posted on January 30, 2001 08:27:32 AM new
snowyegret,
Thanks for answering my question about partial birth abortion during the 3rd trimester. I was hoping since you were a nurse you would answer.
cin131,
I do agree with you that birth control needs to be focused on more and is the way to prevent unwanted, can't afford, illness, not time yet, to prevent abortion. Unfortunately there are many that don't even want a woman/girl to have that option which I do not understand.
That really is neither here nor there because of the fact that so many teens do get pg and why so many fight against birth control I do not know. To me that is the answer to abortions but as I said I do not understand why so many religious organizations fight against it? Yes, of course I agree that to abstain is the only true way but I don't think that is working and I don't think hiding ones head (not speaking of you) in the sand is the answer either.
Question: If people must choose birth control pills or abortion why would religious organizations/other anti abortion foes fight so hard against birth control? Will that stop abortions and be the answer to all? I don't think so but I certainly think it would help.
posted on January 30, 2001 08:54:34 AM new
As far as I know, only the catholic church is against birth control, and to me, that makes no sense. I an a Christian, and was raised in a Baptist church. All of my friends used birth control until we were ready for children, most of us used the pill.
Someone asked me why I would trust President Bush with my daughter moreso than Mr. Clinton...I have yet to hear of any sexual misconduct with President Bush. (and the press has good nose for that kind of stuff).
I will be reading further posts, but, from here on out, I will not be posting to this thread anymore, as I am starting to get irritated, and don't want to say something I will regret.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. This is
a serious topic and not one to pussyfoot
around about in my opinion.
I wonder if the pro life believers really
understand the status of some children in
this and even worse in other countries
raised in squalor, hunger and disease because
of a church and political agenda.
posted on January 30, 2001 09:07:25 AM new
So far, not one person on this thread has been anti-birth control. May be that some one lurking might be, but none have posted such.
posted on January 30, 2001 09:07:59 AM new
Since I'm not sure how to edit, I will just post again. There is health insurance available for children in my state, all the mothers have to do is apply for it. (Which, I will confess, might not be as easy as it sounds). My church, would and has taken single parents under their wing and helped them in raising their children.
And, as a last comment, I am not even going to READ this thread anymore, because, quite honestly, I am tired of the attacks. I have tried to refrain from attacking people. But, I realize that as a Christian, I might as well have a sign on me that says 'OPEN SEASON' because liberals fight for everyone's rights except for Christian's rights. If a Christian posts their opinions, they are stupid and closed minded. If a liberal posts their opinions, which sometimes are venomous, they are merely expressing their opinion, and, of course, they are always right.
I believe that President Bush won the election and without tampering with the ballots and analyzing chads. I pray that Bush brings some credibility, respectablity and integrity back to the office of the President. And, yes, I believe that he did the right thing by saying no federally funded abortions.
posted on January 30, 2001 09:13:00 AM new"I have yet to hear of any sexual misconduct with President Bush. (and the press has good nose for that kind of stuff).
Actually there is a pretty strong body of evidence that a woman became pregnant by GW, in 1990 if I remember right, and had an abortion at his expense. The testimony of the woman was direct, and is the property of Larry Flynt. For some reason he elected not to publish the evidence prior to the election. It was pretty mysterious because Flynt had announced that he had all the substantiation he needed to go to press, the story seemed about to break, and all of a sudden it was squished, and squished firmly as there is no mention of it anymore.
Some of those famous Bushbucks used to pay off Flynt? He's known for doing most anything for a price.
posted on January 30, 2001 09:27:41 AM new
cin131,
I hope you didn't think I was attacking you because I wasn't. I agree with you on many things and I wasn't talking about you or anyone in particular in this thread about why *some* church officials do not believe in birth control but I do know there are some and while I respect their idea I just don't find it works very well.
I just truly do not understand living in a world that is unperfect where "just say no does not always work" that birth control pills would be much better than the other option.
That is all I was asking and I have enjoyed your posts.
posted on January 30, 2001 10:56:27 AM newcin131 - I'm sorry you left the thread. I hope the attacks you perceived did not come from this quarter - I would like nothing better than to see some kind of meeting of the minds on this subject, even if it's only in a chatroom like this. I meant what I said last night - I did enjoy talking with you. I was able to hear what you had to say, and I felt that you afforded my words with some respect as well. I do hope to see you elsewhere on the threads here one day.
Most pro-choice believers are not rabid feminist murderers. Sure, there are a few out there, but many of us are far more middle of the road. That said, I also do not believe that all who believe in the pro-life movement are rabid crazies either! If everyone could just take a breath and share calmly where they are coming from, it is likely that we would find more common ground than anyone might expect.
I have a dear friend who posts to these boards (but never to these threads because she gets mad!). She is pro-life all the way. I am pro-choice. She is Republican (for the most part - votes that way anyway!) and I am Democrat (for the most part - I vote that way). She's an active member of a very highly organized religion. I am a non-denominational hand clapping Christian who thinks organized religion has changed from being about saving souls to raising money. She's young. I'm old. But in our many many discussions about religion, politics and abortion, both online and on the telephone, we have never crossed swords. Not even one time. We talk to each other and treat each other with respect - hearing what the other is saying. We will never change our stands, but we have great respect for each other and the beliefs each of us holds dear. And we have more middle ground than I would have expected us to have.
I guess that's what I'd like to see here in this thread. A chance for people to hear each other, without falling back on the rhetoric and nastiness. I know how hot this topic is - everybody believes they are right and the other side is wrong. That may well be - but it wouldn't kill us to hear about it.
For the record, I am a Christian too. I would not be alive today if I didn't have God and Christ in my life - I would have killed myself in despair years ago. But He is in me, He lives through me, and He carries me when the road is too hard, just as He carries and lives in and through those on the pro-life side of the fence. And like I said last night - if I get to judgement day and find out I was wrong for being more concerned about the small lives already in this world than the unborn, so be it. I'll take my judgement from God for that grave error.
Now I'm off for my nap between jobs. Tuesday is not a fun day for this old woman. heh
posted on January 30, 2001 11:11:22 AM new
maddienicks,
Nice post.
It would do well for all that post on any subject that one's view on abortion, religion, politics, or whatever, are all in one neat little basket. When people blame everything on those damn liberal athiest democrats or those damn conservative Christian republicans, it just goes to show how narrow minded one can be. I happen to know several libral democrats who go to church and I know several conservative republicans who do not. Heck, I even know some conservative democrats and libral republicans. And each of them have their own views on abortion, death penalty, birth control, drugs, crime, and even favorite foods. That is what makes each of us unique.
posted on January 30, 2001 11:37:00 AM newkrs - beHAVE, will you?
inside - We found a common ground! You are absolutely right in that it shouldn't matter what the subject, we should try to treat each other with respect. Whether a "damn liberal athiest democrats or those damn conservative Christian republicans", a human being with questions lies beneath in nearly every case. (I know, I know - every case. But there are few people in my world that I'm not so sure about...)
Now - I really am going to nap. I couldn't help myself from being drawn back here one more time.
posted on January 30, 2001 12:03:26 PM new
Something to ponder - sent to me by a cousin of mine.
If you knew a woman who was
pregnant, who had 8 kids already,
three who were deaf, two who
were blind, one mentally retarded,
and she Had syphilis; would you
recommend that she have an abortion?
(My thought was, I'd recommend getting her tubes tied.)
Then I scrolled down and read the answer:
If your answer to the abortion question was yes, then you just killed Beethoven.
I am pro-choice, but feel that the true intent of Roe vs Wade is being overly abused now.
To answer the statements brought up in this thread a couple of times,
(to the effect of) "What would happen if all these fetus' were born?" Well the same thing that happened before Roe vs Wade. Some would make the huge (IMO) mistake of trying 'back alley' abortions. Some would place the unwanted children up for adoption, so all the childless couples who
want children so much would have a chance to adopt. And maybe some would have the child and take responsiblity for it, like they should have by using contraception to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
For me, it's the women who use the "This isn't a good time for me to have a baby" that I have the most trouble accepting.
posted on January 30, 2001 12:03:49 PM new
krs, Do you seriously consider Larry Flynt to be a reliable source of information. You must have missed the interview his daughter did with Barbara Walters a while back. The one where she discussed some of the vile and disgusting sexual acts her father perpetuated against young woman including herself... incest. And, the one in which she discussed his penchant for making up whatever just to get attention or to get his way. I saw the Flynt interview and thought it a little too coincidental that he came out with his baseless accusations just before the election. I'm just cynical enough to have believed that it was his sick way of trying to influence the voters... JMHO.
posted on January 30, 2001 12:35:31 PM newEyeguy: I can. The daughter of someone I know is pregnant. The baby is healthy. The daughter, however, is not. She has been diagnosed with a rapidly spreading cancer that can be treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy as long as she starts both NOW. If she doesn't, she won't live to see her baby's first birthday. Yet if she starts the chemo, the risk and stress to the fetus is enormous.
Her choices: Starting the treatments and hoping nothing happens to the fetus. Delaying the treatments until after birth and merely prolonging, but not saving, her life. Her death, leaving her other child motherless. Abortion.
She decided for the abortion.
So, Inside, tell me. Should this woman have sacrificed her life so her child could live? Why would that child's life be any more precious or valuable than the mother's? Would you still call her a "baby killer"?
posted on January 30, 2001 01:25:51 PM new
Shadowcat,
I take it you are answering eyeguy's question from way back concerning a healthy baby at 8-9 months.
At that late stage, I would opt for a c-section or labor induction, depending on the doctors' advice, and hope my child lived. Thus giving them and myself a chance to live.
As for you question concerning the value of life. I can't say that the baby is more valuable than the mother, but neither can I say the mother is more valuable than the child. I would hope to save both.
And would I call her a baby killer, no, I have already said that there are times when a mother's health may make abortion neccessary. Probably you missed those posts.
posted on January 30, 2001 01:30:26 PM new
Shadowcat,
I would also like to say how sorry I am that you friends daughter has to go through this. I hope that the therapy will work for her and that she has a full recovery and a good life. I can not imagine the emotional stress and pain in this kind of situation and my heart goes out for her and her family.
I am pro-choice but that doesn't necessarily mean I am anti-life.
I watched "Cider House Rules" last week and was wondering what others thought of it. I thought it was the best pro-choice movie ever made including "If These Walls Could Talk" and "Citizen Jane."
posted on March 17, 2001 05:44:08 PM new
This excerpt from the article posted by Bobbysoxer makes it
clear that women's rights are being denied again.
"Bush has already pleased abortion opponents by cutting off family planning funds to international groups that provide abortion referrals and by appointing conservative John D. Ashcroft as attorney general. Now lawmakers say that in the coming months they will seek to impose incremental restrictions on abortion while averting a direct confrontation over women's constitutional rights to obtain the procedure.
The measures include a ban on a controversial procedure opponents refer to as "partial birth" abortion, a restriction prohibiting anyone but a parent from transporting a minor across state lines to have an abortion, and limitations on who can administer mifepristone, an abortion pill previously known as RU-486 that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration shortly before Clinton left office.
............
A woman has the right to protect her health, happiness, freedom and even her life by terminating an unwanted pregnancy. And this right
will always override whatever right to life a fetus may have.
Late, third trimester abortions (after 27 weeks) are very
rare and used only in cases in which a threat to the life of the mother or a fetal abnormality is involved. But anti abortionists exaggerate the use of this rare and tragic medical crisis to promote their personal agenda which is to abolish any kind of abortion.
Making it more difficult to obtain an early abortion only makes later
abortions more likely.
posted on March 17, 2001 07:51:32 PM new
If a guy gets a girl pregnant, and doesn't want to be a father, he's a deadbeat. If a girl gets pregnant and doesnt' want to be a mother, she's pro-choice.
posted on March 17, 2001 08:04:24 PM new
Just wanted to go on the record to say that I provided the two posts this am in this thread for anyone interested in the issue.
With respect towards those who disagree with my opinion(s), I suspect the religious wrong is pumping up their followers on the various issues particularly the PBA.
posted on March 17, 2001 08:08:24 PM new
You state, "If a guy gets a girl pregnant, and doesn't want to be a father, he's a deadbeat. If a girl gets pregnant and doesnt' want to be a mother, she's pro-choice."
I didn't call the sire of this baby a deadbeat.
But if the girl doesn't want
to be a mother, she has the right to be pro
choice.
posted on March 17, 2001 08:17:05 PM new
Wait a sec....if a man decides not to be a father and take care of his child, he is a deadbeat...but if a woman decides she doesn't wan't to be a mother and elects to end the pregnancy she is pro-choice?
I don't quite understand this reasoning, the mother has a choice but the father doesn't?
Just wanted to add a little bit, I am against abortion but support a persons right to choose. But, the above seems a little hypocritical, in the simple example stated. I realize there is a big difference between being financially and emotionally responsible for a child and bearing a child, but the choice should be both parties decision, imo.
This topic is 11 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new
But in our many many discussions about religion, politics and abortion, both online and on the telephone, we have never crossed swords. Not even one time. We talk to each other and treat each other with respect - hearing what the other is saying. We will never change our stands, but we have great respect for each other and the beliefs each of us holds dear. And we have more middle ground than I would have expected us to have.
