Home - List All Discussions

Wow. Just. Wow

Help answer these questions

by: Dmourning

Wow. Just. Wow.

For all you "pro-life" people, I commend you and your zealous passion for the well being of an anonymous lump of cells (which you mistakenly refer to as "baby", when the correct term should be "zygote" or "embryo"...but who's keeping track of facts, right?), you are true freedom fighters.

Please feel free to answer this question since I can't figure out your logic for the life of me: How is the removal of an embryo (which is wholly unable to survive outside of the woman's body) tantamount to murder? How can you possibly consider the murder of an adult (or child) human being be equal to the removal of something from a woman's body that isn't even alive in the first place? Now, I've heard the forced birther argument that the embryo has *potential* for life and therefore should be afforded equal protection under the law. By this logic, wouldn't those who use the "pull-out" method of birth control be guilty of murder? After all, all those sperm cells are "potential" human beings and "pulling out" deprives them all the chance at life, right?

That's neither here nor there, though. According to Pew Commission statistics, there are 540,000 little miracles in foster care nationwide. You so ardently seek to ensure forced birthing in this country using "pro-life" and "god" as your impetus to achieve this end. Since you are all so concerned with all life, how many of you have found a place in your homes for one (or more) of these little miracles that are in foster care today?

My final question for you people is this: Do you support birth control? Making sure birth control and the knowledge of how to use it is available to everyone who wants/needs it would seriously cut down on the number of abortions since, if people are knowledgable about its use, less unwanted pregnancies would occur in the first place. Is your goal really just the elimination of the practice of abortion???

reply from: shiprah

Everyone does have access to and knowledge of birth control -- its called abstinance.  We do want to eliminate abortion, and of course we want to stop unwanted pregnancies, but what would cut down on that is abstinance teaching in the public school system -- states who do that have seen drops in unwanted pregnancies, and a culture that stressed sex only within the bounds of marriage.  It is our "have sex whenever you want" culture that creates unwanted pregnancies, not a lack of birth control.  Prolifers want to make the world a better place in so many ways, but we can never regulate someone's emotions or whether or not they want their child -- our priority is to make it illegal to kill that child.
I genuinely hope this has made it easier to understand the prolife stance.  Please ask more questions if you need further clarification.  I'm looking forward to stimulating dialogue with you.  Welcome to the forum

reply from: yoda

You begin with the same basic error all supporters of abortion embrace, namely the attempt to degrade and dehumanize unborn human beings. The use of PROPER vernacular (like "baby") terms is totally appropriate when discussion the morality of killing such very young human beings. Furthermore, any human being you don't know IS an "anonymous lump of cells", no matter what age. Finally, there is nothing more "correct" about using the developmental stage terms (zygote/embro) in place of vernacualar terms when the subject is the morality of killing them. Here's an appropriate definition from a medical dictionary: fetus - an unborn baby from the eighth week after fertilization until delivery.

http://www.viahealth.org/disease/obstetrics/glossary.htm#F

Legally, it is not murder since it is not the "illegal killing" of a human being. Morally, it is the killing of an innocent human being.

That's another standard lie told by proaborts. Any organism that isn't alive is DEAD. Any organism that is DEAD cannot be born alive, and should be removed.

Not from Prolifers you haven't. All healthy, immature human beings have the potential to become adults, whether they are born or unborn. Nothing that is not ALIVE, GROWING, and DEVELOPING can have potential.

How is that any of your business? If you save a boy from drowning, are you obligated to adopt him? Or is the act of saving his life independent of all other considerations?

I personally have no problem with contractptives that work by preventing fertilization.

reply from: Christian4life

The nonsensical argument that a human embryo or fetus is not alive has no bearing at all in facts.  From the moment of conception an unborn child needs nothing but food, water, and oxygen to grow and continue to live.  How or from whom he or she obtains that is irrelevant.  We all need the same exact things, getting them from another person or a tube does not make us less human.  The child is growing, moving, and has brain function.  How is that not alive? 

Secondly, in case you didn't know, a lot of foster kids nowadays are pregnant teenage girls who I am sure most of their parents expected them to have abortions and they refused.  They were kicked out of their homes because they chose life.  It is people like you who call themselves pro-choice who are creating these foster children.  A lot of you say you want it to be a woman's choice, but if she chooses not to kill her child you have nothing more to do with her.  If you don't believe me look up the foster parenting website yourself.  I have.  We ARE considering being foster parents in the future.  But even if we weren't, it is not our fault that these children exist in such bad circumstances.  I for one take care of my daughter and she never will be a foster child.  These things exist even with widespread knowledge of birth control, and abortion available everywhere, and yet you come on here and tell us that pro-life people are responsible for bad parents??  Get real.  People who have abortions and go on to have living children later in life are far more likely to abuse those "wanted" children.  And I believe it is because you people have no respect for your offspring, calling them "lumps of cells".

Thirdly, and most importantly, look at where your thinking has got you.  If an unborn child is not a human because he or she is dependant upon the mother's body for life, then what do you think would happen if a mother didn't breastfeed her baby?  Now of course we have bottles but then again we also have incubators.  See what I'm getting at.  Recently one of your own kind took methotrexate and breastfed her baby ON PURPOSE in order to kill her and it worked. 

reply from: chooselife

Well I was going to respond to this topic but Shiprah and yodavater and Christian4life have all done fantastic jobs!! Well done.

reply from: Dmourning

Some of you actually have some compelling arguments to which I will reply. Unfortunately, some of what you replied with is really nothing more than reactionary nonsense with no basis in logic whatsoever.

First off, Shiprah:

Just because someone has a "Dr." in front of their name doesn't automatically quality them as "esteemed". Until I read your post, I have never even heard of this woman. In the meantime, what I was able to find out about her reveals to me nothing more than a zealot with a fierce moral agenda. She may be "esteemed" within the pro-life community, but in the grand scheme of things, she isn't an objective source for any argument.

Apparently, the real difference between the pro-life and pro-choice thinking is the liberal use of the word "baby". Webster's dictionary defines baby as, "a very young child: INFANT". Pro-choice folks agree with that stance as do many others in our country. What it seems pro-life folks are attempting to do is to redefine certain words, "baby", for instance, to suit their own agenda. While a baby will develop in time, a zygote is most certainly not a baby.

Another fallacy in the pro-life argument is that all abortions are of the late-term variety where the fetus (in this case that word is applicable) is nearly fully developed. This is 100% untrue. According to statistics found at this page:

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

"88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy."

What is removed from the woman during this time is something nearly the size of and akin to a bloody kidney bean. At this point, nerve endings are not developed and the brain and brain stem haven't developed thus making pain, consciousness and some of the other examples in your argument, impossible.

The embryo most certainly isn't alive. It is a part of the woman's body until such time that it is naturally capable of surviving on it its own.

I really don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Please clarify.

I don't claim to hold anyone accountable for anything. My adoption question served more to point out a glaring hypocrisy in the fundamental aims of the pro-life community: You claim to be fighting for children yet none of you seem to care much for the 540,000 kids nationwide who do not have what you claim to be so in favor of: A shot at life. Please don't try to tell me that living at foster care, at taxpayer expense, is either a pleasant or rewarding experience truly in the best interest of the child.

Furthermore, the supposed abortion/breast cancer link and increased depression/suicide link are nothing more than pro-life propaganda that have no factual, objective evidence backing them up whatsoever. Show me objective evidence (that hasn't come directly from a pro-life website) backing this up. None exists.

Allow me to point out that abstinence only education clearly DOES NOT WORK. Notice a quote at this page:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/covers/state_pregnancy_trends.html

"The highest state adolescent pregnancy rates after Nevada's were in Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico and Texas. Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine had the lowest rates after North Dakota's"

Please note that the "rates" they refer to aren't total pregnancies but pregnancies per 1000 (thus acommodating population discrepancies). Notice one of the top 5 states in the USA in teenage pregnancies is Texas - the same Texas with the nation's largest abstinence only eduaction program. Want some concrete proof of abstinence only's failure? Check the stats about Nevada, which leads the nation in teenage pregnancy rate, here:

http://www.siecus.org/policy/states/Nevada.pdf#search='abstinence%20only%20nevada'

In practically every statistic noted, Nevada youth were ahead of national averages in drug use, sexual activity and multiple sexual partners. Interestingly, Nevada's teenage abortion rate is 50% higher than the national average. Clearly, abstinence only education doesn't work, end of story.

Lastly, Vermont, which is clearly miles ahead of the rest of the nation in progressive political thinking, not surpisingly, is near the bottom of the list of teenage pregnancy rates.

Secondly, Yodavater:

In reply to my adoption question:

Funny that a pro-lifer would ask that since there are millions of women (and their husbands/boyfriends) who would ask you the same thing about your obsession with their reproductive freedom.

Please see my replies to Shiprah in regards to your own arguments since, they are pretty much the same arguments.

Lastly, Christian4life:

In this paragraph, you successfully made false assumptions, put words in my mouth and judged me. I refer you to Matthew 7:1.

reply from: Sputnik

Dmourning,

You stated "But who's keeping track of facts, right?"

You aren't for starters.  Do a little reasearch from BOTH sides.  Obviously you are spewing the same "factual" data that I once bought into.

It dosen't matter what evidence you come up with in an honest research project.  Your huge ego wouldn't allow you to countenance being mistaken in any way.  

Try this: imagine, just for a moment, that your view is wrong. 

reply from: Dmourning

Sputnik, it's funny how you have no counter to any of my arguments other than to resort to juvenile acts of belittlement and name calling. Why do you even bother talking?

reply from: chooselife

Dmourning - I find it funny that you did not respond to the 3 other posts that did counter your argument.

reply from: Dmourning

That's because they weren't even worth wasting the time. Besides, I covered the major arguments with my second post, anyways - to which you have no answers, either.

reply from: shiprah

The embryo most certainly isn't alive. It is a part of the woman's body until such time that it is naturally capable of surviving on it its own.
How is something that's not alive developing body parts, giving off waste, and taking in sustenance.  Is one siamese twin a part of the other's body and not alive it can't survive on its own?  Is someone hooked up to oxygen no human because they can't survive on their own?
I really don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Please clarify. I don't claim to hold anyone accountable for anything. My adoption question served more to point out a glaring hypocrisy in the fundamental aims of the pro-life community: You claim to be fighting for children yet none of you seem to care much for the 540,000 kids nationwide who do not have what you claim to be so in favor of: A shot at life.
I've already told you how much prolifers help those who are born.  You on the other hand don't seem to care about what happens to the women who have abortions.
Please don't try to tell me that living at foster care, at taxpayer expense, is either a pleasant or rewarding experience truly in the best interest of the child.
Oh, I guess its better to be ripped apart in utero or scalded by saline.  Whether or not foster care is pleasant doesn't change the fact that those kids would rather have an unpleasant life than to be dead.
Furthermore, the supposed abortion/breast cancer link and increased depression/suicide link are nothing more than pro-life propaganda that have no factual, objective evidence backing them up whatsoever. Show me objective evidence (that hasn't come directly from a pro-life website) backing this up. None exists.
 http://www.physicianscenter.orgNational Physicians Center for Family Resources  recognizes the abortion breast cancer link.  http://www.afterabortion.orgElliot Institute recognizes the abortion and depression/suicide link.
Funny that a pro-lifer would ask that since there are millions of women (and their husbands/boyfriends) who would ask you the same thing about your obsession with their reproductive freedom.
Freedom only works to the extent that it doesn't harm someone else.
Please see my replies to Shiprah in regards to your own arguments since, they are pretty much the same arguments. Lastly, Christian4life: In this paragraph, you successfully made false assumptions, put words in my mouth and judged me. I refer you to Matthew 7:1.
Which false assumption did she make?  Also, how can you use Bible verses against us if you don't want us using God to fight abortion.
Despite these disagreements, I'm glad you decided to stick around and further the discussion.  I hope we can reach common ground

reply from: dadserna

[ Apparently, the real difference between the pro-life and pro-choice thinking is the liberal use of the word "baby". Webster's dictionary defines baby as, "a very young child: INFANT". Pro-choice folks agree with that stance as do many others in our country. What it seems pro-life folks are attempting to do is to redefine certain words, "baby", for instance, to suit their own agenda.]

I'm glad to see that you are capable of acknowledging that our goal revolves around the baby not the woman. That's a start. In the past many prochoice people have tried to paint us as a bunch of people whose goal was to harm women. Others have said that we put the life of the baby ahead of the life of the mother. The truth is we regard them equally. While I realize that you do not agree with our position, I hope you will acknowledge th difference between reality and the misperception. That said, my websters gives the following definition.   Baby: "a very young child, especially in the first year of life."
Since the word life is used in this definition and has also been a matter of debate here we should also look at the definition of "life".   Life: "an organismic state characterized by capacity for growth, metabolism, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction".  By the standard of reference of your own choosing(webster) , the embryo/zygote/fetus meets the requirement to be defined as life. Since it meets webster's requirement for life while it is still in the womb, it therefore meets the requirement to be a baby. 
Also I've noticed that some people can be very generous with the term "life" when for example searching for  proof of evolution. Yet these same people get suddenly want to change the definition when talking about babies in the womb.
  
Additionally women have been called "with child" for a very long time. Do you tell pregnant women who choose to keep their baby that "it is not a baby" .  Or do you save that for the ones that are to be aborted?  Have you told your own mother that you were not a baby until you were born? I'm curious to know the reaction of mothers of proabortion activist. According to your argument its a baby if it is wanted but not a baby if it is not wanted. It is alive if it is wanted and dead if it is not wanted. And you claim we are trying to redefine these word!!

What of babies who are removed from the womb for surgery then returned to the womb for the rest of the pregnancy.  Do you claim that it is not a baby inside. Then it is, when outside. Then it is not again, when inside.  Don't doctors take precautions with these babies so that they don't die? How can it die if it is not alive?
So ,logically speaking it is not the pro-lifers who are changing the definition of LIFE or BABY it is the pro-abortion group.

." What is removed from the woman during this time is something nearly the size of and akin to a bloody kidney bean.
 
If a kidney bean has feet, it is not a kidney bean.      And if size is the determining factor, at what size does it become a life to you.

The embryo most certainly isn't alive. It is a part of the woman's body until such time that it is naturally capable of surviving on it its own.
 
Are you really going to claim that a womans body can have 4 arms, 4 legs, 4 eyes etc. Then it goes back to 2each. 

I don't claim to hold anyone accountable for anything. My adoption question served more to point out a glaring hypocrisy in the fundamental aims of the pro-life community: You claim to be fighting for children yet none of you seem to care much for the 540,000 kids nationwide who do not have what you claim to be so in favor of: A shot at life. Please don't try to tell me that living at foster care, at taxpayer expense, is either a pleasant or rewarding experience truly in the best interest of the child.
 
What hypocrisy? Did you ever notice that there are a bunch of hospitals with words like Baptist,Lutheran, Methodist, etc. Most of these group are pro-life. The fact that the hospitals exist is evidence that we care for these kids and others.  My church sponsors 2 childrens foster homes. Many of the families have adopted kids. Others have foster kids.  Your assertion that we do not provide for these kids is completely false.  We care for children whose parents gave them up and for orphans as well. Many who don't take these kids into their own home, give in other ways. Financial, teaching, mentoring or just plain being there for them. 

On what authority do you claim that their lives are not worth living.  when did you or anyone else earn the right to judge the value of these childrens lives.  This is another problem with the pro-abortion mindset. It eventually leads to the devaluation of the lives of others. Whose next ? The elderly, Jews, Blacks. Who decides?

 Notice one of the top 5 states in the USA in teenage pregnancies is Texas - the same Texas with the nation's largest abstinence only eduaction program.
 
I honestly have not checked the whole state, but in San Antonio our teen pregnancy rates are dropping with Ab only. It takes time for kids to change their behavior so the results are not overnight. Even the comprehensive sex ed advocates have had to switch to other factors in there arguments. 
Hey, if the teen pregnancy rate goes down, maybe we can improve our foster care. 

In this paragraph, you successfully made false assumptions, put words in my mouth and judged me. I refer you to Matthew 7:1.

I suggest you study the book of Matthew a little more carefully. You've read the words, but you really don't know what they mean. If you read the chapters preceding ch7 you will see that he is saying to share the gospel with all. Do not judge others unworthy of recieving it. Remember the Jews felt they were worthy simply by being born Jewish. Therefore they were judging the gentiles unworthy to recieve the gospel.

The spiritual man makes judgements about all things...1cor 2:15

If any of you has a dispute with another, dare we take it before the ungodly for judgement instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life? 1 cor 6:1-3

I think it's pretty clear that we are to judge right from wrong.

Stick around Dmourning you could learn something.
dadserna
 

reply from: Sputnik

Dmourning,

I'm only responding in kind to the smart-aleky tone of your writings.  I'll respond to any pro-choicer with perfect courtesy if they do so.  Notice I use the term "pro-choice"?

The only counter to your arguements that I can offer is that I once thought as you do.  I was once Pro-choice. But the arguments in favor of abortion began to wear thin against my own experiences. 

I recall an 8th grade teacher giving me the pro-choice pitch.  I also have an athiest father and liberal-christian mother.  I pretty much felt that abortion was a womens' issue.  I was encouraged to be open-minded.  I took the notion of open-mindedness literally; to be open to all points and judging with your own conscious.   Having an open mind dosen't mean falling in lock-step with the accepted dogma of liberalism.  It means facing some hard truths.  Hard truths that can shatter idealism.  One hard truth is that education/indoctrination dosen't trump morality. 

I lived in Germany for 4 years.  In Germany, the rights of the unborn are defended in their constitution.  The Germans, for all their liberalism, are horrified by aborton.

reply from: mom2

 "88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy." What is removed from the woman during this time is something nearly the size of and akin to a bloody kidney bean. At this point, nerve endings are not developed and the brain and brain stem haven't developed thus making pain, consciousness and some of the other examples in your argument, impossible. quote:

Oh my God!  I read this and my heart is pounding!  I stopped reading and just had to comment!

I am 10 weeks pregnant.  Last week I went for an ultrasound.  I saw a baby - with arms, legs and a heartbeat. It was moving.  Its legs were kicking and its arms were "punching". 

I wish that you could look me in the face right now and tell me that this "kidney bean" that is growing inside of me is not a child.   I dare you!  How dare you say that it would be ok for me to kill this life inside of me.  That is exactly what you are saying.  If every women at 9 weeks was given a chance to look at her baby on the ultrasound, see the movement, they would hate themselves just for thinking about having an abortion. 

I think that I will go vomit! 

reply from: yoda

First, I think you picked an appropriate symbol for your online persona here, the clown. There is very little serious thought in your long-winded posts.

That only scratches the surface. The REAL difference is that proaborts like yourself are "born supremacists", who want to control how others speak in order to create a climate of disdain (and even hatred) for unborn humans in order to facilitate their relegation to sub-human status. And that is the ultimate irony, because trying to dehumanize unborn humans is like trying to dehumidify water.

The ultimate tool of the propagandist is to use a decietful tactic, and then accuse their opponents of what they themselves are doing. You proaborts are not only attempting to redefine common words that have been around for centuries, you are trying to forbid their normal usage. Even your own definition reveals your deciet, because "infant" is defined as "Main Entry: 1in·fant Function: noun 1 : a child in the first period of life", and "child" is defined as: Main Entry: child 1 : an unborn or recently born person Merriam-Webster Dictionary: http://www.m-w.com. So too is your treatment of "baby" disingenous, because that word is defined thusly: ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb. MSN-Encarta Online: http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby

Kill your strawmen as many times as you like, Prolifers do not make that claim and you know it.

Yes, and doesn't it hurt your pride to know that YOU once looked like THAT?

That is a double lie. No woman has two genders, two different blood types, two different DNA codes, and genetic disorders in only one tiny "part" of her body. And NO organism or PART of an organism can ever be "not alive" and "become alive"........ life comes only from life, not from "not alive" matter. You seem to be intentionally confusing the common usage of "life" that refers to our active years (post-birth) with the biological sense of that word "life". I think you know better, and continue the lie willingly.

Yes, I suppose a clown would find that "funny". I think that EVERY abused and every KILLED child ought to be YOUR business, MY business, and EVERYONE's business! Do you advocate that we turn our backs on abused BORN children? How about Andrea Yates' five little boys, is that NONE OF OUR BUSINESS? I may be asking the wrong question here, you may actually agree with that last question.

reply from: Christian4life

I WAS A FOSTER CHILD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I'M HAPPY THAT I WASN'T ABORTED.  WERE YOU A FOSTER CHILD???  IF NOT THEN SPEAK FOR YOURSELF.  AT ANY RATE YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

reply from: Christian4life

Yes it is your thinking that leads to infanticide.  Since abortion became legal, infanticide rates have soared.  It is the same age groups and races of people that are having the most abortions who are killing their children outside of the womb as well, in the highest numbers.  When did I ever put words in your mouth?  I am just telling you the facts.  It is the thinking of the pro-abortive movement that leads people to disregard the lives of thier children quite easily more than anything else.  Didn't you hear about the teenage girl who strangled her newborn in the basement?  She had had 3 PREVIOUS ABORTIONS!

Obviously you pay no attention to the scientific fact that it has been proven that unborn children feel pain as early as 6 weeks after conception.  Or do you just not care?

There are several medical journals, the British Medical Journal for one, that have proven a link between abortion and breast cancer.  Your people deny there is a link in spite of facts.  The American Medical Association sent out a memo to obstetricians that the link could not be denied, but you'll never see that in the media or on your pro-abortion websites. 

reply from: Christian4life

I would also appreciate you not throwing Bible verses in my face.  Have you even read the Bible?  You obviously are not following the Holy Spirit and are not qualified to interpret scripture, so I'll leave it at that.  I could be wrong of course, but I'm saying that because of the way you refered to "god".

If you don't know what scripture means, maybe you could try reading a book or two of the Bible and praying about it with an open heart before you start using it.  Otherwise it isn't likely you will understand it correctly.  For God has hidden his word from the wise, and given it to little babes, that he may be glorified. 

You used the other verse incorrectly.  I am happy to be judged in any way that I judge others, because I actually do have standards.

Matthew 7:1,2

index.php?keyword=1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
index.php?keyword=2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Fine by me.  If I had heard the arguments you've heard against abortion when I was not pro-life and not even a Christian, I would be doing some serious mind-changing right about now.  I don't know what's going on in your life to make you resist that right now, but I pray whatever it is will loosen it's grip on you. 

So many people seem to think Satan is this little red devil sitting on your shoulder, trying to convince you of things that you already know are wrong.  When actually Satan was the brightest angel in heaven once, and still retained most of that beauty after he fell.  He is very convincing, and a heck of a debator, albeit using twisted logic, as you have just proven. He's the kind that convinces people that what's wrong is right.  That's all I'm going to say on the subject, unless you continue to bring it up, as this is not the place for an out and out theological debate.

reply from: Christian4life

Germany was actually the first country to have legalized abortion during Hitler's rise to power.  Forced abortions were performed routinely in concentration camps.  Saline abortion was invented by a Nazi for this purpose. 

After the war, the public was aghast at what had happened and at abortion.  It was then made illegal and has remained so.

My great-grandparents fled to America because of the war.  They were from Germany.

reply from: BorisBadanov

Germany was actually the first country to have legalized abortion during Hitler's rise to power.  Forced abortions were performed routinely in concentration camps.  Saline abortion was invented by a Nazi for this purpose.  After the war, the public was aghast at what had happened and at abortion.  It was then made illegal and has remained so. My great-grandparents fled to America because of the war.  They were from Germany.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't abortion legal in Germany through the 1st trimester?

reply from: Christian4life

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't abortion legal in Germany through the 1st trimester?

Not from what I've heard, but I will look into it. 

reply from: dignitarian

In response to Dmourning’s very last question from his 1/9/05 topic.

 >

Legalized abortion is the result of a more general underlying malady within our culture.  I am talking about our increasing tendency to value human beings upon a superficial basis of material condition rather than on the deeper and more pervasive intangible qualities that support perception of true human dignity.

Perhaps by killing a fully formed partially born infant, we might somehow satisfy someone’s measure of privacy, convenience, or liberty.  However, in the process we have not only killed a human being, but we have violently abused the fundamental elements upon which the goodness of our culture is based. 

If we continue to insist on defining human beings in so superficial a manner, abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic exploitation will all gradually become more universally accepted.  Undoubtedly some will welcome this, but no one will welcome the larger associated costs to our culture.  Our concept of the inalienability of rights will suffer, thus our concept of all human rights will suffer.  Our concept of an objective order of justice will suffer.  Our ability to achieve common good, happiness, and meaningful purpose in life will all undeniably suffer if we fail to properly recognize human dignity in its deepest sense.
Or is life all about something else?

The question isn’t so much; how do we end abortion?  The more fundamental question is; how do we begin to heal our culture?
Regards,
Dignitarian 

reply from: Dmourning

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you all, I've been so busy today.

Shiprah:

If the embryo (the 6-12 week old variety that makes up 88% of abortions) is really its own separate, functional and living entity, what does it need an umbilical cord for? It needs the umbilical cord because, up until such time that it is naturally capable of surviving outside the woman on its own, it can't take in nutrients or excrete waste otherwise. It is fully reliant on the woman for its continued existence. Embryo/woman are not siamese twins, the embryo can't survive without feeding off the woman. There are descriptions for organisms like this:

"Parasite - 1. a plant or animal living in or on another organism usu. to its harm 2. one depending on another and not making adequate return."

This is a harsh comparison, I know, but hopefully it can put into perspective the fallacy of the argument you presented.

And you don't seem to care about what would happen to women who would be unable to receive abortions if the pro-life crowd had its way.

Not necessarily. The stats on the page I directed you to are taken directly from the National Center for Health Statistics, an offshoot of the CDC; both of which are government entities. On top of that, the CDC uses Guttmacher statistics in its own reporting. I highly doubt the Bush administration would allow for an organization with a flagrant pro-choice agenda to work so closely with a government agency like the CDC.

Not one paragraph after telling me not to use a "pro-choice" source, you lay these on me, both of which are organizations with flagrant pro-life agendas. I'm not swayed by pro-life propaganda.

The Heritage Foundation? The same Heritage Foundation "whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies..."? Hardly an objective source, either. Nothing more than right wing propaganda not to be taken seriously.

By that logic, why aren't you people crusading against the occupation of Iraq or child labor in developing nations? These are perfect examples of how someone elses "freedom" harms someone else.

Thank you. Although I'm not sure what kind of common ground we can reach besides the fact that we disagree

Dadserna:

That is entirely the problem. You wish for more "rights" for an anonymous sack of undeveloped cells than for a full-grown human woman. When a woman is unable to decide that she does not want something growing inside of her because the thing growing inside of her, in essence, has more rights than she does - Haven't you just made the woman second class to an embryo? This thing that isn't even a living human has been given more importance than the person that's already alive. I know the pro-lifers will call this "equality", but honestly, humans are equal to other humans, humans are not equal to something less developed than the common housefly (which I'm sure everyone on this forum has, at one time or other, swatted).



The billions of blood cells in your body are technically "life". When you get cut, exposed blood cells end up dying. Cancer cells are "life", amoebas living in ponds are "life", humans are "life", poison ivy is "life". Why is the only "life" that pro-lifers care about that of an embryo? Why not rail against the slaughter of the rainforest and depletion of our environment? Why not rail against bear/deer hunting for sport?

My mother was one of the charter members of Michigan's NOW chapter in the 60s. She has been active in feminist issues nearly her entire life. I credit her with helping raise me in an environment free from prejudice and ignorance.

This is a dangerous slippery slope. The biggest problem with that argument is that the elderly, Jews and blacks are all living human beings. They are entitled to certain rights and priveleges that no one can take away. No ones lives are being devalued. The only devaluation here are the rights of the full grown human woman at the hands of the forced birthers.

Oh yeah, sorry for offering up a bible quote in a pro-life forum, that was pretty silly of me

Sputnik:

Any -ism taken literally can be destructive, even liberalism. I am staunchly anti-affirmative action and in strong favor of closing our borders to immigrants. These ideas would hardly win me any friends in liberal circles. I judge each issue on its own and conform to no real agenda.

mom2:

It's not a child, it's an embryo.

It's ok! It isn't really alive. It's a parasite living off of you at this point.

I hear pregnancy will do that to a person

Yodavater:

Wow, this sounds exactly like what you are trying to accomplish. Just replace "unborn humans" with "women" and voila, instant forced-birther political platform.

I'm actually at a loss for words. Microsoft is on board with the forced-birther agenda now. Just. Wow.

No, not really.

Really? In North Korea, children born to political prisoners living in gulags are subjected to the same inhuman treatment their parents are. When they are old enough to be useful, they are worked excrutiatingly long hours, they are beaten severely for even the slightest infractions, they are not allowed to share comraderie with their parents.

Last time I checked I don't see you at the DMZ protesting North Korea's treatment of BORN children. I don't see you protesting child labor and abuse in developing nations. Take a look at the clothes you are wearing right now (unless you are one of those freaks that surfs the net naked), if it was manufactured someplace other than the USA, child labor may have sewn them.

Again, more unanswerable hypocrisy from the pro-life camp.

Christian4life:

Actually you are dead wrong. Abortion was there before Roe v. Wade, it was illegal, done in "back alleys" and unreported. Now that it's legal, it is reported. That is how you account for abortion rates that have "soared".



Obviously if comprehensive education and contraceptives were available to her, this could have been avoided.

Show me the proof. Do you have a link? I do care, just not about random "facts" thrown at me without backing.

Actually, I have so many good things going on for me right now I haven't been as happy as I am now in many years.

No offense, but it's a shame that you rely on fairy tales and mythology to explain the real world to you. You have just compared me with the Christian manifestation of Satan. That's a first for me.

Wow, this post took me 1 hour and 15 minutes to write. Thanks for letting me continue to post here, I enjoy the debate.

reply from: shiprah

If the embryo (the 6-12 week old variety that makes up 88% of abortions) is really its own separate, functional and living entity, what does it need an umbilical cord for? It needs the umbilical cord because, up until such time that it is naturally capable of surviving outside the woman on its own, it can't take in nutrients or excrete waste otherwise. It is fully reliant on the woman for its continued existence. Embryo/woman are not siamese twins, the embryo can't survive without feeding off the woman. There are descriptions for organisms like this: "Parasite - 1. a plant or animal living in or on another organism usu. to its harm 2. one depending on another and not making adequate return." This is a harsh comparison, I know, but hopefully it can put into perspective the fallacy of the argument you presented.
Just because the embryo is separate (it is because it has its own DNA and enzymes), doesn't mean it can function independently.  However, there are many separate born human beings who cannot survive indepedently either (they need oxygen tanks, pace makers, IV's, etc.  However, that doesn't make the embryo less human.  Just like an embryo can't survive without the mom, some siamese twins can't surive without their partners, so why shouldn't the stronger twin be able to separated himself from his sibling?  According to biology professor, Thomas L. Johnson at http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html a fetus is not a parasite because a) its of the same species as the mom b) a parasite comes from at outside source while a fetus is created in the womb c) parasites are harmful while fetuses rarely are d)parasites make direct contact with the hosts tissue, an embryo is only temporarily connected to the uterine tissue before becoming isolated in an amniotic sac, the fact that it uses an umbibical cord for indirect contact proves it's not a parasite e) when a parasite invades a body, the invaded body forms tissue to try to separate itself from the parasite, while a mom's body tries to surround the fetus f) mom's form antibodies when harboring a fetus that are rejected (this only occurs between a mom and an embryo), yet bodies do form them and they aren't rejected when harboring a  parasite g)parasites weaken the reproductive ability of the host while a fetus is the reproductive ability of the host
And you don't seem to care about what would happen to women who would be unable to receive abortions if the pro-life crowd had its way. Not necessarily. The stats on the page I directed you to are taken directly from the National Center for Health Statistics, an offshoot of the CDC; both of which are government entities. On top of that, the CDC uses Guttmacher statistics in its own reporting. I highly doubt the Bush administration would allow for an organization with a flagrant pro-choice agenda to work so closely with a government agency like the CDC. The Heritage Foundation? The same Heritage Foundation "whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies..."? Hardly an objective source, either. Nothing more than right wing propaganda not to be taken seriously. By that logic, why aren't you people crusading against the occupation of Iraq
Um, do you think Iraqi's liked their old government?  Do you know any Iraqi's?  Those in the Iraqi are happy to be free and voting again.or child labor in developing nations?
I do. You seem to suggest that prolifers care about no other social causes (which we've shown to be inaccurate) or that by being prolife one must fight every social wrong (which is impossible.)
These are perfect examples of how someone elses "freedom" harms someone else.
 I don't think that's freedom harming someone but the abuse of freedom.  But let's just say that it is, are you saying that since consumers use freedom to abuse child labor that's what makes it okay for women to kill their kids?
. That is entirely the problem. You wish for more "rights" for an anonymous sack of undeveloped cells than for a full-grown human woman.
We are never fully developed until we're dead.  We develope from babies to kids to teens to adults to senior citizens.  Any one not on their death bed is undeveloped.  So how do you decide at which level of undevelopement human rights aren't warranted.  Again, anyone we don't know is anonymous and all humans are sacks of cells -- what's your point?  The fact that someone is a full-grown human woman (which technically, any pregnant woman isn't full grown, she's underdeveloped because she will one day grow into a menopausal woman) doesn't mean they can kill someone younger or smaller than themselves.
When a woman is unable to decide that she does not want something growing inside of her because the thing growing inside of her, in essence, has more rights than she does - Haven't you just made the woman second class to an embryo?
The two humans are equal, but the babies right to life outweighs her right to convenience.  It isn't that we hold the baby to have a greater value, but we realize he has more at stake.
This thing that isn't even a living human has been given more importance than the person that's already alive.
We know that the embryo is living, unless you know better than Nobel Prize winner Professor Lejeune.
I know the pro-lifers will call this "equality", but honestly, humans are equal to other humans, humans are not equal to something less developed than the common housefly (which I'm sure everyone on this forum has, at one time or other, swatted).
Oh, so if someone doesn't have the skill level of a certain animal they lose their humanity?  If a severely mentally disabled person doesn't have the IQ of chimpanzee, can we treat them like one?
The billions of blood cells in your body are technically "life". When you get cut, exposed blood cells end up dying. Cancer cells are "life", amoebas living in ponds are "life", humans are "life", poison ivy is "life". Why is the only "life" that pro-lifers care about that of an embryo? Why not rail against the slaughter of the rainforest and depletion of our environment?
So many of us do.  blood can never be more than blood, cancer can never be more than cancer.  A human being is a complete entity, not a part of the body.  We place human life above trees and animals. 
Why not rail against bear/deer hunting for sport?
 We do.  Why do you keep stereotyping us?  However, when fighting for the rights of deer we don't wear a badge saying we're prolifers as well -- so there's no way for you to know.
[You claim your mom raised you in an environment free of prejudice, yet you have judged us as people who don't adopt kids, care about the rain forest, or like deer.  Wow, how unbiased.
Q] This is a dangerous slippery slope. The biggest problem with that argument is that the elderly, Jews and blacks are all living human beings. They are entitled to certain rights and priveleges that no one can take away. No ones lives are being devalued. The only devaluation here are the rights of the full grown human woman at the hands of the forced birthers. 
When someone creates a human being and places them inside of them during the act of sex, it isn't a devaluation of their life to expect them not to kill the child they put there.  After nine months the woman can go her merry way.  Death is forever.  Not allowing someone to kill isn't devaluing their life.  When two human beings are connected, the only moral thing to do is to help them both, not sacrifice one to the will of the other.
MSN-Encarta Online: http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby I'm actually at a loss for words. Microsoft is on board with the forced-birther agenda now. Just. Wow.
Microsoft is prolife?  Are you a little paranoid.  Anyone who knows that a baby isn't a kidney bean is prolife? This is going to be a fruitless debate is everytime we find evidence supporting us you call it biased simply because you disagree with it.
  Really? In North Korea, children born to political prisoners living in gulags are subjected to the same inhuman treatment their parents are. When they are old enough to be useful, they are worked excrutiatingly long hours, they are beaten severely for even the slightest infractions, they are not allowed to share comraderie with their parents. Last time I checked I don't see you at the DMZ protesting North Korea's treatment of BORN children. I don't see you protesting child labor and abuse in developing nations. Take a look at the clothes you are wearing right now (unless you are one of those freaks that surfs the net naked), if it was manufactured someplace other than the USA, child labor may have sewn them. Again, more unanswerable hypocrisy from the pro-life camp.
 I don't see you protesting the forced abortion in China, or the work camps where mom's who have more than one child are beaten and worked like slaves.
I work with refugees, I help a homeless woman, I have two surrogate underpriveleged senior citizen grandparents, I volunteer at the Salvation Army, and I'm an officer in a community service organization.  I spend each Thursday and Satruday helping the community and I donate to my church for their outreach programs, so don't you dare suggest that I don't help those who are already born.
Despite scientific evidence you refuse to believe babies are human.  Due to ignorance, you think prolifers are involved in no other social causes.  If a neutral source like the dictionary calls a fetus a baby you refuse to accept it.  We don't force anyone to give birth.  But once they have created a child we do not allow them to kill it.  You don't want to give birth -- fine, you don't have to, but once you have reproduced you are responsible for the life you created.  It's unfortunate that a woman got herself pregnant with a baby she doesn't want, but the babies right to life outweighs her choice not to be pregnant.  Also, there weren't as many back alley abortions as believed, ex-Naral workers admit they were made up.

reply from: yoda

More hollow, meaningless propaganda. You cannot quote anything I've said to support your absurd charges, so you just make it up. Typical proabort tactic.

Really? Wow, your jaw will be paralized by this then:

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

iNFOPLEASE.com ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html ) ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus.

When did you check on my whereabouts, and my activities? Oh, you wouldn't be lying through your teeth again, would you? You have no idea whatsoever what I do outside of posting on this forum, do you? You sir are a professional liar and slanderer.

And that, sir, was time wasted.

reply from: whosays

A) Clearly, the baby is not dead or it wouldn't NEED an umbilical cord, therefore your own question disproves proves your assertion of doubt about whether it's is "living" or not. Duh!

B) You go on to imply that the presence of an umbilical cord makes the baby in the womb a "parasite" - since the umbilical cord shows that it is dependent on its mother. (Wow. Just, wow!) Are you seriously suggesting that the offspring of two human parents is not a human being until the minutes AFTER its birth when the doctor cuts its umbilical cord? May I ask, is that when your mother ceased calling you a parisite and began to call you by a name?

reply from: Christian4life

Does a Fetus Feel Pain?

Former president Ronald Reagan said once, "When the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing."(New York Times, Jan. 31, 1984) Many people disputed this statement, but the president received a letter from many doctors, including two former presidents of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2 weeks later. The letter read:

February 13, 1984
President Ronald Reagan
The White House
Washington, DC

Mr. President:

As physicians, we, the undersigned, are pleased to associate ourselves with you in drawing the attention of people across the nation to the humanity and sensitivity of the human unborn.

That the unborn, the prematurely born, and the newborn of the human species is a highly complex, sentient, functioning, individual organism is established scientific fact. That the human unborn and newly born do respond to stimuli is also established beyond any reasonable doubt.

The ability to feel pain and respond to it is clearly not a phenomenon that develops de novo at birth. Indeed, much of enlightened modern obstetrical practice and procedure seeks to minimize sensory deprivation of, and sensory insult to, the fetus during, at, and after birth. Over the last 18 years, real time ultrasonography, fetoscopy, study of the fetal EKG (electrocardiogram) and fetal EEG (electroencephalogram) have demonstrated the remarkable responsiveness of the human fetus to pain, touch, and sound. That the fetus responds to changes in light intensity within the womb, to heat, to cold, and to taste (by altering the chemical nature of the fluid swallowed by the fetus) has been exquisitely documented in the pioneering work of the late Sir William Liley -- the father of fetology. Observations of the fetal electrocardiogram and the increase in fetal movements in saline abortions indicate that the fetus experiences discomfort as it dies. Indeed, one doctor who, the New York Times wrote, "conscientiously performs" saline abortions stated, "When you inject the saline, you often see an increase in fetal movements, it's horrible."

We state categorically that no finding of modern fetology invalidates the remarkable conclusion drawn after a lifetime of research by the late Professor Arnold Gesell of Yale University. In "The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind" (1945, Harper Bros.), Dr. Gesell wrote, "and so by the close of the first trimester the fetus is a sentient, moving being. We need not speculate as to the nature of his psychic attributes, but we may assert that the organization of his psychosomatic self is well under way."

Mr. President, in drawing attention to the capability of the human fetus to feel pain, you stand on firmly established ground.

Respectfully,

Dr. Richard T. F. Schmidt, Past President, A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH

Dr. Vincent Collins, Professor of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University, University of Illinois Medical Center

Dr. John G. Masterson, Clinical Professor of Ob/Gyn, Northwestern University

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, F.A.C.O.G., Clinical Assistant Professor of Ob/Gyn, Cornell University

Dr. Denis Cavanaugh, F.A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of South Florida

Dr. Watson Bowes, F.A.C.O.G., Professor of Material and Fetal Medicine, University of North Carolina

Dr. Byron Oberst, Assistant Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, University of Nebraska

Dr. Eugene Diamond, Professor of Pediatrics, Strict School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Dr. Thomas Potter, Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, New Jersey Medical College

Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, Instructor of Clinical Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh

Dr. Melvin Thornton, Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, University of Texas (San Antonio)

Dr. Norman Vernig, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota (St. Paul)

Dr. Jerome Shen, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, St. Louis University

Dr. Fred Hofmeister, Past President, A.C.O.G., Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)

Dr. Matthew Bulfin, F.A.C.O.G., Lauderdale by the Sea, FL

Dr. Jay Arena, Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics, Duke University

Dr. Herbert Nakata, Assistant Professor of Clinical Pediatrics, University of Hawaii

Dr. Robert Polley, Clinical Instructor of Pediatrics, University of Washington (Seattle)

Dr. David Foley, Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Wisconsin (Milwaukee)

Dr. Anne Bannon, F.A.A.P., Former Chief of Pediatrics, CityHospital (St. Louis)

Dr. John J. Brennan, Professor of Ob/Gyn, Medical College of Wisconsin, (Milwaukee)

Dr. Walter F. Watts, Assistant Professor of Ob/Gyn, Strict School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

Dr. G. C. Tom Nabors, Assistant Clinical Professor of Ob/Gyn, Southwestern Medical College, Dallas, TX

Dr. Konald Prem, Professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Minnesota (Minneapolis)

Dr. Alfred Derby, F.A.C.O.G., Spokane, WA

Dr. Bernie Pisani, F.A.C.O.G., President, NY State Medical Society, Professor of Ob/Gyn, New York University

reply from: Christian4life

Germany's laws currently restrict abortion to the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.  After that it is illegal.  During the Nazi reign it was legal for all 3 trimesters and was "safe" and encouraged by the media, especially for Jewish people.  It was also performed on Jews forcibly.

For more on Birth control and abortion in Nazi Germany, I found this interesting website:

Please visit, it is absolutely astonishing.

http://www.hknet.org.nz/seX-nazis.htm

reply from: shiprah

In fact, during the Nazi era, abortion was illegal for perfect Aryans, it was only legal for those considered undesirable.  Kind of makes you wonder why the Clintons are so gung-ho about women of color in the third world having access to abortion.

reply from: mom2

Quote from dmourning:
"Parasite - 1. a plant or animal living in or on another organism usu. to its harm 2. one depending on another and not making adequate return."

This is a harsh comparison, I know, but hopefully it can put into perspective the fallacy of the argument you presented."

Problem is that in most cases a embryo or fetus is NOT "to its harm" of the mother.
So lets see, if you consider an embryo or fetus a parasite - well, I guess an infant would be a parasite since it still depends on the parents for food and nutrition. Then a toddler would still be a parasite. Then a small child would be a parasite.  Even a teenager would be a parasite.  Young adult in college depending on Mom and Dad for money for food - opps - still a parasite.  Then as an elderly person, unable to care for yourself depending on a feeding tube, etc... once again a parasite.

Fortunately I am not a parasite right now!  But I'll make sure to tell my children that they are!

God have mercy on your parasites.   And by the way, when someone has a REAL parasite in their boby, well, don't they go to the doctor for treatment to KILL it?  Well, then call abortion what it really is according to you.  Killing a parasite. Or according to me, killing a child. At least we agree now that it is killing. You said it, not me.

reply from: CFJulie

I'm sorry but I cannot sit here and read this anymore without responding. My grandmother had a back alley abortion so don't tell ME that they were "made up!" Furthermore, my mother had one when she was 17 and later found out it was twin girls. If she hadn't had that abortion, I surely wouldn't be here today! There was NO WAY she could possibly have taken care of all those babies. Finally, how is it that you are not forcing women to give birth when they don't want to if you are not allowing them to have abortions??!! I agree that abortion is not an acceptable routine method of birth control but it is necessary for those times when accidents happen. I would much rather have the clump of cells sucked out of a woman than to hear a story about how that baby (and at this time it IS a baby because it can survive outside the womb!) was murdered or left in a dumpster. Yes this is the real world and that horrible stuff DOES happen.

You cannot expect people to practice abstinence. I, at age 25, have decided that I NEVER want children for many reasons, so I should never be allowed to have sex??!! Who are YOU to decide what I do with my life?! This discussion makes me so furious that I feel like getting pregnant and having an abortion just to piss you right-wing fundies off. You will NEVER have control over MY reproductive organs!!!!

reply from: Christian4life

I will definately pray for you.  I can see how filled with anger and pain you are.  I don't think you really mean that statement, but if you do, I feel really sorry for you and I hope you don't die on the operating table or get breast cancer from aborting your child.  By the way, if you do why don't you come back here and tell us all how liberating it was.  Tell us whether it was a son or daughter you disposed of.  Tell us how it made you feel great to destroy a human life in order to throw it in our faces how wrong we are.  Or else come here and just talk to us.  You don't have to live like that.

reply from: Christian4life

  Now that it's legal, it is reported. That is how you account for abortion rates that have "soared".
And you're going to tell me that she wasn't sent home with contraceptive information and samples up the wazoo when she went for her 1st abortion?  Look up the statistics.  Even Guttmacher admits that over 30% of pregnancies ending in abortion happened because of condom failure.  55% of women who have abortions were using contraceptives at the time of pregnancy.

If you do care about fetal pain, then why are you proud of your mother for supporting NOW??  Those people do abortions all the way to the 9th month occasionally.  I know it doesn't happen as often as 1st trimester abortions, but even the fact that it happens to one child is enough to keep me the heck away from them.  That is just sick.  NO pro-choice group disagrees with the fact that a fetus feels pain after 20 weeks, and yet they still preform abortions on 21 and 32 week old babies in the womb.

I don't know what's going on in your life to make you resist that right now, but I pray whatever it is will loosen it's grip on you. Actually, I have so many good things going on for me right now I haven't been as happy as I am now in many years. No offense, but it's a shame that you rely on fairy tales and mythology to explain the real world to you. You have just compared me with the Christian manifestation of Satan. That's a first for me.

I never said you were a manifestation of him, I'm saying you've bought into his murderous logic, as have many others.  Don't rely on media to tell you what's right and what's wrong.  I have an article from yahoo right now that announces how 4 news anchors just got fired for pushing thier liberal agendas.  It took them this long to actually do anything about it.
 
Wow, this post took me 1 hour and 15 minutes to write. Thanks for letting me continue to post here, I enjoy the debate.

Come back any time.  We have nothing against honest debate with an intelligent person.

reply from: Allizdog2000

Dmourning said:
That's neither here nor there, though. According to Pew Commission statistics, there are 540,000 little miracles in foster care nationwide. You so ardently seek to ensure forced birthing in this country using "pro-life" and "god" as your impetus to achieve this end. Since you are all so concerned with all life, how many of you have found a place in your homes for one (or more) of these little miracles that are in foster care today? 

And you are (more of) a miracle because you were wanted by your parents?  By your train of writing, these "little miracles" are worthles human beings that should not have been born?  Do you ever give to "Toys for Tots" or ever volunteer in a homeless shelters?

CFJulie said:
This discussion makes me so furious that I feel like getting pregnant and having an abortion just to piss you right-wing fundies off.

Are you going to tell they guy that is going to impregnant you of your murderous plans, this sounds more like a HUMAN SACRIFICE than anything else.   That is a seriously selfish and self-centered evil act to commit, getting pregnant to commit abortion, then you can wear "I had an Abortion T-shirt"  that would some to be proud of huh??

reply from: mom2

CFJulie said:
"This discussion makes me so furious that I feel like getting pregnant and having an abortion just to piss you right-wing fundies off."

That is just pure evil!   And a little selfish isn't it?
 
Then about five years from now when you have zero amount of self esteem, start feeling worthless and guilty for what you have done... having sex with every man you can be with, possible start ruining your life with drugs....(it could happen because it happened to a close friend of mine). Maybe then you will see just how horrible abortion is or save yourself now and don't do it!

You see being Pro-Life isn't just about saving a child, its about protecting women from a life of Hell!

Having a family is a good thing. I just wish you could see that!  

It is so sad what your mother went through.  Are you not sad for her?  

And by the way, I pray everyday for women who have suffered an abortion.  I will pray for your mother, please tell her. 

 

reply from: yoda

Yes, it does. One of the most horrible things that happens is that some people tell horrible lies about unborn humans, just to ease their conscience when they kill them.

They tell lies like "It's just a clump of cells"...... as if that had ANY MEANING whatever, except to express the disdain of the speaker for human life that is tiny and helpless. ALL OF US are "clumps of cells", can you not see that????

And they say horrible things like "Who are you to decide what I am to do with my life?", when they in fact approve of an act which DESTROYS the life of another human being.

And finally they say horrible things like "I feel like getting pregnant and having an abortion, just to piss you right-wing fundies off." What sort of a demented, twisted person would even say that?

reply from: CFJulie

Thanks for offering to pray for my mom but she is fine and my family lives a happy life. No I am not sad for her because she does not regret what she did. Contrary to what you believe, not every woman who has had an abortion regrets it. It is a very personal issue and should be made by the person whose life is affected by it the most-THE MOTHER. The zygote does not know the difference anyway and does not have any emotional feelings or opinion about the matter. And I am glad I don't have twin sisters because we all would have been poor and miserable. I did not have the greatest childhood as it was. Of course I would not ACTUALLY go and get knocked up just so I could have an abortion-I have never had one before. But I would like to know that I would be able to if God forbid I got pregnant. I would not be a good mother for many reasons but mainly because I do not enjoy the company of children. I know you would say that it'd be different because it was my own but I know that this would not be true. I know that my life would become the living hell that you are trying to protect women from. I just wish that you could understand that not all women want to have babies (or give birth). I know so many people who have had them and are at the end of their ropes now because they get no time away from them so they could do the things they once did such as work or go out to dinner or God forbid a drink with their friends. Childbirth does horrible things to a woman's body and is excruciatingly painful-much worse han an abortion-or so I've heard. Thank God I will never know that pain. Yes, my last post was full of anger because I tend to get angry when other people try to limit my reproductive choices. How do you people feel about voluntary sterilization? Just curious.

reply from: mom2

 I must be totally honest.... I'm struggling with this subject personally.  I have mixed emotions, since it doesn't involve aborting a child and it would keep someone from aborting in the future.. maybe OK.  If you wouldn't abort a child, well maybe not. I'm really undecided. I wouldn't mind hearing other's opinions on this also.

reply from: Dmourning

Yodavater, I can see since you are clueless on how to carry on "point - counterpoint" discussions without resorting to immature and baseless attacks (and you aren't even very good at doing that, to boot), I am left with no choice but to sink to your subhuman level.



I would only quote you if I wanted people to believe I had the mental capacity of an 8 year old. Don't flatter yourself.



Baseless personal attacks. And in doing so, you never responded to my original statement because you KNOW I AM RIGHT. You couldn't care less about abused children in North Korea or exploited children in Laos or anyplace else. In fact, you don't even care about children at all. You only care about keeping American women in their rightful, holy mandated places as baby factories and housewives.



Considering that it got a rise out of you and hopefully increased your blood pressure (if only for a minute), no, it was time well spent.



Whosays:



Yes, actually I am suggesting that. Until such time that a fetus is able to survive outside the woman on its own (~6 months or thereabouts?), it most certainly is not equal in stature or rights to a full grown, female human being. No matter how much people try to argue otherwise about being a "potential human" or misusing the word "baby" to achieve their own ends, the embryo is simply nothing more than a part of the womans body until that point.

Last time I checked my mother still calls me a parasite. She hates when I visit her on weekends and eat her hershey kisses.



Christian4life:

In that letter you posted, I happened to notice all of those esteemed doctors who signed it. There were 26 of them, in fact. I have no retort for 26 activist doctors. What struck me as interesting about those doctors, though, was that all but one of them were men.

Why are so many male doctors so insistent on holding American women back in the dark ages when it comes to control over their own bodies?



Hahahaha I have to laugh, sorry. Try discerning sarcasm from seriousness. Answer her question...who are YOU to decide what she does with her life?



Wouldn't you be proud of one of your family members for supporting a just cause? If it wasn't for NOW and their predecessors, women may very well still not have the right to vote or any control whatsoever over their bodies.



Just as you tell me not to rely on the media to tell me what's right and wrong, you shouldn't rely on fairy tales and mythology to tell you right and wrong. You only live once and when you're dead, that's it. The bottom line? Free yourself from your bondage and enjoy life before it's gone.

Oh yeah, the 4 people from CBS were producers, not anchors. They wouldn't fire Dan Rather.



Mom2:



Hahaha you've been had, I'd say. See what I said to Christian4Life about knowing sarcasm from seriousness.



BINGO! This is, hands down, the winner for best quote of this whole thread. So being forced to carry an unwanted to pregnancy to term against your will (in essence being an involuntary baby incubator) is being saved from "a life of hell"???

The bottom line here is that the Nazis went so far as to perform forced abortions (This much coming from the mouth of pro-lifers I will agree with). On the other hand, the Christians want to go so far as to ensure forced birthing by eliminating abortion altogether. NEITHER extreme would allow for control over one's own body and reproduction. Same shit, different day, right?

reply from: dignitarian

Quote: (Dmourning)
"Hahaha you've been had, I'd say. See what I said to Christian4Life about knowing sarcasm from seriousness."

Message for Dmourning:

I don't know whether Christian4Life can tell the difference between sarcasm and seriousness, but at least she seems to clearly understand the difference between sarcasm and sickness.

Dignitarian

reply from: sonyaelflady

Now wait, back up - you just said that was why it had an umbilical chord, which is its own organ. More specifically, the chorion - the fetal half of the placenta - extracts nutrients and oxygen from the mother's blood, and excretes waste into the mother's blood. It is reliant on its mother as you are reliant on your proper environment. That's an oversimplification of the relationship, certainly, and I don't intend to shrug off the more emotional or spiritual aspects of gestation, but strictly biologically speaking, the mother provides the embryo and then fetus with an environment in which it can eat and breath. The embryo maintains its own metabolism through the use of its own organs just as much as you do - unless, of course, you've discovered how to perform photosynthesis and how to convert your own waste gasses back into breathable air. If not, you're as dependant as an embryo, your dependency is just less specific.

Did you just refer to the embryo as an organism? And an organism would be a "seperate, functional and living entity", right?

-Sonya

reply from: sonyaelflady

I know I'm not the one you asked, but for the record, I support it as a legal right and I think it's a responsible choice for people who have had all the children they want, don't want children or who's health would be endangered by a pregnancy. It makes me sad when people I know who seem to have a lot of good things to pass on to the next generation decide not to have children, but it's their decision and I would MUCH rather see a person have him or herself sterilized than have an abortion or abuse a child.

-Sonya

reply from: sonyaelflady

Please check out this website - it's not a prolife site, it's the embryology department of the University of New South Wales. http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/

-Sonya

reply from: dignitarian

Quote: (Dmourning)
"Thanks for letting me continue to post here, I enjoy the debate."

Quote: (Dmourning)
"No she can't, sorry."

Message to Dmourning:
You call that debate?

Dignitarian

reply from: Dmourning

Actually, I call it GIGO. Look it up.

reply from: shiprah

Thanks for offering to pray for my mom but she is fine and my family lives a happy life. No I am not sad for her because she does not regret what she did. Contrary to what you believe, not every woman who has had an abortion regrets it. It is a very personal issue and should be made by the person whose life is affected by it the most-THE MOTHER. The zygote does not know the difference anyway and does not have any emotional feelings or opinion about the matter.
First of all, very few of aborted babies are zygotes, most are unquestionably thinking and feeling beings.  Secondly, even if all aborted babies were zygotes, unawareness of their situation has no bearing on their right to life.  If this were true, date rape would be okay.
And I am glad I don't have twin sisters because we all would have been poor and miserable. I did not have the greatest childhood as it was. Of course I would not ACTUALLY go and get knocked up just so I could have an abortion-I have never had one before. But I would like to know that I would be able to if God forbid I got pregnant. I would not be a good mother for many reasons but mainly because I do not enjoy the company of children. I know you would say that it'd be different because it was my own but I know that this would not be true. I know that my life would become the living hell that you are trying to protect women from. I just wish that you could understand that not all women want to have babies (or give birth). I know so many people who have had them and are at the end of their ropes now because they get no time away from them so they could do the things they once did such as work or go out to dinner or God forbid a drink with their friends. Childbirth does horrible things to a woman's body
 This is such a phallocentric argument.  Its so sad that you've allowed patriarchy to denigrate one of the most powerful abilities of the female body.
and is excruciatingly painful-much worse han an abortion-or so I've heard. Thank God I will never know that pain. Yes, my last post was full of anger because I tend to get angry when other people try to limit my reproductive choices. How do you people feel about voluntary sterilization? Just curious.
Nothing wrong with voluntary sterilization.  Do what you want to yourself, just don't kill others.  No one wants to limit your reproductive choices, but when you're pregnant you've already reproduced.

reply from: mom2

quote dmourning

BINGO! This is, hands down, the winner for best quote of this whole thread. So being forced to carry an unwanted to pregnancy to term against your will (in essence being an involuntary baby incubator) is being saved from "a life of hell"???

You obviously didn't read my whole post. I described the "life of Hell" in the paragraph above.  Thanks for making me a winner - it's such a good feeling coming from a pro-choice winner like you!

By the way - looks like your feminist mother would have told you that abortion was a woman's issue and it's a woman's body and her choice.  Makes me wonder why you are here other than just trying to start a bunch of crap. 

As for seriousness verses sarcasm - you are on a pro-life forum - we take life seriously!

reply from: whosays

Thank you for the clarification.

Oh, by the way, don't let that cognitive ability go to waste. There's a guy named Scott Peterson who could use your help beating one of his murder wraps. (Maybe you've go a future in the legal profession.)

Please note, however, that there are several problems with your other premise - your argument that the non-humans that all expecant mothers are carrying don't have rights (i.e. the right to life) "Until such time that a fetus is able to survive outside the woman on its own...", here are just a two:

1) Your formulation reveals an irrational bias. Even after birth, at the point that you say it is "able to survive outside the woman on its own", you're still determined to call the baby/child/infant a "fetus" in a no-so-veiled attempt to continue to question its right to life. So when then is a "fetus" is no longer a "fetus", but a human with rights? 

2) Your cirtera makes no sense. You assert that being "able to survive outside the woman on its own" is an intelligent way to talk about when human rights begin. But it's not, since no human baby/child/infant is able to survive on its own - all rely 100% on someone else to provide all of their needs (food, shelter, etc.). Whether the physical connection is external (a nipple or a hand holding a bottle, being wrapped in a blanket) or internal (the umbilical cord, the warmth of the womb), it is clear that every baby/child/infant is totally dependent on others, after birth as well as before. And 'forcing' another human to supply all of their care and feeding doesn't make a baby a non-human or a parasite simply because that baby is in a different location - i.e., inside the womb as opposed to outside the womb.

reply from: Christian4life

  Thanks for offering to pray for my mom but she is fine and my family lives a happy life. No I am not sad for her because she does not regret what she did.

In that case I am sad for her too because she doesn't fully realize what she did and/or doesn't have much of a conscience.
 

Contrary to what you believe, not every woman who has had an abortion regrets it.

And I'm sure some of the people who killed their newborn babies and young children and got away with it don't regret it too.  Does that make it right?
Many women do regret their abortions.
It is a very personal issue and should be made by the person whose life is affected by it the most-THE MOTHER. The zygote does not know the difference anyway and does not have any emotional feelings or opinion about the matter.

Actually the person whose life is affected by it the most doesn't normally survive to talk about it.  There are a few cases where the child that was being aborted survived, and was very glad to be alive despite physical problems from the abortion that they will have for the rest of their lives.  Most of the pro-life people on here probably know of some of these people, in any case I can try and find their letters again.
 
And I am glad I don't have twin sisters because we all would have been poor and miserable.
Why?  Because your parents didn't have the will or ability to make more of themselves and provide for you?  Children cost about 3 to 4,000 per year, on average.  That's less than you'd make at a weekend job.  There are tons of government services out there that help provide for children for working parents and single moms.  That's what taxes are FOR, not to be wasted on idiotic things like studying ketchup. 

I did not have the greatest childhood as it was.

Well, you and I have something in common there.  That's too bad.

Of course I would not ACTUALLY go and get knocked up just so I could have an abortion-I have never had one before.

Good.

But I would like to know that I would be able to if God forbid I got pregnant. I would not be a good mother for many reasons but mainly because I do not enjoy the company of children.

Well if you don't want to be a mother, don't get pregnant.  Nobody is forcing you to get pregnant, and if they are they should go to prison.  That's illegal.

I know you would say that it'd be different because it was my own but I know that this would not be true.

I don't know whether it would be or not.  Some people are great parents and some people aren't.  It doesn't take a lot of talent or anything though, just a little kindness and patience and perserverance, which are things any of us can have if we try.

I know that my life would become the living hell that you are trying to protect women from.

I really doubt that.  If you think children make people's lives a living hell, you are probably hanging around the wrong type of parents.
 
I just wish that you could understand that not all women want to have babies (or give birth).
Then they shouldn't get pregnant.  But once they are pregnant they already have a baby. 

I know so many people who have had them and are at the end of their ropes now because they get no time away from them so they could do the things they once did such as work or go out to dinner or God forbid a drink with their friends.

Then donate 10 bucks to these people so they can go out and have a babysitter for a few hours.  Or refer them to daycare centers, many of them offer free services for parents at low income levels.  I know being a parent doesn't always leave a lot of time for yourself, that's why I occasionaly rely on my husband or his parents to give me a break.  It doesn't make you a bad parent, or make your kids any less worthy of being alive.

Childbirth does horrible things to a woman's body and is excruciatingly painful-much worse han an abortion-or so I've heard.

Well speaking from personal experience, I have a few stretch marks and that's about it.  Some women don't even get stretch marks, and I probably wouldn't have either if I had exercised a little more during pregnancy.  Abortion on the other hand, can cause cervical damage, uterine rupture, hemorrhaging, and a host of other ailments. 

Thank God I will never know that pain. Yes, my last post was full of anger because I tend to get angry when other people try to limit my reproductive choices. How do you people feel about voluntary sterilization? Just curious.
Your reproductive choices?  Since when is killing what you've reproduced a viable reproductive choice?

How do I personally feel about voluntary sterilization?  I'm against it.  It's a dangerous surgical procedure and a tool that can be manipulated all to easily by racists and people like Hitler, he was a huge proponent of sterilization.  It's easy to get people to do things if you lay on the propaganda enough, like he did with sterilization and birth control for Jews, and like pro-choice people are doing by calling killing a choice.  However, it is your own personal decision whether you get sterilized or not.  You are not really even risking hurting anyone but yourself, and the law should never prohibit people from doing what they want with their OWN bodies.   If you were making the decision yourself and not under pressure or false beliefs, I have no big moral objection to that.  I don't believe it should be illegal.  However you may regret it in time.  People's minds can change quite a bit as they get on in years you know.

reply from: Christian4life

Baseless personal attacks. And in doing so, you never responded to my original statement because you KNOW I AM RIGHT.

Not necessarily.  Maybe he didn't respond because he thought they were rediculous and none of your business, just like he said.  If a person doesn't want to brag about what they do, that is their right.  If they don't feel the need to defend themselves against baseless accusations, that is their right as well.  I personally believe that you shouldn't tell people the good you do in order to impress them, and whatever good I do I try to do for God and not self-glory.  But I will say this, I do care about children, born or unborn, and certainly not everything I do is just for the benefit of the unborn, although I could make a pretty good argument that helping one helps the other.

You are the worst kind of scum - a self-righteous hypocrite with an unhealthy thirst for control. You couldn't care less about abused children in North Korea or exploited children in Laos or anyplace else. In fact, you don't even care about children at all. You only care about keeping American women in their rightful, holy mandated places as baby factories and housewives.

I seriously doubt that.  That sounds like more stereotyping on your part.  How can you say that when you've never really even met this person?  Telling women that murdering their unborn children is not morally right and should never happen except in cases where it is necessary in order to save her life, is not being uncompassionate to women.  It is being compassionate to all people equally. Many pro-choice people believe that an unborn child should be killed at a mother's whim, and THAT is not caring about children at all. 

Last time I checked he never said anything about women having to be baby factories OR  housewives.  It's their choice whether they get pregnant or not, and it's their choice whether they get married or become housewifes or not  Since when is telling a mother that she cannot kill her offspring keeping them in a "holy, mandated place"??

If you don't want to be a baby factory, then either don't have sex, or make darned sure that the kind of sex you have isn't going to create a child in your womb.  Period.  If you don't want to be a housewife, don't be.  A lot of women choose not to get married or choose to get married and keep working, that's thier right.  I chose to be a stay at home mom because I love it and find it way more fulfilling than any other job I've ever had, but I know a lot of people who raise kids AND work and do beautifully.  I also know a few women that chose thier careers in place of having a family, and I admire what they do as well.

Considering that it got a rise out of you and hopefully increased your blood pressure (if only for a minute), no, it was time well spent.
 
That's pretty rude.

Whosays: Yes, actually I am suggesting that. Until such time that a fetus is able to survive outside the woman on its own (~6 months or thereabouts?), it most certainly is not equal in stature or rights to a full grown, female human being.
 
And yet abortion is legal after 6 months, and the people you corroberate with don't have a problem with that.

No matter how much people try to argue otherwise about being a "potential human" or misusing the word "baby" to achieve their own ends, the embryo is simply nothing more than a part of the womans body until that point.
 So apparently a woman can be two different races, have a penis or two vaginas, two heads, 4 arms, 4 legs, and 2 butts for the other 6 months, huh?  That makes a lot of sense.  Not to mention that she would then have 2 different DNA codes, two different bloodstreams, and doubles of all her internal organs.  Interesting.

Last time I checked my mother still calls me a parasite. She hates when I visit her on weekends and eat her hershey kisses.
 Cute.
Christian4life: In that letter you posted, I happened to notice all of those esteemed doctors who signed it. There were 26 of them, in fact. I have no retort for 26 activist doctors. What struck me as interesting about those doctors, though, was that all but one of them were men. Why are so many male doctors so insistent on holding American women back in the dark ages when it comes to control over their own bodies?

I knew you'd say that.  Look in the phonebook sometime.  Most doctors simply ARE male.  Look in a medical journal sometime and you will see the same thing.  Most abortionists are also males.  No matter who I get information from you are going to call them an activist, so why even bother.
 
Q] Hahahaha I have to laugh, sorry. Try discerning sarcasm from seriousness. Answer her question...who are YOU to decide what she does with her life? Wouldn't you be proud of one of your family members for supporting a just cause? If it wasn't for NOW and their predecessors, women may very well still not have the right to vote or any control whatsoever over their bodies.

We don't force birthing.  If you are pregnant you are going to give birth.  If you have an abortion that is simply ensuring that the child you give birth to will be dead when he or she comes out.  The fact that HItler was in favor of abortion says a heck of a lot more than you realize.

By the way, if you can't maintain a civil argument maybe you are in the wrong place.

reply from: CFJulie

Christian4life, I would love to know where you get your information from. You say: "Children cost only $3,000-4,000 a year." That's a laugh! Maybe 100 years ago that would be true but there is a thing called inflation. You claim that we pay taxes so that women can just keep spreading their legs and breeding even though they can't afford it and are too lazy and irresponsible to get jobs. No, we pay taxes so we can have an effective military to defend our freedom and so we can have necessities such as sanitation and highways and many other things-but you get the idea. I resent the idea that my hard earned money should go to some woman too stupid to know how birth control works. You think a babysitter costs only $10?! This is not the 1970's. Again, learn about inflation. Besides, when was the last time you hired one? And who the hell died and made you God? To say that my mother doesn't have a conscience when you've never even met her is just as "sick and sadistic" as my previous-SARCASTIC-post saying I felt like getting knocked up and having an abortion just to piss you off. You have NO RIGHT to judge my mother, just as I don't judge you for having kids. That is YOUR CHOICE. All I want is to HAVE a choice! Yes, I have been successful with birth control since I have become sexually active but it is not 100% effective. And no I will not practice abstinence because I don't believe it is a viable choice for me. I enjoy sex and do not believe I should be punished for that with a zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it.

You say: "Your reproductive choices? Since when is killing what you've reproduced a viable reproductive choice?" Since Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973-deal with it. Even before then people have had abortions. I'm not saying people should go out and have 10 abortions in their lifetime, I'm just saying that not every pregnency is planned, accidents do happen and there needs to be a way to correct them. Giving birth is not the way to correct them, whether the woman keeps the baby or not. And don't tell me that an abortion is worse than giving birth. My mother does not have breast cancer or depression and went on to have myself and my brother afterwards so it did not leave her sterile. She has had an abortion and given birth-vaginally and by C-section-and she would say that the C-section was the most painful and disfiguring. Not that my birth was a piece of cake, either. I would also like to add that I am currently a student majoring in Diagnostic Medical Sonography (AKA Ultrasound) and have done exams on pregnant women. I have seen some disgusting stuff, let me tell you. Big, purple ugly stretchmarks and distended bellies so big the woman has to waddle into the exam room. Forgive me for caring what my body looks like. I just never want to do that to myself. So even if you get your wish and abortion is made illegal, there will always be a way for a woman to get an abortion if she wants one badly enough. My advice to you is to let women make their own educated choices and butt out of their lives because it is none of your business. How would you like it if I came up to you and said that you are not allowed to have children because it is against the law and it is a sin to contribute to the overpopulation of the world? You'd be pretty pissed off, right?! I would be taking away your freedom to choose. Well, that is all I have to say to you.

reply from: shiprah

You would be taking away the freedom to give life.  We are only taking away the freedom to kill.  Just as people have taken away the freedom to own slaves or beat their wives.  But apparently people should have those choices as well.

reply from: chooselife

So you have said if a baby is able to survive outside of his/her mother's womb they are equal in stature or rights to a full grown female human being. Let me first note that I find your choice of words "full grown" interesting. What does that say about toddlers? But anyways... I have a problem with your logic. You seem to define human value and worth by technology. Viability is dependent upon not only the child but on the ability of our technology to save his/her life. As Randy Alcorn put it: What will happen when we are able to save lives at 15 weeks or less? Will those children suddenly become human and worthy to live? Does the baby's nature and worth also depend on which hospital or country he is in since some hospitals are equipped to save a 19 week old child and others could save a child no earlier than 28 weeks? Technologies change; babies do not. Surely we cannot believe that the sophistication of life-support systems determines the reality or worth of human life!

Using the term "potential human" is like saying I almost got pregnant. You either are a human or you aren't. Your belief that the embryo is akin to an appendix shows your ignorance of basic biology.

Christian4life:

In that letter you posted, I happened to notice all of those esteemed doctors who signed it. There were 26 of them, in fact. I have no retort for 26 activist doctors. What struck me as interesting about those doctors, though, was that all but one of them were men.

Why are so many male doctors so insistent on holding American women back in the dark ages when it comes to control over their own bodies?

Why do assume that all 26 doctors are activists? 2 of them were former ACOG members. This is an organization that changes medical textbooks at the will of Planned Parenthood. ACOG is about as liberally biased as they come. Maybe most fetologists or embryologists are predominately prolife because they know first hand the real science of why these tiny humans are a seperate and unique life. If the "fetus" does not feel pain why are they given anesthetic during surgical procedures? Why during an abortion does the child move about the uterus in an attempt to escape the abortionists surgical instruments? (please check out the Silent Scream by former abortionist Bernard Nathanson) Also, in keeping with your logic....there is a little girl who cannot feel pain because she lacks the nerve endings associated with transmitting pain. Is she not alive b/c she cannot feel pain? Would it be okay for her parents to put cigarettes out on her skin, or kick her, or cut her b/c she cannot feel it?

BINGO! This is, hands down, the winner for best quote of this whole thread. So being forced to carry an unwanted to pregnancy to term against your will (in essence being an involuntary baby incubator) is being saved from "a life of hell"???

Once again let's get back to basic biology. Most women that have abortions do so as a result of consensual sex. The baby just didn't magically appear or crawl into the woman's vagina in the middle of the night while she was sleeping. She volunteered for it when she said "yes" As stated before...once you are pregnant you have already reproduced. If you didn't want to reproduce you should not have allowed a male to deposit sperm into your vagina.

The bottom line here is that the Nazis went so far as to perform forced abortions (This much coming from the mouth of pro-lifers I will agree with). On the other hand, the Christians want to go so far as to ensure forced birthing by eliminating abortion altogether. NEITHER extreme would allow for control over one's own body and reproduction. Same shit, different day, right?

The bottom line is that you insist upon ignoring science and labeling it as activist to deny the truth. That is your right...but in the meantime 4,000 infants are strippd of their rights b/c of this type of denial

reply from: yoda

Actually, I call it a smart-alec remark. Look it up.

reply from: yoda

That sir, is way above where you started out. You introduced your nasty, baseless personal attacks and now you are whinning that "you must retaliate"? What a sad excuse for a human being you are.

reply from: Christian4life

Yes I would be, but that is happening in China right now.  It irks me no end when people claim abortion is so good for people and can't see or don't care about the negative results of a society at odds with it's own offspring.

It is no use to argue with you, because no matter what I say you will equate killing another human being with being within your "rights" to "choose" as a woman.  When your body is not affecting someone else's body, you have the right to do whatever you want. 

Exactly what part of YOUR BODY is being aborted???

reply from: mom2

Wow - CFJulie -  Angry again?

Here's the fact - women are not being educated on their choices!  I am 32 years old and just in the last few months saw pictures of aborted babies.  I ,too, was in the medical field (xray). Next time you do an ultrasound on a baby- why don't you try to stop worrying about what the women looks like.  I know that you deal with A LOT of old people in all kinds of physical shapes - you are going to be like that one day - does that make you want to kill yourself before you get there?  Look deeper for your reasons to defend abortion they appear to be a little shallow.

Also, I did not see where christain4life said that she was God - could you point that out? 

reply from: yoda

Babies are "punishment"? Is that all your baby means to you? Is human life so cheap to you that you'd blow it off as "punishment"?

So killing your child is BOTH "avoiding punishment" and "correcting mistakes"? And you value your "looks" above the life of your own child? Wow, what a concept. Human beings are "punishment", "mistakes", and they ruin your "beautifulness". Don't think much of human life, do you?

reply from: chooselife

You are the only one that seems to be angry. I would be angry too if my value and meaning came from how much worry free sex I could have and was dependent upon my dress size and skin clarity.

reply from: Dmourning

I hope you all are having a fine evening tonight.

Whosays:

I've already said this multiple times this happens at such a point when the fetus is able to survive outside of the woman on its own. Most preemies able to live on their own are born starting around 6 1/2 - 7 months.

While I agree that, technically speaking, a baby after birth is still 100% reliant upon others for its continued survival (diapers, formula, etc), I disagree with this as a premise for the abolition of abortion rights. If an embryo at 9 weeks of development is exposed to conditions outside of the woman's body, regardless of if it is still attached via the umbilical cord or not, it will die. If your blood cells are exposed to conditions outside of your body, they will die, as well.

After the time where the fetus is able to survive on its own physically outside of the woman, it is as much human as you and I. Before that time, though, it has no real "rights" ("rights" are just manmade anyways) in comparison with fully developed human beings.

Christian4Life (you are turning in to one of my favorite people here, by the way)

But forcing someone to give birth against their will is ok?

No it doesn't actually. How do I know you're not just making that up just to prove me wrong? Hmmm

Again, I turn this around on you and ask: What business is it of YOURS what women you've never even met do with their own bodies? You are in the bedrooms and doctor's offices of women all over the country yet you have the nerve to tell me something is "none of my business" ?

In doing so, you keep women from having total control over their own bodies. This is turning the clock back to a time when wives were considered their husband's "property". It wasnt until the 20th century in the USA that women were even considered equal enough to have the right to vote. During that same time period, dpousal abuse was all too common. Also think of Islamic nations. There, women are murdered for adultery. They are beaten by their husbands for mouthing off. In both cases, women do not have total control of their lives and bodies. Taking the right to choose away does nothing but help turn the clock back for equality in this country.

This statement says to me that you would therefore be in favor of comprehensive education and birth control being made available to the public then, no?

Read his post that I replied to if you want rude.

If you want to look at it that way, sure. But at the same time, an embryo at 9 weeks development will die if exposed to conditions outside of the woman's body...just as her blood cells will - it is part of her body, not a separate entity.

We are all activists though, aren't we?

About the doctors, I agree that a higher proportion of doctors are male, but look at this Yahoo listing in my area of General Practitioners:

http://yp.yahoo.com/py/ypResults.py?Pyt=Typ&city=Roseville&state=MI&zip=48066&uzip=48066&country=us&msa=2160&cs=5&ed=3XQhKq1o2TyCJ4IIJ.28ro9Sl3hdEmtWiIm0pyCSva3r&tab=B2C&stx=8571984&stp=y&desc=General+Practice&offset=19&FBoffset=1&toggle=&stat=ClkNxtUpper&ls=&lp=&xargs=12KPjg1tpSrIGmmvmnCOObHb%5F%2Dvj0Zlpi3g5UzTYR6a9RL8nR2OdBELPDUmLF4WO5hm0aBnrYhyfZPHvDg4MsuJjaKUFGPW7Khh5nHuc8OLYeQaoAUkrBYxsvZrg%2E%2E

5 out of 20 listed are female. It is a low ratio, 25%, I admit, but those are the ones whose names are in the practice name, there's no way to know how many female doctors actually practice at these offices, as well.

Your list of doctors has 1 woman out of 26 doctors. That is less than 4%. Why isn't the ratio of activist doctors rallying against women's right to choose more in line with the 4 to 1 ratio of male to female doctors? Simple, these men are scared of women being able to make choices about their own bodies.

Who said anything about hedonism? Freeing yourself from bondage means stop obsessing over what the invisible man in the sky is going to think about your every thought and action. THAT is bondage.

Winner for biggest lie of the day! What then do you call being forced to carry out a pregnancy to term against your will? If you people have your way and abortion becomes illegal, that's exactly what will happen to thousands of women...that or they will die due to botched back-alley abortions. Either way, women lose.

I don't know why you felt the need to mention this. Is it because I made a comparison between pro-lifers and Hitler that can't be refuted or is it because I used a colorful expression in making that point? If you choose to completely disregard the unrefutable point I made and instead focus on the mechanism with which I delivered it, then that is just pitiful

Chooselife:

Even if the practice of abortion is crude and barbaric (as are most all surgeries, even beneficial ones that save lives), it doesn't mitigate the fact that it is a woman's right to have control over her body. All the pitiful stories of babies playing dodgeball inside the womb with scapels and so forth do nothing but try to sidestep the issue of a woman's right to control of her own body.

Your arguments (not just YOU personally but all pro-lifers) are for the most part not rooted in logic, science or reason. They are rooted in emotion and emotionally charged rhetoric. You sidestep pertinent questions about the real ambitions of your movement and, frankly, stick your noses where they don't belong - bedrooms and doctor's offices.

Yodavater:

I don't need to, every single one of your posts are filled with them.

Every other person on this forum hasn't resorted to the kind of trash you have. Yet you haven't had one valid argument for your cause at all. And as far as being a "sad excuse for a human being" - I put my money on the fact that I have accomplished more in the community and personally in the last 5 years than you have your entire life. You aren't fit to judge me or anyone else. You are an angry and pitiful human being that seeks to inflict his unhappiness on others. Keep trying, you won't bring me down.

EDIT: And to keep in line with the Moderator's message, I will no longer reply to your posts. Bye

reply from: dignitarian

Actually, I call it a smart-alec remark. Look it up.

Thanks Yodavater.
To Dmourning:  Look it up?  Are you joking?  No one could possibly care what you call it.  
By any name, it is not intelligent dialogue.
End of story.
Dignitarian

reply from: shiprah

Actually this isn't true for most of the Islamic world.  See http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/arbwomn.htm written by Nouha al-Hegelan who earned a law degree at the University of Damascus. Since her arival in the US in 1979, she has spoken extensively on the question of women in the Arab world. She has traveled widely and during her seven year residence in Spain, was decorated Lazo de Dama de Isabella la Catolica.

reply from: shiprah

When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

reply from: Dmourning

Philisophical talk about theretical rights is fine and dandy, but what about not being able to do something as simple as voting?

http://www.arabview.com/articles.asp?article=536

reply from: shiprah

There are many Arab countries where women can vote like Iraq, Yemen, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Afghanistan, Morroco, Iran, etc. you have only listed one in which they have difficulty.  http://www.salamiran.org/Women/General/Women_And_Islam.html Besides, you already posted that you didn't want U.S. troops in Iraq, so apparently you didn't want them to vote there. I notice that you have neglected to challenge Stanton's view on why it is incongruent to be both pro-women's rights and pro-choice.  Interesting.

reply from: Dmourning

You make mention of Afghanistan and Iraq in your list of Arab nations where women have the right to vote. Allow me to point out that this is the case NOT because of their own cultural enlightenment and evolution but because of outside meddling. In other words, they only have that right because we forced it on them. You and I both know how happy the Iraqis are that we are over there right now.

You have neglected to challenge several of my points earlier in this thread, as well. I didn't point that out to you, did I?

reply from: shiprah

Actually, although the Taliban took away the right to vote Afghanistan women already had in their culture due to their enlightenment.  And Iraqi women had also had the right to vote for decades before it was taken away.  When you try to bash Islam and other people's cultures, can you at least base it on fact and not other people's ignorance?

reply from: yoda

Best news I've had this "morning". Now, for everyone else:

You have yet to show any connection between viability and humanity, moral rights, or anything else. You are simply repeating your porabort dogma.

Human frailty is something that we live with all our lives. You have yet to show any connection between that and humanity, moral rights, or anything else. You are simply repeating your proabort dogma.

How about forcing someone NOT TO KILL their BORN child? Is that "okay"?

Killing innocent unborn children OUGHT TO BE the business of every person with a conscience. Sorry if that seems to leave you out.

So your solution is to consider an unborn child as the mother's "property", and give her TOTAL control over the body of that child? How very UNgallant of you!

That is so silly as to be assinine. It deserves no reply.

Thankfully, very few proaborts that have visited this forum have a trashmouth as bad as yours.

reply from: mom2

Best news I've had this "morning".

Yes somewhat a relief!  They usually do not last long!

reply from: shiprah

I think he just means he won't reply to Yoda's points because he's replied to a couple of mine today.

reply from: yoda

Prolly so, shiprah. Hang in there, maybe he'll have a hissy fit and quite posting to everyone! :-)

reply from: mom2

Quote dmourning

"Again, I turn this around on you and ask: What business is it of YOURS what women you've never even met do with their own bodies?"

Let me spell this out - here is where ALL the disagreement lies between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. It is not our business what women do with their own bodies - it what they are doing to a seperate body.
 
Pro-Life knows that a child is alive at the moment of conception. Pro-Choice wants to pretend that it isn't.

No it can not survive outside of the womb just yet, and I really do not care what all the  "scientists, doctors, etc" say - It is a baby and it is alive in one form or another. 

Again - It doesn't matter to me if it can live outside of the womb at 9 weeks - 16 weeks - 20 weeks - it's still a child.  I take no notice in the agrument of vitality outside of the womb. I am totally against abortion in any form, at any stage of development and no one will EVER change my mind.

What I find interesting is that there are alot of people who were once pro-choice but now are pro-life.  I personnally have never heard of a person changing views from pro-life to pro-choice.  That gives me hope for the future as it should everyone else.

Even Norma McCorvey is Pro-Life now!  She says one of the things that changed her mind was seeing a model of the stages of pregnancy (development). She became Pro-Life in just 1995.

reply from: yoda

Mom, don't let the proabort propaganda pull the wool over your eyes. Whenever they invoke the words "scientist and/or doctor" it is pure bluff, and nothing else. NO scientist OR doctor has ever been quoted as saying unborn humans are not babies, because the word itself has no special meaning in the scientific or medical world. It is a common word, a term of the vernacular, and as such is defined by it's use in society at large.

No, they will never quote or link you to any scientist or doctor to document their dogmatic statements. They rely on the old saying that "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe you".

reply from: Christian4life

How do we know that the life inside of a pregnant woman's body is a child?  Tons of ways!!!  We have doctors and scientists to back us up on every count.  We have photographic evidence, testimony of witnesses, and personal experience as pregnant women.  

How do I know my daughter was a distinct human being inside the womb?  Because I'm NOT a moron.  I felt her heartbeat, her kicks, saw my belly move as she twisted and turned.  I saw her on ultrasound sucking her thumb, swallowing, kicking, resting, and rubbing her head.  She even had hiccups.  She could also dream, think, cry, hear, and become afraid. I did nothing but eat, sleep, and move around as I normally would, and one day out came baby.  The only difference between her then and her after her birth, was she didn't rely on my body as much for air.  Everything else still came from me.  The truth is she had been there all along, inside the womb, growing, and just because no one could see her with the naked eye, doesn't mean she wasn't a baby. 

What do you have?  Lies, propaganda, faulty logic, and a continuing insistance on the schizophrenic reasoning that if we take away a woman's right to legally kill her own developing child, we are suddenly going to turn back history and take away all her civil rights as well.  Please!  Nobody wants to do that!
I AM a woman, my daughter will one day be a woman, Shiprah, Mom2 and Chooselife are all WOMEN.  To say that we are prejudiced against OURSELVES is impossible.

 We keep on telling you again and again and yet you keep on insisting that a child can be part of a woman's body.  This is illogical, unprovable, in inane.  Find a different argument or give up.  There is no reason to be here if all you're going to do is babble on and on incessantly using the same old tired rhetoric which we've already disproved a hundred or so times over.

I don't find it funny to come here and laugh about abortion.  I find it sickening.  I don't want to be one of your favorite people on here.  I try to stay away from emotional argument, but truth be told, abortion makes me physically ill.  I think it is a disgusting, barbaric act, performed by a disgusting, barbaric society that values moral relativism, selfishness, money, and sex over innocent children's lives.

For the most part they just want to do whatever they want, and they ignore the intrinisic law that your actions are going to have consequences.  You eat too much, you are going to get fat.  Yet people try to invent pills that allow them to overeat and not get fat.  You have sex all the time, you are eventually going to get pregnant (barring sterility of course) and yet people invent all sorts of contraceptives to try to keep themselves from having kids, and when they do have kids, they just kill them.  They simply DO NOT want to take responsibility for their own actions.  Listen to some of Rev. Martin Luther King's sermons sometime.  Find out what HE thought about moral relativism verses moral law.  

  I have seen the pictures of what abortion does to these tiny young children, I have also seen several ultrasounds of babies in various stages of development in the womb.  There is no doubt in my mind that people like you have never really SEEN any of those things because you are too blinded by your own ideology to see what is sitting right in front of you.  Just the fact that you are TRYING to justify infanticide makes me ill.  It makes me thank God I'm not like you, and when you talk about another person's right to live as if it were some trivial thing, just someone else's "choice" you have no idea how many times I've cried over the fact that your people are convincing people into actually believing that. 

My mother was "pro-choice" and I was what you call a "wanted child", though not exactly planned, and I had one of the worst childhoods imaginable.  And I'll tell you why, I try to honor my mother as best I can, but "pro-choice" people have a mindset that can allow them to be completely self-centered, immoral, to value sex over their children, to believe they have a right "not to be a mother anymore" on a whim, and to hold feminist values over that of a loving family.  Of course this isn't true for ALL of them, but in general, it is.  My mom worked so much we hardly saw her, and all the while her boyfriends were abusing us.  I WAS a foster child.  So how can you say that "wanted" children will never become foster children??  You don't know that, and it isn't statistically verifiable at all, and in fact the opposite is true.  Pro-aborts are worse parents on average than anybody else.  The nice people who took me in as foster parents were CATHOLICS. 

Secondly, you still never answered my question of how you can associate with people who think killing an 8 or 9 month old fetus is okay.  You seem to think that abortion is only legal up until so called "age of viability".  In fact that is wrong.  It IS legal for all 9 months, for any reason at all.  Look up the laws yourself.  You support people who see nothing wrong with killing a full-term infant.  While your at it, look up some of the pictures of tiny premature babies born at or before 6 months gestation.  Can you honestly tell me that those aren't babies???

reply from: shiprah

Thanks for the encouragement.

Christian4life, I know things are bad when you start getting riled up.  I think of you as the kind of Christian I want to be because you've had such a hard life and have every reason to act ungodly, yet still you are devout and loving.  Also, you respond with sympathy to the posts.  When I kept sending Dmourning smiley faces and inviting him to debate, that's because I thought the debate would be reasonable, I didn't know that he would start calling the dictionary biased and saying we lie when we say we participate in community service, with that kind of attitude, intelligent debate is impossible.

reply from: yoda

Very well said, C4L. There's another old saying that applies to the tactics of these proaborts: "If what you're doing isn't working, and you keep on doing the same old things, how can you expect the result to ever be any different?"

reply from: Dmourning

I know I said I wouldn't reply to any more of your posts, but this one last time I have to. I am not going to quote you, mention you by name or make any other statement to you except this:

You talk real smart for a person who freely posts their name and home address on the internet.

Think about it.

Shiprah, I would be happy to return to our original method of discussion but it seems like neither one of us are willing to accept that there may be some validity to the other's viewpoint. I may have based one of my last statements to you on a generalization (which you have successfully refuted). That was bad form on my part, I apologize. But sinking to that other guy's level...I thought you were above that, but maybe it's just a trait of pro-lifers when they have no real argument left?

Christian4life. I'm so happy to know you think so highly of me. You have thus far compared me with Satan and spurned my affection. This doesn't deter me though, you're still my favorite person here.

Don't you see, though? That may not be your intention but it will be one of the VERY negative side effects of the abolition of choice. Let's look at what else is going on in our country right now:

Gay men and women are under attack and having rights denied them

Clear violations of the Establishment Clause of our constitution are occurring and going unchecked

Personal freedoms are being eroded (ex: a woman in texas being charged with a crime for selling marital aids)

This is just some, but certainly not all, of the issues facing the country right now from a morals and freedoms standpoint. Whatever your opinion on these things, you can not deny that if these three things occur as well as the abolition of choice, there will be serious setbacks in personal freedoms in this country. In the same order as above, let's look at what could happen if these things continue:

Certain portions of the population that don't adhere to our "collective morals" are not gauranteed the same rights afforded to everyone else under the constitution. The same thing happened in Nazi Germany.

This may not bother you personally, but please keep in mind there are millions of people in this country who are appalled at the overt slant toward "Christifying" this country. The Establishment Clause is there to prevent religion from permeating the laws of this land as it did in England, France and most all of Europe before this country was founded. When this country turns into a Christian theocracy, how will it be any different from Taliban Afghanistan?

Eventually, by law, sex will be relegated to being for "procreation only", as fundamentalist Christians would prefer. I would like to think we, as modern human society, are enlightened enough to realize there are no infallible absolute moral standards that dictate how we handle a bodily function that we naturally have urges for and is naturally pleasurable.

I apolize for the tangent off topic here, and I also apologize for the alarmist tone, but understand this is probably THE central pro-choice argument. When you take away the right to choose, you are taking one more right away that we, as a society, have worked very hard to get. Please understand that we won't just sit back and accept it while you say, "You can trust us, our intentions are wholly pure"

And as far as "schizophrenic reasoning" goes, you may call fear of loss of personal freedoms this, but I could turn around and apply that same label to your assertion that the MOMENT a sperm cell meets an egg cell it is a fully birthed human being as you claim (when in reality it is a zygote with no human characteristics whatsoever). Conception is not birth, it is the joining of two microscopic cells. Birth occurs much later.



When did I laugh? I at least have enough respect for you people (although it's apparent the feeling is not mutual) that I would not come here and crack dead baby jokes or whatnot. That's not the point, though.

You mention staying away from emotional argument, but one of the basics of the pro-life movement is that "WE MUST SAVE THE INNOCENT CHILDREN". That, itself is an appeal to emotions; an emotional argument. The moment you claim a "child" is under attack, you have just made an emotionally stirring statement requiring action. The pro-choice movement does the exact same thing, however, because "OUR RIGHTS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY" is just as emotionally stirring. I am just pointing out that you DO engage in emotional argument whether you realize it or not.

This I agree with you WHOLEHEARTEDLY about (except that "killing the children part"). There is a SERIOUS lack of personal accountability in our society today. People sue when they spill hot coffee on themselves (be careful next time). They sue when they supposedly become physically ill from watching a television show with people eating worms (change the channel, then). They sue when their children fall down at a jungle gym (try teaching them to be careful). They sue stores for selling their children a cd with certain words on it (try minding what your children are watching and listening to, instead). The list goes on and on.

Again, using a word like "infanticide" implies the killing of infants. No infants really die in an abortion but since a majority of the pro-life argument is simply trying tp argue the semantics of various words, you can't understand that. Is it a zygote or a baby? Is it a child or an embryo? Is it conception or birth? I guess it depends on who you ask

And I'm thankful I'm not like you thinking I can dictate what others can do with their own body because I have a moral objection to certain aspects of reproductive freedom. If I was the crying type, I would cry over the fact that "your people" are convincing people that children really ARE being slaughtered en masse and that the moment conception occurs, the zygote is not really a zygote but an "innocent child" that has feelings, a brain, nerve endings, etc.

Yeah, sorry your childhood was messed up, and all, but you aren't the only one to have grown up in a dysfunctional environment and you most certainly won't be the last.

Really? What about these "pro-life" people who don't believe in birth control that spit out 5, 6, 7+ kids without for ONE MINUTE thinking about their own capabilities financially, physically and mentally as parents first? They just think each one is another "miracle from god" yet only the father works making 10$ an hour and the kids grow up below the poverty line. They can barely put food in the kids' stomachs but they can fill their kids' heads full of homophobic, supernatural hogwash? This is your idea of better parenting than pro-choice parents?

I'll be happy to answer that question. The answer is, I don't associate with people who kill 8-9 month old fetuses. I actually did look up the laws myself, and partial birth abortion (those performed after "viability") is legally restricted in 30 states:

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/pbal.htm

I don't think I've mentioned it yet, but I actually find the actual act of abortion after 9 weeks to be a tad brutal, but that personal opinion is by no means, whatsoever justification to deny access to it to people who may require it. It's not my place, and it's not yours, either.

reply from: shiprah

Shiprah, I would be happy to return to our original method of discussion but it seems like neither one of us are willing to accept that there may be some validity to the other's viewpoint. I may have based one of my last statements to you on a generalization (which you have successfully refuted). That was bad form on my part, I apologize. But sinking to that other guy's level...I thought you were above that, but maybe it's just a trait of pro-lifers when they have no real argument left?

I would love to accept validity in your arguments, but what, so far, am I supposed to find valid?  You haven't given any scientific proof that an embryo isn't human and therefore doesn't merit human rights.  Besides, there is one point we do agree on, and that is that women should have freedom.  However, I believe that the first freedom of a woman is the right to be born.  I think that society fails when we try to take away the rights of humans, but I think that taking the way the right to live is a greater wrong than taking away the right to kill a baby one chose to have (by acting in a way that creates babies) which isn't wrong at all.  You feel that if a woman can't have an abortion she's being kept oppressed by men, apparently claiming that the only way for a woman to acheive equality is to oppress someone else, but as Stanton said, the only way for someone to have freedom is to base their claim on the idea that ALL are entitled to freedom, to enfranchise one group at the disenfranchisement of another is wrong.  Do you think the suffragettes wanted to enslave women?  They were prolife because they knew that true feminine power comes not from subjugating others but from making the rights of all human beings unquestionable.  You say that an embryo isn't what you think of as a human, but blacks what weren't some people thought of as human.  Deformed people, bald people (in some societies), hermaphrodites, mentally disabled people, kids etc. haven't been considered real human beings because of what they looked like, their genetic qualities, their abilities or lack thereof.  There isn't one quality that an embryo has that makes it unhuman that can't be found among those already born.  Prochoicers claim that prolifers want to force their morals on other people, but I force my morals on you when I tell you not to kill, steal, or rape.  I do so to protect you from being killed, robbed, or raped.  In any just society, some people have to be able to force their morals on others so that people can't victimize each other at will.  However, it is the prochoicer who improperly forces their beliefs on the unborn baby, disembering him because they belief its their right.  As you can see, I have plenty of arguments left and I don't appreciate you generalizing about prolifers.  I don't feel that being upset with you for calling a dictionary biased simply becaused it disagreed with you is sinking to a low level.  I have to ask you, if we take away the rights of the unborn for women, what comes next?  Whose rights will be sacrificed to give someone else a choice?

reply from: shiprah

Yeah, sorry your childhood was messed up, and all, but you aren't the only one to have grown up in a dysfunctional environment and you most certainly won't be the last. Really? What about these "pro-life" people who don't believe in birth control that spit out 5, 6, 7+ kids without for ONE MINUTE thinking about their own capabilities financially, physically and mentally as parents first? They just think each one is another "miracle from god" yet only the father works making 10$ an hour and the kids grow up below the poverty line. They can barely put food in the kids' stomachs but they can fill their kids' heads full of homophobic, supernatural hogwash? This is your idea of better parenting than pro-choice parents? I'll be happy to answer that question. The answer is, I don't associate with people who kill 8-9 month old fetuses. I actually did look up the laws myself, and partial birth abortion (those performed after "viability") is legally restricted in 30 states: http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/pbal.htm I don't think I've mentioned it yet, but I actually find the actual act of abortion after 9 weeks to be a tad brutal, but that personal opinion is by no means, whatsoever justification to deny access to it to people who may require it. It's not my place, and it's not yours, either.
What is a tad brutal?  The fact that something is brutal means its extremely cruel, perverse, wrong.  Nothing "tad" about it.  You think its not your place to protect someone from brutality?  You think its okay to give someone else the choice to brutalize another.  I guess it's okay for people to lynch then -- hey, it's a tad brutal, but if you want to go ahead...Funny how you want to discuss removing women from subjugation, yet you give women the right to brutalize another.  Apparently to you after nine weeks the baby is human?  I thought that didn't occur until birth.  You don't associate with peoplel who kill nine month old fetuses, but according to you, they aren't human either.  If someone really wasn't human until birth, you wouldn't resent late-term abortion, so you must realize that humanity and birth aren't synonymous.  Do you see how your idea of humanity, non-scientific, trips you up.  I ask you again, when is someone human?  The measure of society is the rights it gives its citizens.  Hugo Chavez has given every Venezuelan the free college tuition, has made an indigenous woman head of environmetal concerns, and guess what -- he's prolife.  He realizes that a compassionate society that respects indigenous people, the poor, and women and the environment naturally supports the rights of the unborn.

reply from: Christian4life

The gay population has every single right that every other citizen has.  Most often, I hear the complaint that they are discriminated against because they can only have domestic partnerships and religious marriages.  If you are referring to their attempts to gain special privileges above the rest of us (such as healthcare entitlements and tax benefits reserved for legally married child-bearing couples), I would say that straight-hate is a terrible state of mind.

Very true.  Liberal judges have been rewriting our laws, each according to his own whims.  This has only served to set our legal system on a course of self-destuction.  The re-interpretation of our laws against the original intent of the founders sets a thousand black-robed dictators against each other and the populace.  The only solution is to reject this anarchist liberal philosophy.

Absolutely!  Because of the low value placed upon life in this country since Roe v. Wade, we now have Dr. Kevorkian as a healthcare provider, disabled children discriminated against to the point of euthanasia, ever more graphic violence sold as "entertainment", and even elementary school children now going "postal".  It is a domino effect, as one right is taken away, others teeter and fall.

  

An excellent place to start.  Indeed, where better to look at the consequences of putting pro-choice people in charge than the first country to legalize abortion: Nazi Germany.  I find great comfort in knowing that I was not born in pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, Socialist 1930s Germany, however perhaps you would have liked it there?  I also take great comfort that I was not born in any of the other great liberal Paradises:  I could have been among the millions massacred in the USSR, or died of starvation in China, or rotted away in the killing fields of Cambodia.  Perhaps you would take a moment to consider history's judgement of your values.

If that isn't enough, you might then take a tour of the so-called Bible belt.  I can assure you, you will find wheat fields rather than killing fields, Boy scout camps rather than death camps, and churches rather than statues of brutal dictators. 

 

While I am unaware of your level of education, you are literate enough to know that the founder's of this country were nearly all religious men (Deist and Christian) and sought to protect the people from an established religion.  Read a bit of the founders. While their beliefs upon destiny, God, and love greatly differed, the founders agreed upon Judeo-Christian morals as the single basis of all laws and government.  The pro-life movement, myself included, has no interest in legislating religion, it is a private personal matter.  However, no community can exist without agreed upon rules (that is, laws).  Thus it is necessary for a standard set of universally understood rules to be set out.  Herein lies the difficulty of your argument.  How can any people agree upon a set of rules in a humanist hedonist society?  They cannot;  The relativist mind is such a shifting base that it is the antithesis of community.  It is self-centered, egotistical, and unabashedly based upon nothing.  It is very similar to orientalism/occidentalism, as it is only defined in relation to the other.

Now let us take a moment to examine the basis you criticize.  The Judeo-Christian basis is sweetly summarized:  Don't kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, and have respect for God.  While I realize you will probably disagree with the last clause, I do not see how you can criticize the other tenets, since the only people who have difficulty with them are murderers, thieves liars, and adulterers.

 
  
It will be totally different because of the basic difference between militant Islamists/humanist liberals, and practicing Jews and Christians.  As I just said above, Judeo-Christian morality begins with respect for life ("Thou shalt not kill").  The Taliban's beliefs have no such basis, and so they engaged in tribal wars, revenge killings, and brutality.  Similarly, Rosseau's Revolutionary France was based upon humanist liberalism and had no regard for human life.  The invention of the guillotine, the first mass killing machine, and its reign of terror is only one example of the similarities between modern liberals and murderous radical Islamists.  The main difference is that the Islamists use traditional methods that tend to keep the body count far, far lower than the liberals (who have employed the latest scientific knowledge in unimaginably horrific ways).  You've probably never read the Bible or the Quran, but if you did you'd know that women are depicted in heroic ways throughout the old and new testament, while they are simply assigned a role as sex objects, trophies, in the Quran.  There is even a call in it to specifically beat your wife if she is disobediant, while Christian husbands are commanded to love and care for their wives "as you would for your own body".
 

Enlightenment implys a certain absorption of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, not the crass animalism that you live by.  If we do not exercise enough self-control over the simplest animal urges and functions of the body, then how can we ever exercise the degree of control and sacrifice necessary to eliminate the higher mental tempations of greed, prejudice, and injustice?  If we cannot resist the impulses to misuse our own body, how can we overcome the mistreatment of others bodies:  that is, rape, child abuse, and perversion.  As a society, we need to aspire to be kind, loving, gentle, and charitable people, not to be impulsive, pleasure-seeking, lustful animals.  In fact we DO have absolute moral standards that dictate laws about how we govern our impulse for sex.  They are called laws against rape.
 

 

 I would like to point out that zygote refers broadly to the individual that comes from the joining of two cells (Webster's Dictionary).  Since we once came from the joining of two cells, you are a zygote, and I am a zygote. To refer very specifically to one definition as a two-celled living organism, I do not claim that it is a fully birthed human being, but rather that it is living and uniquely human being with basic intrisic value.
 

"We must free the slaves."  According to your faulty logic, such an appeal was simply an emotional argument.  Is it an emotive statement?  Yes, however it is the blatant truth of it that overshadows the emotiveness.  "We must save the innocent children" is powerful, not because it personifies an impersonal object, but because it is true.  For example,  you may say "We must save the innocent radishes" and people will look at you very oddly because you have given human charactistics to an inhuman object, and accused them of ignoring an injustice of which they know nothing about.  Abortion is different because the child, whatever scientific or greek term you choose to apply, is uniquely human and we all know it.  There is no defining moment between conception and birth, birth and adulthood, that that human being is suddenly metamorphosed into anything different;  We are all groups of cells dividing, multiplying, living, and dying from the moment of conception on.

 
 Many born children have died as a result of abortions, by being suffocated or sliced up.  So many instances of this have been reported that Congress had to pass the Born Alive Protection Act to put a stop to some of it.   The difficulty you have is, if it is a child after it has taken a gasp of air, still tied to it's mother by an umbilical cord, and the law says that this is infanticide, how can people honestly surmise that a partial birth abortion, where the baby is a few inches away is somehow not?  And if it is killing then, then what about when he or she is in the womb?  Or a few minutes, hours, days before that?  You can't draw a line because you don't have an answer.  It's a process and there is only the beginning to start at.  You've brought killing into the equation, you've opened the door.

 
Indeed, we are left with two choices:  either the beginning of life, that is conception, or nothing.  You have no answer, and the pro-choice side has never come up with one, because life begins at conception.  That's it, there is no alternative;  You may come up with your own fantasy, to each his own fancy, but that's not an answer.  And that's the failure of the pro-choice movement.  You cannot deny the child's humanity without demeaning human rights, and you cannot have choice without denying the child his or her right to live.

  

We don't need to convince anyone;  the baby's development is found in medical textbooks, and even in public schools.  Historically, there never was a pro-choice society until Adolf Hitler's Germany.  Where abortion was found, it was illegal or unethical.  You ask me to throw away my God-given conscience along with several thousand, million, or perhaps billions of years of human developement so you can behave like an animal and hate unborn babies?  No thank you.  Once you have concieved, you've MADE the choice, you HAVE reproduced, the only "freedom" you have in this country, is deciding whether that child will be born alive or dead.

  
Hmm, I am trying to think of a large family that wasn't capable of feeding, clothing, and raising their kids.  Not my grandmother's family, who's parent's had 12, not my husband's grandmother's either, who's parents had 13.  Maybe they weren't rich like you, but that shouldn't be the standard.  By that standard, everyplace else in the world besides America couldn't reproduce.
 
 

 My husband doesn't make that much more than $10 an hour right now and we get by very well thank you.  Perhaps you ought to stop being so prejudiced against people poorer than you.

  

All the pro-choice parents I have met tried to do a great job of raising bratty, selfish, materialistic kids that contributed little or nothing to society, other than a deep seeded hatred for men and religious people.  Thankfully, they sometimes failed.
 
 

Living in one of those states, I can tell you that viability is decided by the abortion doctor, and the restriction may also be waived by the abortion provider for various reasons.  Besides, that only applies to partial-birth abortion procedures, there are other procedures of late-term abortion, such as saline, which are legal even after "viability."  And yes, if your mom associates with NOW, you probably do associate with such people.  Unless you were in the clinic with them every time, how would you know?

 

We require air to breathe, food to eat, and a place to live, but no one requires an abortion.  In the end, you're just giving us your opinion, and that doesn't really mean anything, since it's all relative   On the other hand, what I'm doing is repeating the same morals that men have lived happy, productive, good lives for all time;  A respect for life has never destroyed a society, it doesn't hurt or kill.  Rather, it loves.

reply from: shiprah

You've probably never read the Bible or the Quran, but if you did you'd know that women are depicted in heroic ways throughout the old and new testament, while they are simply assigned a role as sex objects, trophies, in the Quran. 
No they aren't.
There is even a call in it to specifically beat your wife if she is disobediant, 
And the old testament supports the stoning of adulterous wives.
while Christian husbands are commanded to love and care for their wives "as you would for your own body".  
Actually The Koran tells us that man and women are created equal
There are at least 30 verses in the Koran that support equality between women and men and that refer to women's rights in various aspects of life. Many of these women-friendly Koranic verses are further supported by the Hadith, traditionally attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, which illustrate that the Prophet’s teachings do not at all put women in second place, but, on the contrary, are conducive and supportive of their position in society as equals.

Among these teachings, to mention only a few, are – first – the creation of human beings: Contrary to the Christian dogma, which states that women were created from the ribs of a man or that men were created first (thereby implying that women are inferior to men), the Koran tells us that women and men were created from a single source/soul („nafs wahida“). There is not a single verse indicating superiority of one gender over the other.

Second: There is no difference between a sin committed by a woman and a sin committed by a man: A large number of Koran verses explicitly guarantee equal rewards and punishment to women and men for their good and bad deeds.

Third: Equal rights and duties for women and men to pursue knowledge. The Koran clearly assigns both women and men to seek knowledge. The Hadith is very clear about it.

Fourth: Equal rights and duties to engage in public activities. Both men and women, as God's vicegerents, are obliged to strive for a virtuous life and to prevent sins and evildoings („amar ma'ruf nahi munkar“). http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-307/_nr-19/_p-1/i.html

reply from: Dmourning

No it does not. Two individuals of the same sex that love and care for each other can neither get married nor enter into any kind of legally recognized domestic partnership in states other than Vermont, Hawaii, New Jersey, California or Massachussets. Religious institutions can deny marriage to gays and lesbians all they want, it's their right. However, the government should recognize everyone as equals (you should agree with this, you want equality for fetuses), and in doing so, provide gays and lesbians the same opportunities for unity as heterosexual couples. Furthermore, how do you explain the ban on gay couples adopting children? You care about the children so much, why would you oppose them being put into loving homes??? There are no such things as "special priveleges" for those who wish to be on the same page as everyone else. If there is, then you also want "special priveleges" for fetuses.

I will also have you know that my (heterosexual) marriage is one where child bearing is not part of the equation (for reasons I don't need to reveal here). Does this make my marriage any less viable than that of a couple with children? It sure sounds that way from your above statement.

Nazi Germany wasn't liberal, it was at the far right of the political spectrum. Don't let the term "Nationalist Socialist" fool you. Hitler banished competing political parties and suspended personal freedoms via the Enabling Acts. There was nothing liberal whatsoever about this.

In fact, it seems you need an education about the true meaning of the word "liberal" in a historical context:

Up until the 1700s. The church and kings ruled Europe almost exclusively. The conservative principles of tradition (royal blood carries on, etc), heirarchy (kings and church were in charge) and authority (of the church and kings) was the only real political train of though up until that point.

A time of thinking in Europe called the Enlightenment occurred during the 1700s. What happened was (in a nutshell), many thinkers were fed up with church and regal domination and felt that true progress could only be made when certain things occurred. These were reliance on REASON over superstition, the notion of EQUALITY, LIBERALISM (the beginnings of laissez-faire capitalism began during this period), and INDIVIDUALISM (one of the tenets of laissez-faire). These early "liberals" were concerned with letting people live their lives and make due for themselves with no government intervention. As I'm sure you're aware, Thomas Paine was the first to coin the phrases "natural rights" and "life, liberty and property". Sound familiar? Our forefathers looked to this thinking in forming our own country on LIBERAL IDEALS of making due for yourself without being bogged down by church and royal decrees.

Actually, I can think of no more of an intolerant, ignorant and backward place to visit. I avoid Texas, Kansas and the deep south when I can at all help it.

Nowhere in our constitution is religion or "god" mentioned except in places where limits upon its use are set. You can not argue this.

Many of our forefathers WERE indeed religious men. Their personal writings about religion and similar matters isn't the issue as much as what they wrote in the constitution. The consititution is one of the first Enlightenment era documents where the ideas of the Enlightenment (specifically, people freeing themselves from church and royal control) were put in to practice. This is why we have an Establishment Clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This was put in to prevent the church permeating state matters such as what was commonplace in pre-revolutionary France, England, and just about all of Europe prior to the 18th century.

As for your other point about Judeo-Christian morals. Of course we need laws. Nearly all civilized nations in the world have laws that fall along the lines of "thou shalt not kill, not steal, etc". Japan has laws based on this, does this make it a Christian nation? Scandanavian nations are fully secular in nature, have the highest standards of living in the world, some of the lowest crime rates and have laws based on this. Does this make them Christian nations?

I do not disagree with those tenets you mentioned (except for the last one, of course), however, they are based more on common sense and logic rather than some set of godly morals handed down to some Christian biblical character.

Actually, this statement is only half true. Revolutionary France was actually fuelled by the leadership of Robespierre who bought into the thought of Jean Jacques Rousseau and his "General Will". The "General Will" was basically what was thought to be to the common good of the community. Liberal concepts such as private property, individualism and individual desires were thought to be poisonous to the General Will. It was during Robespierre's "Reign of Terror" that Europe's first draft was instituted and fierce nationalism swept France. The state, at this point, maintained total control of the populace. "Humanist Liberalism" was most certainly not the flavor of the day at this point.

In fact, I'm sure you know that Rousseau's "General Will" inspired Karl Marx. Karl Marx hated liberal concepts such as "natural rights", private property and laissez-faire capitalism.

As I'm sure you learned in your most basic Sociology class, manmade laws are not absolute. You are correct about what enlightenment does imply. However, the "crass animalism" you claim I live by is not the result of lack of enlightenment, as you would imply. Quite the opposite in fact. I take pleasure in knowing there are no absolute moral laws handed down to me from the heavens. I know I don't have to worry about what some imaginary man in the sky is thinking about my every move and thought. I am truly free. There is no correlation between those who are sexually liberated and the negative traits you mention above.

Furthermore, how can depriving ourselves of sexual pleasure possibly be related to the proliferation of injustice and prejudice? How is sexual pleasure "misuse" of our bodies? You were given natural sexual urges for a reason. Before the days where humans had spoken language, how else would they have known what to "do" other than natural urges? If it weren't for those "animalistic" urges, we wouldn't be here today. Nietzche (one of my favorite thinkers of all time) hated Christianity for this very fact. It teaches its followers to hate and be ashamed of themselves and their bodies.

And all the pro-life parents I've met have done wonderful jobs of raising ignorant, intolerant and religious fundamentalist children that do nothing but help further divide our nation.

reply from: Tobino

Siprah and Christian4life -- great stuff in those last posts!!! Very eloquent and spot on.

Dmourning -- I felt my 4 month old baby fight as it was being poisoned and burned by the saline. That was 33 years ago (legal in NY) and is still as vivid today. I was prochoice until recently, I was militant feminist, I was a NOW member. When I came across a picture of a baby burned and discolored by a saline abortion on the web two years ago I came face to face with the fact that at 17 my boyfriend had paid someone to murder our child for us in a most tortuous and inhumane manner.

I bought the line that it was just a parasite. It made it easier for years to deal with what I felt in my gut. I bought it so much I had another abortion a few years later, this one against the fathers wishes. Then later I killed again -- this one I knew was a human child - a baby - this one I hated as only a human can hate another human, not as a human hates a parasite. Again it was against the fathers wishes. Both those men grieve for their lost children. One has never had his own, but not for the lack of trying when he got married years later. I sincerely doubt if my confession even comes close to touching your heart, nor that your brain can even grasp the enormity of what abortion is. But I post this in the hopes that one day a light will click on and you will see.

I wonder -- why are you here? Are you really trying to 'convert' anyone? I suppose you could be like the foolish person who rattles a hornets nest to see what will happen. That's ok -- gives us practice at stinging. Or are you an angry post abortive person? Maybe you are an abortion clinic worker in the throes of guilt? You seem to be so very bitter. I was like that when I was in denial. Tell me, where does the father who donated one half of the parasitic DNA fit in to an abortion scenario in your world? Hmm, do you have a father? You've talked about your host, never a sperm donor. I bet your host is glad she was able to expell you without losing her life, you know how dangerous parasites can be.

Abortion is not the answer for anything, for anyone. Almost every woman who has an abortion will come face to face with it at some point in their lives. Maybe only on her death bed, maybe never expressing the words out loud because that would admit a major wrongdoing to those who love, and hopefully respect, her but she will have to deal with it.

If abortion hadn't been legal I wouldn't have gone to a back alley. I would have done as a female I am born to do -- give birth. I'd never in my wildest imagination own a slave, but my great great grandfather did. It was legal but that never made it right.

reply from: shiprah

Nazi Germany wasn't liberal, it was at the far right of the political spectrum. Don't let the term "Nationalist Socialist" fool you. Hitler banished competing political parties and suspended personal freedoms via the Enabling Acts. Funny how when he wanted to create this non-liberal, suspended rights society he made sure to include euthanasia and abortion. Actually, I can think of no more of an intolerant, ignorant and backward place to visit. I avoid Texas, Kansas and the deep south when I can at all help it. To be enlightened you really like to stereotype people.  I guess tolerance doesn't include religious tolerance. Nowhere in our constitution is religion or "god" mentioned except in places where limits upon its use are set. You can not argue this. But in our Bill of Rights God is maentioned as being the author or our rights.Nearly all civilized nations in the world have laws that fall along the lines of "thou shalt not kill, not steal, etc". Japan has laws based on this, does this make it a Christian nation? Scandanavian nations are fully secular in nature, have the highest standards of living in the world, some of the lowest crime rates and have laws based on this. Does this make them Christian nations? I do not disagree with those tenets you mentioned (except for the last one, of course), however, they are based more on common sense and logic rather than some set of godly morals handed down to some Christian biblical character.Christianity is a codified set of morals and beliefs.  That these morals are logical and found in non-Christian societies shows what a good standard they are.  Therefore, the banning of the Christian thought in politics is foolish, because Christianity is a good cannon for political thougt to rise from. [ Actually, this statement is only half true. Revolutionary France was actually fuelled by the leadership of Robespierre who bought into the thought of Jean Jacques Rousseau and his "General Will". The "General Will" was basically what was thought to be to the common good of the community. Liberal concepts such as private property, individualism and individual desires were thought to be poisonous to the General Will.These aren't always liberal concepts.  Communistic societies are liberal, yet they oppose those three principles.  Liberal France loves to tax people every change it gets to redistribute financial property.  Liberal america prefers the same taxations, penalties for wealth, excessive licensing for business, energy -sapping welfare, etc.  In fact, I'm sure you know that Rousseau's "General Will" inspired Karl Marx. Karl Marx hated liberal concepts such as "natural rights", private property and laissez-faire capitalism.Yet liberals have socialist tendencieis.  As I'm sure you learned in your most basic Sociology class, manmade laws are not absolute. You are correct about what enlightenment does imply. However, the "crass animalism" you claim I live by is not the result of lack of enlightenment, as you would imply. Quite the opposite in fact. I take pleasure in knowing there are no absolute moral laws handed down to me from the heavens. I know I don't have to worry about what some imaginary man in the sky is thinking about my every move and thought. I am truly free. Yeah!  We're free!  Let the wife beating and rape begin! Nietzche (one of my favorite thinkers of all time) hated Christianity for this very fact. It teaches its followers to hate and be ashamed of themselves and their bodies. No it doesn't, read the Song of Solomon. And all the pro-life parents I've met have done wonderful jobs of raising ignorant, intolerant and religious fundamentalist children that do nothing but help further divide our nation. Really? So you haven't met the lesbian and gay prolife parents?  The feminist prolife parents?  The atheist prolife parents? The buddhist prolife parents?  This speaks more to you lack of knowledge about who is prolife than actual characteristics of prolifers. 

reply from: Dmourning

That is the classic slippery slope fallacy that opponents of gay equality employ. They think that because A happens (gay equality), then by default, B (polygamy) and C (incest) will automatically proliferate. This is a fallacy you should have learned in the first communication or debate class you took in high school.

The fact is, that you can come up with NO valid reason why gay and lesbian couples should be denied rights and NO valid reason why loving gay and lesbian couples should be kept from adopting children.

It goes both ways. Holland, one of the most liberal and politically progressive nations in the world, has legalized both. On top of that, gays have equal rights there, as well. All societies have their problems, but Holland, with these progressive stances, hasn't imploded or crumbled socially (as you would have America believe would happen should these practices be employed here).

The fact that they are common sense is all the explanation we need about their validity. Calling them "Christian" values and morals does nothing but alienate those who don't buy into the entire Christian mythology. Murder is illegal almost everywhere, but not as a result of Christian decree. You can call them Christian morals and values, I call them common sense and our government (remember the Establishment clause???) should do the same.

The modern definition of liberal financial policies includes what you described above. However, communist societies are most certainly not liberal in terms of personal rights and freedoms. They are quite the opposite. Personal expression is limited, politically opposing groups and parties are non-existent and dissent is not tolerated. Look at Stalin's USSR, North Korea and China.

Knowing this, the fact that you would equate liberal America and modern France with communism is actually quite absurd.

That is an assinine statement. We are still bound by the laws of the land which state those things are illegal.

You oppose their being parents yet you use gay and lesbian parents as a tool of your argument? That's not very nice.

I point you, then to this article:

http://theoaklandpress.com/stories/071104/oak_71146.shtml

These people can't even provide for themselves yet they think god will provide for the 12 little miracles they keep spitting out? Seriously, how can you call this good parenting?

reply from: ForLife

Looks like I've been missing quite a bit this week. I see Dmourning believes that the delivery system for oxygen and nutrients decide whether you qualify as a seperate living human. If the oxygen and nutrients come through a hose or umbilical cord rather than through the person's nostrils or mouth, you're not human. You are just part of mom. Dmourning will disqualify a person from the human family until they can stand on their own two feet.

My position is based on Biblical Law. As such, I believe it is unlawful to kill another human being. I also believe it is unlawful to engage in sexual relations outside the marriage of a man and a woman. I believe sodomy has serious health risks. While the vagina has a thick wall, the lower intestine has a very thin permeable wall. Not only can nutrients and water be easily transferred through the intestine into the blood stream, but HIV, Hepatisis, and other diseases can easily enter the blood stream through the intestine, which is often torn and bleeding during the act of sodomy. Sodomy needs to be illegal. Men who engage in such activities have shorter life spans and higher incidents of HIV/AIDS and Hepatisis than the overall population group. As a matter of fact, if everyone obeyed the Law, sex within marriage only, there would not be any STDs.  

reply from: shiprah

That is the classic slippery slope fallacy that opponents of gay equality employ. They think that because A happens (gay equality), then by default, B (polygamy) and C (incest) will automatically proliferate. This is a fallacy you should have learned in the first communication or debate class you took in high school. The fact is, that you can come up with NO valid reason why gay and lesbian couples should be denied rights and NO valid reason why loving gay and lesbian couples should be kept from adopting children.
You don't know my position on gay marriage, polygamy, or incest.  I'm just saying that why aren't you here defending all three?
It goes both ways. Holland, one of the most liberal and politically progressive nations in the world, has legalized both. On top of that, gays have equal rights there, as well. All societies have their problems, but Holland, with these progressive stances, hasn't imploded or crumbled socially (as you would have America believe would happen should these practices be employed here).
All I'm saying is that you claimed that removal of abortion causes a society to backslide, when its quite clear that abortion is used in the most abusive of societies.
  The modern definition of liberal financial policies includes what you described above. However, communist societies are most certainly not liberal in terms of personal rights and freedoms. They are quite the opposite. Personal expression is limited, politically opposing groups and parties are non-existent and dissent is not tolerated. Look at Stalin's USSR, North Korea and China.
Right.  What I'm saying is that liberal means a variety of things and those things aren't always good.
Knowing this, the fact that you would equate liberal America and modern France with communism is actually quite absurd. That is an assinine statement. We are still bound by the laws of the land which state those things are illegal. You oppose their being parents yet you use gay and lesbian parents as a tool of your argument? That's not very nice.
You are so stereotypical.  I have never once said that I don't support gay marriage.  Where do you get this stuff from?
I point you, then to this article: http://theoaklandpress.com/stories/071104/oak_71146.shtml These people can't even provide for themselves yet they think god will provide for the 12 little miracles they keep spitting out? Seriously, how can you call this good parenting?
So the alternative to bad parenting is murderous parenting?  One article is supposed to represent all prolife families -- wow, good debating skills.  Besides, you don't know what religion (if any at all) or position on abortion these people have. Read this article on a gay abusive couple.  http://www.peele.net/faq/gay.html According to you, one article must mean all gay couples are like this.

reply from: dignitarian

I feel obligated to thank Christian4life and Shipra for the wonderful witness to the futility of Dmourning’s arguments.



Perhaps the lesson for Dmourning is that the louder and longer one talks, the more clearly he becomes a target.>>



All of Dmourning’s argumentation (besides being presented as obnoxiously as possible) seems to reflect a devotion to the “religion” of  Positivistic Philosophy.  According to the beliefs of “positivism”, if you can’t touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it, or see it; it doesn’t exist.  Thus (according to Positivism) a universal order of morality, virtue, and ethics; although perhaps sometimes useful as a tool for society, is a falsehood.  In the world of Positivistic thought, the human being ultimately becomes no more than a walking blob of chemicals; or at best, a superbly adapted delivery vehicle for a magnificent (yet arbitrary) arrangement of DNA.>>



A follower of Positivism may think Human Rights are wonderful, but by definition, the follower simply cannot provide a rational basis for the actual existence of Human Rights.  This is why the most Fundamental Right of Human Existence (to a Positivist) is an ambiguous, relative, and subjective commodity that can become a mere question of personal “choice” when one is confronted with the paramount issues of Life.>>



Regards to all my Pro-Life Friends,
Dignitarian

reply from: Christian4life

Tobino, thank you for sharing your story.  It is stories like yours that remind me why I'm pro-life, why I'm out there trying to reach people despite the fact that I would love to just pretend that the world is okay and forget that abortion even exists.  You encourage me to stay with it, not only to save unborn children from suffering and injustice, but to save women from repeating stories like yours.  Having a child myself, I can not even tell you how heartbroken I am every day just looking at her and wondering, what if I had been in the mindset to abort her?  What if I had been one of those people so convinced of my right as a woman to take her life, that I just went and had it done with.  It would have been her little hands and feet and body in pieces, so small, but still her.  I'm sorry, didn't mean to get so descriptive there.  I hope that didn't bother you too much.  It's just that there are people out there who really DON'T want to do that, and have fallen for all the lies about it, and feel so trapped that they are about to do something they can never undo, something they will someday come to regret with all their hearts.  I know I would've regretted it for the rest of my life.  Having my daughter is the best thing I've ever done.  There could never be anyone to take her place, and I don't know how I could live with it, even if she had been very tiny and dependant on me at the time, like a "parasite".  

You know what?  During the hard beginning of my pregnancy things were not going great in my life.  There were times when I just didn't want to be pregnant anymore.  But that is so temporary!  I know that if I had aborted her, I would probably be a living wreck right now for countless reasons.  Thank you for sharing your experience because it is so invaluable in reaching people who feel like I did. 

It is so hard to tell people your experiences when you've done wrong and you know it, and I know you still hurt because of what happened.  But please just try to think of all the women who may be reading this right now and feeling afraid and confused and wondering what to do with that developing child inside them.  There is always hope, and there is ALWAYS another way!   I can only hope and pray that they may learn something from your unhappy story, without having to learn for themselves.  It takes a lot of courage to talk about these things, and I think you are very brave. 

Shiprah, you really are so intelligent, informed, and eloquent.  The pro-life movement could use a few more people like you.  I really admire your commitment and perserverance and hard work.  You are definately a strong woman. 

Dmourning,  You seem to be intelligent as well, even though you have so many things twisted up that I don't even know where to begin and certainly don't have time to sit here and correct all of your errors.   This thread has gone on for so long now, and I have so many more important things to do. I can only hope that someday you will look and listen with an open mind at the world.  Prejudice is a terrible evil, and sin always leads to death, whether it be in your heart or in your actions.  I pray for you.  You never know what light is when you are living in darkness, and you don't know what happiness is until you choose to follow the light.  May you someday come to the light, and realize that us pro-lifers are not  what you think we are, and neither are Christians.

reply from: shiprah

Thank you so much.  Coming from a strong Christian woman like you, this means a lot.

reply from: ForLife

Dmourning has a closed mind. He or she makes several concentrated efforts to explain away the living growing child. Dmourning refers to the product of conception as not alive, a clump of cells, a tiny speck with such a long time to go before becoming alive, something no bigger than a kidney bean. There are multiple attempts to dismiss the growing child as a nothing. Some legislators in North Dakota are getting it right. They have a bill making it first degree meditated murder to abort any child after conception. Abortion is the carefully pre-planned taking of another human's life. Dmourning compares a young embryo to sperm, saying they are equally "potential life" if the "forced birther" arguments that embryos are "potential life" is correct. (It seems Dmourning doesn't even believe embryos are "potential life".) Trying to say sperm and an already conceived new unique human being are comparable is not correct. Dmourning wants the blinders on to deny the reality of a newly created human being. He or she has absolutely no intention, at least at this point, of taking away the blinders he/she wants to wear. Dmourning wants to be deliberately ignorant of the young living human being so the freedom to kill the child is not abridged. People want to satisfy their selfish desires and will overlook and purposely not see the consequences of their actions to themselves or others.     

reply from: yoda

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather see two words about abortion than two pages about homosexuality. Proaborts seek to divert the discussion away from abortion, and that is one of the classic ways they do it.

reply from: Tobino

I'm reading this thread to my daughter while she knits. She asked me to tell you that she salutes you and wants to jump up and give you a biiiiig hug for the strength of your comments and the work you are doing to help stop fools like this in the prolife fight to help women and children not suffer like we have. Not just the ones directly impacted by abortion, but the siblings and other extended family and friends that share the pain.

reply from: ForLife

Dmourning said he believes life begins 6 1/2 to 7 months into pregnancy, since the baby can survive outside the womb after that point. However, he says, he would not force his morality on anyone and people are entitled to an abortion after that time "if they need one."

This has reminded me of a couple other pro-aborts opinions as to when human life begins.

Barbara Boxer, California Senator, says human life begins when the mother takes the baby home from the hospital. Before that point, the woman, in consultation with her doctor, have total control over the disposal of the "collection of cells". 

A professor of human ethics at Princeton University says it is ethical to end a human life up to 6 weeks after birth. He says this is true because the child has not yet developed beyond the capabilities of a fish.

Such thinking would make it alright to end the life of the retarded, severely disabled, those with Downs syndrome or illnesses such as Ronald Reagan had. There are, I'm sure, many who are for killing those with diminished capacities. The list of those approved for disposal would grow over the years. That is a brave new world of which I do not approve. 

reply from: chooselife

Among these teachings, to mention only a few, are – first – the creation of human beings: Contrary to the Christian dogma, which states that women were created from the ribs of a man or that men were created first (thereby implying that women are inferior to men), the Koran tells us that women and men were created from a single source/soul („nafs wahida“). There is not a single verse indicating superiority of one gender over the other.

I just wanted to make mention of a passage in a book used by Rabbis. It concerns the creation of women. Woman was not created from the foot of man....as someone to be trampled on. She was not created from his head as someone to rule over him. Instead, she was formed from the rib....close to the heart and under the arm to be protected.

Dmourning:

Umm yes I can. Rosie O'donnell's daughter asked her one day, "Mommy...why can't I have a daddy?" Rosie replied, "because I am not that kind of mommy" Notice that the focus is on Rosie and not the child. This is the problem with gay adoption. Study after study proves that children do best in a family in which their biological parents are married (mother and father). If a child is raised by 2 lesbians it would be easy for them to conclude that men just aren't important. The same is true of a child raised by homosexuals..they could conclude that women just aren't that important. Looking back on my childhood I could not say that I valued my mom or dad more. I needed them both. They both taught me very valuable lessons. It is a great travesty to a child to deny them a mother or father because of one's own selfish desires. You have referred to the Netherlands in your arguments. I suggest taking a closer look at their society. Since gay marriage has been allowed something like 80% of all children are born out of wedlock. They simply no longer value marriage. Also look at what is happening over there because of their abortion laws. They are now killing infants if the doctors and/or parents feel it is in the child's best interest. They also can decide to kill an adult (even if it is against the adult's wishes) if they feel it is in "their best interest" They are a good example of what we could become. Throughout history once nations began sacrificing their children (whether it be to the God of Molech or the God of money) their nation soon fell from power.

Forlife: I completely agree with you. I believe we are on a very dangerous path in America. Barbara Boxer is indeed a vile woman. I will leave you with a quote I heard, "We are not so much human beings as we are human becomings..."

reply from: dignitarian

Quote: (Forlife)
"A professor of human ethics at Princeton University says it is ethical to end a human life up to 6 weeks after birth. He says this is true because the child has not yet developed beyond the capabilities of a fish."
 
The Princeton professor mentioned above is Dr. Peter Singer.  Dr. Singer is well known throughout the world among preeminent experts in the field of Bio-ethics.  Among his more controversial positions is his insistence that since an unborn child does not have the right to life, then the human infant does not either.

Dignitarian

reply from: yoda

That's actually an honest extension of the proabort position. He is simply admitting that there is no moral value change at birth, which is a lot more honest than the usual proabort position.

reply from: Christian4life

Thank you so much.  Coming from a strong Christian woman like you, this means a lot.

A totally undeserved compliment, but wow, thank you.  Your very welcome.

reply from: Christian4life

I'm reading this thread to my daughter while she knits. She asked me to tell you that she salutes you and wants to jump up and give you a biiiiig hug for the strength of your comments and the work you are doing to help stop fools like this in the prolife fight to help women and children not suffer like we have. Not just the ones directly impacted by abortion, but the siblings and other extended family and friends that share the pain.

Congratulations on your pregnancy!  Tell your daughter thank you from us!  It doesn't hurt to have you around here either!!!!

reply from: Christian4life

That is disgusting.  It doesn't surprise me one bit though.  He's not even the first person I have heard of make that argument, except the man I'm thinking of thought it was okay until the baby was 3 months old.  My daughter smiled at 3 weeks old.  She laughed at 1 month old.  You can easily see where the "pro-choice" logic leaves that position wide, wide open, since as you said there really is no moral difference between killing a child in the womb and one outside of it.

reply from: Christian4life

Exactly, let's stay relevant.  This is a pro-life forum. 

reply from: Christian4life

http://theoaklandpress.com/stories/071104/oak_71146.shtml[/L] These people can't even provide for themselves yet they think god will provide for the 12 little miracles they keep spitting out? Seriously, how can you call this good parenting?

And I think this article is excellent proof that people shouldn't get married 2 or 3 times, having babies from each marriage, and ending up only seeing some of them on weekends.

They'd be a heck of a lot more able to take care of their kids if they weren't shelling out child support payments to thier ex's.  You have no idea how much one parent milks the other one for cash after a divorce, I do.  I've been there.  My parents still owe each other thousands in child support for me, and I turned out just fine without that money.

As for them living with their parents, I see absolutely nothing wrong with relatives helping young families out.  Americans are too phobic about close ties with thier family members.  Other nations do it all the time, it's how they get by.  In many countries it is EXPECTED that the grandparents, parents, children, and even aunts and uncles live togethor and help each other.  Americans expect 2 people to take on the job of a community, and that is not necessarily the best thing for the children, or for granparents for that matter!

As for getting foodstamps, you seem to have ignored my statement that foodstamps are temporary and you cannot recieve them unless you are working or looking for work.  Obviously it takes young families a while to move up in the world, earn raises, get promoted and the like.  This guy is probably not going to be burying cables for the rest of his life.

reply from: whosays

Wrong again. Seeking to change the subject so as not to answer the question, Dmourning seeks to avoid the easily established fact that the homosexual rights movement ties itself 100% to also winning the same rights for individuals that label themselves as bi-sexual and so-called transgenered. So if the homosexuals win, then poligamy MUST NATURALLY FOLLOW - since no homosexual rights defender would ever suggest that their bi-sexuals allies should be forced to choose one and only one of their sexual partners / one and only one of their gender preferences.  
 
And as for the suggestion that there are no reasons homosexuals should be kept from adopting children, I'll just say 'Wow. Just wow!'

reply from: yoda

I realilze this is an oldie, but I just couldn't resist (If anyone else want to answer for Dee, jump right in.):

I've got to say, this is the most idiotic question Dee ever asked here. It implies that the lack of independent survivability on the part of a fetus somehow lessens the immorality of killing it for any or no reason. How exactly does that add up? How does the physical vulnerability of an unborn human make it less immoral to kill it? Does vulnerability somehow make us "subhuman"? Does weakness make a human being "fair game" to be killed? How is the act of killing an innocent unborn human any different morally if it is viable or if it is not?

"Isn't even alive"? All human fetuses are dead? What sort of a genius makes up this crap???

reply from: sarah

"Isn't even alive"? All human fetuses are dead? What sort of a genius makes up this crap???

Um, a not so "smart" one!

And one unfamiliar with basic biology.

reply from: yoda

Yep. Sounds like Dee, all right.

reply from: Tam

Ok, ok. I think if someone asks foolish questions on his very first day on the forum, that can be something we don't need to jump on him about six months later. If as you say the stupidest question he ever asked was in fact on his first day, doesn't that say that he learned something here? I mean, don't get me wrong--the questions are based in ignorance--but I can only hope that -- well, the heck with this. Let D defend himself, I suppose, if he cares to. Enough said.

reply from: ChristianLott

Exactly.

Thing is, he probably still believes this crap!

NOW what does that say about him?

(Or us for that matter...)

reply from: yoda

Interesting thought, but I don't know if he ever abandoned those positions or not. He just never exceeded the stupidity of those question, as far as I'm concerned. And of course, Valfar can answer that question.

reply from: Tam

Interesting thought, but I don't know if he ever abandoned those positions or not. He just never exceeded the stupidity of those question, as far as I'm concerned. And of course, Valfar can answer that question.

Well, we'll see. He seems to have disappeared...

reply from: nuke

okay what we have here is an entirly new standard of personhood. You are talking about viability. You are saying that a person is not a person worthy of life unless they are able to live without any outside support all on there own. well we will forget for just a moment that if you throw a new born baby on a counter top the child is unlikely to crall to the fridge a find milk that very rarly happens.

Seriously though if we look at the stats what you are saying is that a black child born in africa is less viable, and therefore less human (they are less likely to survive the first year) than a black child born in america. And a black child born in america of course is less "viable" and according to this line of thought less human than a white child born in america.

thats right this is a completely racist argument which PP makes uses all the time to justify abortion. It is really hard to hide the open racism of Margret Sanger.

reply from: Tam

wow--interesting thoughts. I never thought of "viability" as a racist place to draw the line, but when you flesh it out, maybe that's exactly what that sort of thinking leads to.

I think "viability" is just a convenient place for pro-choicers to draw an imaginary line, where on one side of the line is a beautiful child worthy of protection and care, and on the other side of the line is a piece of garbage worthy of nothing but disdain. Nice try, but it doesn't work that way. They thought of Terri Schindler as a piece of garbage, too, because her "viability" didn't extend far enough.

Which of us is fully self-sufficient? Raise your hand if you depend on NO ONE for your survival. Grow your own food, carry your own water from an uncontaminated source, weave your own fabric for clothing or whatever, build your own home, etc. Yeah, guess what? Probably no one who does those things is reading an online forum, ya think? So we're all dependent on one another for survival--it's just a question of HOW dependent we are. The more dependent you are, according to this "viability" argument, the less worthy of protection from brutal slaughter. Nice line of thinking, there! I guess that means it's worse to kill an adult than to kill a child. Worse to kill a walking person than a wheelchair-using person. Worse to kill a man than a woman. Worse to kill a WASP than a minority. Yup, look, it led right to racism. Neatly done, nuke.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that's the key point here, they make up a "new standard" for the common terms we've used for centuries (like person), and we're supposed to take them seriously? We keep struggling to reach the goal of rational use of language, and they keep moving the goal posts.

So my solution is to treat their homemade definitions like sand paintings, interesting but with no permanent value at all.

The real meaning of the word person that is relevant to this discussion is:

per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human’s body: a human being’s body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per•son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16

Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact

Definition person noun [C] plural people or FORMAL OR LAW persons
1 a man, woman or child:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=59039&dict=CALD


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics