Since Christians are the chosen ones and they speak for God, then what they believe defines what it "moral" and what is "immoral". This having little to do with actual ethics, but there is some overlap. Murder is generally considered a bad thing in all cultures. Atheists and realists agree with that.

But sex is considered immoral outside the context of Christian marriage, an in the case of Catholics, outside the context of reproduction. (idiots!) Sex is not a form of amusement to Catholics and is look upon as a necessary evil to repopulate the planet. :mad: Birth control is also considered a sin to many Christian cults.

Christian fail to realize that if sex were limited to the context of Christianity, the human race would have become extinct, which would however eliminate sin and keep God from getting pissed off. :D

Sex is a necessary human function. We are the decedents of 3 billion years of sex. There are people who have risen above their instincts to control their sexuality, but those people are not our ancestors. :) We are the decedents of those who failed to control their sexuality, or had no desire to control it. :p It's an instinct homed by billions of years of evolution, and much of our behavior is controlled by our sexual instincts.

Christianity is based on sexual denial and sex becomes the "work of the Devil". It equates sex with evil and irresistible temptations, caused by Satan, to steal the souls of Christians from God and subject you to eternal punishment. Sex is an easy target because when you're not having sex, it seems like bizarre behavior. :) Other instincts, like eating, breathing, drinking seem more natural and one would quickly die if denied. Therefore sex is the best target for redefinition as sin.

But sex is life and without it we wouldn't be here, but Christians have criminalized human reproduction to bring it into the domain of their control. If sex is immoral, the life is immoral.

******

Abortion

On the surface Christian portray themselves as "God's righteous army fighting the evil Satan worshipers who are slaughtering innocent little babies that result from their uncontrolled sexual urges." But in reality, Christians don't care about "the baby" and once they get past preventing an abortion, the mother and child are on their own. :D

The real issue behind fighting abortion is that Christians believe that children (bastards) are God's way of punishing women for being sluts. "Pregnancy is God's way of punishing teenage girls for being sluts. "

But the Christian bastard fetish is also an extension of Christian group sex rituals and an expression of Christian group sexuality as a whole. Christianity is one of the most sexually obsessed religions on the planet. Sexuality permeates Christian rituals. Christians perform a form of sadistic sexual oppression on young girls, waiting for them to sin, and then holding them in public disdain for their sexual evils.

It is Satan, after all, who creates "lust in the heart" so Satan represents the incarnation of Christian sexual desire, and pregnancy is God's punishment for allowing Satan to use their bodies for sexual purposes. A teen carrying a baby allows Christians to entertain themselves with a judgment rituals of the girl who can't "hide her shame".

Guilt and shame sexual rituals are a big part of Christian culture, and the sensation of moral superiority is very addictive and destructive.

Pregnancy and being a young unwed mother label a woman as a slut and allow her to be used as a judgment object and someone to secretly be lusted after as a "bad girl in the church". They become objects of gossip and contribute much entertainment to the Christian community.

Abortion threatens this experience because is allows women to sin without punishment, and thus encourages women to do the Devil's work (have sex) and get away with it. It denies the sexual experience associated with the judgment of the fallen, and the men of the church have no clear way of knowing which young women are sexually active and perhaps available for extramarital activity.

So through Abortion, the congregation is denied the opportunity to take advantage of the young girls in their community. :D

The Abortion issue also gives Christians something to do, something to stand for, to create an identity around and issue. Woman who are pregnant are very vulnerable, especially if they are young. After all, what's a 14 year old pregnant girl going to do? These young girls represent a sexual commodity and abortion turns them back into normal little girls again.

But they are an easy target, and Christianity is a religion for lazy believers who don't want to have to work hard to get their moral fix. Therefore picking on little girls becomes an easy job, as compared to ending poverty and feeding the homeless.

--------------

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED:

If you're not serving Christ, you're serving Satan, and you are the tool of the Devil and serving an evil purpose. :D So the idea of personal liberty and free thinking is the same as giving rights to Satan to be evil. :) Something God would never approve of, but seems powerless to stop.

Obviously, Satan is working through me right now making me write this, and you're being influenced by Satan in reading it. Pray that you don't believe a word I say!

Sex in the Bible is not evil. Like any other physical desire it can cause you to harm others if you allow it to controll you or cause you to do harm careing only about yourself.
Mariage in the Bible was without the service and legal paper work oour government laws require us to have today. Marriage in the Bible consisted of an agreement between partys for such a commitment and was then "closed" by the act of sexual relations. It was also required that if the act of sex took place with out such an agreement of commitment than an agreement was then required.
Do I think sex is wrong...no, of course not. Does sex for the "fun" of it cause tremendouse harm to young teenagers, yes it does and you need not be Christian to realize that. Not only to the children that result from it but to the "children" who are now faced with the responsibility of raising a baby when they can not provide for themselves yet.

Sex with out concern results in betrayal to ones spouse if you are married, break down of your family thereby harming any children yoou already have. And of course we all know about STD's. Either way you need not be a Christian to see that sex with out regard or keeping it under controll of a commited relationship hurts others.
As for abortion, and it is a dangerouse subject to tread on I know...it is in fact murder of an innocent life. There is no way in the world to deny that, religion or no religion. My rights END where someone elses begin. I had a RIGHT to not have sex...I had a RIGHT to protect myself from conception. Just as with anything else, if I forfiet those rights than the consequences are my own, who should be a martyr to save me when I knowingly and willingly brought it upon myself? Certainly not a child who can not speak for itself.
Ever met a woman who didn't know when her "time of the month" was? They write it down, keep calanders in their purse, memorize it a month ahead almost religously so as not to be inconvenienced by "starting" unprepared at the wrong place at the wrong time. Well it is a fact that there is a window of less than a week during which a woman can actually get pregnant. It too can easily be documented by the "other" week she is already documenting and by clear physical signs that the woman has when fertile. Is preventing the life of an unwanted child not more important than haveing to leave a party to go home and change 'cause "you started" ? All a woman has to do is keep up with that week of fertility as faithfully as she does her period.

Naturally, women have a pretty good idea about what "time of the month" it is for them. But this discounts the relatively large amount of women that have irregular periods due to environmental factors or psychological issues. How, <b>Taken</b>, do you propose for these women to counter against getting pregnant? Contraception? Well and good, but some do not wish to take contraception and still do not wish to become pregnant, yet they do. Incest (which was prevalent in the Bible--and I'm not talking about Genesis) and rape (slightly older than prosititution) cause unwanted pregnancies. Should women be forced to bring up the baby, even though the baby is clearly not at fault? I don't think most women would be proud to be carrying around Uncle Larry's child, especially since the life of the child could be further complicated by inbred genes.

Even if you are against abortion, wouldn't you at least prefer an option just in case of rape or incest?

And, about the having a child while still a teenager ... There are plenty of parents, nuclear if you will, that have children and are just as prepared emotionally as teenagers. Perhaps there should be a counseling session before considering kids. The kids, if no one else, would probably prefer that.

BTW, nice post, <b>tony2</b>.

Thanks!

prag

Abortion is murder, the unlawful killing of another human being. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of the discussion.

Sex is God's gift to marriage. God has nothing wrong with sex. He tells us to be fruitful and multiply. I don't know any other way to do that than to have sex. On the other hand, God views sex as a special relationship between a man and a woman. Furthermore, before any studies had proven it, God knew that a two parent household was the best environment for raising a child, therefore he decided that procreation should occur within the bounds of marriage to ensure that future generations would not be cheated, but would be able to enjoy the benefits of two loving parents. This was God's ideal for sex and marriage.

Ever taken a look at a human being during the first trimester? Even the Bible, AFAIK, is unsure as to exactly when the spirit is said to enter the body. For instance, when the cousin of Mary learned that Mary was to conceive the Christ child, it is said (paraphrasing) that little John the Baptist leapt within her belly. This is most likely into the third trimester, at most the second. I don't think the fetus is capable of leaping within the belly during the first trimester.

You talk of murder as if it was a bad thing within your religion. Might want to crack open that Bible of yours and peer into the Old Testament for a bit. See if the God it describes there isn't some vicious, kill-first-check-under-bed-second kind of being. Murder <i>is</i> abominable and you get into some gray areas when discussing abortion. When exactly is a human a human? At conception? If so, then it has nothing to do with physical characteristics. Because of potential to be human in appearance?

Sex is not God's gift to marriage. Again, in the O.T. it was Lot that slept with his two daughters (even though he supposedly wasn't aware of it at the time--:rolleyes: ), thus implying that incest was God's original purpose for sex (see Genesis).

I think the point you're missing entirely is that sex is not intended solely for procreation. If you think so, then make sure you never engage in the unholy acts of oral, anal, or any other kind of sex that does not procreate. In fact, if you can't conceive children, then don't have sex at all, either, else you're using the procreative act for an experience which will not create children.

You don't know of any other way to have children except through sex? Test-tubes work pretty good in cases where some people can't have children. Artificial insemination is another. Cloning is on the up-and-coming.

You're saying that a two-parent household is the ideal way to go when raising kids, eh? Glad to hear you say that--apparently that means that you're all for same-gender parents to raise children, then. I guess you're more open-minded than I originally thought. Though I come from a single-parent household and I'm pretty sure my brothers and I are fairly decent folk.

God's ideal for sex? Not marriage. That was God's ideal for further servitude to him. Sex, like tony2 has said, is an inherent evil in the religion that is, both, disapproved of disproportionately and and entertained relentlessly within the religion. At the same time.

BTW, capital punishment is murder as well. So is euthanasia. And certain fields of gene therapy.

I think it was <i>Southpark</i> that once said (Mephisto): Genetic engineering is our way of correcting God's horrible mistakes.

makaera, when you declare abortion is wrong across the board, then I have to assume that if a dear relative of yours was raped and was carrying child from the rapist, that would be all fine and dandy with you as long as they carried the child full-term. Is that what you're saying? Might want to ask what your relative would think of that before you reply.

Thanks!

prag

... er ... something like that.

Prag: Even if you are against abortion, wouldn't you at least prefer an option just in case of rape or incest? I think what no Christian wants to admit is that they've cornered themselves into saying that rape and incest are correct if God blesses the woman with a child. It's a pretty stiff realization, but that's what a human being--specifically, a woman--is worth to the God of the Bible.

Makaera:Abortion is murder, the unlawful killing of another human being. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of the discussion.Might I inquire as to your location? For instance, I live in the United States, where abortion is a lawful procedure. This practice has gone before our Supreme Court and while there exists no constitutional right to abortion, the "law" that demands abortion be made illegal is, in practice, subordinate to the Constitution, which ensures certain rights, some of which are inherently violated by anti-abortion laws. The "law" of God is not the law practiced here: the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It's a fine distinction, but to classify it as wholly unlawful ignores the practical facts.

To issues and conscience, I can only leave you to your God, as such. And while I do not object to your statements on God and marriage in principle, I can only wonder what significance that bears toward the pressing ideas of God's blessing toward an incestuous conception or conception resulting from forced sexual intercourse.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Fact...the heart is beating by day 24...most women won't even realize they are pregnant till day 28 thru day 30 depending on how regular their period is or how well they keep up with it. Movement can not be accuratly used to asses life. The fetus moves months before it can be felt any way. I do not have a personal opposition to condoms. I am just saying that something so important like a life should be given more seriouse consideration.

We will take vitamins to prevent dietary problems, drink OJ to prevent a cold, spend 100's of dollars to fight ageing.
Abortion is NOT a legitimate form of birth control. If the life of a woman is endangered by pregnancy under a solid medical evidence then I could see it as an option. Not that I think that would justify it, but laying down your life for another, especially your own child although the noble choice is not a commandment or something we can demand someone do.
As for rape and incest, there are adoption alternatives. But the real solution lays in the attitude of low regard and victimization we allow to be placed on women. If as a society we made it unacceptable under ANY circumstances, stiffen punishments to severe harshment and stopped portraying women as sexual objects we could in fact lower the numbers and we know it. I do not just blame men either, a lot of women feed in to and perpetuate the problem for self gain and due to low self esteem and no accountability.

We have to start holding ourselves responsible and not the babys. Yes there has always been incest and rape and adultry. But the fact is that not so many years ago in this country most women married haveing no idea what sex was and before that many not even knowing for sure where babys come from. Knowledge is not always a good thing. In our children we need to protect their innocents. We do them no service by giving them exsposure to ideas and information they are not ready to handle with responsibility.

I find it both disturbing and reassuring that in this country it is mostly men on the front line fighting against abortion. With the way babys are used to capture them, years of mandatory child support in large sums, much of which the mothers do not spend on the children, unable to begin a life long commited relationship often due to that financial bind. Don't get me wrong, they laid down and made that baby and deserve those consequences. But if anyone was gonna want abortion as a regular normal practice you would think it would be the men. But instead it is the mothers, the life giving, loveing, nuturers who are fighting for the right to kill their own babys. I just don't get it.

prag:

My interpretation of Psalm 51:5 is that life begins at birth. The psalmist writes "sinful from the time my mother conceived me." I take this to literally mean that humans are sinful from conception, which means that they must be alive, and therefore killing fetuses is wrong. The God of the Old Testament did approve of some mass murders. In fact he commanded them! I do not dispute this fact. However, he rarely ordered these events, and when he did, he made it very clear when and where it was supposed to happen. These events were his judgement on unbelievers. However, in no place is mass murder allowed on the general case. Did what I say make sense?

BTW, I am against euthanasia, I don't understand what you mean by "certain fields of gene therapy" as I am unfamiliar with that field. I do, however, believe that God has given governments that right to use capital punishment. A careful reading of Romans 13:1-5 will make it clear that God has given the authorities the right to execute people. I do not want to clutter this post by placing those verses here, but if anyone would like me to do so, I can put them in a later post.

About your comments about God's attitude towards sex. I never said that sex was to only be used for procreation. I am sorry if I implied that. What I said was that sex was a gift given to married couples, to be used within the bounds of marriage. That is all I meant. Concerning Lot and his daughters: there are many instances of sin in the bible. Just because the bible records these events does not mean it condones them.

While this is not exactly relevant to the topic at hand, I believe that homosexuality is a sin that is condemned in the bible. Two verses that make this clear are 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you know that the wicked will not inherit that kingdom of God? Do not be decieved: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...

Romans 1:27
Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Finally, while I implied that a two parent household was the best way to raise a child, I in no way intended to imply that anyone who was not raised this way is inferior, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. Certain parts of the bible condone one parent households.

tiassa:

I reside in the United States. However, this does not mean that I like all the laws. I often take advantage of my right to criticise the government and its actions. However, I am curious which of the Constitutional rights would be violated by an anti-abortion law. This is an argument that I have never heard before. Enlighten me.

Finally, I would like to quote another verse from the bible, Romans 8:28

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him who have been called according to his purpose.

That just about sums it up. Thank you.

--------
All biblical quotations are taken from the NIV translation. All spelling errors are mine.

You don't notify a moderator. You click on edit at the bottom right of your post then check "delete" post then click the button off to the right to actually delete it.

Ben

<b>Taken</b>,

Abortion is NOT a legitimate form of birth control. If the life of a woman is endangered by pregnancy under a solid medical evidence then I could see it as an option.

I couldn't agree with you more about abortion not being a good form of birth control. People need to exercise a little intelligence and forethought when it comes to sexual experiences. They need to take measures to insure that pregnancy will not occur and shouldn't (IMO) just step back and say, "Oh well, there's always abortion." Last resort, sure, but not primary consideration.

I think I argue the point of abortion because I believe that there should be choices available for people, especially since this is a gray area (even though many will claim this is a yes or no issue). Personally, I'm not entirely sure what my choice would be on abortion, but I would not like to take that choice away from others.

As for rape and incest, there are adoption alternatives.

Naturally. Adoption is not a bad thing, although I'm sure it can be incredibly traumatic when children are passed over due to physical factors. But I suppose that's a part of life. The important point to make is that adoption is another viable <i>alternative</i>, just as abortion is. The thing I don't understand is that the O.T. God called for and justified the killing of children; the reason why this is different from abortion is because God ordered death because they were not of the fold. So, is the Christian opposition to abortion a way of telling God that they're disagreeing with his positions on certain issues?

<b>makaera</b>,
Hey, a belated welcome, but welcome to SciForums! I might've been a little stiff in that last post.

What I said was that sex was a gift given to married couples, to be used within the bounds of marriage. That is all I meant.

While sex within marriage is admirable and, most likely, expected unfortunately in society, I take issue with your assertion that sex is only intended for marriage. Once again, the definition of sex must be included somewhere. For, oral sex is sex which in no way leads to the conception of children. Anal sex gives pleasure to both but does not create any offspring whatsoever. Masturbation as well as hand manipulation by a partner will produce intense feelings but will not produce children. So, it would seem that only vaginal intercourse by a male would have the possibility of producing children. In which case, it stands to reason that God is against vaginal premarital intercourse only. Ah, but the others fall into the broad category of fornication, you say. But isn't it interesting that one minute, all things sexual are blatantly blasphemous if not performed in a marital relationship, when the next minute it's anything goes! Dance around like monkeys if that's what gets you being fruitful and multiplying, says God. Here's an apt analogy: My brother went on an LDS mission to Brazil (I'm sure you've seen the smartly-dressed young men walking around and preaching--no, not Jehovah's Witnesses!;) ). He told me of one guy on his mission that had been preaching and converting and baptizing for nearly a year before it was realized that he had never been ordained in the first place to do so. Did that mean that they would have to rebaptize those that he had baptized? Of course not. Too much of a hassle. So they decided that God would sort everything out in the end. How does this apply to this topic? Even though God may say that fornication before marriage is evil and should not be practiced, it's technically okay. It all boils down to whom you're speaking with at the time. So, if you get married someday, think about that as you prepare to enjoy your honeymoon night; namely, that just "yesterday" everything was off-limits, but "now" it's somehow all right and expected. Kinda weird, don't you think?

<b>tiassa</b>,
Man, it's been far too long.

The "law" of God is not the law practiced here: the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

You raise an interesting point, to me at least. With the likes of extremists like the one-man-band of tony1 who thinks everyone else is too lax in their beliefs, and other Christian posters who think that tony1 preaches about a heaven they would rather not see, it must be difficult to understand just what Christians stand for. Apparently, it's much easier for Christians to declare what they <i>don't</i> stand for, e.g. abortion, murder, tax evasion. They say love and such, but that's such a foreign concept for tony1 that he still hasn't figured out what love translates to in any one of the nine languages he knows:rolleyes: .

It gets to be such self-limiting disclosures as well. Yeah, yeah, Christians believe that homosexuality, abortion, TOOL, and coffee cake are inherently evil. But, just what in hell is good? Communing with God? Loving their neighbor? Empty words with nothing behind them, especially since loving their neighbor excuses them from facing the paradox of saying that same neighbor is condemned by God because of their flamboyant lifestyle.

It seems to me that the "law" of their God is continually becoming more and more mainstream Christian ethics. It's like fewer and fewer of them try to develop anything within their religion--just stick to the basics and quote feel-good scriptures. Not a lot of thought going behind the study of their own scriptures. Sure, you get cranks like tony1 that show off their ability to manipulate others and attribute that characteristic to a God-given right; then there are the Sir <b>Loon</b>ies, who think that the best way to bring others to the fold are through inane strings of lunacy (yeah, way to go there Sir Loon!).

Truthfully, it was because of some posts by Taken, that I began thinking that not every Christian that comes here is incapable of revising a little part of their thinking. Hell, I can do that, I just did above. It's as if most Christians think that if they give a little in any direction, then they're prime candidates for Satan's influence. Frankly, I think the great majority of Christians are not worthy of Satan's hovering presence. What an ego-bust.

Well, you got me thinking, as you usually do, tiassa. Thanks again for that. And thanks for posting Taken and makaera. Even though we may not agree on certain issues, I enjoy discussing them. I learn new things, you know.

Thanks!

prag

However, I am curious which of the Constitutional rights would be violated by an anti-abortion law. This is an argument that I have never heard before. Enlighten me. ] http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410us113.htm

This is Roe v. Wade, the famous 1973 Supreme Court decision that has become the focus of the abortion debate. From the syllabus: Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.text.html is a link to the Constitution and Amendments. I'd pick out the citations for you but I have to get myself to work oh, right about now. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

My stand against abortion has nothing to do with my being a Christian. It has to do with being a human, and possibly influenced by my being a woman. I say possibly because the fact is that my brothers most of whom take no claim to Christianity also do not condone the idea of abortion. You said you do not wish to take other peoples rights away, is abortion not takeing away the rights of the children it kills? Do those rights not apply to ALL humans? No matter how small. Even an institutionalized person unable to speak for themselves has their rights protected by the government. We protect the rights of murderers and rapist in prison. Even in the case of incest the predator has rights does he not? Why should he be above the new innocent life that was created?
The Bible states that children are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. I do not see that as condoning their murder.

We are effectivly makeing it OK and socially acceptable for people, women especially to take no responsibility for their own actions. Yes they had rights, most of them willingly gave up those rights to get in the situation to start with. We see 40+ women takeing fertility drugs to get pregnant then when there are too many babys present they electivly kill part of them, or when the baby presents with Downs Syndrome or some other anomilie they abort. Most abortions are not due to rape, incest, or the mothers health...just to make the mothers life easier. easy would be NOT getting pregnant to start with.

It takes all of congress and the senate and the president to make a law. Then in the cases of rape or medical harm to a mother, should we not atleast have a review board to decide if it is indeed the lessor of two evils as opposed to drive thru abortions by just anyone who wants one?

You said you do not wish to take other peoples rights away, is abortion not takeing away the rights of the children it kills? I'm inclined, Taken, to ask whether or not you consume caffeine or alcohol, whether you have stairs in your house, and what kind of car (how old) you drive, among other things.

So you carry your sixth child and give birth. Everything seems to go well for nine months and then your child is born with some developmental issue. Perhaps the problem won't manifest for a year or two or even five. But here's the questions: did you consume too much caffeine? How much alcohol can one consume before fetal alcohol syndrome kicks in? What if you're breathing bad air from your own exhaust leak in the car? What if you're breathing ... how many people's exhaust?

I'm happy to draw a line at fetal viability: that is, viable without any equipment beyond that used to accommodate a healthy newborn. But even then, if God wanted them out of your body and functioning as independent creatures, they would be.

All I'm after is the idea of whether or not you understand what happens when you reduce an individual (mother) to the status of human transport and service vehicle. Look at all we know about "how to have a healthy baby". If that "child" is a human being entitled to its full constitutional rights when it is merely a dividing cell, what rights has the mother left?

***
PROSECUTOR: Ms Taken, when did the cramping begin?
TAKEN: About midnight. I was in bed.
PROSECUTOR: And how were you laying in bed?
DEFENDER: Objection.
JUDGE: Overruled. The witness will answer.
TAKEN: I slept on my ____ (back/side/whatever)
(General gasp from audience and jury.)
JUDGE: Order, order.
PROSECUTOR: Do you always sleep on your ____, Ms. Taken?
DEFENDER: Objection. Counsel cannot ask witness to incriminate herself.
***

If you miscarried, Taken, would you be willing to endure a murder investigation? Because more often than not, they will be able to show that the carrier's living habits included behaviors which were not to the benefit of the developing citizen, and therefore we might sign off the death certificate as Homicide by Neglect.

What happens if you slip on the floor in socks? Or trip and fall down the stairs? A murder charge because you were looking to see what that sound you heard was when you tripped? Too bad, your mind wasn't on your duties toward that citizen inside you, and therefore your negligence resulted in events which contributed to the death of said citizen.

I know it seems like a good thing to many people to stop the horrendous, evil doctors from harming all those innocent people, but the truth of the matter is that nobody will reproduce except for the irresponsible or stupid. How many people are going to surrender their constitutional rights just so they can spend eighteen years frustrated and in debt?

Incidentally, it's already happened that a controlled-substance charge was overturned in Missouri: the defendant, aged 20 years and four months at the time of his arrest, demonstrated that under Missouri law, he was 21 years, 1 month old, and therefore legally entitled to be in possession of alcohol.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa your point is well taken. I however learned years ago that it wasn't something in the water. LOL I know exactly what causes pregnancy and if I knowingly get pregnant or put myself in a position of getting pregnant than I have with full knowledge made a choice to take on responsibility for another humans life.

If I was an alcoholic or a crack addict, then common sense dictates my lifestyle by choice is not one for which haveing a baby would be a priority and I have the choice to NOT get pregnant.
That is why we need to get the decision of getting pregnant and the importance of responsible sexual practices back in to perspective. As a society we create and sustain what is acceptable and what is taboo. Not long ago, irresponsibility of sex and conception was a taboo...we as a whole slackened those restraints and we as a whole must once again tighten them.

YOU pay for the thousands of government institutions that are now filled with children born with special needs. YOU pay for the juvenile detention centers now filled with kids whose parents let them run wild and then didn't want to deal with them or be bothered by them. YOU pay for all the kids on welfare, not due to lost jobs or disabled parents who found themselves in need of a little help unexpectedly...but thousands of kids born to women who were not married, did not intend to marry and knew full well they could not support the children.

If we made family a priority again, put some of the old taboos about premarital sex and unwed birth back in place...it would no longer be so openly acceptable that these "kids" and self-serving single women could pump out babys just because they can, or even worse just to raise the amount of their welfare check. It hurts the Babys, but it also hurts our country and each of us as a whole. We aren't even talking orphanages, foster homes, free clinics, ......if we just eliminated the three institutions of child welfare in my previouse paragraph, your bring home pay would increase by atleast 15%.

The answer is not to make it easy to kill the babys, the answer is to make it non-acceptable to create a life you do not want.

The answer is not to make it easy to kill the babys, the answer is to make it non-acceptable to create a life you do not want.I don't think you'll get any debate from me on that point. We might differ a few degrees on the word "easy", but I think we'll find essential agreement.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by makaera
Abortion is murder, the unlawful killing of another human being. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of the discussion.

Sex is God's gift to marriage. God has nothing wrong with sex. He tells us to be fruitful and multiply. I don't know any other way to do that than to have sex. On the other hand, God views sex as a special relationship between a man and a woman. Furthermore, before any studies had proven it, God knew that a two parent household was the best environment for raising a child, therefore he decided that procreation should occur within the bounds of marriage to ensure that future generations would not be cheated, but would be able to enjoy the benefits of two loving parents. This was God's ideal for sex and marriage.

Abortion is not murder!

Abortion: An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual beign. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the un-born).

Abortion is a moral right--which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has "right to life". A pice of protoplasm has no rights--and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concers only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. Observe that by ascribing ritghts to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For consciotious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone's benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbiding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.* Ayn Rand

Abortionists picket the abortion clinics, one day a very young teenager walked up to her mom at the picketing line in front of the clinic, the little girl was supprised to see her mom there, so was the mother, she asked "what are you doing here?" The little girl looked at her mom, saw what her mom was doing, and she stood in silence, her mom demanded an answer "tell me!!" The little girl crying told her mom "I'm pregnant!!!!"

What happens next?

***I think what no Christian wants to admit is that they've cornered themselves into saying that rape and incest are correct if God blesses the woman with a child.***

Rape and incest are not correct. I think the corner I'm in admits that all life is precious and unique. The child conceived during rape or incest is no less human than you or I and, I believe, should have as much right to live as you and I.

Originally posted by blonde_cupid
***I think what no Christian wants to admit is that they've cornered themselves into saying that rape and incest are correct if God blesses the woman with a child.***

Rape and incest are not correct. I think the corner I'm in admits that all life is precious and unique. The child conceived during rape or incest is no less human than you or I and, I believe, should have as much right to live as you and I.

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual beign. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the un-born).*Ayn Rand*

Godless,

Yes. I read what you wrote. I don't agree with Rand on this issue.

Rand calls the embryo the not-yet-living. This is a false characterization of an embryo. The embryo is already living, otherwise, there would be no need to kill it to prevent it from becoming a mature human being.

Human growth and development is a gradual process. An embryo is a human being in a most fragile and defenseless beginning stage of its growth and development. Human beings continue to develop from fertilization through adulthood. Prescribing a non-living status to an embryo is, to me, no different than prescribing a non-living status to an infant or a toddler or a prepubescent adolescent or a teenager since they are all various but different stages of the growth and development of a unique human being which is not-yet-mature.

The embryo is a unique being. Once it is killed, a unique life has been ended which cannot be replaced. Once it is killed, it becomes the not living... the dead.

Rape and incest are not correct. I think the corner I'm in admits that all life is precious and unique. The child conceived during rape or incest is no less human than you or I and, I believe, should have as much right to live as you and I.And here we hit an interesting issue: whose right is right?

By establishing the idea of a "child" at conception, instead of what it is--two cells with certain and approximately predictable potential--creates a circumstance where legalistically we must now consider whose rights take precedent. It's well enough to reduce women to breeding machines and to say that they must "live with the choices they make". But when we enter the idea of rape and incest, we're entering a gray zone of principles. In the case of rape, we can note that, like believing in God, the "choice" made by a rape survivor to be raped is, specifically, not to die or be maimed. You know, that free will decision to be raped?

In the case of incest, there are other areas at play. I'm reminded of the line from National Lampoon's Vacation: "Daddy says I'm the best kisser of 'em all." I'm not sure that in certain incestuous unions both persons are knowledgeably consenting. If a child is taught to make decisions according to poor criteria, at what age do we start holding that child responsible? Breeding age? Tell me a menstrual twelve year-old who has accommodated her daddy for years knows that what she's doing is not proper.

So with rape and incest, I don't see the same easy out that comes with living with one's choices.

What choice has been made by the rape victim who is pregnant? What choice has been made by the young girl who doesn't yet understand how she got pregnant? Here we find the problems of speaking of rights.

So to award rights to the "child" at the time of conception, we reduce women to factory status. Even having an adverse emotional reaction to an unfounded insult can be unhealthy to the child. Is it a violation of that child's right to an ideal developmental environment? Or we could manifest the child's right to life by simply extracting it from the mother and playing Variations on Sparta.

Rights transcend processes. That's part of the problem. Rights are not a concrete reality, but a conventional one. We might ask what that "child's right to life" includes. Room? Board? A smoke-free environment? Well, if that "child" is an independent citizen with rights, then that child is an independent citizen with responsibilities, and owes the woman for housing it, as well as both parents for the carnal labor.

If we establish what that right to life includes, it may not be so much to ask. But I'm guessing that we're not that coldly practical, though such an examination might prove worthwhile.

Think of it this way: you're giving that "child" more rights than he has when he is actually born.

In the practical realm of legalisms, the idea of rights is a sticky and complex one. Fundamentally, all people have rights. The way to undermine this is to start stretching the definition of what people are.

My cousin, about nine years younger than I, has a small scar on his leg obtained in utero during an amniocentesis. Does he have the "right" to sue for the damage? After all, if his older sister hadn't been a Down's Syndrome child, the test probably would never have been run; had his test shown irregularities, he might not have been born. In the end, we can demonstrate from the observation of the subject that the test was unnecessary and reactionary to prior cause. Seems a pretty stupid reason to start sticking a child with needles. Why bother?

On the flip side, I endured a bioethics class in high school which raised the question of reproduction and retardation. Should genetically-deviant retardations be subject to sterilization?

And there we see a third place in which consent is not established as genuine. So what to do with a pregnancy there?

In the end, I think the legalisms need to be hammered out before we go relegating women to livestock. It's always nice to have an idea of the value we're getting in the trade.

Now, I've only addressed the legalisms. Of those issues more divine, I can only point once again to the principle that God chooses to bless these births that result from rape, incest, and the more instinctive matings among those not demonstrating capacities to operate independently within society. I can see why God would want more retarded people in the population: it kind of reminds me of the dependence He wished of Adam and Eve. But I don't see why He should bless a union He has condemned (incest), nor why women are so worthless to Him that he should visit the iniquity of rape upon them (by His Will, a point I'll drop when other idiocies stop being described as His Will) and bless them with thereby with a child.

Of course, with such an example before us, I can see why many of the faith are rushing to hurl women back into the wallow.

If rape and incest are not correct, why, then, does God bless so many of these wrongs with offspring?

You and I might agree on the wrongness of forced or incestuous union, it's just that it seems we might be at odds with the Lord Almighty.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

If any of you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix--and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality--and that a human being's life begins at birth.
The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it is a question of the entire life of the parents. AS I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an
impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drdgery, of slavery to a child's physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover is even worse.
I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women's intencity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves "pro-life."
By that right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?
A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as " arational animal," would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of "person" to a few human cells. *Ayn Rand*

The women & men who claim to be "pro-life", are murderers of human dignity, when a woman is the owner of her own body, therefore owner of her own choices. The anti-abortionists are giving rights above the life of the woman whom is living, totally trampling the womann's right to choose what happens to her life, and her body.
*Godless*

tiassa,

***By establishing the idea of a "child" at conception, instead of what it is--two cells with certain and approximately predictable potential--creates a circumstance where legalistically we must now consider whose rights take precedent.***

The above brought with it the reminder of the evolution of a philosophy which I have lived to witness over the past few decades… The philosophy which used to be termed pro-abortion and which is now termed pro-choice.

It used to be that the pro-abortion camp would argue, philosophically, for an arbitrary point at which life begins. However, abortion activists faced a formidable opponent… The unified stance of mainstream science and mainstream religious/faith belief which held that life begins at conception. While everyone is certainly entitled to hold their own philosophical beliefs, when we are dealing with the question of “life” I think we should be as certain as possible in defining when life begins.

Putting religious faith beliefs and philosophical theories aside, when does human life begin? Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a discipline where there is no controversy and no disagreement about the answer to this question . Embryology books studied in medical school give only one set of facts concerning this issue. As a matter of fact, the more science learns about fetal development, the more science confirms that every human’s individual life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his/her father’s sperm and his/her mother’s ovum. This being is not dead. It is not just two cells. It is a unique being which is totally distinguishable from any other living organism. It is complete in all its human characteristics including the 46 human chromosomes. From the time of fertilization, the being is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing. Nothing new will be added from the time of fertilization until death, even if death does not occur until this person is an old man or woman, except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All this tiny human being needs is time to develop and mature. Looking at the scientific facts in this case we must conclude that each individual human life begins at conception and from that point forward, human life is a continuum through death.

When abortion was first legalized in this country, however, very few people knew much about fetal development. That is, most did not realize that the answer was scientifically clear. So, it was not only a religiously held belief that life begins at conception, it was also a fact which was easily demonstrated scientifically. Here, we actually had a matter with which both religion and science agreed… that human life begins at conception. Given the united front consisting of both science and religious/faith belief, the pro-life camp did not have much of a problem convincing an audience that the fetus was human life. Matter-of-factly teaching the reality of human growth and development - that we begin a conception - was very effective, and the conclusions made by the more-educated public was that abortion obviously kills a living human… and, since killing a living human is bad, we must stop abortion. In effect, during the first couple of decades after abortion was legalized in the U.S. and Canada, the pro-life camp was able to present abortion as primarily a civil and human rights issue… and, the more the pro-life camp continued to educate the public about the scientific facts of the matter, the more rapidly the pro-life movement gained momentum. By the late 1980’s or so, the pro-life camp was showing signs that it would soon win the battle.

By that time, however, abortion had grown into a profitable industry (with the potential for even more profitable offspring industries) and, in order to survive, the abortion industry needed to do something to counter the conclusions now being made by an educated public. The abortion industry needed a new approach… a new question, if you will. Realizing that they were no longer dealing with a public that was ignorant about the facts concerning human growth and development, and having no solid ground on which to argue that the fetus was not a human being, what did they do?

After much market research, the abortion industry first decided that it would be best to leave the life of the baby out of it altogether - and demanded that pro-abortion activists stop debating the facts - because when the facts about abortion were debated, the pro-life camp won. Second, the abortion industry appealed to emotion and changed the question from the factually answered “When does life begin?“ to the emotionally charged “Who decides… the woman or a male-dominated government?” The new question which was developed by the abortion industry came at a great cost to both the abortion industry and society. After investing heavily in market research, the abortion industry switched to expensive advertising and the new theme of the abortion industry’s multi-billion dollar advertising campaign was presented at the expense of many. By abandoning the scientific facts concerning the beginning of human life, by abandoning the rights of the babies and by abandoning the rights of the fathers, the abortion industry cleverly succeeded in changing the terms of the debate to focus strictly on the question of a woman’s right… to choose. Although pro-life continued to be pro-life, the pro-abortion camp now became the pro-choice camp in an emotionally charged game of capitalistic semantics, placing a woman’s rights above all others.


***And here we hit an interesting issue: whose right is right?***

Coming full circle, this is a very interesting question which I plan on addressing here shortly.

Fetus is a "life" until it breaths!!:cool: What your attempting to do is give rights to the "yet unborn" a potential as Ayn Rand pointed out is not a living human beign!. Therefore your quest is to give rights to the non-existent!. We'r talking here about the first three months of pregnancy, abortion after this period is a great risk to the woman involved!.

What was all the controversy that the US had against RU486? The pill from Urope that would abort pregnancy. It was the closed mindedness of our religious manipulated goverment, once again being the terror that it is, and protecting the industry you so much hate. In the long run though the US finally is coming to terms with the idea of RU486 and it will probably be widely available, in the abortionist clinics.

The industry as you call it, actually hit upon a valid point!. It is the choice of the woman who is involved, not anyone else's, It is her body, her life, and her future we are not the decission maker of her future, her body, and her health. Anti-abortionists have no legal argument for the unborn, without giving the consideration, that the woman involved has no rights to her body, her future, or her health!. What your advocating is to trample the "rights" of the living woman over the rights of a pontential.

Godless,

***I don't believe a...
Fetus is a "life" until it breaths!!***

Just as Rand is entitled to hold an erroneous philosophy, so are you entitled to hold an erroneous belief.

However, Rand's philosophy and your belief do not change the fact that, as nature would have it, every human being resides in his or her mother's uterus during the earliest stages of life.

Biologically, your human life began when your father's sperm fertilized your mother's ovum.

It was the human "you" who continued to grow inside your mother's uterus.

It was the human "you" that was alive inside your mother's uterus.

Had "you" been killed during an abortion your human life would have ended and we would not have had the pleasure of knowing the very unique "you".

Blonde_cupid,

I agree that a potential human life begins at conception, that cannot be disputed, but -

It is complete in all its human characteristics including the 46 human chromosomes. From the time of fertilization, the being is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing. Nothing new will be added from the time of fertilization until death, even if death does not occur until this person is an old man or woman, except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. Is not true.

Gender for example is determined by the correct balance of the sex hormones and that is determined as part of the growth process and certainly not particularly early. And the process is not particularly reliable. The X/Y-chromosomes mix often indicates gender, but a significant proportion of people have the opposite gender to that implied by the X/Y combination. Also, if neither sex hormone dominates then neither gender will be apparent; these people are known as hermaphrodites (about 1 in every 2000 people). These people have a terrible time since their outward appearance might be of one gender but their sex organs are of the other. Usually neither set of sex organs develop properly or they might have both. Surgery in these cases is very rarely successful, and psychological issues are nearly always present. Numerous other variations in the balance of the sex hormones during the early months give rise to the varying degrees of homosexuality. There are a number of other processes that are not mapped at conception that can give rise to many distortions, mutations, or incorrect full development as the pregnancy proceeds.

My point is that fertilization certainly indicates a beginning, but the end result is certainly not conclusive at that time.

But does this matter to the essentials of your argument? Yes but not entirely. My statement is really an effort to be accurate and to emphasize that your claim is not as clear-cut as you would like to think. The real issue I see is the lack of responsibility taken by so many people over the creation of a new life, whatever it turns out to be. And the solution here will not be available until we develop a far wiser, sophisticated, and advanced society where ‘accidental’ or ‘unwanted’ pregnancies never occur.

In the meantime these ‘mistakes’ do occur and we have to develop processes to deal with them. Life clearly begins at conception, but its characteristics are extremely different to that of a newborn fully developed child.

If I place 4 wheels on the ground and some metal, some plastic, and some screws, have I the right to call that a car? No of course not, all I have are some of the building blocks. The final result is quite different.

A viable human life and the path to its existence also goes through a construction process using basic building blocks.

At what point in the construction of a car would we claim it is clearly a car? The same difficult question must also be answered for the construction of a human being.

Cris

However, Rand's philosophy and your belief do not change the fact that, as nature would have it, every human being resides in his or her mother's uterus during the earliest stages of life. This is why when pressed to acknowledge a line that I would draw, had I my druthers, I would try to strike a compromise at fetal viability.

And that's more toward rights and legalism: religiously-derived moral objections to abortion are a priori, in my opinion, as is the whole of any religious presumption.

So fetal viability becomes an interesting target point here; after all, as I noted, it is a complex issue to award the rights of citizenship to an incomplete mass of cells:Rights transcend processes. That's part of the problem. Rights are not a concrete reality, but a conventional one. We might ask what that "child's right to life" includes. Room? Board? A smoke-free environment? Well, if that "child" is an independent citizen with rights, then that child is an independent citizen with responsibilities, and owes the woman for housing it, as well as both parents for the carnal labor. On a lighter note, I'm surprised that the pro-life crowd that also tells their children about "earning their keep" in the family haven't connected these two points. Perhaps because it's a little extreme, but that's the point. Integrity at this point is a hard thing to manage. (You'll notice what happens if we take any societal result out of its context and apply the process elsewhere: nightmares. Variable factors, after all, create variable results.)

Here's an interesting moralism: vascectomies and tubal ligation. Now what about these? Like suicide, aren't you rejecting what God gave you? (Hi, God? I didn't want to foster an abortion, and I wanted to f--k like a racehorse, so I chose to reject the faculties you have given me because they were bad things.) Truly, though, I don't foresee a conflict of rights here.

So what to do about this conflict of rights? As a broader idea, does "woman" once again take a back seat to someone else? It's the common societal solution, as such. But, seriously, what is the balance? Without jest, since the most disputed question is rape & incest, do we prosecute the baby upon birth for civil rights violations and conspiracy? Okay, second thought tells me there's a bit of jest there, but if a solution becomes that ridiculous in its extrapolated application, hmmm ....It was the human "you" who continued to grow inside your mother's uterus.

It was the human "you" that was alive inside your mother's uterus.

Had "you" been killed during an abortion your human life would have ended and we would not have had the pleasure of knowing the very unique "you".On the one hand, you're quite right. To the other, this is one of my favorite distortions of the abortion debate. All I'm after here is that we look at the flip side.

* Crack house, bad circumstances, woman gives birth. At five years old, he shoots a little girl to death because that's how you solve problems. Had his mother had an abortion ...? (Well, except for the abortion question, that is a true story out of the Seattle area ... I'm not sure the mother was ever accounted for in that investigation.)

Yes, I know it's a little ridiculous. But I've heard the, "Well, you would have aborted Beethoven" argument before (or was it Bach?) and so forth. But what about Hitler, Pol Pot, or Ronald Reagan? Let's get less melodramatic: consider Thomas Dorismond, shot to death at point blank range by undercover police for the crime of not having drugs on his person ....

Yes, that too is ridiculous. But in the same way the point of, "You never would have been born" is ridiculous. It's a given, and its flip-side gets no consideration.

Let me say, though, that on a purist level I contest nothing of your post, Blonde Cupid. But I'm not a purist of anything, so what issue I take has to do with the application of the ideas. You're not wrong; I'm just not sure you're right, per se. It's a sticky situation, and there's no real out that doesn't invite a mess of human functional difficulties that could have and should have been avoided entirely.

Of course, could haves and should haves don't mean much compared to what is. It's all idealistic.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Godless I in no way think a womans body is not her own...and it is her responsibility to utilize her right to not get pregnant to begin with. Pregnancy is NOT accidental, it is not something in the water, if you are old enough to have sex than you are old enough to know where babys come from.

Have you ever seen an ultrasound? The "non-breathing" life inside of me, sucks his thumb, swallows amniotis fluid, has facial exspresions, turns rolls and moves. His heart could be seen clearly beating by my first ultrasound at 7 weeks. For those familiar with the fact that gestation and term are varied by 2 weeks, that means that by just 30 days after actual fertilization of the egg you could SEE the heart beating, and the "fetus" moveing around.
He responds to my voice and movements....and now with his hearing more acute he responds to his three year old brother talking to my stomach.
The actual transition from an egg being fertilized to a recognizable, viable life takes place at an amazingly rapid rate. Litterally doubling and tripiling in size and detail every hour. That fertilized cell triples in size in meare hours...not months.
Yes women have a right to their own bodys...they have a RIGHT to keep it to themselves. The moment that egg implanted in my uterus my blood began to flow thru it, and it was at that very second MY CHILD.

When does life begin?

* In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question before us here: When does human life begin? Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

* "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."

* Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

* Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

* Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

* Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."

* Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling _Roe v. Wade_, "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."

* Professor Eugene Diamond: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."

Cris,

***I agree that a potential human life begins at conception, that cannot be disputed***

Human life begins at conception. That can be disputed philisophically, not scientifically, by adding words such as "potential". Scientifically, it is clear that life begins at conception.

***Is not true.***

I beg to differ. Growth and development takes place through around age 25, however, nothing new is added. A minor point about the sex indeed. Although the sex might not be readily apparent in the earliest stages of life, the individual is sexed (male, female or hermaphrodite).

***My point is that fertilization certainly indicates a beginning, but the end result is certainly not conclusive at that time.***

Fertilization is not just a sign, symptom or signification of a beginning, Cris. Fertilization deomonstrates with precision, the point where life begins. Fertilization is the beginning of an individual's life and the end result is conclusive. That person will continue to live until he or she is either killed or dies from natural causes.

***Life clearly begins at conception***

Yes. It is not potential life. It is not "a" beginning. It is "the" beginning of a human being's life.

***...but its characteristics are extremely different to that of a newborn fully developed child.***

The only difference is growth and development. One can also consider as extreme the differences between an infant and a fully developed adult. The physical characteristics which you are alluding to are differences in states of maturity in the life of a human being and in no way should be used as justification for the taking of human life.

I agree that there are many problems which society needs to address and resolve. However, I do not think the answer should be turning a blind eye to the scientific facts about life in order to carry out the legalized, violent murder of the most defenseless human beings among us.

There have got to be, and there are, other ways of dealing with society's problems. The question is, as a scociety, are we willing to face the truth and make a better effort?

Who was on that subcommittee? Is the text available online?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade): "Abortion has been founded on lies and deception from the very beginning. ... All I did was lie about how I got pregnant. I was having an affair. It all started out as a little lie. I said what I needed to say. But, my little lie grew and grew and became more horrible with each telling. Sarah and Linda's [the attorneys in Roe v. Wade] eyes seemed blinded to my obvious inability to
tell the same story twice. It was good for the cause. It read well in the newspapers. ... With the help of willing media and the credibility of well-known columnists, the lie became known as the truth these past 25 years. ... I did not go to the Supreme Court on behalf of a class of women. I wasn't pursuing any legal remedy to my unwanted pregnancy. I did not go to the federal courts for relief. I went to Sarah Weddington asking her if she knew how I could obtain an abortion. She and Linda Coffey said they didn't know where to get one. They lied to me just like
I lied to them. Sarah already had an abortion. She knew where to get one. Sarah and Linda were just looking for somebody, anybody, to further their own agenda. I was their willing dupe. For this, I will forever be ashamed." -- Norma McCorvey, "Roe" of Roe v. Wade, (CHATTANOOGA FREE PRESS, 3/24/97)

tiassa,

I know the full text can be ordered from a number of library sources. Most on-line sites carry only a few years. When I get more time, I'll try to find the text on line.

Blonde Cupid

The information is very interesting. By establishing a human being at conception, that human being receives the full complement of rights and responsibilities. Those rights cannot supersede any other person's rights. The right to Life mentioned in the Preamble cannot take precedent over any other right, for included with that right is Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It creates an interesting situation; certainly, the fetus cannot live outside the mother, as such, but therein lies a problem: that right to Life intrudes on rights of another person. As twisted as it seems, that's the way it has to work, or else you create circumstantial precedents to start chipping away those very rights.

In terms of Norma McCorvey, I remember reading that bit when it was hot news; I'm not sure it changes anything, really. While the circumstances of "the lie" did not apply to Ms McCorvey in her own retrospect, those circumstances certainly described a real condition in society upon which the court noted the suspension of people's Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. I would have to see an analysis of how the lies undermine the ideas of the affected constitutional rights. It sounds to me as if the "class" existed with or without McCorvey. If people want to throw McCorvey in prison for perjury, I suppose that's fine. But, given that the "class" existed, the attorneys would have eventually found their poster child, and the decision would have been the same.

Sometimes rights suck. Especially other people's.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

More on the lies of legalized abortion:

"The three most influential people in the legalization of abortion on demand in the United States joined forces with the largest, most unified pro-life alliance to date, Shake the Nation Back to Life. The second ad in the Shake the Nation campaign delivers a cultural message that is unprecedented and features:
· Norma McCorvey, who was the “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade;
· Sandra Cano, the “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, Roe’s companion case that legalized late-term, including partial birth, abortions;
· and Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), the group that announced in 2001 a $40 million campaign to block President Bush’s pro-life judicial nominees and all pro-life legislation.
The TV spot shows McCorvey, Cano, and Nathanson, all now pro-life, boldly declaring: “Abortion is a lie.” The spot is scheduled to air on Fox, MSNBC, and CNN through January, the 29th anniversary of Roe v. Wade."

I woke up on the couch a few minutes ago and this ad was on. What a coincidence.

www.shakethenation.org

I well hear and follow the line you're after, but I'm curious how it relates to the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment.

A) Should we lock up Norma McCorvey for her perjury? (Maybe at a 20:1 ratio for all the years of incorrect law the courts have enforced? Perhaps 580 years, give or take?)
B) Does that perjury change the existence of the class represented in the suit?
C) Does that perjury change the court's determination that the anti-abortion statutes in question violated the aforementioned constitutional fights?

To that last point, if the we did it all over again and started with someone truly represented by the circumstances McCorvey alleged, would it change anything?

I don't think so. But I'm open to any evidence to the contrary.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I am against abortion, unless it is because of special circumstances. But I ask you this, if a fetus is considered alive and human at the moment of conception, why do we not hold funerals for miscarriages?

"if a fetus is considered alive and human at the moment of conception, why do we not hold funerals for miscarriages?"

A funeral, as you consider it, is a time to look back and remember someone's life. Since the baby never lived in the world there is nothing to remember.

I believe there is an intimate service of sorts between the family and the minister in such cases.

Ben

Xelios ... sorry mate but we do hold funeralsfor miscarriages... I attended my twin daughters funeral not more than a year or so ago.

As for abortion, I am against it unless rape, serious illness, deformity, etc are involved.
I believe its the choice of both the mother and the father, I am sick of the feminist attitude that denotes men have no say in what happens to a child while its growing inside a woman.
Regardless of circumstances, tis part of the man too, its his DNA his love his creation just as much as a womans.
I dont give a rats butt where my child is , he/she is still my child too.
I would love to reverse the roles and have women be as legally victimised as a man is when it comes to pregnancy abortion and freedom of choice.

As far as sex is concerned, if Sex is not supposed to be done for fun then why the hell does it feel so good? why would your god make it so enjoyable and so easy to obtain, why not make it so urges are only present for both parties when a woman is on heat? (he he)
Just wondering what the catholic churches stance is on mastubation?

Cheers
RazZ:bugeye:

I fully support abortion, it is the women's body, she's the one who has to bear the pain of child bearing, it is fully her dicision. No man nor church, nor goverment has a right to make women breed as cattle. She's a person, and if she decides to abort, I fully would understand, I've paid for, and do not regret, her decision to abort the one woman who would have bore a child of mine. If she had decided to have a child, I would have also been responsible for child bearing, and everything that goes with fatherhood.

A note though!, I do kind of regret that she decided to abort. For I have no sons nor doughters. I'm still single, and the chance of me having a spouse that would bear one of my children seem slim. However I've learned to live with it!, and do truly understand it was her decision, not mine!.

Xelios ... sorry mate but we do hold funeralsfor miscarriages... I attended my twin daughters funeral not more than a year or so ago.

Sorry Razz, I had no idea they do happen. I have never seen one or heard of one, but I guess now I have.

I do agree with you on abortion, it is not right unless there are special circumstances (ie. rape, serious illness).

Godless, I can see where you're coming from, but at the same time I could say the women has no right to literally kill the child she is carrying because it is not convenient for her. If through casual sex she get pregnant, she should have no right to punish her unborn child for her mistakes.

However first this: Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a "right to life." A pice of protoplasm has no riths--and no life in the human sense of the term. *Ayn Rand*

However here is why abortion should always remain legal, not only cause it's morally right, but the teen problem whcich grows every year:

http://www.aclu.org/library/parent.html

Xelios

Without jest ...If through casual sex she get pregnant, she should have no right to punish her unborn child for her mistakes.Again ... without jest, what basis is there for this statement? A parent has every right to punish a child for the parent's mistakes. It's a sacred right upon which most, if not all, parental relationships are based.

Yes, this is a greater stake, but it does not help it avoid the idea of a clash of rights. Certainly, that cellular mass/fetus/child has a "right to life", but so, too, does that woman have a right to self-determination. We might, then, apply a bit of wisdom from Solomon and go Spartan: give that entity its right to life and remove it from its station inside another person. If it lives, it lives. If not, well ....

The idea that the parent has no right to punish a child for the parent's mistakes is false in life; are we separating pregnancy from "life"? We may have come full circle as to when life begins.

Perhaps, then, we should set a standard of "independent" life? But that will not work, for the decisions of what to do with that life will be invested still in the mother, and not the law, so long as that life is not "independent".

Just as the human efforts to save a premature-born child might constitute God's will in the world, so, too, does an abortion. Whatever factors influence that mother's decision--and as we see in Job that might be the Devil itself--the outcome is still God's will.

In 1997, National Geographic released a population issue; a friend still has the map on her wall. I recall reading that 1.7 billion (out of an estimated even 6.0) people were without access to clean drinking water. Some of these people will never know what that is in their lifetimes. This, too, is God's will.

God wills tragedy in every waking heartbeat; every passing moment of the Universe experiences some heartbreak or injustice. We can try to affect the balance of those things, but a price is paid somewhere. In the history of mixing religion with law, we have seen more harm than good; in the ethical considerations of rights and those without voice, justice is both blind and deaf.

The only way to solve the abortion tragedy, if any solution exists at all, is to educate the population, and prepare them, so that such issues come up rarely, if at all. We can't stop all the psychos, and thus the pregnancies by rape, but we can make people a little less neurotic in their decision-making as regards sexuality and reproduction.

Of my generation, let me say that all of my friends who have reproduced did so irresponsibly. Their children will suffer for their entire lives because of their parents' mistakes. When I think of all the thought these kids will devote to artificial issues brought on by finance and morality and the generally poor execution of parental duty I see around me, I wonder how much that costs us economically in lost labor potential; or, to be a little more human about it, how many of my neighbors are drowning only because they got thrown into the water before they knew how to swim.

If we think these artificial issues don't affect things, we might look to history and see how preoccupation with pettiness inspires wars. How narrow, inflexible views of finance and economy destroy whole nations of people. It's not so much abort now to save suffering later, because that just doesn't work. But do you understand how much else we see from exploring this issue? The Universe will play out its balance, one way or another. The only way to break this cycle is to shake off the moral accretions of bygone eras and attempt to rebuild with fresh, objective eyes.

Give me a generation without sexuality being demonized, and I'll stand aside while as many stupid abortion laws as we can pass go rushing through. Give me a generation without liberty profaned, and I'll trust those abortion laws to be just and not stupid. It's a rebuilding process: give me a generation without greed as its first calling and I will give you a hopeful tomorrow and a genuine today.

Such a vital problem as abortion cannot be solved without considering the whole of all factors contributing to it. Education, economy, and superstition all play necessary roles. The fact that we humans are animals contributes as well.

Parents punish children in life; what do we call it in the womb, before life? And what, then? So it's life, and yes, that "child" will be punished for the parents mistakes every day they are alive, in one way or another. The drastic difference between misbehaving because of bad instruction and being aborted steps aside on the scales of justice. The idea of the parental mistake as the basis for punishment is the broader idea that applies. Even after considerations of life and death go away, the considerations of the basis of punishment and what, in fact, constitutes punishment still remain.

If we want to change that cycle, we have to start from the ground up. First on the docket: Knowledge is more valuable than money. Fix that, and you'll be amazed at how different the abortion situation looks. Secondly, Superstition is not knowledge. Fix that, and you'll find a massive relief of the situation.

I'll tell you this much: I need more than my two hands to count off the number or teenage pregnancies I knew of in high school that could have been avoided had the parents not fostered conditions under which the children were afraid to ask for advice regarding sexuality. And therein lies the problem. Education. Period. Educational change will necessitate the economic change. The economic change will help the education destroy inhibiting superstitions. I don't think it's really that hard to do, but I do understand I'm asking a whole lot of people.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Abortion isn't the solution to teen pregnacy. Keeping your dick in your pants is.

Ben

Life is a 100% fatal, sexually-transmitted disease.

It's a bumper sticker, to be found amid the disenchanted, disenfranchised, and dislocated.Abortion isn't the solution to teen pregnacy. Keeping your dick in your pants is. It's an interesting point, KalvinB, because no matter how correct it is, it is inapplicable because we're human beings. I only say this because when we stop and look at it, any number of human problems can be solved by keeping our pants on. (Incidentally, and though I'm sure it's unintended, I'll point out that the young lady has a role in preventing teen pregnancies. What, you whip out your dick and they're just on it? ;) )

Problems we can solve by not having sex

* Child abuse, physical: While physical abuse of a child automatically classifies a family unit as dysfunctional, it is worth noting that such abuse primarily takes place in homes not fully prepared for the duties of parenthood.

* Child abuse, psychological: Verbal and other psychological assaults (extended isolation, &c) are a less definitive matter. But even the relatively light amount of insanity and crap I took from my parents--principles later revoked, rescinded, outright denied, or betrayed by action--stems largely from the fact that the home was neither financially nor ethically prepared for the raising of children. Parenting is subject to economization, and detrimental economization happens most often when the family is not prepared to be a family.

* Child abuse, sexual: I think it's quite obvious what the "dick" problem is here, on all levels. You should keep it in the pants when you're with your daughter, and you should have before you fathered this child because even then you knew this was a possibility.

* Crime, petty, teen: Most teens perpetrating crimes come from dysfunctional families; from families not prepared for raising children.

* Crime, severe, teen: Please see above note.

* Drug use, teen: Drug use among teens, beyond social experimentation, if any of our addiction data is to be considered valid (and that includes the data which speaks ill of drug use), is most common among dysfunctional homes.

* Sexually transmitted disease: While most STD's are not entirely confined to sexual transmission, they are so named for their primary mode of transmission.

* Suffering, child: Internationally and domestically, we see such widespread suffering among people--including children--that the pundits and philosophers are currently seeking justifications to include hunger as a form of violence. Whether in famine-stricken nations or the American Appalachia (and other places), there is a host of suffering children who are only alive because two people decided not to leave a dick in one of their pants.

* Cancer: It was once suggested, in the Salem, Oregon Statesman-Journal, in a letter to the editor, that cancer could be erased by one full generation of total sexual abstinence. While sarcstic, the author had a point.

In family issues, we must bear in mind that very few long-term problems arise after the establishment of the family unit. Unstable finances are a leading cause of family strife, and too many people are reproducing before they can afford to.

It's a nice idea that abstinence can cure the problem, but we see a host of other problems that do, quite frequently, result in loss of human life, which can be just as easily solved. That human beings should choose not to undertake this solution speaks volumes of the validity of the solution. It's not a wrong solution so much as it is not realistic.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

"It's not a wrong solution so much as it is not realistic."

Yes, it does appear in this age that if there's a legal way to do it, you can remove responsibility for your actions.

We see that constantly with a recent class action suit against the Tobacco companies because people didn't want to take responsiblity for their bad choice because they didn't legally have to.

Then there was the dumb lady who spilled McCoffee on herself and sued McDonalds.

If we took away the legal means to escape responsibility we would certainly see a decrease in teen pregnancies.

Ben

If we took away the legal means to escape responsibility we would certainly see a decrease in teen pregnancies.Taking away the "legal means to escape responsibility" would also entail ensuring that teens understand the ramifications of their actions. Some girls in my class had their first period in fifth grade, placing the burden of sexual education at fourth grade or before. If I recall, there was even a Time or Newsweek article recently on the rate at which girls are maturing biologically. How early, then, do we start?

I will accept the proposition that it's not the schools' place to teach children about sex. How, then, to ensure this vital social responsibility and the knowledge that empowers it? Through the parents? We cannot, by any legislative means, force parents to educate their children about sex. It becomes sort of an honor system, and guess what?

We're right back to ground zero. What, are we supposed to just believe that parents taught their children about fucking when they were nine? Now Suzy's thirteen and pregnant, and endangering her health and its her own fault because she didn't know better than to say no, condoms aren't dangerous? Fine with me, but once again, the children are being punished for the parents' mistakes. The failure to ensure the proper transmission of necessary knowledge undermines the weight of responsibility for decisions thus made.

So how would you propose that children be properly prepared to make reproductive choices?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Very interesting topic, abortion is one of the topics I truly enjoy, only cause I know it's a useless fight as, trying to convert Kal, Tony1, or Loon:eek: To atheism.

However in the search of articles on the pro-choice arena, I've run into this article:

Abortion is not a sin.


by Poppy Dixon

The word of God makes it clear to us that abortion is not a sin. In fact it's quite clear that to believe otherwise is nothing short of idolatry and blasphemy, and those are, quite definitely, sins.

PSALM 139 AND THE BEGINNING OF LIFE



One of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible is Psalms 139. It speaks of God's constant, practically doting, love for his creation. It is distressing to see this chapter used by anti-abortionists as proof that life begins at conception. If you read the chapter in its entirety it becomes clear that our existence begins in the mind of God and that God's attentions follow us all of our days, through good and bad. Here are the verses that anti-abortionists use to twist this beautiful chapter to a common political tool:

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works: and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." Psalms 139:13-16.

These verses are used to prove that human life begins at conception. But there is nothing here to even suggest that. God conceives of us first. We read that a blueprint, of sorts, exists in a book, God's book. Before we are born God uses this to form our bodies. Nowhere here does this describe anything but the making of the human form. Nowhere here does it describe how we are imbued with a human soul. But there are numerous other places in the Bible where God makes it quite clear when and how we become a living being and not just an "imperfect substance" as mentioned in Psalms 139.

Consider first, Genesis 2:7,
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

First, God forms Adam, he forms of dust, a flesh and blood body. SECOND, he "breathes into his nostrils the breath of life" and THEN man became a living soul. Man did not become a living soul when God first formed the IDEA of creating Adam, in Genesis 1:26. Man did not become a living soul when God created his BODY. Not until God gave man his first BREATH did he become a living soul. Life comes from God. It does not come from human conception. To believe that the entry of a sperm into an egg constitutes a human soul is blasphemy. To believe this is to eject God from the mystery of birth and put the power of the male ejaculation above the generative power of God. It is nothing less than idolatry, elevating the status of mere man, his sperm and his ejaculation above the power of God to give life.

The verses in Genesis are not the only verses in the Bible to make this clear. Consider Job 33:44

"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."

Consider the story of Ezekial and the dry bones, Ezekial 37:1-6,

"The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley; it was full of bones. And he led me round among them; and behold, there were very many upon the valley; and lo, they were very dry. And he said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord God, thou knowest." Again he said to me, "Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, 'O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause BREATH TO ENTER YOU, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and PUT BREATH IN YOU, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.'"

Just like Adam, who had a body before he had a soul, like every fetus in the womb, these dry bones were given sinew, flesh and skin, and AFTER they received the body GOD breathed into them and THEN they became alive. And, as in the verses above, because of that we "know that [God] is the Lord." Only God can bestow life and he tells us again and again in his word how this is done.

There is no trickery here. God does not breathe through an umbilical cord. We receive the breath of life, from God, through the nostrils, when we take our first breath. The concept of life beginning at birth, rather than conception, is so central to Christianity that we are "born again," not "conceived again."

ABORTION IN THE BIBLE



Why doesn't the Bible say anything directly about abortion? Why didn't Jesus dedicate his crusade against the practice as many of his modern day followers have? Did women have abortions in Biblical times? Yes. The Bible tells us so. Many anti-abortionists feel that the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," covers the abortion issue. But in Mosaic law God covers the exceptions to this law, indicating quite clearly who may be killed and for what offense. For instance, if a man or woman has sex with an animal or commits adultery they must be killed. Does "Thou shalt not kill" apply to abortion? No. Miscarriage or abortion is an exception. Let's look at Exodus 21:22

"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

In this instance a woman has been so injured, in a fight between two men, that she has aborted. The law states that if "no harm follows" the outsider must pay the husband a fine. An abortion has been induced through violence and this is not considered harmful. Abortion, then, is not a capital offense or a violation of the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."

Does anyone know where in the Bible a prophet of God calls upon God to induce abortions in the wives of his enemies? Let's look at Hosea 9:14.

"Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb (an abortion) and dry breasts."

And later,
"...yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." Hosea 9:16

In this case God causes abortions, the prophet prays that these women will abort. If these are truly innocent children, how could God do this? But they are not, they are "miscarrying wombs," "unperfect substances" and God will prevent them from becoming human souls that will grow up to oppress his people.

WHAT IF MARY HAD DECIDED TO ABORT JESUS?



Many people are surprised to learn that God gave Mary a choice concerning her pregnancy with the future Savior. In the gospel of Luke the angel came to her announcing what the will of God was for her life. In verse 1:38 Mary replies, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." Mary gives her assent. To believe that Mary had no voice in the process is unthinkable, for that would mean that God forced Himself on (raped) an unwed, teenaged virgin. Mary chose to be the mother of our Savior. God honored her ability to make that choice.

CONCLUSION



Abortion is not a sin, though blasphemy and idolatry are. To say that human copulation (which the Bible calls unclean) has the power to bestow life is blasphemy. No mere act of man can negate the fact that only God bestows life, by giving the fully formed body, breath. Asserting that human life begins at conception is counter to the claims of the word of God and is a sin. It is doubly a sin because this debased belief leads others to sin. Those that kill clinic workers, harass clients and attempt to legislate this wayward belief lead innocent believers down a road to murder and depravity.

Follow the example of Jesus, let those that want Christ come to you. Do not force the grace of God on anyone. God has the power, not only to give life, but to save. As Paul says in Galatians 2:21

"I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

(Or is the bible contradicting it'self once again?)Godless.

Godless is it at all possible that your absolute refusal to consider an unborn child a real living entity a defense against accepting the guilt you obviously feel about allowing the murder of your only child?

Originally posted by Godless
Very interesting topic, abortion is one of the topics I truly enjoy, only cause I know it's a useless fight as ...
Hmmm. IMO, a topic which has been way overworked.

The only consolation is the fact that the law is on the side of pro-choice. The "pro-life" can scream themselves hoarse and firebomb all the clinics they feel like. :D

Atleast it gives them something to do! Now maybe they'd stop harassing ppl at street corners.

Originally posted by Taken
Godless is it at all possible that your absolute refusal to consider an unborn child a real living entity a defense against accepting the guilt you obviously feel about allowing the murder of your only child?

A nice attempt, a typical one at best, use "guilt" in order to manipulate my emotional side of nature. However she was not the only one, there been one more, the point is, it is "their" decission not mine, thier bodies, not mine, their choice, not mine.

It is not quilt I feel, Taken, it is sadness that they took such a decission, sadness that at the time I was way too young and so were they, to have overwhelmed our lives with the tremendous undertaking of parenthood. I'm much older now, and still would not accept in manipulating a decission on a woman to bear a son of mine. Like I've mentioned before, it's thier body, and her life, not mine!.

You are not a cow Taken, dont treat yourself as one!.
If for example, #6 would have been a pregnancy from a previous rape, would you still feel like bearing a psycho's child?

I know this is not the case, however wouldn't you be destroying a life as well, if you decided to abort? or are you the too good to be true, and bear the child anyhow? If that was the scenario, how would your husband feel? Would he rather you have an abortion? I think most men would!.

I honestly wasn't trying to manipulate you thru guilt. You exspressed remorse for not haveing the only child. I think it was bold of you to share something so personal and I was not trying to offend you.

Actually Godless I am going to lay myself wide open here...I had a child by rape...a daughter, the only female child I have ever bore...and I had her and gave her up for adoption. I knew there was little chance of my being able to bond with her or be impartial considering the circumstances, although I knew in my head that she was completely innocent in the situation. It was the most difficult year of my life.....barely able to overcome the grief and anger of what happened to me wth the emotional and physical stress of that pregnancy on top of it was as close to the edge of stability I have ever come. But I could not kill her....just because she was a life...an innocent human being. She will be raised as adopted...mabey she will one day know she was adopted, mabey not...but she will never know why.

Taken,

Your post sent a chill up my spine. I'm sincerely sorry to hear of your terrible experience. Though I generally disagree with your ideas about abortion, at least you are consistent. I can't figure out the people who argue that a fetus is a full fledged human life, and then trip up their own argument by making an exception for abortion if the mother was raped. As you say, it was no fault of the fetus that the mother was disgusted by father.

I'm eternally perplexed by what human rapists are thinking. I've always thought that a big part of the enjoyment of sex is knowing that the woman thinks I'm a pretty wonderful guy. How a man could think about sex with a woman who is sick at the very thought of him, is beyond me.

I do understand however that rape is an animal behavior. It occurs with regularity among many of the species. Matthew Ridley's book, The Red Queen documents from a zoolologist's perspective, the quite normal gang rape of female dolphins by the males. In another case there is a certain species of water foul (I forget the species) in which the male is the one to sit on the nest and later tend the chicks, while the female goes off on her own. In one instance , a male floating on the water, and minding his own business was nearly drowned by several attacking female (rapist) birds of this species. It seems that aggressive behavior in the animal kingdom may easily changes roles.

I've had an ongoing debate with people who insist that man is degraded by his own culture and technology. They would have us return to a "natural" state of the "pure and noble savage". The idea of the "noble savage" is an absolute myth. Men and women in their "natural" state are simply amoral. Culture, manners, and morality make the difference between primative brutes and civilized men.

Regards,
Michael

I won't question your motives, of bearing the child, however if it were me, after all the pain, suffering, nine-months, etc.. I would have kept it!, however I would have chosen the easy way out of such a dilema, I would have aborted!, then again I'm a man, this decision is not mine by nature, though I would support a woman of mine upon her decision on such a travesty of life, what ever she would have decided to do, I would support her.
Concluding a protoplasm is not life, it is a potential, a potential has no rights, and I quote the author of the objectivist philosophy, Ayn Rand: "If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix--and that cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a pontentiality is "not" the equivalent of an actuality--and that human beings's life begins at birth."

Taken it is noble, that you put yourself through your dilema with such an outcome, however you had a "choice" and the choice you made is up to you, it would be wrong and morally outrageous to not support this choice upon other women. They might decide to abort the fetus, if it were illegal, who would support the child? the mother might give it up for adoption as you did, however who repays the damage of birth to the woman? What right does the church, other peoples opinions, goverment have to be personally involved in the life of an individual who has been victimized? and furthermore if pregnant from rape it would be whom's decision upon her life? I say her life belongs to her, she should be given the choice.

Abortion from unplanned pregnancies, would aswell hold the same decision factor, no goverment, church, or other peoples opinion should dictate what an individual woman should do with her own body.

1. The choice to abort is between the woman and God; as such, she will answer on Judgement Day.

2. The establishment of the rights of a zygote must coincide with the assignation of the responsibilities of a citizen unto that zygote.

3. Any theological establishment of life at conception is a matter of the adherent's choice.

A couple of notes:

Zygote: let's not kid ourselves here. We keep talking of fetuses and "children". Let's remember the zygotes, at least.

Theological establishment of life: I have limited the establishment of life here to the theological establishment of life specifically because of point #2, which addresses the scientific establishment of life as I believe Blonde Cupid had presented.

Reiteration:

Theology aside--Can anyone refute the violations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments as cited in Roe v. Wade, independently or in the context of McCorvey's "confession" of perjury?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

The main arguement for abortion seems to be that it's the women's choice what she wants to do with her body. However, we have to remember here, we are not dealing with just her body any longer. We are dealing with an infant child as well (whatever stage of development it may be in). The question is, does the woman have the right to chose whether this child is allowed to live? If so, at what point does she no longer have that right? When the child is 2 months along? 3? 8? How about when it's 3 years old? 5?

If a woman gets pregnant "by accident" (and not by any type of forced pregnancy such as rape) then she took on the risk that she may end up pregnant. She made the choice to "make herself available" despite this risk, and if she gets pregnant she should have to live with the consequence (if you can call a child that). If you don't want to have a baby, keep your pants on. I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with KB on this one. :eek:

However, we have to remember here, we are not dealing with just her body any longer. We are dealing with an infant child as well (whatever stage of development it may be in). The question is, does the woman have the right to chose whether this child is allowed to live? If so, at what point does she no longer have that right? When the child is 2 months along? 3? 8? How about when it's 3 years old? 5?The first perspective point, I admit, seems cold: I live in the United States of America. (I'll get back to that.)If a woman gets pregnant "by accident" (and not by any type of forced pregnancy such as rape) then she took on the risk that she may end up pregnant. She made the choice to "make herself available" despite this risk, and if she gets pregnant she should have to live with the consequence (if you can call a child that). If you don't want to have a baby, keep your pants on. I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with KB on this one. I agree with the idea that the best prevention is to keep the pants on. And I won't even get into the practicality of that. The second perspective point pertains to what happens when we start making such considerations as the above.

I live in the US of A

Actually, this doesn't mean a whole lot. But at the end of all of our American compassion and greed, our love and hate, our union and disparity, is a document which represents the highest of human causes: justice. We're all familiar with the phrase, Justice is blind, but what does that really mean?

* Presumption of innocence. It seems quite odd that we should have to argue about trivial matters if, say, a man is videotaped in the midst of a shooting spree. However, 'tis better to walk a thousand murderers than to endorse the execution of an innocent human being. That is to say that, as trivial as it might seem, we should at least demonstrate the connection 'twixt the man on the videotape and the man in the courtroom.

* We let a man walk from the three-strikes law in the Seattle area on a technicality. The newspapers didn't have time to critique the legal approach before he went out and committed a rape. I don't even know at present what the technicality was. The point being that despite the miserable result, the law was, actually, upheld.

These points lend toward the coldness of the Constitution. It is there for us, but we must know what to do with it.

And this is what I mean when I say I live in the United States of America. It's the supreme law of the land; if you enjoy the rights it affords, you answer to that clause. But it is not there to make certain judgements, only to provide the conventional basis for that judgement.

Of technicalities: does anyone know where the Miranda Act comes from? For those unfamiliar with the American judicial enterprise, when one is arrested, one is read a short list of rights which must be preserved. They are: 1) the right to remain silent, 2) the right to an attorney (at public expense if necessary), and 3) the right of communication (e.g. a phone call).

In my youth, the 1980s, we heard much in America about the "rights of criminals". People wanted the Miranda Act revoked because we were "giving too many rights to criminals". (e.g.--He killed someone, and we're protecting his rights?) Such an attitude, while it seems a proper sentiment, overlooks a couple of points. First, the suspect is still presumed innocent, and therefore is entitled to these rights. Secondly, the Miranda Act would not have been necessary in the first place if police in, I believe Florida, in searching for a rape suspect, had not seized a migrant worker named Ernesto Miranda and, in essence, tortured a confession out of him. Ernesto Miranda turned out to be innocent of the charge he confessed to. Ever been shackled and hosed with icy water in an attempt to extract a confession? The Nazis knew how to do it. And so do the Americans. The idea of a technicality upon which we walk a guilty suspect is a necessary byproduct of ensuring the rights enumerated in the Constitution. Cold, yes. Proper, yes.

It is demonstrable that without such bulwarks, authority oversteps itself. In the state of Washington, we have a protected right to privacy. To get around this, police will detain a suspect and take up to four hours to "run a license" (check the validity of your ID). It has the same effect. In New York, Rudy Giuliani had the police department arresting stoners on "quality of life" offenses, held them in jail overnight, and turned them out without charging them. The courts have considered this inappropriate. While, technically, Giuliani wasn't breaking any laws, the purpose of his actions was determined to have malice against the rights of the suspects (if you can't charge them, why arrest them?) and the courts have ordered the process stopped.

Perhaps rights would be an easier subject if we didn't abuse our sense of rights. Precedents are set regardless of the crime: if you undermine the legal system escaping a drug possession charge, you open a loophole for an accused murderer. Perhaps rights and due process would not be so corrupted if we did not abuse them by inventing reasons to arrest people (e.g. stoners, and, in the past, homosexuals).

The end result of the whole mess is that while it would be nice to isolate abortion as an issue and figure the right thing to do, we run the