Forums Index >> General >> Pro Choice? Or Pro Life?
Page : <1> :
I'm a bit of both...
As for this "Please pray that Roe v. Wade be reversed..." why not? Should we have a federal law protecting the right to have an abortion? I used to think so....now...i don't.
I think that this decision should be up to the individual states.
Which means that abortion would be made illegal in the red states, no? Which means for you red staters: your sisters, mothers cousins, nieces and daughters will all be in jeopardy of dying of complications brought on by backalley abortions...but not in blue states like mine.
So go on ahead. I welcome the divisiveness...whatever rational, tolerant people still remain in the red states should be sent heading for the blue states when the self-righteous woman hating bible thumpers rule the land in your states...throw out evolution while you're at it...i don't care. Just not in my state, or on my coast...wanna go back to the dark ages? Hey, they are all yours...
See deej, its just like a liberal to go worrying about the fate of people who don't give a crap about you...it's just like a liberal to try and protect people from themselves, and to enact legislation because you think you know whats right for people, even if they don't know what's right for themselves...that is what is wrong with modern liberalism.
So, lets let the knuckle walkers discriminate against the queers, and women, and minorities, and ban books, and ban the teaching of evolution...and lets keep sailing on...in our own little blue states....we've got plenty of room for you misfits...come on over...we're glad to have you!
Sounds like red states slowly collaspe over thier own beliefs. Hell,I gotta get outa here!
Most probably the states will divide into two groups.
"I'm a uniter not a divider"
Ya....Right....
Should we have a federal law protecting the right to have an abortion?
No, of course the government should not be protecting the right to have an abortion, and that is not what is at the core of the debate.
The debate is
"Should we have a federal law that protects the rights of a woman's ownership of her body?"
We are already losing more of our personal freedoms, this whole debate is fundamental to our future ability to live our lives without the gov't imposing it's will on what happens in our own skin.
We are already being affected by federal bean counters. If there is something (let's say Smoking) that one person does that can affect others and have a financial impact on society, the government steps in and creates a law. This is basically good and an understandable use of government, to protect the greater good of the people. The downside of this is that it also opens the door for the government to say what we can and cannot do to ourselves. As a simple (and cartoonish) example, Health costs from Obesity related illness puts an incredible financial burden on society as a whole, if the Gov decides that society is over-burdened by health costs for obesity, will they be able to ban high-fat foods? Yup. These kinds of things are already happening and many are understandable, but the scary part is what might be coming around the corner.
The abortion debate is a big one and is the door that opens to a whole new world of concerns about our privacy for both men and women.
Anyway, more on this later, time to get my lovely kids to school.
Katherine
Last edited: Thursday, January 13, 2005 at 5:50:00 AM
I say put Roe vs. Wade to a vote.
The only people allowed to vote are women, who are also pregnant and they can only vote on their particular pregnancy.
Also, I am always amazed that the people who are so gung ho about anti-abortion, have typically conservative views, have never volunteered to be a Big Brother or Big Sister, have not adopted any kids, and generally, do no support funding of disadvantaged children.
And by the way, I didn't read that manifesto above.
Sniper
Abortion goes beyond trying to index it as a Conservative or Liberal view. Heck, it even has supporters/non-supporters on both sides of religious faith. It's a nasty debate that even I have a hard time deciding upon.
I think it would be a mistake to try and make it black&white: i.e. Say to either make it totally leal or totally illegal. It needs to be permitted with limitations. Is the mother risking death (a situation among some diabetics with unplanned pregnancy)? Was it a rape situation (there better be a police report with an investigation, or this excuse will get over-used). If she is under-aged, then the parents should have a right to be part of the choice. What about the father's wish? He better plan on having full custody if he wants it, she doesn't, and they are not married.
Very very complex and questionable issue. Usually, I want the government to stay out of enforcing religious views, but they are required to protect the rights and lives of the living. Unfortunately, we can't even agree on when life starts. Talk about a mess.
I'm in favor of limited abortions with good reasons. I do think its a bit too easy to have one right now, and I'm saddened that a young girl can have one without having to notify the parents or father. Yes, its her body, but their family blood is involved. They should be allowed to have some say in the matter depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy. Unfortunately, any law that gets into that much detail will take forever to get passed as congress people demand line item changes before issuing a positive vote.
Making the states decide is kind of a hip-shot easy answer. However, it just means that those who want the pregnancy for whatever reason will just make a quick trip to whatever state will support it. Kind of pointless.
@Deej: man, you're a heck of a writer. Impressive work, friend. I can see why they've started sharing your response.
- Bomb…James Bomb
I found this link after a quick Google and it may give us all a good starting point.
ABORTION: All sides of the issue.
Nice link, Rab!
I find this bit of info ESPECIALLY interesting:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when3.htm
Haven't heard this interpretation of when life begins, but it makes a lot of sense. I'm impressed that it can even be supported with the Bible. The period is short, but reasonable if women properly check for pregnancy in short order. Looks to be a good "80%" compromise solution. Of course, that whole "compromise" thing is becoming a losing art in the states.
I'll have to read into this more after work. Fascinating stuff in here.
- Bomb…James Bomb
@ sniper
I find that notion (voting for women only) completely offensive.
What makes this issue such a devisive one is that poeple generally think of pregnancy as solely a woman's experience. Allow me to explain before anyone hacks my head off....
Growing up, my parents would always say to me that both a man and a women get pregnant (a notion that I am extremely thankful for). Granted...roles for each gender are different and men dont personally experience the physical aspects of pregnancy, but the point being that a pregnancy develops from the unity of male and female and that this unity shouldnt stop at inception...it should continue. And just because a man cannot experience this physical condition does not mean they cannot empathize...something (empathy) I have found to be very rewarding when considering relationships between all kinds of poeple. I beleive it is both a man's right and responsiblity to actively take part in all stages of a pregnancy. I will go so far as to say it is essential to ensure the healthiest outcome for that child and both parents.
So I say it is very short sighted and sociologically dangerous to separate the male from any aspect of the creation of life. In fact I would forego the argument in defense of a man's right to focus on the infinately more important aspect of a man's responsibilty. To enact any law that divorces a man's responsibilty in the conception and rearing of children will only ensure the widening of the gender gap. The trend amonst human beings to find difference and subsequently categorize as seperate is damaging in most circumstances. This issue would become less of a flashpoint if we started considering both genders as equally important in all aspects of life. I know this is idealistic to the extreme but none of us can exist without the other and to procede as if we can by continuing to draw lines (wether it be between men/women, white/black, poor/wealthy, etc etc) that create division will only bring us to further misery...or worse.
Last edited: Thursday, January 13, 2005 at 2:01:30 PM
I'm pro choice if there is the possibility of harm to the mother or if some sort of criminal act occurred.
I'm done having kids so recently I fixed myself. It was painful but easy. I simply grabbed a needle and thread and sealed him up. It only took 5 stitches of doubled thread. The only setback is that I now have to urinate rectally. Oh, and every once in a while I have to sew the button back on.
Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to be on my toes.
Invite a retard to a picnic and you'd better expect to get drool in the potato salad.
Okay, Here we go...
Is murdering a baby illegal? Hmmm?
Is murdering an unborn, ALIVE baby illegal? No. Should it be? In my opinion, anyone who murders a child should be sent to jail.
True, but most Pro-Choice people are NOT saying that it is okay to kill a child. The heart of the matter is WHEN does the little fertilized egg become a true PERSON and not just a collection of non-sentient, soul-less cells. It is a philosophical concept that can't be directly measured. Pro-Life say it happens as soon as the egg gets fertilized. Pro-Choice people think it happens later on, like when the nervous system develops, or blood starts flowing, or a brain-wave pattern starts, etc. Any time before that, an abortion would be no more killing than using birth control. So the debate rages on.
- Bomb…James Bomb
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+sum+HB1677
Some republicans want you ladies held legally responsible in case of a miscarriage...surprised?
Pro Choice? Or Pro Life?
Depends on if you have the scrum!!
On another note:
A fetus is a human being when it can vote :)
B
A fetus is a human being when it can vote
LOL! Oh man, where did I leave that 10 foot pole....
- Bomb…James Bomb
@Stinkyfingers... I'm in a blue state, or at least it's blue for now. If you look at the regional patches of red and blue in the State of California, you'll notice that the majority of the state is red. Including my home town, San Diego... Which happens to be the largest military city in the nation, (and most of the world for that matter).
If not for a large population of Democratic votes out of Los Angeles... The second most populated city in the nation, California would probably be a red state. After all, we did recall D. Gray Davis and replace with R. Arnold Swartzenager. (FYI: I voted against the recall)
True story on liberalism. Majority rules isn't always the best way to go. Sometimes you have to go what's against popular belief to do what's right.
I'd move to Oregon if San Diego wasn't so dam cool. Red or Blue, it's still one of the most desirable cities to live in.
@Legendary, Move to San Diego =) It's red... But that's because of the military, which isn't near as bad as the Jesus Freaks.
@TankGirl |K8|, you bring up another really good point. Your body is yours to do with what you wish. But at what point does the fetuses right to survive outweigh the woman's right to do whatever she wants to do with her own body? I'd say it's 12 weeks because that's when the embryo becomes a fetus and develops brain activity.
@Sniper, LOL =) That's funny =) (you were joking about the vote thing, right?)
You're right about the anti-abortionists typically being conservatives, but I'm not sure about the rest of your comments. I consider myself a liberal and I've never volunteered to be a Big Brother, although I think it's a great idea and can't say that I won't in the future. My grandpa was a conservative republican and he adopted my dad.
And generally, do no support funding of disadvantaged children.
I think the Christian Coalition would beg to differ with that one as well.
@JamesBomb, Thanks for your compliment. My line of work require me to be somewhat eloquent. I totally agree with you. But if it was rape, I think either a medical evaluation or police report would suffice. In some cases, it's hard to verify rape because believe it or not, the victim actually tries to protect the suspect! Especially if the suspect is a vital member to her inner circle. That would be a sensitive issue. There would have to be some kind of third party verification required to prove rape. Question would be how can we do that and respected the victims privacy at the same time. Hmm... Tough one...
@Rabban, cool site, I'll have to look into it a bit more when I have time.
@get some, point taken... But I think sniper was just kidding.
@ROGUE LOL,
@Chilled Lizardİ Agreed, but at what point does an embryo develop life? Personally, I believe it's 12 weeks after conception. That's when the central nervous system is fully developed and brain activity begins. I don't think there is "life" in the embryo anytime before that... Just a bunch of splitting cells.
@JamesBomb,
Any time before that, an abortion would be no more killing than using birth control.
I think a better analogy would be... "Anytime before that, an abortion would be no different than cutting your nails, or removing a mole."
@All, thank you for your feedback. I recently watched a video of an abortion a woman had at 14 weeks. It was interesting to see what could only be described as the fetus struggling to stay in the mothers womb and fighting for survival. It erased any doubt in my mind that the fetuses right to live outweighs the mothers right to do whatever she wants to do with her body. However, I still believe that abortion should be allowed, but only under special circumstances such as Incest, Rape, or high risk to the mothers health. The way I see it, the cut off time to have it done is 12 weeks... Not a day later. If she can't choose by then, she looses her right to choose at all.
Last edited: Friday, January 14, 2005 at 8:11:07 PM
A fetus is a human when it can vote Democrat.
(lol)
Ok,
what if a woman finds out that her first trimester fetus has an appalling and completely disabling disease (I wish I could remember the name of the disease). Basically, the cell generation is in error in a number of different systems. The child will be grossly malformed, blind, deaf, and will never have any higher brain activity..... At best, he might smile or laugh occasionally, but mostly he will be locked in his head and not even be aware of his existence, add insult to this, the child will likely live a reasonably long life, but never developing into much more than a blind, deaf, 1 year old who needs constant care. He will never stand, he will always be in a tortured contracted state. Knees pulled up to his chest, hands and arms rigid.... Feet turned in to a club.
So you get a test at week 10 and you find that your baby-to-be has the problems listed above. Your choices are to abort the little clump of cells from your body, or let him go full term and have the rest of your life revolve around treating for this sad, poor, individual....
What would YOU do?
What is the RIGHT answer for this horrifying situation.
15 minutes to get a non-descript clump of cells removed from your body.... Or a lifetime of misery for you and your child.
What would you do?
I have know two women in the exact same situation.... They both struggled and suffered greatly with the doctors, and finally concluded that they would remove the non-descript little clumps of cells. They have never looked back.......... And have never really talked about it....................... (until now).
Last edited: Friday, January 14, 2005 at 8:44:24 PM
Actual life vs potential life.
If you are going to sacrifice actual life to potential life, where does it end?
@TG, I think it would be more humane to abort. However... If she did go full term, the mother would legally have the right to abandon the new born at a Hospital or Fire Station. Poof... The child lives and it's now the states burden... Not the mothers. And the mother faces no legal repercussion.
Well, fellow DJ, it looks like you've learned a lesson: Never get involved with evangelists in the future.
Out of all of this - the comment that caught my attention:
"I think that this decision should be up to the individual states." - Stinky
Holy cow - Stinky's going states' rights? Next stop: NRA membership.
For what it's worth, I agree, but with a twist: pro-choice with restrictions on third trimester procedures (rape, danger to Mom's health....unless Mom and Dad are Democrats (j/k).....)
Mercy abortion of a deformed fetus? Yeesh, I'd have to think that one over. The problem is that we often can't detect deformations until later in the cycle. Kids with glasses have a rough enough time in school. Bringing a deformed child into life seems almost cruel.
Anyone read "The Ship Who Sang?" There's an interesting solution to those that are born with great deformities. Unfortunately, it doesn't answer those that are born with partial brain damage. Jeez, that's a tough call.
- Bomb…James Bomb
Yah chief: states rights...i think states rights are far more representative of people's will...and I'd like to see states determine their stances on all domestic issues...including civil rights.
If it wasn't for the feds, you guys in the south would still be sipping mint julips on the veranda while your "boys" were bringing in the cotton, no?
My thinking is this: if we let southerners and midwesterners govern yourselves in all facets of governance...the distinction between the red states and blue would be glaring...but the distinction between the red states, and say...iran, at least in terms of religous tolerance and the inseparability of church and state, would be minute...
Plus, you guys wouldn't have a single tree left, there would be a walmart on every corner, everybody would be at least 300 pounds, you'd all be driving suvs, wearing wife beaters, and working at hormels. Abortions would be illegal, so your lady folks would all be dying from back alley complications, you'd ban books and demote science, so you'd all be dumb as rocks...you could repeal women's rights to vote, do the same with minorities, discriminate against gays, marginalize anyone who wasn't christian...you know, put the white man back in power...that's all you guys really want, isn't it? In short: you would be the international laughing stock you are all trying so hard to be...
While we in the blue states would keep pace with the rest of the civilized world...and we wouldn't be associated so strongly with you knuckle-walkers!
So, I'm all about states rights...which is why, getting back to the subject, I think Roe V Wade goes too far...
LOL
If that is truly how the Democratic Party thinks then the only way they are going to see the Oval Office again is on a tour.
Ps - since the majority of the military comes from the red states, the current blue states would probably be a mixture of Mexcican, Canadian, and Cuban.
:)
Could I stir the pot a little? XD
The Stinky-esque answer. I'm all for abortion since those heathen, liberals are the one's who are going to use it, thus diminishing their own population and reducing the number of democratic voters.
The Ultra-Rabban answer. At whatever stage a woman aborts, a baby is being terminated and I think that's wrong.
The compassionate, compromiser answer. I'd rather see the RU-486 used the morning after rather than have a woman abort a growing baby later on. I could even go along with abortion in cases of rape and incest pending that's really the situation and other legal avenues are being pursued as a result of the said crime. And of course I'd support abortion to spare the life of the mother.
Now according to the numbers, 6% of abortions are medical related and 1% are connected to sexual crimes. The leaves the other 93% to personal reasons. Personal reasons can get pretty iffy and can quickly send me to Ultra-Rabban mode.
The top six "personal reasons"
1. 21% feel that they do not have the financial resources to bring up a child.
2. 21% feel that they are not ready for the responsibility of bringing up a child.
3. 16% feel that their life would be changed too much. She might have a plan for her future (education, developing a career, etc.) that does not allow for having a child at the present time. She might be looking after an elderly parent and does not have sufficient time or energy to commit to a baby.
4. 12% feel that her relationship with her partner is in difficulty.
5. 11% feel that they are too young, and not sufficiently mature to become a mother.
6. In 8% of the cases, her children are grown and she does not want to start another family, or that she has all the children that she wants.
These seem to all be good reasons not to get pregnant, but I'm not convinced they're good reasons to abort. Seems some personal sacrifice could make another family happy through adoption.
And I do have to consider the father's rights. I can't see how a woman can claim sole ownership of the child and take full responsibility for the decision. I feel the same way about minors getting abortions without parental consent.
Its a tough issue, but I'm glad the numbers of abortions are decreasing.
@ Rabban
1. 21% feel that they do not have the financial resources to bring up a child.
RESPONSIBILITY
2. 21% feel that they are not ready for the responsibility of bringing up a child.
RESPONSIBILITY
3. 16% feel that their life would be changed too much. She might have a plan for her future (education, developing a career, etc.) that does not allow for having a child at the present time. She might be looking after an elderly parent and does not have sufficient time or energy to commit to a baby.
RESPONSIBILITY
4. 12% feel that her relationship with her partner is in difficulty.
RESPONSIBILITY
5. 11% feel that they are too young, and not sufficiently mature to become a mother.
RESPONSIBILITY
6. In 8% of the cases, her children are grown and she does not want to start another family, or that she has all the children that she wants.
RESPONSIBILITY
Anyone noticing a pattern?
Here's the deal - the tearing of this country's moral fabric had a HELLUVA LOT to do with GW getting back into office. Liberal's have good reason to be nervous about Roe v Wade being overturned.
^ said what I was thinking. :)
Chief "Ps - since the majority of the military comes from the red states, the current blue states would probably be a mixture of Mexcican, Canadian, and Cuban."
LOL! What???
Rabban: funny how teen pregnency percentages are typically higher in red states than in blue states, eh?
Last edited: Monday, January 17, 2005 at 4:01:08 PM
Holy crap! Who called in the Red vs. Blue soldiers on this? Stink, Rab, and Chief ain't holding their punches!
<JB dons Kevlar helmet and starts to low-crawl like mad out of the war-zone>
Personally, I don't think abortion is actually divided between the two parties. It rises above that. There are pro-choice and pro-lifers mixed in both parties.
Also, while making it a choice of the states will only be a partial solution (because those that want an abortion will just go to a state that does it), it may actually be a good idea. One would be able to compare the effects of a pro-life state versus a pro-choice. Once the Feds put a law in place, it'll be stuck there for a long time no-matter if it was a good decision or not. Let the states be "beta-testers" first.
- Bomb…James Bomb
As the son of an parent who was adopted, and married into a religious conservative family, with a lesbian sister, with many ultra-left and -right friends, I tend to hear all the arguments if I sit still long enough. My #1 exercise plan for 2005 is to never stop moving. XD
As stated above, there are no easy answers, and the main argument is not religious (although many folk on both sides are religious and use religion in their arguments), the main argument is when does the fetus become deserving of legal protection? A woman goes to jail for drowning her 2 year old baby. No one has any problems with that, as the baby is demonstrably alive and deserving of legal protection then. But, legally, the mother is also the baby's legal guardian.
At what stage is it no longer about the mother's right to control her own body, and about the child's right to live? That is what everyone MUST decide for themselves before getting involved in the abortion argument. Ignore the religious aspects, and listen to their reasons for when the child has a right to life. Most everyone's point of view is valid (I'll say most everyone's because there are few out there that not even the open-minded can endorse. Heard one that said every egg and sperm is alive. By that rule, a woman commits murder every 4 weeks, and men are... Well, let's just say there won't be any boys over the age of 12-13 or so in Heaven. XD )
I haven't checked out the links above, but will do so later.
Good topic, and so far there's actually been more discussion than sarcasm. Amazing! ;)
Er...can't help but be sarcastic...its an affliction...but, good post TMO. "when does the fetus become deserving of legal protection?" that is the question. And lets do leave religion out of it...
Personally, I have no idea...none what-so-ever...so all I have...is sarcasm.
But I really do think roe v wade goes too far...
LOL! I gots no problem with sarcasm most of the time, but many of these threads become nothing but rampant angry sarcasm that feeds on itself, growing more and more virulent, to the point of becoming potentially lethal. XD
And you can't leave religion out of it, as it colors most folks reasons and beliefs - but religion itself is not a reason to take one stance or another.
@JamesBomb
The problem is that we often can't detect deformations until later in the cycle.
15 weeks to be exact, and only thru a procedure called, Amniocentesis. It's where they take a sample of the anionic fluid out of the mothers uterus and check it's chromosomes. It's also how we knew we were having a boy (XY)
@stinkfingers, States change from red to blue then back to red and vise versa too frequently. There was a time when the majority of the southern states were blue and most of the north was red (Lincoln), and sooner or later, that time could very well come again. Ohio for example... Blue in 2000, red in 2004. That's just the way the wheel turns. Most of the time, the majority of the nation leans towards one side or the other. It wasn't until just recently that we started to have really close races. That's a good analogy, but I don't think it's very viable.
I think there should be a federal law to regulate the States. Otherwise, the states would get out of hand. California for example would probably seperate from the rest of the US and become a seperate nation. The State of California just surpases France and is now the 3rd largest echonomy in the world. Next to Japan and USA.
@(UF)Chief
Since the majority of the military comes from the red states
California is home to the largest military in the nation and it's as blue as the ocean, despite our republican governor.
The current blue states would probably be a mixture of Mexican, Canadian, and Cuban.
Hells yeah! And proud of it to! You got a problem with Mexicans, Canadians, and Cubans?
@Rabban & (UF)Chief, I do agree with you on that. As I mentioned before, at what point does the fetuses right to life outweigh the woman's right to do what ever she wants with her body. What I'm worried about is if Roe vs. Wade gets overturned, it could open the door for legislation that outlaws Abortions altogether. I don't think that's the answer.
@stinkfingers
Rabban: funny how teen pregnancy percentages are typically higher in red states than in blue states, eh?
That's true...
@JamesBomb, That's true, but if you look at the majority of Pro Lifers, you'll find that most of them are Conservative Republicans and most of the Pro Choicers are Liberal Democrats. I consider myself a Liberal Democrat, (maybe a little conservitive, but still a Democrat) and I'm Pro Life. As mentioned before... I support "first trimester" abortions IF there is the case of Rape, Incest, or the mothers health is in jeopardy. In the case of Rape and / or Incest, I think there should be some medical or legal documentation that supports the claim before an abortion can be authorized.
I wish you had left your post public TMO since I think you addressed stinky's diversion very nicely.
There's a thing about this "the rights of a woman's ownership of her body" question that bothers me. To say its her decision because its her body just doesn't really descibe the situation fully. Sure, her body is going to go through chemical and physical changes, but that little critter inside her isn't her body, its some father's little junior. Maybe my opinion would be different if I had to be the one puking in the mornings and dealing with an aching back and sore feet, but then as a father I'd feel pretty frustrated and angry to hear my wife/girlfriend had had an abortion and I had nothing to say about it.
I can post the gist of it back up...
Funny how teen pregnancy percentages are typically higher in red states than in blue states, eh?
^ this is immaterial to the issue of abortion. I'd be willing to bet that in areas where teen pregnancy rates are higher, that the typical age of married couples is lower. It's a different societal norm, like arranged marriages. My mother was 31 when I was born, I was 32 when I got married (no kids yet). I know two guys who just got married to women their families picked out for them. I used to know a lady whose mother was a grandmother at 34; she had a daughter at 16, who had a son at 18. None of these society situations are Bad, just Different.
Theoretical fun:
What if women laid an egg instead of carrying the fetus? How much would that change the "It's my body" argument? Heh, you could actually give up the child for adoption before birth!
Just a random diversion.
- Bomb…James Bomb
Can the woman survive without the fetus in development? Can the fetus in development survive without the woman?
Actual life VS potential life. It is not for anyone but the woman to decide. Nobody else owns her body.
Persuade her as you are able, but no law should ever be made subjegating the rights of the actual life (the mother) to the potential life (the dependant cluster of cells).
I address here only the first tri-mester. After that things get more complicated.
@ BC
I concur on the thought, but shouldn't that carry through to the father since "it took two to tango"? If he's going to be held financially / morally responsible after the birth, then shouldn't he have a say?
@ Chief
No, because her body is the significant thing here. Its just how things is -the differences of the genders that is.
As men our responsibility is to choose our mates wisely.
LOL!!! And we men have SUCH a wonderful track record at choosing wisely... XD
Heh, we need to fund some truly useful medical breakthroughs to solve this problem.
Her: "I don't want. Besides, with my diabetes, there is a risk to me as well."
Him: "I forbid it! It is my blood, too! You will have that child!"
Doc: "Well, if you want it so bad, the Technology from "Junior" is now possible. Shall we conduct the transfer?"
Him: "Ummmmm...."
. ;) (Just having fun.)
- Bomb…James Bomb
@ BC
LOL - thanks for bringing me back to reality
@James - SOOO, another question is at what point do we impose infertility on ourselves via surgical means? If a woman has diabetes, shouldn't he or she go under the knife to prevent the possibility of pregnancy? That's a decision I'm currently struggling with. Its been strongly recommended that the Mrs not have anymore children since it *could* put her in a wheelchair. So the smart and simple thing to do is have a vasectomy. Buuuuut, we both still hold out onto the notion that if she were able to get herself into shape, lose some weight and, and, and...then we might be able to have another. Or maybe some technology is developed and "lil sister" can be grown somewhere else. Come to think of it, if I were able to carry a child and deliver via C-section, I probably would. Adoption is a possibility, but very expensive and its difficult to get a child at the age we want. We're looking into foster care, so that may prove to be a good solution.
Still, it just bothers me to lose the POWER OF CREATION!!!! <insert reverb>
You just don't want anybody down there with sharp implements... :S
Well - as an alternative we could all move to China and just let the government take care of the question for us.........
@Rabban: Also remember that there are some unpleasant hormonal side-effects when a woman gets "fixed." I'm not sure if it is better or worse for one with diabetes. Besides, accepting to get surgery is never an easy thing to do.
- Bomb…James Bomb
@JB - That's why the question is centering around me and not my wife. "Fixing" her is very intrusive, but for me its just a few snips. <EEK!>
It's not potential life--it IS life! Otherwise there would be no need to abor it--i.e. Kill it. In an age when every human is being accorded more and more rights, how ironic is it that in most states you can abort your own child right up to the moment of delivery for any reason or no reason at all. And how pathetic is it for the pro-abort types to be clinging desparately on to one Supreme Court decision of the 1970s by 9 old male lawyers because they are afraid of what democracy might bring. Roe and bellbottoms suck!
Page : <1> :
: :
Before I start, I should warn you that this thread could potentially get PG-13. But I think it's an important issue that everyone should be aware of, regardless of age.
I had an interesting debate today with some of my other online buddies and I wanted to get your take on it. Check out this e-mail I had forwarded to me earlier today...
From: Strategic Prayer Center [mailto:info@aprophetsreward.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:02 PM
To: Strategic Prayer Alert Center
Subject: SPECIAL MESSAGE FROM ALLAN PARKER, THE JUSTICE FOUNDATION
Dear Partners,
You are about to see history changed right before your eyes !
Below is a letter from a friend/partner of our ministry.
This is the attorney that will be used to change the foundational "corner" stone laws that the entire abortion industry was built upon.
F.Y.I. By changing the foundational law, you begin to crumble the entire structure.
Friends this is real and will be accomplished in this hour, as you stand with Allen and Pray.
Pray for favor and protection over him, his law staff, and his family.
Pray for finances for this law firm.
Pray for the case to be heard.
Bind up the principalities over the U.S. Supreme Court Judges, so that only the influence of God will be over them.
Partners, picketing never worked, but this will, as it is God's will !
Consider partnering with Attorney Allen Parker, a true hero in God's army.
Allen, you are an inspiration to us all !
Blessings, and God's speed!
Team Mission Hollywood
----------------------------------------------
Get the news before it happens !
http://www.prophet.tv
---------------------------------------------
Dear Mighty Men and Women of God:
By Godfs grace the petition to reverse Roe v. Wade is at the printer and we will be filing with the U.S. Supreme Court within a week.
Please pray that Roe v. Wade be reversed.
Below is a prayer alert that you can pray yourself or distribute to your prayer network as you desire.
Thank you and may the Lord bless you and keep you!
ALLAN PARKER
Prayer Alert!
Roe v. Wade Back to the US Supreme Court
Norma McCorvey, the former gRoeh of Roe v. Wade never had an abortion.
She worked in abortion clinics from approximately 1992 to 1995.
Her conscience began bothering her as she faced the harsh truth of abortion which is the destruction of women, children, men and families.
In 1995, she became a born-again Christian and later joined the Roman Catholic Church.
Now she has filed a Rule 60 Motion to vacate and reverse Roe v. Wade.
Represented by The Justice Foundation (www.operationoutcry.org), her Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court will be filed on or about January 17, 2005.
Her lawyers are working on the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court until then, after which the Court will consider whether to hear the case.
This is the time for the whole body of Christ to unite in prayer for the end of the covenant with death that is Roe v. Wade.
Please join us in praying for the following:
1. The Lordfs direction, instruction, counsel, wisdom, provision, health and protection for The Justice Foundation, Norma McCorvey, Sandra Cano (the former gDoeh of Doe v. Bolton, Doe was Roefs companion case which together allowed abortion on-demand and partial birth abortion), and their lawyers, staff, donors, volunteers and prayer supporters and all their families.
2. Confession (Psalm 51), repentance (Psalm 32), revival (II Chronicles 7:14), reconciliation and the end to the gcovenant with death, the agreement with the graveh that is Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Read and pray all the verses of Isaiah 28:14-22.
3. Commit to fast as the Lord leads, and pray everyday until the very end, not just when the cases are filed, but until the decision is rendered publicly in writing and cannot be changed. In 1992, the last time Roe was almost overturned, there were five votes to reverse Roe v. Wade after oral argument. But one justice changed his vote before the opinion became public, and we have had 14 more years of legalized abortion on demand.
4. Pray that the justices will actually read the over 1000 affidavits of post-abortive women and other evidence filed in the case. Pray that a spirit of justice will invade and embolden every justice of the Supreme Court (William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day OfConnor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David Hackett Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen G. Breyer).
5. Pray that all men will come forward and exercise their spiritual authority by praying (between 5am and 7am) for the end of legalized abortion, repent for their role in abortion and for their nation, their families, and those in authority, especially the courts. Pray that women who have had abortions will repent, pray and speak the truth boldly for proper relationships between men and women, and that youth will speak out with passion. Pray for heartbreaking conviction and deep repentance for all Americansf role in abortion.
6. Pray for unity in the body of Christ, and that all Christians would come together on this issue. Pray for heartbreaking conviction and deep repentance for the churchfs role in abortion and the boldness to offer forgiveness and healing for abortion.
7. That the Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States Government, would support Norma McCorveyfs position.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be sure to watch PROPHET TV World Broadcast.
The virtual church of the prophets!
Watch us as together we affect the world!
http://www.prophet.tv
Donate on line!
http://www.prophet.tv/partners.html
This was my reply to that e-mail...
Back ally abortions is the issue here. Do you know how many thousands of women have died a slow and agonizing death because of a botched, back ally abortion? Or have suffered and ended up with the inability to ever conceive again because of a botched back ally abortion? Having the abortion in the first place is bad enough. No sense in making it any worse than it absolutely has to be.
I support abortion to the extent of saving the lives of women who would otherwise end up in a back ally with a coat hanger, and pregnancies that came as the result of rape and/or incest. In those cases, I FIRMLY believe that the woman (or girl) has the right to choose.
I understand that DNA is formed at conception, but the same science has proven that a fetus does not develop neurological activity until it is 12 weeks old. I associate that neurological activity to life, that's why I think there is a12 week God given window of opportunity for a woman to choose.
The central nervous system is developed after 9 weeks. So I guess pain can be felt by the fetus anytime after that, but I don't know how it could be registered as pain if there is no activity in the brain.
The main reason I support the legality of abortions is because of the point I brought up earlier. If it's going to happen anyways, it should at least take place in a safe environment, where the chances of the mothers survival and recovery are pretty much assured.
I also believe the circumstance surrounding the pregnancy should be taken into consideration with more compassion.
Everyday abortion clinics treat women who were raped. Often times, they're young girls who were raped by their own family members or trusted ones. Most of them are women (or girls) who were brutally raped, in many cases, by multiple guys. It's bad enough they had to go thru that horrible trauma in the first place, but to force her to go thru an unwanted pregnancy on top of it is just wicked and cruel!
What if it was your own Mom, wife, sister, or daughter! That baby would be a constant reminder of that horrible experience, whether she adopts it to someone or not! Would you want her to go thru that torment? Would you want to go thru that yourself? I'm sorry, but I think it would take a pretty sick and deluded mind to answer "yes" to any of those questions.
Adoption is for women who get pregnant on accident (irresponsibility), and / or want to help couples who are infertile to have a family. That is not the case with women who are raped, they should get a right to choose!
Incest babies are 99% guaranteed to come out with and eventually die of Chromosome problems. In most cases, it would actually me more inhumane to NOT abort those pregnancies.
That is the reason I'm praying that Roe vs. Wade is not reversed, and that abortion remains legal. At least until we can fine tune the laws...
God bless you,
Dave
Well, apparently my e-mail got forwarded to a bunch of pro life people and they have been bombarding my inbox with comments ever since. It's turned into quite a heated discussion so I thought I'd share it with you guys... What's your take?
Last edited: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at 11:54:26 PM