We are talking about a mass of cells that, if the woman so chooses, she could nurture and bring into the world. A tapeworm has unique DNA from the mother and that makes it a ... parasite. It is a much better position than being in the position of mandating what a woman does with her own body. Nobody has that right, not you, not Bush, nobody. I have a very clinical attitude about this and most of that stems from my belief that every single medical procedure, bar none, performed in this country needs to be performed by licensed medical personnel in a regulated facility. Banning abortion will simply take that procedure out of the operating room and put it into hotel rooms, back alleys, and other places where medical procedures should not be performed. If a woman "cherish[es]" her ability to bring a child into this world, more power to her. There is nobody trying to tell her that she cannot have children, unlike China. For women who do not "cherish" the thought of having a child, nobody should tell them that they must. Of course they do. They are among the women you mentioned above who "cherish" the ability to bring a child into this world. There are some women who simply do not feel that way and nobody has any right to mandate that those women bring a fetus to term and bear it. And large numbers of women who make that choice also go on to live happy, productive lives. Many of those women also go on to have children later in life, having had a safe medical procedure in a regulated facility that ensured that they would not be left sterilized, as was common when abortion was illegal. You may think the decision is "short-sighted," but you have no right to force this opinion on anyone else. Great, so over the course of time we change that line. I have already stated many times that I would support an abortion ban once it is possible to remove the fetus from the womb and artificially incubate it. This is the problem I have with your stance on abortion: it is driven by people who want to make choices for other people regarding what happens to their own bodies based on an OPINION of when "life" begins. The mother's right to choose what happens to her body or anything in it is sacrosanct to me. Women who have an unwanted pregnancy have the right to choose to terminate it. They don't have to "live with a law they don't like for 6-9 months," and hopefully will never be subjected to an unjust law that would force them to bring a fetus to term and bear it. IMO, "life" doesn't begin until the fetus is viable and could survive outside the womb, so your argument doesn't hold water. I support banning late term abortion and if the GOP wasn't led by such idealogues, such a ban would be in place right now. Instead, because they were unwilling to compromise by placing language protecting the health of the mother into the bill, the courts struck the law down and rightly so. I guess that Francis' initial question about compropmise draws the answer that since this debate is driven by idealogues (on both sides) who are loath to compromise even on the smallest point, we have not made any progress. As usual, when both sides become willing to compromise, something will get done. They aren't "children" when they are "yank[ed]," they are fetuses. And because the doctors have been "invited in," they are doing the right thing.
I did mention that I'm pro-life, right? and that I do think that a fetus is a human being. However, I think adultery is a crime as is racism, but I don't think people are ready now for legislation because it really all boils down to OPINION. Everyone has an OPINION on the issue despite that everyone think that this is based on FACTS. I think the problem with you too far right, or too far left people is that you assume everyone is in one boat or the other, I agree about as much with bejezus as I do with giddyup as both arguments emphasize only a portion of the group as a whole. and thanks F4P for showing that you have an opinion, I take back my retort. I hope when the people you agree with make asinine comments you have the same consistency to call them out on it.
Well said. IMO, we should not ban abortion because of some people's opinion that life begins at conception.
<b>Originally posted by andymoon Between a mother who chose to bring the fetus to term and bear it, I will not deny that there is a very special bond. I see it every day with my son and already see that bond with my as yet unborn child.</b> So you are saying that you see that special bond with both your born-child and your unborn-child? I thought you were denying that that bond existed with unborn-children.. or do you think that mothers who abort just deny it? Why would they have those feelings about a parasite?! How do you begin to explain the grieving that most who elect abortions go through? <b>However, a woman who chooses to have an abortion does not WANT that "special bond." To her, the fetus IS analogous to a parasite and as such, she and her doctor can choose to remove it if they wish. It is nobody's business but the woman, her doctor, and God.</b> As you indicated above that bond exists whether or not the woman wants it. What she may not want is the perpetual bond-- that's where adoption comes in rather than termination of an innocent life. Again how could she have the special bond with a parasite?
<b>Originally posted by andymoon We are talking about a mass of cells that, if the woman so chooses, she could nurture and bring into the world. A tapeworm has unique DNA from the mother and that makes it a ... parasite.</b> A child has its own unique DNA and that makes it NOT A PARASITE as a matter of fact, right? <b>It is a much better position than being in the position of mandating what a woman does with her own body. Nobody has that right, not you, not Bush, nobody.</b> And what about the little girl waiting to be born.. who has such total say over her body? <b>Of course they do. They are among the women you mentioned above who "cherish" the ability to bring a child into this world. There are some women who simply do not feel that way and nobody has any right to mandate that those women bring a fetus to term and bear it.</b> One eye closed. <b>You may think the decision is "short-sighted," but you have no right to force this opinion on anyone else.</b> Tell that to the little girl whose mommy just aborted her because she wants to be able to party unencumbered. <b>This is the problem I have with your stance on abortion: it is driven by people who want to make choices for other people regarding what happens to their own bodies based on an OPINION of when "life" begins.</b> Your stance is driven by the same kind of assumption-- only yours is less kind, less humane. We all have an opinion as to when life begins. You define yours to allow your medical procedure; I assume mine to protect an innocent life. <b>Women who have an unwanted pregnancy have the right to choose to terminate it. They don't have to "live with a law they don't like for 6-9 months," and hopefully will never be subjected to an unjust law that would force them to bring a fetus to term and bear it.</b> Any laws that you don't like but live with? Are any lives at stake there? <b>They aren't "children" when they are "yank[ed]," they are fetuses. And because the doctors have been "invited in," they are doing the right thing. </b> That is only your opinion and you would brutalize the unborn in the cockiness with which you hold it. I say err on the side of humanity and caution.
Yet you are willing to kill unborn babies because you're not sure that life does begin at conception... or is it just that the other side can't prove that life begins at conception so it is expedient to draw the line wherever you want to serve whatever purpose you want. In life and death matters, that is insidious. How about some prudent caution where there are lives at stake? People oppose the death penalty beause innocent people might get killled. Well, I guarantee you that every baby aborted was comletely and totally innocent of anything and everything.
in Christian theology, the sin of Adam, by which all humankind fell from divine grace. Saint Augustine was the fundamental theologian in the formulatiom of this doctrine, which states that the essentially graceless nature of humanity requires redemption to save it. The purpose of baptism is to wash away original sin and to restore the individual to an innocent state, although even after baptism a tendency to sin remains as a result of original sin. http://www.bartleby.com/65/or/original.html Therefore Christians should not state these unbaptized babies are innocent. Christians believe only the sinful are able to die anyway. Babies are as sinful as anyone else. When God destroyed entire cities back in the OT (thankfully he got that out of his system) he included the born and unborn. If I am correct, original sin is the ultimate reason for the need for Christ. So if you truly believe that you can save these lives through the actions of violently caging thousands of people through use a police state, at least understand you are vainly attempting to save more sinners. (if you are a christian, which I am assuming you are if you quote a bishop in your sig?)
I was talking about "innocense" in the context of guilt and innocense and the wrongful imposition of the death penalty. Those who oppose the death penalty often criticize those who oppose abortion for not opposing the death penalty when it is the other scenario that is far more problematic. The child who is aborted is undoubtedly guiltless of any crime--- nevertheless she can be sentenced to die on the basis of the decision of one person: her mother of all people! I'll gladly trade an abolition of the death penalty for the abolition of abortion on demand. How about you? On a side note, I was opposed to abortion before embracing any Christian articles of faith. It just doesn't make sense other than to be self-serving.
You called it an innocent life before discussing the death penalty. I hear Christians say it all the time. I'm also not in favor of abortions. I just don't think using the power of the state is the way to end them. I think it will make a bad situation worse. I also think it would help if Christians extended this respect to all animal life. My parent's church recently had a pro-life BBQ... I don't think they would like it if other religions tried to enforce vegetarianism through fascist means. But those religions thankfully understand it's not the correct way to rehabilitate society.
Pro-life people view unborn humans as people, and therefor abortion as the government sanctioned killing of innocent people. From this point of view, only in the rarest instances should abortion be an option. Some people make exceptions in the cases of rape and incest, my personal line is a serious risk to the life of the mother. Pro-choice people view unborn humans as a mass or cells. That is where you get the tumor and parasite analogies. To this group, it is obvious that abortions should be allowed in pretty much any situation. That is why abortion is an issue. The PC crowd sees it as the PL crowd trying to take away a woman's rights. The PL crowd sees it as the PC crowd trying to take away the lives of innocents.
<b>Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI You called it an innocent life before discussing the death penalty. I hear Christians say it all the time.</b> I've had this discourse numerous times here and elsewhere. It is just a natural first defense to cite the innocense of a life snuffed out when you know the opposition is going to elevate the right of choice to supercede all other rights. It's a crock really.... <b>I'm also not in favor of abortions. I just don't think using the power of the state is the way to end them. I think it will make a bad situation worse.</b> The power of the state was usurped to enfranchise the abortion and create an industry. Seems like you have to fight on that front as well as all others. <b>I also think it would help if Christians extended this respect to all animal life. My parent's church recently had a pro-life BBQ... I don't think they would like it if other religions tried to enforce vegetarianism through fascist means. But those religions thankfully understand it's not the correct way to rehabilitate society.</b> Why is it "fascist" to want the law to revert to its old form where INNOCENT life was preserved and protected. Why is it not fascist to use the state to kill unborn babies? We have laws against murder; are those laws also rehabilitating society or just expressing values and promoting safety? Is it fair to say that you are promoting a double-standard?
Sorry, I just don't think the the use of prisons is the way to stop abortions. I don't think Jesus would like that method. It's not the one he espoused. Violence cannot be removed with violence. "Pro-lifers" need to learn to have as much concern for the born as they do for the unborn. Like always, in this thread and everywhere else, I see no true compassion for the women who feel the need to have an abortion has been expressed. It's like they don't exist. The "pro-lifers" which to me means just "pro-attempt-to-controller" will not address the root of the problem, because it's deceivingly easier to attack the symptom. Personally, I would rather have legal abortions, rather than thousands of women in cages (or dead), plus continual abortions that the law will never stop. A war on abortion will only lead to more suffering, not less.
I'm staying out of this one except for this one point: giddy, you mentioned a double standard in the context of MEOWGI's reference to the pro-life BBQ. You also said you'd be willing to back an end to the death penalty if it meant an end to abortion 'on demand.' (Sorry, I am staying out of that part -- I just don't like the language, hence the quotes.) I'm curious. Would you extend that offer to end the practice of animal slaughter for "self-serving" purposes? Could an extension of your ethics here lead you to a vegan lifestyle? To me, a pure pro-life ethic would include opposition to abortion, the death penalty and the slaughter of animals for human pleasure and convenience (whether for food, clothing or sport). How pro-life are you? Medical experiments on animals are a stickier wicket with regard to what I would call a pure pro-life stance as an end to one life might save another (or many), so I'm not sure which position would be more accurately portrayed as "pro-life" there, but I do think whichever it is it ought to be consistent with the pro-lifer's position on stem cell research.
Once a woman makes the decision to bring a child to term, I am sure she starts developing the "special bond" you are talking about. I have known several people who have had abortions and, though some of them felt some regret at doing what they thought was the right thing, to a woman they now believe that they did the right thing. Any loss causes grieving. I am not saying that an abortion is not a loss, nor am I saying that it is easy for a woman to go through. However, for the women who choose abortions, it certainly is easier for them than bringing a fetus to term and bearing it. If you want to talk about grieving, I would argue that there would be far more grieving for a woman who was forced to bring a child to term only to give it up for adoption. But that is not for you, me, Bush, or anyone else to decide. While the fetus relies completely on the biological processes of the mother for "life," it exists, she has complete say over it's development. Your opinion is that it is an "innocent life," but you have no right to force that opinion on other people. A woman who feels that "special bond" will not likely have an abortion. A woman who does not feel that should not be forced to bring the fetus to term.
A tapeworm has its own unique DNA and it is most definitely a parasite. The woman whose womb the fetus is in has that say. This statement did not make any earthly sense to me. Not every woman aborts a fetus so she can "party unencumbered, but even if that was the reason for every single abortion, the woman has the right to choose. The difference is that I would NEVER presume to decide that a woman needs to have an abortion. You would force your opinion on a woman and force her to do something she does not want to do. There are plenty of laws I don'e like and I fight to overturn those laws. Again, you assume that there is a "life" at stake, but it is only your opinion. And I say err on the side of the health and well being of the mother. I would never presume to force my opinion on another, where you would create a situation that is much, MUCH worse.
The "life and death matter" that is important to me in this is that of the mother. You would force a situation where people who want abortions would have to put their lives at risk for that choice. There ARE lives at stake. when abortion was illegal in this country, many women died during back alley abortions. Others were sterilized and still others were taken advantage of. I excersize "prudent caution" when it comes to protecting something we KNOW is a "life." This doesn't sway me in the least. The aborted fetus is definitely "innocent," but IMO, doesn't become a "life" until it can viably live outside the mother's womb and as such, no person is being "killed."
I didn't mean to imply an expansive definition of pro-Life; I was only referring to humans. I've been a pet-owner all of my life. I put my cat Manny down last year after a dozen years together. He had cancer and was suffering. I would never put him down because I didn't want him.... The double-standard remark for Meowgi was due to his characterization of pro-Lifers as fascists who would use the state to bring about their preferences through law-making. That is exactly what the pro-Choice (aren't I nice) crowd have done through the courts, yet they are not likewise cautiously fingered as fascists.. more like freedom-fighters.
Agreed. But I'm more concerned about saving the innocent lives than about what the repercussions are of saving those lives. Do you really think that I don't have compassion for the woman who feels the need to have an abortion? I do, but not to the extent that I say: "Okay, I'll just look the other way..." The child's life is of paramount importance when compared to the preferences of the mother. Good God, we throw men in jail for lack of child support and we honor women with the courage to abort their own children...
