First, I don't think calling pro-life individuals "so-called pro-life" is very cordial, but that's another issue.
Second, he states that they "will have a conversation". To me, that means he's going to bring it up. But even if it doesn't, he's assuming that she's going to come in to someone she's never met before and she's going to bring up the subject of abortion.... to me that's a large-scale assumption.
I don't suspect its going to be, Hi my name is Sarah, are you pro-life or pro-choice? But we will visit relatively often.. and if I am going to get to know her - I have to know about this part of her because I've been told that it is very important to her. So it is important to me.
I say "so called pro-life" because I am as pro-life as anyone I have ever met. However, I do not support efforts to overturn a law that considers a womans pregnancy to be a personal matter. I am however sympathetic to those that feel 1.5 million abortions every year in America is a very sad thing. I believe there are many things that can be done with regards to this. I think simply making it illegal will only make things worse. That does not make me something other that "pro-life". I think in a much better world, that "choice" would very rarely be considered.
I don't suspect its going to be, Hi my name is Sarah, are you pro-life or pro-choice? But we will visit relatively often.. and if I am going to get to know her - I have to know about this part of her because I've been told that it is very important to her. So it is important to me.
I say "so called pro-life" because I am as pro-life as anyone I have ever met. However, I do not support efforts to overturn a law that considers a womans pregnancy to be a personal matter. I am however sympathetic to those that feel 1.5 million abortions every year in America is a very sad thing. I believe there are many things that can be done with regards to this. I think simply making it illegal will only make things worse. That does not make me something other that "pro-life". I think in a much better world, that "choice" would very rarely be considered.
If you think that abortion is killing a life... and you think it's best to keep it legal... you are not only ridiculously inconsistent, you are not pro-life, my friend. You are also not protecting the rights of that "life". Think about it.
Everyone I know, on both sides of the debate, would admit that a pro-choice person, who thinks that abortion terminates a "life" is not consistent. I have a hell of a lot more respect for someone who says "it's not a life, therefore, I see no problem terminating the cells." That argument atleast makes sense.
Everyone I know, on both sides of the debate, would admit that a pro-choice person, who thinks that abortion terminates a "life" is not consistent. I have a hell of a lot more respect for someone who says "it's not a life, therefore, I see no problem terminating the cells." That argument atleast makes sense.
I hope you're only referring to the people you know in person, because I'm pretty sure you know that there are people on this board - myself included - who disagree with you on this... as do plenty of other people you may not know.
If you think that abortion is killing a life... and you think it's best to keep it legal... you are not only ridiculously inconsistent, you are not pro-life, my friend. You are also not protecting the rights of that "life". Think about it.
Everyone I know, on both sides of the debate, would admit that a pro-choice person, who thinks that abortion terminates a "life" is not consistent. I have a hell of a lot more respect for someone who says "it's not a life, therefore, I see no problem terminating the cells." That argument atleast makes sense.
Well, I don't agree with everyone you know. A pregnancy will generally result in a baby if not aborted. I don't think anyone can dispute that, not even everyone you know.
Now... How many abortions will outlawing abortions reduce? What are the consequences of this law? Will the totality of human suffering decrease? will the world be a bette place? There is a loss when someone choses abortion. There are millions of people unfit or unable or unwilling to raise children. What is the degree of suffering of a child left buckled to their high chair all day long - missing meals - beaten - left unsupervised - without proper health care - shaken - murdered - what is the total pain and suffering there? of the baby, and neighbors and friends....
I see that as similar to allowing a terminally ill patient or one in sever pain to be allowed to die peacefully. Aborting a pregnancy in the first trimester is generally accepted to produce very little pain if any.
Things are so bad that this seems a viable option.
If the government wishes to choose to force women to have babies, they better take on the whole responsibility - which included care of the pregnant mother throughout. and care of the child after. We know that is not possible.
the only real solution to unwanted pregnancies... in my opinion... is to do what can be done to avoid potentially unwanted pregnancies and to work to increase the percentage of pregnancies that do occur to be wanted.
It is my opinion, that a law against abortion will cause more human suffering than we are experiencing now - which is why I am against... Because I care for humans.. I am pro-life.
Well, I don't agree with everyone you know. A pregnancy will generally result in a baby if not aborted. I don't think anyone can dispute that, not even everyone you know..
Please answer this,.... "do you advocate the outlawing of murder"?
Based on your posts on the issue, you are a very confused person on this issue IMHO. You lack consistency throughout. Calling yourself "pro-life" when you are clearly pro-choice or pro-legalized abortion is silly at best. But, I've been here for years, I know that you enjoy the abortion debate... that's why you start all of these abortion-related threads. IMHO it's kinda sad.
here is a loss when someone choses abortion. There are millions of people unfit or unable or unwilling to raise children. What is the degree of suffering of a child left buckled to their high chair all day long - missing meals - beaten - left unsupervised - without proper health care - shaken - murdered - what is the total pain and suffering there? of the baby, and neighbors and friends.... .
There are millions of people unfit to raise children who have children. And there are millions of people who are who can't have them who would be great parents if those who would abort put them up for adoption. Moreover, we have laws to protect a child's welfare. To act as those on the margin who the law would affect, would treat their children like this only speaks negative to the behavior of those who are "pro-choice"... think about it.
I see that as similar to allowing a terminally ill patient or one in sever pain to be allowed to die peacefully. Aborting a pregnancy in the first trimester is generally accepted to produce very little pain if any..
I don't see the similarity at all. At the very least the ill patient or the one in severe pain had a say. You are completely assuming that the unborn don't want to live--look at the suicide rate for proof that you are completely wrong. But, yet you continue assuming over and over. You are assuming the people who would be affected by outlawing abortions, who would have had an abortion otherwise, would be terrible parents who beat their children also... which I also think is crazy.
Things are so bad that this seems a viable option.
If the government wishes to choose to force women to have babies, they better take on the whole responsibility - which included care of the pregnant mother throughout. and care of the child after. We know that is not possible..
I don't disagree with your premise, that people would have to step up. However, I don't think it's necessarily the government. The government is not the savior of all. They are simply there to protect rights. In this case, the right of the unborn. For instance, one of the largest advocates for the termination of the right to abortion is the Catholic Church. I think they should step up and I think they would... I think Christians would step up... I think pro-life Muslims would step up. I also think the government should regulate this though, to ensure good treatment. It is completely possible.
the only real solution to unwanted pregnancies... in my opinion... is to do what can be done to avoid potentially unwanted pregnancies and to work to increase the percentage of pregnancies that do occur to be wanted..
I do agree that work can be done to avoid unwanted pregnancies. However, I don't agree that it's the only "real" solution. That's extremely narrow-minded. You may not agree with the pro-life stance, but don't act like they don't have alternatives.
It is my opinion, that a law against abortion will cause more human suffering than we are experiencing now - which is why I am against... Because I care for humans.. I am pro-life.
I don't think it's possible to cause more human suffering than legalized abortion - which is why I am against.... Because I care for humans (even the unborn).... I am pro-life.... you are pro-choice. But, continue to try to patronize. I'd love to have a video of your interaction with this young woman. Just remember: real-life is not a left-leaning rock band's message board. Saying that you are pro-life to this woman and than rattling off what you just did is not only ridiculous, it may seriously damage your current relationship by damaging this one because you will seem deranged. Think before you act. Is stating your dubious opinion really worth the damage it will inevitably cause?
Please answer this,.... "do you advocate the outlawing of murder"?
Based on your posts on the issue, you are a very confused person on this issue IMHO. You lack consistency throughout. Calling yourself "pro-life" when you are clearly pro-choice or pro-legalized abortion is silly at best. But, I've been here for years, I know that you enjoy the abortion debate... that's why you start all of these abortion-related threads. IMHO it's kinda sad.
Outlawing abortions would certainly reduce the abortion rate.
The consequences would be less abortions.
Yes, the totality of human suffering would decrease because less would be sucked up into vaccums.
Yes, the world would be a better place because less people would be sucked up into vaccums and more people's rights would be protected.
There are millions of people unfit to raise children who have children. And there are millions of people who are who can't have them who would be great parents if those who would abort put them up for adoption. Moreover, we have laws to protect a child's welfare. To act as those on the margin who the law would affect, would treat their children like this only speaks negative to the behavior of those who are "pro-choice"... think about it.
I don't see the similarity at all. At the very least the ill patient or the one in severe pain had a say. You are completely assuming that the unborn don't want to live--look at the suicide rate for proof that you are completely wrong. But, yet you continue assuming over and over. You are assuming the people who would be affected by outlawing abortions, who would have had an abortion otherwise, would be terrible parents who beat their children also... which I also think is crazy.
I don't disagree with your premise, that people would have to step up. However, I don't think it's necessarily the government. The government is not the savior of all. They are simply there to protect rights. In this case, the right of the unborn. For instance, one of the largest advocates for the termination of the right to abortion is the Catholic Church. I think they should step up and I think they would... I think Christians would step up... I think pro-life Muslims would step up. I also think the government should regulate this though, to ensure good treatment. It is completely possible.
I do agree that work can be done to avoid unwanted pregnancies. However, I don't agree that it's the only "real" solution. That's extremely narrow-minded. You may not agree with the pro-life stance, but don't act like they don't have alternatives.
I don't think it's possible to cause more human suffering than legalized abortion - which is why I am against.... Because I care for humans (even the unborn).... I am pro-life.... you are pro-choice. But, continue to try to patronize. I'd love to have a video of your interaction with this young woman. Just remember: real-life is not a left-leaning rock band's message board. Saying that you are pro-life to this woman and than rattling off what you just did is not only ridiculous, it may seriously damage your current relationship by damaging this one because you will seem deranged. Think before you act. Is stating your dubious opinion really worth the damage it will inevitably cause?
um... too much here to address without intervention
but you say you think the Catholic church would step up? what are they waiting for? they will allow all the current suffering until this law changes?
i think your premise is flawed from the beginning, personally. you start off with a definitive statement "abortion is wrong"....you add another definitive statement "lying is wrong"...and yet both statements are NOT FACT, but subjective opinions. i do not think abortions, nor lying, are 'wrong' per se. can they be? absolutely.....but not always.....
what is considered 'wrong' is a societal construct, that varies within each society, and even within said societies, vary greatly. in a society such as ours, based vry much on personal freedoms...i think it Is a lot more open to interpretation, as it should be...
Stop with the philosophizing; there is such thing as right/wrong and good/evil.
SLC 11/2/95, Park City 6/21/98, Boise 11/3/00, Seattle 12/9/02, Vancouver 5/30/03, Gorge 9/1/05, Vancouver 9/2/05, Gorge 7/22/06, Gorge 7/23/06, Camden I 6/19/08, MSG I 6/24/08, MSG II 6/25/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield II 6/30/08; Eddie Albany 6/8/09, 6/9/09; Philly 10/30/09, 10/31/09; Boston 5/17/10
I thought the world...Turns out the world thought me
I don't support abortion of any kind.. which I mentioned. My point is that making a law against it does nothing to address the many problems that lead to abortion. Abortions will continue, and other problems will grow.
This is exactly the stance I have. I don't support abortion, but making it illegal will not stop people from having abortions, and they will only be more dangerous than that which we have now. Hopefully technology and education can help our society move in a direction where people no longer find themselves in situations where they believe they need them.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
Stop with the philosophizing; there is such thing as right/wrong and good/evil.
perhaps there is....but in THIS particular case, i disagree. no 'phiosophizing'....just truth. one person's opinion does not create 'fact.' abortion is not 'wrong' in the eyes of the law, nor in my eyes or many others either. and again, lying is by no means always wrong either. someone posted above about the holocaust and those who harbored/protected jews....lying every day to do so. so once again, not a clear-cut right/wrong scenario, and i would guess there are far less right/wrong or black/white scenarios than thoughts of hmmm....maybe, and all shades of grey, depending on circumstance. that's life. you want to disagree...so be it, but once again, doesn't make your opinion on it anymore 'right' than mine, and vice versa. perspective and context are key.
um... too much here to address without intervention
I think it's interesting that you don't ever answer any of the questions I posed, but you expect me to answer yours. You are simply looking to argue on the issue. Explains why you are trying to arm yourself for your meeting with this young lady. Very odd indeed.
but you say you think the Catholic church would step up? what are they waiting for? they will allow all the current suffering until this law changes?
Yep. I think they would. They are leading the charge to overturn the law. They aren't waiting for anything. They are doing their best to get the law overturned. What do you propose they should do further? Murder people who are conducting these abortions? That's exactly what they are against.... hence the term pro-life.
I think it's interesting that you don't ever answer any of the questions I posed, but you expect me to answer yours. You are simply looking to argue on the issue. Explains why you are trying to arm yourself for your meeting with this young lady. Very odd indeed.
Yep. I think they would. They are leading the charge to overturn the law. They aren't waiting for anything. They are doing their best to get the law overturned. What do you propose they should do further? Murder people who are conducting these abortions? That's exactly what they are against.... hence the term pro-life.
I am asking what the catholics are doing about the mountains of starving neglected abused children now? it has to get really bad before the law intervenes.. and there are loads of children now being neglected and abused everyday unreported.
and you did not answer my questions.. you use alot of personal attacks and conveniently ignore all the babies that will be born without medical care and left in dumpsters to die.. the abortions attempted by hackers .. leaving mothers killed as well as the babies.. and the increased number of neglected and abused children.
as this happens, if one day by freak craziness, it does become illegal.. then the people of the US will unite and the law will be changed back
AND... If the government forces a woman to give birth to an unwanted child - then yes that child should be the respponsibility of the government...
Will the catholic church feed and shelter the hungry children today...because look out there would be millions knocking on the doors.
I am asking what the catholics are doing about the mountains of starving neglected abused children now? it has to get really bad before the law intervenes.. and there are loads of children now being neglected and abused everyday unreported..
Are you serious? Do you really think the Catholic church does nothing for the poor and abused? Whether you agree with them or not on many issues is one thing, to say they don't do anything for children is absolutely a full-fledged lie. Look at Catholic Charities, look at missionaries, look at the poor collections that come out of Catholic Churchs.
and you did not answer my questions.. you use alot of personal attacks and conveniently ignore all the babies that will be born without medical care and left in dumpsters to die.. the abortions attempted by hackers .. leaving mothers killed as well as the babies.. and the increased number of neglected and abused children.
I'm not personally attacking you... I'm saying your take on this issue is not consistent whatsoever. You are assuming that if the law is revoked, babies will be left in dumpsters and mothers will die. Better yet, the sky will fall on us all. You crack me up. All that would change is less babies would die.
AND... If the government forces a woman to give birth to an unwanted child - then yes that child should be the respponsibility of the government... .
The government would be protecting the right of that unborn child to live. That's all. The government would continue to protect that right... but that's all they need to do.
Will the catholic church feed and shelter the hungry children today...because look out there would be millions knocking on the doors.
They do.
Congrats. You've successfully exposed yourself for what you are.... pro-abortion rights. It was funny how you started the thread and how you've finished it. Inconsistent.... just like your take on this issue.
I don't think you understand my point. I don't think just because I say "lying is wrong", one can't make the decision to lie. They certainly can, and I guess sometimes it can certainly be beneficial. When murdering is the alternative, I suppose it is good to lie. That said, I won't say "lying" is ever GOOD because that can be mistrued. I'd say instead, sometimes one can make that decision if they think it will be beneficial to the whole. In the example, you presented, they may have decided that.... but, I would bet you that they still had a moral disdain for lying. Nevertheless, they chose admirably.
It doesn't take much moral clarity say lying is good in this situation. And it would take a simple, childlike mind to misconstrue that decision. We teach approximations as absolutes to children to give them a moral compass but part of growing up is integrating your moral foundation into an ambiguous reality.
Well, I don't agree with everyone you know. A pregnancy will generally result in a baby if not aborted. I don't think anyone can dispute that, not even everyone you know.
Now... How many abortions will outlawing abortions reduce? What are the consequences of this law? Will the totality of human suffering decrease? will the world be a bette place? There is a loss when someone choses abortion. There are millions of people unfit or unable or unwilling to raise children. What is the degree of suffering of a child left buckled to their high chair all day long - missing meals - beaten - left unsupervised - without proper health care - shaken - murdered - what is the total pain and suffering there? of the baby, and neighbors and friends....
I see that as similar to allowing a terminally ill patient or one in sever pain to be allowed to die peacefully. Aborting a pregnancy in the first trimester is generally accepted to produce very little pain if any.
Things are so bad that this seems a viable option.
If the government wishes to choose to force women to have babies, they better take on the whole responsibility - which included care of the pregnant mother throughout. and care of the child after. We know that is not possible.
the only real solution to unwanted pregnancies... in my opinion... is to do what can be done to avoid potentially unwanted pregnancies and to work to increase the percentage of pregnancies that do occur to be wanted.
It is my opinion, that a law against abortion will cause more human suffering than we are experiencing now - which is why I am against... Because I care for humans.. I am pro-life.
I wonder, do you think there should be a law against Lying? Lying is wrong, and has led to unthinkable evil. It has caused pain suffering and death.
Do you want a law against Lying?
Perhaps there are other solutions to the problem of abortions? Maybe a technological solution - where we can extract the unborn from unwilling mothers... perhaps a more perfect pill... perhaps better education... perhaps a willingness to care for unwanted children
you know like the teenagers left at the hospital in Nebraska. our society loves condemning the parents of these children, but want no part of helping them.
A law against abortion is a poor excuse for a solution to what is a number of very serious problems.
A law against lying would make undercover detective work quite difficult.
Based on your posts on the issue, you are a very confused person on this issue IMHO. You lack consistency throughout. Calling yourself "pro-life" when you are clearly pro-choice or pro-legalized abortion is silly at best. But, I've been here for years, I know that you enjoy the abortion debate... that's why you start all of these abortion-related threads. IMHO it's kinda sad.
And yet you insist on participating in all these abortion threads (and telling others what they think). Guess that makes you pretty sad as well.
Outlawing abortions would certainly reduce the abortion rate.
The consequences would be less abortions.
You and I have been over this before and I have provided evidence that outlawing abortion does not decrease the abortion rate. Just because you keep saying it does, doesn't make your statements any more true. If you want to be taken seriously about this subject, you should try to remember the facts.
I'm not personally attacking you... I'm saying your take on this issue is not consistent whatsoever. You are assuming that if the law is revoked, babies will be left in dumpsters and mothers will die. Better yet, the sky will fall on us all. You crack me up. All that would change is less babies would die.
This statement is based neither in fact, nor in history.
Do you? Do you advocate the outlawing of ALL killing? ALL of it? Really? Euthenasia, war, death penalty, self defense, etc?.
I think it's wrong to kill period IMHO. So, yes, if there was a way to establish a universal law against all of the above and people would be on-board, I would be on-board. Unfortunately, there's not a way to do that because we don't have a universal government or even universal agreement on pretty much any issue.
And yet you insist on participating in all these abortion threads (and telling others what they think). Guess that makes you pretty sad as well..
Dude, no one asked you to jump in here. I don't start these threads. I gave the guy advice, which he asked for. I simply said don't start prying into this situation when you haven't met this young woman. He specifically asked for pro-life types to respond. I did. Yet, now, here I am.... responding to you. Why? I have no idea.
You and I have been over this before and I have provided evidence that outlawing abortion does not decrease the abortion rate. Just because you keep saying it does, doesn't make your statements any more true. If you want to be taken seriously about this subject, you should try to remember the facts..
There's no factual way to provide evidence of a mythical scenario. Abortion is legal. The only way to prove that abortion rates would decline in America is to do a controlled study in America, which would involve making it illegal atleast in a certain population..... which isn't going to happen.
If it was illegal, just like murder, the rate would decrease... it's not very complicated.
Please provide evidence that suffering occurs when developing fetal tissue without a fully functioning central nervous system is sucked into a vacuum.
Please provide evidence that it doesn't. And please, don't act as though you know when suffering begins. To make a law stating that at a certain point, let's say 3 months no pain is felt for all babies is silly. What about at 92 days... that's when pain is felt? It's ridiculous. These people act like they know. They don't. So, I'd prefer to err on the side of not sucking a baby into a vaccum or pulling it out and sticking a knife in it's head (partial birth abortion).
I would agree with you. I was sort of arguing even with these premises because they are those held by the so called pro-life side. I am throwing these things out because my girlfriend's daughter-in-law is passionately pro-life and I will meet her soon, and we will have a conversation. I want to be as understanding as possible.. though I understand she considers pro-choce to be pro-abortion and pro-baby-killing
It can be difficult discussing this with those convinced that there is a mass slaughter going on. When you are being accused of supporting mass murder it can be irritating.
Taking some examples to an extreme can help us recognize the differences. We can imagine some scenarios to help us determine whether a fertilized egg is the equivalent of a born child. I've brought these up on this board before.
When a woman misses taking her pill for a day but has sex, she often takes two the next morning to catch up. This may cause a fertilized egg not to attach. Should we charge her with a crime?
Some women have a hormonal imbalance. Low progesterone may cause a fertilized egg not to attach to the uterus. Should we not allow them to have sex since they may endanger any fertilized eggs?
Suppose you are sitting in a waiting room in an invitro fertilization bank. A mother passes out and is removed by ambulance, but she left her baby. The fire alarm goes off. You have a chance to save 100 fertilized eggs that are awaiting implant into a uterus, or you can save the baby. You can't do both.
You can compare the obvious answers with a child in danger that we would move heaven and earth to save. We don't consider a fertilized egg the equivalent of a born child.
Please provide evidence that it doesn't. And please, don't act as though you know when suffering begins. To make a law stating that at a certain point, let's say 3 months no pain is felt for all babies is silly. What about at 92 days... that's when pain is felt? It's ridiculous. These people act like they know. They don't. So, I'd prefer to err on the side of not sucking a baby into a vaccum or pulling it out and sticking a knife in it's head (partial birth abortion).
From The New England Journal of Medicine and Harvard Medical School:
"The neural pathways for pain may be traced from sensory receptors in the skin to sensory areas in the cerebral cortex... The timing of the thalamocortical connection is of crucial importance for cortical perception... neurons in the thalamus produce axons...These fibers then "wait" just below the neocortex... and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation... intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks"
Are you serious? Do you really think the Catholic church does nothing for the poor and abused? Whether you agree with them or not on many issues is one thing, to say they don't do anything for children is absolutely a full-fledged lie. Look at Catholic Charities, look at missionaries, look at the poor collections that come out of Catholic Churchs.
I'm not personally attacking you... I'm saying your take on this issue is not consistent whatsoever. You are assuming that if the law is revoked, babies will be left in dumpsters and mothers will die. Better yet, the sky will fall on us all. You crack me up. All that would change is less babies would die.
Nope. It's the equivalent of slavery. It won't be reversed because it's wrong.
The government would be protecting the right of that unborn child to live. That's all. The government would continue to protect that right... but that's all they need to do.
They do.
Congrats. You've successfully exposed yourself for what you are.... pro-abortion rights. It was funny how you started the thread and how you've finished it. Inconsistent.... just like your take on this issue.
I can't read on past your first comment which after previous posts is becoming your style. You might take a look in the mirror at your own principles when you have to alter what I say before you can formulate a response. I did not even come close to saying Catholics do nothing. I am sure they do very much work.. however their contribution to this massive problem is negligable. Today, the government in fact, protects the catholic church from having to help. If woment started leaving their hungry children at the doorstep of a church - they will be arrested for abandoning their children and the children are taken away.
Yes, on their huge agenda, there is a place for catholics to help needy children.. but it is wrong to charactorize that as though it was a solution. It is a drip in the ocean.
The neural pathways for pain may be traced from sensory receptors in the skin to sensory areas in the cerebral cortex
Hmmmm.... "may be". I hate to break it to you, but even if this was true... it's certainly not fact. The truth is there are arguments (and studies supporting these) on both sides for when pain is felt. But, neither side can factually know unless you they could feel what it feels like to an unborn child in a womb at said time and get sucked out by a vaccum.
As I said before, let's say the law states that no abortions after three-months are permitted,... who's to say that "unborn child in womb A" develops quicker than "unborn child in womb B"? Who's to say that it's possible that "unborn child in womb A" develops a hell of a lot quicker than the average? Who's to say he/she doesn't feel pain in under 3 months, where as (given this theoretical example) a number don't?
Even if it was true, that "on average" limited to no pain is felt up to 3 months, that's not saying you aren't causing pain for "a number" of these unborn children. Bottom line: legislating a "date" when it's OK and when it's not, is granting the "pro-life" side a moral victory because it shows the inconsistency of the opposition's stand point. If abortion really wasn't killing a life, the timing of it wouldn't be an issue.... you should be able to do it whenever... until the unborn child is born.
I can't read on past your first comment which after previous posts is becoming your style. You might take a look in the mirror at your own principles when you have to alter what I say before you can formulate a response. I did not even come close to saying Catholics do nothing. I am sure they do very much work.. however their contribution to this massive problem is negligable. Today, the government in fact, protects the catholic church from having to help. If woment started leaving their hungry children at the doorstep of a church - they will be arrested for abandoning their children and the children are taken away.
Yes, on their huge agenda, there is a place for catholics to help needy children.. but it is wrong to charactorize that as though it was a solution. It is a drip in the ocean.
I said it's part of the solution. You can't keep assuming nothing else works besides abortion, and act like you don't like it. There's alternatives,... ie adoption. The market for adoption abroad in this country is very very big.... Moreover, the waiting lines for adoption by prospective parents (even domestically) in aggregate (domestically and internationally) far outweighs the number of children. Therefore, if we could have these children adopted domestically rather than internationally and increase the rate at which the domestic adoption process occured, it could offset a large portion (if not all) of the annual abortion numbers (1.3 million).
The remainder could be cared for by religious institutions, until they are ready to support themselves. If you really want to throw the government in, fine, the government could also run foster homes.
Bottom line: The children benefit... why? Because they are alive due to a reverse of the abortion law. The adoptive parents benefit... why? Because they get the child they wanted (and get it at a faster rate). The government benefits.... why? how? They now have more future tax payers. Population growth is very very important (regardless of what people on here think) for supporting a progressive society (look to welfare in Europe for proof) and fueling aggregate demand.
The person seeking an abortion is the only person that doesn't necessarily benefit, off first glance because they have to go through the pregnancy. However, I personally think they do benefit personally. They don't have to live with regret/guilt that they put on themselves via abortion. They helped a family that desperately wanted a child. They allowed their child to live. All of this, IMHO, will actually be benefiical to them when they look back on it.
The person seeking an abortion is the only person that doesn't necessarily benefit, off first glance because they have to go through the pregnancy. However, I personally think they do benefit personally. They don't have to live with regret/guilt that they put on themselves via abortion. They helped a family that desperately wanted a child. They allowed their child to live. All of this, IMHO, will actually be benefiical to them when they look back on it.
But, that's my opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion, but what makes you think that women neccesarily feel regret or guilt about an abortion? I'm sure some DO, but not all and maybe not even the majority.
You are entitled to your opinion, but what makes you think that women neccesarily feel regret or guilt about an abortion? I'm sure some DO, but not all and maybe not even the majority.
I doubt there are many at all that don't experience a sense of loss.
I doubt there are many at all that don't experience a sense of loss.
You don't know that. No one does. Maybe it's your opinion that they should feel that. What about those that may feel relief, or nothing because they feel justified in their decision.
I said it's part of the solution. You can't keep assuming nothing else works besides abortion, and act like you don't like it. There's alternatives,... ie adoption. The market for adoption abroad in this country is very very big.... Moreover, the waiting lines for adoption by prospective parents (even domestically) in aggregate (domestically and internationally) far outweighs the number of children. Therefore, if we could have these children adopted domestically rather than internationally and increase the rate at which the domestic adoption process occured, it could offset a large portion (if not all) of the annual abortion numbers (1.3 million).
The remainder could be cared for by religious institutions, until they are ready to support themselves. If you really want to throw the government in, fine, the government could also run foster homes.
Bottom line: The children benefit... why? Because they are alive due to a reverse of the abortion law. The adoptive parents benefit... why? Because they get the child they wanted (and get it at a faster rate). The government benefits.... why? how? They now have more future tax payers. Population growth is very very important (regardless of what people on here think) for supporting a progressive society (look to welfare in Europe for proof) and fueling aggregate demand.
The person seeking an abortion is the only person that doesn't necessarily benefit, off first glance because they have to go through the pregnancy. However, I personally think they do benefit personally. They don't have to live with regret/guilt that they put on themselves via abortion. They helped a family that desperately wanted a child. They allowed their child to live. All of this, IMHO, will actually be benefiical to them when they look back on it.
But, that's my opinion.
again you are making my position up from thin air so you can respond. I never said anything close to "nothing else works besides abortion"... does background music play in your mind as you conjure thises things up.
I have said over and over that abortions are bad in my opinion. our efforts should be toward preventing unwanted pregnancy and toward education and help so that when they do occur, the parent will be ready and able to raise a child.
forcing women to raise children that do not want to is torture of both the woman and the child.
this is not a federal government issue.. this is a humanity issue. lets improve humanity - not sentence them. I raised a few children.. and made very few laws. Instead I informed and assisted and loved. they did the rest. My job was much more managable than 400 million americans.. and yet, my children were always the ones that know best how to handle their situations. Not me. And some how you know what is best for millions of americans... ???
You don't know that. No one does. Maybe it's your opinion that they should feel that. What about those that may feel relief, or nothing because they feel justified in their decision.
you can feel all of those: relief, and justified and a sense of loss
you are right, I don't know that.. but I know people, and can't imagine anyone would not feel a sense of loss.
You are entitled to your opinion, but what makes you think that women neccesarily feel regret or guilt about an abortion? I'm sure some DO, but not all and maybe not even the majority.
I believe that most do. That's my opinion. These women had (in my opinion) a living being inside of them. They most likely felt some sort of connection to him or her (in my opinion) or what he/she could be.
Comments
I say "so called pro-life" because I am as pro-life as anyone I have ever met. However, I do not support efforts to overturn a law that considers a womans pregnancy to be a personal matter. I am however sympathetic to those that feel 1.5 million abortions every year in America is a very sad thing. I believe there are many things that can be done with regards to this. I think simply making it illegal will only make things worse. That does not make me something other that "pro-life". I think in a much better world, that "choice" would very rarely be considered.
If you think that abortion is killing a life... and you think it's best to keep it legal... you are not only ridiculously inconsistent, you are not pro-life, my friend. You are also not protecting the rights of that "life". Think about it.
Everyone I know, on both sides of the debate, would admit that a pro-choice person, who thinks that abortion terminates a "life" is not consistent. I have a hell of a lot more respect for someone who says "it's not a life, therefore, I see no problem terminating the cells." That argument atleast makes sense.
I hope you're only referring to the people you know in person, because I'm pretty sure you know that there are people on this board - myself included - who disagree with you on this... as do plenty of other people you may not know.
Well, I don't agree with everyone you know. A pregnancy will generally result in a baby if not aborted. I don't think anyone can dispute that, not even everyone you know.
Now... How many abortions will outlawing abortions reduce? What are the consequences of this law? Will the totality of human suffering decrease? will the world be a bette place? There is a loss when someone choses abortion. There are millions of people unfit or unable or unwilling to raise children. What is the degree of suffering of a child left buckled to their high chair all day long - missing meals - beaten - left unsupervised - without proper health care - shaken - murdered - what is the total pain and suffering there? of the baby, and neighbors and friends....
I see that as similar to allowing a terminally ill patient or one in sever pain to be allowed to die peacefully. Aborting a pregnancy in the first trimester is generally accepted to produce very little pain if any.
Things are so bad that this seems a viable option.
If the government wishes to choose to force women to have babies, they better take on the whole responsibility - which included care of the pregnant mother throughout. and care of the child after. We know that is not possible.
the only real solution to unwanted pregnancies... in my opinion... is to do what can be done to avoid potentially unwanted pregnancies and to work to increase the percentage of pregnancies that do occur to be wanted.
It is my opinion, that a law against abortion will cause more human suffering than we are experiencing now - which is why I am against... Because I care for humans.. I am pro-life.
Please answer this,.... "do you advocate the outlawing of murder"?
Based on your posts on the issue, you are a very confused person on this issue IMHO. You lack consistency throughout. Calling yourself "pro-life" when you are clearly pro-choice or pro-legalized abortion is silly at best. But, I've been here for years, I know that you enjoy the abortion debate... that's why you start all of these abortion-related threads. IMHO it's kinda sad.
Outlawing abortions would certainly reduce the abortion rate.
The consequences would be less abortions.
Yes, the totality of human suffering would decrease because less would be sucked up into vaccums.
Yes, the world would be a better place because less people would be sucked up into vaccums and more people's rights would be protected.
There are millions of people unfit to raise children who have children. And there are millions of people who are who can't have them who would be great parents if those who would abort put them up for adoption. Moreover, we have laws to protect a child's welfare. To act as those on the margin who the law would affect, would treat their children like this only speaks negative to the behavior of those who are "pro-choice"... think about it.
I don't see the similarity at all. At the very least the ill patient or the one in severe pain had a say. You are completely assuming that the unborn don't want to live--look at the suicide rate for proof that you are completely wrong. But, yet you continue assuming over and over. You are assuming the people who would be affected by outlawing abortions, who would have had an abortion otherwise, would be terrible parents who beat their children also... which I also think is crazy.
I don't disagree with your premise, that people would have to step up. However, I don't think it's necessarily the government. The government is not the savior of all. They are simply there to protect rights. In this case, the right of the unborn. For instance, one of the largest advocates for the termination of the right to abortion is the Catholic Church. I think they should step up and I think they would... I think Christians would step up... I think pro-life Muslims would step up. I also think the government should regulate this though, to ensure good treatment. It is completely possible.
I do agree that work can be done to avoid unwanted pregnancies. However, I don't agree that it's the only "real" solution. That's extremely narrow-minded. You may not agree with the pro-life stance, but don't act like they don't have alternatives.
I don't think it's possible to cause more human suffering than legalized abortion - which is why I am against.... Because I care for humans (even the unborn).... I am pro-life.... you are pro-choice. But, continue to try to patronize. I'd love to have a video of your interaction with this young woman. Just remember: real-life is not a left-leaning rock band's message board. Saying that you are pro-life to this woman and than rattling off what you just did is not only ridiculous, it may seriously damage your current relationship by damaging this one because you will seem deranged. Think before you act. Is stating your dubious opinion really worth the damage it will inevitably cause?
um... too much here to address without intervention
but you say you think the Catholic church would step up? what are they waiting for? they will allow all the current suffering until this law changes?
I thought the world...Turns out the world thought me
This is exactly the stance I have. I don't support abortion, but making it illegal will not stop people from having abortions, and they will only be more dangerous than that which we have now. Hopefully technology and education can help our society move in a direction where people no longer find themselves in situations where they believe they need them.
Is that so? Would wishing murder upon someone fall into the right or wrong category:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=6021879&postcount=14
perhaps there is....but in THIS particular case, i disagree. no 'phiosophizing'....just truth. one person's opinion does not create 'fact.' abortion is not 'wrong' in the eyes of the law, nor in my eyes or many others either. and again, lying is by no means always wrong either. someone posted above about the holocaust and those who harbored/protected jews....lying every day to do so. so once again, not a clear-cut right/wrong scenario, and i would guess there are far less right/wrong or black/white scenarios than thoughts of hmmm....maybe, and all shades of grey, depending on circumstance. that's life. you want to disagree...so be it, but once again, doesn't make your opinion on it anymore 'right' than mine, and vice versa. perspective and context are key.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I think it's interesting that you don't ever answer any of the questions I posed, but you expect me to answer yours. You are simply looking to argue on the issue. Explains why you are trying to arm yourself for your meeting with this young lady. Very odd indeed.
Yep. I think they would. They are leading the charge to overturn the law. They aren't waiting for anything. They are doing their best to get the law overturned. What do you propose they should do further? Murder people who are conducting these abortions? That's exactly what they are against.... hence the term pro-life.
I am asking what the catholics are doing about the mountains of starving neglected abused children now? it has to get really bad before the law intervenes.. and there are loads of children now being neglected and abused everyday unreported.
and you did not answer my questions.. you use alot of personal attacks and conveniently ignore all the babies that will be born without medical care and left in dumpsters to die.. the abortions attempted by hackers .. leaving mothers killed as well as the babies.. and the increased number of neglected and abused children.
as this happens, if one day by freak craziness, it does become illegal.. then the people of the US will unite and the law will be changed back
AND... If the government forces a woman to give birth to an unwanted child - then yes that child should be the respponsibility of the government...
Will the catholic church feed and shelter the hungry children today...because look out there would be millions knocking on the doors.
Are you serious? Do you really think the Catholic church does nothing for the poor and abused? Whether you agree with them or not on many issues is one thing, to say they don't do anything for children is absolutely a full-fledged lie. Look at Catholic Charities, look at missionaries, look at the poor collections that come out of Catholic Churchs.
I'm not personally attacking you... I'm saying your take on this issue is not consistent whatsoever. You are assuming that if the law is revoked, babies will be left in dumpsters and mothers will die. Better yet, the sky will fall on us all. You crack me up. All that would change is less babies would die.
Nope. It's the equivalent of slavery. It won't be reversed because it's wrong.
The government would be protecting the right of that unborn child to live. That's all. The government would continue to protect that right... but that's all they need to do.
They do.
Congrats. You've successfully exposed yourself for what you are.... pro-abortion rights. It was funny how you started the thread and how you've finished it. Inconsistent.... just like your take on this issue.
It doesn't take much moral clarity say lying is good in this situation. And it would take a simple, childlike mind to misconstrue that decision. We teach approximations as absolutes to children to give them a moral compass but part of growing up is integrating your moral foundation into an ambiguous reality.
EXCELLENT post.
A law against lying would make undercover detective work quite difficult.
Do you? Do you advocate the outlawing of ALL killing? ALL of it? Really? Euthenasia, war, death penalty, self defense, etc?
And yet you insist on participating in all these abortion threads (and telling others what they think). Guess that makes you pretty sad as well.
You and I have been over this before and I have provided evidence that outlawing abortion does not decrease the abortion rate. Just because you keep saying it does, doesn't make your statements any more true. If you want to be taken seriously about this subject, you should try to remember the facts.
Please provide evidence that suffering occurs when developing fetal tissue without a fully functioning central nervous system is sucked into a vacuum.
This statement is based neither in fact, nor in history.
I think it's wrong to kill period IMHO. So, yes, if there was a way to establish a universal law against all of the above and people would be on-board, I would be on-board. Unfortunately, there's not a way to do that because we don't have a universal government or even universal agreement on pretty much any issue.
Dude, no one asked you to jump in here. I don't start these threads. I gave the guy advice, which he asked for. I simply said don't start prying into this situation when you haven't met this young woman. He specifically asked for pro-life types to respond. I did. Yet, now, here I am.... responding to you. Why? I have no idea.
There's no factual way to provide evidence of a mythical scenario. Abortion is legal. The only way to prove that abortion rates would decline in America is to do a controlled study in America, which would involve making it illegal atleast in a certain population..... which isn't going to happen.
If it was illegal, just like murder, the rate would decrease... it's not very complicated.
Please provide evidence that it doesn't. And please, don't act as though you know when suffering begins. To make a law stating that at a certain point, let's say 3 months no pain is felt for all babies is silly. What about at 92 days... that's when pain is felt? It's ridiculous. These people act like they know. They don't. So, I'd prefer to err on the side of not sucking a baby into a vaccum or pulling it out and sticking a knife in it's head (partial birth abortion).
It can be difficult discussing this with those convinced that there is a mass slaughter going on. When you are being accused of supporting mass murder it can be irritating.
Taking some examples to an extreme can help us recognize the differences. We can imagine some scenarios to help us determine whether a fertilized egg is the equivalent of a born child. I've brought these up on this board before.
When a woman misses taking her pill for a day but has sex, she often takes two the next morning to catch up. This may cause a fertilized egg not to attach. Should we charge her with a crime?
Some women have a hormonal imbalance. Low progesterone may cause a fertilized egg not to attach to the uterus. Should we not allow them to have sex since they may endanger any fertilized eggs?
Suppose you are sitting in a waiting room in an invitro fertilization bank. A mother passes out and is removed by ambulance, but she left her baby. The fire alarm goes off. You have a chance to save 100 fertilized eggs that are awaiting implant into a uterus, or you can save the baby. You can't do both.
You can compare the obvious answers with a child in danger that we would move heaven and earth to save. We don't consider a fertilized egg the equivalent of a born child.
From The New England Journal of Medicine and Harvard Medical School:
"The neural pathways for pain may be traced from sensory receptors in the skin to sensory areas in the cerebral cortex... The timing of the thalamocortical connection is of crucial importance for cortical perception... neurons in the thalamus produce axons...These fibers then "wait" just below the neocortex... and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation... intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks"
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/
I can't read on past your first comment which after previous posts is becoming your style. You might take a look in the mirror at your own principles when you have to alter what I say before you can formulate a response. I did not even come close to saying Catholics do nothing. I am sure they do very much work.. however their contribution to this massive problem is negligable. Today, the government in fact, protects the catholic church from having to help. If woment started leaving their hungry children at the doorstep of a church - they will be arrested for abandoning their children and the children are taken away.
Yes, on their huge agenda, there is a place for catholics to help needy children.. but it is wrong to charactorize that as though it was a solution. It is a drip in the ocean.
Hmmmm.... "may be". I hate to break it to you, but even if this was true... it's certainly not fact. The truth is there are arguments (and studies supporting these) on both sides for when pain is felt. But, neither side can factually know unless you they could feel what it feels like to an unborn child in a womb at said time and get sucked out by a vaccum.
As I said before, let's say the law states that no abortions after three-months are permitted,... who's to say that "unborn child in womb A" develops quicker than "unborn child in womb B"? Who's to say that it's possible that "unborn child in womb A" develops a hell of a lot quicker than the average? Who's to say he/she doesn't feel pain in under 3 months, where as (given this theoretical example) a number don't?
Even if it was true, that "on average" limited to no pain is felt up to 3 months, that's not saying you aren't causing pain for "a number" of these unborn children. Bottom line: legislating a "date" when it's OK and when it's not, is granting the "pro-life" side a moral victory because it shows the inconsistency of the opposition's stand point. If abortion really wasn't killing a life, the timing of it wouldn't be an issue.... you should be able to do it whenever... until the unborn child is born.
I said it's part of the solution. You can't keep assuming nothing else works besides abortion, and act like you don't like it. There's alternatives,... ie adoption. The market for adoption abroad in this country is very very big.... Moreover, the waiting lines for adoption by prospective parents (even domestically) in aggregate (domestically and internationally) far outweighs the number of children. Therefore, if we could have these children adopted domestically rather than internationally and increase the rate at which the domestic adoption process occured, it could offset a large portion (if not all) of the annual abortion numbers (1.3 million).
The remainder could be cared for by religious institutions, until they are ready to support themselves. If you really want to throw the government in, fine, the government could also run foster homes.
Bottom line: The children benefit... why? Because they are alive due to a reverse of the abortion law. The adoptive parents benefit... why? Because they get the child they wanted (and get it at a faster rate). The government benefits.... why? how? They now have more future tax payers. Population growth is very very important (regardless of what people on here think) for supporting a progressive society (look to welfare in Europe for proof) and fueling aggregate demand.
The person seeking an abortion is the only person that doesn't necessarily benefit, off first glance because they have to go through the pregnancy. However, I personally think they do benefit personally. They don't have to live with regret/guilt that they put on themselves via abortion. They helped a family that desperately wanted a child. They allowed their child to live. All of this, IMHO, will actually be benefiical to them when they look back on it.
But, that's my opinion.
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
I doubt there are many at all that don't experience a sense of loss.
Wembley 18/06/07
If there was a reason, it was you.
O2 Arena 18/09/09
again you are making my position up from thin air so you can respond. I never said anything close to "nothing else works besides abortion"... does background music play in your mind as you conjure thises things up.
I have said over and over that abortions are bad in my opinion. our efforts should be toward preventing unwanted pregnancy and toward education and help so that when they do occur, the parent will be ready and able to raise a child.
forcing women to raise children that do not want to is torture of both the woman and the child.
this is not a federal government issue.. this is a humanity issue. lets improve humanity - not sentence them. I raised a few children.. and made very few laws. Instead I informed and assisted and loved. they did the rest. My job was much more managable than 400 million americans.. and yet, my children were always the ones that know best how to handle their situations. Not me. And some how you know what is best for millions of americans... ???
you can feel all of those: relief, and justified and a sense of loss
you are right, I don't know that.. but I know people, and can't imagine anyone would not feel a sense of loss.
I believe that most do. That's my opinion. These women had (in my opinion) a living being inside of them. They most likely felt some sort of connection to him or her (in my opinion) or what he/she could be.