Yikes! The Uterus Police!

Originally posted by searching4truth
...I know that he is overly vocal about his religiousness, but I wonder if it is an act.

... It just doesn't make any sense, yet it happens everyday.

Your poignant observations held much truth. Yes, Life doesn't always make sense. We might lash out and cry "Why?", we might ask why we have been forsaken. It is not always for us to fathom why, and that is when for our sake we turn inward to our faith, as "Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

And it is for this reason that Jesus instructed his followers to love one another as He loved them, unconditionally. "Judge not less you be judged."

I don't think this Mr. Franklin is acting. His special brand of religion, his particular church, wants a Jesus who would be the "Ruler of civil government and politics", even though Jesus himself said, "My kingdom is not of this world." This brand of religion conflates politics and religion, so little wonder this man would want this legislation passed.

You know, it's too bad that his brand of religion is so hung up on earthly power. Politics/government by nature require ego and power, It's too bad that some religions in America turned to govt about 30 years ago in order to feel powerful, share that power, or to get the spoils of govt.

Self-righteousness leaves little room for compassion.

reply to post by searching4truth

Thanks. This was interesting...

His office told FoxNews.com that the "right-to-life" bill is "not as stab at people who miscarriages." Franklin has introduced the bill each session since 2002 but it has never made it out of committee, his office said, adding that it likely never will.

I knew about last year, but wow since 2002? Wasting taxpayers time and money for 9 years? Noted.

Originally posted by searching4truth
reply to post by Starwise

 

Are you sure about that? First, it requires a subpoena for law enforcement to access medical record. Second, I have seen doctors give the records, but refuse to testify bc they say it is violation in confidentiality.


Yes I am sure about that, I am a nurse and work in the system. Second, you are correct about being in violation for just looking through a record.....Like if my friend was in the hospital and I peeked into her records, I would get in big trouble...... We have to report to the health department all cases of HIV TB and Influenza.

Originally posted by Starwise

Originally posted by searching4truth
reply to post by Starwise

 

Are you sure about that? First, it requires a subpoena for law enforcement to access medical record. Second, I have seen doctors give the records, but refuse to testify bc they say it is violation in confidentiality.


Yes I am sure about that, I am a nurse and work in the system. Second, you are correct about being in violation for just looking through a record.....Like if my friend was in the hospital and I peeked into her records, I would get in big trouble...... We have to report to the health department all cases of HIV TB and Influenza.

Yeah, I don't know what I thinking, I know that those diseases have to be reported. Maybe I misread the second part

I don't know, going back and rereading both posts I still don't see where I was confused, perhaps I posted pre coffee

?

Unbelievable. I'd expect to see something like this from the Dark Ages but to see this kind of stuff in this day and age?

As some of the posters have mentioned, what about those poor innocent sperms? They clearly are 'alive' and it seems 'when life begins' is an issue in these types of descussions. Fair is fair, no? No doubt, Onanists are comiting acts of homicide in their bathrooms (or wherever). And as some posters have mentioned, God dosn't aprove. Although, living under Biblical law might be confusing. For am I to submit to it within the context of Christianity and its diverse interpretations? What about the diverse interpretations found within Judaism itself?

You know what i'd really like to see? I'd like to see this much attention paid to the already born...

Honestly, I think stuff like this, is meant to distract us from the real issues. However, I do keep my eye on these things because nut jobs have a way of getting power and making their insanities a realization.

And if this is an issue of such majour concern, then let us have a real public descussion on it involving Docters, Scientists and the likes instead of just 'what my religion says' or 'what my opinion says'.

Originally posted by Arles Morningside

You know what i'd really like to see? I'd like to see this much attention paid to the already born...

Honestly, I think stuff like this, is meant to distract us from the real issues. However, I do keep my eye on these things because nut jobs have a way of getting power and making their insanities a realization.

And if this is an issue of such majour concern, then let us have a real public descussion on it involving Docters, Scientists and the likes instead of just 'what my religion says' or 'what my opinion says'.

Yes, the already born! I hadn't thought of that phrase before, but I like it. And, yes, your last sentence really, really, hits the nail on the head.

The issue of abortion became politicized to attract voters to a dwindling voting block three decades ago. Abortion became a wedge issue, used to attract voters to the polls especially in off-year elections. Once the voters voted in politicians, those politicians became obsessed not with abortion or other wedge issues but with how big their corporate donations were and what corporation/corporate lobby they would work for once out of office.

I feel really bad for women who were talked into delivering children with severe/moderate mental or physical disabilities and then have the medical/social services reduced/denied due to budget cuts or increased health care costs. I feel bad for the children whose quality of life suffered.

Or the mother talked into bearing children, without adequate resources to support that child. Cut health care and education! Provide no financial/social support! No, sadly, once the child is born, it's no longer the precious life to be saved at all costs.

reply to post by desert


I agree and what you say is backed up by observation.
I know of many instances of sickening child abuse. And I do mean sickening. And there is little help for these children. Where is all the zeal for them?

I don't think alot people who support these types of laws have thought deeply on the reality of life such as medical issues, mental health, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, abuse, etc. . It's not just about a small segment of the population who may deliberately or unintentially abuse their unborn or use abortion as a form of birth control. And to be honest, most women I know who have had a miscariage or an abortion don't clap their hands and go yay. And the idea that someone would want a law which would submit them to some kind of inquisition sickens me. As does the idea that someone thinks that women in general are such that they welcome abortions and miscarriages with smiles and laughter or as a happy 'easy out'.

reply to post by Arles Morningside


I have also observed over the years that many of the leaders of the "pro-life" movement are men. I really believe that many of these men see (even subconsciously) a women's control of her body as being beyond the control of men, something that should not be allowed. Does this have a certain religious overtone, God is a man and all must submit, husbands are male and so females must submit?

Maybe the idea of no care for the already born comes from a religious view that once you're born, you're no longer "innocent" but "corrupted" by the world (inherently evil, with sin from birth), Hey, you''re no longer the innocent pre-born, so, buddy, you're on your own.

I have also observed that much of the talk of depression after an abortion comes from putting those ideas into a woman's head in the first place. Billboards and advertising proclaiming, "You'll be damned to hell, you'll be depressed, etc"

I wish abortion didn't have to happen, but it does, and all RvW did was make abortion a safe medical procedure. RvW shows more compassion for women than its opponents often do.

reply to post by desert

I have also observed over the years that many of the leaders of the "pro-life" movement are men.

Many are men, but just as many are women, if not more:

wiki.answers.com...

We have one particularly vocal pro-life activist here in Slovakia, and she is a woman.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by desert

 

I have also observed over the years that many of the leaders of the "pro-life" movement are men.

Many are men, but just as many are women, if not more:

wiki.answers.com...

We have one particularly vocal pro-life activist here in Slovakia, and she is a woman.

Of course! It's been my observation and my experience that most pro-abortion (or pro-choice as they want to be called) members (not leaders, they're more careful and cunning than pro-lifers) are male. It's obvious why, isn't it, if you're the least bit cynical? Who benefits from abortion? Women? No. Babies - hell no! Men, of course.

reply to post by Vicky32


Women benefit from abortion right as much, if not even more than men (since its pregnant women who have the ultimate say in abortion). I think it has to do more with women being generally more empathic than men, and basing their opinions more on feelings and protection of the weak beings maternal instinct.
Of course since early fetuses cannot feel anything and do not qualify as beings anymore than plants, their empathy is IMHO misdirected and irrational.

I hope it's not off topic but this article made me think of this thread www.chicagobreakingnews.com...

It's about a girl from a local housing project whose mom was crack addict and abandoned her at three years old (her grandmother raised her in the projects). Anyway, she's graduating from Yale in May and her mom has now been clean for 9 years.

I remembered this post because it was a beautiful example of what we don't know about genetics. A child born from crack addict according to what we know about crack, definitely shouldn't be graduating from an ivy league school, but she is. I am no way advocating drug use, but it was a very story and thought I'd share.

Yes, Nutty = But a Darn Good Idea !

If the investigations of miscarriages are due to a rise in supposed self inflicted or assisted miscarrages - meaning girls doing thing to their bodies to cause the miscarriage on purpose, or husband/boyfriend throwing girl down a flight of stairs cus they don't want a baby.

Then yes, that's a great idea.

I'd like to hear from from doctors and nurses from the GA area.. is that sort of think likely and likely to be on the rise?

The OP deals with two separate issues.. miscarrages and abortions. The articles seem to mix the two. That should not be.

The thing that really bothers me about this potential law is that I feel it will be grossly misused. If he wants to get rid of abortion, fine propose a bill that does that, but don't cloak your intentions behind something that science can not prove at this time.

Last year I believe about 2100 babies died of SIDS (in the U.S.), SIDS is the label they give when they can find no cause. In the vast majority of these cases autopsies are preformed and are inconclusive. These are children who were born alive, have a complete body (for their age) are fine one minute and die in their sleep, with no known scientific cause. How does he expect to find the cause of death for a fetus? Further more, how does he intend to prove that the death was a direct result of the mothers actions? About 2 posts up (assuming there haven't been any posts while I type) I included a link about a local girl who was born to a crack addict and is graduating Yale next month. We simply do not understand genetics, and until we do, laws like this a pointless and will cause nothing but harm.

Edit: Perhaps he should focus on why our infant mortality is nothing to brag about. We are number 33, meaning we are 33rd safest country for newborns according to the UN, but according to the CIA we are number 46 en.wikipedia.org... .

I could really get legislation that would push us to number 1, oh shoot even the top 10.

Originally posted by Maslo


Women benefit from abortion right as much, if not even more than men (since its pregnant women who have the ultimate say in abortion). I think it has to do more with women being generally more empathic than men, and basing their opinions more on feelings and protection of the weak beings maternal instinct.
Of course since early fetuses cannot feel anything and do not qualify as beings anymore than plants, their empathy is IMHO misdirected and irrational.

Women do not benefit from abortion, to say they do is absurd!
The fact that you equate unborn babies with plants, shows where you're coming from! I am a woman. You're a man. You prove my case!
Vicky

Originally posted by desert
reply to post by Arles Morningside

 

I have also observed over the years that many of the leaders of the "pro-life" movement are men. I really believe that many of these men see (even subconsciously) a women's control of her body as being beyond the control of men, something that should not be allowed. Does this have a certain religious overtone, God is a man and all must submit, husbands are male and so females must submit?

Maybe the idea of no care for the already born comes from a religious view that once you're born, you're no longer "innocent" but "corrupted" by the world (inherently evil, with sin from birth), Hey, you''re no longer the innocent pre-born, so, buddy, you're on your own.

I have also observed that much of the talk of depression after an abortion comes from putting those ideas into a woman's head in the first place. Billboards and advertising proclaiming, "You'll be damned to hell, you'll be depressed, etc"

I wish abortion didn't have to happen, but it does, and all RvW did was make abortion a safe medical procedure. RvW shows more compassion for women than its opponents often do.

I agree.

Alot of our problems in the world seem to be based on these types of 'reglious' ideas ad i've always thought it strange that if God is God, how can God be a man on a throne soley presented in the masculine?

I've noticed with you that alot of these "pro-lifers" (or prehapes better said, "Anti-Choice" individuals) are indeed men. Truth be told, a woman's body is a woman's domain like it or not. Imagin the uproar if women started dictating to men what they may and may not do with their own bodies or treating them as women have been and are treated on a daily basis.

reply to post by Vicky32


The benefit I imagin, would depend on the situation. If, for example, the procedure was used in a situation where
there was a medical reason which endangered the women's life...then the benefit may be life saving.

It would probably be more helpful to be more in alignment with medical terms. Calling it all a 'baby' seems to cause confusion. For example, a recently fertilized egg can hardly be considered in the same boat as a more developed fetus or infant.

Originally posted by Arles Morningside


I have also observed over the years that many of the leaders of the "pro-life" movement are men. I really believe that many of these men see (even subconsciously) a women's control of her body as being beyond the control of men, something that should not be allowed. Does this have a certain religious overtone, God is a man and all must submit, husbands are male and so females must submit?


Alot of our problems in the world seem to be based on these types of 'reglious' ideas ad i've always thought it strange that if God is God, how can God be a man on a throne soley presented in the masculine?

I've noticed with you that alot of these "pro-lifers" (or prehapes better said, "Anti-Choice" individuals) are indeed men. Truth be told, a woman's body is a woman's domain like it or not. Imagin the uproar if women started dictating to men what they may and may not do with their own bodies or treating them as women have been and are treated on a daily basis.

Leaving your woefully awful spelling out of it (luckily I can guess what you mean!) you're talking purely from prejudice. You put forward no evidence for your assertions.
V

Originally posted by Arles Morningside
reply to post by Vicky32

 

The benefit I imagin, would depend on the situation. If, for example, the procedure was used in a situation where
there was a medical reason which endangered the women's life...then the benefit may be life saving.

It would probably be more helpful to be more in alignment with medical terms. Calling it all a 'baby' seems to cause confusion. For example, a recently fertilized egg can hardly be considered in the same boat as a more developed fetus or infant.

It's a baby because it's a baby. The recently fertilised egg will develop if it's allowed, into a human being, not a giraffe or a jet fighter!
The word 'fetus' * (sic) has a specific medical meaning and was not developed to help men preach abortion on demand!
Vicky
* the proper spelling is foetus.

How do you delete a post? I left a one-liner which I shouldn't have and which I fergot about and went into further detail about in another post. I'm not good at this stuff. LoL