Require man to make descision

[Fantasea]

Fantasea,

I personally feel that contraception is the real answer. However, I also feel that the only person who should decide if abortion is acceptable is the woman concerned.

Sometimes, when I'm trying to decide something, it helps if I can find some comparison which will help me understand the magnitude involved. To better understand the magnitude of abortion I chose American battlefield deaths. A little web surfing led me to a figure of less than two million, total, for all of the conflicts from the Revolution right up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, including both sides in the Civil War.

Since Roe v. Wade, just 32 years, there have been nearly fifty million legal abortions in the US.

So what does this tell me? Simply this. From 1776 to 2005, a period of 229 years: less than two million battlefield deaths. From 1973 to 2005, a period of 32 years: nearly fifty million infants deliberately killed. That's twenty five times as many.

I don't know at what point we should regard a fetus as being a life, and neither does anyone else. However, at conception we have a single cell, and for some time afterwards we have a tiny ball of undifferentiated cells. I do not believe this is a life.

I admire those who have the courage to answer any question, "I don't know." However, with the amount of information available to one who does a little web surfing, there is ample opportunity to find the answers to questions, if one is so inclined.

During the runup to Roe v. Wade, people of good conscience honestly didn't know the answer to the question, "Does life really begin at conception?" In fact, language reflecting this very point is contained in Section 9-B of the Roe v. Wade opinion written by Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote that the question should be decided at some future date when man's knowledge had advanced sufficiently.

Today, we have real-time motion pictures of babies cavorting in the womb. Have you ever been present at an ultra-sound scanning session? Amazing. Few can hold back the tears.

Inter -utero surgery to correct defects observed through scans is performed on infants who will not be born for several months.

'Preemies' whose birth weight was less than a can of Coke are now attending school.

Geneticists, working in the field of DNA research, state, unequivocally, that at the moment the 23 male chromosomes in the sperm unite with the 23 female chromosomes in the egg, a new and totally unique human life is concieved. This is the first in a number of stages through which every human passes seamlessly in the continuum to old age.

These are all advances in human knowledge since 1973.

To date, I have been unable to find any scientific, obstetric, or genetic proof to the contrary. I have repeatedly and unsuccessfully asked that anyone who can offer such fact to kindly do so.

And finally, the conditions I described apply to rich people, often fundamentalist Christians, who think they can speak out on abortion, but stay very silent when it comes to the gross inequalities in this world that affect people so terribly!

The question of abortion should never be argued on the basis of religion because opposing sides can never agree on a question of religious differences.

However, abortion is best discussed on purely factual grounds, as I have described above.

Statistics published by Planned Parenthood and others show that very few abortions performed involve rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

The prime reasons for abortion are to avoid the embarrassment of a pregnancy or because the baby will be an inconvenience.

You said, "I don't know ...". I have furnished an explanation that should help clear up the matter. The next question is whether one human should hold the power of life or death over another. What do you think?

As a PS - - Christians, as a group, contribute more in financial and human resources to aid those in need than any other religious group on the face of the earth.

 

[MeChMAN]

The prime reasons for abortion are to avoid the embarrassment of a pregnancy or because the baby will be an inconvenience.

Let me ask you have you ever raised a child on welfare? It's more than just an inconveniance. Most of these abortions are on teenagers who if they did raise the child would probably not have given the child enough attention. Or for that matter even raise a child financially. These improperly raised children turn into drug addicts and murderers, so ask yourself do you want dead fetuses or dead adults?

 

[Pacridge]

Let me ask you have you ever raised a child on welfare? It's more than just an inconveniance. Most of these abortions are on teenagers who if they did raise the child would probably not have given the child enough attention. Or for that matter even raise a child financially. These improperly raised children turn into drug addicts and murderers, so ask yourself do you want dead fetuses or dead adults?

Wow! I'm just kind of stunned after reading this. Maybe I'm just not reading it correctly. It almost sounds like you prefer to not even allowing some children the chance to grow up because odds are their just going to have lousy lives anyway. Plus they might be a burden on the rest of us. Am I missing something in your post, or is that basically what you're saying?

 

[Fantasea]

Let me ask you have you ever raised a child on welfare? It's more than just an inconveniance. Most of these abortions are on teenagers who if they did raise the child would probably not have given the child enough attention. Or for that matter even raise a child financially. These improperly raised children turn into drug addicts and murderers, so ask yourself do you want dead fetuses or dead adults?

So raising a child is no picnic? I'm sure that every parent there ever was would agree.

Your response clearly indicates that your knowledge of the subject is limited to the politically correct view that babies are better off dead than government fed.

It further reveals that you are unaware that the largest segment of reported abortions is well-to-do women over the age of 23.

Many folks would find your solution to reducing crime to be a bit extreme. After all, you are proposing to eliminate an entire class of persons in an effort to prevent some from breaking the law, aren't you?

If you are willing to apply the death penalty to an innocent child in the womb, would you then suggest a lesser penalty as being appropriate for an adult committing a premeditated misdemeanor or felony?

 

[Fantasea]

Wow! I'm just kind of stunned after reading this. Maybe I'm just not reading it correctly. It almost sounds like you prefer to not even allowing some children the chance to grow up because odds are their just going to have lousy lives anyway. Plus they might be a burden on the rest of us. Am I missing something in your post, or is that basically what you're saying?

That's Mechman for you. I don't know whether he believes in God but he sure wants to play God -- determining who should live and who should die.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Fantasea,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I'm pleased to see that your viewpoint is well thought out and appears (from the little I know of you) to be consistent with your view of the world.

But I think we have different views of the world (and isn't that one of the things that makes life interesting?) and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Of course, I'm right and you're wrong!

 

[Pacridge]

Let me ask you have you ever raised a child on welfare? It's more than just an inconveniance. Most of these abortions are on teenagers who if they did raise the child would probably not have given the child enough attention. Or for that matter even raise a child financially. These improperly raised children turn into drug addicts and murderers, so ask yourself do you want dead fetuses or dead adults?

This post has been weighing on me this evening and I had to come back and reply again. Sorry MeChMaN, I normally try to give someone the chance to rebut prior to posting twice to their post. In a sense- I try to avoid double rebuttals. Of course, I would still appreciate a response to my earlier questions. But I also feel the need to ask- What if I want both? What if I want both live adults and live fetuses? Can't I have both? Who's says I can't get one without the other? Who's making these rules?

I still think there's just got to be something I'm missing here, that you're not saying what I think you're saying. But keep reading it and re-reading and it still says the same things to me. If it is indeed saying what I think it's saying- there's a society that basically already tried this type of thing. They we're in power in Germany in the earlier part of the past century, called their plan the "final solution." You may have heard of them- called themselves the Nazi Party.

 

[globalvision]

Pacridge i dont read that into what MeChMAN is trying to say. if he believes what he says then surely it is a serious social problem whereby the social poor in society are likely to raise children that turn into drug addicts and murderers. this should not be the future for any child within society. abortion should not be an issue about the inability of the parents to financially raise the child, surely we should assure that all children receive adequate education and living standards whereby this is not an issue.


as for the Nazi's i have failed to understand your point, and would greatly appreciate clarification of your meaning. the Nazi's murdered Jews, gays, travelers, political opponents, and anyone else they did not like. i am assuming that your point is that by preventing the poor from having children we in turn prevent the poor from existing (or at least thats what you read into MeChMAN's post.) there will always be poor in society no matter what government does. abortion should be an option but not an option based on financial reasons.

 

[Schweddy]

:wcm to Debate Politics globalvision!

surely we should assure that all children receive adequate education and living standards whereby this is not an issue.

Absolutely!! And we have been steadily making progress in the living standards of the poor.

Let me ask you have you ever raised a child on welfare? It's more than just an inconveniance. Most of these abortions are on teenagers who if they did raise the child would probably not have given the child enough attention. Or for that matter even raise a child financially. These improperly raised children turn into drug addicts and murderers, so ask yourself do you want dead fetuses or dead adults?

ask yourself do you want dead fetuses or dead adults?
I personally do not want to make the distinction. But, as the question warrants - I would rather have a dead adult. An adult has had a chance to live life and make choices. Whereas an unborn person has not.

These improperly raised children turn into drug addicts and murderers
Are you saying that folks on welfare improperly raise thier kids because of attention and financial issues. Therefore, abortion should be an option for society used by the folks not on welfare to keep the poor numbers in check?

I bet this is a case of accidentally written verbage.

 

[globalvision]

i agree with some of what you said vauge, and thanks for the welcome. i think MeChMAN has somewhat missed the point in what he says. i agree that for teenagers and the financially poor it will be harder to raise a child. like i said before this should not be the reason that lies behind getting an abortion. im not sure if enough progress has been made in helping to solve this problem.

i certainly am not against abortion. i believe in choice, but it should be an option that someone has to take seriously, talking to counselors and so forth in order to make sure it is the correct choice. we should also improve sex education rather then in some cases taking abstinence programs, which are bound to fail. look at Holland, you may disagree with some of its laws but it has a lot of sex education programs and a low teenage birth rate.

slightly controversially i do not agree to the right to life of a fetus or unborn child. this is mainly due to the fact that i do not believe in rights in any sense. I'm sure someone is bound to criticize that.

 

[Fantasea]

Fantasea,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I'm pleased to see that your viewpoint is well thought out and appears (from the little I know of you) to be consistent with your view of the world.

But I think we have different views of the world (and isn't that one of the things that makes life interesting?) and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Of course, I'm right and you're wrong!

Do you value human life so little that you believe that whether a child lives or dies should depend upon one's view?

You have read my lengthy and fact-filled post, yet you haven't refuted a single point. Why is that?

Can you feel comfortable just ignoring the obvious simply because it may upset your 'view' of the world? You may recall that at one time, the world was 'viewed', as being flat.

I've laid out three questions. I wonder whether I'll get three answers.

 

[Fantasea]

abortion should be an option but not an option based on financial reasons.

Let me add my welcome to that of others.

Now, what are some of the acceptable optional bases for killing a child in the womb?

 

[Fantasea]

.... i do not believe in rights in any sense. I'm sure someone is bound to criticize that.

Can't criticize, or agree, for that matter, intil I have a clearer understanding of what you mean.

What do you mean?

 

[Pacridge]

i agree with some of what you said vauge, and thanks for the welcome. i think MeChMAN has somewhat missed the point in what he says. i agree that for teenagers and the financially poor it will be harder to raise a child. like i said before this should not be the reason that lies behind getting an abortion. im not sure if enough progress has been made in helping to solve this problem.

i certainly am not against abortion. i believe in choice, but it should be an option that someone has to take seriously, talking to counselors and so forth in order to make sure it is the correct choice. we should also improve sex education rather then in some cases taking abstinence programs, which are bound to fail. look at Holland, you may disagree with some of its laws but it has a lot of sex education programs and a low teenage birth rate.

slightly controversially i do not agree to the right to life of a fetus or unborn child. this is mainly due to the fact that i do not believe in rights in any sense. I'm sure someone is bound to criticize that.

Welcome to Debate Politics! Always good to hear from across the pond.

I agree with some of what you're saying. I really like your thoughts on expanding sex ed. programs. Here in this country, of late, we're getting this push on the right to have mainly abstinence only programs. I don't think that a realistic view of the world today and in fact I think in the long run it adds to the number of abortions.

I must confess to being a little puzzled by your "this is mainly due to the fact that i do not believe in rights in any sense" comment. could you expand on that some, maybe clarify.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Do you value human life so little that you believe that whether a child lives or dies should depend upon one's view?

Yes. But then I wasn't using the word *view* in the trivial sense that you seem to be suggesting. We all have an internal *world view* that is based on all of our beliefs and understandings of the world around us. Every individual will have a different world view because every individual has a different experience of the world. Furthermore, our own world view isn't always very consistent from a logical point of view. For example, some people will be strongly anti-abortion but pro capital punsihment, or vice versa. Neither of those is *logical*. As a gay man I won't ever have any personal involvement in the issue of abortion, and although I do have an opinion, I don't feel that I should force that opinion on any pregnant woman. I do believe that it should always be the choice of the woman concerned.

You have read my lengthy and fact-filled post, yet you haven't refuted a single point. Why is that?

Can you feel comfortable just ignoring the obvious simply because it may upset your 'view' of the world? You may recall that at one time, the world was 'viewed', as being flat.

And some people believe that the world was created in 6 days by a supreme being. I don't share that belief.
Your lengthy post was very interesting, but, IMHO, not fact-filled. You bekieve that at conception we have a human life. I neither share nor refute that belief. Nobody actually knows the answer to that one. What is it that makes a human being different from, say, a sheep? Can you *prove* that there is a fundamental difference? Was your post *fact-filled* or was it *world-view-filled*?

 

[globalvision]

well thanks Pacridge for welcoming me and to everyone else, its good to find somewhere to debate issues and talk about relevant issues. i am fascinated by america so please any anti american comments i make in any issue please do not get the idea that i am in anyway anti american. i just love learning about your country and hopefully study there one day.

ok abortion. fantasia you say that what is acceptable for killing a child in the womb. does a child exist a the point of fertilisation because it could possibly become a child. is the morning after pill acceptable? if it is what is the difference between that and abortion. there is a point where abortion is not allowed legaly.

in northern ireland abortion does not take place and people have to travel to england to undertake the procedure, the question should be what do we constitute as life, is it the possibility of life at fertilisation or does it occur at some other point.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Do you value human life so little that you believe that whether a child lives or dies should depend upon one's view?

Yes. But then I wasn't using the word *view* in the trivial sense that you seem to be suggesting. We all have an internal *world view* that is based on all of our beliefs and understandings of the world around us. Every individual will have a different world view because every individual has a different experience of the world. Furthermore, our own world view isn't always very consistent from a logical point of view. For example, some people will be strongly anti-abortion but pro capital punsihment, or vice versa. Neither of those is *logical*. As a gay man I won't ever have any personal involvement in the issue of abortion, and although I do have an opinion, I don't feel that I should force that opinion on any pregnant woman. I do believe that it should always be the choice of the woman concerned.

First, who cares to know about your sexual orientation. If I told you I was into beastiality, as well as S&M, would that advance the discussion?

Now, the life or death situation involved in abortion can never be considered a subject where one view or the other is acceptable. In the days when no one knew for certain, there was room for ‘wiggling’. Those days are gone.

Originally posted by Fantasea
You have read my lengthy and fact-filled post, yet you haven't refuted a single point. Why is that?

Can you feel comfortable just ignoring the obvious simply because it may upset your 'view' of the world? You may recall that at one time, the world was 'viewed', as being flat.

And some people believe that the world was created in 6 days by a supreme being. I don't share that belief.

Abortion should never be discussed on the basis of religion or emotion. Cold, secular fact is the only way.

Your lengthy post was very interesting, but, IMHO, not fact-filled. You bekieve that at conception we have a human life. I neither share nor refute that belief. Nobody actually knows the answer to that one.

Doubt and deny, if you wish. However world renowned geneticists, through their DNA research have provided the answer.

What is it that makes a human being different from, say, a sheep? Can you *prove* that there is a fundamental difference?

The sheep was ‘Dolly’. It was cloned by a couple of Scots a few years ago.

Was your post *fact-filled* or was it *world-view-filled*?

If you ask such a question, you have already answered it to your satisfaction.

 

[Pacridge]

well thanks Pacridge for welcoming me and to everyone else, its good to find somewhere to debate issues and talk about relevant issues. i am fascinated by america so please any anti american comments i make in any issue please do not get the idea that i am in anyway anti american. i just love learning about your country and hopefully study there one day.

It is nice to have some place to express and view other expressions. I would worry much about any negatives comments. Most of us have fairly thick skin. Having the option to speak ill of the government was one of the factors in our defection, wasn't it?

A word to the wise. If you do make a series of anti-American comments. Be perpared to hear a lot of "yeah, well we save your asses in WWII so...blah, blah, blah." Even though there every chance that no one posting on here had anything to do with that effort even in the slightest. So be warned.

 

[Fantasea]

ok abortion. fantasia you say that what is acceptable for killing a child in the womb. does a child exist a the point of fertilisation because it could possibly become a child.

the question should be what do we constitute as life, is it the possibility of life at fertilisation or does it occur at some other point.

First, I find it difficult to read posts in which the first letter of a paragraph is not capitalized. I will be thankful if you would kindly oblige.

Now. If I'm to accept your premise that life human life may commence at a point other than conception, you'll have to furnish some factual information to persuade me.

Are you willing to try to persuade me?

 

[Naughty Nurse]

First, I find it difficult to read posts in which the first letter of a paragraph is not capitalized. I will be thankful if you would kindly oblige.

I respectfully suggest that you review your own sentence below and ask yourself if it is a perfect piece of English and easy to read.

Now. If I'm to accept your premise that life human life may commence at a point other than conception, you'll have to furnish some factual information to persuade me.

Are you willing to try to persuade me?

That's rather a pointles challenge, isn't it? Nobody can provide any real factual information as to when a human life begins, can they? Somebody, possibly yourself (?), has preciously made references to human embryos "cavorting" in the womb, but this does not prove that what we call human life has actually begun. What is it that makes a human life so special? From a Christian perspective I suppose it would be the concept of soul. Can you provide some factual information on when the soul enters a human being?

 

[globalvision]

Naughty do you not find it ironic that Fantasea complains about me not putting a capital letter at the beginning of my paragraph when everyone knows that the Americans spell so many word wrong. stop putting Z where an S should be. perhaps the Americans should learn how to spell ENGLISH before they start complaining about my spelling or grammer.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Naughty do you not find it ironic that Fantasea complains about me not putting a capital letter at the beginning of my paragraph when everyone knows that the Americans spell so many word wrong. stop putting Z where an S should be. perhaps the Americans should learn how to spell ENGLISH before they start complaining about my spelling or grammer.

:rofl When you have become world leader, you can enforce it!

Citizens of the USA - brush up on your proper spelling while you still have time!

 

[globalvision]

Thanks Naughty nice to know i have your support.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote = anomoly

Originally Posted by Fantasea
First, I find it difficult to read posts in which the first letter of a paragraph is not capitalized. I will be thankful if you would kindly oblige.

I respectfully suggest that you review your own sentence below and ask yourself if it is a perfect piece of English and easy to read.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Now. If I'm to accept your premise that life human life may commence at a point other than conception, you'll have to furnish some factual information to persuade me.

Are you willing to try to persuade me?

That's rather a pointles challenge, isn't it?

Does your complaint lie with the syntax of the sentence? Or, with my request that you support your contentions with fact?

Nobody can provide any real factual information as to when a human life begins, can they?

Since you’re asking the question, I’ll provide the answer, which is yes.

Are you familiar with the field if genetics? Specifically with DNA research? I have covered this in previous posts which you may have missed so I’ll repeat it for your benefit.

Let me quote the words of Dr. Jerome Lejeune, regarded by many in the field as the ’Father of Human Genetics’. He has received awards for his work which includes identifying the gene responsible for Down’s Syndrome. I think you will agree that this man knows his way around a research laboratory. He is joined by a number of others, prominent in the medical community.

In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question before us here: When does human life begin? Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.

"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard Medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."

Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."

Professor Eugene Diamond: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."

Somebody, possibly yourself (?), has preciously made references to human embryos "cavorting" in the womb, but this does not prove that what we call human life has actually begun.

Yes, that was me. But I did not refer to the occupants of a womb as an embryo. Embryo is one of the early stages of a human being that lies on the continuum that begins with conception and progresses through many stages including infant (both inside and outside the womb), toddler, adolescent, youth, teen-ager, adult, middle age and old age. Once conception occurs, passage from one stage to the next is seamless. There are no specific lines of demarcation.

If you believe that the professionals cited above are wrong, what would be the basis for that belief, considering that no professionals of similar stature have come forth to refute their statements.

What is it that makes a human life so special?

If a human life was not so special, why would millions of dollars be spent in rescue missions that involve a single life? Why would so much concern surround the kidnapping of an infant?

From a Christian perspective I suppose it would be the concept of soul. Can you provide some factual information on when the soul enters a human being?

I never discuss abortion on the basis of religion.

Abortion is best discussed on strictly secular terms. As soon as religion is introduced into the discussion, the focus shifts to a discussion of religious principles and the original subject, abortion, gets sidetracked.

What to you have to say about the words expressed by the 'pros'?

 

[Fantasea]

Naughty do you not find it ironic that Fantasea complains about me not putting a capital letter at the beginning of my paragraph when everyone knows that the Americans spell so many word wrong. stop putting Z where an S should be. perhaps the Americans should learn how to spell ENGLISH before they start complaining about my spelling or grammer.

It is difficult to conduct a civil discussion with a person who cannot differentiate between a polite request and a complaint.

While we're on the subject of spelling, it's not 'grammer', but 'grammar'. You also erred by matching the singular 'word' with the plural 'Americans'.

In the matter of 'z' versus 's', grammarians recognize and accept variations in spelling according to national customs.

I notice that you are able to capitalize when it suits your purposes. Other times you lapse into the k. d. lang or e e cummings mode.