posted on July 20, 2001 01:36:21 PM newsulyn1950: I was really wondering how many people, who steadfastly fight against a woman's right to have an abortion, would be willing to personally take a child
Probably not too many [unless you want to count the hoards of infertile couples who would do pretty much ANYTHING to adopt a healthy child]. But I bet most of them would be willing to explain how easy it is to give a child up for adoption and even point out the nearest hospital.
Remember, nobody's talking about forcing a woman to raise an unwanted child.
Do you think that all babies that are currently aborted would actually be adopted by someone?
Adopted by somebody? Sadly, no. I'm sure that even in this day and age there are children that spend their entire lives in state agencies and foster homes, never knowing the love of a mother and father. But just because they aren't adopted doesn't mean that they are tossed out on the street to die, either. Trust me, Texas has a state agency to care for unwanted children, even if it isn't called an "orphanage".
Again, whether it would be better for a child to never have been born than grow up unloved is certainly a debatable question. But it has nothing to do with a woman's "right to choose" or "forcing a woman to have an unwanted child".
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 20, 2001 01:49:36 PM new
As a pet owner am I allowed to routinely have unwanted pets aborted? Is this legal? Are there vets that do it? Can you buy something to just dump in their food? Can I do it myself? Anyone know how?
Boy the hassle that would save me! Any info would be appreciated.
~their, not there
[ edited by jt on Jul 20, 2001 01:59 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2001 02:04:27 PM new
I'm against abortion and though it may not be relevent to anything I did want to add that Yes I would be willing to take a child to prevent it from being aborted. I, of course couldn't take every single child simply because I'm only one person but I bet there are many who feel as I do.
posted on July 20, 2001 02:23:18 PM new
Hmmm. You could always try to save some of the babies that weren't aborted, and are languishing in foster care...
posted on July 20, 2001 02:45:57 PM new
"You're absolutely correct, but I was trying to phrase my examples using the standard "pro-choice" rhetoric. Even if abortions were made wholly illegal, women would still be able to choose to have them. They would simply be "deterred". But by labeling themseves "pro-choice", people imply that the other side would somehow force women to bear children. Which is, of course, not the case."
Yes, I agree with that.
I think you've hit on something with your focus on wording, including the word "choice," but the poor language that the debate was originally framed in has, I think, led us from faulty premises to flawed arguments.
We can state that the question is centered around "the right to choose," and then go from there to a discussion of "rights" but, if we do, we've opened up a big can of worms that we'll never be able to untangle.
Is the "right" inalieable? Can a "right" be anything other than inalieable? Is it a "right" at all? Well, who knows? "Rights" inherently carries with it a whole slew of ethical and moral considerations that people can go around and around with forever. In the end, no matter how much talking people do, what you end up with is pretty much - "Because I believe this is (good, just, ethical, moral, Godly, whatever.)"
"Right to life," is a proper framework for the "Pro-life" position. They're making a moral argument.
When you try to use the same language of "Rights" in another context, you run into problems, such as you ran into, Godzillatemple, when you claimed that society has decided that people do not have the "Right to choose" to rob other people, or the "Right to choose" to murder their neighbors. In fact, society has decided that people do have that "Right" (to choose) to murder their neighobrs, and that's reflected in the preservation of the ability to choose. In this case, throw out the word "right" entirely, and substitute "ability." Now, instead of saying that "society has decided that people shouldn't have the right to choose to murder their neighbors," say that "society has decided that people shouldn't have the ability to choose to murder their neighbors," and it's easy to see that that's not correct. The only way to remove an ability is to prevent that ability from being excercised. The only way to prevent me from killing my neighbor is to isolate me from him, making it impossible for me to to kill him. Anything else, you're not preventing me, you're deterring me.
Is it only a matter of semantics? Well, it's real wordy, that's for sure, wordy enough to be vulnerable to that criticism, but, it does all get around to a point, and here it is:
If what we mean to say is that no-one has a moral right, or God-given "Right" to abort a fetus, baby, a life, whatever you want to call it, that's one thing. You can say that, and have a perfectly valid position. Someone else can disagree, and might say either that there is no God, or that there is a God and that God has conferred that "Right," or that it's not immoral, it doesn't matter. You're maintining the non-existance, of a "Right." Your position is basically unassailable, no matter how much anyone else talks.
If you want to move your position over into a societal, real-world application, you've got a problem. The only way to remove the "right" (ability) of anyone to choose is to prevent them (not merely deter them) from making that choice. For pregnant women, this would mean... what? straightjacketing them at the moment of conception so they could never try the coat-hanger thing? Chastity belt them so no one else could do it to them? Strap them to a chair for 9 months so they won't try to move heavy furniture? Make sure the chair isn't by any staircase so they can't throw themselves down? What?
We can say that no one has the "Right" (moral, God-given, whatever) to kill anyone, but we can't say no one has the "Right to choose" to kill anyone. We have the "Right to choose" all manner of horrible things. Some people call that "free will."
The danger of illegal abortions has been brought up, and brushed aside, with the inference that "that's not the issue." Isn't it the issue? It's been all muddled up with "The Right to Choose," but isn't it really about "The Choices Available?"
(clarity, not that it helped)
[ edited by donny on Jul 20, 2001 02:49 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2001 02:48:51 PM newBut I bet most of them would be willing to explain how easy it is to give a child up for adoption...
Barry, surely you mean it is technically easy, as far as the legalities? As far as the emotional side goes, no, it is not easy at all.
Time and time again, people suggest (and I'm not talking about this thread) that it's easy to have an abortion, or it's easy to give a child up...both of which are ludicrous suggestions.
Actually I would love to do just that. There is a shortage of foster families in our area and they have put out a plea for people to step forward. Unfortunatly I do not qualify because of lack of space. The state here requires that each foster child have their own room which I think is kinda ridiculous. My own children don't have their own room and they are none the worse for it. I would think having a home to live in would be more important. There is another problem because I already have so many children at home I wouldn't be able to take the "hard cases" simply because there is only so much of me to go around which limits my ability to help. It is our hope however that after my own children are more grown that we will be in a position to take in, care for and perhaps even adopt the children who have no one and are activly taking steps in our financial and personal lives to accomplish just that.
Oddish~ The Odd One
posted on July 20, 2001 02:50:21 PM new
Errrr... I was just about to respond to some of the cogent comments JT made, when I suddenly noticed they weren't there anymore???
The gist of what I was going to say, though, is that the points that she made were certainly valid, if you go in with the assumption that an unborn child is a "human" and not just a part of the mother's body like an arm, leg or kidney stone. Not everybody believes that the unborn are "people" though, which is exactly the issue that needs to be discussed in my opinion.
Most [not all, unfortunately] people in our society today believe that people of African descent are human beings with all the same rights as anybody else. This wasn't always the case, however. Slavery was allowed in our country 150 years ago because the definition of "people" was specifically limited to exclude blacks. You couldn't talk about the rights of a slave, since by definition slaves weren't people and therefore had no rights. All that mattered under the law was the rights of the slave owner. Of course, 150 years later we all know how ugly and evil slavery was, and we look with scorn upon those who would try to avoid the real issue of slavery [whether blacks are actually human beings and whether it is moral to own another human being] by hiding behind the rubric of "property rights".
I wonder how history will look upon those who today refuse to discuss the real issue of abortion rights [whether the unborn are human beings and whether it is moral to kiil them] and instead hide behind the rubric of "right to choose".
Are the unborn human beings? Do they have a right to life? I don't know. But I do think that it is the key question in the abortion debate and shouldn't be glossed over.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 20, 2001 03:04:53 PM newDonny: the poor language that the debate was originally framed in has, I think, led us from faulty premises to flawed arguments
Again, I agree with you. The statements of mine that you keep quoting were from the first part of my post, where I was purposely being ironic in an effort to point out how absurd it is to frame the debate in terms of "choice".
Does making murder, drug use, prostitution, robbery, et al. illegal take away somebody's choice to do those things? No, as you pointed out. Making them illegal is merely a deterrent. The individual is still free to do whatever they want to, although they might have more difficulty doing it. And the same holds true for abortion. Making it illegal doesn't take away anybody's free will or ability to choose -- it just makes it more difficult. All of which is why I object to having the phrases "right to choose" and "pro-choice" rammed down my throat day in and day out, as if anybody were trying to take [or capable of taking, for that matter] away a woman's right to choose.
I don't recall anybody bringing up the danger of illegal abortions and then brushing it aside, with the inference that "that's not the issue." In fact, I stated that it is most certainly part of the debate and one of the issues that needs to be discussed. The same way that when discussing the legalization of drugs, one of the key issues is the damage people inflict to themselves and to others when trying to obtain drugs illegally. It is most certainly an issue, but it's not the only issue, nor [in my opinion] even the most important one.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 20, 2001 03:23:04 PM newkraftdinner: So, what you're saying is that any collection of human cells that is still developing, and which is unable to sustain its own life outside of the womb, is therefore "not human beings"?
I just thought I'd make sure I really understood what you were saying before I mentioned my sister, who was born 6 weeks premature, and needed and incubator and a respirator to survive. I mean, it sounds like your saying my sister wasn't actually a human being until she could breathe unassisted, and I know that just can't be right.
At what point do cells stop "developing"? At what point can a baby sustain its own life, unassisted? Is a child one minute after being born really any more "human" than a fetus one minute before being born? At what point is the definition of "human" a matter of biological fact, and at what point is it one of political convenience?
We could go back and forth on this issue all night, I'm sure. In fact, I think we should, although perhaps in another thread. We may never see eye to eye on the subject, but at least we'd be actually discussing it instead of just saying that the whole issue is beside the point as the "pro-choice" movements seems to want to do.
Regards,
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 20, 2001 03:28:17 PM new
I am sure there are those that would adopt. I'm encouraged just from the postings here.
As stated, this is an emotional issue. I still think the pro-life activist would help there cause more if they would carry big signs while protesting that said "I'll take your baby-Call: XXX-XXX-XXXX" instead of those that just say Murderer or have graphic pictures intended to strike fear in the woman who might be considering an abortion or destroying clinics and sometimes injuring the doctors and/or nurses who work in them.
I really find it hard to believe that most women would just "choose" to have an abortion simply because it is "quick, easy and sometimes free". Maybe there are those that would, I like to think not. That's why I would prefer to see real options made available to them and not just threats and "noise".
The one person I know who went to a "nurse" who worked out of her apartment after hours went there because she believed she had no options. When she attempted to go to a clinic in the city, there were protesters there and they yelled, screamed and started video taping her and calling her all sorts of horrible names and she got very scared and left. Then she turned to a "friend" who had a "friend" who "knew" this nurse.... She ended up in a hospital 4 hours later more dead than alive. She really never fully recovered emotionally. She has even stated she "got" what she deserved! I find that unacceptable for any woman.
I also, have know children who may very well have had less pain and sufferring in their little lifes if they had never been born. I know adults who have been quite blunt about the fact, they would have preferred to not have been born rather than go through what they did as children. So just passing a law that makes it impossible to have an abortion will not solve the problem of unwanted, unloved, unnurtured, emotionally damaged children. These children will become the next generation of parents and the cycle continues.
posted on July 20, 2001 03:36:43 PM new
Hi oddish...
Good for you. I think it's one of the noblest things anyone can do. It's true what you say...here in Mass. there are many hoops to jump through before one is approved as a foster parent. I had a friend that did it.
Our former neighbors are among the best people I've ever known. They adopted 5 children in the foster care system...all with problems of one kind or another. Fetal alcohol syndrome, etc...3 of mixed race. None of them were the cute little babies so sought after. They finally had to move...they outgrew the house and wanted to live in a more racially diverse area for the children's sakes.
They are a deeply religious couple, though I had to ask to find that out...they never proselytized. We really miss them...all the kids would do the "Hi Neighbor" bit from Mr. Rogers when we'd see them in the yard. Adorable beyond belief...and all doing very well. We get pics of the brood every Xmas...the boy they thought might not make it, is growing like a weed and doing very well in school...beat all the odds...and the dire predictions of the social workers...
posted on July 20, 2001 03:47:32 PM new
Godzillatemple, you say that:
"The statements of mine that you keep quoting were from the first part of my post, where I was purposely being ironic in an effort to point out how absurd it is to frame the debate in terms of "choice"."
But I'm not quoting from the first part, the ironic part, of your post. I'm quoting from your second, "irony off" part.
"We have laws against such things as murder, robbery, drug use, prostitution, etc., because society as a whole has decided that people shouldn't have the right to choose to do these things."
That's what I quote from, and that quote is from the "irony off" second part of your post. You posited this as an assertion, not ironic at all, but as a truth. But it's not a truth, it's all stood on its head. And then you go from there.
posted on July 20, 2001 03:49:01 PM newsulyn1950: I still think the pro-life activist would help there cause more if they would carry big signs while protesting that said "I'll take your baby-Call: XXX-XXX-XXXX" instead of those that just say Murderer or have graphic pictures intended to strike fear in the woman who might be considering an abortion or destroying clinics and sometimes injuring the doctors and/or nurses who work in them
I agree, that would be a wonderful thing for people to do. However, I'm not sure that would really pacify most "pro-choicers". As julesy pointed out up above, it's seldom really "easy" to give up a child, at least not emotionally easy, and I suspect most pro-choicers would want a woman to have a safe and easy way to rid herself of an unwanted child without having to bring the child to term.
just passing a law that makes it impossible to have an abortion will not solve the problem of unwanted, unloved, unnurtured, emotionally damaged children
Well, as I'm sure Donny would be the first to point out, no law can ever make it "impossible" to do anything. But you're absolutely right -- making abortions illegal certainly won't solve the problem of unwanted, unloved, unnurtured, emotionally damaged children. I don't recall anybody saying it would. Are you saying that abortion would solve those problems? That's certainly an interesting take on the issue, and certainly one that merits further discussion. But once again it has little if anything to do with a woman's right to "choose".
My point all along has been that if people want to discuss the abortion issue, let's discuss the abortion issue. Don't just redefine it as a "freedom of choice" issue and pretend it has nothing to do with abortion.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
I don't know about noble at least in my case. To be truly honest it is a least a partly selfish venture. I know what it feels like to be abused and alone. Through that knowledge I feel I have two choices, I can wallow in it and feel sorry for myself which I have done to a great extent. Problem is it doesn't really make you feel any better. Or I can try to make a difference to someone else, try to change the injustice, heal some of the pain, not for all but for anyone I can touch. This approach though much more difficult brings the greatest satisfaction and healing to myself hence selfish in some ways. I love stories like the one you just told. To me there are so many sad stories in the world and on the news, so much hurt on all sides. It's nice to hear of the people quietly doing their part for a better world with no fanfare and it's sucess in the lives of those deemed "unhelpable".
sulyn1950
Actually I think that is a wonderful idea. Though I am adamently against abortion I do think yelling at people and calling them names is not condusive to the change in which I am trying to get. Who in the world would want to listen to you if you are putting them down, calling them names and generally showing contempt for them. Not a smart approach in my opinion. Love, caring, compassion and reserve of judgement are far greater assets to acomplish any goal. I wonder how many girls would choose not to have an abortion if instead of people yelling at them they found someone who truly cared and would be willing to give support, friendship and a little encouragement for what would no doubt be a trying time in their lives. Not all for sure but I bet there would be many. I do think being factual about what the actual process of an abortion entails is important. If they are going to make that choice it should be with all the details, even the gruesome ones of what actually happens.
Oddish~ The Odd One
posted on July 20, 2001 04:15:22 PM newDonny: You're absolutely correct. My bad. And you're also correct that my word choice [no pun intended] left something to be desired.
The problem comes, as you pointed out, because it's really not about "choice" at all. Not when you're talking about murder, or robbery, or drugs, or abortion. And since many who support abortion rights erroneously call themselves "Pro-Choice", it's hard to discuss the issue with them without using their terminology. If they simply called themselves "Pro abortion rights" I wouldn't mind a bit, since at least they would then be acknowledging what it is they actually support and we could get on with the debate.
"Pro-choice" people say that they believe a woman should be able to choose what happens to her own body. Well, guess what? They already can, and making abortion illegal won't change that fact. What "pro-choice" people mean is that they believe that women should have safe, legal and easy access to abortions on demand. But that sounds too much like they are actually advocating abortions, so instead they say they are "pro-choice".
In fact, however, it's impossible to legitimately discuss the merits of granting somebody safe, legal and easy access to something without discussing the merits of the thing which they want access to. You can't say that a woman has a right to an abortion without discussing whether an abortion is something a woman should have a right to. Just like it would be absurd for me to say that people should have a right to rob, take drugs, kill children, etc., without discussing the merits of robbing, taking drugs, killing children, etc.
But, since those who support abortion rights apparently don't want to discuss the actual merits of abortion [perhaps because they don't think they can win that argument], they instead erroneously redefine the issue in terms of "choice" and "freedom to choose" and hope that this will allow them to avoid the unpleasant parts of the issue alltogether.
So you're right, Donny. It's not about "choice". Laws don't prohibit people from choosing anything, and society hasn't decided that people shouldn't have the right to choose anything.
Now if only we could get the pro abortion rights people to stop calling themselves "pro-choice"...
Regards,
Barry
P.S. Can you imagine if those who support the right to bear arms started calling themselves "pro-choice"? Or how about those who think marijuana should be legalized? They're certainly "pro-choice", aren't they? You know those guys who think that men should be able to share their "love" with young boys? I wonder if anybody would be offended if they started calling themselves the "pro-choice" movement....
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on July 20, 2001 04:57:26 PM new
Sorry Barry.
Pro-choice: sex? no sex? condom? no condom?
(I know I said some other stuff too.)
According to kraft's definition they might not be "human" until they can get a job. Then there might be some 25 year olds who can't qualify.
A baby that can not "sustain itself outside the womb" that hiccups, sucks it's thumb, stretches, kicks, has periods of sleep and wake, responds to music and noise and motion IS HUMAN. I have been pregnant twice. This happens WAY WAY LONG before they can sustain themselves outside the womb alone.
languishing in foster care
Foster care is a WHOLE DIFFERENT DEAL.
1. My friend tried to get a foster child. She was willing to take any child. She and her husband own their own business, have a nice home, are successful, and parents of one child of their own. They told her she was "too busy" after the interview. They said if she would quit her homebased business and dedicate fulltime to the child then they would reconsider. She paints murals and hangs wall paper in new $300,000 homes. She can afford an excellent day-care or even a nanny.
2. You are TOTALLY robbed of privacy and subject to unannounced home inspections randomly. Medicine must be kept under lock and key. The cat dish can not be in the kitchen. Each child must have their own room as noted above. Etc, etc. It might be even inviting trouble for your own family??? I personally don't want to have to worry about a normal bruise if my child falls down and gets one. Or that the dishes were not all done by noon. You are at the mercy of the case worker and who know what kind of person it would be.
3. You may have this child for 2 days or you may have it for 6 years then suddenly the parents are granted custody again. When that happens, they come get the child that you have lovingly raised and send it into more or less whatever situation it came from previously. I have known of people practically destroyed to send a child they have had as "their own" for many years be taken away against theirs and the child's wishes and put in a much worse situation.
In addition, you often get the troubled parent to contend with too. If the mother is a drug addict and prostitute she still gets VISITATION rights under the CAREFUL GUIDANCE of the foster parents. I have known of this turning into a complete nightmare where the foster parents ended up with an ADDITIONAL 18-30 year old, drug addicted, disturbed, financially needy, "child".
4. A placement counselor told me that it is nearly impossible to place many of these kids in a home with existing children afer they are about 4 or 5 years old. According to this case worker, you then often end up with situations of violence, child to child sexual assault, etc. Many of these kids have been exposed to these type things and they perceive them as "normal".
I remember clearly being on a school bus in first grade and another girl about my same age telling the bus driver, "I am so tired! My three brothers have been xxxxing and xxxxing me all night and I didn't get no sleep at all!" I came home and asked my mom what it means. The girl ovbiously had no idea this was abnormal or she wouldn't have cheerfully and casually told the busdriver.
No thanks. Adoption is different. Once the deal is done everyone goes away ...usually...and you become a normal family.
Not meaning to derail.
T
Disclaimer: I am sure there are many successful exceptions and someone will point them out.
[ edited by jt on Jul 20, 2001 05:02 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2001 07:17:16 PM new
Not to start an argument, but where in the talk of governments and abortions and rights or non-rights falls the case of the woman who has been incarcerated so that she will not be able to do anything (i.e., take drugs) that might harm her fetus? Perhaps the attorneys among us can give us the details of that case?
El
"The customer may not always be right, but she is always the customer."
posted on July 20, 2001 08:25:06 PM new
Yes, now we agree, Godzillatemple. It's not about being "Pro-Choice." That's a faulty premise. It's got, as you say, simplistic emotional appeal... who could say this was a bad thing? The fallacy is also, as you pointed out, easily exposed. You wouldn't mind "pro abortion rights." That's okay. I prefer to avoid what I think are messy discussions of "rights" altogether, so I'd probably label the position something like "pro wider abortion options." Neither of our labels are as zingy as "Pro-Choice," so there you are.
"But, since those who support abortion rights apparently don't want to discuss the actual merits of abortion [perhaps because they don't think they can win that argument], they instead erroneously redefine the issue in terms of "choice" and "freedom to choose" and hope that this will allow them to avoid the unpleasant parts of the issue alltogether."
Well, I don't know. I know I would never discuss the actual merits of abortion as I think you mean them (and I may be misinterpreting), not merely because I don't think it's an argument I could ever win, but because I think it's an argument neither of us could ever win.
We could discuss the "beginning of life" question 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. On the 8th day, we could both switch sides and argue each other's positions, and we'd never, I don't think, arrive at a real answer. It's literally a "What is the meaning of life?" question. Douglas Adams said it was 42, but he's dead now; does his answer still count? And even if you and I agreed with the deceased Mr. Adams, what if a fourth guy joins in the discussion?
We could argue about the inherent "wrongness" or "lack of wrongness" of abortion in a moral sense, but a moral relativist will throw up his hands before the discussion begins. A moral absolutist knows what the answer is. A moral relativist thinks that you have your answer, I have mine, and someone else has his.
What's left? Since we do agree that "The Right to Life," would not preclude "The Right to Choose," merely limit those choices, I think the only basis for discussion that's left is what limiting those choices would entail.
And now I think I've tried to do the very thing that you're unhappy about - cut out a whole chunk of stuff that you see as integral to the discussion, leaving merely something to do with "choice."
Anyway, it's all very interesting and I would go on, but I'm off for a week of the three S's - sun, sand, and sin.
posted on July 20, 2001 10:19:25 PM new
Just to clarify my statement godzilla and jt, I think both the egg and sperm are human cells before and after they get together. Once combined, these cells develop into a human baby. Once born, that baby becomes a living, breathing human being.
Like, if I took the insides of my computer out and put it all back together so it looked like a computer, could I still call it a computer? Just because a fetus looks like a baby, doesn't mean it can be called a baby yet....it's not finished being 'put together'.
If you're really talking about abortion, I don't know of anyone who is pro-choice that feels an abortion after 4-5 months is OK. In my opinion, the fetus is more of a "human being" than not, and unless the mother's life is in danger, an abortion should not be an option after that point.
posted on July 20, 2001 10:33:20 PM new
Gosh kraft, a computer is a non-living thing. You could not argue that a baby is a non-living thing ever. It is always a living thing. A tree is a living thing.
And humans aren't done getting "put together" until they are...hmmm...18 for girls and 21 for boys? They get new teeth that they didn't have. they grow hair that they didn't have. They are still growing and developing. Correct? Why does birth mean that they are suddenly "assembled"?
Babies are living from the womb earlier and earlier. Only a few years ago babies died if born early. Now they can give them a shot and whamo their lungs develop in only a few hours.
A tadpole isn't done yet. It can't live outside the pond. Is is less alive than a frog? Does that mean a fish is not alive?
Plus the point is that every baby deserves the chance to be born. YOU could have been aborted. Would that have been fair? Or are you glad that your mother cared enough to let you live?
T
And it's all these words we use. "The fetus was aborted." It sounds like the harmless ending of a space mission.
"The unborn baby was killed". That gives a more realistic picture of what has happened.
Kraft, you are a male? You have never had a baby growing inside of you?
[ edited by jt on Jul 20, 2001 10:42 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2001 11:14:15 PM new
I think it is extremely presumptuous of a human being to believe that they CAN choose to kill another human being whether it would be considered abortion or murder of an adult.
I believe that if a person dies whether they are still an egg, a fetus, a child, or an adult it is what is meant to be and not under the control of human beings at all. If there is death at all it is because that person, egg, fetus, child, adult, etc. has already fulfilled his/her purpose in life and it is just their time to go.
Think rationally. If I pull a trigger and kill someone there has been a lot of fantastic events that lead up to that point. Synchronisity (a new word perhaps?), not happenstance.
We have nothing to do with whether another lives or dies. It has nothing to do with our choice, or not. It is a moot point altogether, just something to argue about IMO.
There are many things I have done that I DID NOT CHOOSE TO DO, death of another in any form has not been one of those things. But who am I to say that it won't happen, or it can't happen.
The best suggestion so far has been for the two factions, pro and con, to work together with the prevention of unwanted births in mind. But I still believe that it is not in our control completely and that if it is predestined a child will or will not be born, or will or will not live after birth.
It is NOT our choice, no matter what. Haven't you all heard of a 'freak' case at one time or another? A 'miracle' birth for the couple who thought they couldn't have children? An abortion that wasn't completed and the baby ended up very much loved and wanted? It is not up to us, IMO.
posted on July 20, 2001 11:24:08 PM new
Oh come on Terri! My analogy was only in answer to 'when does an egg become a human being'. To me, it's always human and the 'being' part, IMO, takes place when the baby is born.
Are you asking me when I think the cells become "alive"? I think they're always alive.
If you're asking if I think abortion is right or wrong, I think it's up to the individual.
The thing is, I just have a different opinion than you do. No opinion is either right or wrong, and thank God we have that choice to make.
posted on July 20, 2001 11:27:31 PM new
Agree Simco.
I always think of that when the argument is used "Well we DID use birth control!". To that I say...then maybe this baby was REALLY intended to BE. This COULD be the child who will cure cancer or AIDS or something. If that child does not live...
T
Kraft, it can't be about "opinion". If that were the case then one could have an "opinion" as to whether another race, or a handicapped person, or an alzhimers sufferer, etc. were "beings". I thought we as a society were over that issue.
One segment of society has no "worth" because they are not yet consumers. They have no voice. What happened to the right to "LIFE, liberty and persuit of happiness"? Is that less vaild than the right of "choice"? Or is "choice" even a "right"? I don't think it is.
[ edited by jt on Jul 20, 2001 11:34 PM ]
posted on July 20, 2001 11:58:54 PM new
Terri, it's my opinion that, based on what I feel and what you've said, we don't share the same beliefs on this subject. Is my opinion less valid because it is not a shared belief? Of course not. If all of us felt the same about everything, there would be no need for communication of any kind.
I don't think abortion is an easy decision. I would compare it to pulling the plug on a loved one. We all have to make difficult decisions sometimes, but because this is such a personal thing, I think the decision has to be a woman's own.
If your opinions are attempts to change peoples thinking about abortion, then so be it. If some people are on the fence and are swayed by your posts, then I think that's wonderful! But on the same hand, I feel the way I do and it's just different than the way you feel.
posted on July 21, 2001 12:16:06 AM new
Kraft, It's HOT here, and muggy and mosquitoy. Thanks for asking.
I know the law allows for women to make the choice. Ok, the law allows for that. I only think women, especially very young women should understand that the choice is murder. Truth hides behind the wording and the social acceptance. Especially in times of such emotional turmoil and fear this can be deceptive. I also think fathers should have a choice in the matter of their child.
What if a woman could not have an abortion without the father's consent?
Would that be fair? Someone will surely scream "it's not his body" but it is his flesh and blood and we are not talking about how one looks in a bikini or a minor inconvenience. We are talking about ending a human life. Men in particular who are never able to experience pregnancy are easily decieved by the jargon.
As a note, I can still say "minor inconvenience" and I have spent 8 months of my life lying on my left side unable to sit sit up, much less get up without going into labor. I do not like pregnancy at all. It does not agree with me...and childbirth is not too spiffy fun either. Doesn't matter. It doesn't last that long compared to a life.
T
