• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A simple Yes or No with a short explanation.

Status
Not open for further replies.

WKL815

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
116
Reaction score
5
heyjoe?

What do you think would happen if some law enforcement agency brought on criminal charges as a penalty for something those (activist) Supreme Court judges thought ought not be penalized as per judicial opinion?

Here's what would happen:

The alleged criminal would hire a lawyer or one would be be appointed and they would be arraigned and have a trial which would then come to an outcome. Let's say the lower court judge didn't believe the Supreme Court had it right so he says to the defendant, "go to jail!". The defendant and attorney say, "nuh, uh!" and appeal. And so on and so forth until you get back to the Supreme Court who is the final judgment.

Do you see how it's all intertwined?

So again, as I stated in my previous post, you are right that other parts of the governing bodies have the authority to make laws that would alter how the judges could interpret laws in the future.

And to that, I again say shame on the American public for not yet having elected those representatives who would either strengthen the laws or appoint judges to the highest court in the land who would follow the laws as written.

Now, you can certainly believe that it is not a shame those judges haven't yet been appointed, but then we are back to square one on this debate where we try to convince each other the legality and/or morality of abortion. See?
 
Last edited:

Mr.America

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2004
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Location
Maryland
No, abortion is homicide. If I was to as the average liberal this question, they would probably say yes because the fetus is "just a mass of cell tissue". And to this statement I would reply "Even If this is true, but its not, wouldn't this 'fetus' grow into a person. Couldn't this life have existed? Couldn't this life become our future president or the surgant that would save thousands of lives? This 'fetus' could determine the future or the way we live our lives. I believe in god and I think he would want you to have your child for a reason. This child is your destiny."
 
Last edited:

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
heyjoeo said:
Yes. Woman's choice.

If the life of the woman is threatened, rape cases, or if the life of the baby will be sub-par if it is born into the home. Also, if the government bans it, abortions will still happen, and they will most likely be brutal, it would not be pragmatic to try to prevent them.

Given the state of the art obstetrics and pre-natal care women receive, the death of a mother in childbirth is extremely rare. The vast majority of rapes, and incidents of incest, do not result in pregnancy. Certainly, all of these cases, combined, do not total one hundred thousand a year.

Abortions in the US average over one million a year. What is the reason for the other nine hundred thousand abortions?

There are two reasons, and only two reasons. The one is to avoid embarrassment. The other is because the pregnancy has occurred at an inconvenient time.

Are these valid reasons for terminating the life of a child in the womb?
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Did you not read? I also clearly stated that it should not be used as a "way out" method in one of my posts. You cannot blanketly ban abortions. It just wouldn't work. But you should require some kind of process to determine whether or not an individual can or cannot have an abortion. I'm not going to write the bill, wayyyy too lazy.
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
heyjoeo said:
Did you not read? I also clearly stated that it should not be used as a "way out" method in one of my posts. You cannot blanketly ban abortions. It just wouldn't work. But you should require some kind of process to determine whether or not an individual can or cannot have an abortion. I'm not going to write the bill, wayyyy too lazy.
What would your idea for that process be?

I'll just say this: having abortions available with little or no restrictions, as it is now, makes its use as a "way out" too tempting for many.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes and no...heh heh heh.

Many Americans (including me) would support a ban on abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother, if women in America, esp. poor women, were given easy access to good health care, secular (if desired) reproductive advice and birth control. Oh, but wait, birth control is ungodly too, right? Sheesh....

I've said it a million times, making rules against societal ills will never pave a gilded road to heaven....the "devil" is in the details folks and the "devil" is desperation. Abortion is an act of desperation, not rebellion or sacrilege. And the realities facing many women in America today is enough to challenge anyone's faith and their choices don't deserve to be sloughed off as selfish by those who have never walked a mile in their shoes.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Read on pages 3-4 for my opinion on this argument. I'm way to lazy to retype it.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
mixedmedia said:
Yes and no...heh heh heh.

Many Americans (including me) would support a ban on abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother, if women in America, esp. poor women, were given easy access to good health care, secular (if desired) reproductive advice and birth control. Oh, but wait, birth control is ungodly too, right? Sheesh....

QUOTE]



Cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life constitute a miniscule percentage of abortion on demand. The two chief reasons are these:

To avoid the embarrassment of an out of wedlock childbirth.
The timing of the pregnancy is inconvenient.

The following figures were extracted from this website:

http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/vital_statistics/1998/toc.htm

It shows data for the state of New York for the year 1998.

392,435 pregnancies produced the following results:

Live births: 257,748
Induced abortions: 134,687

Percentage live: 66
Percentage aborted: 34

Ratio: 1.9 live to 1 aborted


This tells me that for every two children born, there is one who is aborted. Out of three kids in the womb, one is going to die.

Does anyone believe that this is what was intended by those who argued so passionately that Roe v Wade was necessary for the sake of rape and incest victims and mothers in danger of death from the complications of childbirth?

Among the most primitive tribes in the jungles of Africa and South America, the odds of being born alive are much, much greater than they are in the greatest nation on earth.

No expectant mother need go without pre-natal or post-natal care.

A google search on the words pre-natal healthcare returned more than ten thousand pages of hits. Among these are many from sources that provide low income persons with care and what they need to know and do in order to have a successful pregnancy.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Fantasea quote:
Cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life constitute a miniscule percentage of abortion on demand. The two chief reasons are these:
To avoid the embarrassment of an out of wedlock childbirth.
The timing of the pregnancy is inconvenient
.

I didn't say that cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother's life are the most common reasons women have abortions. I still believe they should be considered valid reasons for women to have them.

Now if you think that many women are embarrassed to have children out of wedlock you need to join us here in the 21st century. You can replace that embarrassment with: FEAR.
I would agree that many abortions are performed because the timing is inconvenient. But we're talking about people's lives here and I think it's very arrogant for anyone to assume that they know the content of someone's character and the selfishness of their motives because they choose an abortion. They just don't feel the same way as you about it.

Fantasea quote:
The following figures were extracted from this website:
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/vital_statistics/1998/toc.htm
It shows data for the state of New York for the year 1998.
392,435 pregnancies produced the following results:
Live births: 257,748
Induced abortions: 134,687
Percentage live: 66
Percentage aborted: 34
Ratio: 1.9 live to 1 aborted
This tells me that for every two children born, there is one who is aborted. Out of three kids in the womb, one is going to die.
Does anyone believe that this is what was intended by those who argued so passionately that Roe v Wade was necessary for the sake of rape and incest victims and mothers in danger of death from the complications of childbirth?
Among the most primitive tribes in the jungles of Africa and South America, the odds of being born alive are much, much greater than they are in the greatest nation on earth.


I agree that there are too many abortions performed in America and that abortion is fundamentally not a procedure that one should partake of casually. And I am sure that there are women that do. But just as in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother, those cases are rare. Most women have abortions because they don't see how they can manage it. I would have much more respect for the Christian movement against abortion if I saw more respect coming out of it towards women.

Fantasea quote:
No expectant mother need go without pre-natal or post-natal care.

A google search on the words pre-natal healthcare returned more than ten thousand pages of hits. Among these are many from sources that provide low income persons with care and what they need to know and do in order to have a successful pregnancy.


And how many of those 10,000 are Christian-based organizations, Fantasea? I would wager nearly all of them. Sorry but most of us outside of the "loop" prefer to keep our distance. Why would a woman who believes in a woman's right to abortion go to an organization that is centered around a distinct compulsion to deny women that right?

You didn't address the issue of birth control. How do you feel about free birth control on demand? How about for our teens? You know, it's very strange, but I have lived in this small, very religious community for about two years. I came from a much bigger community and I notice here that there are ALOT of girls with babies. Many more than in the urban area I used to live in. My daughters in the high school here have commented upon it, too. They see it everyday: they see girls who either have children or are having sex regularly. If these girls are going to be having sex, wouldn't it be prudent to supply them with birth control to avoid a possible abortion....or worse.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
mixedmedia,

I agree with a lot of you've said. I'm really against abortion in most cases. If you look around on here I'm sure you can find posts where I've stated as much. I really believe that with good information and education we can reduce the number of abortions in this country. If you look at abortion rates during the Clinton years they went down. I think this was due to solid educational programs that included birth control and sex ed. I'm amazed that so many on the "right" side of this issue seem to push for lack of education and information. This drive to supply teens with abstinence only educational programs is completely foolish in my mind. Now we're finding that some of those programs are not only suppling teens with limited information but some of what's being put forth is inaccurate. How is it logical to expect our youth to make logical decisions when we're suppling them misinformation? I think we owe them more than that.

On the issue of the effects of abortion on an individual. I've heard some argue that having an abortion has a negitive effect on the woman. I used to work with a lady who, by her own admission, had had two abortions in her teens, why she would volunteer this info? I have no idea. But she was a complete "Nut Job" (that's a technical term I learned in college) and her social skills were awful. When I met her she was in her early 40's and had been divorced 5 times, 4 times from the same guy. She seemed to spend a large portion of her day speaking ill of others and basically making as many people as miserable as she could. My question was and is- Is she a nut job because she had two abortions? Or did she have two abortions because she's a nut job?
 
Last edited:

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Mixedmedia wrote:

I would agree that many abortions are performed because the timing is inconvenient. But we're talking about people's lives here and I think it's very arrogant for anyone to assume that they know the content of someone's character and the selfishness of their motives because they choose an abortion. They just don't feel the same way as you about it.

You say, “…. we’re talking about people’s lives here …” and I agree with you. However, each abortion involves two lives, doesn’t it? One that survives, one that does not.

In an earlier part of your post, you wrote, “…you need to join us here in the 21st century.” I would like to extend the same invitation to all those who continue to adhere to the 1973 thinking of Justice Harry Blackmun, who, in writing the Roe v Wade decision included these words in Section IX B:

“Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Mr. Justice Blackmun was making a simple observation. He was saying that, since this court, in 1973, doesn’t don’t know the calendar of events that take place in the womb, we will pass the buck to some future court that will have the understanding that this court lacks.

Now, here in the 21st century, what do we understand, as a result of research in science, obstetrics, and genetic research?
• Day 1 - conception takes place.
• 7 days - tiny human implants in mother’s uterus.
• 10 days - mother’s menses stop.
• 18 days - heart begins to beat.
• 21 days - pumps own blood through separate closed circulatory system with own blood type.
• 28 days - eye, ear and respiratory system begin to form.
• 42 days - brain waves recorded, skeleton complete, reflexes present.
• 7 weeks - thumbsucking.
• 8 weeks - all body systems present.
• 9 weeks - squints, swallows, moves tongue, makes fist.
• 11 weeks - spontaneous breathing movements, has fingernails, all body systems working.
• 12 weeks - weighs one ounce.
• 16 weeks - genital organs clearly differentiated, grasps with hands, swims, kicks, turns, somersaults, (still not felt by the mother.)
• 18 weeks - vocal cords work – can cry.
• 20 weeks - has hair on head, weighs one pound, 12 inches long.
• 23 weeks - 15% chance of viability outside of womb if birth premature.*
• 24 weeks - 56% of babies survive premature birth.*
• 25 weeks - 79% of babies survive premature birth.*
(*Source: M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal
of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.)

Genetic research has enabled doctors to work back to the point where the 23 chromosomes from the sperm unite with the 23 chromosomes from the egg to form a new life which is unique. This new life is different from that of both parents and entirely separate from that of the mother whose role in the development of the child will continue unchanged for some years. From the moment of conception the role of the mother is to furnish shelter, nourishment, and protection to the child until such time as the child has grown to point of self-sufficiency. This is an indeterminate period. The first nine months are pre-natal, but the post-natal period runs into many years.

Ultra-sound motion images, now a routine part of pre-natal care, clearly show the infant in real time living color doing all of the things inside the womb that he will be doing outside the womb a few months hence. Few who are present at one of these sessions are able to hold back the tears. None can deny that they are watching the antics of a living human child.
You say that those who opt for abortion don’t feel the same about abortion as I do. I question the validity of that premise. It is not at all a matter of feelings. In an enlightened society, whether a human lives or dies can never be a matter of feelings.

Please be mindful that everything I have written is factual and completely secular. The question of abortion should never be discussed on religious grounds. And, it doesn’t have to be. There are indisputable sufficient scientific, medical, and genetic grounds which make the case that abortion takes a human life.

The sole question remaining is whether one should have the power to take the life of the human occupant of a womb.

However that is no longer an ethical question. It has become a question of money -- and everyone knows what happens when big money is at stake. The sheer economics of the industry which has grown since 1973 demands that a steady stream of ‘patients’ be fed to the cash cow that provides many jobs, sells much equipment, rents much space, and has created many millionaires.

Since economics and politics go hand in hand, it is understandable that the sizable political contributions flowing from the proponents of the status quo have rendered their targeted political supporters deaf, dumb, and blind to the truth.

I acknowledge that there are additional points in your post which I have not yet addressed. I believe that it’s better to settle this point first:

Abortion takes a human life. There are no medical or scientific facts that justify the nearly 50 million abortions which have occurred in the US since Roe v Wade.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Pacridge said:
mixedmedia,

I agree with a lot of you've said. I'm really against abortion in most cases. If you look around on here I'm sure you can find posts where I've stated as much. I really believe that with good information and education we can reduce the number of abortions in this country. If you look at abortion rates during the Clinton years they went down. I think this was due to solid educational programs that included birth control and sex ed. I'm amazed that so many on the "right" side of this issue seem to push for lack of education and information. This drive to supply teens with abstinence only educational programs is completely foolish in my mind. Now we're finding that some of those programs are not only suppling teens with limited information but some of what's being put forth is inaccurate. How is it logical to expect our youth to make logical decisions when we're suppling them misinformation? I think we owe them more than that.

On the issue of the effects of abortion on an individual. I've heard some argue that having an abortion has a negitive effect on the woman. I used to work with a lady who, by her own admission, had had two abortions in her teens, why she would volunteer this info? I have no idea. But she was a complete "Nut Job" (that's a technical term I learned in college) and her social skills were awful. When I met her she was in her early 40's and had been divorced 5 times, 4 times from the same guy. She seemed to spend a large portion of her day speaking ill of others and basically making as many people as miserable as she could. My question was and is- Is she a nut job because she had two abortions? Or did she have two abortions because she's a nut job?
The Mental Health Community has made the discovery of a female disorder that has been burgeoning since 1973. The name given to it is Post Abortion Stress Syndrome and its acronym is PASS.

This has proven to be another 'teat' on the cash cow created by the abortion industry. It seems that many practitioners are pleasantly surprised by the parade of afflicted middle aged women who are booking couch time at top rates. It's covered by insurance, too.

This is causing many on the 'pro' side to wonder whether, as they have long believed, abortion is truly victimless.

If you know anyone in the mental health field, ask about it.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Fantasea said:
The Mental Health Community has made the discovery of a female disorder that has been burgeoning since 1973. The name given to it is Post Abortion Stress Syndrome and its acronym is PASS.

This has proven to be another 'teat' on the cash cow created by the abortion industry. It seems that many practitioners are pleasantly surprised by the parade of afflicted middle aged women who are booking couch time at top rates. It's covered by insurance, too.

This is causing many on the 'pro' side to wonder whether, as they have long believed, abortion is truly victimless.

If you know anyone in the mental health field, ask about it.
I took a lot of Psy. and Soc. in college. Even ran a Sex Offender Treatment group for about 6 years for the State of Oregon. So I have some background in mental health. I've read about PASS before. I never believed abortion was victimless. But I don't have a lot of faith in the mental health industry as a whole. Spending a good portion of your day asking people "how do you feel about that?" and "how does that make you feel" doesn't impress me much.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Pacridge said:
I took a lot of Psy. and Soc. in college. Even ran a Sex Offender Treatment group for about 6 years for the State of Oregon. So I have some background in mental health. I've read about PASS before. I never believed abortion was victimless. But I don't have a lot of faith in the mental health industry as a whole. Spending a good portion of your day asking people "how do you feel about that?" and "how does that make you feel" doesn't impress me much.

I don't wish to be disrespectful, however, your unwillingness to recognize an accepted mental health condition does not, in the least, diminish its impact upon the populace.

As an aside, it is sad that many of the problems associated with the 'abortion question' are not solved because so many of its proponents are in denial, especially in light of the many advances in the fields of science, obstetrics, and genetics.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Fantasea said:
I don't wish to be disrespectful, however, your unwillingness to recognize an accepted mental health condition does not, in the least, diminish its impact upon the populace.

As an aside, it is sad that many of the problems associated with the 'abortion question' are not solved because so many of its proponents are in denial, especially in light of the many advances in the fields of science, obstetrics, and genetics.
How exactly am I not recognizing the condition? I thought I was simply expressing a general distaste for the mental health industry.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
Pacridge said:
How exactly am I not recognizing the condition? I thought I was simply expressing a general distaste for the mental health industry.
If I did not correctly understand the thought you intended to express, then one of us erred.

If it was I, then I apologize.

You acknowledge the existence of Post Abortion Sress Syndrome but you have not commented on it. Would you care to do so?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Fantasea said:
If I did not correctly understand the thought you intended to express, then one of us erred.

If it was I, then I apologize.

You acknowledge the existence of Post Abortion Sress Syndrome but you have not commented on it. Would you care to do so?
Well I'm not an expert on the issue but I think it could be a valid mental health concern. I don't think it's too odd to think having an abortion could be harmful to ones mental well being.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hi,Fantasea.
Thank you for your post. I believe in the sincerity and strength of your convictions and can honestly say that I don't stand in total disagreement with you. The main point I struggle with on the abortion issue is simply a matter of priorities. There is so much want and suffering among the peoples that are already here on the planet with us right now. They take precedence in my mind. They are who I lay awake over, grieve for and commit myself to speaking for. Thus, I do respect your need to speak your heart.
I feel very strongly about everyone's right to live their lives fully and happily and among many in the pro-life community I see a casual attitude towards the afflictions of their fellow man, the born among us. A lot of disregard, a sense of people "getting what they deserve," even outright hateful feelings and racism. And I don't say that off the cuff, I know personally people of very devoted faith who feel these ways. I am not, by any means, saying that you are this way, Fantasea. I have seen no evidence of it in your posts.
I agree that abortion is bad, it is not something our society should be proud, but neither is capital punishment in my opinion. Yet, there it is, and there are those who speak just as strongly in defense in that form of justice as there are who speak against abortion. Many of them being the same person.
How about the Quakers? I can relate to the Quakers and other progressive Christians, they oppose not only abortion but also war and the death penalty. That, to me, is a logical approach that I can comfortably reside with.
I'm rambling on and on, sorry....if you can't make out what I'm saying, please let me know.
Take care, Fantasea
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
mixedmedia said:
but neither is capital punishment in my opinion. Yet, there it is, and there are those who speak just as strongly in defense in that form of justice as there are who speak against abortion. Many of them being the same person.
Killing is wrong- therefore if you kill someone we will kill you.:screwy

I used to work with a guy who one time told me "If those doctors weren't killing babies we wouldn't kill the doctors." Now who could argue with that logic?
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,178
Reaction score
6,283
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
mixedmedia said:
Hi,Fantasea.
There is so much want and suffering among the peoples that are already here on the planet with us right now. They take precedence in my mind. They are who I lay awake over, grieve for and commit myself to speaking for.
This is where we disagree mixedmedia. I believe that some higher power LET me be here on earth for the time that I am. The children take presidence. Taking that gift of life away from a child is selfish and greedy. Fixing the needs for millions of people whom already have actually had a chance to have sex, talk, walk, breath, touch, whistle, or even hear music is far less as important as the ones who have not been able to receive this gift called life.

On the other hand, say there is no god, and it were evolution - the same applies. That soul or whatever it is got dealt a royal straigh in the game of life. Who are we to say that the game doesn't count to them? We are not the dealers.

Think about it.
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
mixedmedia said:
Hi,Fantasea.
Thank you for your post. I believe in the sincerity and strength of your convictions and can honestly say that I don't stand in total disagreement with you. The main point I struggle with on the abortion issue is simply a matter of priorities. There is so much want and suffering among the peoples that are already here on the planet with us right now. They take precedence in my mind. They are who I lay awake over, grieve for and commit myself to speaking for. Thus, I do respect your need to speak your heart.
I feel very strongly about everyone's right to live their lives fully and happily and among many in the pro-life community I see a casual attitude towards the afflictions of their fellow man, the born among us. A lot of disregard, a sense of people "getting what they deserve," even outright hateful feelings and racism. And I don't say that off the cuff, I know personally people of very devoted faith who feel these ways. I am not, by any means, saying that you are this way, Fantasea. I have seen no evidence of it in your posts.
I agree that abortion is bad, it is not something our society should be proud, but neither is capital punishment in my opinion. Yet, there it is, and there are those who speak just as strongly in defense in that form of justice as there are who speak against abortion. Many of them being the same person.
How about the Quakers? I can relate to the Quakers and other progressive Christians, they oppose not only abortion but also war and the death penalty. That, to me, is a logical approach that I can comfortably reside with.
I'm rambling on and on, sorry....if you can't make out what I'm saying, please let me know.
Take care, Fantasea
I’m not a fan of capital punishment. Life sentences without parole are OK with me.

As I see it, attempting to discern what is right and what is wrong by looking at the actions of persons one may know is an exercise in futility. In a nation of nearly 300 million, what portion can even the most gregarious among us know? Decisions based upon anecdotes are always faulty. ‘My sister-in-law’s niece was a good girl, but she needed an abortion.’ ‘My next door neighbor’s aunt was almost 40 and already had three kids.’ ‘My co-worker couldn’t stop working so the baby had to go.’

Everybody has a story. The trouble is not with the individual stories as much as it is with the total. How many are aware that in its peak year, there were nearly 2 million ‘legal’ abortions in the US.

Sometimes, large numbers do not register with us as well as smaller numbers. A little math tells us that if we consider a typical 40 hour work week, it looked like this:

38,462 each week; 7,692 each day; 961 each hour; 16 each minute

Since Roe v Wade threw open the door in 1973, there have been nearly 50 million abortions in the US. Does anyone, in their wildest dreams, believe that the proponents of legalized abortion in 1973 expected that in just 30 years, the total number of abortions would equal the number total of the 2003 total population of the following list of states plus the District of Columbia?

Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming

This is not a religious thing. It amounts to genocide against the most defenseless among us.

There is nothing but emotion that can be used to justify abortion. Is emotion sufficient justification to terminate 50 million human lives? I don’t believe so. Anyone who disagrees is free to furnish medical, scientific, or genetic factual information that justifies 50 million abortions.

How long did it take to read this? How many lives does that equal?
 

Fantasea

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
3,692
Reaction score
8
mixedmedia said:
Hi,Fantasea.
Thank you for your post. I believe in the sincerity and strength of your convictions and can honestly say that I don't stand in total disagreement with you. The main point I struggle with on the abortion issue is simply a matter of priorities. There is so much want and suffering among the peoples that are already here on the planet with us right now. They take precedence in my mind. They are who I lay awake over, grieve for and commit myself to speaking for. Thus, I do respect your need to speak your heart.
I feel very strongly about everyone's right to live their lives fully and happily and among many in the pro-life community I see a casual attitude towards the afflictions of their fellow man, the born among us. A lot of disregard, a sense of people "getting what they deserve," even outright hateful feelings and racism. And I don't say that off the cuff, I know personally people of very devoted faith who feel these ways. I am not, by any means, saying that you are this way, Fantasea. I have seen no evidence of it in your posts.
I agree that abortion is bad, it is not something our society should be proud, but neither is capital punishment in my opinion. Yet, there it is, and there are those who speak just as strongly in defense in that form of justice as there are who speak against abortion. Many of them being the same person.
How about the Quakers? I can relate to the Quakers and other progressive Christians, they oppose not only abortion but also war and the death penalty. That, to me, is a logical approach that I can comfortably reside with.
I'm rambling on and on, sorry....if you can't make out what I'm saying, please let me know.
Take care, Fantasea
I’m not a fan of capital punishment. Life sentences without parole are OK with me.

As I see it, attempting to discern what is right and what is wrong by looking at the actions of persons one may know is an exercise in futility. In a nation of nearly 300 million, what portion can even the most gregarious among us know? Decisions based upon anecdotes are always faulty. ‘My sister-in-law’s niece was a good girl, but she needed an abortion.’ ‘My next door neighbor’s aunt was almost 40 and already had three kids.’ ‘My co-worker couldn’t stop working so the baby had to go.’

Everybody has a story. The trouble is not with the individual stories as much as it is with the total. How many are aware that in its peak year, there were nearly 2 million ‘legal’ abortions in the US.

Sometimes, large numbers do not register with us as well as smaller numbers. A little math tells us that if we consider a typical 40 hour work week, it looked like this:

38,462 each week; 7,692 each day; 961 each hour; 16 each minute


Since Roe v Wade threw open the door in 1973, there have been nearly 50 million abortions in the US. Does anyone, in their wildest dreams, believe that the proponents of legalized abortion in 1973 expected that in just 30 years, the total number of abortions would equal the number total of the 2003 total population of the following list of states plus the District of Columbia?

Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming

This is not a religious thing. It amounts to genocide against the most defenseless among us.

There is nothing but emotion that can be used to justify abortion. Is emotion sufficient justification to terminate 50 million human lives? I don’t believe so. Anyone who disagrees is free to furnish medical, scientific, or genetic fact that justifies 50 million abortions.
How long did it take to read this? How many lives does that equal?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Fantasea said:
There is nothing but emotion that can be used to justify abortion. Is emotion sufficient justification to terminate 50 million human lives? I don’t believe so. Anyone who disagrees is free to furnish medical, scientific, or genetic fact that justifies 50 million abortions.
How long did it take to read this? How many lives does that equal?
I'm no fan of abortion- but how does emotion justify abortion?

Doesn't the arguement basically fall to when you believe life begins? From what I can see you have some saying life begins at conception and others who seem to think it begins at birth. Isn't that the real arguement here? And if life begins prior to birth- what about birth control? Is that wrong as well?
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
vauge said:
This is where we disagree mixedmedia. I believe that some higher power LET me be here on earth for the time that I am. The children take presidence. Taking that gift of life away from a child is selfish and greedy. Fixing the needs for millions of people whom already have actually had a chance to have sex, talk, walk, breath, touch, whistle, or even hear music is far less as important as the ones who have not been able to receive this gift called life.

On the other hand, say there is no god, and it were evolution - the same applies. That soul or whatever it is got dealt a royal straigh in the game of life. Who are we to say that the game doesn't count to them? We are not the dealers.

Think about it.
I'll think about it, vauge, but the fact simply is we don't share the same truth. I feel more strongly about the sentient among us and your religious belief can't change that.

I will say again that I think abortion is fundamentally bad - a sign of an ill society. It is not something that should be promoted or even necessarily condoned. Yet, it is here with us and we need to find a constructive, practical and compassionate way to reduce the number of them. The free and comprehensive distribution of birth control (thanks for bringing that up again, Pacridge) to those who don't currently have easy access (such as teens and those not receiving regular healthcare) should be paramount in our bringing the number of abortions under control. Of course, if you have religious objections to birth control as well, then I would like to know how you expect to reasonably solve this problem. Simply outlaw abortion so that those who are desperate enough (ie, teens and the poor) will risk their lives getting illegal abortions? While their wealthier sisters fly to Canada? One of the real problems I have with the Christian right these days and their take on social policy is that they seem to believe that if they simply make a bunch of rules that people must follow they are going to cure the societal ills that plague them so. It should be so apparent that rules are not enough to keep a society healthy and functioning. Look at the laws on drug use...look at the 10 commandments even. Laws against unhealthy behavior have never been particularly successful in preventing their occurrence and we need to try something new.

Of all of the abortions performed since Roe vs. Wade I believe that the larger part of them were performed for compelling reasons that involved much deliberation on the part of the women who received them. Saying that the choice is simply greedy and selfish is a gross over-simplification and distinctly lacking in compassion.

Blunt question: does original sin have anything to do with the prevalence among many Christians to feel much more strongly about unborn lives than the born?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
mixedmedia said:
I'll think about it, vauge, but the fact simply is we don't share the same truth. I feel more strongly about the sentient among us and your religious belief can't change that.

I will say again that I think abortion is fundamentally bad - a sign of an ill society. It is not something that should be promoted or even necessarily condoned. Yet, it is here with us and we need to find a constructive, practical and compassionate way to reduce the number of them. The free and comprehensive distribution of birth control (thanks for bringing that up again, Pacridge) to those who don't currently have easy access (such as teens and those not receiving regular healthcare) should be paramount in our bringing the number of abortions under control. Of course, if you have religious objections to birth control as well, then I would like to know how you expect to reasonably solve this problem. Simply outlaw abortion so that those who are desperate enough (ie, teens and the poor) will risk their lives getting illegal abortions? While their wealthier sisters fly to Canada? One of the real problems I have with the Christian right these days and their take on social policy is that they seem to believe that if they simply make a bunch of rules that people must follow they are going to cure the societal ills that plague them so. It should be so apparent that rules are not enough to keep a society healthy and functioning. Look at the laws on drug use...look at the 10 commandments even. Laws against unhealthy behavior have never been particularly successful in preventing their occurrence and we need to try something new.

Of all of the abortions performed since Roe vs. Wade I believe that the larger part of them were performed for compelling reasons that involved much deliberation on the part of the women who received them. Saying that the choice is simply greedy and selfish is a gross over-simplification and distinctly lacking in compassion.

Blunt question: does original sin have anything to do with the prevalence among many Christians to feel much more strongly about unborn lives than the born?
Absolutely. A lot of what you've just said is exactly why abortion rates went down during the Clinton years. Good education, you know programs that supply our youth correct information, instead of trying to teach abstinence only. Or just plain filling their heads with misinformation. Works to reduce the numbers. Some people are going to seek out abortions no matter what you do. But programs to reduce those numbers have been effective and we should be imbracing them rather than ignoring the facts.

Laws that have tried to regulate social behavior almost always fail.

And don't even get me started on the "War on Drugs."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom