Religion and politics
Don Coldsmith
Monday, June 11, 2007
WE’RE DRAWING rapidly closer to election time and I’m increasingly concerned about some of the attempts I see to make this into a religious referendum. There are a few points to which I want to call attention. In doing so, I’m breaking some of the rules which are usually observed by columnists as a matter of common sense. Unless he (or she) writes specifically a column based on religion or politics, these topics should be avoided, common sense says.
I have felt obligated to overstep these basic ground rules in recent elections, because I fear an organized movement to challenge our Constitution. The second amendment spells out very clearly “The right to worship as we please.”
I feel so strongly about the right to vote that I don’t think I’ve missed the chance since I was old enough to cast my vote. I have also voted for the candidate, not the party. Usually a split vote, depending on who I thought would do the best job.
But what bothers me at this point is the Second Amendment — THE RIGHT TO WORSHIP AS WE PLEASE.
This was one of the major reasons for the Revolution and the war: Refusal to worship at the order of a foreign ruler, the King of England. When anyone is to be forced to an action because of the demands of somebody else’s beliefs, there’s something wrong, I can not be more sincere about it.
I’ve always been interested in religions other than my own. Maybe part of this has been helped along by my research of American Indian cultures. I’ve never found an instance of an American Indian killing anybody over religion. They may have killed for any number of reasons, some more justifiable than others, but NEVER over religion. Their philosophy, “I have mine, you have yours. This is nothing to fight, kill or even argue about.” A favorite pasttime, when camping with any people who were unfamiliar, would usually result in trading Creation stories.
My dad was a Methodist minister. I grew up with the burden of being “that preacher’s kid,” but that’s another story. However, he had an inquiring mind and was interested in the different ways in which God speaks to people. He was somewhat irritated by people who would insist “God told me it’s this way, and NO other way is to be listened to.”
He would sympathetically agree, “That’s good! When God tells me that, I’ll do it! Whatever He wants.” Meanwhile, he had some pretty solid notions about right and wrong.
When I was in the South Pacific, the Philippines and Japan (at government expense during World War II), I took the opportunity to attend nearly every church service or religious ceremony that seemed practical. I probably couldn’t name them all or even pronounce some. Buddhist, Shinto, different versions of Christianity, Judaisms and Philippine versions of several. All were attempts to be closer to understanding God, and all were impressive. All were friendly, and I felt welcomed. Nobody ever made any effort to try to “convert” me. I have preached in several different religious groups, always at their requests.
But, back to “worship as we please.” There seems to me to be a growing political segment who are attempting to make the United State a “Christian” nation, obviously against our Constitution’s “free to worship as we please,” plainly spelled out in the Second Amendment.
The anti-abortion fanatics will be at highest pitch, but let’s not blot out the view of the forest with the trees. A fertilized egg is not a human being. It usually has some potential, but not always. During my medical career, I delivered some 3,000 babies. There are some pregnancies, which, if NOT aborted, will be fatal to the mother. Because of their cancerous nature. I question the morality of forcing all women to carry the products of conception, in any case. This reduces HER to the status of a brood mare, not a human being.
Such decisions should not be made by politicians, but privately, between the woman, her family, her physician and her God. It’s no one else’s business.
See you down the road.
Author and columnist Don Coldsmith lives in Emporia.
MyAR15 (anonymous) says...
Mr. Coldsmith,
At the risk of being rude or impudent, I would like to point out a flaw in your article. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is the Right to Bear Arms. It states and I quote: "The people may bear arms. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I believe you are referencing the First Amendment which is Religious and Political Freedom. It states and I quote: "Congress must not interfere with the freedom of religion, speech or press, assembly, and petition. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Perhaps some research prior to writing would have exposed these flaws prior to publication.
Tyler
June 11, 2007 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
WOW I was not expecting this article to turn into a pro abortion article that was a shocker. What does abortion have to with "worship as we please" that article did not flow smoothly at all.
Now to address what your article seems to be about.
Would you please enlighten me as to when it could possibly ever be for the life of the mother in the case of Partial Birth Abortions, Dr. Coldsmith. The abortion advocates want to keep this particular procedure legal in the case of "for the life of the mother" but the procedure totally mimics natural birth in that the baby is fully developed, past the middle of the pregnancy the mother is dilated (which also happens when you give birth) the baby passes through the birth canal (which happens during normal birth) but they stop the baby after the head comes out to jam a hole in its head and suck out its brain to kill it and then deliver the dead body. Now having given birth I think it would be far easier on a woman to go a head and deliver that baby then for someone to stop its flow out of the birth canal to kill it first it just makes no since to me. AND there are thousands of loving couples out there that would adopt the baby and it would not have had to experience such pain and death.
Don't give me a line that the baby had medical problems and that is why they were killing it. I am sure there have been times this had been done when it was not for medical reasons. Also I have a friend that her ultrasound came back with terrible news and she was offered the chance at an abortion and declined. She was told her baby would not live through the entire gestation. She did and was told well the baby will surely die during birth so they thought they were preparing for a funeral. That did not happen either that little girl will celebrate her 4th birthday next month and is the pride and joy of her mom and dad.
Technology is not always right and by killing the child because it might not be perfect or for the "life of the mother" I would love an example of that by the way.It just seems like playing God, whichever one you believe in, not trusting your God.
June 12, 2007 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
hjcary--I am a complete supporter of a woman's right to choose. Having said that, I agree that a partial-birth abortion is awful.
However, the problem with restricting ANYTHING a woman can do to her body is that it becomes a slippery slope.....if we start restricting this, at some point in time, more restrictions will come into play and before it's all said & done, we're back to the 1920s.
I certainly do not want any gov't telling me what I can & cannot do to my body--I'm living in it, not a politician. ANd I definitely would not judge any woman for having to make what is certainly a horrible decision--no matter what her circumstances are.
I won't go into the "religion" of all this because, well, religion is not my thing.....I don't think any true religion should be so judgmental towards others.
And I'm not saying you are being judgmental at all, I hope you don't take it that way. I'm pointing out the slippery slope of restrictions on human bodies, that's all.
M
June 12, 2007 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
It seems to me that choice itself has become an American religion, particularly when it comes to abortion. In this country there are over a million abortions a year, and less than one percent represent the agonizing choices often cited (rape, incest, fetal abnormality). The overwhelming majority of abortions are being done because the pregnancy coming to term is viewed by the mother or father as a detrement to professional or personal goals.
I think people on the right to life side of this issue would be willing to sit down and talk with folks like Dr. Codsmith if they cooled down the rhetoric. We're countrymen, not enemies.
As for the religous aspects of this, Christians have been at the forefront of many just causes. The abolitionists in our country fought against slavery, William Wilberforce in England dedicated over forty years of his life in Parliament to outlaw slavery and the slave trade in the British Empire. Dr. King led the civil rights movement in this country. Mother Theresa worked tirelessly on behalf of India's poor and the pro-life movement None of these people were popular during their lives. The abolitionists, Wilberforce, and Mother Theresa were often called religious fanatics for their work. Pro-choice groups tried to stifle their dissent. Dr. King was assasinated for his good work. To say that Christians should have no voice in the abortion debate is just repeating the sad history of civil and human rights in this world.
Dr. Coldsmith may have the right to support abortion on demand, but others among us also have the right to disagree. I don't support abortion on demand. I do support the work of people like those at Twelfth Avenue Baptist and Shiloh House.
Like the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers in this country, I have no desire to turn America into a theocracy. All we want to do is reverse this awful trend that's been clothed in the veil of choice.
June 12, 2007 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Interesting how you somehow overlook the one religion in the world today that IS telling people to convert or be killed. Or at least what the Wahabi sect has perverted that religion into....
"When anyone is to be forced to an action because of the demands of somebody else’s beliefs, there’s something wrong, I can not be more sincere about it."
Gosh, Tyson spent over $50,000 to build a prayer room at the plant, and the break times have been re-organized around THEIR schedule.
Does that qualify as part of your above statement? I'm not aware of ANY instance where Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc - ANY other religion has demanded and gotten Tyson to make changes ANYWHERE near this magnitude for their beliefs....
June 12, 2007 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
citizenx (anonymous) says...
@open_eyes
I don't believe that is necessarily correct. If your sabbeth is on Sunday, you can't be force to work because that would violate your right to religious freedom. Also, I have never had a muslim not on my door at 8 o'clock on a Saturday morning trying to convert me to Islam, unlike some Christian sects.
June 12, 2007 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
citizenx
You are most likely refering to Jehovah's witnesses who are constantly knocking OR Mormons who send their young men door to door. Those are NOT "Christian sects".
June 12, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
What an absolutely awful article. Not because of what he stands for, but because of how he writes. No flow what-so-ever.
Am I the only one who finds anything Coldsmith says to be unreliable? If he doesn't know the 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms, then why believe anything he says? And how did that get past the editors? WOW!!!
Look, abortion comes down to one thing, do you think a baby is a person inside the womb as well as out. If you don't think that and refer to it as a fetus, or a fertilized egg, or whatever, then you will have no problem cutting it out of your body. If you believe it to be a separate life no matter whether it is inside a woman's body or not, then you'll view it as nothing more than murder, no matter how it got there. It's that simple.
I have always been curious what pro-abortion people think...when does life begin? Does it begin when a child is born? If so, then wouldn't a baby be alive during a partial birth abortion, since the child is half-way out of the womb? What physiological changes occur that makes it alive and thus qualified as a separate person? If not during birth, when does a fetus become another person?
I think these should be questions all pro-abortionists would want answered so that they could be sure they are only cutting out a part of a woman's body and not killing another human being.
Those who are in favor of abortion, I really am curious, when do you think life begins? And if it begins before a child is born, why then is an abortion not murder?
June 12, 2007 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
I suppose, for me, I view life beginning at the "age of viability." Meaning, life begins when the fetus I carry can survive outside my body without intervention. For some, that may be 30 weeks of gestation, for others, that may be 42 weeks of gestation....it's not a pinpointable time.
I strongly caution, though, that this is not a religious debate at all. This is about politics. Roe v. Wade is over and decided. But this keeps becomming and issue to gain votes during each election season (for any side).
And again, it's not about having an abortion or not having an abortion. It's about someone (anyone) telling me that I cannot do what I see fit to do with my body, my life. I would never ask you if you had an abortion, I would hope my privacy would be respected as well. If we begin making restrictions and loopholes, we will fall into the slippery slope trap. Let's not go there. Let's let each person make his/her own choices without interference from governments and religious fanatics.
Also, we wouldn't have the amount of (medical) knowledge today if it weren't for abortions.....stem cells, anyone?
M
June 12, 2007 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mythoughts (anonymous) says...
GREAT COMMENTARY, DON! I wish people would quit trying to control what other people do with their own bodies--it's just another form of slavery. Anyone read or see "The Handmaiden's Tale"? It's about a future world where most women are sterile, and those that are not are forced to carry as many babies for as many different men as possible. Brood mares, indeed. They don't get to raise the baby--the official "wives" do that, while the mother is rehabbed for her next pregnancy. Hmmmmm.
June 12, 2007 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Before the Civil War the Surpeme Court determined that Dred Scott wasn't a person, since it was believed that blacks were the property of their owners. It became settled law. It took "religious fanatics" to finally bring some moral and religious sense to the awful truth of slavery.
The fact that Roe v. Wade is "settled law" doesn't mean that abortion is a morally superior solution to a problem. It simply means that it's legal.
"Religious fanatics" aren't intefering with choice. There are over a million abortions a year in this country. Abortions are about the most common medical procedure done in America. It's more accurate to say these "religious fanatics" make some people feel uncomfortable, but the discomfort hasn't slowed the numbers of procedures.
I don't like slippery slopes either. I've heard the argument that abortion does bring some good, like stem cells. That seems to be begging the question. If it brings that much good, why not do more and more of them so that we all can "benefit?" Why not euthanize those we deem unfit so that we can use some of the good cells they have for the good of humanity? That sure seems like a real slippery slope to me.
June 12, 2007 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
M, thanks for having the courage to write what you have. I really appreciate someone who can defend their ideas and beliefs, no matter what side of the aisle they're on.
I'm still curious though, if you don't know when life begins, how can you be sure you're not murdering a child? Time of Death has been defined for years by federal law, but not Time of Life. Interesting.
What I seem to be getting from your argument is that, as long as the child is inside your body, you have the right to do with it whatever you like, even if it is a separate, viable human being.
That's an even scarier slippery slope to me.
As a side note, I heard this slippery slope argument a couple of years ago when the marriage amendment was proposed. A lot of those in favor of the amendment said if you give marriage benefits and legal recognition to a relationship other than that between a man and a woman, then it will justify other relationships being recognized by law, such as multiple wives, cult marriages (like Waco) and even marriage between animals and humans.
This argument was summarily dismissed by those against the amendment as non-sense. I think it's interesting how the same logic is now being used to defend partial birth abortion.
In any case, it all just depends on where your priorities are, if their with the 'right' of a woman to do anything she wants to her child before it's born or the 'right' of the child to survive and live.
June 12, 2007 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
True, you can't force someone to work on the Sabbath if that violates their beliefs, but I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. There are plenty of businesses that work on Sundays, they don't change anything about their work schedule to "accomodate" a person with that particular belief, you either have the choice to work there and accept it or you can choose to not work there and find a job elsewhere. I remember seeing news articles in the past about pro athletes (NFL players) who were very devout and struggled with playing every Sunday - they either accept it, or they find another line of work. I don't recall any NFL games getting rescheduled to accomodate their beliefs. They weren't FORCED to work Sunday, that's just the way it was, take it or leave it.
Also, you may have never had a Muslim knocking on your door to convert you in THIS country, be glad you don't live in many middle eastern countries (including Somalia and Darfur). It's not exactly a friendly "knock" that you get over there, and you might end up getting your head sawed off on video....
I think I'll tell my boss my particular religion that I have just joined requires me to rest 1/2 hour out of every hour. If they don't let me have it I'll have the ACLU all over them..... :)
June 12, 2007 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
See, my theory (on abortion and marriage amendments among other things) is that it's not really anyone's business how I conduct my life. If I choose to have an abortion or if I choose to marry someone of the same sex, how is that affecting your life (that's a general "your")? How are my decisions affecting your decisions? They are not. You may not agree with my choices but, then again, you don't have to agree.
My morals may not be your morals. That's the beauty of non-religion, I guess. However, I would not walk up to a "Christian" and discuss how they are, say, damned to hell because they gossip like crazy or because they overeat at every meal....or tell every "Catholic" how it's against the Ten Commandments to use "the Lord's name in vain." It happens all the time but I'm not living their life so it's not my concern. They aren't breaking any law, either. I would expect the same respect in return.
It's odd to me that gay rights and abortion always invoke some sort of religious connotation from those who disagree. The law and religion are two separate things. If your church says "don't do it" and you believe that, then fine, don't do it. That doesn't give you the right to tell me not to do it, though. And it really feels like those screaming about how "God says it's wrong" are passing judgment on those who disagree.
M
June 12, 2007 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think what many people fear is the reverse of the "intolerance breeds intolerance" saying - that "tolerance breeds tolerance" seems to get carried away in todays society (slippery slope).
For instance - I may not agree with other's sexual standards and morals, but my religion (Chrisianity) also teaches me to be tolerant, and not pass judgement (lest I be judged). But, tolerance seems to get abused more and more as of late. Witness the speech at the school in Boulder, Colorado lately - does my tolerance include having speakers come into a school and encourage my children to practice homosexuality, promiscuity, and drug use? Ah, the double standard - I don't have a right to try to impose my views on others, but how dare I speak out against them trying to impose their views on me, or worse yet, my impressionable young children. Tolerance, much like free speech, seems to be a 1-way street for the extreme liberal left - it isn't just a trademark solely of the extreme religious right, either.
June 12, 2007 at 3:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
It's clear that you and I don't agree on this subject.
But, to say that we can do something because it doesn't directly effect us is off the mark. Slave owners were saying the same thing to non slave holders in the 1850's. The country even tried to comprimise, but it didn't work because the issue was more than just a matter of individual choice. It wasn't enough for slave holders to say to others, "If you don't like slavery, then don't own slaves." Slave owners also had the force of law behind them, but that didn't make slavery right or moral or even a matter of individual choice.
Also, the right to do whatever we want is important, but it's not an absolute right. It's been said that our freedom to swing our fists ends where someone else's nose begins. No parent has an absolute right to abuse his or her children. No one has an absolute right to take the life of another person. Think of our society would work if muggers and rapists started telling us to stop bothering about them because they were mugging or raping someone on the other side of town,not us. Think of how things would work if thieves began telling us to shut up because they'd only robbed our neighbors, not us. The truth is, society does have a right to restrict some freedoms.
Now, I understand that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but I cannot be convinced that the right to an abortion is absolute. Nor can I be convinced that it's right.
I realize that this causes discomfort, but the issue is beyond being legal or not. Abortion is one of those moral issues that we should be trying to solve. There's got to be a better way.
June 12, 2007 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
netloafer, I wasn't asking for agreeance at all. Just explaining my position.
The difference, in my opinion, between owning slaves and marrying someone of the same sex is that owning slaves affects SOCIETY while same-sex marriage is only affecting the two people involved.
The same with abortion and child abuse. One affects society the other is a private decision to be made by a woman through the guidance of her physicians, family, clergy.
And netloafer, you said: Abortion is one of those moral issues that we should be trying to solve.
I don't view it as a morality issue, whatsoever. I view it as one of the most agonizing decisions that a woman may ever have to make (for whatever reason). Again, abortion is a personal decision, not a societal decision. And, should my doctor ever advise that I needed one or if I were in a relationship filled with abuse, I'd hope that it could be done in peace.
Just as I don't agree with most "Christian morals", I don't expect agreeance with me. Just an understanding of a different point of view, that's all.
M
June 12, 2007 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
Well, I guess I'd first say that I personally have not brought religon into the discussion. Asking when life begins isn't a religous question, I think it is a societal question that anyone, religous or not, would want answered. Religous fanatics are not the only ones who are pro-life, so give that preconceived notion a rest.
In any case, M, again, thanks for your ideas, I'm very glad that the discussion here has stayed above the cuff.
In the end it comes down to what I said at the beginning, if you view an unborn child as a fetus and a part of a woman that can be cut out at will, like an arm or a hand, then you'll be pro-abortion. If you view it as another human being even though it currently resides in the womb, then you'll be pro-life and view an abortion as murder. From what I've read, pro-abortionists don't view an unborn child as another, separate human being, so of course it is logical that abortion is okay, because you don't view it as murder.
As far as not effecting others, I disagree. If a child is abused, I'm not effected, unless I'm the child. Same for slavery, it doesn't effect me unless I'm the slave. Murder in Wichita doesn't effect me unless I'm the victim. Abortion doesn't effect me unless I'm the aborted child.
Just because something doesn't effect you doesn't mean that it is okay for another to do it. Cause and effect isn't a reason to justify killing children.
June 12, 2007 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
I also understand that we have different points of view.
I'm quite comfortable with my position. I don't spend my time worrying about what gays and lesbians are doing. You'll notice I never mentioned it in my other comments. I don't understand why you even brought the subject of gays and lesbians up here. It had nothing to do with this forum.
My comments were about whether or not society has the right to sanction some actions and restrict some freedoms. They were about the morality of some of the things we do, particularly abortion.
Little that I or other Christians has said has changed the fact that over a million abortions a year are performed each year in this country. Roe v Wade is the law of the land. I don't like it, but there it is. But, I do have the right to speak out against it. Or, are you saying that those who disagree with Roe v Wade and abortion on demand don't have the right to speak out?
June 12, 2007 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
netloafer, don't put words in my mouth. I think, if you believe in something strongly enough, you will speak out (and you should speak out). As will I.
And it wasn't me who brought up the marriage amendment. I just commented on it as well.
situveux1: I'm glad it's stayed a reasonable discussion, too. I've been waiting for one of these. :) Anyway, let me clear something up.....I've never once been "pro-abortion" and I think it's a play on words to make a "pro-choice" stance become a negative thing--which is understandable considering the majority here is pro-life, but a bit condescending, too.
Anyway, I don't think anyone posting here will change the way others view this touchy subject. I do like the debate, though--it's nice to see what others think about hot issues.
Oh--and one more thing, situveux1. You said: If a child is abused, I'm not effected, unless I'm the child. Same for slavery, it doesn't effect me unless I'm the slave. Murder in Wichita doesn't effect me unless I'm the victim. Abortion doesn't effect me unless I'm the aborted child.
If child abuse is occurring, it does affect society....because child abuse is a chain reaction that continues for many generations. And slavery, well, it doesn't affect us at all anymore (here, anyway), but it was pointed out earlier and I used it as a counterpoint. And Murder in Wichita probably doesn't personally affect you, but it does affect how you view Wichita (or that area of Wichita) or whether or not you want to live there, and crime rates, and all the other stuff.
Like I said, no one is right, no one is wrong. But it is funny that Dr. Coldsmith said it was the 2nd Amendment.
M
June 12, 2007 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Netloafer, unfortunately our society is starting to work that way. Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants take to the streets in marches waving the Mexican flag demanding that we give them all the rights afforded Americans and immigrants that DO obey the law and come into this country thru the proper channels.
And MelissaE, I say this in a nice way - please don't say that you don't agree with MOST "Christian morals". There's alot of "Christian morals" that I bet you DO agree with, starting with the Ten Commandments - don't murder, don't steal, etc... Don't take your stance(s) on pro-life and same-sex relationships and generalize that to MOST "Christian morals". I'm not trying to slam you, I think you just had a Freudian slip there - but what I'm trying to point out is that just as you post often telling people not to generalize everything by a few bad experiences (such as problems with the Somalians) - then you shouldn't slam Christianity in general (say you don't agree with Most morals) because you disagree with a few. Look around - people that disagree with MOST "Christian morals" are... well.... they make Hitler look like a saint. And I'm sure you're not nearly that evil.... :) (I'm saying this in all good humor)
June 12, 2007 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Murder, slavery, child abuse, racism - those ALL go AGAINST "Christian morals" - I certainly hope that most people here agree with at least those "Christian morals"... :)
June 12, 2007 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Of course slavery has effected us all. Over 800,000 Americans died to eradicate it and even after it was abolished this country has had to deal with racism. and Jim Crow laws. I hate to think of where we'd be as a nation if we hadn't overturned slavery, even at such a tremendous human cost. I hate to think of where we'd be if Dr. King hadn't led marches throughout the nation, protesting segreation against African-Americans. These things had to be done because slavery and segregation were wrong and, yes, evil.
This is where the logic of the pro-choice movement escapes me. There's no way anyone could justify slavery based on the fact that they themselves weren't held as slaves. No one could justify Jim Crow laws and racism on that same basis. No one could sensibly argue that segreation was okay because they themselves didn't have did sit in the back of the bus. The same is true, I believe, of abortion. It is morally indefensible.
As I said before, it may be legally deemed right, but it is morally wrong.
June 12, 2007 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
If 'effecting society' means passing your abusive relationship onto your children, then abortion also 'effects society.' Children of women who have had abortions have been proven to have a higher risk of having an abortion themselves later in life. There is also the psychological toll on the rest of the family, like the husband, other children, parents, grandparents, etc...
Saying an abortion hurts no one else but the woman to justify the practice is completely non-logical and false. Just as the 'slippery slope' argument is false and non-logical. Abortion does effect others. And of course, if you believe the child is a real person, a separate human being, they are harmed as well.
As far as the pro-abortion thing...I'm sorry, but as long as pro-abortionists and newspapers insist on calling pro-lifers anti-abortionists, then there has to be pro-abortionists out there. You can't be against something unless there is another side pushing for it!
That's actually something I've never understood, why is it so insulting to be called a pro-abortionist? I mean, you're okay with the proceedure being done but you don't want the word 'abortion' being used to describe your politics? Never made sense to me.
Finally (since I've probably wasted enough time here and should get back to work!) I really don't believe no one is right and no one is wrong. There is definately a right and a wrong. We can't both be right. Having a difference of opinion doesn't mean we're neither both right or wrong, it just means we choose to believe something different. In the end though, there will be a right answer concerning abortion and a wrong one.
Anyway, been interesting. Glad everything was cordial.
June 12, 2007 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
open_eyes: Your first post was thought provoking to me....I'll have to get back to you on it after I think about it.
netloafer: My point was that, at this point in time, slavery is not affecting us. I wasn't referring to history. If we bring up history, should we mention that before abortions were legalized that it happened in back alleys with coat hangers..? Now, how many of you would prefer your daughters/sisters/wives to have a safe, clean abortion (if the need arose) with a qualified physician vs. a guy with a coat hanger and folding table?
And netloafer, again, my morals are not your morals. Look down upon my morals all you want, but, in the end, I don't answer to you nor do you answer to me. If your (general) Christian God disagrees, and that's the only god around, then, I'm sure I'll be going down. But that's a chance I'm willing to take because, if any god is worth his teachings, human judgment is the least of my concerns.
situveux1: I'm not insulted by being called a pro-abortionist. I've been called worse, LOL. I suppose you can describe it any way you see fit. However, I do know that in this debate (the abortion debate, not THIS debate) it is viewed as a liability...I would not refer to you as an anti-abortionist or a "clinic bomber" out of respect for the argument.
And speaking of politics, it is so hard (in any abortion debate) to discuss "morals" when pro-lifers are the ones bombing clinics and making their children hold posters up (regardless of what the poster says) in protest......where is the "pro-life" in bombing any clinic? In harming ANY life?
Melissa
June 12, 2007 at 11:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Actually, I think that at this point in time, slavery is STILL affecting us. The many hurts and injustices perpetrated upon the formerly enslaved population has had reprecussions that are still felt in our society today. Can anyone honestly say that had there never been slavery in the US, if the African-American population in this country today had all came here thru peaceful, voluntary immigration, that our current society would be exactly the same? I don't believe so....
MelissaE, thanks for the statement. I find many comments on these pages thought provoking to me as well, for me that's what I hope to see when people have respectful disagreements, that at least they give some thought and consideration to other views, and the reasons driving them. I know I do, whether or not I ultimately agree, or even if it eventually strengthens/solidifies my own point of view, it does give me understanding and insight into others.
June 12, 2007 at 11:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
I say each to his own as long as it does not effect any citizen of America. Why, in what we call a free society, does the government have the right to tell us what choice we have in our lives and living? I believe each individual has the right to choose what is best for their own being. It is not up to me or the government to make a choice for any woman's right of abortion or not. I am totally pro choice from any point of the game. I am tired of people and government hiding behind their Gods! This is a cop out because they can not come up with any other excuse to ruin lives by their bombings, marches, etc. The right to freedom is one's own personal choice of how they choose to live without infringing that right on any one else. I kind of think in the back of my mind that Don Coldsmith and Phelps may have quite a bit in common. In other words, be careful of who you listen to and who you believe because their are so many fakes out there.
June 13, 2007 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Read the following link and you'll see where the whole issue of "choice" is leading us:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2...
Gender selection is becoming commonplace. Female children are being aborted or even euthanized after they're born. There's such a tremendous shortage of women that there's now a trend toward human trafficking that's getting out of control.
I suppose we can comfort ourselves by saying that it's only happening in Asia. I suppose we can delude ourselves that it would never happen here. I suppose we can say to each his own.
This is just one of the grim realities of abortion and the slippery slope it sets us on.
June 13, 2007 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
Melissa,
I am sorry that the "clinic bomber" has given you such a bad view of pro-lifers. You need to understand they are the one in MILLIONS of pro-lifers out there and I do not know one pro-life person that condones bombing people.
As far as abortions being "safe" that is not true. I think making them legal probably changed nothing except caused more babies to be killed. Since it was not safe before it was most likely done less, now it’s legal so hundreds of thousands are done each year, but not the safest medical procedure done and women still do die of abortion complications or become sterile because of the procedure to not be able to have children when they do want them. Another side effect of abortions for many women (not all) is emotional grief. They will have to somehow live the rest of their lives wondering about the child they never got to know.
The other problem in my opinion is fine so the courts made it legal but the tax dollars should not pay for it the individual should have to pay for it and I just read an article last week stating that in just 2005 Planned Parenthood did 264,943 abortions receiving $272,000,000.00 of our TAX dollars. It is grieving to know my tax dollars are serving to kill children.
I have nothing against people who are pro-abortion I just don’t want my money paying for their abortions. I think abortions affect society greatly though not just the women having the abortion because of the grieving she will experience. It will affect her family and friends. If she becomes sterile from the procedure it will affect her future spouse etc.
June 13, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
See, netloafer, my morals would never allow me to "gender select" and I am happy that I'm in a country that allows me to have zero kids or 10 kids. I'm an au naturel sort of person, anyway--I would take what I could get and leave science to curing disease.
And, thank you for the link.....but it comes from Fox News and they have a tendency to be a bit biased.
open_eyes--still thinking. :) And I agree with you regarding slavery--but I daresay that if we had never had slavery in this country, our racial injustices that still occur might not be so bad, either. (And you can see what I'm referring to by going no further than reading all the posts from people on the Gazette).
M
June 13, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
I assume Melissa that you are not a mother… I have conceived and given birth to four children. My dr. office wants to see a new mom at the 8th week of pregnancy (that is just 4 weeks after a missed period) at that appointment they do an ultrasound and I see my newest baby’s arms and legs kicking around. At that point fingers and toes are formed. Unfortunately most abortions are probably not done that early on. Abortion is such a hard choice I would figure a mom would contemplate the decision for a little bit at first. Also some women do not have regular cycles and may not even be suspicious of pregnancy until they miss their period a second month and then wonder hmmm I wonder if I am pregnant. Well by then the pregnancy is in its 12 week he or she already has their fingerprints formed, liver pancreas and other organs are functioning now they are moving around it is so amazing.
But like I said earlier it is each woman’s choice but I think that each and every woman contemplating an abortion should be handed the facts. I do not think women are told all the facts. If each abortion clinic had a 3D ultrasound machine on site that would be the best way to educate its patients on the decision they are about to make. They would see that its not just a piece of tissue that it really is moving around with fingers and toes perfectly formed. Instead the employees at the clinics are playing down the choice they are making like its a hair cut or something. I think lack of information is the leading cause of abortion.
June 13, 2007 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bekahgreen (anonymous) says...
On the discussion of when life begins, M suggested that it was her personal belief that when the baby was viable outside the womb 30 weeks or so. I would say I have heard many that agree with that stance which is why I use it as an example. This however seems hard to determine to me because of advances in the medical field. There are babies born everyday earlier and earlier in justation that are surviving. Babies as young as 22 weeks can be saved now and I am sure as more advances are made that more and more very young babies will be saved. So to me there has to be another determing factor in my mind to when life begins. So then is it when the cells begin to multiply after the sperm fertilizes the egg at conception, or when the heart begins to beat at 6 weeks, or at eight weeks when the brain, eyes, heart and limbs are forming. How can we simply pick a random time that we as society deem a "fetus" to be a baby. It's just to arbitrary.
Most arguments turn to the word "choice" like we as humans have the right to "choose" whatever makes us happy. I liked the earlier argument about thieves, murders and those who break the law. Why can't they simply say leave me alone it's my choice to do these things. Why is killing a four year old considered murder but killing a baby in utero not? Why if a drunk driver hits and kills a pregnant woman is he charged with two counts of vehicular homicide not one, when that woman had the "choice" to be on her way to the abortion clinic to kill the baby herself?
Since partial birth is the original discussion I wanted to comment briefly on that as well. I cannot understand how doctors or anyone else for that matter can look at this and see at as anything other than murder. At seven months a baby not only moves inside the womb, his/her eyes open and shut, hair is growing, the brain is quickly expanding. A month later they are practicing their breathing, they get the hiccups, and they weigh an average of over five pounds! Babies at this age or more than viable outside the womb and to deliver a baby, pierce it's skull and remove it's brain is nothing other than murder.
June 13, 2007 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
"I assume Melissa that you are not a mother…"
But I am. Twice. And I still support my right to have a baby or not have a baby depending on my circumstances.
I agree, hjcary, that lack of information is a big issue in this entire debate (for both sides). I'm not saying anyone here is lacking information, I'm saying this generally. And, when you say that each woman should be handed "the facts" does that include any information about "Parenting after Rape" or "Parenting through Poverty" or "Parenting through your Teens"? I would hope that if my daughter were pregnant in not-so-great circumstances, she would be given ALL CHOICES.
M
June 13, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
Yes Melissa I think they should be given all the facts AND choice options. Maybe an abortion should involve two appointments. One appointment with ultrasound and information on where the child is in its development, brochures detailing the abortion procedure and its risks and also brochures on local adoption agencies detailing what is covered (usually adoption agencies pay for the prenatal and delivery expenses I believe).. If a women wants to choose abortion fine but if that choice is made with out all the facts that is grievous.
If my daughter were out having sex for the fun of it at the age of 15 she would not be allowed to just kill her child and move on with her life she would need to take some responsiblity for her poor choice to have sex before she was ready to be a wife and mother. I would pray that she would come to me for advice and I would encourage her to put the child up for adoption so that a loving family who is unable to have children could raise her child. To kill a child because its not convenient is very selfish.
June 13, 2007 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
The data cited by Fox was from the United Nations Population Fund. They are hardly champions of the pro-life movement. Nor are the grisly statistics from the Guttmacher institute which reveal that even here in America people are aborting children for selective reasons, like the sex of the child.
The point I was making was that abortion has an effect on all of us. Some of the events may be taking place in China, Yugoslavia, Greece, or India, but they effect us. We're a memeber of the United Nations. In a sense we're citizens of the world.
I've heard many pro-abortion folks say they would never have an abortion, but that it was okay for someone else. That's the same reasoning that says, I would never abort a child based on its sex, but it's really okay since what someone else does doesn't effect me directly.
I think we're deceived in this country if we don't think things like this will be coming to us sooner than we care to think. Recent Supreme Court cases have cited the laws of other countries to justify the decisions. There's no reason to believe the same logic can be applied to extending abortion rights rather than restrict them.
June 13, 2007 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bekahgreen (anonymous) says...
Several people have mentioned having ultrasound machines placed in abortion clinics or family planning centers to allow pregnant women to see their babies before making a decision. Focus on the Family has information about a ministry that has been raising money to get the 3D machines into clinics so women can do exactly that. If interested check out the website Focusonthefamily.com, the ministry is called Option Ultrasound.
June 13, 2007 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Okay wait......
When everyone is discussing an ultrasound, are you guys suggesting that a woman should be forced into having an ultrasound before deciding on having an abortion?
M
June 13, 2007 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
Well it sure would show her she is carrying an actual child and not a tumor.
It all falls into making sure she has all the information. I think the option should be there. NO one can be forced to have any medical procedure so of course we are not saying that she would be forced to have it.
I like what bekahgreen said about how if someone hits a pregnant lady and kills her they are sometimes charged with two vehicular homicides not just one. That is unfortunately not the case all the time. My cousin's car was T boned a couple years ago the day before her scheduled C section. Her son was killed from the impact and I do not think the man was charged with vehicular homicide.
June 13, 2007 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bekahgreen (anonymous) says...
I don't know that you can force someone to have an ultrasound but abortion clinics could have policies that in order for them to perform an abortion they first have to have one.
Many women, especially those that are young or scared have no idea that the child inside of them is a living breathing person. They are unware of the options and that making the decision that seems easiest at the time will have lasting effects both physical and emotional. Aborting a child is an irreversable decision and a look at the child growing inside may help someone choose life, which will save not only the child's life but possible years of emotional scars for the woman.
hjcary-I am so sorry to hear that the person that hit your cousin was not charged with homicide as they should have been, it seems to be an unfortunante side effect of a society that does not seem to give much value to human life.
June 13, 2007 at 5:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Well, when the New York Times buries the story about the terrorists planning to blow up the fuel supply lines to the airport on page 37, I'll take Fox News's "bias" anyday, at least I'll find out about it. Anyway, the story on O'Reilly tonight was a transcript of the speech recently given at Boulder Colorado High School. The students were encouraged to have sex as early and often as possible, to experiment with same sex, multiple sex, any and every combination sex they could dream up, and to take illegal drugs. They were instructed that to get marijuana, all they had to do was go to California and get a medical prescription for it, and to get ectasy thru psychiatrists. What's even more amazing were the parents that showed up at the board meeting later defending the speech, calling O'Reilly and the "religious right zealots" a bunch of hate-mongers.
Has the whole world gone crazy? This isn't adults doing what they please without bothering anyone else - these are impressionable young HIGH-SCHOOL students who were told to take ILLEGAL drugs at a high school assembly, with the permission of the school principal and board (who would not speak to the news about it). Gosh, I may be ignorant, but does anyone know of ANY instances where people's lives have been ruined by drug use, or of other people's lives that have been adversely affected (car crashes, etc) by the drug users?
June 13, 2007 at 7:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Then, the next story was about the 22-year old USC student who now for the SECOND time has dumped her new-born babies body in a trash dumpster. And is about to get away with it. (She claimed the baby was stillborn). She went to a hospital before, the hospital has RECORDS that she gave live birth, but she somehow did not get prosecuted. Some technicality in the law or some such. And now has done it again.
So, given the slippery slope that we are headed down, I wouldn't be surprised that somewhere down the road in our "enlightened" future, once we've gotten away from all those stupid Christian morals, that parents might have the right to dispose of an unwanted child within, say the first week of life. Then maybe it will get raised to the first month? Or year? And in Boulder, maybe in a few years the students will be taking field trips to go by drugs, and "How to use Illegal Drugs 101" will be standard in the curriculum.
I'm sure I'll hear on this board that I'm getting way, way out there and making stupid predictions that are plain crazy. Well, I thought 10 years ago that the 2 stories I've just listed were just as far out in fantasyland as to be impossible myself.
But, and not for the first time, I've been proved wrong. Slippery slopes aren't just a phrase that "fanatics" like to throw around, they do exist and are real. I do know people that have ruined both their own and others lives thru drug use, and to see it encouraged in a high school assembly speech is just beyond comprehension, but even worse is the people standing up for it. And hey, if she's going to get away with dumping a baby that was carried full-term into a dumpster, then why should anyone else get prosecuted for doing it? Anyone care to make any predictions about where this latest slippery slope will take us 10 years from now?
June 13, 2007 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
Open-eyes
You are so correct. I like your user name it makes me want to yell OPEN YOUR EYES people. Here in Colorado we have a law to help prevent baby dumping in that if a mom feels like dumping her baby she can take it to any hospital, fire station or police department and hand it over with no threat of prosecution, fine, fee etc. Its a good thing we have that law with all the Boulder teens who are gong to be getting pregnant and so stoned they won't know it until the baby comes out. Hopefully they will have the since to not flush or dump it.
It's frightening to think that far in the future......
June 13, 2007 at 10:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
Forgot California, in Winfield in 2005 a dog dug up some bones and some kids found them. Then they put them in a little red wagon and paraded them around town. Turned out to be the buried body of a new-born, and the mother wasn't prosecuted because it could not be proven the child was born alive. Because she didn't go to a hospital she didn't have a birth certificate, so the only charge that could be filed was for failure to apply for a birth certificate...a class B misdemeanor, the same as if she had written a bad check.
And the law is the same today because pro-abortion activists in Topeka have blocked attempts to change the law.
It's so sad that the media ignores these stories, or if they do publish something, information is restricted to make it look like an isolated incident.
BTW, I have really enjoyed reading these comments, it's so interesting to see how the conversation changes based on what a pro-abortionist asks vs. what a pro-lifer asks. Like, would they be FORCED to have an ultrasound?
I think that's so funny, so what if they were? You don't go into surgery without having lab work done or a CT scan done, and then they're injecting your veins with a contrast dye and drawing blood. What could happen during an ultrasound? The sensor slips and causes a bruise? You have to sign a consent to have an MRI or CT done or even to draw blood. You don't have to sign ANYTHING to have an ultrasound done. The question makes it sound like the ultrasound is a more dangerous medical procedure than putting a sharp metal object inside a woman's uterus.
In 1988 Tiller was attempting a late-term abortion and the procedure went wrong when the baby moved just as Tiller was trying to poke the child's brains out. The baby was taken out in the parking lot where it was found and taken to the hospital. The child was kept alive although because the procedure had been a partial birth abortion procedure, there was irreversible brain damage. The child lived to be four years old before she finally died.
So, was that four year old viable outside the womb? If so, did Dr. Tiller perform attempted murder that day?
How very arbitrary to say someone is alive when they can live and breath on their own. Tell that to parents who spend millions of dollars a year trying to save their 23 and 24 week old premature babies. Without life sustaining equipment, they would die. Does that mean they are not a human being?
I feel so very sorry for anyone who believes a woman's right to choose trumps the right of that child to live a full life.
I wonder, when the Founding Fathers wrote that every man has a God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if they meant only if you live long enough to be born?
June 14, 2007 at 1:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Okay, open_eyes, I’m ready to respond to your post regarding my Freudian slip, LOL. It’s not that I disagree with MOST “Christian morals” it’s that I have chosen not to believe in any god at all. Therefore, I live by my own moral compass with no need to go to church every Sunday and wash away my previous week’s sins (or whatever) because I’m a decent human, I do know right from wrong and I try to live a good life in all respects. And, since I already have a hard time believing the certainness of ONLY the Bible or ONLY a Christian God, it allows me to entertain the ideas that the ones screaming about “morality” and “wrongness” are often the same ones who sit in church every Sunday being preached to about how NOT TO JUDGE. Yet, come Monday, THEY ARE JUDGING……why is that? Because church is over? Because they’ll be free & clear of “sin” by next Sunday? Reread many of the posts on this thread, alone. They don’t come out to say “I’m judging you and you are wrong for your beliefs.” But it sure reads like that. I would not (and I try not) to tell others (of any religion) they are wrong for their beliefs. I just happen to disagree, that’s all. Does that change how I go about my life or the way I interact with others? No.
And abortion (with or without religion) is a medical procedure that should not be made into a religious argument nor should it be made into a political argument to gain votes (on either side). It’s something that a woman, her doctor, her family and her clergy should decide upon—WITH NO INTERFERENCE OR JUDGMENT FROM OTHERS. Are there better options out there? Probably—depending on the circumstances. But that is not my choice to decide FOR HER if I am NOT HER.
M (going to post some more but didn't want to run out of room)
June 14, 2007 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
M, I respect your point of view and the way you have presented it. I, too, know many Christians who are NOT judgemental, that do not go around screaming about morality and wrongness. I, too, know many atheists who try to impose there beliefs or lack of beliefs on the rest of us. Point is, there are those types in every group. I am a Christian and believe in a Higher Power, but I don't have the belief that I "need to go to church every Sunday and wash away my previous week's sins". Gosh, what if I die on Saturday night? :)
I, too see many people (on the left, mostly) screaming about free speech, and the fact that their voices were ignored during the runup to the Iraq war. These same people try to disrupt and drown out any conservative's right to free speech whenever possible, and try their best to drown out and discredit/ignore any reputable scientist that tries to present evidence that points to the current global warming as part of a cycle out of man's control, not man as the cause.
Point is, there are hypocrites and judgemental people EVERYWHERE, in every group, no matter what the affiliation. You say that you do not judge people - but yet you seem to try to judge Christians and Christianity by the actions of a few.
As a Christian, (like most religions, and even atheists) we aspire to become better people - but we also recognize that we are not, and cannot become perfect. And we recognize that. Just because I am a Christian does not make me better than anyone else. What it says is that I recognize I have faults, and am trying to overcome them, trying to model my life after the One I follow. I have failed, and will undoubtedly fail again, but I will keep trying. In the meantime, I try to not judge, but at times I fail, just as you try to not judge, but at times fail.
June 14, 2007 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Here are a few other comments and keep in mind that I am obviously one of the few on the “other” side of this little debate so it’s difficult to keep up with everyone. If there’s anyone else out there who feels similar to me, FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN!
I have tried to respond to the questions (but probably not all) asked here, yet very few of you answer my questions. For example, I agreed that we need to have available more information so I suggested “Parenting After Rape” and “Parenting Through Poverty” yet no one had anything to say about that.
And I asked netloafer this:...should we mention that before abortions were legalized that it happened in back alleys with coat hangers..? Now, how many of you would prefer your daughters/sisters/wives to have a safe, clean abortion (if the need arose) with a qualified physician vs. a guy with a coat hanger and folding table?
Bekahgreen: Let me correct you on your statement. I never said I believe life begins at 30 weeks. I said I believe life begins at the age of viability AROUND 30 weeks or so, depending on the pregnancy, and when a baby can live outside the womb WITHOUT intervention. Big difference from the scenario you posted. And regarding the drunk driver who wasn’t charged with manslaughter (or murder, as you suggested), it is a state law (and it varies by state) as to whether or not a fetus is considered “full term” at the time of death, etc…..it’s complicated but there are cases when a person HAS been charged with killing an unborn child in circumstances that you suggested.
And let me ask this —if it’s “God’s will” for a child to be born prematurely at, say, 22 weeks—why would you allow medical intervention at all? Won’t God’s will allow that child to live or die, regardless? Why interfere with God’s will?
Situveux1: Ultrasounds—sure, put them in the clinic room. Discuss my options and offer me the chance at the ultrasound but you can’t force me to do it. Just as if I had cancer, I can choose NOT to treat it.
Hjcary—the type of law you are referring to is a “safe-haven law”. I think it should be a federal law.
And about the one-in-a-million clinic bomber: That’s interesting because, even when clinics are bombed, there are still pro-life protesters hanging around. I’d be horrified to be associated with that at all.
Finally, I never said I agree with partial-birth and/or late term abortions. But the idea of telling me that my morals are “wrong” because I don’t think they should be made illegal is what gets me. I’ve never stood in the shoes of a woman NEEDING such a procedure (not to be confused with WANTING) so I cannot, for one second, begin to fathom outlawing it. Just as I hope Roe v. Wade stays applicable forever.
Again, abortion has nothing to do with religion (although your religion may dictate how YOU feel about it). Religion has nothing to do with the laws. They should remain separate forever.
M
June 14, 2007 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Gosh, what if I die on Saturday night? :)
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Good one!
M
June 14, 2007 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Just as you point out people who sit in church on Sunday and learn not to judge, then go out on Monday and judge people, I could point out many atheists who say to each his own, let others live the way they want, then go out the next day and try to impose their point of view on the rest of us and/or ram it down our throat. Just as you point out the hypocricy in the fact that they sat in church the day before, I can point out the same as to how they were marching for freedom and free speech the day before.
Judge not, lest you be judged. I agree, it is a tough thing to follow and apply to one's daily life. Very tough. And I hate to admit how often I fail at it. But I will get up every day and try again to become that person. Maybe, with enough practice, I will eventually get it right :) And good luck to all others trying to do the same :)
June 14, 2007 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bekahgreen (anonymous) says...
I don't know how you can argue that abortion is simply a medical procedure when the center of the argument is whether it is murder or not. Sure everyone has the right to choice until it infringes on someone else's rights. So I know that this is cliche' and used often, but what about the rights of the child? The argument can not simply be tossed away to the tune of "it's a medical procedure".
June 14, 2007 at 10:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bekahgreen (anonymous) says...
Actually it is now federal law that was passed in 2004 called Laci and Conner's law that if a pregnant woman is killed the charges include two counts not one. I just found this out myself when my husband did a little research for me.
Sorry I apparently didn't understand that you meant without any intervention from medical procedures, etc.
My intent was to show how arbitrary an argument based on viability outside the womb can be. Sorry for the misunderstanding!
June 14, 2007 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bekahgreen (anonymous) says...
M-
Ok I know you said it's tough for you to keep up so don't feel like you have to respond right away but I keep hearing the phrase "the need for an abortion". What exactly constitutes the need? Not in general like it's up to the woman, but what do you personally think constitutes the need for an abortion? Unwanted teen pregnancy, pregancy due to rape or incest, unplanned pregnancy, gender selection? I am not trying to single you out or anything I am just curious.
June 14, 2007 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
open_eyes: I'm soooooo not judging anyone's feelings on this issue. I know it's a tricky subject, I know it's harsh. I just wanted to put my POV out there (because I'm not alone, that's for sure). If it's come off as judgmental at all, that was never my intent. (Although I do see a lot of hypocrisy--not here so much as "in the real world"). And I'm not even athiest. I'm agnostic, I guess.....
bekahgreen: The center of the argument is not about abortion being murder, it's about any gov't trying to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. If you disagree with abortion, don't have one. Tell everyone you know not to have one. Pass on information regarding them. But don't restrict them because someone else feels differently.
What I, personally, think constitutes an abortion: Well, many different circumstances, for one thing. Rape & incest, absolutely (because, if it happened to me, NO WAY would I be giving birth). Possibly teen pregnancy--depending on the circumstances of the teen. Unplanned pregnancy: This is a tough one because one woman's unplanned pregnancy might be a good thing while the next woman's might be terrible. For me, an unplanned pg might not be bad (although, I'd be sorely disappointed since I'm all done having kids and have taken measures to make sure it doesn't happen). However, if I were in some sort of abusive relationship or a place in my life where I could not care for a child (financially or emotionally) or because there were health issues with myself or health issues because of pregnancy, then I might consider it. It's definitely hard to pinpoint exactly WHEN it would be right for me.
To use abortion as birth control: No. To use it for gender selection, no.
How come no one answered my questions?
M
June 14, 2007 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I understand what you're trying to say when you say "Religion has nothing to do with the laws. They should remain separate forever." But that's a hard point to grasp. Most laws come from mankinds sense of morality - of what is "right" and "wrong". Even our founding fathers recognized our Constitution was based on our Judeo-Christian heritage.
It seems throughout history mankind has not done a very good job of deciding on his own what is "right" and what is "wrong". But, to be fair, religion(s) have also been the culprit many times trying to impose their own view of right and wrong on society (the current wave of Islamic fanatacism, for an example).
All I can say is that as imperfect beings, we will never be able to have a perfect society or perfect government/laws. Maybe, someday in the far future, when people/society have "evolved" to a higher state of awareness and understanding. Or when the earth is 80% radioactive. Whichever comes first (sigh)..
June 14, 2007 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
I don't advocate coat hanger abortions, bombing abortion clinics or any criminal action to stop abortion. There are far better options available.
Years ago I was part of a professional group. One of the members of the group was pregnant. At one point in the pregnancy a doctor told her that the unborn child might have some sort of fetal abnormality and recommended an abortion. She confided in the group one night at dinner that she was going to have that abortion. I pleaded against that course of action, but she was adamant. She made a good case - the difficulty for her and her husband if something were wrong, the difficulty for the child. I understood how she felt and I understood the difficulty, but I believed the life of the chid was important. I pleaded with her to choose life, but she was still adamant. I told her that my wife and I would raise the child if she brought it to term and it did have a disability. I never judged her, nor have I since. About three weeks after that dinner she called me in my office and said that she was going to go ahead with the pregnancy. She told me of her fears and I told her that my wife and I would do all in our power to support her.
The child was born and he was normal. A couple of years later she and her husband attended a group function with the rest of us. Their son was with them. He was absolutely beuatiful. I could see how much she and her husband loved him. After dinner I told her how glad I was to see this child so loved and she said that having gone through the experience she and her husband would love him every bit as much even if he'd been born with a disability. She also thanked me for the things I'd said two years before.
That's what I'm getting are. There are better ways!
No one here in this forum is advocating back alley abortions or coat hangers. That's a red herring. As I said, there are better options. Here in Emporia Twelfth Avenue Baptist is starting up Shiloh House which will provide ways to work with mothers in these situations. Among the things being made available are education, support, adoption, etc. That's a better way.
Finally, I haven't seen any judgement in this forum. I realize that this subject hits raw nerves, but I haven't seen any judgement being rained down. Both sides of the issue believe they're right. Both sides have a guiding morality. The majority to this point hold that their morality is guided by their belief in God. I assume that you're making your case because you believe you're right. So have those who hold the pro-life position. In the end, one of us is going to be right and one is going to be wrong. We can't have it both ways. Propositions like this can't be both true and false, right and wrong at the same time.
June 14, 2007 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'm a little foggy on this fact, but I seem to remember awhile back a study done on how many partial birth abortions were done "because the mother's life/health was in danger". The answer was none. In this particular study, it seemed that there were really no cases where the pregnacy endangered the mother's life to where a partial birth abortion was deemed necessary. Now, I realize that even normal birth is risky, and there are women who do not survive pregnancy. But I'm curious abou this fact - does anyone else have any info on this?
June 14, 2007 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
M, I guess I personally have chosen to ignore some of your questions for several reasons. For one, they're clearly asked in a way to steer the topic in the direction you want it to take. For example, it's much easier to defend a lack of education than to decide if a child is alive or not and if so, if an abortion is murder. It's much easier to talk about a patient being FORCED to have an ultrasound than talk about what might happen if a patient saw the image on the screen.
I guess also I'm rather tired of the preconceived notion that all pro-lifers are Christian nuts. I was pro-life long before I became a Christian. I'm pretty sure the only time I have used the word God or a religious argument myself was when I asked about the Founding Father's intentions. Even that I don't believe is a religious argument because the Declaration reads "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
You are right in that it isn't a political or religious question, it's a societal issue as to whether society will allow murdering children in the name of an adult woman's 'right' to choose to murder them. When the murder rate in a city rises, society takes action to ensure innocent lives are not lost. If a viable fetus is aborted, is it not murder? If you believe a viable fetus qualifies as a separate human being, then it is murder. Why does that human being not get the same response from society as a 46 year old murder victim?
Look, in the end it comes down to whether it's a fetus or a child. If it's a fetus, you'll think it can be cut out just like a tumor. If it's a child, you're committing murder.
In the end, I want to answer questions like, 'When does life begin?' rather than 'Should women be forced to have more education?'
Anyway, that is why I personally have ignored some of your comments. I hope you understand but if you don't, that's okay too. At least I tried to explain myself!
June 14, 2007 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
I've seen some statistics from the Guttmacher Institute. In one study done they found that about 1% of the 1.3 million abortions done each year are partial birth abortions (about 13,000 per year). I couldn't find any data on why the procedures were done, but did find a 2004 study from Guttmacher that tracked the reasons for all abortions, including partial birth abortions. Women in this study could choose multiple reasons.
Here are some of the findings. 73% said they chose an abortion because they said they couldn't afford a child. 74% said that having a child would dramatically effect their life. 38% said it would effect their career or employment. 8% said their parents wanted them to get an abortion. 1% said they were the victims of rape, 1/2 of 1% cited incest. 48% cited not wanting to be a single parent or were having relationship problems.
When asked for their most important reason for having an abortion, 25% said they weren't ready to have a child, 23% said they couldn't afford to have a child, 4% cited health concerns for themselves, 3% cited concerns for the health of the child. Reasons like pressure from parents or husband/partner, rape, incest were less than 1/2 of 1% each.
The full report is here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/f...
June 14, 2007 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bekahgreen (anonymous) says...
Government has the right to tell someone that they can't kill another human being correct? So if you believe that abortion is killing a baby, then the government does have the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with the child growing within her.
Freedom of choice also starts with the decision to have sex, protected or unprotected. We all know conception is possible when choosing to engage in sex, which is what leads to pregnancy (excluding of course rape, incest etc.)
I realize there are always going to be hard situations where a woman is pregnant and it had nothing to do with her choice to have sex but that is extremely abnormal. I found the following statistics online and my point is that we should not as a society allow woman to kill babies based on them being an inconvience.
Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)
Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%
Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by:The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online:
June 14, 2007 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bekahgreen (anonymous) says...
Looks like netloafer beat me to the punch with the statistics!
June 14, 2007 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Thanks for the info, netloafer. If you've been following the news about the Kansas Dr that does all the partial-birth abortions (in Wichita, I think?) he will write down pretty much any excuse you give him, no questions asked, he'll write down whatever needs to be written down as the excuse to keep the law from breathing down his neck. So even then I wonder about the accuracy of some of the above statistics.... thanks again
June 14, 2007 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Er... thanks to you both! :)
June 14, 2007 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
I just stumbled onto this video of the psychiatrist who examined George Tiller's records and he talks about some of the reasons that were given for wanting a late term abortion (like, I can't go to concerts!) I don't think these were specifically partial-birth abortions, but they were late-term, which are supposed to be medically justified under Kansas law.
From what I understand, currently any late-term abortion only has to be reported to the state as being medically necessary but no details as to what the medical condition was has to be reported. That's why I'm surprised at the statistics everyone else has been able to find because in Kansas at least, you don't even have to report the medical condition that exists to justify the abortion.
Anyway, here's the video link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mviFMp...
June 14, 2007 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
situveux1: "When does life begin?" was your question.....and what is your answer? (I don't want to phrase anything that "steers in my direction"). And, regardless of your answer to this question, my answer is different and why is that wrong?
I've given my answer. In all honesty, you suggesting that my questions are asked to steer things "my way" sounds like a copout instead of having to answer my questions. (And I'm not trying to slam you, this has happened in the past regarding this same debate).
And you said: ....you'll think it can be cut out just like a tumor. If it's a child, you're committing murder.
This is an odd statement.....if I think it's a child, why would I commit murder? If I think I need the procedure done regardless of my reason, then, yes, I suppose it will be "cut out just like a tumor."
So I'll ask this again: If it’s “God’s will” or meant to be for a child to be born prematurely at, say, 22 weeks—why would you allow medical intervention at all? Won’t God’s will or fate allow that child to live or die, regardless? Why interfere with that?
bekahgreen: Did you notice the number one reason for an abortion? Cannot afford a baby (21.3%).
How do you feel about welfare, WIC, food stamps, healthcare and any other "government handouts"? It's been my experience that most (not all by any means) pro-lifers are also "anti-government handouts". You cannot have it both ways.
Here's is my solution to fewer abortions: Provide better sex education. Provide condoms to teens at school, provide them at health departments and other places. You (general) can preach abstinence and threats of disease, pregnancy, etc.....but you can't stop all teenagers from having sex...you can't stop poor people from having sex, you can't stop anyone from having sex because you believe you've taught them the "right thing."
Does anyone else have a solution? (Because outlawing it isn't a great option and it's already been decided to be a valid medical procedure).
M (who had something else to add and forgot what it was)
June 14, 2007 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
Actually, my question was more like: If you believe a viable fetus is a person and it is aborted, is it murder?
Why do you keep asking me about "God's will?" When did I bring that up? I've said countless times I specifically discuss abortion in societal terms, not religious ones. And so far I have. Why the obsession with religion?
And sorry about the 'you'll cut it out just like a tumor.' I meant that to be a general you, not YOU specifically M.
My point remains the same from my first post...if a person views it as tissue, it's just a part of your body to cut out...if it's a separate, living breathing person, they'll view it as murder.
I'm sorry my explanation didn't satisfy you, M, but I kind of figured it wouldn't.
June 14, 2007 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
M
talking about "cop outs" using "cannot afford a baby" as a reason to kill it is a HUGE cop out. Adoption services usually if not allways covers prenatal care and delivery. WIC is a great resouce for pregnant moms because it provides good food for her to eat while pregnant for FREE. and there are hundreds of thousands of families out there ready to raise the child.
June 14, 2007 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
meganlainc (anonymous) says...
don, by now i assume that you know what the u.s. constitutional amendments #1 & #2 cover. it is always interesting to me that when the female of the species does a post that is "pro choice" it is all about the "right" to control the body. it makes me wonder what that same person would say if at some point that the medical community came to the conclusion that life begins at conception, life is viable at conception, & the u.s. supreme court rules the same. if that happens, then does the person occupying the female of the species body, still have the right to murder? does anyone remember the movies that hitler made in the 30's showing mentally "defective" persons, as the prelude for the killing of mentally ill, gypsys, & non - aryan persons, as a way to perfect the "master" race? have any of the persons occupying the female of the species bodies that are "pro choice" ever go to a neo - natal intensive care unit & experience, the "miracle babies", that as little as 25 years ago, would have died? no doubt about it, we are on a fast track to babies living earlier & earlier, because of "miracles of modern science". whether you believe in a supreme being or not, surely you cannot justify murdering the innocent........................................mikee
June 14, 2007 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Why is it anybody's business as to why a woman makes the choice she makes? If this is a free America, why should anyone condem anyone else for the decisions they make about abortion? To me, something is a sin if I know it is wrong for me, but that does not necessarily make it wrong for anyone else. Why should anyone get involved with a womens right to decide what is best for her? You straight laced, upright, two faced hippocrites have problems of your own but yet hide behind the pretense of God. Show me where it is written that any man or woman would go to the fires of hell for abortion! If there is a true God, would he not be a forgiving God? I guess, the way most of you believe and hide behind false fronts, I guess I will meet you all in hell.
June 14, 2007 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bekahgreen (anonymous) says...
It is true that there are people that truly can not afford a child. My feelings on welfare, WIC, gov't assistance are the they are helpful but unfortunantly often abused and probably need an overhaul but by no means are they unnecessary or should they be done away with. Providing condoms will not stop abortions, it just provides a feeling of security that you will not get pregnant while having sex, a false sense of security. Condoms are the most ineffective of all forms of birth control, but that's a whole different subject matter I suppose.
The truth is American's in general are not willing to pay the consequences for thier actions. If you have sex, you may get pregnant, no one forces you to do it, you choose it because it's fun and feels good. The trouble comes when an unexpected result happens such as pregancy, but good news folks if it doesn't fit your schedule just go on with life, abort the child and move on. That way no one has any responsibility for their own actions.
I like the point that hjcary keeps making about the fact that most if not all adoption agencies pay for all costs of carrying a baby to full term. And I personally know couples who can't have a child of their own who would gladly pay to have a baby.
So I guess my solution is stop having sex unless you are willing to accept responsibility for the things that might happen as a result, and to me outlawing it is an option and one I am willing to support.
June 14, 2007 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Better sex education (whatever that means) and condoms haven't reduced the number of yearly abortions. Since Roe v. Wade there have been close to 50 million abortions in this country. Over the past ten years or so of enlightenment the annual number has been around 1.3 million.
I don't know many pro-lifers at all who argue against support where it's needed. In 2000 this country spent $434 billion on welfare, with about 70% coming from the federal government and 30% from states. Since the 1960's welfare spending has gone up exponentially, even after welfare reform and means testing. The average cost per family for these programs was $5,600 per year, with some paying more and some less. Some may not like the cost of the beaurocracy these programs have spawned and the fact that not enough of the money allocated to welfare gets to the people in need. There are a few who are adamantly opposed to government assistance under any circumstances, but I'ver never met one of those people.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, argued that abortion was a better option than allowing the poor to have children. In other words, one of the founding mandates of the organization was to keep the poor, particularly African-Americans, from "breeding." It was both an economic and social argument in her case and continues to be so today for Planned Parenthood.
One of the options I offered my friend years ago was adoption. Thankfully, for her, her son was born normal. If he had been born with a disability or disease my wife and I were prepared to adopt him. The Christian church still holds that offer open (programs like Shiloh House here in Emporia). There are other programs that offer education, financial support, counseling, and love. Before she died Mother Theresa told the leaders of this country that she and others in the pro-life movement would welcome all those children unwanted by their mothers for any reason. She put it this way - "Give them to us, we'll love them and care for them."
What could possibly be wrong with these options?
June 14, 2007 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bekahgreen (anonymous) says...
davedailey
If you follow the threads you will see that many of us that object to abortion aren't arguing the rights of a woman but the fact that abortion is murder. It's killing a human life. We are discussing when "life" begins. As far as where it's written Exodus 20:13. If you prefer a secular reference I think the constitution mentions something about it as well.
And yes he is a forgiving God.
June 14, 2007 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
When a fetus is stillborn, it is not issued a death certificate. You can not “die” if you are not “alive”. I actually feel this is a tragedy as so many families that grieve need that proof of existence to help them grieve, but it is the way it is.
I have two friends that have had abortions (not partial births) and it absolutely devastated them and I grieved with them. It certainly wasn’t a decision they made lightly and it certainly wasn’t for professional goals. It was a desertion of the birth father and the lack of familial support. I did everything I could to encourage adoption, but once they made their choice, I supported them.
I am not pro-death, I am pro-choice. Like Mel says, once you dictate what I can or can’t do within my own body, other freedoms could be stripped.
Outlawing abortion will not stop them from happening. All it will do is make it go underground and be performed illegally in unsafe conditions. I do not want to see young, desperate women die like that. We can reduce abortions by providing better health care, education, financial assistance, and adoption/surrogacy options.
June 14, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
situveux1: I'm sorry your arguments (or lack of) don't satisfy me. There's no need to get personal and say "I'm sorry my explanation didn't satisfy you, M, but I kind of figured it wouldn't." Well, so far, none of my explanations have satisfied anyone here, but I keep playing. :)
hjcary: You said "using "cannot afford a baby" as a reason to kill it is a HUGE cop out" and yet it's still the #1 reason. But, I can't blame a woman for choosing her well-being first in order to possibly later provide for a child instead of having to do so right now.
Because we all know, when we think of poverty, people think "well, if she wouldn't have CHOSEN to get pregnant, she wouldn't be in this situation." Well, she can choose to not be pregnant, also. And I am fine with that. And I do not see it as "murder" or "killing" or anything else.
netloafer: I don't think any of your options are wrong. They are just not options that EVERY woman would choose.
bekahgreen: You said "So I guess my solution is stop having sex unless you are willing to accept responsibility for the things that might happen as a result, and to me outlawing it is an option and one I am willing to support."
So should we outlaw sex, too? Unless, of course, you're married and "stable" or maybe just make sex legal for the purpose of ONLY making babies? LOL--studies have shown that outlawing abortion won't stop sex. It's human nature to have sex. There will always be premarital sex. There will always be unwanted pregnancies.
And, even if condoms are the "most ineffective" of all birth control, does that mean we, as a society, shouldn't use them anymore at all? We shouldn't provide them when necessary? Or does that mean if those of us who have sex for fun are morally wrong? If we had better morals we wouldn't have an unwanted pregnancy? I think not.
You cannot and should not legislate morals no matter how strongly you (general) oppose.
And I agree with KristieR regarding better health care, education, financial assistance. Simply outlawing this opposable procedure will not stop it and it will not make society a better place.
M
June 14, 2007 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
KristiR
I am sorry to burst your bubble but stillborn babies parents ARE issued a death certificate. AND in some states also receive a birth certificate for that child with the babies name on it.
June 14, 2007 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
And, even if you could force a woman to give birth and place the child into adoption.........
How many of those pg women will be drinking or using drugs while pregnant? A woman forced to carry to term isn't exactly going to be doing what is in the best interest of the child's health.
Are there 1.3 million families waiting to adopt a child EACH year? 1.3 Million abortions is roughly 2% of the US population. This is DOWN from the 5% realized in the 1980's. We are going in the right direction.
June 14, 2007 at 3:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I think if we had better morals we wouldn't have as MANY unwanted pregnancies. I'm pretty sure that if a person's moral beliefs dictate that they wait until marriage to have sex, and the DO ABIDE by that, their chance of having an unwanted pregnancy is drastically reduced. Of course they are not all going to abide by that but I have a feeling those that have been raised with some morals and responsiblity will have a better chance than those that aren't. (I'm not a statistician though :)
I agree with better education - but the direction being taken by the Boulder Colorado school is definitely NOT a step in the right direction....
June 14, 2007 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
http://www.senate.mo.gov/04info/pdf-b...
They are not issued a Birth or Death Certificate....they were never "alive". They are issued a "certification of stillbirth"
June 14, 2007 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
HCS/SCS/SB 799 - This act establishes the "Disposition of Fetal Remains Act" and allows the state registrar to issue a "Certificate of Birth Resulting in Stillbirth".
In the event of a spontaneous fetal death, the parents or the sibling of the stillborn child can file an application with the State Registrar for a "Certificate of Birth Resulting in Stillbirth". The information shall be based on information available from the spontaneous fetal death report filed pursuant to Section 193.165, RSMo. The certificate shall include the statement "This is not proof of a live birth" in 12-point type. The State Registrar may charge a minimal fee for the costs of providing the certificate. Any parent, or if the parents are deceased, any sibling of the stillborn child may file an application for a certificate for any birth that resulted in stillbirth prior to August 28, 2004.
A new section 194.381 provides that a mother has a right to determine the final disposition of the fetal remains, regardless of the duration of a pregnancy. Final disposition of fetal remains may be by cremation, burial, incineration in an approved medical waste incinerator, or other means authorized by the Director of the Department of Health and Senior Services. The final disposition of fetal remains does not require a religious service or ceremony.
Within twenty-four hours of a miscarriage, hospitals, outpatient clinics, and other health care facilities must notify the mother in writing of her right to determine the final disposition of the remains of the fetus. Hospitals and other health care facilities must make counseling available to the mother concerning the death of the fetus.
The "Disposition of Fetal Remains Act" does not prohibit a woman's ability to obtain a legal abortion.
This act is identical to SCS/HCS/HB 1136 (2004).
June 14, 2007 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Netloafer, I feel as though my rights are walked upon everyday. You talk about raping and mugging, well what do you think our government is doing to the majority of Americans everyday? They say we have freedoms, but then you have people who want to shove religion down you neck. These are the same people who are fakes. They go to church for a fashion show or gossip then try to push their so called religion on others. I am sorry, but I have had my share of two-faced people that hide behind religion. I believe each individual has the right to make the decisions,( whether it be right or wrong for me) for their well being and frame of mind. In other words it is each to his own, I will leave you alone if you leave me alone!!!!
June 14, 2007 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
KristieR
Like I said it is by state so I am sure you probably found a state that does not issue anything for the grieving mother who just pushed out an 8lb baby that died 5min earlier in the birth canal... But some states do. The article I found about a lady that received a death certificate from her state and was confused as to why she did not recieve a birth certificate. And has been trying to change that to be a birth certificate.
The following states issue BIRTH certificates for still born children.
Arizona (also in this state the parents can also receive a state tax exemption for that child for that year only),
Utah, Indiana(also in this state the parents can also receive a state tax exemption for that child for that year only), Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, Louisana, New Jersey, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Missouri(also in this state the parents can also receive a state tax exemption for that child for that year only), Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, Arkansas, North Dakota and Montana.
here is where I got the information
http://www.missingangelsbill.org/stch...
June 14, 2007 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Stillborn infants ARE issued death certificates, but the pro-abortion lobby is fighting any attempt to issue birth certificates because in doing so they would have to acknowledge that the "fetus" was indeed a human being. Organizations like NARAL and the ACLU are afraid of acknowledging the personhood of these children because they know it would severely undermine their position.
I visited Dachau many years ago. One of the things that was clear from the beginning of that tour was that the key to success was in denying those interred personhood. Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Evangelicals, Political dissidents were all legally denied personhood and found their way to the crematorium. Birth records for millions of the victims had been expunged or invalidated.
After the tour I visited the town of Dachau itself. I learned that it had a rich history and culture going back hundreds of years. There were a lot of very nice people who lived there. They were highly educated, hard workers, family people, artists, educators, craftsmen, etc. When the camp was liberated many of the townspeople were asked if they knew what was going on less than a mile from the center of town. Most said they did, but since they weren't directly effected they had no reason to intervene. Some tried to deny anything had gone on. Besides, others reasoned, those who'd met their fates in the camp were non-persons. While they felt the circumstances were bothersome, what happened at Dachau was legally permissable under German law. It was none of their business.
There were some who stood up and spoke out against the tyranny and they paid with their lives. One of the most prominent examples was Dietrich Bonhoffer, a Lutheran theologian, who was considered nothing more than a religious zealot. He was in the United States when the war broke out and decided to go back to his native land, against the adivce of American Church leaders. He was captured by the Nazis for crimes against the state and executed near the end of the war.
I've always found it hard to believe that such things could happen in such an educated, culturally rich society. But, they did. The German people were/are witty, intelligent, caring, sensitive, hard working, etc. But, in spite of all that the Holocaust did happen. Millions were stripped of their personhood and lives. It's history.
Well, this country will also stand before the bar of history for the tragic mathematics of abortion. And, we'll stand before the Supreme Judge of the universe.
June 14, 2007 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
jhcary: States have the option of offering either the
Certificate of Birth Resulting in Stillbirth
or a Certificate of Stillbirth
Neither one is a Certificate of Birth (period)
and that comes from your missingangelsbill website.
Quote:
Those states offering an official, legal document that includes the words Certificate of Birth in the title to the parents of stillborn children are considered 'MISSing Angels States'.
June 14, 2007 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Kristie
There are millions of Christians who would be willing to adopt these children, absolutely! Mother Theresa recognized this and told America that the Church would take all the unwanted children and give them the life and love they deserved.
June 14, 2007 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Uh, netloafer, you said "Stillborn infants ARE issued death certificates, but the pro-abortion lobby is fighting any attempt to issue birth certificates because in doing so they would have to acknowledge that the "fetus" was indeed a human being."
No. Those stillborn children are NOT issued BIRTH CERTIFICATES because they ARE NOT BORN ALIVE. It has nothing to do with a fetus and/or baby being human. It has to do with "was that baby alive at birth or was that baby not alive at birth?"
"Personhood of these children"? How can you be a person if you are not born alive?
Beyond all that, what does a stillbirth have to do with abortion at all?
M
June 14, 2007 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
MelissaE~Right to life groups argue that if a stillborn child is issued a birth or death certificate, that means they were a viable life prior to birth and therefore abortion IS murder. If they can get that changed, they can then argue for the illegalization of abortion.
Personally, I can't but help to feel sorry for any woman who gives birth to a stillborn child. I do wish they could have that acknowledgement, but not at the expense of the right to choose. If they would allow one without the other, fine, but they won't let it go.
June 14, 2007 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
netloafer~If Millions of Christians are willing to adopt these children, why do so many souls wallow in foster care?
June 14, 2007 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
NARAL and the ACLU certainly seem to recognize the importance of denying the stillborn personhood because it would clearly mean that the unborn are actually human beings. They are clearly troubled by the implication, as well they should be.
And, actually I didn't bring up the subject of stillbirth. Someone else in this forum did, using the lack of a death certificate (which was incorrect) to prove that death certificates would only be issued if someone had been alive. The logic of it all is so convoluted it defies description.
My position is this - abortion is morally wrong. There are better ways. There is also grace, love, support, education, and forgiveness available to anyone laboring under such trying/difficult circumstances. It is no different than applying the same principles to those who've fallen short (muggers, thieves, extortioners, hypocrites, rapists, murderers, etc.) We've all fallen short and need absolution. The Church is full of fallen, forgiven people. It is also a place where hope and life is extended and would gladly be extended to those yet unborn and unwanted. And yes, there are more than enough caring people who would be willing to care for thse children.
June 14, 2007 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
netloafer~You said that my bringing up the birth/death certificate issue is a convoluted illogical one. I brought it up because everyone is trying to pin point the definition of when life begins (conception vs birth). How is that convoluted? Maybe in your mind, but certainly not in mine. As long as the federal government says life starts at birth....it gives women the right to choose. That's why I brought it up. How illogical of me.
Religion (any type) can NOT be used to base laws from. You say that abortion is morally wrong. Are you using the Ten Commandments (Thou Shalt Not Kill) as your moral compass? I don't subscribe to the Ten Commandments as my compass. I certainly don't think killing is right, but I'm not basing that on my religion, but on my personal beliefs.
If there are enough caring people willing to care for these children...why aren't they?
June 14, 2007 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Because they're being aborted.
What's also interesting here is the politics. Any time I've ever spoken out over the years I've never done in from a political position. I've carried signs, been spat on, whacked around, etc because I've said abortion is morally wrong, not because of my political views, but because I've said (and others have as well) that abortion on demand is a morally untenable position.
The abolitionists toook a moral position prior to the civil war, saying that slavery was morally wrong. That made slave owners and others seeking avenues of compromise very uncomfortable. It was like that during the time of Dr. King and the civil rights movement. I think the same is true today with abortion on demand. People like me saying it's morally wrong make pro-choice proponents uncomfortable and angry.
What this shows is that with some issues there is no middle ground and that there are some moral issues that are far more important than political compromise or saying we just ignore the problem because it doesn't affect us personally.
The Supreme Court can say that abortion is legal. I understand full well that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. But that does not make it morally right. Based on the ten commandments, the Golden Rule, thousands of years of human law and tradition, religious thought from Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious groups I believe it's wrong. I've also been at venues with dedicated atheists (Nat Henthoff from the Village Voice, for example) or agnostics who have taken a pro-life position. This is a moral issue.
As to when human life begins, I never made any argument one way or the other. I've heard some say at viability, some at other stages. I will say this. I spent a good deal of time at Kansas Neurological Institute working with the most severely retarded people. There were times I had great difficulty seeing the humanity of some I interacted with, but I always came back to the place where I knew there was a spark of humanity in them just like me, or you, or anyone else I interact with. When does human life begin? More and more medical evidence seems to indicate that those in the womb are looking more and more human at earlier and earlier stages of development. More and more are doing things we deem human. They laugh, they emit brain waves, they even seem to play. And, when they're aborted they even try to escape the instruments killing them or react to the pain inflicted on them.
I believe in freedom of conscience and will, but I do not believe that freedom extends to the idea that we can do whatever we like, whenever we like. If that were the case, nothing could ever be deemed either right or wrong. We would have societal chaos, which I suspect is where we're headed. Unfortunately, America wants and has abortion on demand.
June 14, 2007 at 8:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bekahgreen (anonymous) says...
M-
No, by no means am I saying we outlaw or regulate sex, you can do it whenever you please I suppose but why is no one willing to accept the consequences. Take eating for example, eat as much of whatever you would like, whenever you like but be prepared for the consequence that you will probably end up overweight, that being the consequence of overeating. Why can't anyone take responsibility for thier decisions, I just don't get it.
netloafer-Amen
June 14, 2007 at 9:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
Netloafer~ I have a hard time believing that the unaborted/given up for adoption children would find homes. There are currently 115,000 "waiting" children in foster care. These are children whose parental rights have been terminated. Is it just the babies that RTL want to adopt? Those are the children I'm talking about taking care of. Take care of those before you add another 1.3 million to the mix.
June 14, 2007 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
I've seen from the outstet of this discussion that you have a hard time believing things like that. You have a hard time believing the unborn are human beings entitled to the right to life, etc. I never expected to convince you. Your mind was made up before the discussion began.
As Mother Theresa said, "Give them to us if you don't want them." If you want to include the foster children she and the Right to Life movement would say the same thing..
June 15, 2007 at 6:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Kristie, I agree with you every inch of the way!
June 15, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
netloafer--you keep saying that abortion is morally wrong. That we all need absolution.
YOU BELIEVE THAT, I DO NOT. I'm sure you view that as morally wrong, too.....that I'm some heathen. Which is fine. You have your belief and I don't think anyone has tried to change that belief.
I happen to disagree. My moral compass is completely different than yours.......failure to see and respect differences is what breeds hate and discontent. I find it disrespectful that you keep saying "abortion is morally wrong" because, well, that's not very accepting, now is it? It's not accepting of others at all. It's not accepting differences. And furthermore, I don't see a need to subscribe to any religion and/or church for any reason whatsoever. If there is only one god (which I doubt) s/he would be accepting of everyone no matter how a person chooses to worship. S/he would understand that your Bible is the next man's Koran. S/he would certainly see the needless exclusivity of a church and be just fine with those who choose not to worship at all.
And Kristie has an excellent point: 115,000 children in foster care...and you want to add 1.3 million more? If there are such people waiting to adopt children, where are they? Or, is it only babies that are wanted? Not children who have lived a crappy life already? Or children that have different ideas and views?
bekahgreen: I find a woman who chooses to do what is best for her life to be very responsible for her actions.....if that means having an abortion because she's 1) too young; 2) poor; 3) has medical (including emotional) issues; 4) lives with abuse; then yes, that's being responsible for her life.
M
June 15, 2007 at 10:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
I've obviously hit a raw nerve. I never prosletyzed in anything I wrote. What I've said is that we can't have such different views on a subject like abortion and expect them to both be right.
Disagreement isn't disrepect. About as close as hate comes to my heart is when it comes to Osama bin Laden. What I've offered in this forum and the pro-life movement offers is love and acceptance. The offer didn't come with religious strings attached to it. There's no mandate for conversion or religious belief attached. As I said earlier I've been with atheists and agnostics on the front lines of the pro-life movement. Religious belief is not a condition to be part of the pro-life movement. When I discussed my professional friend earlier when she was considering an abortion I never considered her a heathen or never made religious belief a condition of what my wife and I offered her. To this day I don't know what her religious beliefs were then or are now.
In this forum I've been talking about the lives of the unborn, not you or me or anyone else here or whether those who disagree with me are "heathens.". I interact with people on a daily basis whose moral compasses are different than mine and we get along together just fine. The subject of "heathenhood" never seems to come up.
The majority of people in this country have rejected the pro-life offer. I'm in the minority and I'm fine with that. I believe that there has to be a better way. I've maintained that my whole adult life and will till the day I die.
June 15, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Net, How do you know that maybe it is God's will for a woman to have an abortion? I think that if there is a God he would allow for any female to make a decision that is right for them but maybe not right for someone else. I hate people who hide behind God and religion for what they think even though it may not be right for everyone. I do not think the government, you, or me have any right to make a decision on abortion for someone else.How does anyone even know how this world will end up in 20 years or even 50 years? Do you really want to raise children today with all that is going on in the world? Do you want to raise a child just to have him sent to war at a young age, never knowing a real life. Well, I do not! There are many reasons for women to make the decisions they make on abortion and I am no one to tell them different. It is up to the woman, her physician, her god etc but none of my business just as it is none of yours!
June 15, 2007 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdprotheroe (anonymous) says...
I find it humorous how the on-going chatter of this particular blog entry has exemplified the accuracy of the author's message. Think about it; Mr. Coldsmith's article was published on Monday, and the chatter continues through Friday. No one has won this battle of words/opinions, no one will win, and the chatter will only continue and become "louder." Certainly, this has been one of the most active discussions ever upon this website.
Thus, I believe the author's point is correct; politics and religion don't mix, and they should be kept separate.
Brian Protheroe
San Francisco, CA
June 15, 2007 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Good point Brian. It is a no win siuation. I find it amusing on all the theories of religion and politics. I still say each to his own. You leave me alone and I will leave you alone. I do not think the government needs to get into the private medical life of any woman. Thank you.
June 15, 2007 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
situveux1 (anonymous) says...
Did anybody see a correction printed in the Gazette about the whole "2nd amendment" thing? I continue to be shocked they didn't catch that. I mean, it is the part of the constitution that guarantees their right to free press as well, you'd think they'd have that one at least memorized. I mean, 19th vs. 9th, I can see somebody messing that up, but 1st vs 2nd...
I guess it just depends on which part of the amendment you want to read...
June 15, 2007 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
I was thinking exactly the same thing that Mr Protheroe pointed out - Dr Coldsmith's argument that politics and religion do not mix well is correct and they should be treated separately. This discussion is a good example of how that works - nobody is going to "win" the argument logically.
I think that Dr. Coldsmith simply erred in mixing up the contents of the 1st with the 2nd Amendments. Being a columnist, I doubt the paper does much by way of corrections if they do anything at all. As a paid writer, he is responsible for his own errors.
CAFrench
June 15, 2007 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Interesting, B & CAFEmporia! I was so in depth into the discussion that you guys brought it back around, full circle.
M
June 15, 2007 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
midnight_rider (anonymous) says...
I agree it is a no-win situation, because an abortion cost a human life. If two people can take the time to commit the act, then they should take responsibility for the life they create.
Anyone who looks at a photo of an unborn child and can even consider killing that precious life should rot in hell.
Yes melissa, you say you do not believe in GOD and that is your choice. But for me, i believe the Bible tells us what is right and wrong. It tells us that God knows our being even before we were born. But then melissa, let us remember that you have stated in several comment forums here that you do not belive in God.
So just think about this one for a while, dear melissa - you made the statement about 'when a baby is a viable life.' So if you support abortion based upon your defination and time line of when a "viable life" begins -- just what is your self-rightous opinion of "viable life" when it comes to the elderly who can no longer feed themselves, bathe themselves, etc? So melisse, should they be put do death if they can't contribute to your perfect society. God forbid.
Go ahead girl, make my day and comment back.
June 15, 2007 at 10:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
LOL, was that fun, midnight_rider? You should be so proud.
Well everyone, it was fun while it lasted (the serious debate that stayed civil until now).
I have no need or use for baiting from you, midnight_rider.
M
June 16, 2007 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
joetho (anonymous) says...
Consitution amendment sequence notwithstanding, I thought the original column was spot on. Turning America into a Christian nation, or a Moslem nation, or Jewish, or anything- why that just doesn't fly with me.
I believe the constitutional authors wanted the state to stay out of the church's business because that was a problem back then. Now, the church needs to stay out of the state's business, which is the current problem and the subject of the aforementioned column.
The abortion connnection: the church is telling the state what to do.
What is so mysterious about all this? It is as plain as the nose on your face. Religious leaders are trying to legislate, and they are doing it from their damn pulpits. I say yank their tax-free status and be done with it.
June 17, 2007 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
joetho---ooooohhhhhhhh
I could go with that! And I hadn't really thought of it prior to your statement.
Let's do pull their tax-free status. That should be interesting, to say the least.
M
June 18, 2007 at 12:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I thought this was an interesting quote from a reporter commenting on the death of Ruth Graham, wife of Rev Billy Graham: from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2...
All that follows is a quote from the article above, not my words:
"My second comment was in relation to the Congresssional Gold Medal awarded to both Ruth and Billy Graham in 1996. It is the the highest civilian award bestowed by the United States Congress. The honor was in recognition of their “outstanding and lasting contributions to morality, racial equality, family, philanthropy, and religion.” When I read this, I had to ask myself, “would today’s congress ever do something like this again?” Keep in mind that the honor is awarded to any individual who performs “an outstanding deed or act of service to the security, prosperity and national interest of the United States.” A recipient must be co-sponsored by two thirds of the membership of both the House of Representatives and Senate before their respective committees will consider it.
In other words, the Congress in 1996, considered the advancement of morality, family, and religion as promoting the prosperity and national interest of the U.S. Would that still be the case today, just 10 years later? Or have we bought into such political correctness that nobody would dare say morality, family, and religion are actually good things for the country as a whole?
If we want our children and grandchildren to recognize true moral and religious greatness — as seen in people like Ruth and Billy Graham — we can’t allow a false understanding of the separation of Church and state to get in the way of the true spirit of freedom of religion that our founding fathers considered so important for the progress of the nation."
June 18, 2007 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Open Eyes
Well said.
Unfortunately, there is a movement to squelch any discussion by people of faith in the public arena. It may succeed, and if so America will be poorer for it. The tax exempt status of faith groups or other non-religious organizations may be taken away. More attempts will be made to apply or create statutes to disenfranchise, but the that will not change the truth of abortion on demand. It is morally wrong! As C.S. Lews so ably said, no one can block out the sun or deny its existence by writing the word "darkness" on the wall.
June 18, 2007 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
The last 2 paragraphs of the quote are what really stood out and grabbed me. Since the earliest recorded dawn of man, nearly every religion has taught it is wrong to murder, cheat, steal, lie, and that we should forgive and love each other. But how DARE we base our current laws on those principles, since we CANNOT have any mention of religious morals in our government. It's almost as if nowadays, to be politically correct, we have to APPROVE of murder, stealing, etc, because to disapprove of them would be putting religion in our laws, and not separating church and state. And, of course, if/when we DO have laws that agree with those principles, we don't DARE say that they are religious or morally based, They are only based on what man has decided based upon his own convictions. Many heathen societies of old were basically lawless, I guess their "enlightened" understanding of their own laws were superior to ours.
The last paragraph especially states the point that people seem to miss the most when they get into the discussion of separation of church and state: What was meant by the Constitution founders is the government shall not force a state religion upon its subjects, unlike many Muslim countries. It does not mean that you cannot base your laws upon moral & religious principles for the good of the country as a whole, with a majority agreement. But, you still must respect the rights of the minority - and here is where we get into the "sticky" part(s).... who's rights are not being respected? The pro-lifers, the pro-choice, or the fetus'es?
June 18, 2007 at 4:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hjcary (anonymous) says...
The biggest reason that churches have a tax exempt status is the good that they do for the community where the government cannot. I do not know of a church that does not have a food pantry for the poor. I know of many churches out here in the Denver area that feed thousands of families every week. There are hundreds of grocery stores (major chains by the way) that take all their day old stuff and it is picked up by these food banks and then distributed to needy families. If there were not these food banks the food would just be thrown away. The tax exempt status is a small price to pay for what a church does for the community. Often churches are hosts for AA meetings and other "secular" groups that are good for the community. People often just come in off the street in need of help and the church staff will often have the resources to help them or know where they can go for the help like food, counseling, drug rehab etc. The church is a place that people tend to trust for help, help someone say a drug addict may not go somewhere else for resources. Churches are not just to teach the Gospel they are to be a service to the community. Not a community of only Christians but all people regardless of their beliefs. If a Catholic, agnostic, atheist etc came to a church looking for food they are not going to turn them away because of there beliefs they would feed them or if they were unable to would refer them to other resources.
June 18, 2007 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
I grew up Catholic, but choose not to believe at this point in my life. My husband does, so I support him and we attend church together as a family. I'm willing to listen to his POV if he listens to mine. Our children will be raised with the ability to see both sides and choose which one best fits their own POV.
If christians believe in an afterlife and possibly reincarnation...how can you be so opposed to abortion? Wouldn't that soul be released from the physical body of an unwanted child and reused in an infant that is wanted? I'm not saying that's an arguement FOR abortion, but that's also how I used to look at it before I just stopped believing. The child lives on and has the potential for their soul to be reincarnated. I don't see the harm in that.
June 19, 2007 at 7:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
If the country were to follow that logic then it would be good to just abort all children so that they could have the benefit of heaven. The argument isn't valid because it sidesteps moral law.
It's the same argument suicide bombers use. They kill themselves and others to gain paradise. It's the same argument Jim Jones made at Jonestown when he ordered his followers to commit suicide as a revolutionary act.
If that logic was applied to our laws, murder wouldn't be punishable since it would be just a way of bringing the victim to his or her afterlife. That logic could even be applied to make the Holocaust and the millions of deaths a good thing rather than the evil one it was.
These are not normative Christian values, nor are they normative religious values. The Christian value is that life is valuable, a gift from God.
June 19, 2007 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Net, what is moral law and who and where was it written? I do believe that Kris has a very valid point. I too, was raised Catholic, but allowed my children to make their own choices on religious ideas. As far as I am concerned, it may not be written but our government applied their own moral laws of killing individuals by high taxes, and government corruption in general. Also, what makes you the authority on right and wrong? Just because it is wrong for me does not necessarily make it wrong for others. Also, just what is normal? Yes, I believe killing is a sin, but how do you apply it to times of war? Again, what is a Christian value? Hopefully, not your way of thinking. Again, if he is a forgiving God, where is the logic on that? I do also believe, that some people go through hell right here on earth. Why else, would God allow a child to be born, then take that child away by illness or whatever? Is that fair? I think each individual person has the right to make their own decisions without you, me, government, religion, etc. to condem them in any way shape or form. If you are a good "so called Christian" where is your willingness to forgive and forget?
June 20, 2007 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
Net~Certainly true murder, an act of malicious intent, is NOT the same thing as a women choosing to have an abortion. I don't know a single woman who does it as a hate crime. I also don't know a single pro-choice person who is happy with the act of abortion, we only support the woman's right to choose.
"Judge not lest ye be judged." It is not up to anyone to judge the acts of an individual if you follow the christian way.
"There but for the grace of God go I." This is how my friends of Christian faith looks on those who committed sins which they abhor, look on them not with an air of superiority or condemnation, but with an attitude of humble sympathy, empathy, and compassion, being thankful to God that we have been spared their great trials and falls.
Studies show that 70 percent of the women choosing abortion believe it is morally wrong. This fact alone tells us that women are choosing abortion not because they think it is the right thing to do, but because they think, due to whatever pressures they are facing, that it is the only thing they can do. They feel trapped.
Researchers have found that well over half of the women who choose abortion would have been willing to carry their children to term if they had received support to do so by the important people in their lives. But without this support, or when faced with threats that they will lose their loved ones, it is very hard to resist the temptation to give in to abortion.
If you don't think women carrying an unwanted pg are threatened, then you've never seen the stats on violence towards pregnant women. Homicide is the number one cause of death for pregnant women. An abortion could save their life.
June 20, 2007 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
I understand the trap many women under these circumstances are in, but please note that you yourself said that 70% who choose abortion believe what they've done is morally wrong.
I've never said anything in this forum about condemnation. I've talked about right and wrong, forgiveness, about the hope for a better way.
I've also said that the Church's role should be support, as exemplified by Shiloh House here in Emporia and the work of people like Mother Theresa.
The answer for your last paragraph is clearly to protect the pregnant woman (community, family, law enforcement, etc) and the life of the unborn child. As I said before, that logic would only take us down the path that would make infanticide available in cases where abusive husbands take out their evil and anger on the mother of the children because he felt trapped being in the position of responsibility for the children he has fathered.
As to judging not, you're right. But, saying something is morally wrong isn't casting judgment. The Church is a place where forgiveness is one of the greatest ethics. That's why it's so appealing to people with all sorts of problems. And, forgiveness does not mean that the act forgiven wasn't morally wrong. It means that the act was forgiven.
June 20, 2007 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
You say the church is a place where forgiveness if one of the greatest ethics, then why would you even have to debate this issue? And, who are you to say that an act is forgiven? Have you been given devine rights by your god? I do not want to sound mean and hateful but I do believe that most churches put out rubbish. They hide behind the front of a god. If there is a God, only he can forgive not you or your church. You say the church should support, yet you all try to make the woman or persons involved feel guilty which you should not. My feelings are that no one should get involved with the woman's right of choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 20, 2007 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Your views are noted. They speak for themselves. They're dripping with acrimony like the pasta served at the Olive Garden.
June 20, 2007 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
my2cents (anonymous) says...
Anti-Abortion? That's your CHOICE.
June 20, 2007 at 9:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
And here's my solution:
We offer condoms to teenagers. We offer sex-ed classes (including the nasty photos of what STD's look like).
And then we also offer parenting classes to teens. You know--the type of classes where a young mother walks around with breast milk leaking all over her or where a young father walks around with diarrhea on his shirt.
Not the type of class where they walk around with a doll or hard-boiled egg for a week. This would be a 6 or 8 week class, maybe even a semester long type of class.....how to make formula, how to pay a hospital or office bill (or, at least, how to apply for assistance to pay such bills), how to apply for welfare......and last but not least, require the students to walk around on about 3-4 hours sleep for a minimum of one week and still be expected to keep up grades/jobs/etc.
Let's not forget to show them how much rent could be, how much health insurance is and how much a basket of groceries will be for a (minimum) family of three.
Oh--and of course we should add the students who will get no family or outside support whatsoever. Or the ones who might leave their child in a car that reaches 150 degrees or the ones who might smoke marijuana while their baby is asleep (you know, to look cool).
M
June 21, 2007 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
KristieR (anonymous) says...
Mel~I would imagine that would take the "glamour" of having kids right out of the equation. It might actually work with a few of them. I also think that a major reason young women have children is because they think that having a baby means having someone to love who will love them back. Maybe if we loved the kids that were already here, they wouldn't be in such a hurry to add more too soon.
June 23, 2007 at 10:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
Here's an article entitled:
Real Life: Why I Chose Abortion
http://lifestyle.msn.com/mindbodyands...
M
June 26, 2007 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporialifer (anonymous) says...
dave -
You mentioned something about having religion shoved down your throat - well how is that any different than the people who are shoving non-religion down the throats of religious people? It's a two-way street my friend. Then you call people who go to church fakes? Are you sure you had a Catholic upbringing? As I recall people who go to church are not perfect because NO ONE is, so why are you trying to hold people who go to church to a higher standard than people who don't? Everyone sins, everyone makes mistakes regardless of your religious affiliation or not, so stop using that as an excuse to prove that "Christians" or anyone who goes to church is a "fake". I've read a lot of your posts and you seem to be a very unhappy person with a lot of pent up anger/rage/frustration - perhaps God could help you alleviate some of that. :)
June 28, 2007 at 8:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporialifer (anonymous) says...
So I'm curious what the pro-choice people think about the man's rights when it comes to abortion. Let's say a child is conceived (unexpectantly obviously) not through rape, incest, etc., but through bad contraceptions, too much alcohol, etc. - why should the man not have a say - that child is half his. I understand the argument of it is the woman's body/choice, but that stands a better chance as a good argument if conception was a matter or rape, incest, etc. - not a one night stand with forever-lasting complications. How can we teach our youth about taking responsibility for their actions when even adults refuse to do it? Just curious.
June 28, 2007 at 8:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Empoiralifer show me a religious person and I will show you a liar.As far as church goes all I have seen are people who like to gossip and fashion shows. No one said I hold people who go to church at higher standards. I really think you need to re read all the posts and go hide in the dark!!!!
June 28, 2007 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
emporialifer: I posted my suggestions on teaching our youth. Please go back and re-read. Feel free to comment on those suggestions or add your own.
M
June 28, 2007 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
davedaily, I'm sorry you have such a venomous hatred toward religion, and I presume Christians in particular. I've re-read your posts and it comes out loud and clear. You do seem to hold them to higher standards, apparently you feel that there are no liars, gossipers, fashion show followers, and two-faced people among the non-religious, you're quite calm in your ovservations until your hatred & contempt for religion comes out. I know quite a few people who have no use whatsoever for religion that are liars, two-faced, like to gossip & go to fashion shows, but I'm not ignorant enough to say that is a trait that is only shared by atheists.
But, since you seem to lump ALL Christians into your 1 narrow view ("show me a religious person and I will show you a liar") - then I presume that the rest of us then also have the right to judge entire groups of people based on the actions of a few? Or is the right to stereotype reserved only for you?
June 30, 2007 at 7:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporialifer (anonymous) says...
Dave,
Go hide in the dark? I thought we would be able to have a mature, adult discussion where possibly we might be able to learn from one another and see one another's perspective, but it's becoming more and more apparent to me that you are not able to do that.
Open_eyes - I could not have said it better. People who argue using gross generalizations sure make it tough to have a logical conversation with.
July 2, 2007 at 10:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Emporialifer go suck an egg!!!!
July 2, 2007 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
emporialifer:
Back to the topic of conversation, what did you have to add to teaching our youth? Anything?
M
July 2, 2007 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
daveedailey (anonymous) says...
Melissa, give the poor guy time to think. HAHAHA!!!!
July 2, 2007 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
emporialifer -
You gotta admit, he gotcha good there. You might as well give up. There's no way anyone could overcome the sheer genius and lightning fast wit of "go suck an egg", so it's time to put up the white flag, tuck our tail between our legs, and crawl back in our holes. I think he's pretty much proved superiority of intellect and reason with that statement. I could be wrong, but what do I know, I either boil or fry my eggs. Let the readers judge :)
July 2, 2007 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
emporialifer (anonymous) says...
Open_Eyes - you're exactly right and someone of that level of wit and intelligence really is not even worth my time in attempting to have a logical discussion.
Melissa - I read a few of your suggestions on educating youth and I like a few and I disagree with a few. Personally I wouldn't give out condoms to teenagers - to me that is showing acceptance and furthering the problem. When I was that age, my parents made it very clear what was and what was not acceptable behavior in their eyes and the fear of disappointing them was enough to keep me from making some bad decisions. However, had they put condoms in my hand (making it easier for me), I'm sure my life would have been a lot different (yikes!). We have to realize that the majority of teenagers, regardless of how much we educate them and try to give them the tools they need to avoid bad outcomes, are going to do whatever they want when they want because they are not going to think of the possible long-term consequences of their actions. I like your reality of parenting thoughts, but I also don't think those classes should be forced on anyone - I would say parents would have to authorize that - they should have the CHOICE whether or not their children would participate.
I guess I very much associate the downward spiral of morals in this country to a lot of the problems/issues we have today. With all the sex, drugs, murder, etc. shown on Television and in an accepted light, it is no wonder that when the parents aren't communicating to their kids otherwise, the kids are going to see this behavior as acceptable. We are teaching our youth that protected/unprotected (remember abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid pregnancy) sex with as many partners you want is okay, and then if the girl gets pregnant and having a child does not fit into her life right then - well then she can take care of it with an abortion. And we wonder why human life has little to no value anymore?! When did not taking responsibility for our actions become okay? We keep giving people an "out" so that they don't have to deal with consequences and our society is not better for it. Just my POV - I don't expect everyone to agree.
July 5, 2007 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
emporialifer, you said "Personally I wouldn't give out condoms to teenagers - to me that is showing acceptance and furthering the problem. When I was that age, my parents made it very clear what was and what was not acceptable behavior in their eyes and the fear of disappointing them was enough to keep me from making some bad decisions."
That may be the case and you should most-definitely consider yourself lucky enough to have parents who cared. But there are many MANY teens whose parents do not care (or choose to look the other way). And, teens will have sex....they always have and always will, even the "good" ones. Giving them access to a condom, imo, is not telling them the behavior is acceptable--but giving them access to a condom IS teaching them to be responsible.
As for the CHOICE on attending a parenting class, well, I suppose that's fine. But that will, again, come down to the parents who do care & those who don't. If I don't care enough to teach my child about sex & consequences & prevention, then why would I care enough to be bothered to sign a piece of paper saying it's OK for someone else to teach that stuff to my child? And, don't you think the teen(s) should have a CHOICE in prevention vs. a CHOICE in abortion?
I completely agree with you, emporialifer, that we have become a de-sensitized nation.
However, an abortion is not "an out". It's not always a teenager who needs an abortion. Sometimes it's about a baby who can't/won't live outside the womb. Sometimes it's about a mother's health (be it mental health or physical health). Did you read the article I posted the link to? Very interesting and a different "side" of abortion, so to speak.
You also said "When did not taking responsibility for our actions become okay? We keep giving people an "out" so that they don't have to deal with consequences...."
I think, by providing a condom and providing better, real-life type of education, we are teaching people to be more responsible. I would most-definitely consider my teenage son being responsible for his actions if he used/uses a condom instead of nothing at all (because he was too embarrassed to get it himself). Which is another reason people think condoms shouldn't be provided: If they're too embarrassed, they shouldn't have sex, right? How many teens are logical?
M
July 6, 2007 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MelissaE (anonymous) says...
I thought I was out of room but wanted to add that my above post is not meant to be argumentative, just more to think about. :)
M
July 6, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )