Right To Life Historic Measure (that includes protection of every person from the time of fertilizat

reply to post by maria_stardust


Yes the woman has responsbility in it for sure, but I want to emphasize that
if she's dead because of it, it's all on him, but society doesn't look at it that way and that's a real problem! the sexual revolution didn't really free women. there were a few changes for the positive, but the negatives outweighed it by quite a bit.

reply to post by undo

Women are unfairly targeted because ultimately we bear the children. This double standard is exemplified due to the following:

1.: She chooses to have an abortion and is morally condemned by those who would seek to take that right away.

and

2.: She chooses to carry the child to term and faces:
a.: the possibility of raising the child alone and fighting for child support
b.: placing the child up for adoption
c.: harming and/or abandoning the child.

Either way the burden of an unwanted pregnancy falls squarely on the shoulders of the woman, while the man faces little or no consequence.

Originally posted by Finn1916
Ok, since no one else wants to call the reverand for what he is, I guess I will. He is a troll, nothing more.

I think he is more. I think he’s engaging in disinfo designed to make people who have similar beliefs to what he’s espousing look as bad as possible.

Poets, priests and politicians
Have words to thank for their positions

If this guy is a reverend, then he makes his living with words, and if that’s the case, he must be starving to death. Horrible English. But of course that’s to be expected of a loony tune religious nut huh? Then he goes and say’s things that would make a believer in reptilians laugh, like ‘warehouses full of embryos to feed to the fire god’. Hope it's a refrigerated warehouse. He reminds me of the people who call into talk radio and say things like, ‘I’m a lifelong libertarian, but I think it’s time the government had unlimited power.’ If this thread hasn’t made your bovine excrement meter explode, you might want to get it checked.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by resistor]

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by Essan
You can only have rights if you accept the responsibilities that come with those rights.

An unborn child, like an animal, can therefore have no rights.

We, however, may have a responsibility to protect it.

What about a born child? Does a 1-month old baby have a right to life?

Just askin'...

We have a responsibility to protect that life

O.K.,


Nighthawk;

I am against the morning after pill. It's dangerous.

I am for contraception,
but the morning after pill could impair a baby and not produce a full extraction, leaving the woman pregnant with a deformed baby.
The morning after pill: netdoctor UK

If it doesn't work, could the tablet harm the unborn baby?

We simply don't know the answer to this question.

If abortion had been illegal. I would NOT have had one.
I would not have found a backalley 'doctor' or any of that bull.
I thought of it, (until the day I had it!) as a simple operation to extract a blob of tissue.

I did not know the nightmares I would have because of the death of that baby!

Originally posted by deadline527
In my opinion this ruling will have a negative effect instead of a positive one. While I am against abortion, they do have their place and I think the twenty four [24] week limit is a agreeable time frame.

My reasoning is the fact that if we get rid of abortions, we will see a huge increase in the amount of "dumpster babies" in the world. If someone doesnt want a child, they are going to get rid of it one way or another. I would much rather have a medically assisted first trimester abortion then to see thousands of babies dying violent deaths at the hands of their mothers after being born. Women would be more inclined deliver the child at home, which is also very dangerous to the mother, so they can rid themselves of the child without anyone knowing.

Would you rather have babies being drowned, starved, beaten, suffocated, and so on after birth? Instead of a medically assisted procedure?

I also am for pre-natal screening of such disorders as downs syndrome, genetic diseases, autism and neural tube defects. These are conditions that require an absurd amount of resources to care for such individuals as well as the fact that many of them will never be able to function on their own. These are disorders that in my eyes go against natures way of keeping defective genes out of the human population.

Now before anyone has a cow with my previous statement - I was born with a neural tube defect called Spina bifida cystica (myelomeningocele). I was never supposed to be normal - the chances of even being able to use a wheelchair were slim to none, let alone walking, running. and mixed martial arts fighting. While I did turn out to be a miracle, the chanes were basically nonexistant that I would even be remotely normal. I would never want to put that burden on my parents and would have had no problem if such testing was available and they decided to opt for an abortion. Its not fair to force parents to knowingly have a child that will never be normal. My uncle has downs syndrome and I would never want to make my child grow up like that.

So in conclusion, abortion is a necessary evil. Without it, infantcide would only be more violent, as well as putting more mothers at risk due to them opting for at home deliveries in the secrecy of their house. Also, abortion is understood if the child will be known to never live a normal life, care for itself, and so on. As sad as it is, in this current age I do think that it is something that we cannot get rid of without fear of many worse actions being the result of its removal.

Edit: Just wanted to add, I do NOT support the use of abortion as birth control and the ladies who are having three, four, five plus abortions should be classified and put on trial for capital murder.

Also to add to some of this..

I was just reading about the morning after pill a few posts up - do none of you also view that as abortion? Technically, you ARE pregnant when you take it, and the whole point of it is to KILL the BABY. Sadly, some people would rather not use contriceptives and just use the abortion in a pill whenever they get pregnant, which in my eyes a murderer. Mistakes do happen, but not three to five times.

I did not know the nightmares I would have because of the death of that baby!

This is something that is often overlooked on the flip side of things. While I do agree with abortion for some reasons, as you can read above, not many mothers think of the post-traumatic stress and post-partum depression associated with the procedure. I have personally seen it mess some people up for quite a long time.. and some still are. Thanks for bringing that up, because its something more people should consider and why adoption may be the more correct answer in some cases.

The whole abortion debate in my opinion is something that is fruitless and will never be won by either side. I think it should be decided on a state level, and if you dont like your states stance on it - then move away and take comfort somewhere else... I am not sure if this is currently the case, state or federal, just saying.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by deadline527]

Originally posted by Clearskies

I am for contraception,but the morning after pill could impair a baby and not produce a full extraction, leaving the woman pregnant with a deformed baby.

If abortion had been illegal. I would NOT have had one.
I would not have found a backalley 'doctor' or any of that bull.
I thought of it, (until the day I had it!) as a simple operation to extract a blob of tissue.

I did not know the nightmares I would have because of the death of that baby!

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. PERSONAL CHOICE.

NO Religion in Government.
NO Government governing my reproductive organs.
MANY Women WOULD go to illegal back room hacks.
NO ONE has the right to make or take that choice/decision away from me.

It is MY Right.

This is something that is often overlooked on the flip side of things. While I do agree with abortion for some reasons, as you can read above, not many mothers think of the post-traumatic stress and post-partum depression associated with the procedure. I have personally seen it mess some people up for quite a long time.. and some still are.

Yep, and the guy who took part in it, is not even thinking about it. He's off pondering who to bang next. It never dawns on many of them that the potential to do so much damage is inherent in the action. And the popular press does nothing to warn females of the problem either, who are often pressed into it before they are even ready.

It's got the same potential to harm and/or destroy life as it does pleasure. This is not a simple act. It's complex on many levels and women suffer mightily because of it.

reply to post by Reverend SamuelTophatJack

Ok, perhaps I've ventured into this a bit late, however, I would be inclined to take part in this debate. Accordingly, I would like to establish some grounds for this and would like to ask if English is your first language? I feel it would be unfair of me to criticise your "written" logic overly if it is not.

Thanks

A woman should have the right to choose, it is not logical and creates far more problems later down the track.

For all those people who have been brainwashed to believe that the sole purpose of an abortion is to satisfy some cult, try and listen to some common sense.

1. Some people simply cannot provide for their child ruining its future and their own. I'm sure you have all seen poverty and its effect on children.

2. Overpopulation has been a problem for decades and there certainly isn't enough natural resources left especially if third world countries grow and become westernized.

3. if the child is going to be heavily disfigured at birth (all internal organs born on the exterior) it would be torture to allow that child to live.

4. what is next the government brings out a new legislation forcing people to breed?

Putting a law on something that is part of a woman, her reproductive process, is seriously an unconscious decision.

A coat hanger is the preferred choice for a girl in a desperate situation. And banning abortions only promotes the use of coat hangers.

Actually I think there are to many variants on this argument that miss a major point.

[experimental logic - use with caution]

Regardless of what you or I believe, are WE allowed to decide what action another can and can't take? How did we get such a power? What makes it OK for me to tell someone they MUST carry a pregnancy full term to delivery (or NOT)?

Because that is the point, isn't it? To be able to control someone else's action? Do we say that there is such a power to be had, and if so, what is that power derived from, law? Evidently it's not derived from the people which is where law (at least civilly) is supposed to come from.

If not civilly derived, the law must be divine - which would mean that you ARE in fact exercising religious oppression (by definition). Most people rise above that kind of hubris when faced with the choice, or they at least withdraw to consider the difference between their faith and that of a radical extremist.

reply to post by Maxmars


Very good point, you are right this all about control, oppression directed not to man but women in particular more often than not by self appointed righteous males with moral high standards as appointed to them by god himself.

But God forbid to apply the same concept to the male of the species by women.

Yes - because in some Metaphysical belief 's - - the soul energy (or reincarnated) person chooses who their parents are. This soul energy intelligence hovers outside the body but can also interact with the development of the physical human baby. It does not actually enter the babies' body until birth or even later.)

If the chosen parents (for whatever reason) - decide they do not want to accept this child - they can terminate it. The soul energy will simply choose another set of parents.

This can be considered a religious belief.

It is primarily Christians fighting against "Right of Choice" - for religious reasons.

Their belief is in conflict with my belief.

NO Religion in government

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by The Nighthawk

 

I do! Hubby explained it like this:

In the case of rape: The child is conceived against your will, The blood is not on your hands but the rapist's hands, if you abort it. Forgot what he said about life threatening. Will ask again when he gets back

[edit on 31-5-2008 by undo]

So you form your opinions based on what your husband says? also, no, i will not get a vasectomy, why? cause i take precations to not impregnate a woman. if it happens, then i wil deal with that later. But women dating only men that are sterile? are you out of your mind? even a partial vasectomy might not be reversable, so you date a guy who is sterileized, and then youg et married but all of a sudden he can't have kids, and that makes everyone oh so happy doesn't it?

[edit on 31-5-2008 by Finn1916]

reply to post by Maxmars


None of those issues be ever be resolved. What could be resolved is to
encourage men to be responsible and not walk around with a loaded weapon, pointing it at every woman that appeals to them. That's porno's only redeeming value - at least a real person doesn't have to suffer for the whambamthankyou ma'am problem.

The impact of such a law would be comical if it were not so insane.

Did you know that about 4 out of every 5 human fertilized embryos naturally and spontaniously abort?

Picture a day when the movement to ensure that they all come to fruition is finally successful. After all that invasive probing and monitoring of sexually active fertile females by the governmental protective agencys, the rate of birth defects will skyrocket, as well as the population of the planet. There is no more certain way to ensure the conversion of the human genepool into a disease ridden swamp.

This will never happen! Right now bioengineered crops from Monsanto are causing sterility in cattle. The same effect should be expected in human populations. This will increase the rate of spontaneous abortions. Promoting the global depopulation of humanity. In the future the only ones who have babys will be those who break the law and use only unsanctioned food sources.

reply to post by Annee


I fought against it BEFORE I was a Christian.
I told anyone I knew thinking about it NOT to do it!
That's what I do now.

For anyone who think the guys involved ALWAYS run, that wasn't my case. He said he was for whatever I decided.
I made a wrong choice and NOONE told me it was wrong.
No protesters at the clinic or family members(except some said I should abort it to keep it off welfare!)
In fact, when I went to the health department and the test was positive, the nurse asked me if I was going to make a pediatrician appointment, I told her very dryly that there was no reason to because I was going to abort.
I had no feeling about it! like it was no big deal.



[edit on 31-5-2008 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by Annee

 

I fought aDgainst it BEFORE I was a Christian, thank you!

"

Do you not know what the word "Primarily" means?

I also know Atheists that are Anti-abortion - and Anti-Choice.

That is not the point I was making.

reply to post by Finn1916


Yeah on that topic, I did. It was a very wise approach, I think.

This amendment is stupid. By defining a "person" as a fertilized cell, do they know what kind of Pandora's box they'll open? If a woman has an egg fertilized, but it never implants in the uterus, she would be flushing "human" remains down the toilet. Are they going to prosecute these women? What about women that have miscarriages? Are they murderers?