 sj |
||
|
||
Abortion: Here we Go...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: saulgoldie Date: 23 Mar 03 - 09:11 AM Joe/Max, please note that this thread was already created without the "BS" tag, so it went to the songs part. BTW, great idea splitting the board into "BS" and "music" sections. Thanks for that. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: saulgoldie Date: 23 Mar 03 - 09:10 AM I did not want to wreck the thread about abortion songs with O/T opinions (like a few others had started to do, already). But since the issue is more alive than ever and sooo timely with the allignment of the White House and both houses of Congress, I am refreshing this one. I will weigh in shortly. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief Date: 06 Nov 00 - 01:01 PM Right. Sorry I forgot Iron Maggie.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Nov 00 - 12:53 PM "The argument that women aren't as brutal and war-like as men." If you noticed, mouse, I specifically mentioned Maggie Thatcher, and they don't come much more brutal and war-like than that.
As of now, women like that are the exception, but I imagine that in a society where women ruled, they'd properly rapidly enough reach the same level as men have. (Levelling down that is.) But I can't imagine myself becoming a militant suffraget (I think that's be the male ending wouldn't it?)in a hurry.
But while that might be an interesting topic of discussion, this thread isn't the best place for it.
In any case, I suspect that in such a society the controversy about abortion would be at least as heated as it is today (in America that is). |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Fibula Mattock Date: 06 Nov 00 - 12:46 PM Sheesh, I go away for a couple of days and all hell breaks loose! I didn't think this debate would ever get brought out into the open, and I'm quite sorry it has. It's not particularly constructive and it's going to hurt a lot of people over what is an intensely personal matter. Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland, and the new Assembly have gone on record as very much pro-life. There is an extremely active pro-lifers group here, and worryingly they choose to picket places such as the Brooke Clinic (a young person's clinic - under 24 - dealing with sexual health/contraception but NOT abortion). Now it would seem to a logical mind that you can't be anti-abortion AND anti-contraception. And that's not just the Vatican's view - the picketing of the Brooke clinic is done by DUP and purveyors of miraculous medals alike (they kept offering them to me as I walked out with a bag of condoms...I suppose I could've swapped). It never bothered me walking past protestors, but I'm sure it's scared the hell out of shyer people. Interestingly, in Italy at the moment the Pope is giving out about the Morning After Pill, condemning it as abortive (biologically it's not - it stops an implantation of the egg). I have no qualms about the Morning After Pill, and have taken it before, because accidents happen, condoms split, Pills can stop working if you're sick. I have not had to go through an abortion, but people I know and love have, and I have witnessed the effects first hand. There is less choice in Northern Ireland because you must make the decision more quickly - do you pay to travel to England before it is too late? In the past I've been lucky and any risky situations have turned out okay. Now I don't feel worried if I become pregnant - I'm in a very caring relationship with a bloke I plan on keeping for good. We intend to have children some time in our future, so if it happens (by accident) sooner, so be it. But I would NEVER condemn anyone for choosing abortion. And I would NEVER EVER force my opinions on someone else and insist I knew best. Pro-choice means exactly that - the right to CHOOSE, to have an option. It's a traumatic and personal decision, and I just hope that if you or anyone you love have to face it, you'll support them and keep whatever you personally feel to yourself. Rant ends! |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Matt_R Date: 06 Nov 00 - 12:44 PM Well said, Colwyn! |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: mousethief Date: 06 Nov 00 - 12:31 PM I'd be happy to give over all the decisions to women. As long as they are happy to have a 100% female military, until, say, as many women are killed in wars as men have been down through the ages. And don't give me the argument that women aren't as brutal and war-like as men. In answer I will respond: Elizabeth I of England. Queen Victoria. Golda Meir. Indiri Ghandi. These women sent more men to their deaths than I ever will. Enough of this thread drift. Back to abortion. Frighteningly, almost every pro-abortion argument used here has an analogue in the arguments for and against slavery in this country 150 years ago. It was a religious issue, and the state should stay out of religion. "If you're opposed to slavery, don't own slaves. But don't tell me what to do with my own property." And so forth. Fact is, a newborn CANNOT exist without its mother, or SOME adult, to feed clothe and shelter it, so the "viability outside the mother is where human life starts" rule is hardly convincing. A fully-formed newborn could exist without care for maybe 24 hours, tops. Therefore it's not a human? It's a temporary human? A 24-hour human? "It's none of your business what I do with my body." Yes it is. If you use your body to pull the trigger of a gun that shoots another human, it's society's business. This "it's my body" argument begs the question. The whole question is whether it's just your body, or yours and another human's (viz the unborn child). Thus, "it's my body" is the beginning of the discussion, not the end. The "people from crummy homes grow up crummy" argument is a bit question-begging also. Should we shoot all 5-year-olds from crummy homes, to prevent them from growing up twisted and angry and bitter and what-not? No? This is how the argument sounds to someone who believes an unborn child is a human life. Until we decide whether abortion is the taking of a human life, then, this argument is begging the question. There's no doubt it's a difficult question. I also decry the politics of personal relationships that make women feel powerless and unable to have their wants and desires respected and acted upon. I'm not at all sure what I can do about this, except teach my children to respect other human beings, and act accordingly. I agree with whoever it was that said that the anti-abortion forces can and should spend more time and effort and money making abortions UNNECESSARY. This is why I generally do not support making abortion illegal. I would rather people --from both sides-- work toward making abortions unnecessary. (I wonder however if a counsellor who is employed by a business which makes its income from providing abortions isn't in a position of conflict-of-interest?) I would prefer to see a society in which abortion is legal, but very, very few women take advantage of the fact. Someday, someday... Amazingly civil discussion on a very explosive topic. Okay, I've had my say. Flame away.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: flattop Date: 05 Nov 00 - 03:34 PM Many messages on this thread are one sided. Colwyn may be passionate about everything in the message and may have supporting evidence. This is a discussion. We shouldn't care all that much how any point of views is written. Personally, I prefer passionate, well-written messages to toadies agreeing with me. To each his own. Too often we accept the messages that share our point of view and pick apart the others. Infanticide was legal for hundreds of years in Roman society. Roman men completely controlled the society and the laws. The men tended to have sex with their female slaves and they would throw their babies on refuse heaps to die. The heaps contained human excrement as well as garbage. Some women on this thread have suggested that they have better ideas than the ones the boys came up with when they were in charge. How dare they! A one point, Roman men had so few children with their wives that the government offered cash bonuses to anyone who would have a proper Roman child. I believe we have a law like that in Quebec at the moment. One of the Constantines ended the right of Roman men to murder their own children. He was the first Christian emperor. He decided against infanticide after killing children on his own. According to Eddy Gibbons in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Constantines was first attracted to Christianity when he discovered that Christian soldiers were far more willing to die than non-Christians. When Constantine got someone holding up a cross to lead the Christian troops, they would rush into the slaughter. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Nov 00 - 03:06 PM "I guess that, until men have as much chance of getting pregnant as women do, I'd rather see votes on this one given over to us."
I'd be happy with that. In fact I'd be happy to have all the votes on everything given over to women for a few generations. Seriously. All right there's the occasional raving homicidal maniac like Maggie Thatcher, but, by and large women politicians seem more like human beings.
I also suspect that under that set up there'd be fewerr pressures on women to have abortions they don't want to have. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Bernard Date: 05 Nov 00 - 02:55 PM Having beliefs is everyone's right and privilege. Firmly adhering to one's convictions is commendable, and worthy of admiration. What is less worthy of admiration, and certainly not commendable is when one tries to force those beliefs upon someone else, with the attitude 'I am right, and if you disagree with me, then you must be wrong'... Mudcat provides a healthy platform for us to air our views - not to insult the intelligence of those whose opinion differs from our own... |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 05 Nov 00 - 02:15 PM Colwyn, I find your history lesson to be, well, Sunday school propaganda. Follow it to fascism. Very one sided research... which may be enough for you... but please do not preach so elequently on such skimpy research! |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Naemanson Date: 05 Nov 00 - 12:41 PM Actually the fall of the Roman Empire can be attributed to throwing over the two party system for a three party system. *BG* |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Susan A-R Date: 05 Nov 00 - 12:35 PM I guess that, until men have as much chance of getting pregnant as women do, I'd rather see votes on this one given over to us. We're the ones left holding the bag, so to speak. I know that this will make some folks angry, but frankly, the thought that someone who doesn't have even a chance of getting pregnant has any choice as to whether I will or will not have a child, makes me so angry that I shake. I'm not ood with this one, nor "reasonable" nor flexible. It's my body, and my life stretcing out in front of me. Are there other such major life decisions over which anyone, male or female, would give up control? I don't THINK so. Susan A-R |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: flattop Date: 05 Nov 00 - 12:03 PM Although you raised very interesting issues, Colwyn, it takes a rather long projectile to link Roman vomitoriums to the onset of the Dark Ages. Historians attribute the Dark Ages to other causes like plagues that killed up to two thirds of the population in some areas and the difficulty of continually extending Roman technology and control over everyone else's territory. Even consubstantiation versus transubstantiation played a role. Hundreds of thousands of sincere Christians killed other sincere Christians and the Holy Roman Empire was divided into east and west over arguments about whether someone eating the bread was actually munching on Jesus or just having a symbolic chew on him. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: JedMarum Date: 05 Nov 00 - 11:29 AM exactly susan! I keep hearing that this issue is brand new, and 'inhuman' ... NONESENSE! People have been faced with making this difficult decision as long as they have been having babies - and they have been deciding both ways, as long as they have been having babies. As a parent, it is my responsibility to make a decision that is best for the family. All of my instinct and my upbringing normally favor deciding for the baby - but there are occasions when I would not. That decision is the parent's alone - and as we have seen, no matter what the laws are, people will make that decision. There are few decisions in the world that are completely balck and white, maybe none. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Susan from California Date: 05 Nov 00 - 10:56 AM BTW, when we look at history, we need to look at the huge number of "exposed" babies in the past. Babies that were born alive and left "exposed" to the elements to die were very common from the days of the Roman Empire (and probably before)until much more recent history. An interesting book on the subject is "The Kindness of Strangers" by John Boswell. Boswell argues that up until the 2nd half of the 18th c. that 25-33% of all babies were abandonded in many European cities. Most of these babies died. Kate, I must respectfully say that because any decision a woman makes when faced with unplanned pregnancy is going to be with her for the rest of her life, then the answer is to let her make it herself. To go back to a time when women were forced by circumstance to carry a pregnancy to term, to act as a brood mare for someone who wants to adopt, is abusive and cruel. To have women faced with unsafe, sometimes mutilating, sometimes fatal, illegal abortions is ridiculous. Let's all work together to make abortion rare. But please, let individuals decide for themselves when faced with these difficult issues. To do otherwise is to play God. I know that I am not qualified to do that.
|
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST Date: 05 Nov 00 - 10:55 AM continued CLICK HERE |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: JedMarum Date: 05 Nov 00 - 10:47 AM It seems very simple, it IS the law of the land. it is supported by a significant majority of Americans. it has been practiced with a high degree of safety for nearly 30 years. while a small majority have an opinion that some limits may be placed upon it - late term abortions, parental notifications, governmental funding - these are the only legal battles of the future that will see change. It is conceiveable (however unlikely) that Roe v Wade will be overturned based upon its application of constitutional law (Roe v Wade decision is based upon a right to privacy) but that is in no way the end of legal abortion. It simply puts the pressure back on the legislature to resolve the issue - and with the strong majority opinion in this country supporting abortion rights, it will be resolved. Spaw - I doubt very seriously that Bush really wants to appoint a supreme court that defeats abortion. The issue has simply never been that high a priority to Bush. He wishes to be counted among the anti-abortion crowd - but as a man of power and influence in Texas, he has never championed that cause. But even if he did; I am certain that it is beyond his control. The supreme court has always surprised its presidents ... the supreme court is truly autonomous ... there are several strong individuals who are charged with judging the constitution according to their very best skill and conscience. I don't believe Bush or any other president, could stack the supreme court. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Naemanson Date: 05 Nov 00 - 09:59 AM Are you making an argument for abstinance, Colwyn? It's a nice idea but not practical. there aren't enough people who would go along with it. Humans are animals. This is not intended as an insult (either to people or animals). It is a fact. We are the most successful animal species on this planet. As such we are subject to the same drives that got us to this point. A well educated, conscious, adult MIGHT be able to restrain him/herself but not all the time. Education and erudition does not separate one from the basic animal nature that connects us to the rest of the world. And there are those of our species who live closer to those instincts and urges than others. We may see them as uneducated or brutish but they are our brothers and sisters. And they are as much a part of the problem as the rest of us. Sex is a basic need and urge and must either be satisfied or rejected. Rejecting that urge takes a lot more character(?)/strength(?) than most of us are capable of showing. I'm afraid abstinance is not a solution. A good, dependable, reversable male sterilization would help. Unfortunately that touches on issues of individual rights and male pride that it will never be a reality. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Colwyn Dane Date: 05 Nov 00 - 09:06 AM G'day,
The Romans of yesteryear use to indulge themselves when at banquets or feasts.
Like those old Romans, it seems most people are using, what should be, their natural
'Natural' sexual intercourse is an act designed by nature to reproduce the species; any
It is possible for one to survive for days without drink; weeks without food and a lifetime without sexual intercourse.
What had been accepted for neigh on 2000 years has become unfashionable for a minority,
The history of mankind shows that if you tinker with nature, then nature will eventually get its own back.
After reading the above I see nothing but 'doom and gloom'; so what is the solution to treating 'sick' societies and how do you make them 'boom and bloom'?
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world.
"One gets great lessons from history in that, however long it takes, the power of the
---Varindra Vittachi.
Let us be the representatives for the powerless, in this case our unborn and unwanted children and help them to live.
Please forgive my heaviness. I am not directly attacking any person, as I'm sure most of us
Bcnu,
|
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Naemanson Date: 05 Nov 00 - 07:04 AM Susan – Thank you for your story. None of us who are spared that experience can really know the answer to this debate. McGrath of Harlow – Your book analogy is interesting but bear in mind it is a book missing a lot of pages. Essentially when you excise that bunch of cells you are eliminating a blank book with one or two lines written in it. You aren't destroying a manuscript. You are destroying a bunch of unmarked pages. Troll, you wrote, "If my tax money is used to fund these abortions, then I, through my duly elected representatives, should have the right to give my input." OK, but do you have a problem with abortions for needy women? Or, do you have problems with paying for welfare for women who now have to have families. And then there are the special needs of the resultant children and the problems they create in a society already over stressed by such problems. That has to be paid for as well. So maybe a small expense without asking questions at one point is the better route to go. "…when the Fed gets involved, the cost goes up…" This is something of which I have intimate knowledge and a number of answers. If anyone is curious PM me and we can discuss. Kate – There is an interesting exercise in which I participated recently. It was a moderated meeting between our offices and a contractor we had hired. The moderator had us line up in order of years of experience. On one end of the line there were people with close to 45 years of construction experience and on the other end of the line were the kids fresh out of college. The moderator urged us to study this line. She pointed out that those of us with plenty of experience were valuable and should be respected for what we bring to the process. But, she went on to say, we also need to listen to and respect the other end of that line for the young inexperienced members of the team bring with them a fresh outlook and new ideas. As you read through these threads you will see plenty of words that do not strike you as being respectful of you, may even seem to denigrate your contributions. Sometimes you will see closed minds, insults and harsh language. But when you look between these things you will see ideas and poetry that grow here like wildflowers in a field of weeds. There are roses to be found in here if you are patient enough to look for them. So, yes Kate, please continue. The real answer to the problem is not abortion but prevention. Unfortunately prevention is not always possible. As I have said elsewhere here we men have to get to the point where women have the right to choose in everything they do with their bodies. I don't believe that is a problem with present company. But there is a large number of men in this world who do not listen to women when they insist on the use of a condom or vasectomy or whatever. And there are women out there who do not understand how to manage their own birth control. When those men start listening to women, and when those women start to take their responsibility seriously, then the abortion problem will be solved. And at that time the hunters of this world will be shooting pigs on the wing! Abortion is a problem which cannot be solved without changing society. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: The Shambles Date: 05 Nov 00 - 04:00 AM Kendall's apology |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Nov 00 - 01:15 AM Well TR, I agree entirely that it should not be a political issue, nor one to be argued about and legislated. Problem seems to fall in that word "should" though........I think there's a pretty sizable problem in your "unbridgable" part too. If Bush wins, both problems are gonna' get a whole lot bigger. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 05 Nov 00 - 12:32 AM It is simple. The abortion issue is strictly a religious issue. Our forefathers very wisely made a clear unbridgable gap between church and state, and for good reason. There can be no laws denying a womans right to choose, because we have freedom of religion as a guarenteed right. Religious beliefs like this one are protected by the constitution. This is no joke. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: JedMarum Date: 05 Nov 00 - 12:12 AM good for you kimmers. well said. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: JedMarum Date: 04 Nov 00 - 11:39 PM There is an important point I have never heard spoken, relating to this subject; I accept responsibility for the life and death decisions I have made, and will have to make in my lifetime. I do not kid myself, and believe that only fate, or only luck or only God makes these decisions. I have already had, and I suspect will have again to make a life and death decision in my lifetime. We have parents, children, brothers, sisters - any of whom may live or die at our decision to "pull the plug" one day. That is a life and death decision, and I would NOT shun the responsibility. Sometimes humans are faced with even more direct life and death decisions. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Ceitagh Date: 04 Nov 00 - 05:12 PM Once again, thank you McGrath. And thank you Susan, for telling your story. I agree that the enemy we really should be fighting, rather than fighting each other, is the hostile society which makes all the other choices so hard. Someone once said that a woman having an abortion is like an animal gnawing off its leg to get out of a trap. We need to do what we can to get women out of this trap. Re: adoption: My friend Jess discovered two years ago that she had an older sister. Yes, giving her first born up for adoption was a hard thing for Jess' mother to do, and I have no doubt it bothered her. She could feel the lack of that child she had carried for 9 months. When Jess found out about it, she was shocked at first, then overjoyed, and eventually found her sister. They have a beautiful relationship now, and I know the whole family is glad that that choice was made. I know a girl who had an unplanned pregnancy from a drunken encounter. She overdosed on prescription pills and landed herself in the hospital. She miscarried. She was a troubled, depressed, anorexic and unhealthy teen. What would have happened had she carried that baby to term? I don't know. But she feels the lack every day. She dreamt about him for years. She has two children now, but she still wonders what he would have been like. She can't register for him to find her, she will never hear his voice on the phone. oops! gotta go! continue this train of thot later! kate |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Nov 00 - 04:49 PM Susan's story goes to illustrate what I believe to be the case - the pressures on women to have abortions in so many circumstances are so great that it's not really a matter of their exercising a free choice, but of being coerced by circumstances.
Ending that situation is something on which anyone seriously pro-life or pro-choice should be agreed about. If that could be achieved, the number of abortions would be far lower. But it's a long way off being achieved, and I suspect of anything things are going in the opposite direction.
Time enough to try to sort out disagreements about the other stuff later. But there's an enemy out there, and it's anti-life and anti-choice, and it's getting away with murder. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: katlaughing Date: 04 Nov 00 - 04:08 PM Susan from CA, thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Mrrzy Date: 04 Nov 00 - 03:40 PM Well, I'm glad I kept reading after it got nasty, because it certainly came back to a level of discussion. Which is nice to see. I'm chipping another few of my thoughts: Yes, I agree that there is a difference before and after quickening (my favorite term for "feeling the baby kick"). I also agree that there is a difference before and after viability (probability rather than possibility of survival outside the womb). And viability is getting closer and closer to quickening. So I can see arguments for limiting abortion to before one or the other of these milestones. I think it's easier to draw the line at birth because it is a less subjective transitional state. I have been lucky enough only to have had one unwanted pregnancy, which (thank you, Lady Luck and/or Mother Nature!) ended in an early miscarriage. I am still, years later, glad I didn't have to decide what to do with that one. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Troll Date: 04 Nov 00 - 03:32 PM Susan. Thank you. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Susan from California Date: 04 Nov 00 - 03:24 PM This is such a volitale issue, and I feel so strongly about it that I have kept out until now. Yet I honestly believe that my perspective might add to the discussion, so here goes. I have always believed that life begins at conception. I am also *extremely* pro-choice. Many years ago :-) I was a teenager faced with an unplanned pregnancy. The baby's father would not publically admit to responsibility. Some of you may be wondering why I was so dumb as to be in that position. Let's just agree that I was dumb. Having to tell my Mom was very difficult. When my Dad found out he quit talking to me. I decided to carry the baby to term, and after a bit of time realized that the best option for my child to have the kind of life that she deserved was to give her up for adoption. I read through the classifieds a couple of times a week, looking for an ad placed by someone looking to adopt. But 20 years ago, these were not common, and I didn't see any. I wanted an adoption where I would get occaisional Christmas cards and the like so that I would no that she was OK. But that didn't happen. When I was 5 months pregnant, one of my brothers beat me, aiming for my belly. I had to move in with a friend after that. So I went through the long months of pregnancy, and 36 hours of a difficult labor ( baby was "sunny side up" for those of you who have been there. One of the L&D nurses said "I don't know how you can do it, *I* could *never* give away my child" which made me feel like a horrible person. After all, I could not manage to do a decent job at the most basic thing of "womanhood" At least that is how I felt at the time. Saying something like that to a person is not helpful! It still makes me mad when people say stuff like that. I have missed this child for every day since her birth. She is now an adult, and I hope and pray that someday she will try to find me ( and yes, I am registered). Asking another person to go through the pain that I go through is not right. I also am able to feel good about the decision I made. I did what was right for me, and what i thought was right for my child. The fact that *I* made my own decision, also means that I get to take credit for it! I stood up for what I believe, and even though the going was tough, I remained true to my beliefs. So having the choice was important to me. Any woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy has some difficult choices. None of them are easy. I wouldn't wish the turmoil on my worst enemy. As someone said above, not all people, and not all religions believe that life begins at conception. Some people believe that the soul chooses which body to inhabit shortly before birth. Some people do not believe in a soul at all. How can I tell people that they are wrong? I can't. That is why the choice needs to be left to an individual. As for catostrophic late term abortions, I once was on the same public speaking thing with a woman who had one. She and her huband had been trying for a couple of years to get pregnant. When they were finally, joyfully, pregnant, they got news that most of us can't even imagine, their baby's brain was outside of its skull. The child's intestine and stomach, etc were out side of the body. The baby had *zero* chance of survival. Mom's future reproductive capacity was endangered if she continued to a full term delivery. After consulting with their doctor and religious leader, they decided to end the pregnancy. I absolutely support their right to make that decision. The law should not preclude them from choosing this option. I have deliberately used the words "baby" and "child" because that is what *I* believe. I would never ask anyone to think what I think. I could just as easily used the words "fetus" and "embryo". Young people need to be properly educated, and abstinance only curriculums do not work. Decent programs should make abortion less necesary. But it should always be legal and accesible. Women should not be made to feel guilty about whatever choice they make regarding unplanned pregnancy. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall Date: 04 Nov 00 - 02:55 PM dont we usually DISagree? Kate, it is all about choice. You made your choice..I applaud you for it, and you dont have to defend it with me. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Troll Date: 04 Nov 00 - 02:49 PM Kendall, agreed. Your point being?... troll |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: GUEST,Ceitagh Date: 04 Nov 00 - 02:46 PM McGrath, I admire you immensely for speaking so clearly and saying all the things i'd like say so much better than I could. kendall, being young, female, and pro-life (in all its forms...the death penalty is wrong, in my opinion), i found your remark offensive, but all too familiar. Its not the first time i've heard that, none of this thread is new to me, and i'm barely 20. I've heard too, too, much, and i am so tired of it all. My dear friends, my reasons for my convictions have been considered carefully and thought out....will you believe me when i say that? I do not believe abortion is wrong, i *know* it. I am not brainwashed, nor naive, I have had contact and friendships with young women in some of the situations described in this thread. Do you believe me? Do you believe I am a rational person with reasons for what I say, that I want the best for everyone, that I am not on some kind of evil minded power trip? Moonjen, do you believe me when I say I do not hate you, I do not condemn you, and I respect you? Will you all believe that I would not knowingly use any information I had not checked out first, that I have thought through every argument I might bring to this discussion? Will you all believe that I am not a hypocrite? Have you seen enough of my behaviour on the mudcat this past year to know I am not mean spirited, that I treat those lives which have come to term with as much love and respect and those that have not, that I am a 'people-lover' not just a 'fetus-lover' (and yes, i've heard that used as a term of derision), that my views on this issue are part of a holistic philosophy of love that recognises the beauty and uniqueness in all? I ask this because I cannot speak to closed minds, and I ask this because I will not listen to the same derision and belittling I have experienced before when speaking about this issue. If you demand respect, give respect. If you wish civility, be civil. Meet me on this level, and we can dialogue, and yes, I know this isn't a simple topic. But it is one about which I am passionate, and I would love to share that passion with you. Just don't tell me I am too young, too inexperienced, brainwashed, biased, ugly, heartless, uncaring, evil, oppressive, small minded, Dogmatic, etc. That is insulting to me and irrelevant to reasonable discussion. Tell me if my logic doesn't follow, don't tell me that I'm a bigot for desiring life for every biological human being regardless of their utility. So....Do you believe me? Should I bother continuing? Kate
|
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Bagpuss Date: 04 Nov 00 - 02:44 PM Just skimmed back a little and realised McGrath said pretty much what I said. So Sorry! Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Bagpuss Date: 04 Nov 00 - 02:39 PM I haven't read any of this thread at all, but I just wanted to say that the worst thing about the abortion debate is the polarisation between the two sides and the assumptions behind the motives of the other side. After all, surely both sides would agree that abortion is a bad thing. Ie it is undesirable - nobody would actually choose to have an abortion, if they could have avoided getting pregnant in the first place. But instead of trying to work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through better education, and contraception (though I can see why that is difficult, due to the official catholic stance on contraception), and enabling those who would choose to keep their children in better circumstances a chance to achieve those circumstances - we argue about whether or not it should be legal, and one side calls the other murderers, and one calls the other anti-women. It does no good. Nobody on either side of the debate ever seems to actually listen to the other side, so both sides resort to slogans and attacking eachother. Instead of trying to solve the problem. Apologies to anyone who has already made this point - but I didnt have time to read the thread. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall Date: 04 Nov 00 - 02:34 PM In a democracy majority rules. |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Troll Date: 04 Nov 00 - 01:54 PM Jenny, Kat, I agree that it should be a womans choice and her business and that society should keep out of it. Now here comes the 'but'. If my tax money is used to fund these abortions, then I, through my duly elected representatives, should have the right to give my input. I do not feel that abortion should be illegal but neither do I feel that it should be federally funded. I am aware that poor women cannot afford an abortion without financial aid but just what is the percentage who NEED that federal aid? It has been my experience that when the Fed gets involved, the cost goes up. Maybe there is another way. I surely don't know. My problem with the abortion laws as they now stand is the use of federal funds, but I'm sure that those who are anti-war feel that way about their taxes building bombers. And the beat goes on. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: little john cameron Date: 04 Nov 00 - 01:52 PM OH MY!!! It order tae get the gist o mah "bunch o cells"post ye wid hae tae understaun"Reincarnation" Prior tae incarnatin the pairt o you that is really you has tae pick somewhere tae bide.It waits until the "bunch o cells" become a viable human being.When that happens it moves intae the it earthly cover.That is when the new human person sterts tae move aboot.So prior tae this wonderful event there is naebody hame.The vast majority o the the world are reincarnationist, It wis the "Christian"church whit expurgated reincarnation way back when they stertet tae get on wi the terrorisin an didnae allows folk tae read the bible for theirsels. There is mair tae this than meets the eye.Ye hae tae delve intae the history o religions.Dogma is the killer o free thinkin. ljc |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Ebbie Date: 04 Nov 00 - 01:35 PM :) Eb |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Nov 00 - 01:19 PM Just a tiny bunch of cells or a human being at an early stage of development...
Look at it this way - a book is a physical object you can pick up and handle and lend to friends. And because the little black marks on the pages can be decoded by your mind, a book is also a mental object, you get a link direct to the mind of another human being who wrote it.
So when you destroy the only copy of a book, you're doing something quite serious. And if you destroy the manuscript of a book that hasn't been printed that's what you are doing.
But these days likely enough there won't be a manuscript. The author will use a computer. And for the first part of its life, that's where the physical book exists, just a bunch of electrons somewhere in a computer. If you could get all those electrons together in one place you wouldn't even be able to see them, they're so small.
A human being at an early stage of development is just a tiny bunch of cells...That's what we looked like at that stage, you, me, all of us.
|
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall Date: 04 Nov 00 - 12:41 PM Some of us dont have any shortcomings. Seriously Amos, on rare occasions, I tend to lapse into serious thinking. Sorry, it slipped! |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Ebbie Date: 04 Nov 00 - 12:27 PM Kendall, this might be a good time to relate a truism I discovered. It had occurred to me that it is sad for men that they are not all built like John Wayne or as cerebral as Stephen Hawkings or as cuddly as Charles Kuralt because I think men tend to be less resilient and secure than women are, so that the knowledge of their shortcomings is harder on them. Then I realized: No worries! They don't know it. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Amos Date: 04 Nov 00 - 11:13 AM Kendall: You're nothing but a crusty old fart. How did you ever acquire such elegant and precisely accurate metaphysics! Thanks for the post! Love ya man, A |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: bbelle Date: 04 Nov 00 - 11:00 AM No, Brett, I read through it a couple of times and didn't glean that from your post. My apology to you. Jenny |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: Naemanson Date: 04 Nov 00 - 10:38 AM Jenny, I couldn't tell from your post if you realized I agree completely on that point (this is another one of those times when we are missing the intricacies of face to face discussion). |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: bbelle Date: 04 Nov 00 - 10:05 AM No, Brett ... it is not up to you or anyone except the woman to confront the issue of why a woman wants or needs an abortion or doesn't want or need an abortion. IT IS UP TO THE WOMAN. Jenny |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: katlaughing Date: 04 Nov 00 - 09:54 AM Well said, in both postings, Kendall, esp when you said, "The essense of a human being is NOT that "cluster of cells" it is a spirit, a soul if you will. When you terminate a pregnancy, all you are doing is forcing that soul to incarnate elsewhere. One can NEVER kill the soul." Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: Abortion: Here we Go... From: kendall Date: 04 Nov 00 - 09:37 AM There is a big difference between making abortion illegal, and, making it go away. If we go back to the old days, abortions will still be performed on kitchen table back seats or wher ever they did it. Of course, women with money would still go to Mexico. At least, ther would be no federal funds being spent. Love him or hate him, Clinton said it for me: I want to see abortion safe legal and unnecessary. IT aint going to go away folks. Making it illegal will only relocate it. |
| Share Thread: |