very close together because the courts don't want any child to simply have no parents. The mire that you speak of has to do with a parent or parents, or other relatives coming back into the kid's life from time to time. They often place the kids with other family members and then those family members get some claim to the child until or unless adoptive parents come along. The court DEFINITELY favors adoptive parents if the kid and the parents are a good fit. In short, we kicked their asses and took their kid for our own. They all had their shot and they all sucked. Even the foster families sucked. The court was more than happy to TPR every one of their asses and give us the kid. Now those losers are all just a fading memory and he is MY son.

[Julia]

Yes, abortion AND infanticide AND killing of the dependent elderly/handicapped have ALL been common in many places and Cultures. Along with slavery, human sacrifice, war for booty and the systematic rape of the women of a defeated enemy. Yes, the TCC once excused early abortion and at the same time burned human beings alive who were thought to be secret Jews or witches or maybe just guilty of reading Erasmus. Our ancestors did LOTS of horrid things for which they bear the guilt. That does not excuse US for killing a unique member of the human family just so that we can enjoy our rutting witout consequence.

My point is that many people (myself included until recently) have the misconception that abortion is a relatively recent phenomenon, and that abortion was uncommon, life-threatening, and socially unacceptable before advances in modern medicine and increasingly liberal social views.

And many people who were raised Catholic (most of my family, for an example) assume incorrectly that Catholic doctrine has always taught that "life" begins at conception, and terminating a pregnancy at any stage has historically been a mortal sin.

Those perceptions are inaccurate. Regardless of one's opinion of the morality of it, humans have been concertedly preventing and terminating early pregnancies at least since antiquity.

[Julia]

If a woman goes through with the procedure to become impregnated with a cloned embryo, could she be forced to terminate the pregnancy; should it be allowed to progress from an embryo to a fetus and eventually a baby?

How does morality apply to aborting cloned fetuses?

JULIA,

She can do whatever she wants with the fetal tissue - it's her body !

[jeny]

OAG, That is one lucky boy. :D

This doesn't explain why there are over 500,000 American children in foster care - most of them waiting to be adopted. Where are all the prolifers that apparently want to "save" these children? Or is it really just the unborn they wish to protect - once the children are born it's someone else's responsibility?


They are adopting infants. They will leave the country to find babies to adopt while ignoring older children.

Think about it.


Also, many (older) children in foster care cannot be adopted out because their cases are mired deep in the family court system.

Why not ask those children if they prefer to be alive and in fostercare or dead and in a jar.
The left's logic that unwanted babies be aborted because of over-flowing fostercare/adoption agencies is nothing short of population control.
Hitler would be proud

[jeny]

This doesn't explain why there are over 500,000 American children in foster care - most of them waiting to be adopted. Where are all the prolifers that apparently want to "save" these children? Or is it really just the unborn they wish to protect - once the children are born it's someone else's responsibility?


They are adopting infants. They will leave the country to find babies to adopt while ignoring older children.

Think about it.


Also, many (older) children in foster care cannot be adopted out because their cases are mired deep in the family court system.

Why not ask those children if they prefer to be alive and in fostercare or dead and in a jar.
The left's logic that unwanted babies be aborted because of over-flowing fostercare/adoption agencies is nothing short of population control.
Hitler would be proud


Relax, I wasn't commenting on abortion being the solution to the foter care system.

K, relaxed ;D

[kathleen]

Why not ask those children if they prefer to be alive and in fostercare or dead and in a jar.
The left's logic that unwanted babies be aborted because of over-flowing fostercare/adoption agencies is nothing short of population control.
Hitler would be proud


Bringing more children into the world when you cannot take care of the ones you have is not only not pragmatic but unbelieveably cruel to the children you have.

And while you may not like to think so, there are worse things than abortion - things like babies starving to death.

And who exactly should I ask if they are better off alive? Little 12 year old malnurished Johnny who has been in foster care for 11 years of his life, moving from home to home, abused in a vast number of them, ignored in the rest, starved for affection, planning his 3rd serious suicide attempt?

Is that who you want me to ask?

Bringing more children into the world when you cannot take care of the ones you have is not only not pragmatic but unbelieveably cruel to the children you have.
Yes, all the more reason to keep your legs shut.
And while you may not like to think so, there are worse things than abortion - things like babies starving to death
When is the last time you heard of babies starving to death in America? Get real.
And who exactly should I ask if they are better off alive? Little 12 year old malnurished Johnny who has been in foster care for 11 years of his life, moving from home to home, abused in a vast number of them, ignored in the rest, starved for affection, planning his 3rd serious suicide attempt?
Yes ask him.
At least he was given a chance. btw...how often do you hear of THIS actaully happening?
Try asking a grown adult who had been adopted how grateful they are that they weren't flushed down the toilet with less grace given to even that of an animal.

It seems that you do support population control.
Have you ever asked yourself why you believe that thinking is any better than the genocidal beliefs of Adolf?

[wendy]

I was wondering how many times we'd see the hitler references on this thread.

Anyone keeping count?

Maybe because of the astounding similarities in such actions?

Millions of innocents killed for convenience and control.

[kathleen]

how often do you hear of THIS actaully happening?

What? You have to hear about something on the news before you accept it as true? Children have to be starving in America before you give a shit about them (how can I tell you are the typical pro-lifer? ::))?

Let's imagine that your dream comes true and abortion is criminalized in America. How many of the unwanted children that will result are you willing to adopt, feed, clothe, education, care for?

(My apologies to those who have heard this argument before)

I give more of a shit about those children than you can fathom.
I seek their life, not they're destruction.

I'm stepping off my soapbox here...
You're welcome to join me in abortion debate on Conservababes.com...we even have an entire forum devoted to it.

I was just stopping in here by invitation.
Nice place.

[tileman]

Hitler seems an apt comparison to me.

For people that consider themselves evolved, how much more barbaric can you get? (Just abort the poor dumb working class rats.........we've got too many?)

As many as are adopted overseas, it should be no problem. And making some dumb twit go full term might be more inconvenient for her than a "doctor's" visit, but hardly ruins her life in comparison to the taking of another's. There should be consequences for their actions that apply to THEM, not someone who is helpless and has no choice, or even voice in the matter.

[kathleen]

I seek their life, not they're destruction.


No, not quite true. You seek their birth, most pro-lifers couldn't care what happens to their lives after that.

I agree, it is a nice place here. :D

[kathleen]

who is helpless and has no choice, or even voice in the matter.


If abortion was criminalized you would be condemning every raped and impregnated woman to that very same situation.

What choice do they have?

[tileman]

who is helpless and has no choice, or even voice in the matter.


If abortion was criminalized you would be condemning every raped and impregnated woman to that very same situation.

What choice do they have?


For me rape would be a different matter, if caught immediately..........the rest have the choice, as was stated before, to keep their damn legs closed, or use birth control.

[jeny]

RU-486 has made the "rape" arguement moot.

who is helpless and has no choice, or even voice in the matter.




If abortion was criminalized you would be condemning every raped and impregnated woman to that very same situation.

What choice do they have?


For me rape would be a different matter, if caught immediately..........the rest have the choice, as was stated before, to keep their damn legs closed, or use birth control.


What about incest? What about if the mother's life is in danger?

[kathleen]

RU-486 has made the "rape" arguement moot.


Some would say that RU-486 is a chemical abortion (and outlaw it along with the physical form).

[kathleen]

For me rape would be a different matter, if caught immediately..........

What do you mean? Why should that make a difference? A rape is still a rape.

[tileman]

Well... I'd equate incest with rape, and in the case of maternal endangerment obviously that would be a case where the family would have to decide what risks to take.

[tileman]

For me rape would be a different matter, if caught immediately..........

What do you mean? Why should that make a difference? A rape is still a rape.


If they decide the baby shouldn't be born, it should be done quickly, because at some point a child is still a child as well.

[jeny]

RU-486 has made the "rape" arguement moot.


Some would say that RU-486 is a chemical abortion (and outlaw it along with the physical form).


"some" poeple are too caught up in technicalities to use their brains. :D

[arod]

RU-486 has made the "rape" arguement moot.


Some would say that RU-486 is a chemical abortion (and outlaw it along with the physical form).


"some" poeple are too caught up in technicalities to use their brains. :D


IMO, the destruction of a human life cannot be consdered a technicality merely on the basis that it only consists of a few cells.

[kathleen]

"some" poeple are too caught up in technicalities to use their brains. :D


For those who believe that life begins at conception, RU-486 is essentially an abortion. It doesn't even stop the implantation of the embryo. It works by blocking the production of progesterone in the woman's body. When the level of progesterone is low enough, it triggers the shedding of the uteral lining, expelling the embryo as a result. Taking a pill or inserting a surgical instrument - they both do exactly the same thing.

[jeny]

RU-486 has made the "rape" arguement moot.


Some would say that RU-486 is a chemical abortion (and outlaw it along with the physical form).


"some" poeple are too caught up in technicalities to use their brains. :D


IMO, the destruction of a human life cannot be consdered a technicality merely on the basis that it only consists of a few cells.


And impregnation by rape is not something a woman should be forced to be responsible for.

[jeny]

"some" poeple are too caught up in technicalities to use their brains. :D


For those who believe that life begins at conception, RU-486 is essentially an abortion. It doesn't even stop the implantation of the embryo. It works by blocking the production of progesterone in the woman's body. When the level of progesterone is low enough, it triggers the shedding of the uteral lining, expelling the embryo as a result. Taking a pill or inserting a surgical instrument - they both do exactly the same thing.




Most miscarriages occur later than that. To me, it's a techinicality.

[kathleen]

IMO, the destruction of a human life cannot be consdered a technicality merely on the basis that it only consists of a few cells.


What about the basis of what religion the "human life" follows?

You do seem to have absolutely no hesitation in supporting the upcoming war with Iraq. Is it because they are Muslim? Or is it that their lives are not worthwhile?

A life is a life is a life, right arod? ;)

[arod]

And impregnation by rape is not something a woman should be forced to be responsible for.


The problem is that the only alternative is to make the human life within her responsible.

[arod]

IMO, the destruction of a human life cannot be consdered a technicality merely on the basis that it only consists of a few cells.


What about the basis of what religion the "human life" follows?

You do seem to have absolutely no hesitation in supporting the upcoming war with Iraq. Is it because they are Muslim? Or is it that their lives are not worthwhile?

I don't give a damn about their religion. I care that the life of Saddam Hussein and his followers is a threat to American lives.

[kathleen]

I don't give a damn about their religion. I care that the life of Saddam Hussein and his followers is a threat to American lives.


Sort of like a baby can be a threat to the life of the mother? :o

[kathleen]

The problem is that the only alternative is to make the human life within her responsible.

In a way you are absolutely correct.

So who is it going to be?

[tileman]

I don't give a damn about their religion. I care that the life of Saddam Hussein and his followers is a threat to American lives.


Sort of like a baby can be a threat to the life of the mother? :o


What percentage? Get real.........

[jeny]

And impregnation by rape is not something a woman should be forced to be responsible for.


The problem is that the only alternative is to make the human life within her responsible.


I'm sorry, but your failure to make the distinction is understandable considering that you are a man. The commitment involved in carrying a baby to term is something you just wouldn't get. When a woman is pregnant, there is not 5 minutes that goes by without thoguhts of the baby inside. In the case of a rape, that is nearly a year of reliving the rape every 5 minutes. It's a disgusting and barbaric thing to do to any huamn being.

[arod]

I'm sorry, but your failure to make the distinction is understandable considering that you are a man. The commitment involved in carrying a baby to term is something you just wouldn't get. When a woman is pregnant, there is not 5 minutes that goes by without thoguhts of the baby inside. In the case of a rape, that is nearly a year of reliving the rape every 5 minutes. It's a disgusting and barbaric thing to do to any huamn being.

While I make no pretense of empathy with a woman who's been raped, neither can you empathize with the human life which must bear the burden of responsibility in such case.

[kathleen]

What percentage? Get real.........


Am I to understand that if a woman had a medical condition in which a pregnancy could end her life you wouldn't allow her the chance to save it?

[jeny]

I'm sorry, but your failure to make the distinction is understandable considering that you are a man. The commitment involved in carrying a baby to term is something you just wouldn't get. When a woman is pregnant, there is not 5 minutes that goes by without thoguhts of the baby inside. In the case of a rape, that is nearly a year of reliving the rape every 5 minutes. It's a disgusting and barbaric thing to do to any huamn being.

While I make no pretense of empathy with a woman who's been raped, neither can you empathize with the human life which must bear the burden of responsibility in such case.


I can tell you that having CHOSEN and TRIED vary hard to get pregnant, there were still many moments when I HATED BEING pregnant.

The pain and trauma of labor were only bearable with thoughts of my sweet child in my arms, one created on purpose and in love.

I don't know what other kind of experience you think I need to understand.

[arod]

I don't give a damn about their religion. I care that the life of Saddam Hussein and his followers is a threat to American lives.


Sort of like a baby can be a threat to the life of the mother? :o


What percentage? Get real.........


Deaths due to childbirth in the U.S. have never exceeded 500 in any year. Assuming all such mothers could have been saved with abortions, this means that such abortions would constitute less than .1% of all abortions.

[arod]

I'm sorry, but your failure to make the distinction is understandable considering that you are a man. The commitment involved in carrying a baby to term is something you just wouldn't get. When a woman is pregnant, there is not 5 minutes that goes by without thoguhts of the baby inside. In the case of a rape, that is nearly a year of reliving the rape every 5 minutes. It's a disgusting and barbaric thing to do to any huamn being.

While I make no pretense of empathy with a woman who's been raped, neither can you empathize with the human life which must bear the burden of responsibility in such case.


I can tell you that having CHOSEN and TRIED vary hard to get pregnant, there were still many moments when I HATED BEING pregnant.

The pain and trauma of labor were only bearable with thoughts of my sweet child in my arms, one created on purpose and in love.

I don't know what other kind of experience you think I need to understand.

You appear to think I need to understand the experience of pregnancy. If that's true, I suggest you have a parallel need to experience being the human life that is expelled from the raped woman.

As I said more than once on NM, if I were on such a woman's jury in a post RvW world, I cannot imagine that I would vote to convict if the woman terminated at the earliest opportunity. My point is that we can't just write off the fact that a life is being destroyed. The only way I see of being just in such circumstances is on a case by case basis.

[BrandonL]

When is the last time you heard of babies starving to death in America? Get real.


You are kidding, right? There was just a story all over the news of a woman who starved her cousins' (I think it was cousin) kid and locked him in a trunk to die.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/01/09/nj.children/index.html

Yeah-it never happens.

[jeny]

I'm sorry, but your failure to make the distinction is understandable considering that you are a man. The commitment involved in carrying a baby to term is something you just wouldn't get. When a woman is pregnant, there is not 5 minutes that goes by without thoguhts of the baby inside. In the case of a rape, that is nearly a year of reliving the rape every 5 minutes. It's a disgusting and barbaric thing to do to any huamn being.

While I make no pretense of empathy with a woman who's been raped, neither can you empathize with the human life which must bear the burden of responsibility in such case.


I can tell you that having CHOSEN and TRIED vary hard to get pregnant, there were still many moments when I HATED BEING pregnant.

The pain and trauma of labor were only bearable with thoughts of my sweet child in my arms, one created on purpose and in love.

I don't know what other kind of experience you think I need to understand.

You appear to think I need to understand the experience of pregnancy. If that's true, I suggest you have a parallel need to experience being the human life that is expelled from the raped woman.

As I said more than once on NM, if I were on such a woman's jury in a post RvW world, I cannot imagine that I would vote to convict if the woman terminated at the earliest opportunity. My point is that we can't just write off the fact that a life is being destroyed. The only way I see of being just in such circumstances is on a case by case basis.


What are we argueing about then? I don;t like this particular pro-abortion debate because it so rarely happens anyway.

A case by case scenario sounds ok to me. It's akin to saying that killing someone who raped and murdered your child should be legal. I guess, techinically you CAN'T make it legal, but you CAN condone it if it happens. It doesn;t happen that much anyway, so why bother with the law. IS that what you're saying?

[arod]

What are we argueing about then? I don;t like this particular pro-abortion debate because it so rarely happens anyway.

A case by case scenario sounds ok to me. It's akin to saying that killing someone who raped and murdered your child should be legal. I guess, techinically you CAN'T make it legal, but you CAN condone it if it happens. It doesn;t happen that much anyway, so why bother with the law. IS that what you're saying?

Yeah, pretty much.

[truelies]

These days if a mom dies in pregnancy that is virtual proof positve that the doc was a quack. A competent physician can bring any pregnancy to a successful conclusion. This talk of the rare pregnancy from rape or case where a woman's life is at some slight risk is simply a means of moving the subject away from the fact that 99% of abortions are the result of sexual irresponsibility. If you REALLY can't handle the thought of being a parent, don't screw and you won't have to worry. This applies to men as well as women. If you aren't up to the responsibilities you have no right to the pleasures.

Whether you religious zealots like it or not ABORTION is legal and it will stay LEGAL.

[jeny]

Oh boy, Hitler is back. ::)

[truelies]

Yuckie is the poster child for retoactive post parteum (sp?) abortion.

[LanceALott]

"If you REALLY can't handle the thought of being a parent, don't screw and you won't have to worry. This applies to men as well as women. If you aren't up to the responsibilities you have no right to the pleasures. "

LanceLott: That may work in theory, but it has never worked in practice. When you teach your girls to just say no, you plant the suggestion that they can just say no.

Then, they get in the back seat with a guy like me, and they do not even want to say no, nor can they.

Your abstinence is the most incompetent form of birth control known to man. Sex and its pleasurable gratificfation is a need of man, AND A NEED OF WOMEN. Don't lie to your kids, give them a birth control method that will work when they cwawl into that back seat with me. They'll have more fun, so will I, and you won't have to even consider an abortion.

Besides, we have too darn many kides in this world anyhow, especialy those Catholics for whom abstinance is the only choice, and also for those Mormons who keep two or three wives pregnant all the time.

[jeny]

I guess it would be bad to tell Lancelott how many kids I plant to have. :D

[jeny]

And Lance, Abstinance is NOT the only option for Catholics.

[tileman]

I guess it would be bad to tell Lancelott how many kids I plant to have. :D


How many Jen?

[jeny]

I guess it would be bad to tell Lancelott how many kids I plant to have. :D


How many Jen?


we'll see how long my uterus hold out. :D

[arod]

"If you REALLY can't handle the thought of being a parent, don't screw and you won't have to worry. This applies to men as well as women. If you aren't up to the responsibilities you have no right to the pleasures. "

LanceLott: That may work in theory, but it has never worked in practice.

That's a lie, of course. It always works when it is used.

When you teach your girls to just say no, you plant the suggestion that they can just say no.

Many can and do.

Then, they get in the back seat with a guy like me, and they do not even want to say no, nor can they.

The solution to that problem is for parents to keep their daughters away from creeps like you. ;)

Your abstinence is the most incompetent form of birth control known to man. Sex and its pleasurable gratificfation is a need of man, AND A NEED OF WOMEN.

Go to hell. Sex outside of marriage is not an entitlement - and it's not a need either, as I'm sure Jeny will affirm, as can many others.

Besides, we have too darn many kides in this world


No we don't, just too many irresponsible parents.

[LanceALott]

Jen: I guess it would be bad to tell Lancelott how many kids I plant to have.

LanceLott: Ah shucks mam, tell me how many kids do you plant to have? And if hubby gets worn out, you can always count on the old Lance to PLANT a few seeds too.

Go ahead, you're a good mom, I just know. The world needs more kids like yours.

you remind me of a lady I once saw on the old Groucho Marx show. She had twelve kids, and when Groucho asked her why, she said cause she liked sex.

Groucho rolled his bushy eyebrows, took his cigar out of his mouth, and said, "Well, I like my cigar,too; but I take it out once in a while."

[jeny]

I LOVE kids and I LOVE sex too. So I guess I'll have lots of sex and have lots of kids. But don't worry, I won't be asking Uncle Sam to feed them.

[Right Wing]

Whether you religious zealots like it or not ABORTION is legal and it will stay LEGAL.


No it won't, NOW, NARAL and all the other providers/supporters realize this. That's why they go insane when conservatives win elections. We have the senate, house, and white house. Conservative judges will be appointed, and Daschle will not be able to block them. The days of Borking conservatives will be over.

It is only a matter of time, before partial birth abortion is gone, then parental notification is passed, restrictions on abortion become stronge, then the ultimate.....Roe V. Wade overturned.

[Right Wing]

No it won't

[jeny]

Right Wing, Roe V. Wade will never be overturned. Under what scenario could you see this happening?

[Right Wing]

A constitutional amendment banning abortion, laws introduced to overturn Roe V. Wade voted on by a conservative heavy Supreme Court, or even if abortion went up for popular vote would work. I feel very confident abortion one day will be outlawed.

[jeny]

A constitutional amendment banning abortion, laws introduced to overturn Roe V. Wade voted on by a conservative heavy Supreme Court, or even if abortion went up for popular vote would work. I feel very confident abortion one day will be outlawed.


Then you are foolish. The majority is pro-choice, with restrictions, but pro-choice none the less. Mostly because we Americans hate being told what to do.

[Right Wing]

No Americans are not prochoice, but the opposite is true. Most Americans have a value system stemming from a religion. Judeo-Christian values teach life, such as a baby or unborn baby is deemed precious and God given.

Yes, Americans hate being told what to do, in that they want their constitutional rights upheld and protected. However, to want your rights protected, these rights have to be upheld across the board in general. That includes the rights of the unborn baby. If you want your rights, you have to acknowledge the rights of the unborn as well.

Americans know they cannot pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't. They also know responsibility comes with rights. The majority of us know this and accept it.

[BrandonL]

No Americans are not prochoice, but the opposite is true. Most Americans have a value system stemming from a religion.
You really believe that?

[truelies]

Keep it up Yuckie and we will split Canaduh into 3 reservations- One for the Indians, one for the Palestianians and Toronto for congenital assholes such as yourself.

[arod]

A constitutional amendment banning abortion, laws introduced to overturn Roe V. Wade voted on by a conservative heavy Supreme Court, or even if abortion went up for popular vote would work. I feel very confident abortion one day will be outlawed.


Then you are foolish. The majority is pro-choice, with restrictions, but pro-choice none the less. Mostly because we Americans hate being told what to do.

I can't quite buy the reasoning here. If I wanted to kill my own infant child, I wouldn't want to be told what to do either. It's not exactly comparable to being told you can't build on a parcel because some idiot declares it a wetland, is it?

[jeny]

A constitutional amendment banning abortion, laws introduced to overturn Roe V. Wade voted on by a conservative heavy Supreme Court, or even if abortion went up for popular vote would work. I feel very confident abortion one day will be outlawed.


Then you are foolish. The majority is pro-choice, with restrictions, but pro-choice none the less. Mostly because we Americans hate being told what to do.

I can't quite buy the reasoning here. If I wanted to kill my own infant child, I wouldn't want to be told what to do either. It's not exactly comparable to being told you can't build on a parcel because some idiot declares it a wetland, is it?


As YOU know, I am opposed to abortion, I'm just playing devil's advocate because Right Wing intrigues me. Not that I think making abortion illegal solves anything, of course. ;)

[ALS]

Interesting poll summaries found on the Gallup Poll site:

The Morality of Abortion

Asked about the morality of abortion in general, Americans are evenly divided: 42% told Gallup in a May 2001 survey that abortion is morally acceptable while 45% answered that it is morally wrong.

Asked whether abortion is murder, slightly differently worded questions have produced slightly different rates of agreement, ranging between 45% and 57%. Questions that ask whether abortion is an "act of murder" tend to produce answers that are slightly lower than those that simply ask whether abortion is murder.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Abortion is murder.
Los Angeles Times, June 2000: 57% agree; 36% disagree

Which of these statements comes closer to your opinion: Abortion is the same thing as murdering a child, or abortion is not murder because the fetus really isn't a child?
CBS/New York Times, January 1998: 50% murder; 38% not murder

Do you think abortion is an act of murder, or don’t you feel this way?
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, January 1998: 48% murder and 45% don’t feel this way

What is your view -- do you think abortion is an act of murder, or don’t you feel this way? Time/CNN, August 1994: 43% murder; 47% don’t feel this way
A unique question asked by the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia explored Americans’ feelings about abortion as murder in greater detail. Given four categories to choose from, a combined 48% indicate abortion is murder while 42% say it is not murder -- very similar to the Gallup’s 1998 findings. However, as can be seen, about one-fifth of those who consider abortion murder make a distinction between abortion and killing a person who is already born. On the other side, two-thirds of those who do not consider abortion murder nevertheless perceive it as the taking of human life. Only 16% of Americans view it as a surgical procedure for removing human tissue.

Which of these statements best describes your feelings about abortion? Abortion is just as bad as killing a person who has already been born, it is a murder. Abortion is murder, but it is not as bad as killing someone who has already been born. Abortion is not murder, but it does involve the taking of human life. Abortion is not murder, it is a surgical procedure for removing human tissue?


University of Virginia, January 1996


Murder, as bad as killing person already born
38%

Murder, not as bad as killing a person already born
10

Not murder, does involve taking human life
26

Not murder, is a surgical procedure for removing human tissue
16

No opinion
11


One refrain sometimes heard in the abortion debate is "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I would not impose my beliefs on others." In fact, for a majority of Americans, their personal judgement about the morality of abortion and their views about its legality are in general alignment. Moreover, very few Americans appear conflicted in the described way. According to Gallup’s May 2001 survey on abortion, only 5% of all Americans simultaneously believe abortion is morally wrong and that it should be legal in all or most circumstances.

Most of those saying abortion is morally acceptable (72%) believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, while a somewhat larger number (87%) of those who say abortion is morally wrong believe it should be legal in only a few or no circumstances.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/specialReports/pollSummaries/sr020122vi.asp

=================
Amazing that so many see it as murder yet ignore it when confronted in a discussion.