What does "pro-life" mean these days?
A new poll and the president's personal foray into abortion politics continues to reverberate around the nation.
Personally, I wonder whether the pro-life moniker is losing some of its accrued meaning. I went to Harvard this week to visit a man who must rank as one of the most humane Americans of his generation: the type one diabetes researcher Douglas Melton.
Is he pro-life? I think he is. Senator Orrin Hatch does.
I suspect most Americans would agree...
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~43~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Polls are only as good as their questions. The Gallop poll modified all its questions. If you simply ask people, "If you had an unwanted pregnancy, would you have an abortion? Answer Yes or No," I am certain the Yesses would have it.
Complain about this comment
What does pro life mean? What does Pro Chioce mean? I'm not really sure what the former means but I can tell you the latter does not mean pro abortion. I myself would never force a woman to get an abortion. HOwever, I would not stop her from getting one since I don't see it as my right to tell her what to do.
This is one of the issues that divides me and my girlfriend, gay marriage is the other. She's opposed to both issues while I am in favor of choice and gay marriage. Still I love her with all my heart.
Complain about this comment
This from Justin's first link:
" "She added that most Americans share Obama's stated goal of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies." (Funny how former President George W. Bush and other pro-lifers have said that same thing about abortion for years, but now it actually means something to the pro-choice crowd. Ditto for "finding common ground" and "we all want fewer abortions.")"
What the columnist forgets to mention is that Bush and other pro-lifers wanted to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by way of abstinence, an unreasonable and irrational method. People will have sex. The pro-choice crowd puts their emphasis on access to affordable birth control. If she doesn't think this has meant anything to the pro-choice crowd until now, she simply hasn't been paying attention.
Complain about this comment
You are generalizing the term "pro-life" to fit to other issues aside from abortion. In the case of Douglas Melton, the method of generating stem cells does not involve the destruction of embryos, therefore abortion monikers should not even enter the picture. Of course that is assuming you give pro-lifers a monopoly on the moniker, after all anti-abortion is a better, more specific moniker. Then again, so is pro-abortion opposed to pro-choice. People always choose the more attractive, unspecific term, don't they?...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
it is easy to be pro life and also believe that abortion should not be illegal. People with this view just believe that making illegal will not make it stop.
In more conservative parts of the world abortion is illegal but still happens but instead of with a licensed doctor it then happens with some questionable doctors running operations out of their basement or a tent. Its not hard to see the dangers in this.
Making it illegal does not stop it from happening. If we want abortions to end then we have to change the publics attitude to it and provide more options for people who have unplanned pregnancies. But I guess that is just too hard to do, so just make it illegal and strt hunting for the child killers because that is so much easier aint it.
We have to stop looking through our noses at people who have children while being too young or outside of marriage then maybe they wont feel compelled to sneak into a doctors office to rid them of their perceived 'shame'
Complain about this comment
3, bere.
"...abstinence, an unreasonable and irrational method. People will have sex."
People seem to forget that girls and boys are sexually mature at puberty, and in olden days would have married. To require the control a natural biological need for perhaps a decade is ridiculous, unnatural and, for most people, impossible. Since premarital sex is a given, and since it is impractical, in this modern society to marry so young, that leaves contraception, or abortion, as the only means of preventing unwanted births. You can catigate people for being "careless," but, let's face it, who hasn't been on occasion.
Complain about this comment
I blame religion.
Complain about this comment
Justin wrote "Personally, I wonder whether the pro-life moniker is losing some of its accrued meaning"
Losing some of it, or gaining further meaning in our world as it is today?. Nobody has moved the goal posts.
The pro life / anti abortionists will still maintain their desire to ban abortion, and the pro choice group will also maintain their desire to make personal choices.The status quo here is not the reason for the percentage shift. Forget the babies or foetuses that might be lost , destroyed or born.
I believe the change that has arisen is more a general survival instinct and valuation of what we already have :- our kids, our grandchildren, our parents and family and above all ourselves. Everybody is pro-life- their own.
With the recent downturn in the worlds economy, lack of job security, for many the absence of adequate health care cover, the threat of Iran with missiles on the one hand and a well supplied Israel equally threatening on the other, escalating terrorist activity, lost assets, diminished pensions, crime, unemployment ---- the list is endless in realising what a tightrope we must all walk.
Back that with a total distrust of our leaders and politicians, the self serving bureaucrats and associated business leaders, the inequality and injustice heaped on those wishing to celebrate same sex relationships, a courageous military led by leaders with black hearts carrying out torture and above all the absence of any move to bring all these criminals to receive their just desserts in a court of law.
I do not believe it is a survival of the fittest either, but a desire to keep all our nearest and dearest healthy, and bring cure and comfort to those unlucky enough to suffer.
Obama got the ball rolling with his message of hope and change. He must now ride the whirlwind because there appears to be an upsurge for a sense of justice on all levels, and not just in the USA.. Much to the disgust of politicians the world around, the worm- us all, has finally turned.
Complain about this comment
I can't understand so called conservatives being against abortion on demand. Many of the unwanted babies that would be born without abortions would be unadoptable being not the perfect healthy white babies most couples wanting to adopt are hoping for. Or they would be born to unwed mothers who cannot support them on their own. They would be raised at government meaning taxpayer expense one way or another, mostly in poverty, often in orphanages going from foster parent to foster parent, and eventually many of them forming a criminal underclass that would be a threat to the mainstream middle class. The cost of educating them, feeding them, housing them, providing them with medical care, clothing them, and eventually prosecuting and jailing them would largely be at public expense. Once they kill people, these same conservatives will have no qualms about executing them. There are too many people in this world as it is. That is the real reason for global warming and climate change. They would be an unnecessary burden on society that has more than enough problems to deal with already. Half a million of them a year every year. How long before there are tens of millions of them? Only a generation or two. Good thing we have legal abortion. Obama will do his best to keep it that way.
Complain about this comment
Here is the thing, a study of pre revolutionary War Massachuettes reveals that nearly one quarter of the births in on county (or so I heard from my father) before a couple reached nine months of marriage. So what does that tell you?
Complain about this comment
No matter how liberal federal or state laws are, it doesn't stop individuals making their own moral or religious choice.
The possibility of the death penalty places undesirable influence and responsibility on juries.
Complain about this comment
This horse has been flogged to death so many times on this blog that it must surely have been turned into horse tartar long ago.
Can we move on to, say, energy policy?
Gardening?
Complain about this comment
It wouldn't take much to be "one of the most humane" Americans, since there are so few of them. Certainly not in Washington, not at Harvard - at least at the Kennedy School anyway - or anywhere else for that matter. It's a perpetual rat race - and the rats usually win. Worst of all, America's foreign policy has never been pro-life. America has slaughtered literally millions of innocent victims around the globe from SE Aaia to Latin America to the Middle East and beyond. So many and so callously we don't even do body counts. Obama Copacabana is busy upping the total killed right now in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, South America - Democrats are as deadly as Republicans. Neither ones are 'pro-life' or pro-human rights or pro-morality. America is just one big inhumane, killing machine.
Complain about this comment
we would need less abortions if children knew how to properly prevent pregnancies if they are not abstinent. I am surprised so many believe that keeping teenagers ignorant about sex will somehow protect them. If you dont tell them, they will learn from their classmate and who knows what they will learn.
In our society the myths surrounding sex, especially safe sex is shocking, and all this is because as a society we think not telling kids about sex is somehow the moral high ground. What nonsense. Ignorance does not allow you to make good decisions.
For the proponents of teaching only abstinence, I cant help but to look at them with suspicion and see them as anything less than being self righteous and judgemental, while holding everyone else to a standard that they dont hold themselves to. One could ask, how much did bristol palin (who only receives abstinence education in alaska's schools) know about preventing a pregnancy and wouldnt some education have helped her to avoid being a mother so young. I wouldnt be surprised if most of her sex education came from her baby's daddy or her friends who obviously know very little.
Many in Washington who are /were supporters of abstinence only training are notorious adulterers (newt ginrich for example). How well did abstinence training work for them. Im pretty sure they did not practice what they preach.
Its time everyone stop sinking their heads in the sand and drop this 'im holier than thou' attitude and get real.
Complain about this comment
15, moderate.
"we would need less abortions if children knew how to properly prevent pregnancies if they are not abstinent. I am surprised so many believe that keeping teenagers ignorant about sex will somehow protect them. If you dont tell them, they will learn from their classmate and who knows what they will learn."
That teenagers don't know how babies are made and how to prevent it, is a myth. They are too young, too overwhelmed by passion, too hopeful think they won't get pregnant, to care. (Or they want to get pregnant.) But, be sure, they know.
Complain about this comment
marbles..good point. As a teen you have this feeling of invincibility, and wont notice how silly you were until maybe 10 years later. we shoud still make our effort to teach them, we can do that much. The decisions they make are ultimately up to them. Ive seen the negative of abstinence only training, and in case where this is the norm I have to fault adults who think sheltering teens form the real world is helping them to prepare for it.
Complain about this comment
Douglas-Feith
We kept feeding them but the only thing that happened with most of them was that they kept breeding just as fast as ever. In the poorest countries they still have lots of children and as time goes on, feeding them only seems to create more hungry mouths to feed. It's a never ending cycle. What else was there to do?
When you've traded your car for a bycicle and turned out every last light in your house, turned off your heat, thrown away your TV set and the world still gets warmer, what are you going to say we should do about it then?
Complain about this comment
MA , in other parts of the world Children are almost seen as an insurance policy. The more you have the more they can help you make money to survive, or they can support you when you cant support yourself. In most of africa, where child mortality rates are so high, familes have children expecting some will die and some will live. Sad world, but its real. There is no 401 k to take you through retirement, or any pension to expect. Its just similar to what people did in north america before social programs and safety nets.
Complain about this comment
ref #1 allmymarbles
Of course the yesses will have it, being pro-choice doesn't mean you're pro-abortion and would abort a child if you were pregnant, it means that you want a safe and legal option should you decide to do so.
Complain about this comment
As for the meaning of "pro-life," it is the opposite of "pro-death."
That was easy... next question please.
Complain about this comment
"Is he pro-life? I think he is. Senator Orrin Hatch does."
An elderly Republican, clutching at straws. In any case, working on frogs, mice and skin cells does not necessarily preclude an interest in stem cells; on the contrary, Melton is a passionate advocate for embryonic stem cell research. Apparently Justin hasn't done his homework.
#2. AmericanSportFan: "This is one of the issues that divides me and my girlfriend, gay marriage is the other. She's opposed to both issues while I am in favor of choice and gay marriage."
It must be hard going with Miss California.
#16. allmymarbles: "be sure, they (teenagers) know."
Besides the passion, they just haven't thought it through - ask Miss Palin. Today there is little or no disgrace in being a "single mom", indeed, it may be a badge of honour in some segments of society. Education about birth control needs to be provided at an earlier age, although many parents will howl at the notion. Perhaps Plan B, the "morning after" pill should be made available to all teenagers, not just those seventeen years or more.
Complain about this comment
Guns, the strict opposite is anti-life, surely.
Complain about this comment
23, seanspa, obviously life matters. Hence, anti-life is anti-matter(s).
Complain about this comment
From the pro-life position, being 'pro-life' means cherishing each and every human person as unique and marvelous, deserving of respect, worthy of protection and encouragement, someone your compassion hopes will fulfill their own potent promise, just as much as the force and desires of life drive you, yourself. To be human is to give meaning to existence - for only we have and conceive of meaning in all the universe.
'A baby changes everything' - it is said, and they do, but old women and old men are wonders to know, to care for, to learn from as well. And so are all those in all the in-between stages of life.
This potential is so unique with each individual, that the loss of a person is an incalculable loss - the willful termination of another's life and opportunity is reckoned a crime, and snuffing out such a person's opportunity to fulfillment before they can even experience their independent selves, is a callous affront to being, and to humanness itself.
Generosity brings riches to the heart, selfishness brings poverty.
I am not a political fan of Gov. Palin, but no one here seems to grasp what it means to be pro-life, and so no one has appreciated the positive statement her family life brought to last year's national discussion.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Let me preempt, if I am able -
I said that the Palin family's acceptance of the difficulties inherent in their lives was a positive contribution to our national discussion. If you value your life, then seeing life valued must be a positive thing - if life is cheap, doesn't that lessen your own security - your opportunity to fulfill your promise, to be who you want to be? The Palins' example is very positive if life is a good thing.
And at the bottom, isn't that what abortion is all about - placing so high a value on your own freedom, flexibility, future, stability, or it may be your health, that you decide to sacrifice someone else's total opportunity to your own? That is hard to say, and it is certainly very hard to do if a parent has the least humanity in them. I know, although I am a man. We can place that high a value on our own future opportunity - people often do place that high a value on life and its promise for themselves.
Does someone else's life have equal value?
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
why was post #5 removed?it did not seem remotely offensive.
Complain about this comment
25, 26, KS, what do you say to someone like myself who does not believe
that abortion is a good thing, but that it may be necessary to save the
life of the mother, or in the case of incest?
Complain about this comment
The US definition of pro-life? Hmmmmmmm, it's ever evolving although presently:
- Anti-abortion
- Anti stem cell
- In some cases anti science/creationism
- Pro death penalty
- Pro Guantanamo/rendition/secret prisons
- Pro bomb anywhere that might be a threat
- Pro send the troops in to KILL THEM
- Pro torture (let's stop beating about the bush)
- Pro Cheney (who comes across really tough even though he dodged his draft 5 times and has never served)
Conclusion: If the unborn child is on American territory, it should be protected, otherwise, hey, whatever.
Complain about this comment
I guess its very simple logic really. Everyone starts life in embryonic form. Destroying or tampering with an embryo is destroying or tampering with a human being in his / her absolute earliest stage of life.
Justin Webb would not be here to make his comments if someone had tampered with his him back when he was in embryonic form.
Embryo = Human being in earliest stage of life.
I guess this is where the "pro life" term comes from.
Complain about this comment
26 KScurmudgeon
I agree with everything you said... but life is not always that simple. Sometimes people are forced to make heartbreaking, gutwrenching decisions, and it haunts them the rest of their lives.
When I was in college, one of my best friends (female) showed up at the door in tears, because she just found out she was pregnant, her boyfriend refused to help her or even speak about it, and she needed to borrow money for the abortions.
This was a life-changing event for her- 21, a potential single mom, from a conservative background so that she'd probably have been on her own supporting the child. Continuing the pregnancy meant dropping out of school, dropping everything, and probably being reduced to poverty.
I didn't think twice about lending her the money. But I'm sure it haunts her to this day.
Life isn't simple, and sometimes there are no good answers.
Complain about this comment
@gunsandreligion
As for the meaning of "pro-life," it is the opposite of "pro-death."
Except that many who claim to be 'pro-life' are solely anti-abortion and very much in favour of the death penalty.
Complain about this comment
#29 Extremesense & #32 Irish_Mark
The double standards would be funny if it wasn't so depressing...
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon # 25, # 26
Appreciated your postings. You wrote in far fewer words what I was trying to express, man's love for the living, even though we have a different take on the matter.
Unfortunately, my pro life stance is directed at the living and not that which may or may not enter this world.
Perhaps mistaken, but till proven otherwise I do not regard any foetus / embryo [ 1 day- to 12 weeks] should be included in this criteria.
A pro lifer with thoughts that include the necessity for capital punishment for those that take the life of others on the planet, now that DNA testing removes any possibility of miscarriages of justice.
A pro-lifer with pro-execution concerns makes me the oxymoron of reasoning, and I expect to be lambasted with the emphasis being placed on my being more m#r#n by some, where the ox part is just my lack of brain power.
We all view this world wearing different strength rose tinted spectacles, and sometimes arrive at different conclusions about what is the best for it.
Re 'A baby changes everything'.- "Changing a baby" gives one a totally new slant on things too.
Respectfully wma.
Complain about this comment
Re 22
Here's the thing, My girlfriend is attracted to women and has told me that she's bisexual, which makes her opposition to gay marriage puzzling in my opinion. I understand her catholic faith but still, I believe that if she were dating a woman she'd want to have the right to marry her.
Complain about this comment
These polls are silly.Who did they ask ,where do they live.What are their age groups.More than 10% of women say fetal complications as reasons for abortion.I think right there is a reason to keep legal.Waiting for miscarriage is expensive for emergency rooms and dangerous for women.I think it should be legal in 1st trimester and banned in the last trimester.I am unsure about the second.I think if birth control is more used than you can reduce both abortion and STD,s.I think Republicans are trying to change subject yet again.And I think Pro-Life groups should have long term answers for raising children like how to pay for and feed.Not just U.S. but worldwide i am sick of seeing children starve to death and babies die of preventable things like tetanus.If every child was adopted than more people would use it instead.And if we understand that people who are incapable of raising children for whatever reasons aren't bad people.But as you can see their are no black and white answers just a blur of gray.And I think Americans should look at the reasons why abortion was banned to begin with a lot of the reason were racist,thinking white protestants were being out numbered.And I also know that this little earth of ours can only care for so many people.Voluntary population control is okay.
Complain about this comment
An embryo is life but so is a seed.an embryo in early stage is not really a human yet just as an acorn isn't a tree yet.I think we need to regulate at a stage most people are comfortable with.
Complain about this comment
The shape of the heart a symbol of love is from a leaf of a plant ancient Greeks used to get rid of their unwanted pregnancies.That's how old abortion is.Like prostitution it ain't going away.
Complain about this comment
Justin Webb's reference to molecular biologist, Douglas Melton, is based on his cutting edge research to benefit diabetes sufferers including his own children through the use of "adult stem cells" as the linked Time Magazine explicitly states. His work is admirable and his dedication to tackling a complex disease like diabetes is to be commended and encouraged. However, his use of adult stem cells has been wrongly conflated with Hatch's backing of federal funding for "embryonic stem cell" research.
Adult Stem Cell Research (ASCR) and Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) are two different things: ESCR involves the destruction of innocent human life (that is, the killing of viable embryos, which Justin once was as a previous poster pointed out); while ASCR involves the use of adult skin cells - the type which Douglas Melton uses in his research - lots of which we shed everyday as our skin cells die in a natural cycle of growth and renewal.
On this basis, pro-life advocates like myself are justified in condemning ESCR while encouraging and celebrating researchers like Douglas Melton who are engaged in ASCR. By the way, I would also agree with Justin that Douglas is pro-life based on how he goes about his life-changing research, however Senator Orrin Hatch clearly isn't pro-life based on his support for ESCR which involves the killing of embryos thereby destroying innocent human life.
It's also worth stressing the point that both ASCR and ESCR are not illegal or restricted in the USA. The controversy is about whether ESCR should be funded by the federal government using tax-payer dollars -- President Bush decided from August 2001 not to fund ESCR on embryos killed after this date (so embryos killed prior to this date, of which there are approximately 38,000 continue to be federally funded for ESCR research). It is this decision that Senator Orrin Hatch wants to reverse so that taxpayer dollars can be used to fund ESCR of embryos killed after August 2001.
Another important point is that ESCR to date, has not produced any therapies or cures for human patients. Not a single one!
In contrast ASCR is currently treating over 50 diseases -- you can see the full list here: http://stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
In addition, it is already providing therapy for heart-related conditions, Parkinsons disease and rheumatoid arthritis as Douglas Melton's research bears out.
At last count, NCHS statistics mention 2.1 million infertile couples in the US, many of whom desperately want the opportunity to have children and could benefit from adopting embryos set aside for ESCR (which are clearly not producing any results) and instead have these implanted in them in order to have children. That's a far better result than killing these embryos.
Complain about this comment
#22
David
'It must be hard going with Miss California.'
I would think it would be, yes.
#35
Now we're talking
Deviant Sam
Complain about this comment
31. At 10:02am on 21 May 2009, Via-Media wrote:
'Life isn't simple, and sometimes there are no good answers.'
Yes - life requires courage of us - courage before and courage after, whatever we decide and whatever may be forced upon us. This is another of the values of our unique moral existence, and one of the many rewards.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
#1 allmymarbles: Bingo!
As I grow older -- having been a young woman during the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling -- I find my emotional opinions changing, but NOT my political ones. No good ever comes of trying to legislate morality.
I am more sensitive now to the tragedy of having to end a pregnancy. It isn't a decision taken lightly and a woman who makes it knows very well that she has chosen the quality of the lives of the currently living over the life of the unborn. Women for eons have had to do this: it is not a new thing.
The "choice" in the legal sense still has to exist, though. It cannot be removed or made for us. How offensive is that? If, as Sarah Palin did NOT do, I knew I was carrying a Down's Syndrome menopause baby, I would choose not to bring that damaged child into the world at a time in my life when I could not reasonably expect to live through its full life expectancy to care for it. I would grieve for the loss but I would also know I had done a small evil in place of leaving a helpless adult child behind when I died.
Complain about this comment
Um, that was meant to be a response to G&R's #28 as well -
KSc
Complain about this comment
As poster #22 points out, Douglas Melton is an advocate of ESCR which wouldn't make him pro-life in my book so I limit my previous comment in post #39 to his research with adult stem cells and his passion for alleviating the suffering of patients with debilitating illnesses which is to be commended. However, I just don't think you should be destroying one human life to help another especially when more productive alternatives like ASCR exist.
The linked page below says that he is exploring ways of turning adult stem cells into embryonic stem cells: He and his Harvard colleagues also have explored a way to turn adult skin cells into human embryonic stem cells by fusing the cells, a method that does not require human embryos in the process.
This is a good thing if it stops the need to kill actual embryos for research purposes.
Complain about this comment
When an infant or child dies as a result of cruelty or neglect (i.e. Baby Peter), the newspapers are full of letters from members of the public demanding harsh punishment for those responsible. Yet, each year, millions of unborn children are routinely killed by abortion.
People used to practise contraception but now regard abortion as the solution for an unwanted pregnancy resulting, all too often, from casual sexual intercourse.
What price do we put on human life?
Complain about this comment
#39 Didasko
"ESCR involves the destruction of innocent human life "
That depends on if you would describe an embryo has a human life, which is really what the arguement is about.
And yes, if we can use ASCR rather than embryo's surely that is a better way. But I assumed the reason there have been no breakthroughs with them is due to the fact people weren't really allowed to use/obtain them? I admit I'm not 100% sure on that and I'm prepared to admit I could be way off base, but from what little I know stem cell research from embryos was hindered significantly.
Complain about this comment
There is a simplistic belief here that just because one believes in other's rights to choose, one also believes abortion is OK. I am firmly against making abortion illegal but I still believe that except in extreme cases it is at the bad end of immoral. Still, in a free society people have the right to make bad choices and others have the right to be critical of those choices. It's called being a liberal.
Complain about this comment
All: Stripped of everything else, abortion means that someone has decided that they will assert the right to decide what is and is not human (because humanity overall maintains the stance that killing a human is a crime, except in war or capital punishment, neither of which apply here). When the law allows a person to assert that right, the governing body responsible for that law has decided that asserting that right is acceptable. Once rendered acceptable, any limits on that right are subject only to the attitudes of the persons who establish or maintain acceptability (in this country that's the Congress, the courts, and the population). This means that a successful marketing campaign can certainly move those limits to wherever the marketeers want them moved. As evidence, Germany in the 1930s is a good example of a similar marketing campaign, successfully executed (the central idea in the extermination of the Jews, the Poles, the Russians, and others was that they were "sub-human" or otherwise not entitled to the same treatment).
Certainly the marketeers have even better tools and capabilities now than they had then. It will be very interesting indeed to see where this goes; my sad conclusion is that the idea of not having the "unwanted" around will continue to grow, and will expand to other parts of the spectrum (i.e. euthanasia of the elderly and the handicapped) as budgets continue to tighten up and health care and SS costs continue to rise. It probably won't be blatant, and won't happen immediately, but will happen nonetheless. Rationing health care is one good way to do this in a non-obvious manner; I fully expect that.
The sex-education debate should not revolve around abstinence or contraception. It, like all other education of the young, should revolve around responsibility. I had sex education as a young boy in the 1960s. It wasn't complicated or sophisticated, but we came away with the firm understanding that we were responsible for all of the possible outcomes, and that nobody was going to clean up after us. Is the same theme (you are responsible for all of the outcomes) taught today? I rather doubt it.
@25,26 (KSC): I appreciate what you wrote. I'll observe, however, that when a population has been conditioned to believe that individuals can decide what is and is not human, and has been conditioned to cherish rights and what they "deserve" while ignoring or denigrating responsibilities, it becomes very hard for them to consistently value those around them, particularly when those around them are less-than-lovable (as we all are from time to time).
Regards to all.
Complain about this comment
There is pro-life and there is pro-life. There are those that are against abortion but have no problem with the death penalty or soldiers killing in war...limited pro-life. When the right-wing of American politics ran out of ideas, basically convincing the working class that it should support employer abuse and tax breaks for the rich, they turned to what are considered personal dividing lines. Basically, politics at it's lowest level to cover the self-serving interest of the wealthy. Kind of like serfs defending the castle....reward for victory is continued serfdom.
Complain about this comment
48, arclightt -
Choosing to have an abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions (and sometimes for the actions of others, i.e., a rapist). It is taking all the responsibility, personally, with no expectations put on others (except perhaps financially on the other person involved in the action.)
Complain about this comment
Oh ye of little faith [ in embryonic stem cell research]
My God, my creator has both a sense of humour and a vicious streak.Apart from not eating the apple he laid down no specific ground rules on our obtaining and using knowledge. Perhaps his only one failing was not leaving a signed autobiography behind, but then in his wisdom and inner reserved character he felt it unnecessary.
Who would have suggested making mans apparatus to be a double functioning organ, and place both it and his mate's apparatus so close to the sewage works?.
He subjects woman to +/_ 40 years of a monthly cycle where lower forms of life are allowed to come on heat when procreaction is required. Conception for many can also be a problem and if successful can still result in a miscarriage.
My seeds for the garden can lay dormant for years before planting and coming to fruition. Human seeds also, if kept at very low temperatures, but then God did not suspect we would eat the apple, and invent refrigeration. His idea was natural wastage and perhaps our stupidity at fighting each other, to maintain the balance. I hope you would agree that with the number of souls on this planet today the suggestion of a balance has gone out of the window.
Unfortunately I fear it was and still is God's shepherds that make the rules. They did after all write the book.
Centuries ago the "holy men" led all into battle to decimate the opposing army together with their spiritual leader, and when it looked like there were not enough bums on pews to get a good sing song going and fill the collection plate then- hey presto- Go forth and multiply more. Contraception and abortion became an unforgivable sin, depite it being carried out from time immemorial.
I hope you will not take my individual assessment too harshly. It is all a question of where you place your priorities. Selfishness[ if one can call it that] for oneself today [on both sides of this argument], or thinking of the planet and it's inhabitants tomorrow. Promote life, promote choice and promote healing the sick as one combination package. Any who can envisage a specific ommission, could be regarded as playing at God themselves..
I love the living, hate to see the weak and dying suffering, and will probably spend eternity shovelling coal on the fires below to pay for my hopes for this world's survival. Consequently, I now live in a country that is 95% catholic with the lowest birthrate in Europe if not the world, and I am working here in the hot sun, planting trees I will never sit under, getting in a bit of practice to stoke the fires of hell.
Looking forward to meeting a lot of you there.
Complain about this comment
#46
SaintOne said:
"That depends on if you would describe an embryo has a human life"
Well an embryo is alive, it has no ability to protect itself and if it isn't human, then i'm not sure how else it could be described: a pregnant cat is carrying a potential cat, a pregnant dog is carrying a potential dog, and a pregnant human being is carrying a potential human being.
You were once an embryo, and then a foetus, and then a baby and then a child and then an adult. If you were killed at any point during this progression through life, you wouldn't be here now.
Complain about this comment
The problem is not that people are getting pregnant (although that is an offshoot of that). The problem is that people are extremely willing to be promiscuous. Look at any segment of Western culture, and you will find sex. There's even a saying, "Sex sells." There was a time when very few people had sex before marriage, when sex was something special, to be shared between a husband and wife. If you did have premarital sex, you were to be ashamed, marry the father AND BE A RESPONSIBLE PARENT! We're taking away consequences for people. Things that used to be, and should be, taboo, are now acceptable. We live in an "anything goes" society. Abortion is first-degree murder, the intentional, premeditated taking of a life. That simple. If you support abortion, you support murder. If you don't like murder, KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS AND WAIT UNTIL YOU'RE MARRIED!!!
Complain about this comment
#40. SamTyler1969: Good to see that someone recognised the humour in my remark!
Complain about this comment
#48 Baby Boomers were so responsible for children with having more abortions,divorce,crime,latchkeys kids,having to enforce child support because you willingly payed for your kids.Isn't this the real problem Baby boomers drank and still drink more,use drugs,cigs,burned down Detroit for racist reason,trashed Chicago for political reasons,used all their tax money now using mine,gave away American jobs,education,military,technology,money,started wars and leaving nothing rest for the later generations.Why don't you stop telling younger generations how to live and figure out how to pay back your own loans.National Health care is a issue because money is running out for S.S. and Medicare.Instead of creating it when there was money in the pot you want to do it now that you may need it,what a selfish generation.Abortion is just a diversion to trick younger generations into not complaining about being left shorthanded by one generation and 2 political parties.
Complain about this comment
51, waterman, since it seems that we are headed to the same place,
please promise to keep at least one beer in the fridge for me if you
arrive at our destination before me, and I will do the same for you.
This is sort of like setting a place for Elijah at the table, but
not quite so formal.
And, as it happens, I happen to have a bunch of transfer tickets...
Complain about this comment
49, ghost, snooty today, aren't you? We actually prefer to only kill
guilty people here. As far as the class warfare thing goes, have you
ever tried to start a business?
Complain about this comment
#52 Didasko
"a pregnant cat is carrying a potential cat, a pregnant dog is carrying a potential dog, and a pregnant human being is carrying a potential human being. "
I admit I'm playing devils advocate here, but a potential human being is not a human being - it just has the capacity to be so.
"You were once an embryo, and then a foetus, and then a baby and then a child and then an adult. If you were killed at any point during this progression through life, you wouldn't be here now."
By that logic I was also once half a sperm, which was once something else, which was once part of a meal that my father ate and was digested and eventually reformed into a cell.
Again I'm not keen on embryos being used for research if there is another way, and I would rather another method be used if it is available! Also, regarding abortion, obviously prevention is better than "cure". I would be disgusted with the human race if it ever became an easy decision.
Complain about this comment
#53 jwd724
God has a sick sense of humour if he pre-programmed strong sexual urges into humans but execpted them all to be married before they act upon these urges.
Why not take the best of both worlds - have sex, but use protection.
Simple.
Complain about this comment
I personally abhor the use of abortion as a form of birth control. To me the destruction of a viable foetus is little short of murder. I speak from a human perspective, not a religious one. The position of the catholic church is untenable, as they are opposed to abortion (whith which I agree), but are also opposed to contraception. Surely contraception and better education about the consequences of unwanted pregnancies are the right way forward. We also need to look at the benefits system, which currently seems to reward those who are careless enough to create life without the means to pay for rearing a child. Ii am not however opposed to abortion on medical grounds.
Now just to be controversial, if abortion is allowed to continue in its present form, then why on earth should the genetic material, stem cells etc, not be used for the good of mankind.
Complain about this comment
#54
Snark Snark
Finbarr Samders
Complain about this comment
As has been tossed into our consciousness again this week by the revelations of the treatment given to boys and girls at Irish reform schools, our society has always marginalized the "unwanted" and they suffer the worst of abuses and even murder. This is not only true of unwanted pregnancies, but also unwanted children, unwanted mentally ill, unwanted criminals, unwanted terrorists, and unwanted elderly.
The easiest, and cruelest answer is always to bury them. The hardest choice would be to figure out how to give them a chance to live, or live the remainder of their lives with the dignity we afford ourselves.
Complain about this comment
There is no good answer to this topic, and there never will be. I do believe that life begins as soon as the sperm enters that egg, and abortion is a horrible decision anyone should have to make, but i also believe that "freedom" of choice is very important. Only that person can say what they're capable of at that time; Once you make that decision, most, maybe not all, will suffer in a silent prison for the rest of thier lives.
Humans are a cancer to this plant, and nature will take the steps nessasary to rid itself of it eventually. We believe ourselves to be the superior above all other forms of life, and that's our biggest mistake.
Complain about this comment
"Pro Life" and "Pro Choice" are over-simplified phrases used by the opposing sides of the abortion issue to portray them-selves as standing up for the most knoble aspects of their cause while implying that their opponents are opposed to that specific quality.
Both sides have extremists who have given their cause a bad reputation that by their partisanship there by making their issue distateful to moderates and independants.
In a free society the freedom to make choices about one's own life must be respected.
The decision to have an abortion, in most circumstances, is an imoral choice which wounds the soul. I don't think I could trust any woman who is willing to kill her own child for her own convienence.
Complain about this comment
#53
There was a time when pre marital sex was unusual? When on earth was that? Couldn't be the 19th century when everyone was knocking up their servants. Before that the Puritans didn't get much but that was because they wer so miserable and sucked all the energy out of the room. Charles II of England had a mistress at court. The Tudors even designed their clothes to facilitate 'quickies'. The ancient Romans shagged anything that moved (just look at the naughty paintings in Pompeii) and the Greeks were the same, except they shagged a few things that didn't move until they did.
I get it. The time when there was no premarital sex was when there wasn't marriage!
Although I do agree with one part of your post. We shouldn't be promiscuous before marriage. We should save it for afterwards. Mrs Sam, however, does not agree.
Historian Sam
Complain about this comment
53, 65, jwd, Sam, it's only premarital sex if you get married at some point.
Complain about this comment
Most people saying It should be legal but I would never do it, it's immoral,are a joke.You never had one because you never needed to make that decision but you might have an abortion if you did.And 63 if a women had an abortion they probably wouldn't tell anyone anyway.That's why so many fathers and husbands,have no idea because of saying horrible things like that.It's so easy to say you never would have an abortion and anyone who has is a monster when you would never have to make such a decision.let's face it most want it legal just in case they wanted to choose to use it for the many different reasons.How many of the people advocating pro-life have foster or have adopted children?These wonderful people are few and far between.Put your money where your mouth is.
Complain about this comment
gunsandreligion # 56
I know about heaven, hell and pugatory, but not too sure about your transfer tickets.
If its to ascend, and they are offering a Bing Crosby show count me out.
I believe at the purgatory level they have Elvis, if he hasn't left the building.
Still fancy the Man in Black show on the lower level looks the best..
Hope a Heineken or a Grolsch will be okay with you.
Complain about this comment
How many women who should go to an abortion clinic don't because of shame and beliefs and instead end up having a miscarriage at home or in an emergency room.This happens every day.Women who were told by OB there's something wrong with pregnancy and either insurance doesn't cover or don't want to tell family members out of embarrassment.Women bodies are complicated and some need these clinics open because not all of the hospital's and Dr. want to do these procedures even for medical reasons.
Complain about this comment
I meant 64 the one about trusting women who has abortion.Sorry
Complain about this comment
#53 jwd at what point in history when humans existed, has people not been promiscuous? The only difference between now and the past is that people on longer keep it a secret. even in the most conservative of cultures where their are laws against such behaviour it still happens and these laws are often used to blackmail mainly women into doing what they wish not to do.
What would you suggest of western culture? that we stone promiscuous women who commit adultery? this is what they do in many 'eastern' cultures.
the whole idea that back in the good ol days people were well behaved and more moral is a myth.
it is more like back in the good ol days:-
-when it was acceptable for wives to be beaten,
-when their was no consequence for sleeping with your servants,
-when young women would have their baby and abandon them for economic reasons.
-when it was acceptable for a father to not be a father (no child support forced upon him)
-when you could not get divorced, despite the horrors you may have to endure.
people kept their mouth shut and suffered in silence. Western culture, particularly american, has taken painful steps to leave nothing a secret and that is why things are the way they are.
I suppose many would prefer the era of silence when people kept their issues to themselves and those who are not affected need not care.
I suppose living a blissful ignorance of the society around you is preferred.
Complain about this comment
20, brachio.
"Of course the yesses will have it, being pro-choice doesn't mean you're pro-abortion "
You misread my comment. I did not say "pro-choice" I said "abortion."
Complain about this comment
Very thoughtful post, Mr. Webb.
Maybe, slowly, the gap is beginning to close on this tragic issue.
I am staunchly of the belief that life begins at conception, because it is the only ethically safe approach to hold, imho.
As a friend of physicians, I am hesitant to totally prohibit a procedure that might possibly save the life of a mother, as rare an occurrence as that might be.
We live in a fallen world, where girls are raped. A thirteen-year old should have some voice in the matter of carrying the child conceived by rape to term, especially when the rapist (if not brought to justice) could become a permanent fixture in the girl's life, via the existence of the child and a perverse legal system. Adoption might not be an option, because the father could hold one and all hostage. I've seen it happen, with tragic result.
As a friend of women who have gone through the tragedy of abortions of convenience, I cannot wish these emotional scars upon anyone, anywhere.
As the friend of an individual who single-handedly founded a crisis pregnancy center in a rural county, I cheer for someone who actually took concrete action to minister to women (mostly young and frightened) in deep need of compassionate care. As a result, a significant number of abortions are prevented, and lives are saved and restored.
It beats picketing and displaying dead babies in public every time.
Embryos are not needed for the harvesting of stem cells, so blessedly, this has become a moot issue.
I resent any and all who attempt to push my emotional buttons from either side of the debate.
I do not, never have, never will, display any bumper sticker on the matter.
I do not, never have, never will, donate to any cause on either side of the question, since it strikes me as pouring gasoline on a fire.
In the hoopla about BHO's visit to the Notre Dame campus, how much coverage was actually given to the content of his speech? Not much that I saw.
I am not BHO's supporter, but this was a thoughtfully written speech, and all concerned need to read it. My reservations have to do with His habit of saying whatever a particular audience wishes to hear on any given day, and the wide gap between His verbiage and His behaviour.
But still, it's worth reading. Whoever wrote it has something to say.
Complain about this comment
@55 (fayeth): That's a pretty interesting summary. If I were a young person looking at finances and recent history (the past 20 years or so), I'd be pretty steamed as well.
I tend to view abortion as the inevitable outcome of the "me first" attitude that you summed up rather well. But it's pointless to try to do away with it now, in my opinion. The society is going to have to finally vomit up the "sex is everything" attitude that it has filled itself with; when (if) that happens, then a more realistic view of all this can begin to take hold. Here's hoping that happens sooner rather than later; in the meantime, we continue to point out the temporal and eternal fallacy of that attitude, pick up the pieces of lives shattered by it, and wait for that day to come.
Complain about this comment
22, David.
"Education about birth control needs to be provided at an earlier age, although many parents will howl at the notion."
I am one of those who would howl. Those classes teach plumbing, and leave out the moonlight and roses. The subject is best left to the parents.
Complain about this comment
25, KS.
"I am not a political fan of Gov. Palin, but no one here seems to grasp what it means to be pro-life, and so no one has appreciated the positive statement her family life brought to last year's national discussion."
Does that include her sister-in-law being arrested for burglary and her grandson's grandmother being arrested for drug dealing?
Complain about this comment
All: It's interesting that with DNA testing as good as it is, we are unwilling to apply it more rigorously to find the fathers of children and hold them accountable for their actions. As someone has already pointed out, though, it's easier to bury the unwanted than to make them welcome, and easier to bury them than to be responsible for them.
Complain about this comment
The question of abortion and anti-abortion (less euphemistic terms, please) is merely a philosophical exercise and, in this real world, has no application. Legal or illegal, women will continue to have abortions if they want them. Trying to take this right away is like trying to stop a tidal wave. You can discuss the right or wrong of it all you want. None of it matters.
Complain about this comment
What does an acclaimed researcher of adult stem cells have to do with abortion? Absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, Mr. Webb appears to have mistaken "..." for making a point. /shrug
Complain about this comment
#76, AMM, Let's not go digging into the closets of political relatives. I don't care that allegedly BHO's mom's nude photos are on the net, or that Clinton pardoned his brother's drug conviction either. Let's not go digging too deep into Michael Skakel, or for that matter the private life of Micheal Kennedy either. We all have some relatives we are not particularly proud of, and we probably all have some of that same DNA in our bodies. Maybe it would be better if we celebrate each others accomplishments, rather than always look for ways in which to gawk at the spectacles some make of their lives. And, by way of what I've seen of the British tabloids, it is pretty clear that the scandal rags in both our nations are adept at depicting most anyones family as worthy of the Springer show (spectacle).
Complain about this comment
68, waterman, I hear you... you want to know who will be headlining the
show before you commit. I may have to follow Elvis around because my
girlfriend is one of his fans. Fortunately, she is not a Sinatra
fan, because we all know where he is going to wind up.
Grolsch is fine, but if you happen to pick up a fine amber ale before
settling in, that would be ideal. I'll remember your preference, though.
I'm sure that Heineken is obtainable anywhere, it's the Bud of Europe.
Complain about this comment
77, arclightt -
I once knew a young woman who made a mistake by getting involved with a really nasty dude, found herself pregnant, decided to have the baby, fled the state with baby to get away from the nasty dude (he beat her up regularly and threatened to kill her), was very poor, but couldn't get any benefits from the state for her child because she wouldn't tell them who the father was, because if she did he would find out where she was.
So yeah, most states are pretty rigorous about finding fathers and holding them accountable, denying benefits to mothers who have to choose between food on the table and, well, life. As I'm sure we all know, restraining orders don't work with crazy violent men.
If I'd been in that young woman's position, I would have had an abortion. Without any qualms whatsoever. (Of course, I wouldn't have gotten involved with the crazy violent man in the first place.)
Complain about this comment
82, bere, the particular case which you have presented illustrates that while the
part of the brain which selects mates in women is bigger than in men, the end
results are statistically no better.
Complain about this comment
#78, AMM, from the point of view of someone on the "life" side, let me reword your statement, and see if it still makes the same sense to you.
"The question of murder and those against murder is merely a philosophical exercise and, in this real world, has no application. Legal or illegal, people will continue to murder others if they so desire. Trying to stop murder is like trying to stop a tidal wave. You can discuss the right or wrong of it all you want. None of it matters."
Somewhere in that time between conception and birth, a human life is involved. Not many people would sanction the murder of a baby a day after being born, nor probably a day before being born. The philosophical discussion is "what is life", and who has the right to end that life. For the victim of an accident, it is defined as brain activity, but even that is rejected by those who want the "right" to kill that life that has spawned within them. "Life" even philosophically, is defined within this political discussion as what is convenient for that proponent. I believe many people who identify themselves as "pro-choice" also believe incongruously that abortion is murder. They just hold the right of a woman to make the choice higher than the right of the baby to live.
Is the human embryo alive? If it is not aborted, or dies an unnatural death would it someday become a registered voter with the full protection of its human rights? The cynic in me scoffs at the "let's find common ground" Alinski-esque approach of the now POTUS Obama, when as the State Senator, and US Senator he is one of the few people who even opposed the "Baby's Born Alive" legislation.
Complain about this comment
82, bere.
"As I'm sure we all know, restraining orders don't work with crazy violent men."
The restraining order does not guarantee protection for the woman (or man). The only thing it does, is allow you to have the person violating the order arrested. If the violent person is truly nutso, it might only serve to enrage him or her further.
Complain about this comment
#82, Bere54, I think we might all think about an anecdote of someone who might have been better off dead. But, then, if perhaps you know someone who has been adopted, you might ask them if they think it would have been better had they been aborted? The same story told above about the young woman in college, I also lived, but with the adoption result rather than the abortion. We make mistakes and we sometimes must bear some burden for our mistakes, and I truly respected the young woman who suffered the burden of carrying the baby while going to classes, and then suffered the pain of giving that baby up to give it, and her the best future.
Complain about this comment
80, Dakota.
Some families have a history. The Kennedys are a case in point. Drugs, alcoholism, shady associates and dealings. The Palins likewise are very questionable. For Palin to take the high road is laughable. It's like Ted Kennedy running on an anti-alcoholic ticket.
Complain about this comment
77, arclightt.
"It's interesting that with DNA testing as good as it is, we are unwilling to apply it more rigorously to find the fathers of children and hold them accountable for their actions."
Oh, sure, we have a baby we don't want, and then go to court to make the man we don't want pay for it. Who needs such an entanglement? And as for the courts, that just adds to the grief (and expense). The solution is simple. Have an abortion and restart your life.
Complain about this comment
#75. allmymarbles: "I am one of those who would howl. Those (birth control) classes teach plumbing, and leave out the moonlight and roses. The subject is best left to the parents."
Leaving it to parents hasn't been very successful thus far - ask the Palin family and the 10 million "single moms" in America: every day over 1,000 babies are born to teen mothers. Doesn't say much for parental guidance!
Complain about this comment
86, Dakota_Erik -
Now that you mention it, I also knew a woman who had been adopted. She spent years looking for her biological mother. She found her, and then found out that she had been the product of a particularly ghastly and violent rape. After she heard the details of what brought her into this world and almost destroyed the woman who had borne her, she told me she wished her biological mother had been allowed to have an abortion. She said under similar circumstances she would have aborted, and was thankful that it was finally legal. I lost contact with this friend because she went into a severe depression and cut off contact with almost everyone. And so the viciousness of the rape continued on into another generation. One wonders why her biological mother felt the need to tell her about it. I have no idea. Perhaps it had something to do with truth.
You are busy judging women and their histories. Each one is an individual, each trauma is unique to any individual woman. May we always have the freedom and the power to choose our own outcomes, something I expect you would deny us and our daughters.
Complain about this comment
86, Dakota.
"We make mistakes and we sometimes must bear some burden for our mistakes,..."
You appear to be making a moral judgment vis-a-vis getting pregnant in the first place. Does that include hving sex in the first place? I thought we got over equating sex with sin.
There is a great difference betwen having an abortion and bearing a baby only to give it up for adoption. The first solution is bearable; the second often leads to a gnawing perpetual grief. My brother has two adopted daughters. Each found her birth mothers. The mothers had never gotten over it. They rejoiced in finding their dauthters, but the sadness and guilt in abandoning them never left them.
Complain about this comment
89, David.
#75. allmymarbles: "I am one of those who would howl. Those (birth control) classes teach plumbing, and leave out the moonlight and roses. The subject is best left to the parents."
"Leaving it to parents hasn't been very successful thus far - ask the Palin family and the 10 million "single moms" in America: every day over 1,000 babies are born to teen mothers. Doesn't say much for parental guidance!"
My first obligation is to my children, not to the world. Oher people can teach sex as plumbing if they wish. .
Complain about this comment
91 -
The mother I mentioned in #90 did not rejoice in being found by her daughter. It only brought fresh agony with the dragging up of the original agony, which was an additional burden on my poor friend. My regret is that I allowed my friend to push me, along with everyone else, out of her life, but at the time I had a toddler and a newborn and a husband in graduate school and no energy left over to make that effort for her. The last I heard of her, she was a raging alcoholic. Very sad.
Complain about this comment
#90, Bere54, I strongly doubt that happened in just the way you describe. If it is true, then the woman, whom you describe as descending into a pit of depression, needed to pursue psychological help rather than dwell on the unfortunate circumstances that distracted her from her otherwise happy life. My moral judgments are not about the sex act, but rather the decisions that one makes after they realize the natural consequences of having the sex act. I can't remember the percentage, but a large number of abortions are given to married women.
You said, "They rejoiced in finding their daughters, but the sadness and guilt in abandoning them never left them." And, I suppose those same mothers would have been blissful at knowing that those same daughters were instead disposed of with the other medical waste?
What if the mother you described before (the spousal abuse victim) already had a baby from a prior marriage, but then enters into an abusive relationship and needs to flee the state? What if you discover that you are the product of rape or incest, should you despair and forfeit your life? You are grasping at the extreme fringe of believability, and the wee percentages of the reasons for justifying abortion. By far, the largest reasons for abortion are inconvenience, and finances.
Let's start by eliminating those unwanted pregnancies though better practiced birth control. And when even under good contraception those .001 percent of accidental pregnancies do occur, then let's consider adoption as a first viable choice, before resorting to the extremes.
Let's start by giving rape victims free access to "morning after contraception", and free counseling, rather than have them be further traumatized and victimized with an abortion decision a few months later.
Complain about this comment
#91, AMM, You wrote; "You appear to be making a moral judgment vis-a-vis getting pregnant in the first place. Does that include hqving sex in the first place? I thought we got over equating sex with sin."
No, the mistake was in either not using contraception, or using it incorrectly. If used correctly (pill plus condom), there is virtually no chance of an unwanted pregnancy and we stop the spread of most STD's to boot.
I agree with you on parental responsibilities for teaching their children to think responsibly. Whether it be drug use, sex, drinking, reckless skate boarding or whatever... The parent should teach their teens to resist temptation, resist peer pressure, and if they find themselves giving into their temptations, then by all means try to be as safe and responsible when doing so. Meaning, don't drive, wear a condom, wear a helmet, make sure you have a sober friend around to get you home or to a hospital if you are incapacitated.
Complain about this comment
94, Dakota_Erik -
"You are grasping at the extreme fringe of believability, and the wee percentages of the reasons for justifying abortion. By far, the largest reasons for abortion are inconvenience, and finances."
First of all, you have blended my comments in with someone else's.
Second, you doubt the veracity of my comments and/or consider the story to be at the extreme fringe because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived ideas of women and the reasons they do or do not choose to abort. You seem to view women in terms of statistics instead of as real people with real issues and traumas. When presented with real people's problems, you choose not to believe them. This is exactly why this decision is best left up to the individual real women who experience real life problems. You are not in a position to judge them.
Complain about this comment
95, Dakota_Erik -
No artificial birth control method is 100% effective. This is common knowledge. Failures happen. Certain medications lessen the effectiveness of certain contraceptives, and some women are not informed of this. Mistakes happen. As the bumper sticker said, "A child is not a "consequence." No one should be forced to carry an unwanted or disastrous pregnancy to term. Most people recognize this. That is why abortion is legal in this country.
Quite often, I've noticed, all it takes for a "pro-life" advocate to become an advocate of free choice is one unwanted pregnancy. I've known these women too. I listen to other women. One young Catholic woman I worked with years ago told me that as a teenager she picketed abortion clinics. Then in her freshman year of college she got pregnant. Whoops. Another one for our side. Yep, she had an abortion.
Complain about this comment
95, Dakota.
"The parent should teach their teens to resist temptation, resist peer pressure, and if they find themselves giving into their temptations, then by all means try to be as safe and responsible when doing so."
Apparently I am correct about your equating sex with sin. ("resist temptation" "giving into their temptations") Unlike you I consider the sexual desires (and practices) of an adult to be healthy and normal. I knew perfectly well that my daughters (I have three) would have affairs before they were married. I restricted their social life before college age because I felt they were immature and vulnerable. By the time they left the nest and went away to school they were better able to cope. They are all fine young women without the baggage of guilt.
Complain about this comment
96, bere.
I am in complete agreement.
Complain about this comment
#92. allmymarbles: "My first obligation is to my children, not to the world. Oher people can teach sex as plumbing if they wish."
That's fine (or was) for you, but when you were of child bearing age, say half-a-century ago, social mores were rather different. Single parenthood was frowned upon and young people frequently did learn from their parents. All that has changed. Even Mrs Palin, who talked up a good line, was unable to convince her daughter, likewise Mrs (or Mr) Johnston taught little to Levi. It can't be proven, but it could well be typical of what parents do or do not tell their offspring. If it can't be taught at home, where the subject is frequently considered to be embarrassing, then the schoolroom it must be.
Complain about this comment
100, David.
"Even Mrs Palin, who talked up a good line, was unable to convince her daughter, likewise Mrs (or Mr) Johnston taught little to Levi."
You are making the mistake that so many do. These children all know about birth control. They know it from their parents. They know it from their friends.They know it from books. And, now, they know it from the schools. When you are young, passion often overcomes reason. That is the nature of being young.
I said that I monitored my daughters' social lives until they were ready to go away to school. I did that because they were young and foolish. Parents don't know where their kids are these days. I did! Mine did not "hang out" with people I did not know. They were home for dinner. They did not go to late-night, unsupervised parties. They did not sleep over at friends' houses unless I knew the parents well. The question is not sex education, but parental responsibility. I said that I do not equate sex with sin. True. But I understand youth, and the ability of youth to mess itself up.
Complain about this comment
David, further.
Do you remember, years ago, when Jeniffer Levin was murdered by Robert Chambers? The first question I asked was, "What the hell was a girl of that age, doing out in the middle of the night in Central Park? What the hell is wrong with her parents?" You will say that I blame the victim. No! I blame the parents for neglecting their daughter. I blame them for not knowing who she "hung out" with. Robert Chambers was a murderer. No question about that. But the girl's parents were guilty of providing him with the opportunity to kill their daughter.
Complain about this comment
Haven't we debated this topic to death already?
Pro-life means having sex for procreation only. Pro-choice means satisfying our human desires, taking precautions to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and having an abortion when physical, financial, or societal priorities take precedence over being a parent.
Complain about this comment
76. At 6:50pm on 21 May 2009, allmymarbles wrote:
"and so no one has appreciated the positive statement her family life brought to last year's national discussion."
'Does that include her sister-in-law being arrested for burglary and her grandson's grandmother being arrested for drug dealing?'
Let's restrict my comment to their acceptance of children. - We are all 'mixed bags'.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
When we use the term pro-life we are speaking of the life of a child in the womb. No one knows when life begins, it is evident that life begins sometime before birth, for premature babies are born everyday alive and well. So when does it begin? For to take the life of a child is a horrible crime without equal. So tell me, when does life begin? Are we going to wake up one of these days and realise that we have killed millions of innocent babies in the name of women's rights and personal choice? It is not an easy issue, but we have to get real and stop all of the agenda driven arguements that have nothing to do with the issues, some of which are:
1. "Even if we outlaw abortion we can't stop it, people will just do it illegally and face greater risks in doing so." So do we legalize rape to make it safer, how about cocaine, machine guns, and child porn. We haven't stopped those with law, and making them illegal has made them dangerous? This arguement is irrelevent and purposely misleading.
2. What about Women's rights and their right to control their bodies? Half of all babies are women, so whose rights are we talking about? The way slavery was legalised was to define blacks as non-human and not worthy of protection under the law. The slave owner shouted about his rights to his property and said that no one had the right to dictate to them. They weren't insisting that everyone own slaves, they were after all "pro-choice" and only wanted the right and freedom to live the life they wanted. Millions of Americans sat around and agreed that they had this right. But what about the rights of the Africans? Their crys were silenced, irrelevent, disregarded, like the babies of today, drowned out under the booming cry of superior rights.
3. "What about rape, incest, and young girls, certainly you would make them carry the baby to term?" This is one of the most vile agruements for it plays on the pain of many who find them selves in these situations for the purpose of justifying an act that the majority of women do not find them selves in. Simply answered, if the baby is alive, a human child, no reason for killing him or her is justified.
The only honest question and issue is when does life begin. To be pro-life does not need to be against choice or women's rights. No woman should want the right to kill, and every woman should want to know the answer to the question of when does the baby in her womb consitute a living being.
Complain about this comment
103, saintDominick -
You wrapped it up nicely. Thank you. I can leave this thread, and I didn't even bother reading past the first couple of sentences of post #105 since it is obviously another sanctimonious sermon from someone who doesn't know what real life is all about.
Complain about this comment
In my opinion a foetus should be classed as a viable human being that should not be killed at the point when its body can function without external life support. Before that the mother is the only thing keeping it alive anyway, so why should she not have the choice over what happens with her own body? After that the child can be removed and the mother doesn't have to deal with it again if she chooses.
One of my biggest issues with anti-abortionists, aside from the fact that they think they know better than someone who's actually living through the issues, is that they only care about these children pre-birth. Ones the child's out, they don't seem to care what sort of quality of life that child will have. It could be growing up in poverty, hated by a mother who never wanted it, barely surviving. Don't say that it can't happen, because it can and it does. And what about the mother's rights? What about her life? What if she took all possible precautions and the contraceptives still failed, or she was raped? What if she's in the middle of her degree? Should she be then forced to abandon her education and with it often her future? Forced to take low paying jobs to support the child because she never managed to get the qualifications for anything better?
If you don't like abortions, don't have one. But nobody has the right to interfere in other people's lives like that. If you're not involved in the pregnancy then you have no right to intrude on other people's personal choice, that will affect the rest of their lives. Unless, of course, you're willing to put your money where your mouth is and foster the child to give it the life you think it deserves.
Complain about this comment
105, going.
"The only honest question and issue is when does life begin. To be pro-life does not need to be against choice or women's rights. No woman should want the right to kill, and every woman should want to know the answer to the question of when does the baby in her womb consitute a living being."
An interesting subject for Ethics 101. Yawn....
Complain about this comment
107, Kittie.
"In my opinion a foetus should be classed as a viable human being that should not be killed at the point when its body can function without external life support. Before that the mother is the only thing keeping it alive anyway, so why should she not have the choice over what happens with her own body?"
Actually this is more or less how I feel. The problem is that as soon as subtleties are injected into abortion law, the right wing will eat away at it. If I could design a law I would allow abortion within the first trimester at the will of the woman. But I would allow abortion at any time if (1) The mother's life is in danger, or (2) the fetus is abnormal. But such a law would be unwise for the reason I mentioned.
Complain about this comment
105, going.
"it is evident that life begins sometime before birth, for premature babies are born everyday alive and well."
Wrong!. Very premature babies, overwhelmingly, suffer damage of some sort, and are commonly retarded.
Complain about this comment
Those who oppose abortion do so because it means the killing of a life in its earliest stages of development. Killing should not be legal in a civilized society.
The popular and trendy claim now is that those who support legal abortion ALSO claim that they do not support abortion personally - as if killing is a personal decision. It is simply a way of avoiding the consequences of supporting abortion. Killing is NEVER acceptable.
This simply doesn't work. It is not possible to have it both ways.
There has been a recent sharp move AWAY from support for abortion on the part of the US population. Support for abortion is at the very heart of the left-wing view of the world. Thus, there will be a problem in upcoming elections. The Democrats are in a panic about this issue.
Anyone who has seen an ultrasound cannot view abortion as the simple removal of an unwanted piece of tissue.
The latest trend is for supporters of abortion to claim the title "Pro-Life", a sure indication that the game has changed.
And - oh - how single-minded and politically correct this site is! The vast majority of those on the site support abortion and differing views are not appreciated (to put it mildly)
These posters are the distilled essence of PC thinking. There should be room for those who dare to question or disagree if the intent is really to discuss American life.
Complain about this comment
Allmymarbles:
"Wrong!. Very premature babies, overwhelmingly, suffer damage of some sort, and are commonly retarded."
But they are alive - and as such, are worthy of consideration and respect.
Complain about this comment
I went through most of the blogs and found most of them to be interesting. However one did stand out to me most.
90. At 8:52pm on 21 May 2009, bere54 wrote:
86, Dakota_Erik -
Now that you mention it, I also knew a woman who had been adopted. She spent years looking for her biological mother. She found her, and then found out that she had been the product of a particularly ghastly and violent rape. After she heard the details of what brought her into this world and almost destroyed the woman who had borne her, she told me she wished her biological mother had been allowed to have an abortion. She said under similar circumstances she would have aborted, and was thankful that it was finally legal. I lost contact with this friend because she went into a severe depression and cut off contact with almost everyone. And so the viciousness of the rape continued on into another generation. One wonders why her biological mother felt the need to tell her about it. I have no idea. Perhaps it had something to do with truth.
You are busy judging women and their histories. Each one is an individual, each trauma is unique to any individual woman. May we always have the freedom and the power to choose our own outcomes, something I expect you would deny us and our daughters.
Mazeflyer- I very much agree with Bere54. Everyone is an individual with individual stories and to clump all women together is unfair. While I do not condone abortion as a way for birth control for women who are to lazy to find other methods I will never vote for it to be illegal because of the women who have had to suffer in such horrible ways. In reality rape and molestation (especially by a family member or friend) are more common than we even know. I would never force a 15 year old girl who had been forced to have sex relive her trauma for the next 9 months and beyond if she kept the baby. It is unfair to tell her not only has she lost control of her body and life not once but twice. Not to mention the fact that no person should ever have to live with the knowledge that they only exist because of violence. Many women and girls who go through this never report it out of fear or shame and are left with few alternatives. Now if anyone can find a way to control this type of behavior and make the world safe for all women at all times then perhaps we can talk but I really don't see this happening so perhaps the choice should indeed be left up to the individual in question.
Complain about this comment
Pro Life is a personal and ethical view. Don't confuse that with the Constitution (this is a constitutional opinion only):
You can't on one side demand full constitutional protection for your faith that represents a minority view (which if the constitution didn't guarantee in the beginning, we'd all be forced to belong to the Anglican Church), yet "use" the same Constitution as a blunt weapon to silence any opinion that differs from yours.
Before the abortion issue, there were others and more will follow. The religious right should have learned when Prohibition was repealed (just as security zealots should have learned from the downfall of Senator McCarthy) that this nation has, over time, learned to resist totalitarianism in ANY form. (There is still room for improvement...)
The single issue and it's importance aside, if you want to live in a theocratic state, Iran's a good choice. Just don't tell them you're Christian.
Complain about this comment
114, bfoulkrod.
An interesting and thoughful post. The last sentence was unfortunate, betraying as it does a lack of knowledge of that country. I lived there many, many years. My family and I were regarded as Christian (although actually we are atheists). I had no problems there as a "Christian" and, as it happened, that is where I had an abortion. Also no problem.
Complain about this comment
115 allmymarbles
The last sentence was just to point out that they throw stones at countries like Iran, but don't consider extremism is an equal opportunity annoyer. Just because it's "my opinion" doesn't give it any more weight, and my methods of forcing my point are no more legitimate.
In short, just a tongue in cheek way of pointing out the final layer of hypocrisy.
But thanks for pointing out that I chose my flavor of words in an unfortunate way.
Complain about this comment
#113, Mazeflyer, What do you think that people who discover (as adults) that they have been conceived from such a past should do then? Fall into a funk, get depressed, throw themselves from a high bridge?
Bere54 then went on to justify his anecdotal extremes by claiming that my viewpoint, based on statistical evidence (e.g. Pew Research Center, RCP, etc.), was a "preconceived notion". From the survey published in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health , Sept, 2005, it says; "the two most common reasons were "having a baby would dramatically change my life" and "I can't afford a baby now" (cited by 74% and 73% respectively)"
Rape or incest comprise some fraction of a percent(less than 1 pct) of any survey I've ever seen, yet people such as Bere54 thrust it about along with personal anecdotal evidence as justification for the termination of all those other 80-90% of unborn children who are just merely inconvenient.
Also, I guess that I am being judgmental for considering that killing a baby might be wrong.
Complain about this comment
Hello everyone .... goodness me, can this old chestnut still be going ? or does Justin have a monthly quota of posts to get his bonus?
Anyway this quote fom the linked article pretty much says it all...
"The terms pro-choice and pro-life no longer define the parameters of the debate, witnessed by the fact that in the Gallup Poll, a majority of people say they are both pro-life and that abortion should be legal,"
So now you can be pro-life and want abortion to be legal!!!!
As I have often said on this subject, no one is pro-abortion. I believe that there should be a time limit on abortions - if you can't decide in 4 or 5 months then just get on with it.
Religious definitions of "life" should not enter the law. If the religious do not want an abortion, then they are free not to have them.
Educate, improve health, fight poverty and make contraception available. Then we won't need a debte, as there will be less need for abortion.
That's my lot on this subject. I wish you all a good day.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm..pro-life equated with stem cell research...
here is a blog which i wrote a couple of years ago about my views...
http://o3.indiatimes.com/rahulrd14/archive/2006/07/21/1037712.aspx
http://o3.indiatimes.com/rahulrd14
hope you people agree..
Complain about this comment
115, allmymarbles-
"and, as it happened, that is where I had an abortion. Also no problem."
----
Somehow I don't picture you as living "in a silent prison," nor as being "haunted" for the rest of your life (as even some pro-choicers here describe those who have had abortions). Me neither. Almost every woman I have known has had at least one abortion. None of them fit those descriptions. For the most part they are very matter-of-fact about it. They neither brag about it nor are ashamed of it. It was just something that had to be done.
Complain about this comment
Bere keep at em.
maze flyer.
those issues to do with incest and rape came up the last time this blog discussed this subject. It is truly amazing to see people that have heard about suffering so many times in so many discussions on this rather dull an boring (BTW psychotic obsessive compulsive abortion debate disorder is acceptable but we vaccinate for swine flu?)
But every time those against abortion (screw justin and all you panderers this is not Pro life it is anti abortion. Big blogging difference ,hang man murdering war promoting world death hastening savages of america (not you nice natives) have no problem with people dying. or with killing them . have to start at square one on this debate.every time.
right back to the beginning.. After a few hundred posts they start to realise they make no sense because by then they are arguing with their other parts.
Every time it has ended with some anti abortionist refusing to answer a question because it would make them look stupid. then they wait and start the debate up again forgetting all the progress in the issues that were made.
There is a word for people like that. Obama used it. the BBC criticised him for using it as did many others. it begins with R'
hardly surprising)
Complain about this comment
David
'It must be hard going with Miss California.'
I would think it would be, yes.
#35
Now we're talking
Deviant Sam
Does the Bible have anything on fake boobs and displaying your practically naked body in front of hoardes of people to win friends and influence people for glory and money? I'd rather follow the example set by committed loving gays who are married and living together as a couple. Love is all, not bigotry. Anyway, there's no proof that God wrote the Bible and delivered it by early express comet to the Holy Land.
Complain about this comment
birth rate has been effected by the economy.. but them good folk wouldn't be using that evil contraception would they.
Some good god fearing (I'd worry about him later there are bigger worries)
like why this is one of a few topics Justin has touched on during his time as leader of the pack.
Keep up the mindless trawling Justin.. One day you will be so america you can get the green card you're after.
Complain about this comment
121, happylaze -
Something I neglected to mention when talking about my friend who was the product of a rape is that it wasn't only finding out what had been done to her biological mother by a violent stranger that did her in; it was also the knowledge that her biological father was a vicious sadistic rapist. And of course this happened back in the days when the victim was often blamed and shamed and so rape was rarely reported or rapists prosecuted.
My friend had had dreams of uncovering a teen-age romance. The truth she came upon had never occurred to her. I've always thought this sort of thing should serve as a cautionary tale to adoptees determined to dig up the past.
Complain about this comment
116, bfoutkrod.
A gracious response. Many people stand by their statements even when they are in error.
Complain about this comment
120, bere.
"For the most part they are very matter-of-fact about it (abortion). They neither brag about it nor are ashamed of it. It was just something that had to be done."
Also my experience. In my case the pregnancy came at a time when we were going into business for ourselves. As one of those unfortunate women who have nine-month morning sickness it would have been difficult for me to hold up my end. Once things were going smoothly I got pregnant again and we had our fourth child. Obviously we love children. I would have been happy with eight.
Complain about this comment
Ref 105, Going
"...for premature babies are born everyday alive and well."
One of my six grandchldren was born a little over 3 months premature, suffered a hemorrage at birth, is paralyzed from the waist down, can barely move one of his arms, and has serious cognitive limitations. Some premature children do live long and healthy lives, many do not. In spite of his handicap, we love our grandson, think he is very special and do everything we can to help him and his parents. Sadly, in addition to the stress we experience as human beings when tragedy strikes, we also had to deal with the inhumanity of our healthcare system, but that is another story.
I believe a life form is created at conception, but as opposed to those who focus strictly on the life of the unborn, I also value the lives of the living and, as a result, I oppose the death penalty and only support war when there is absolutely no other choice to defend our country.
Complain about this comment
117.allmymarbles
"A gracious response. Many people stand by their statements even when they are in error."
Actually, pointing out that my comment was taken in the wrong context, but not in error. Just as some would have our Supreme Court stacked with religious hacks, check the BBC's own site on Iran under "country profiles". The religious council has the same power as the politburo had (despite the "elected" Duma in the Soviet Union.
Whether through religion, blind party obedience or absolute monarchy, absolute power in the hands of the few (or the one) smells rotten no matter what bird laid the egg.
Complain about this comment
128, bfoulkrod.
Law and the execution of law is not the same, just as theory and practice is not the same. The western world has taken a particular stance against Iran. This is political and part of its policy concerning the Middle East as a whole. I have been involved with the Middle East, more particularly Iran, for the last 50 years. I speak, read and write the Farsi and lived in the region for 18 years - on the local economy, by the way, not as an expat. I have no political affiliations. If you can offer opinion based on personal exprience, I am more than willing to listen.
Complain about this comment
Sigh...if you have no execution of the law, you have no law...you have anarchy while the police watch in numb indifference. And I'm not "attacking Iran" (yet another misinterpretation...now I'm leaning from not being clear to being manipulated).
I can have many Russian friends, and even like their country (just an example...please no angry Russian replies), and still find their system unjust.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/default.stm
As a nation of laws, every nation's character is manifested in its political system. Just like people live in this country with no clue about their government's constructs, folks living overseas can fall victim to limited scope.
So...to avoid falling into this exact trap, I referred to the BBC section on "country profiles". There is a section on its government, division of powers and what those powers are.
My comment is on form of government, as a matter of pointing out that muddying the waters of debate with anything else is only useful if our laws should just be tossed out the window and resort to chaotic angry discourse.
The laws are on the books...the political system is in place. My views are based on their own stated system. Just as when I lived in Germany and the Netherlands (and had to do work in Britain and Ireland), it was incumbent on me to know and understand the system.
I read (from the actual source) before forming an opinion. If my opinion offends, contact the Iranian Embassy and protest. Just as emotional "debate" in this nation that flies in the face of the Constitution is only valid if you do a rewrite of everything.
If you can point out not only one non muslim, but one muslim not in the the upper echelons of their church who are a member of any of the following Iran government institutions:
Head of Judiciary
Expediency Council
Guardian Council
"I'm all ears"
While you're at it, name any single non Nazi or Communist who ever held an inner circle position in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
how can you on one hand attack the religious right, and on the other hand defend a blatant (and Constitutionally constructed) dictatorship? Folks in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union could also get an abortion.
You're making my original point: bumper sticker slogan issues have no place at center stage when discussing purely Constitutional issues. If the Netherlands adopted a fanatical dictatorship, as much as I love the country, I'd drop my support for their system in a minute.
Read up on that nation's government...then reread my post. You'll find that it is only a restatement of how their government was arranged after the fall of the Shah. Many involved in the uprisings actually believed they were going to get democracy.
Unfortunately, the Savak was only replaced with a new security force that arrested dissenters merely for disagreeing. THAT is what my original post told the religious right to consider when trying for a power grab.
In each of the first thirty or so State of the Union Addresses, all presidents harped on the fact that government should come from the will and consent of the governed. As a loyal constitutionalist, I see no problem with that statement made by the president as a reminder to the Congress that they were all there at the sufferance of their fellow citizens.
Complain about this comment
Personal experience...seeing both sides of Berlin in a divided Germany gives the best experience to draw on. On one side, the Stasi (who even the KGB thought to be too nutty for their liking), on the other side, a free and vibrant society. Night and day right before your very eyes.
Last time I checked, we Americans who over the years took up the task of everything from the highly public airlift to the never mentioned under the table cold war activities are still considered by the West Berliners as protectors from totalitarianism, and a force of liberation by the East Germans wanting out from under the yolk of Soviet domination.
But...as much as I cared for the suffering in East Germany, it'd be a long, long......LONG wait to hear me voice one word of legitimacy for the "Deutsche demokratische Repulik".
Honneker's dead...Krenz is still in jail whining to be released. The East Germans have yet to jump up and yell for his release...think he'll be there a while.
Complain about this comment
130, bfoulkrodi.
I don't remember saying that Iran did not have a government based on Islam. It is the manner in which this rule is imposed that I take issue with. Although I personally do not care for a theocracy, it should be pointed out that Iran is 98 per cent Moslem, so what may seem alien to you, is not to them. Nonetheless, Iranians are extremely sophisticated and antagonistic towards any type of rule. It is impossible to impose a totalitarian government on Iranians. You, as an American, have a totally different view of government. You feel you should be a law-abiding citizen. You would not make a good Iranian.
Complain about this comment
I've just been equally attacked to death on Reuters by a person who claims I'm an evil antisemetic for even suggesting anything negative about Israeli policies.
It gets boring being attacked for an honest and factually accurate opinion, simply because you keep interpreting everything as a personal stab.
Capricious attacks on my opinion based on the simple facts while demanding that others fall in line while you demand your rights on one issue is disingenuous and hypocritical.
If I won't allow myself to be called "unamerican" for simply disagreeing with the bumper sticker of the day, I probably won't be insulted by being told I'd be "a bad Iranian".
You're turning my comments into personal attacks and assumed attack on an entire nation of people. Put it into context that might not "offend":...
(again) I can have deep regard and respect for a population without hating their nation or the people, while still um...only having an opinion...that the system is unjust.
Your continual attempts to make me state otherwise only screams volumes about the extremist demanding conformity.
The people in any such state who have been imprisoned, tortured or killed would probably view my concern as more valuable then any blind and obedient nod I might be expected to give through compulsion.
If I disagree with how our nation has blown its nose on the Geneva Convention, what would make anybody think I'm inclined to cut another nation any slack?
Should I support Burma's jailing of the opposition leader just in time to keep her out of the upcoming election?
If I *were* Iranian, I'd be in jail as the obnoxious voice who dares to suggest that something could be improved, then shot for refusing to be nice and retract. One of our states has a great state motto:
"Live Free Or Die."
Meanwhile, you benefit from a forum hosted in a nation with a long and noble history of free and open discourse. Thank the Brits for their support to your freedom. If this were attempted in a dictatorship, I'd be arrested for simply posting anything seen as negative.
If you believe any government has that absolute right of control, we have nothing more to discuss.
Complain about this comment
"It is impossible to impose a totalitarian government on Iranians." I've noticed you say this line, or one very similar, on several threads now. It's one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard in a long time. There is no country on this planet that could not, in one way or another, be subjected to a totalitarian regime. Totalitarian states, by their very nature, focus on the elimination of dissent by rule of fear. It doesn't have to be fear of physical violence. The threat of prison or threat to your livelihood and ability to support yourself and your family can work too. Whilst there will always be some who rise up and take a stand, there will also be many who do not, contenting themselves with an illusion of stability and safety because the totalitarian regime is not actively attacking them at the moment.
And people always say "It couldn't happen here" but it can and it does. Britain's heading towards it right now with its ever increasing surveilence culture and introduction of ID Cards. People try to defend it by saying "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" which is utter rubbish because with this government's record of data protection there's no guarantee that the data they want to collect won't end up in the hands of some lunatic fringe that decides they want to target a group that mainstream society considers to have "nothing to fear". Sure they couldn probably do that now, but why make it easier? And they also try to justify it because it'll protect us from terrorists, like the 7/7 bombers and those ones who attacked Glasgow Airport wouldn't have had perfectly valid ID cards. And yet so many in this country are just standing by and letting this totalitarian system ease into place.
America, under Bush, started moving towards totalitarianism as well with their heightened surveilence culture and the spreading of the idea that if you didn't support the president in everything you were somehow 'Un-American', amongst other things. It was going that way due to McCarthyism as well, but cooler heads prevailed and dragged it back from the brink. With any luck it'll happen this time as well.
So don't say Iranians would never live under a totalitarian regime becase they could, just like the rest of us. In my opinion they do live in one, although I admit that I have an inate distrust of any theocracy. When religious leaders are allowed to control a country's path, they don't think first of what is good for the people's lives, but what is good for their spirituality and morality, as the religious leaders interpret it from a centuries old book. This leaves countries stagnating, unable to move along with the rest of the world in terms of human rights and scientific research because there's always something that their book tells them is bad. Their dogma allows them to deny the truth because as far as they're concerned their book is the truth, no matter what evidence there is to the contrary.
This isn't just a criticism of Islam, but on all religious groups. Just look at the catholic church. It was only late last century that they finally admitted that Copernicus was corrrect and that the universe does not revolve around the Earth. By that time we'd put men on the moon. But their dogma was geocentricism and so they stuck far beyond the point where they were proven utterly, irrevocably wrong on that point. They're doing it again now, with their continued assertions that using contraception is wrong, whilst the HIV/AIDS epidemic sweeps across the globe. If people were given proper education about the risks and ways to prevent transmission then maybe we could begin to control it, but the leader of (as I understand it) the single largest religious faction on the planet is still telling people that the simplest way to prevent transmission is morally wrong. Their dogma and slavish adherence to the idea of people's spiritual wellbeing is causing them to abandon a way to look after their physical wellbeing. In my opinion they have the blood of millions on their hands.
They also oppose embryonic stem cell research (see how I managed to drag it back on topic there?) because they say it is morally wrong, irrespective of the potential benefits it might bring.
Ultimately organised religions, as opposed to a personal, internal faith that is not used to influence those around you, are tools of control, through threat of eternal suffering in the afterlife. Organised religions already verge on totalitarianism through their teachings. "Do as we say or suffer." Combine that power with governmental control and a totalitarian regime is never far off. As Thomas Jefferson said, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
Complain about this comment
Kittle, good post.
Complain about this comment
seanspa, agreed. Kittle, good post.
Complain about this comment
Justin, you didn't say why you thought Melton is one of the most humane Americans of his generation. Surely, it can't be the fact that he does stem cell research. Many scientist do medical research, but that doesn't make them any more humane than anyone else. I'm sure he's a very nice person, but I think you should explain yourself better.
Complain about this comment
133, foul.
You are on my "do not reply" list. Play your games with someone else.
Complain about this comment
#98, AMM, You said, "Apparently I am correct about your equating sex with sin. ("resist temptation" "giving into their temptations") Unlike you I consider the sexual desires (and practices) of an adult to be healthy and normal."
I think you are the one being judgmental. I am a "live and let live" kind of person, and so I don't have any issues with the way you raised your children. Why do you have issues with the way I want to raise mine? Am I not free to teach my own children the morality that I (and actually most) people in the world find appropriate? I don't teach them to feel guilty about the wrongs they have done, I teach them to be responsible and to make amends when they are able.
Do you really want to get into a discussion about sin, religion, and sexuality, because that is not what I was implying at all? Do you believe that only religious people are "tempted"? Maybe I should have used words related to "will power", or "self control".
I think you are trying to stereotype me as some born again Christian anti-abortionist. I'm not. My morality related to killing people can be entirely justified within an ethic that even atheists can agree with. For your information, I too believe that sexuality is healthy and normal. But I also think that human beings are evolved enough to use their brains ( the one in their head) to choose not to engage in a behavior that may lead to unintended consequences. Us older and wiser humans can help teach our children to think through their actions and possible consequences, if they will listen to us.
Complain about this comment
134, kittle
""'It is impossible to impose a totalitarian government on Iranians.'" I've noticed you say this line, or one very similar, on several threads now. It's one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard in a long time."
It is not ridiculous at this point in time. We are more easily controlled than Iranians because we have more faith in our government. Yet we are the ones with whole classes of identifying numbers. Our life is an open book to any number of agencies. We couldn't get lost if we wanted to. It is a creeping control that we notice only subliminally. And we are not alone. There are the British for instance....
Complain about this comment
#134, Kittle, you said, "They also oppose embryonic stem cell research (see how I managed to drag it back on topic there?) because they say it is morally wrong, irrespective of the potential benefits it might bring."
One does not need to be religious to have ethical issues with harvesting tissues from human embryos. My trouble with your embryonic stem cell statement is the whole, "ends justify the means" argument. Might we not just as easily justify organ harvesting of the dead (rather than burying or burning them), or perhaps even some of the more useless living people? There already is a black market for human organs. The only thing keeping it underground are those pesky things we call morality and ethics.
Complain about this comment
139, Dakota_Erik -
Any and all behavior can and often does have unintended consequences. You could get killed in a car accident on your way to the grocery store, though of course this was never your intention. There is no way to be always protected from unintended consequences. If you are teaching your children that behaving responsibly will always protect them, you are doing them a disservice.
Complain about this comment
This is a tired debate. Neither side will change their opinion. So, the fact is, abortion is legal (varying state by state). Those who are pro-life, your solution is: don't have an abortion. Simple. Taking away rights of the people is problematic, and should have serious thought before stating ones position. If you take the rights away from one group of people, you set up precedent to take away the civil rights of any group of people. People have fought hard throughout our history to gain civil rights. Lets move forward into the future in a progressive manner and embrace our freedoms.
We are aware of pro-life opinions. I will never agree with you, yet will respect your opinion. I ask you do the same to me. I will never take away your civil rights, and ask the same of you for me. It is that simple. Have your opinions and live by them with conviction. Just don't impose them on me. How would you feel if I forced my morals upon you? Forced a different religion upon you? It is all the same. Live by your own morals, just be aware that not everyone shares your morals or wants to live in a world where your morals are law. I want to live my life according to my morals, not yours. I'm sure you wouldn't want my morals imposed upon you.
Furthermore, can the abortion debate exclude men, who have no idea what it is like to be in a position where their life is uprooted by an unplanned pregnancy? Please!
Complain about this comment
141, I never said you had to be religious to oppose ESCR. I was simply criticising the catholic church for using an argument no more complicated than "my book says it's bad". I didn't make any statement on my personal views on ESCR either. You're merely making assumptions. Personally I'd favour using the excess embryos from IVF treatment. Many more are created in that process than are used, in my understanding, so I think those that would simply be disposed of anyway could be put to better use.
On the subject of harvesting organs from the dead, I think we should have a system where, unless you have explicitly opted-out of organ donation, then your organs should be available for donation. Once you're dead, you have no need of your organs, so why should they not be used to save the life of someone who's still alive, if they can? Black Markets exist where there is a scarcity of a product. Ready availability of organs for donation would crush any black market.
Complain about this comment
#142, bere54, said, "There is no way to be always protected from unintended consequences. If you are teaching your children that behaving responsibly will always protect them, you are doing them a disservice."
So would you wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle? Would you go sky diving without a reserve parachute? Do you ignore safety, because you might just choke on a bug, or get struck by lightning and die anyway? Every one of us is destined to die, so why not just do whatever the heck you like?
Your extremist argument is a fallacy anyone of us could drive a bus through. However, it does explain your prior arguments. You believe that any example or anecdote is sufficient to justify whatever you believe is correct.
Did I say that I believe that my children would always be safe? No, I said that I teach them to think about potential consequences before engaging in actions which might be dangerous. You know, like when crossing the street, "Stop, Look, Listen". It's pretty much common sense, like; wear a helmet when you skateboard or ride your bike, or don't run off without telling me where you are going and when you will be back, keep those toys out of your mouth, don't run with scissors, and don't stick anything in your ear.
You adjust the message for their age. But, they learn plenty the hard way as well. My wish is that when they are ready to bear children, or die in a drunken wreck, they will still be good listeners and willing to take some heartfelt advice from an old man.
Complain about this comment
139, dakota.
We merely see the world differently and, no, I do not see you as a born-again Christian. It never crossed my mind. But what you see as a temptation to be avoided, I see as a natural biological urge to be enjoyed. With the proviso, however, that young teenagers should be protected from this experience because of their vulnerability and lack of judgment.
Complain about this comment
#143, j_anon, said, "I will never take away your civil rights, and ask the same of you for me. It is that simple. Have your opinions and live by them with conviction. Just don't impose them on me. How would you feel if I forced my morals upon you? Forced a different religion upon you? It is all the same. Live by your own morals, just be aware that not everyone shares your morals or wants to live in a world where your morals are law. I want to live my life according to my morals, not yours. I'm sure you wouldn't want my morals imposed upon you."
What if some one believes it would be great to kill stupid people? Would you then believe in enforcing your morals upon them then?
How would you feel if some man said, "Can we just exclude women from this whole war discussion, they never have to serve in combat and so will not experience the pain and suffering on the battlefield"? Don't you think that men are involved in birth and parenting, the same way that sisters and mothers are involved in battlefield deaths? Would you like to rethink your bigotry?
Complain about this comment
#144, Kittle, said, "On the subject of harvesting organs from the dead, I think we should have a system where, unless you have explicitly opted-out of organ donation, then your organs should be available for donation."
Why opt out? In that case, the err would be to mistakenly harvest organs, and thereby potentially "desecrate" a corpse against the wishes of the person or his family. In some middle eastern religions, even autopsy is a questionable procedure and often only permissible when seeking justice.
Complain about this comment
143, j.
"Furthermore, can the abortion debate exclude men, who have no idea what it is like to be in a position where their life is uprooted by an unplanned pregnancy? Please!"
For the most part, yes. Most of the women seeking abortions are single, so there is no man contractually involved. As to married women who seek abortions, this is normally the result of a discussion between the partners. The latter was certainly true in my case.
Complain about this comment
#146, AMM, Said, "With the proviso, however, that young teenagers should be protected from this experience because of their vulnerability and lack of judgment."
Did I indicate anything other than that? I am merely asking people to think before they act (which includes "choosing not to act" if that is appropriate). The best way to prevent an abortion is the prevent the pregnancy. The best way to prevent the pregnancy is to prevent the ignorance and impetuousness that led to it. Granted, even with "protection" there may be some failures, but as I said earlier, about 99% of abortions might be prevented with better education and better parental involvement. Can we agree that this is a common middle?
Our disagreement is on the definition of "human life", which is more than merely "a philosophical question" in that we as a modern society have chosen to outlaw the killing of innocents. The advent and ubiquitousness of ultrasound, and other advances in fetology have actually swayed more people (including people like Dr. Bernard Nathanson) to believe that fetuses should be protected. There is no one, other than those ignorant of the science, who can now debate that a fetus is not a fully formed human after 10 weeks. From that point forward, the fetus merely grows and develops the capacity to exist outside the womb.
I don't mean to change your opinion, and yes, we do see the world differently. I respect your right to your opinion.
Complain about this comment
148, Because humans are often quite a lazy bunch and many people who would otherwise have no problem with donating their organs end up not getting round to filling out forms so their organs are wasted. By making it an opt-out rather than an opt-in we'd get thousands more available organs from the masses who don't care one way or another.
In the case of the error, the best you can do is try to minimise the mistakes. If the possibility of something going wrong was justification for not doing something, nobody would get into a car or set foot on an airplane because they might crash. Mistakes will always happen but isn't it better that a mistake could still save a life rather than costing a life, as not knowing that someone's an organ donor would do now? As I said earlier, just make sure we have a system in place to minimise mistakes.
Complain about this comment
Bravo kittle!
To quote a wise founding father, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
Complain about this comment
151, Kittle -
"By making it an opt-out rather than an opt-in we'd get thousands more available organs from the masses who don't care one way or another."
----
Don't you worry that those arranging transplants might be a little too hasty to have someone declared dead in order to get at those organs? I do. I have read of "transplant facilitators" or whatever they're called hovering around every accident victim like vultures, harassing family members as soon as they arrive at a hospital before they even know if their loved one is alive or dead.
I have a great deal of ambivalence about the whole transplant issue. It seems to me that no one has an absolute right to someone else's body parts.
Complain about this comment
150, dakota.
"There is no one, other than those ignorant of the science, who can now debate that a fetus is not a fully formed human after 10 weeks."
Not true. It may have all its fingers and toes, but are not fully formed. Extremely premature babies, those who live, suffer defecits both phusical and mental.
Complain about this comment
153, bere.
"I have read of "transplant facilitators" or whatever they're called hovering around every accident victim like vultures, harassing family members as soon as they arrive at a hospital before they even know if their loved one is alive or dead."
Unfortunately true. I am not an organ donor and so will save my family a lot of extra grief.
Complain about this comment
153, I agree, that is a danger. But robust legislation can place restrictions on when those transplant facilitators would be allowed to talk to the family. Although if we were working on the basis of consent to transplant unless you opt out, there would be no need for that sort of person at all. There would also have to be harsh penalties for anyone who was too quick to declare someone dead. Sentence comparable to murder would probably be right, seeing as that's what it would in effect be. I can't say off-hand how that would be checked and enforced, but I'm sure a way could be found because it would be in everyone's interest that it was.
Complain about this comment
#152, bfoulkrod1,
Ah, yes, the enigma that is Thomas Jefferson, who also said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift of God. Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."
Complain about this comment
156, Kittle -
I just want you to know that I really appreciate your thoughtful response, with concrete ideas, in response to my ambivalence, instead of attacking me and accusing me of being a hateful person because I happen to have doubts about organ donation, a subject you obviously feel strongly about and have given a great deal of thought to. (Sorry for that long sentence.) That kind of polite and helpful response cannot be counted on in this forum. You have offered much for me to consider.
Complain about this comment
Pro-life to the right wing neo-conservative christians in the USA is let all unplanned or unwanted fetus be born and than use them as cannon fodder, fill the prisons, use them as low wage earners, etc.,. etc.,. when they gets to be that age. After all, the rich must their lifestyles and the way they have always lived, without remorse, without compassion, without morals and contempt for human lives. Sex education in the USA for the purpose of preventing unwanted children is prohibited. That is why abortions clinics are terrorized, bombed and burnt by the right wing conservatives Christian Coalition in America!
Only mothers who have no idea of what their child will be used for in the future are stupid enough to have one.
That is perhaps why the abortion in the USA is so acceptable.
Complain about this comment
In a male dominated and Christian fundamentalist political & others world let the bastion of the female body and her choice belong to only herself.
We all go 'bup' into the ether. It's part of life on Earth and comprises its actual existence.
The choice of the female is in itself a sense of her own destiny, let this be a fundamental human right.
Complain about this comment
reply to Dakota_erik
Certainly men are an important part in parenting! However, the majority of women seeking abortion are on their own. Male partners disappear a lot of the time after women become pregnant. If this weren't true, we wouldn't have the problem of single parents, deadbeat dad's, etc. What a wonderful world where the men always remain involved in child-bearing and rearing! Let me know where this place exists and I will move there! Back here in the real world, many women face these choices alone, something men will never experience. This is all I mean. And don't forget about rape and incest. This is the world we live in, and its far from idealistic.
As for the other argument, as soon as pro-lifers are against capital punishment I will join your debate on who you think should live and die. Until then, the pro-life debate is contradictory.
Complain about this comment
161, J.
"This is all I mean. And don't forget about rape and incest."
In all fairness, I think the incidence of rape and incest is not all that common. More usually have abortions because they don't want the baby, or don't want a connection with the father, or the father does not want to be involved. Often it is a practical decision on the part of married couples.
Complain about this comment
162.
Yes, this is true. However it is dangerous to downplay victims of rape and incest. I know victims of rape. I live in an urban area where I must confront social problems on a daily basis as soon as I leave my front door. It is easier for people to make an argument against abortion when they have never seen a crack-addicted pregnant woman walking down their street. Trust me, it is very disturbing. I can't pretend these problems are not here because I live right in the middle of it.
Complain about this comment
There is an unwritten law in the Evangelical community that basically says -"You make your bed - You lie in it." You may not like the consequences of unprotected sex, but you CHOSE to have unprotected sex and babies come from that - living beings which your choice created. That is where your choice begins and where it ends, because after that an others' life is at stake and that is not yours to take. This seems simple enough, but if the pregnancy is the result of forced sex it becomes very fuzzy - there are still two individuals involved. The mother did not choose. She is the victim of a heinous act but the fetus is also completely innocent of any crime - why should she/he have to die? This is a hard question. Many believe that Life is what we are bound by LOVE to choose. There is no easy answer in any of this - Welcome to Earth.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunately, things are often not that simple. Can you really say that if you have unprotected sex and get pregnant then it's entirely your fault if you don't actually know all the facts? Do you know all the rumours and falsehoods that teenagers hear about sex? You can't get pregnant if it's your first time. You can't get pregnant if you have sex standing up (that's the one that was popular when I was in school a decade ago). A plastic bag or clingfilm works as well as a condom. All these lies and more get passed between teenagers and, often lacking decent sources of real facts, they believe them.
In my school in the UK we started sex-ed at 15. But I know some of my classmates were having sex at 13. Because much as we all like to pretend that kids will obey when they're told not to have sex until they're 16, they don't.
The only way people can make decisions properly is if they've have all the facts and to ensure children have all the facts about sex when they need them, they have to be told them before puberty. And it would have to be a fixed curriculum with tight rules for the teachers, saying "You WILL teach them this, this and this. You WON'T teach them this and this." Whilst an emphasis on not having sex before you turn 16 should obviously be a major part of that, they should still be given all the information about risks and protection as well. Then, and only then, can you actually say "You make your bed - You lie in it."
Complain about this comment
One could argue that it's not your fault if you didn't understand, or haven't all the facts - nevertheless you're still pregnant.You can't raise children on blame and excuses. Good education is very important but the facts don't always address the emotional states of people - whether they be young, or old. It is true that here in America we are both fascinated and fearful of our sexuality.Not a good combination. We also say we love children, but our social services do not really support our claims. The trouble is that to be truly pro life it must be conception to grave and not everyone comprehends the depth and breadth of such a commitment, and politicians cannot be counted on to deliver on such notions.Legislation is not the answer. In the end it is a personal choice - the ultimate choice - to choose life, or not.I am not against Roe v Wade. I am against the forces in society that work against and hobble those who would choose life if they thought they really had a choice.Those forces make abortion far too common in this land of plenty.
Complain about this comment
Almost no-one in the U.S. who claims to be "pro-life" is actually pro-life. It just means "anti-choice" for better than 90% of them.
The majority of these so-called "pro-lifers" support execution. This is pure hypocrisy.
Most of the folks who seek to take rights away from other Americans use religion as the basis for these claims. They often point to the "10 Commandments". This is an utter joke as it says: "Thou shalt not kill". It doesn't say: "Thou shalt not kill unless the person is guilty".
Being honestly pro-life means that one is anti-death. In all cases.
Being anti-choice doesn't cover that. In addition to that...where does actual human life begin? Conception? I certainly don't think so, nor do the majority of global scientists. If that is the case, each time a cancer patient has a tumor removed....this is also killing human life.
Until a fetus is viable outside of the mother, this is more a collection of cells. A parasite living exclusively on its host.
Complain about this comment
I am pro-life because I care about the psychological effects of having had an abortion on both of the parents. A large percentage of people have a hollow feeling and unexplained depression for the rest of their lives even when they did not believe it was wrong to have an abortion. We need to be free to enjoy full lives and somehow an abortion choice seems to interfere with that. I don't worry about the babies so much as the mothers who do this thing without knowing how many moments of sadness and regret it is going to bring them over a lifetime for no particular, explainable reason. We are not logical creatures. Because abortion is legal does not mean it is wise. Young women, go through the pain and sacrifice and character building process of bearing that child and then give it up for adoption to parents who are longing for a baby and will love it magnificently. You will save yourself so much anguish in the long run and be a person that you can look in the mirror and feel good about. People who have had abortions more often than not report a terrible sense of worthlessness in their lives thereafter.It affects their future relationships and marriages. Be kind to yourselves - don't do this very sad thing. I worry for a nation that can justify deliberately harming an innocent living thing. We should feel awe and wonder at all life and reverence it. What a blessed thing the ability to pro-create is! What a gift we have been given. Let's be worthy of it.
Complain about this comment
Life starts at the moment of conception?
In that case, all acts of sexual congress should be reported to the authorities so that conception can be checked for, and criminal investigations incepted if it does not run to term. No such thing as a victimless miscarriage.
All human life is sacred?
Why then do we ever apply quality of life criteria to medical treatment? Let's keep people from meeting their maker for as tortuously long as possible.
It would also be nice if some people put the same amount of effort into looking out for people's life-rights after they are born as they do beforehand. Of course, once born, people stop being innocent and silent, so they only have themselves to blame.
It's a woman's own body and her right to choose?
Fair enough. But don't expect anyone to lend a hand in the procedure. It's not their body.
Science-based limits on abortion?
Someday they'll be able to grow babies in jars. Reliance on limits based on how human-resembling or likely to survive will only be eroded. But I suppose at that point in time, you can give up your foetus for growth and adoption after a couple of weeks. Everyone's a winner then, with the possible exception of the baby you've been using as a football.
Rights/responsibility-based obligation to carry to term?
OK, as long as I can dictate some responsibilities to you, too. How about the responsibility to learn about scientific method, and comparative religion, social history, logic and ethics, and analytical approaches to reading historical texts?
Complain about this comment
I have always believed that this is a matter for the female of the species to decide. I find it mind boggling that any male thinks they have a 'relevant point of view' on this topic. We CANNOT get pregnant, thus it is too easy for us to put forth an opinion that may or may not make any sense. I would hope that any woman who got pregnant would first and foremost protect their own lives and then focus on what life the child would have once it was born. I am a man and have no honest idea what that decision does to a woman, but no matter what decision they come to I'm sure it is one of the most difficult of their lives. I firmly believe it should be HER choice and no other. As many have stated, abortions will continue to happen no matter what the legal environment may be. Does it not then behoove us to ensure that the choice is as safe as we can possibly make it? That is only possible if it is a legally acceptable choice. People talk about Bristol Palin, but the truth of the matter is for her and her child the environment is very 'encouraging' for that child to have a successful life due to the circumstances of her family financially. The bulk of the teenage mothers in the USA do NOT have that environment, and in fact, statistically speaking drastically reduce that child's chance at a 'successful' life. What I would like to see is true sex education from 1st grade forward. Make a 'child rearing' class a mandatory course starting at puberty. I guarantee if you make a 12 year old child (both boys and girls) 'care for' a 'baby simulacrum' you would see an immediate reduction in teenage pregnancy rates. Abstinence is simply a failed policy. Free and anonymous access to birth control plus a rigorous sex education program WILL work to reduce abortion rates simple as that.
Complain about this comment
Pro the life of babies butchered by abortionists. No one is threatening diabetics.
Pro the life of babies artificially conceived in test tubes. Some of these babies are canibalised for organs! Life begins at conception, weather it be in a test tube or a woman's womb.
Complain about this comment
So is a miscarriage murder by god? Or are they always the woman's fault?
Complain about this comment
168, gladheart -
People do sometimes make decisions they later regret. Bad marriages, for instance. Women sometimes marry men who end up killing them, or maiming them. Sometimes people leave partners and later regret it, and have a "hollow" feeling. College students may realize upon graduation that they majored in a subject they don't want a career in. Another hollow feeling. And then many people make personal choices that they know are right for them, even though someone else may regret having made that same decision. I have known people who deeply regretted having children, and very young men who have enlisted, been maimed in war, and deeply regretted joining up.
So should all decision-making, personal choice, be denied us just in case someone makes a mistake? The choice to have an abortion is wise for some, perhaps not so for others. As with any other choice humans make in their lives.
Your argument is not only foolish, it is offensive.
Complain about this comment
Most (if not all) governments have not developed an ideology to determine all life issues, an ideology tried and fixed by acid tests; simplicity and consistency. Many are pro-life regarding the unborn yet favor the death penalty, while others protest capital punishment but support a womans choice for abortion. Complexity and inconsistency legislatively (or legally) compounds when considering matters such as euthanasia or assisted suicides, and forced military service. The question should be asked whether government has the ultimate right/control over human life within any context, that is, when does an individual presumes authority over the life of another. There are only two logical positions; either government is always allowed to end life or government is always prohibited to do so. Given the propensities for excess, inefficiency, and corruption as well the lack of divine insight, government should never be so empowered.
Complain about this comment
174,
You make some good points, but I'm not sure how they relate to the abortion discussion. In the abortion discussion, we argue whether the woman has a right to terminate the fetus. In the death penalty, we argues whether government has the right to terminate a criminal. It would make sense that these two different actors would operate under different restrictions. I'm I correctly interpreting your statement?
Complain about this comment
These are just the non issues that obscure the real issues that our government and the Mafia are one.
Complain about this comment
Pro-life is all about living a good life; gracefully and freely. Hence, not allowing a female to chose if she wants to abort, we are taking away from her the meaning of good living.
No, I don't see "pro-life" means to worry about "it" which is not yet alive. Pro-life is to encourage and better the life of the ones who are already sharing our space on earth, from all walks of life.
Sahar
Oman
Complain about this comment
Prepare for a long essay here. I support the rights of unborn children, but I admit that at least there are grey areas in the debate. This does not mean however that I concede the basic argument that it is wrong to kill a foetus or an embryo. It simply means that I recognise that those arguing in favour of the rights of the foetus or embryo to life are capable of hypocrisy or flawed argument in the same way as those supporting the rights of women to abort their foetuses. A few people have pointed out some of these hypocrisies above. Among them are:
i) the death penalty issue. Although not all abortion opponents advocate the death penalty, a significant proportion of them do. It is a fact however that the death penalty has ended, and cotinues to end, innocent lives, as mistakes have been made. Personally, I oppose the death penalty.
ii) the idea that outlawing abortion in itself is what is necessary. It is clear that unless appropriate support is given, women will resort to various means of abortion or will abandon their children. This does not mean, however, that it is inevitable that abortion will always continue. As I understand it, the two main reasons women have an abortion is because a) they cannot afford a child, or their social circumstances (estranged from family/no husband etc.) would mean that having a child would be overwhelming, or b) they simply do not wish to have the child because it will inconvenice them. Whilst a number of women have abortions for the latter reason, many do for the former. This is in my view one area of the debate that the pro-life side need to consider more carefully.
On the other hand, we have the pro-choice one-liners. These also fail to grasp the basic issue for me. For example:
i) the argument that a woman should have a right to decide what happens to her body. To this, I would have to respond that women do have a right to decide. Contraception has been widely available for decades now. If you don't want a baby, use or condom. Or, abstain from sex if you are not in a long-term relationship. Or only have sex at the times of the month when you are less at risk of becoming pregnant. I realise this argument is pretty blunt, but the alternative of letting people kill their foetuses because they weren't careful enough seems bad logic to me.
Furthermore, what if the woman's partner wants the foetus to live? Should we completely disregard fathers' rights here? I know that from my point of view if it were my child I would be devastated. All this of course is besides the main point, which for me is that the foetus has a right to life of its own. I'll get to that later.
ii) the religion argument. Many pro-choicers argue that religion should not dictate what happens in their lives. While this is indeed a valid concern generally speaking, I fail to see that it is really related to the fundamental issue, except that religious people often tend to support the rights of the unborn. Religious people also tend to support policies in other areas disproprtionately. For example, most religious leaders would support higher taxes on the rich, or (these days) a more democratic distribution of power. Is it really fair to dismiss those concerns on the grounds that they are championed by the religious? For me, this argument misses the point.
Obviously, the abortion issue is divided along the lines of other social politics, given that such arguments as those above tend to creep into the debate. But putting those issues aside, let's look at the basic points of contention in the actual abortion debate.
i) the pro-choice 'validity' argument. The foetus should only be considered human at the point of validity, that is, the point at which it becomes able to survive outside the womb.
To this I would respond that all children are essentially helpless and dependent on others for at least the first year of life. The validity argument seeks to maintain, in my view, an iniquitable status quo on the basis of a seemingly arbitrary fact, because, let's face it, why does it matter if the foetus is unable to survive outside the womb at 23 weeks? If left alone, it would almost certainly be born; therefore an abortion for this reason is as good as infanticide/murder. At the moment, in the UK, the limit is at 24 weeks. Even supposing that were to be reduced, you still are left with the fundamental problem of whether it is OK to end a life already essentially begun.
There are, outside of the those who consider the issue in terms of validity, generally two lines of argument.
i) the 'conscious foetus' argument. These people argue that a human life is defined primarily by its ability to feel, putting aside the arguments of validity and focussing on issues such as foetal pain, but sometimes (not always) denying the basic right to life of an embryo, which has no such capacities. Advocates of this line of argument would probably favour limits at anything ranging from about 13-20 weeks (there is some disagreement among scientists about the precise age at which a foetus becomes conscious, indeed, different developmental rates may mean certain foetuses would become conscious at an earlier or later stage than others). Although I strongly support this view, I also believe that the foetus/embryo has a right to life irrespective of consciouness.
ii) the argument irrespective of consciousness. Essentially, the argument that the embryo or foetus is life because it has been concieved and is on the path to being born. This is my viewpoint. Although it is hard to define 'life' exactly, we might consider analogies that illustrate the moral problem of killing even an unconscious embryo or foetus. Put simply, an embryo, once concieved, stands a decent chance of making it to the point of 'validity'. Even thought it cannot be conscious during the abortion procedure until at least 13 weeks, are we to conclude that its deliberate destruction for 'social reasons' (that is, not rape/incest/deformity - I'll discuss my view on those abortions shortly) is a morally acceptable action? Assmue that instead of it being a foetus, it is a born person in a coma. Essentially, there is little difference here in the actual status of the subjects. Both the embryo/foetus and the 'living' person are in a state of limbo, but stand a reasonable chance of surviving, given the support of society. Should it be made acceptable for society to decide whether or not give life support in these cases, for example?
Yes, this analogy requires a good deal of imagination, and yes, it deals with theory rather than actual situations (I AM aware that the person in the coma would likely already be 'wanted' and thus would not have a question mark hanging over its life, unlike the embryo or foetus, making a direct comparison the object of abstract theory, rather than experience.) Nonetheless, as a philosophical argument, it should be considered by those who advocate abortion 'on demand'.
Considering all that, there ARE occasions where I feel it might be deemed a reasonable action to terminate, that is, those I listed above.
i) fetal deformity. If two medical professionals feel that a foetus would not enjoy quality of life, (that is, would be really badly deformed - I'm not talking about relatively common conditions such as autism and the like) I think abortion is acceptable, at any stage of pregnancy, although obviously ideally before the stage of consciousness.
ii) rape or incest. Under these conditions, I would say it is acceptable to have an abortion if there is no workable solution (e.g. adoption, or if the woman is genuinely unable to bring up the child herself due to lack of financial or emotional support). I would also consider it acceptable if the woman was so emotionally damaged by the event that she would never be able to resume any kind of normal life. I would not argue in favour of it in all cases of rape and incest, particularly in cases of voluntary incest or in cases where the woman was, despite rape, deemed medically to be of sufficiently sound mind to carry the foetus to term, at which point it could be adopted, or taken are of by relatives or friends until the woman was able to resume her life. In those cases, I would still assert the right to life of the unborn.
iii) to save the life of the mother. For me, saving certain life is more important than saving life that stands a chance (however slim) of not making it. Therefore, I support abortion in those cases, although thankfully this is hardly ever required.
This lengthy post does not contain everything I could say about the issue, but it gives an outline of the bases of why I believe abortion is wrong. An interesting point is that a vast majority of abortions are carried out not for the latter reasons (defmority, rape, incest) but because of 'social reasons'. It is these abortions that I feel most strongly against. I hope others of all views on the issue will read my post, and at least consider the arguments contained in it.
Complain about this comment
"25. At 05:23am on 21 May 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:
From the pro-life position, being 'pro-life' means cherishing each and every human person as unique and marvelous, deserving of respect, worthy of protection and encouragement, someone your compassion hopes will fulfill their own potent promise, just as much as the force and desires of life drive you, yourself."
Except for the victim of rape, whose rape will continue for 8 months and possibly much longer.
Except for a nine year old girl, raped by her stepfather and whose body is too young to bear a single child much less twins. Pro-life obviously means that all three should die as aborting the fetuses would be a sin.
I'm sorry if you are not a member of the most extreme faction on this issue and feel put upon at this point, but these cases MUST be addressed. They show the hypocracy of the "Right to Life" label as much as the defense some of them make for gun toting and capital punishment. And no, I do not believe that is changing the topic, life is life [or so right to lifers are prone to say].
Complain about this comment
jotunar (#167) "The majority of these so-called "pro-lifers" support execution. This is pure hypocrisy."
No, it isn't. In the first place, the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are merely convenient labels which have adopted as conventions to distinguish between two positions on the question of a woman's right to an abortion. There are actually more than two positions, and many groups, but it is useful to divide them this way. It is not useful to enter into a semantic argument about the meaning of "pro-life." Everyone except the pettifoggers knows generally the difference between the two camps identified by these terms.
As for the matter of capital punishment, the principal distinction to be made is that the unborn are wholly innocent, whereas those properly convicted of a capital crime are judged not to be. Some are inclined to argue that the occasional failures of judgement imply that one must oppose all capital punishment in order to call oneself "pro-life." That is just rhetorical flim-flam, because "pro-life" refers only to the abortion controversy. Capital punishment is an entirely separate controversy. Everyone is opposed to putting innocent people to death anyway.
As for the use of the term "hypocrisy" generally, it can only be properly applied to individuals, not groups. It is not hypocrisy for one person to advocate one course of action, then for another person to act contrary to that advocated course. For example, the notorious anti-abortion activist (or terrorist, if you like) Eric Rudolph advocated violence and practiced it. That is not hypocrisy. When a specific individual is accused of hypocrisy, I want to see quotes from an authoritative source to back up the charge. When whole groups are accused of hypocrisy based on the actions of others (both being anonymous), this is merely cant and I disregard it.
I, by the way, am not a member of any "pro-life" group, and I am not defending their policies. I am only (here) defending correct use of the language.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS