Teens on the Front Lines
— Posted by Eric (March 5, 2006 at 4:04 pm)
Yesterday over 200 pro-lifers from across the region gathered in Orland Park, Illinois to protest a new Planned Parenthood Express location on La Grange Road.Among those holding signs and praying were several teen groups.
I enjoyed meeting these young activists. Several of the older folks out there mentioned how encouraged they were by the teens’ remarkable energy and enthusiasm.
A Good Job for Teens
It was especially appropriate for teens to be out there yesterday, as the Planned Parenthood Express location is only about a mile from Carl Sandburg High School. That’s no coincidence. Planned Parenthood is targetting teens with their destructive propaganda and bogus birth control programs.
So here’s to the teens who came out for yesterday’s protest. The abortionists have reason to be worried about this new generation of pro-life activists!
Yesterday’s event was organized by Bill Beckman of Illinois Right to Life—great job, Bill!
This entry is filed under The Front Lines. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
dee says:
i wish there were rallies near me i could attend im also a teenager and have a tremendous amount of energy for saving the unborn….. i live in england and there are no prolife street sessions for me to attend….i cant even find a prolife group let alone a teen prolife group lol….please keep up the good work you guys rock and are really making a difference!! xo
Comment posted March 7th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Tori says:
THATS ME!!! Hey, I’m Tori, I’m 2 over from the right! That day was awesome! We had such a good turn out! There had to be over 200 people there!And although we were flicked off several times by angry passer-byers, all the honks of support and thumbs ups were really encouraging. GO LINCOLN-WAY CENTRAL PRO-LIFE CLUB!!!
Comment posted March 7th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Phil says:
Excellent work!
Comment posted March 7th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Lauren Patrizi says:
There are children dying in the Sudan as we speak. There are children dying in Iraq as we speak. In fact, there are children dying all over the world as we speak. Your priorities are extremely misguided. Your group is comprised of nothing more than hate. Hate for women, hate for common sense. If you think for a moment you are going to stop abortion through your methods, let me tell you, if anything it speaks volumes for the pro-choice movement. Let me propose a hypothetical to you. Let’s say you are in a science lab, and there sits a petri dish with an embryo and a two year old. A fire starts. You can save only one. Which do you save?
Please refer to this site http://www.naral.org/choice-action-center/take-action/prevention/
to learn about the prevention first campaign.
You look like an imbecile when you protest a birth control clinic. You look like you are for unintended pregnancy. Are you?
Comment posted March 8th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Annie says:
Lauren,
Where do I start! I’ll address a few your issues and perhaps let someone else address the others.
“Your group is comprised of nothing more than hate. Hate for women, hate for common sense.”
Speaking from a holistic point of view, birth control, aimed almost exclusively at women, is detrimental to women. Why a woman would ever want to be ingest these poisons is beyond me. Why she would want to subject her body to these toxins in this day and age of women’s rights (there is no pill, shot, patch, ring, etc., for men) has always confused me.
“You look like an imbecile when you protest a birth control clinic. You look like you are for unintended pregnancy. Are you?”
There is something that everyone can agree is quite advantageous to a successful life - it’s called self control. We recognize the benefits of it in all areas of our lives, yet for some reason the pro-choice movement does not seem to encourage self control when it comes to sex. It is difficult at times, but is essential, especially when the cost (an untimely pregnancy, STDs, HIV/AIDS) is so high.
Comment posted March 9th, 2006 at 8:40 am
Eric says:
Sure, Lauren, the smiling teens in those pictures sure look like they’re teaming with hatred. Those seemingly joyful smiles are clearly but a mask over their bitterness and intolerance.
If you want to get a good look at hatefulness, you might try the nearest mirror. You’re the only one attacking anyone around here. I mean, really—you say we look like imbeciles, yet you show up and start accusing peaceful, respectful pro-lifers, who are in reality motivated by compassion for unborn babies and their mothers, of being hateful. How do you think that makes you look.
I think it’s unfortunate that so many abortion supporters are more interested in mocking and demonizing pro-lifers than in respectful dialog. I see this all the time, and I think it comes down to a basic unwillingness to face the reality of abortion for both the baby and the mother.
Take your reference to Sudan and Iraq. Why does the existence of injustice in one place require us to ignore the injustcie in another place, especially when that place is our own country, our own neighborhoods? Are you also railing against those working for justice in Sudan for not instead working for justice in Iraq? Are their values misguided too?
No, only our values are “misguided” because we care about unborn children, and are unwilling to deny a class of human beings their inherent right to life based on their developmental stage. (I’m really struggling here to grasp how the capacity to enlarge one’s compassion so as to embrace those at the earliest stages of life, who are most unrecognizably our kin, can be construed as “hate”.)
We also care about the mothers of these unborn children, and if you want to talk about what “speaks volumes,” it’s the pro-abortion movement’s unwillingness to face squarely how profoundly women are harmed by abortion.
As for your bizarre petri dish analogy, maybe you could explain exactly what it’s supposed to illustrate. I’m trying to figure out what the two-year-old and I are doing in this laboratory, and why I can’t manage to hold both him and the petri dish—or am I a one-armed man in this little scenario? I don’t get it.
Presumably it’s meant to illustrate that I don’t “really” think an embryo is a human being. How about this analogy: I have only one cupcake, and I’m in a “science lab” with the a embryo in vitro and a two-year-old. To whom should I give the cupcake?
Let’s try another one. Say I’m in a burning building. There are three children and I can only save two of them. It just so happens that two of the children are my own son and daughter, the other is the bully who has been tormenting them. Which two do I save?
Anyone might understand why I would try to save my own children, but does this really say anything at all about the humanity of that other child? Is he less of a child because he is not mine, or because he’s a bully? (For the record, I hope I’d choose instead to die trying to save all three children.)
Instead of attacking pro-lifers, trying to change the subject or avoiding the real issues with silly analogies, I invite you to consider the real meaning of death in the womb for both mother and child.
Comment posted March 9th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Lauren says:
Annie first.
Shame on me for thinking that someone else might live their life differently than you. Shame on me for thinking not everyone defines self control in a sexual connotation. Ingest poisons? You really are unhinged and are so completely out of the mainstream of this country. You should really go live in Saudi Arabia where women are lesser beings. That’s the world you live in. That’s not the America I want. The pro-choice movement encourages reality. Sex is a part of human nature and if you don’t like it, great that’s your choice!!! I love that you have that choice, but don’t you dare think that just you are all high and mighty because you don’t. What happens between me and my God is my business, not yours. It’s my choice, not yours. If you don’t like abortion, how’s this.. DONT HAVE ONE.
You are fighting a battle you will never win if you continue to fight it without common sense.
I’m assuming you are a right-wing Christian, arent you all lol, so let me ask you something? Are you aware that abortion was around during Jesus’s time? and are you also aware that Jesus was a pretty radical man and said some pretty radically amazing things (a liberal of his time)!! But do you know what he said on abortion? Oh that’s right nothing!!!! You’d think such a radical woudl comment on such a big issue. Turns out he didnt. He did however talk about war, peace, and poverty. Maybe you should focus your energy on making sure women are taken care of in this country before you start forcing them to have babies.
Comment posted March 9th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Lauren says:
Oh eric, you silly silly man.
Their smiles are a clear reflection of the opiate their parents put them on. It must be easy to have an answer for the meaning of life and know for certain what happens when we die. Oh and it must also be peaceful to know when life begins and when it ends. have you ever questioned your faith? or did your parents like their parents likely shove it down their throats.. it might not hurt to regurgitate what you’ve been spoonfed all your life.
You have compassion for their mothers? Do you ever wonder how those signs make women feel? Do you ever think of compassion for them? No, you just want to revolt and disgust and upset people. You want to make abortion illegal don’t you? Well why don’t you just convince people that you are right rather than making it illegal? Why don’t you aim to take care of the women who end up pregnant, alone and scared? You should be ashamed of wasting the money that you did on those posters. That money should’ve gone to formula or a sweater for a baby. Such hypocrisy.
And no, I’m not an abortion supporter, I AM PRO CHOICE. I think what a woman does with her body is NONE of your BUSINESS. I think abortion is a tragedy and I have done many things to try to minimize abortion–including advocate for access to birth control if a teen seeks it and sex education that doesnt tell teens that condoms dont work. The moment you become out of touch with reality, which so much of the anti-choice crowd has, all of your arguments go down the drain. I’d love to meet you people halfway and work on this together. I just think that your crowd is so hateful, so nuts, and so unhinged it will be impossible.
I think the injustice in Sudan is much greater than whatever injustice you see in a woman choosing not to carry a miniscule zygote. These are breathing, living people that are being raped, tortured, malnourished, stabbed, shot, and massacred, and you’d rather save the egg!!! To me, it is a complete lack of priorities. The own country argument makes you look selfish. Martin Luther King once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to injustice everywhere.” Look beyond the United States and look at the REAL tragedy occuring in our world. Last I check they are human beings, and they are God’s people just like you and I.
I’m not going to argue with you where life begins because it is an inane conversation and you are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you. But let me tell you something if you’ve voted for Bush. Keep voting for him. You’ll never end abortion. You’ll just keep voting away your rights. And before you know it, your job will be in India and your family will look like those poor souls in Africa. If you don’t believe me, just wait.
Oh yes, women are harmed by abortion, I agree with you entirely. I know this. But if you think your methods win over women who are pre-abort or post-abort you are so dead wrong. You alienate them with these posters. Trust me. I’ve got many girlfriends who have been in that place and think your whole movement is comprised of a bunch of unsympathetic women haters. Believe me, that’s what they think.
Cupcake? That didnt even make sense.. moving on.
The two children and the bully is a much harder dillema. The bully is actually a LIFE. However the embryo and the child one should not be difficult. You would be a moron to say embryo.
You would decide to try and die saving all three children. Which proves how hopeless your movement is. I would be part of the pro-life movement if it emphasized birth control and minimizing abortion unless absolutely necessary. Instead, I’ll stick with my fellow pro-choicers, which have their heads out of the sand and in reality. I’d rather be on the team that has practical solutions rather than ignorant nasty posters.
I have considered the meaning of “death in the womb.” It’s sad, now let’s fix it. Until your side wakes up and really wants to HELP women rather than confine them to a life with no opportunity, I will always fight against what I deem is no more nor no less than hatred. If you think I’m wrong, the majority of America is with me on this.
Comment posted March 9th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Annie says:
Someone’s just a tad bit angry.
Comment posted March 9th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Lauren says:
Women’s lives are at stake. Our rights are at stake. I should be angry.
Comment posted March 9th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Eric says:
Lauren: “. . . unhinged . . . moron . . . out of touch with reality . . . hypocrisy . . . selfish . . . inane . . . so hateful, so nuts, and so unhinged . . .”
Uh, who’s being hateful again?
Lauren: “the majority of America is with me on this.”
Then why are you so upset? If you really believed that, you’d just laugh about a little fringe-group website like this, rather than, well, freaking out.
You know, Lauren, on one level I’d just as soon you and the other abortion supporters remain completely in the dark about what motivates pro-lifers. The less you understand us, the less effectively you’ll mobilize against us.
But on another level, I’d rather you know the truth. I guess that’s because I don’t want to write you off—as you seem to have written us off. For example, I’d like explain to you that in fact in my early twenties I left the Catholic faith I was raised with, that I came back to that faith ten years later.
Or that I know full well that they had abortion in ancient times, and that is was then as now a tool for subjugating women, and that the demographic crisis that abortion and contraception wrought was a major factor in the demise of the Roman Empire in the West.
I’d like to patiently explain to you that we don’t know everything that Jesus said—surely He said much more than we find in the Gospels— but that His immediate disciples—those who actually did hear all that he taught—did speak out against abortion and contraception, clearly drawing on what they received from Him. (BTW, what exactly do you imagine Jesus said about war?)
Yet—I know better than to think you’d listen to a hateful, unhinged, selfish, moronic, hypocritical nut like me. So go on thinking what you want about pro-lifers. Meanwhile, we’ll keep busy helping women choose life for their babies, converting America to the pro-life side, raising up a new generation of pro-lifer leaders and passing pro-life legislation for the day, coming soon, when Roe v. Wade is cast down.
Comment posted March 9th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Lauren says:
Let me ask you something… who wrote the Bible?
and by the way, you took my comments out of their appropriate context. You called me PRO-abortion therefore defaming me. I am pro-choice, and there is a difference. I would never hope for a woman to have an abortion and faced with the decision I’m not sure I would choose that. But who the hell do you think you are telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies? Will you ever carry a child?
Let me ask you, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, what do you think is going to happen? You think abortion will decrease. Ask any person who actually does research and doesnt use emotions to back up his/her claims, they claim that in fact abortion will spike up and that women will seek riskier and more developed abortions. For example you do know that women who are 17 1/2 that are pregnant are waiting til they turn 18 to abort their pregnancy. This certainly is a lot more dangerous to the mother and much more reprehensible in terms of development for what i believe is the child.
Do I think there should be regulation on abortion? YES! Because life is grey and not black and white
If roe is overturned there will be a backlash against you in this country, I promise. JUST wait. It’s already building post-south dakota. If you then move on to Griswold to take away a woman’s right to BC, you will become the most marginalized group in America. Democrats will win back their offices because let’s face it no one will have any reason to vote for bush anymore. YOu know that Bush uses pro-lifers for their vote. He then bombs other countries around the world, profits from war, and then uses hate to divide people. People cared more about two guys making out than the Iraq war or the exploitation of their Afghani people.
So let me say to all of you anti choicers… Keep driving your Excursions, keep destroying our enviornment because “global warming” is a myth, keep supporting war, keep putting flags and stickers on your car that were made in China, keep supporting the terrorism that’s going on in Saudi Arabia, you wont have anyone left to save because we’ll probably all be dead and the generations to follow us will be wearing nuclear gas masks on the street.
You people baffle me you really do.
Comment posted March 10th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Eric says:
“Let me ask you something . . . who wrote the Bible?”
Dan Brown, I think.
“You called me PRO-abortion therefore defaming me. I am pro-choice, and there is a difference.”
As long as you insist on calling us by the ludicrous moniker “ant-choicers”—as if we abstractly oppose the very concept of making choices—I’m afraid I won’t be very sympathetic to your objection to being called “pro-abortion.”
“Choice” has no specific meaning—people make all kinds of choices, some good some bad. “Pro-choice” says nothing about the choice you’re talking about, which is the choice to abort an unborn child. It’s no surprise you’d want to hide the reality of abortion behind the euphemism of “choice,” but please don’t ask me to play such games.
And if the overturning of Roe v. Wade would lead to a backlash against pro-lifers, then you ought to be praying for Roe to be overturned, because right now we’re gaining ground in the courts, the legislatures and in popular opinion. Oh, sure, your average person has been trained by years of propaganda to think pro-life activists are a little wacky, but we don’t really care about that; we’re not in this to be popular. They get mad at us for dispalying graphic abortion signs, but those images stick with them and gradually support for abortion erodes.
As for South Dakota, last I checked their legislature is still elected by the people of that state. The people elected the representatives and governor who passed the anti-abortion law; presumably there is a great deal of popular support for such legislation in South Dakota. And Mississippi. And Texas. And Indiana. And Missouri.
BTW, what limits on abortion would you actually support?
And could you please explain how the overturning of Roe would increase abortion? Abortion rates are already declining as it is. Can you point to one single example of an activity that actually increased after being criminalized? Precisely the opposite is what happens.
Comment posted March 10th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
lauren says:
Is pro-life not a similar euphemism? To me, you’re not pro-life, you’re pro-birth. I find it baffling how many right-wingersso is pro-birthers are anti-welfare. Are you aware the number on recipient of welfare is single white mothers? Go ahead, pull those spoons out of the babies mouths.
You’re right, you are gaining in the courts. But so are the Enrons, the Halliburtons, and the people who are anti-human rights. Hitler won popular opinion in Germany for a short time. What is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular.
Way to avoid the question on the Bible. Shows you can’t even defend your idiocy. You hide behind the Bible to defend your views. My attack on you has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity, my attack is on your lizard-brained bigotry and hatred for womens’ rights.
Abortion rates have largely been going down because of places like PLANNED PARENTHOOD EXPRESS… People arent having sex less that’s for sure!
Trust me, the abortion signs do not win you popular opinion, you gain popular disgust. If you cannot have a discussion without those sorts of pictures, how can you accuse the pro-choice movement of propagandizing?
I do think abortion rates would go up, people would be having more clandestine and dangerous operations, but it would happen. You’d also see an increase in female suicide, crime (due to the seedy abortion operations), and some very scary medical results. Look you know you’re not going to end abortion by making it illegal. Why are you so uncomfortable in what you believe that you must force people to do it? If you are so against abortion, why not try to fix the system. Fix the fact that it is impossible to raise a child without large sums of money, fix the fact that it is culturally unacceptable to have a child when you’re not married, fix the system that once you have a child you throw away your dreams, fix the system by not forbidding birth control.
Seriously everything you say has no merit once you say no birth control too. I think those girls in that picture should never be allowed to use a condom, a birth control pill, or any other method of deciding when she wants to have children. Shame on them and shame on their parents.
You limit access to birth control, you are going to have a lot of unwanted pregnancies and hence a lot more abortions.
I’m glad I live in Illinois—an open-minded, tolerant, and great state. There is a reason why racist, anti-choice, mysoginist sentiments remain in places like South Dakota. They are filled with hate. There is a reason they voted for George W. Bush.
I love how you ignored everything I mentioned with our dear old president as well.
Don’t you think these protestors shoot themselves in the foot when they protest birth control too?!
Comment posted March 10th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
lauren says:
Regulation on abortion
1. All exceptions for rape and incest
2. 1st trimester abortions allowed
3. Limitations on abortion (not really sure how to enforce it, but people should not be using it as a birth control method and people that do that is wrong)
4. 2nd trimester abortions deserve a hearing but with strict regulation
5. 3rd trimester abortions restricted and not allowed
6. Life of mother or life of baby exceptions to all restrictions.
These are simply common sense and are reasonable. If there werent such radical pro-choicers who say free choice all the time and such radical anti-choicers who say no choice never, we might actually have a good conversation on this issue. Instead we have extremists and nothing gets done.
Comment posted March 10th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Eric says:
“Way to avoid the question on the Bible.”
Actually, I’m the one who asked the first question on the Bible, specifically, what does Jesus say about war? Instead of answering, you ask me who wrote the Bible.
But okay, I’ll humor you. Since we’re talking about Jesus, I’ll limit my answer to the New Testament. The New Testament was written by Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and James, with the book of Hebrews possibly having been written by a disciple of Paul. So what’s your point?
I love how you ignored everything I mentioned with our dear old president as well.
I ignore it because it is irrelevant. You say Bush is using us, I say we’re using him, but either way out mission here at Generations for Life is to fight abortion. We have no position on the War, or global warming, or SUVs; you only introduce these issues in an attempt to demonize us via “guilt by association.”
Hitler won popular opinion in Germany for a short time.
Godwin’s Law proved again.
Comment posted March 10th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
lauren says:
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. OMG, can I laugh some MORE HAHAHHAHAHHA…….. go research and then tell me again who the Bible was written by.
Comment posted March 10th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
lauren says:
You should be guilty by association, because he is USING you. You may think you are using him but you are a tool and before you know it, America will not be the America you grew up in.
But please tell me again who the Bible was written by. Crap, for a document i lived my life by I certainly would want to know who wrote it. Don’t feel bad, you’re in the majority of people who don’t realize this. Ask your priest who wrote the Bible, particularly the New Testament.
I will not be surprised that you will leave this discussion with the tail between your legs because you will be too embarrassed of your ignorance about something you believe so blindly in.
Comment posted March 10th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Eric says:
“[G]o research and then tell me again who the Bible was written by.”
I have researched this, but maybe it would be simpler if you just told me who you think wrote the books of the New Testament. (While you’re at it, biblical scholar that you are, you might finally get around to telling me what Jesus said about war.)
Comment posted March 10th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Sydnie says:
Lauren,
I am amazed at how uniformed you are. You seem like an intelligent person, so why have you bought into planned parenthood’s lies. Did you know that Margaret Sanger ’s(PP founder) mission was to rid the world or “negros” and hispanics?
The “right” for a woman to kill the woman inside of her has hurt her so bad. Do you not know about how much it hurts the woman? 93% regret them? and many attempt suicide, and this is helping her? It has made her into a disposable object just as her beautiful human life inside of her. This causes men (some men, not all are like this) to treat women as if they are an object and they can leave her with no responsibilities, no relationship nothing! leave her broken and shattered!
Science has proven that not only does life begin at conception but also babies are made up of 50% mom, 50% dad. Does this give men the right to “choose” what happens to their baby? or should they be given the right to “choose” not to pay child support because he did not want the baby?
Bottom line, Planned Parenthood was founded on lies. So was Roe v. Wade. Just as Roe herself, she will tell you all about it. I will pray for you! I know you are an intelligent person. Hopefully someday you will see the truth.
Comment posted March 10th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Lauren says:
Where are you getting this 93% statistic from? I know a lot of women who had abortions and have said to me personally it was a hard decision to make and they wish that they werent in a place to make it but that it was the best decision they could make. That must trouble you when women actually choose not to be pregnant.
Comment posted March 10th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Lauren says:
I understand your point about Margaret Sanger. That’s wrong. But abortion was around before Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood does not exist today to exterminate African Americans. If you think that, you also are unhinged. None of you have yet to answer how we can work on this together. You’d rather women have no birth control and no access to abortion and let’s just hope they control themselves. Good luck to you on that idiocy.
Comment posted March 11th, 2006 at 12:02 am
Lauren says:
You got that idea (may not paying) from what’s been occurring in the news lately. That man should be punched in the face. It’s a very provocative idea legally, but I’m not scared to say I dont know what I think. Unlike some people who speak in absolutes and rush to make up their mind and speak in black and whites I take some time to think through things. blah blah blah…
Eric my dear friend… The gospels are ascribed to Matthew Mark Luke and John but certainly are not written by them. The only really authentic pieces in the bible are the letters by Paul. I believe it’s only three of the seven. I’m a student at Loyola and I took a new testament course a few semesters ago and was shocked out of all my years of CCD no one ever told me this. Paul also definitely did not write Hebrews, although it is often attributed to him.
On a side-note this is really a quite interesting topic and you should really look into reading about the writing in the Bible, from an academic standpoint, not a faith-based one. To try to explain to you how and when the gospels were first written is too difficult for me to do over a blog… I will tell you however that it was a long time til most were ever even written down. It was the sort of “telephone”/sit around the fire Bible before that. As you can imagine translating from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English etc was sort of a tricky thing to do. As well as preserving copies of copies of copies. It’s not so difficult to wonder if maybe something got mixed up or some moron spilled the ink one day when trying to write all that down.
I could talk about this all day from an academic standpoint because it is interesting to me. I just can’t stand it when people use the Bible as a shield when 90% of the stuff was written/passed down tens if not hundreds of years after Jesus died.
” Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God.” Matthew 5:9
Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be
judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Something we all could learn from!!
Something that could definitely apply to those people in this country that think wearing their religion on their sleeve makes them good people: Public Prayer & Displays of Faith: And when thou pray, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for
they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be
seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou pray, enter into
thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret…
Comment posted March 11th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Lucy says:
Self control is not the issue at hand if honesty prevails. The issue at hand is control over others. Those who wish a woman to have self control are with the individuals with the title Pro-Choice.
Pro-Choice is the side that is actually in favor of life. They are the side that understands that a womans right to choose is vital to her life. It is essential to her self esteem. To her ability to have a viable role in society. It is the side that understands that having an unwanted child can be a fate worse than death. It is the side that understands that to be an unwanted child is a fate worse than termination before life. It is the side that understands that if you give woman the right to choose her self esteem will rise. It is the understanding that if a woman has control over her life then she is less likely to have sex when she doesn’t want to. It is the understanding that this will lower the amount of abortions. This and available birth control.
This and giving those young girls in the picture above a safe place to go to ask about birth control when home isn’t where they can go. Telling those young girls that they can have self control, and that Sex is a natural and beautifl celebration of life that should be shared with someone special. Telling them that they should not be afraid or ashamed to ask about birth control. These are the things that will, and are lowering abortions.
God and his bible had 2000 years plus to lower the number of abortions obtained in the world. God didn’t do it. If that’s the goal than he’s fired, and so are all of his good little workers. Planned Parenthood and all of the others who have worked so hard to boost girls like the ones above self esteem, give choices, and allow women to understand that they could have real self control have been getting the job done if you stop and check the count.
Pro-Life fights for a pulse.
Pro-Choice defends life.
Comment posted March 11th, 2006 at 12:35 am
Sydnie says:
http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html Please take a look at this site to see how abortion has hurt women! it is a feminist site. I am amazed at your comments Lucy and Lauren, women have the right to choose! They can choose to abstain, they can choose to use birth control, but they cannot choose to end the life of another human being because they made a “mistake”! Why don;’t these options matter? Why is abortion the best option? Especially when it victimizes women. I know several people who have had abortions and have come crying to me about it. I NEVER tell them of the “wrong” they may have done but hug them back and let them know that God is a forgiving God. They regret it and said they would never do it again. I think they need a lot of compassion and understanding. You know, I don;t really blame them, but I blame people like you for trying to make it look like a great option, a womans “right” to decide that the human being inside of her does not deserve to live! Nothing makes that OK. It is NOT as if she does not have options. I already mentioned what a woman can do to prevent a pregnancy, or deal with one. By the way, I am 21 with 2 children. Had my first when I was 18 with a loser of a man under bad circumstances. I thought my daughter would “ruin” my life in the aspect of my dreams for college, finding a husband someday, etc. She brought my husband and I togehter when she was 4 months old. He is more wonderful then I ever dreamed I even deserved! We have since then been married and had a baby 9 months later. We plan on having 2 to 3 more children. and I am graduating from nursing school in May. I will be an RN. She made me more focused and saved my life! I would have been with that abusive man, on drugs, probably dead! But I wouldn;t let him hurt my baby! and I certainly wasn;t going to kill her! how was any of this her fault?! She has brought so much happiness to so many peoples lives. and you know what it is hard for my best friend to see her. She killed her baby that was due 6 weeks after mine. There is NOTHING i can do to comfort her either. It is devastating! I can;t take her pain away! I wish I could.
By the way, PP isn;t targeting the blacks and hispanics? Look at the geography! where are they located? And they have compassion for women? They why do they think it is rediculous for women to have to have counseling before an abortion? (this is from their site itself!) are they afraid she will change her mind? Do they know abortion is better for her? should they be given time to think about this situation? do they help the women afterward when tragedy strikes them and they ache for their baby that they killed? NO! after talking to former PP employees, they have said that they are taught to play on the woman’s weakness to get them to have the abortion. And this is compassionate? maybe you better look at PP a little more closely. They are all founded on lies! Just take a look at the description of an abortion. Do you know of any vacuum that is “gentle” let alone one that sucks a baby from your womb! By the way, their biggest argument is to help victims of incest and rape, less then 1% of abortions are because of this. They don;t ahve much to stand on except for lies!!and putting fear in you! and all of society! i would think twice before being an advocate for people like these!
Oh yeah and I was an “unwanted” child,. Thank God my mom was prolife. She thanks God for me everyday and regularly tells me how Good life has been with me, and how much better off she is. Her youngest was 14 and she was done having kids when I came along, or so she thought. She speaks at pro life conventions telling people of the horrible mistake she could have made. How many babies do you think are actually planned?
Comment posted March 11th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Lauren says:
Holla Lucy, Holla. Love that other intelligent women like you are out there =) Thanks for standing up against those that think women should go back to the good old days of back alley abortions!
Sydnie–good for you. I mean that earnestly. You had the strength adn will to carry your pregnancy to term and you must’ve wanted to keep that child given that you didnt put it up for adoption. But who are you to judge? Who are you to say what God would and wouldn’t be happy with? Maybe God thinks you’re being very judgemental by going on this little crusade you’re going on. Maybe he thinks I’m an ass. I dont know. And neither do you. Your side does not speak for God, Jesus, or any other deity. You speak for yourself.
You know people who have regretted their abortions, as do I. I also know people who have not regretted their abortions. That may be unfathomable to you, but believe me it is possible. They wouldnt tell you that naturally because they wouldnt want to be cursed and fried at the stake by you.
Planned parenthood stays in poor neighborhoods because that’s the only place where they are not zoned out. It’s coincidence and economics that keeps them in minority communities. It’s not some grand scheme or plan.
I go to planned Parenthood for my birth control and I regret nothing about it. The people there are kind, caring, and wonderful. They are doing work for women you couldn’t dream to do. Planned Parenthood is the reason women like us have the rights that we do. If you prefer to go back to the 1920s you can do that. I however, and I’m sure Lucy as well, prefer to hang out with women that have fought for our rights. I am ashamed to call myself a woman when I talk to people like you.
Comment posted March 11th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Sydnie says:
As I am ashamed about calling myself a woman with women like you. And you are wrong. I speak for the unborn babies that are not given the chance to speak. What makes the woman inside less important? Who are we to decide who deserves to live? and no God COMMANDS “thou shalt not kill” I really hope you go to the website I listed so that you can see another perspective on how abortion has hurt women. I don;t even really have other words for you…I am just saddened, extremely saddened by your views. I just cannot understand how people can let planned parenthood get away with murder, not to mention be supported by people…I guess our world is just extremely corrupt…I have always been more of an optimist.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Eric says:
Lauren quotes: “Do not judge, lest you too be judged.”
Oh, the irony is just too precious!
She who arrived on this blog hurling invective and denunciations is now invoking Matthew 7:1, and this moments after assuring us of the unreliability of scripture!
Lauren, I’m truly impressed. You are quite a specimen.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Lauren says:
I came to this blog to tell you to stop judging. Ah the irony you are correct.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 12:48 am
Eric says:
Lucy writes: “Sex is a natural and beautiful celebration of life that should be shared with someone special.”
Lucy, it is precisely because we believe that sex is natural and beatiful and a profound gift to be shared with ones beloved that we oppose contraception, which is unnatural, ugly, and undermines the gift of self by placing conditions upon that gift that mutilate its very nature.
Lucy writes: “God and his bible had 2000 years plus to lower the number of abortions obtained in the world. God didn’t do it.”
Lucy, that is not true. First of all, the Church’s opposition to abortion and contraception is rooted in the Old Testament, which is a great deal more ancient than 2000 years. The Jewish scriptures are profoundly pro-natalist and in fact contraception and abortion were far less common among the Jews than among their pagan counterparts. (See Contraception by John T. Noonan, Jr.)
The prohibitions on abortion and contraception became explicit in the Early Church and ultimately saved Europe from the demographic crisis wrought by the anti-natalist tendencies of ancient Roman society that the Caesars were never able to reduce.
It is only post-Griswold that we see increasing pressure for legalized abortion and post-Roe that we see abortions per annum skyrocket to over one million. If contraception were really the solution to abortion, there would have been no need for Roe.
Our society has been awash in contraceptives for forty years, producing a crisis of single parenthood, family breakdown, divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, sexual exploitation and of course abortion.
That’s the real report card on contraception.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 12:49 am
Lauren says:
I’ve seen all the so called feminist ranting… Feminists for life.. give me a freaking break. I dont understand how people can give you a mic to speak at. Lol.. I came here angry. I came here pissed off. And I should be, it’s my choice and it’s not yours. It’s not YOUR god. and last I checked you dont own the patent on right and wrong.
No I am a human life, not a specimen. A specimen is what you defend. Life is what you hurt.
Corrupt? Do you know the definition of corruption? Corruption is secretive. There is nothing secretive about what is going on here. Women want control over their bodies and the right to decide when they want to be pregnant or not. If that is a concept you have difficulty understand read it again.
I’m not here to debate relativism with you, although admittedly it’s kinda fun.. I am here to ask you where we can meet each other halfway. Anyways hope to see ya’ll at the St. Pattys day parade where I will be parading against zygotes…JK, thought that might boil your blood a bit. Take it easy though I’ll buy you a green beer.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 12:54 am
Lauren says:
LMAO… pro-natalist.. weeee lol. Dude if we did everything that Bible said we’d be one, pardon my french, fucked up culture. Can you give me statistics to back up all your insane claims? Please give me unbiased studies as well. I dont want to hear a study Called Abortion Kills: A pro-life’s search for whatever facts they can dig up.
Are you really blaming contraception for societal ills? What’s next gay marriage killed the dinosaurs? Sexual exploitation is an age old profession and not something that poof came out of griswold.
You know what I love about so many anti-choicers; how many of them are complete hypocrites! So many of my friends that consider themselves “conservative Christians” go the the strip club the night after they “campaigned” against abortion. I’m not saying their isnt hypocrisy on my side iether.
Let me ask you this, do you believe the Bible ever condone slavery…
BTW Eric, you dodged my Biblical authorship questions quite nicely:)
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 1:00 am
Lauren says:
HYPOCRISY:
women can’t have abortion
women shouldnt have children out of wedlock
gay people no matter how desparate the child is for love and parents should not be allowed to adopt
women cant have birth control cuz that is just so naughty!
women who have abortions are such sinner!!! oowee
We never judge and we are so right on this issue because god told us so… through what an M&M or an oil stain on a piece of concrete (idolatry)
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 1:03 am
Lauren says:
btw, you people are still unhinged.. just thought I’d add that for effect.. this is fun I love this. =) You guys are just too cute.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 1:04 am
Lucy says:
First, Eric, I did not say that sex was a beautiful gift. I said that it was a celebration of life. Second I said 2000 years plus, meaning more than 2000 years, I could have said 2 nanoseconds plus and still have not needing correction. Unless you have an exact time frame this was just an excuse to cite the interpretation of the bible that suits this purpose. Contraception is what makes it possible for women to choose when and when not to have children. Abortion is a last resort for when that does not work. I see that for some reason you are convinced that waking up one morning and finding out you are pregnant is somehow guarenteed to be the greatest thing ever, but somehow when you are a woman who has other goals in life its just not.
There is a difference between actuall and recorded. Legality and lack of absolute fear, lead to women who are brave enough to sign their names, and the ability to obtain an abortion safely create a record. One could say that the amount of gay people in the world is higher than ever, which is likely true, the number of people in the world is higher than ever, relatively speaking however, what is being observed is the result of greater understanding and courage allowing more gay people to live openly. (I understand that the bible has something to say about that too, lets not today).
Sydnie, I think that you’ll back me up that one does not direct people to God for forgiveness when they feel they’ve done something ‘right’. I think you might want to hold off a moment on patting yourself on the back for not judging your friend. I think that it’s great that everything has worked out well for you. I am sorry that you had to have a baby to find out that that you were worth something. However, as much as it is not a baby’s fault that a woman ends up pregant, it is also not a baby’s job to save us, or love us, or give us meaning, or to entertain. (We don’t need to discuss how Jesus was a baby). We should not roll the die to see whether that is how it works out. That is not fair to the baby either. Not only did you not know what you were worth, but it sounds as though you still aren’t sure, you credit your child with your new found direction, which is wonderful, it isn’t easy I know, and I think it is great that you found it. You credit your child with attracting a man who apparently is worth your time, I’m glad you found a man who was worth your time. I think it is a lot to hang on a child though. Your child didn’t do it, you did. This is vital. We are the ones who are capable of thought that leads to alter our lives to ways that make it better. It can happen intentionally, it does not have to be a surprise.
No, I do not believe that all kept children were planned. I think that many are like you, a pleasant, yet unexpected, and unplanned surprise. Sometimes pleasant surprises occur, obviously you were one, though something obviously happened to you, I’m guessing you did not end up in the position that you were in by random choice. You made choices,and you made those for a reason. That’s not my business though.
I wasn’t speaking of unplanned children, I was speaking of unwanted children. I mean children that people have for reasons other than they want children, that just as you have credited your child with good things, credit theirs with their lives not working the way they wanted. These individuals retaliate against what they believe to be the sourse of their undesired position in life. The child then becomes a statistic who is either abused physically or emotionally, and generally suffers neglect. It isn’t rational to credit a child with the good or the bad in regards to effects on your life.
I am certain that there are women in mass that have made decisions either way that deeply regret their choice. People made decisions for all kinds of reasons, not all are based on objective thought. Nobody is arguing that abortion is a decision to be taken lightly, simply that it is a decision that must be made, and the discussion, as I noted earlier, is who gets to make it. It is that simple. It is a decision en masse, or the choice of an individual? Women have abortions for fear of the social stigma of being pregnant and single, though that is happily on the decline, (the stigma). It can’t be both ways, you cannot condemn a woman for having an abortion and being pregnant while not married. It isn’t rational, though….I don’t think it is supposed to be, that which is intended for control rarely is.
The people at Planned Parenthood do not have the responsibilty of giving a woman time to think about it. The assumption is that she can make her own decision, and that upon walking in she has made her decision. If she needs to speak with someone then it is her responsibility to seek that out. Planned Parenthood does provide information for women regarding preventive measures. This is why they are so insistent upon providing contraception. Their goal is also to lower the number of abortions by lowering the amount of women who end up with unwanted pregancies. (No Eric, this is not unnatural, this is a demonstration of women thinking, making a choice in how to live thier lives, I think that you’ll find that the brain is real, all natural, one hundred percent, and the ability to think and form rational conclusions is part of the package that can be used.)
While it would be foolish to state that all employees of all Planned Parenthoods are doing what they are supposed too, I can tell you that if you have run across instances where they are attempting to persuade women to have abortions you have run across a problem. Though it is a bit contradictory to first complain that they do not counsel and then to complain that they counsel the wrong thing. They can’t be Planned Parenthood and try to talk women out of abortion.
The pro-life side has the places that operate as though they are abortion clinics, only to have it exposed that they are intent to convince you that abortion is not the right thing to do. Planned Parenthood does not push abortion, they provide it. Any individual who is pushing abortion is as much an impediment to personal liberty as an ally of Pro-Life. By not counselling either way Planned Parenthood is a tool to ensure personal liberty.
Choice is the key. It is empowering of women. As I have lost track of the number of schools that have replaced sex educuation with abstinence preaching I think that it is vital that places such as Planned Parenthood exist for the utilization of teenagers not interested in living in the dark ages. These are places that they can find information that can help save them the grief of making any decision regarding an unplanned pregancy in the future. They can find out about contraception when there may be no other resource for the information. Why should they be deprived of information because it makes a certain segment of society uncomfortable.
If you were looking for Planned Parenthood to be a place that condemns abortion, or makes a decision for you, then you’ve got the wrong place. They are based on Choice, a womans ability to choose for themselves. You chose, others can as well. We simply won’t all choose the same thing.
Lauren, I’ll do it. I have had an abortion. I am grateful on a daily basis to the men and women who have made it possible for me to have had a safe and legal abortion. I am convinced that the body cannot tell the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage, and the difference is the stigma attached. The difference is how a woman is forced to deal with it. As long as women are afraid to hide the choice to have an abortion the longer we will face people who will tell us it is always a horrible thing. I was not in a position to take care of a child, and as I believe that it would have been my job to care for the child and not the other way around, I made a choice based on my abilities. I am now in school, studying Philosophy, Economics, which I will then take with me to Law School. I intend to come out of Law School with the intent of defending Personal Liberties, just like this one. I can’t speak for every woman who has ever or will ever make a decision. I can only tell you that I am a mark on the chalk board who does not regret it. I can’t change what that will make me to the Pro-lifers. I imagine that my pain and suffering would save me, be it the pain and suffering of having a child I didn’t want, or the pain and suffering of regret. It is pain and suffering I avoided. I view life differently. I view life as something that is to be cherished and enjoyed. In order to accomplish this we must be permitted to make decisions. All of our choices will not work out as we hoped. However, in the ability to make them and learn from them at least we will know we are alive.
Pro-Choice defends our right to think.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 5:11 am
sunnyday says:
Peace really does begin in the womb. If we don’t acknowledge the fact that a baby inside the womb is a human being who deserves the same respect as born people do, what stops us from killing each other?
When a person sees unborn children as burdens or disposable things, that person is robbed of peace of mind.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 5:56 am
Sydnie says:
Sunnyday that is perfect! what a beautiful thing to say! Eric you are so strong keep up the good work!
Lauren, this morning I was thinking I was going to send a message saying thank you for a nice civil debate and say we need to agree to disagree and thank you for the experience, however looks like you became a bit angry…so I will say that to Lucy who from what I have read has kept her cool….And I have to say yes my daughter did same me. I do believe in miracles along with that everything happens for a reason, though we don’t understand it… I can;t imagine how you guys can think that an unborn baby is a disposable piece of property…Or that we have the right to JUDGE who gets to live and who doesnt?
let me tell you about a story of a woman I love, my sister. She was married with 2 children and one on the way. Her husband who forces sex on her every night and is controlling and emotionally abusive. He told her he would leave her if she didn;t kill the baby. She is the sweetest gentlest person in the world, but not very strong, and so deeply in love with this man that she chose him over the baby. On the table in PP she was getting meds and sat up and screamed NO!! the dr pushed her back down and screamed ITS TOO LATE!! It has been 10 years now and she still hears those words and agonizes over that baby. For the first 5 years she would lock herself in the bathroom and cry and cry. She was on antidepressants, it has been a terrible time. She still won;t forgive herself no matter what we say to her. My mom wrote a poem to her that she reads at prolife conventions to give her healing (doesn;t say who the woman is) it is called little baby never born. Abortions have not helped women!!
may I remind you again how women can think…they can CHOOSE ABSTINENCE! they can CHOOSE BIRTH CONTROL…they can CHOOSE ADOPTION. They should not be allowed to CHOOSE MURDER. I don;t know why you can;t get that through your head! it is NOT AS IF WE DO NOT HAVE OPTIONS! though i do not believe in contraceptives for me…other people may use them…that is where I am not to judge… I beleive that 80% of our country’s problems would end if people would stop having sex outside of marriage. I know you will mention the “accidental” pregnancies, well not the baby’s fault, she or he does not deserve to die!
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Sydnie says:
“Abortion is the destruction of human life and energy that does nothing to eradicate the very real underlying problems of women. The pregnant welfare mother begs for decent housing, a decent job and child-care or respect for her child-nurturing work. Instead, she gets directions to the local abortion clinic and is told to take care of ‘her problem.’ How convenient. Much less time and trouble than teaching her about authentic reproductive freedom and reproductive responsibility. Much cheaper than attending to her real problems: her poverty, her lack of skills, her illiteracy, her loneliness, her bitterness about her entrapment, her self-contempt, her vulnerability. After the abortion these problems will all be there and another one added besides: her guilt.
“By encouraging society to consider a woman’s child as a disposable piece of property, abortion reinforces the image of woman herself as disposable property and reusable sex object-a renewable sexual resource. It is no coincidence that the biggest single financial contributor to the cause of ‘abortion rights’ is the Playboy Foundation. When abortion is available to all women, all male responsibility for fertility control has been removed. A man need only offer a woman money for an abortion and that’s it: no responsibility, no relationship, no commitment. And there we are… recycled and used again!” –Cecilia Voss Koch
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Lucy says:
It’s very cute and poetic, but would you please explain on what grounds you presume to declare the state of mind held my anyone but yourself?
I think that it is tragic when a woman is denied her basic rights to choose for herself. I think that it is tragic when a woman becomes nothing more than an incubator for the satisfaction of people who confuse life with existance.
Oh, and because a fetus inside a womb is a potential human being. The woman it is residing in is the actual human being. Only actual human beings have rights.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Sydnie says:
a woman needs
lOVE not abortion! just think about what i wrote! It is not about you or me being right…this is about the unborn who do not have the right to speak!
By the way, Lucy I am sorry for you loss somehow I missed that and congrats on persuing your education…you know pregnancy lasts for 9 months to prepare a woman for this baby, you grow to love this child unconditionally ready or not! That is why there is not sex and then a baby, I think a very small percentage if any, of women are actually “ready”. YOu may think you are but it is a huge responsibility. By the way, my brother in law is an lawer near washington DC. He had a child with my “sister at the age of 19. (this is a different one) He in NO way EVER was against this baby. His education took him a little longer but it paid off now! He wouldn’t regret his dicision to keep his son for anything! They have raised 3 wonderful children and now have a beautiful life, ( although I think my sister is changing because of the money) but he is not! He is a WONDERFUL man with a lot of strength. You seem like a strong woman…what makes you think you could not have cared for this child as well?
byw I am only even talking about it because you say it doesn;t bother you so I assume we can talk about it…if you were regretful I would leave it at that and offer my support. ..if i offended you my apologies!
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:12 am
Lucy says:
Only actual human beings are capable of thought. Only actual human beings are dependant on thought.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:13 am
Lucy says:
I don’t take offense at all. I don’t mind talking about it at all. I have no regrets. I’m afraid at this point I have to leave for work. I’ll respond later though. I’m obviously on here though, and I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Sydnie says:
I think it is tragic when a baby becomes nothing more then a BALL of TISSUE? that doesn;t make sense I work in the newborn nursery and daily see the miracles of life….I guess you gave yours up….besides we are not their teachers…they teach us…you may not understand that if you dont have children. SCIENCE HAS PROVEN THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION> thinking it does not shows that you buy one of the biggest lies of PP. again you have forgotten the choices women do have…..
equal rights for unborn women!
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Sydnie says:
have a great day…my kiddos are up so I have to go too! thanks for the consideration!
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Sydnie says:
If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career, their economic social status, they are pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience. Of all things which are done to women to fit them into a society dominated by men, abortion is the most violent invasion of their physical and psychic integrity. It is a deeper and more destructive assault than rape…. Accepting short-term solutions like abortion only delays the implementation of real reforms like decent maternity and paternity leaves, job protection, high-quality child care, community responsibility for dependent people of all ages, and recognition of the economic contribution of child-minders.” –Daphne de Jong
“How quickly a ‘woman’s right to choose’ comes to serve a ‘man’s right to use.’” –Juli Loesch
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Sydnie says:
no offense eric…btw if you are striving for men and women to be equal then why shouldn;t men be given the right to choose as well? if a woman keeps a baby shouldn;t he be able to choose not to pay child support? I don;t think this is more extreme then being able to kill your baby!
or do we just have different functions. I am sorry that you are burdened by what makes you a woman. That is how we were designed, if you want to call your womb an “incubator” then I guess you are ashamed of your beautiful womanhood.
ok dad needs me to nurse my baby
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Lauren says:
Lucy. You are a fantastic woman and thank you for your courage and it is inspiring. Unfortunately many of the people on this site are living in fairy land. I too have to some degree learned to ignore them. If they knew how hurtful and mean some of the things they say are. They think we’re mean? Please. Do you think anyone of Sydnie’s friends would actually tell them that they didn’t regret their abortion? No, because they would get judged, smacked in the face with the Bible, and then lectured to death about when life does and doesnt begin.
The truth is one in four of us will have an abortion by the time we’re 40. This is a tragedy. This is a tragedy for women. We deserve our access to birth control, legally and affordably. This includes education as well. We deserve to have a choice over our bodies as it is fundamental to our freedom. Without that choice we are merely vessels.
And Sydnie, it is not your place to lecture Lucy on her abortion. If it were not for women like her, women like you would not be allowed to talk. We preserve our freedoms so people like you can hope that they are taken away. It’s quite ironic indeed.
I too hope for a future for myself and a future that gives me choice.
We fight for just relationships of power Lucy, we fight for rights, we fight for the well-being of women. They fight for zygotes. Never let yourself forget that.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Lauren says:
Sunnyday weeeee peace begins inside the womb? What on earth does that mean? That is the fluffiest weirdest statement I’ve ever heard.
Gay marriage killed the dinosaurs!
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Lauren says:
I think it is tragic when a baby becomes nothing more then a BALL of TISSUE?
that doesn;t make sense I work in the newborn nursery and daily see the miracles of life….I guess you gave yours up….besides we are not their teachers…they teach us…you may not understand that if you dont have children. SCIENCE HAS PROVEN THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION> thinking it does not shows that you buy one of the biggest lies of PP. again you have forgotten the choices women do have…..
equal rights for unborn women!
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Lauren says:
“I think it is tragic when a baby becomes nothing more then a BALL of TISSUE?”
Why is this so hard for you to fathom? Did you take an elementary science class. Oh wait, the world is flat, evolution does not exist, and the earth was formed in three days. Nevermind.
“that doesn;t make sense I work in the newborn nursery and daily see the miracles of life….”
Since when are newborns clumps of cells? Did I miss something?
“SCIENCE HAS PROVEN THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION”
what is your point? and who mandated this study that came to this conclusion? Illinois Right to Life?? Lol. Would you not say sperm are alive? My boyfriend then must kill a lot of living beings in a given week. What does this crap mean about life at conception? Do the heavens come falling down and crazy chuch music come reverberating through a woman’s belly. No sperm meets egg and there is an opportunity to have a baby. If you dont see the difference between an 1 week old zygote and a bouncing baby you aren’t looking hard enough.. In this case you’d actually have to be looking through a microscope to see the first. Well it certainly is cheaper in diapers and cradle etc.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Lauren says:
btw I’ve been to a few PP locations and never have they been run by men. However the politicians interested in taking away my rights happen to be men.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Christina says:
Lauren, you sound like you’ve really given this a lot of thought and tried to arrive at a stand based on what you’ve learned and not just on what different organizations are saying.
I know it’s tough for me to say where I stand on the death penalty. Am I for it, but only in very limited circumstances? Or am I against it, except for very limited circumstances? I don’t fit in a pro or con camp.
I’m trying to get folks like you to connect to each other. L, Zygote, and achromic frequent my blog (click on my link), and I think in them you might find kindred spirits. Please come and contribute to the discussion there, and get hooked up with L and the others.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Sydnie says:
Lauren I will respond to you later…I think you have missed a lot of points like CONCEPTION and life beginning then. Take a look at science books and no I am not from IL I am proud to say I am from SD!! I am proud of my state and if you knew me you would know I am not a big bible thumper at all, I wish I was. I do believe in evolution just for the record! I do believe God instigated it. It makes perfect sense to me that we evolved. and the tissue comes from lucy’s comment about how unimportant the fetus is. May I remind you that you are a former fetus, and you mother could have chosen to end your life in which you would not have the right to choose to have sex outside of marriage.
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “BTW Eric, you dodged my Biblical authorship questions quite nicely.”
Yeah, well I’m still waiting to hear from you what Jesus said about war. And aren’t really asking questions about biblical authorship, you’re making pronouncements about it on the basis of the one new testament class you took.
You accuse us of looking at issues in terms of black and white, and yet that’s precisely what you’re doing on the question of who wrote the books of the New Testament. Nevermind the decades of debate, the disputes and differing schools of thought, not to mention the various biases and agendas—on both sides—that are brought to the question. No, because your teacher in your one undergraduate class declared that it’s “certain” we don’t know who wrote most of those books, why, it must be so.
I don’t buy your professor’s take on this, Lauren, and believe it or not I have studied this, both from the perspective of a commited apostate and from the perspective of devout Catholic. My judgment is that in general the traditional attributions of the books of the New Testament are valid; if we really “don’t know” if Luke the disciple of Paul wrote the Gospel According to Saint Luke, neither do we “know” that he didn’t; and it is fallacious to believe that traditions are false merely because they are traditions.
I already linked to Luke Timothy Johnson’s book; you ought to read it—it’s just a thin little thing. Johnson is considered by many a rather liberal theologian (he favors contraception, for example, and has written in opposition of John Paul II’s teachings on the nuptial meaning of the body). But in The Real Jesus : The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels, LTJ decimates a lot of the ideas you appear to have bought wholesale in that class you took.
But I am not particularly troubled whether the Gospel of Luke was written by the selfsame Luke who was a disciple of Paul, or by one of Luke’s own disciples faithfully making an account of what he learned from Luke. Likewise for Mark, etc.
Whether literally written down by the disciples whose names are on them or dictated to others, or written down later by the disciples of those men, these books are an authentic account of what Jesus did and said. I see no reason to believe otherwise. Clearly there was a man named Jesus who said and did some things, and who gathered around him men and women who believed that he was the Messiah, and who immediately after Jesus’ time among them, began to spread the news of his words and deeds far and wide.
He said and did things they considered it crucial to share with others. The idea that they would be careless about the accuracy of their account comports neither with the situation itself—how seriously the took the charge to spread this message—nor the oral culture of that time. These were people trained from childhood to faithfully memorize the words of the Law and the Prophets. It is hard for us to imagine the capacity for memorization—and the need for it—in a time before widespread literacy, cheap paper, the printing press and, now, the Internet. Simply put, they were better listeners than we are, and better at retaining what they heard.
Jesus could not have chosen a better time to walk among a people recounting his sayings and parables (both forms which lend themselves to easy memorization), confident that they would be remembered and passed on. So your “telephone” analogy doesn’t fit in the slightest. These people considered the message crucial and they were ideally suited to pass it on. Which they did.
Now, you can disagree with my perspective on this if you want, but please drop the patronizing tone. You aren’t an expert on the New Testament on the basis of having taken a single class, nor, you ought to admit, am I an ignoramous on the basis of being a Catholic (this, it seems, is your only criterion: if one is a believer, one is ipso facto an ignoramus, and knows nothing of the Certain Truths that you learned in that one class of yours).
Okay?
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Sunnyday says:
“Oh, and because a fetus inside a womb is a potential human being. The woman it is residing in is the actual human being. Only actual human beings have rights.”
Thanks for pointing this out. That the creature inside the mother’s womb is a “potential human being” is one of the major misconceptions going around for decades. I’m not sure who started it but I imagine it became acceptable the same way that people started denying that life starts at conception when the courts were successful in changing it to “life starts at implantation.” Any honest scientist who knows his business knows that a fertilized egg, even before 48 hours after conception, already has the DNA that makes him a human being — 23 chromosomes from each of the parents. These constitute an individual person.
And I think it was Lucy who said it (sorry, but there are so many comments that it’s getting confusing) but a mother is more than a mere incubator when a human being is growing inside her. If a mother thinks of herself that way, it’s too bad. She should understand her worth more than that.
One last thing: everybody wants to be free, right? But freedom is more than the ability to do whatever we want to do. It’s choosing the good without being coerced to do so. Can choosing to kill (read: a deliberate act) your own flesh and blood be anything good?
Hello Sydnie, Eric and everyone else in the blog!
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Sydnie says:
Right on Sunnydays!
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Sunnyday says:
Oh, I noticed just now that Lauren addressed one of her comments to what I said about peace starting in the womb. It’s something like this –
The womb USED TO BE the safest place in the world. Everything that the growing person needs to survive is in there, and essentially he/she is protected from the things that we in the “outside world” are exposed to, and here i’m referring more to transgressions of the law such as murder, rape, theft — any form of assault and violence. Also, nurturing and caring are innate tendencies in women (MORE pronounced than in men, in case some man reading this misinterprets my statement) so that in most cases, the mother is careful about what she ingests or the activities she engages in since she knows these have an effect on her child.
I said up there that the womb USED TO BE the safest place because now, being a baby inside a woman is not that safe anymore. Due to factors I tackled in my previous comment, unborn children are regarded by some as disposable things or mere pieces of tissue and not as the human beings they are.
If what has been been a peaceful place can now be violated; if innocent lives such as unborn babies can be seen as “ok” to be killed; if peace is lost in this realm, what hope do we have of attaining peace in our world where criminals abound? We don’t even respect an innocent baby and we don’t respect the women who nurture them for months…then how do we expect to attain peace in this noisy, crime-filled world where criminals abound?
Comment posted March 12th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Lucy says:
Sunnyday, you have dodged the question. On what grounds do you presume to tell me or anyone else the conditions of anyones mind but your own. The womb safe? I suspect you do not actually believe that every fetus is carried to term without abortion entering the picture. (Yes, I understand that this is not what you speak of, It’s simply a demonstration that other things do occur, we are not discussing a Utopia here). I suspect you do not actually believe that the womb in and of itself is the source of all of the neccessities that the fetus recieves. I suspect you thought about the implications that a fetus in the womb has an active mind filled with thoughts and considerations, where more than base reactions to outside stimuli are active. I’m sorry that you see the world as such a hopeless place, though I can’t help but wonder how it is you feel that bringing an innocent child into such a disgusting environment could be an act of kindness. Of course if the world has disintegrated into the mess that you have described, which to a degree of course it has, it is only because people have not been left alone and allowed to be responsible for their own existence,(and choose whether to make it a life). I agree entirely with you that freedom does not mean being able to run amuck and do whatever we choose absolutely. Freedom means making our own choices, and suffering the consequences, be they good or bad. Their are obvious examples for how this works, one is free to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, one will suffer the consequences. The understanding of this forces us to think and become more informed or suffer the consequences.
Sydnie, Planned Parenthood doesn’t speak for me. I appreciate the services they provide and the options they give, however, I also believe that they need to watched carefully less they simply become the other side of the coin. As I stated, pushing abortion is as much an impediment to free choice as is denying them. This is why I feel that it is acceptable that they do not give counseling, what kind of counseling would you have them give? It wouldn’t be fair to expect them to counsel against abortion, nor would it be right for them to counsel in favor of. No matter what choice is made the individual who must always live with the choice they have made is the individual who made the choice, I understand that this is usually understood to be the woman, but I’ll think you’ll agree that the father would also be affected by the decision. The only person who should make the choice is the person who will endure the consequences.
Sydnie, I’m sorry about your sister, as I stated earlier, if such things are occuring at Planned Parenthoods, or any other locations that provide abortions, then they are wrong. They are horribly, and unjustifiably wrong. That is not in the name of choice and is not condoned. The doctor in question should have been reported to the proper authorities. A patient requiring their appendix out would have the right to choose to decline, a woman seeking an abortion would certainly retain the right to change her mind. I can’t concieve of it, but then it doesn’t mean that their aren’t people who don’t understand the limitiations. It also sounds as though your sister had been coerced into taking an action that didn’t match her choice prior to arriving at planned parenthood. The initial villan here is her husband. The abuse that she was suffering would not have led her to a position where she could make a healthy decision, meaning the one that was right to her. I think that you’ll also grant me that this was sex within a marriage, indicating that sex outside of marriage may not be the contributing factor it is credited with.
As I stated earlier, I don’t mind discussing it, it gives me the opportunity to think about things on a different level. Understand better my position, and understand yours. I appreciate the opportunity, and have no reason to be angry. I do understand however what would cause Lauren to become angry. It is the thought that someone else is going to control her and prevent her from making her own decisions, (I suspect, I don’t mean to speak for you Lauren, I’m just guessing). It would anger me as well if I believed it were possible. I don’t. It’s interesting that you are from South Dakota, there’s been an uproar about it. Of course there was only one clinic operating in South Dakota, and fear had inspired that it would be run by staffing from neighboring states. Planned Parenthood and other choice locations are gearing up to fight them, which I believe would be a collosal mistake. The decisions reached in South Dakota are amongst the primary reasons that I am amazed that the doctors have not thrown up their hands and said forget it to both sides. Afterall, I don’t know how to perform an abortion. Though, when abortions are illegal it does not prevent women from obtaining them and dying in the process. The amount of lives that legalized abortion has saved is likely incalcuable.
If the ‘rights’ of the fetus to exist are greater than the rights of the woman to think then what else can I imagine her to be but an incubator. When religion and government are legislating her mind and controlling her body then it is not she that has reduced her value, but they. For nine months, she will be a servant to an eventual child who she does not want to whom she will be a servant to for the next 18 plus years. Even with child support laws on the books it doesn’t guarentee that a father will pay child support. Nor does it guarentee that the father will make enough to support the child.
I think I appreciate the fact that at very least you are not in favor of coerced child birth, while opposed to government aid, but I think there are better solutions. I understand that the saying is that it takes a village to raise a child, but I think that if one expects the village to raise a child then they best consult with the village first regarding their willingness and ability. I for one am neither willing nor able. I understand that this likely sounds cruel, but please recall, I am opposed to coerced morality, and do not consider forcing the members of society to pay for children without their consent to be moral. I’m sure your kids are great, but do you really believe that I should be forced to feed them. This is what you are calling for above. The government has no money. It is flat out broke. I am not speaking of the mindboggling deficit that the current administration is leaving behind for generations to come, I am speaking of the fact that every cent they spend comes out of the pockets of hard working members of society. This means that this is where the money comes from for every social program, welfare, government sponsored what have you, it isn’t theres. The government doesn’t have any money. It is a fallacy that our government is amongst the wealthiest in the world. In fact they are the most impoverished of all. It is we, that they represent, that are amongst the wealthiest in the world, as a group. This does not mean the wealthiest must pay for the poorest. They should not be forced to pay for an unwanted child either.
I didn’t make my choice to pander to men. It will be found that I do little to nothing to pander to men. In fact, I am amazed, it would have been my assumption that the majority of women who support the right to choose were some of the most determined feminists in existance. Women who would argue that the sky was plaid if it would go against the word of a man, not that I’m that extreme, but I’ve met them. In fact, I don’t really consider myself a feminist. I think that feminism calls for rights based on being women, I call for no denial of rights based on womanhood. There is a difference.
I have to go now.
Lauren, thank you for the compliment. I think you seem very strong as well. I couldn’t forget if I tried. Remember the Spanish Inquisition. Jewish people were forced to deny their faith, they did so in public to satisfy the violent whims of the church, in private they kept their traditions to the best of their abilities.
Comment posted March 13th, 2006 at 5:58 am
Sydnie says:
I still don’t understand why you have forgotten women’s rights. Contraceptives, abstinence, adoption. She can choose what to do with her body. You speak of “suffering” the consequences. Killing a baby is not that at all. Once a woman creates a beautiful life in her womb, she no longer should have a choice because she has another body inside of her. And yeah, my sister is in a very bad position. Acttually sex outside of marriage was the cause of their marriage, and he had another child with another woman druing their marriage. Let me get this straight. You support a woman’s right to CHOOSE but if she CHOOSES life you dont agree with her choosing to leep her baby and refuse to help her because money is more important than this woman and her child! HIPOCRACY! the counseling i speak of is pp is against prior couinseling. what’s the big deal afraid she may change her mind? Not to mention afterwards they do not off support in the clinic itself if she experiences pain, regret, and suicidal thoughts. THis is one of the major causes of suicide in America for women. These women need love an compassion.The most disgusting thing about this world itself is that it believes it is ok for a mother )or should i say pregnant woman) to kill her own child! How can we have a peaceful world after that. Not to mention, you guys have had the right to choose so what are you talking about not having that right is what made the wold a mess? Being a servant is a terrible way to describe motherhood. If you ever have children I know you will change your mind! And believe my I know all about child support. I receive on occasion $23 a week. It rediculous. Especially because he is 23 and still lives with mommy and daddy. However he is very grateful that I don;t raise it every chance i get, infact I never have. We get along great when not together. And yes I do have wonderful children. I expected to have babies that screamed constantly, that is how the world looks at babies. God must not have given me more then I can handle because though I am biased i think they are perfect., they have actually been really easy babies and toddlers. don’t get me wrong we have our moments but overall they are wonderful. So many people have come up to me and told me have well behaved they are. I don;t know that I could handle one that screams alll the time. Or maybe that is much more rare then the world makes us believe. And yes the womb is a safe place. Barring the mother doesn;t smoke, drink, drugs, or be exposed to terrotogens then yes it is safe. Or anything else the medical world has given to destroy the body (we don;t believe in vaccines either)
Comment posted March 13th, 2006 at 8:20 am
April says:
Lucy says:
“For nine months, she will be a servant to an eventual child who she does not want to whom she will be a servant to for the next 18 plus years.”
Lucy, It makes me sad to think that this is how a young woman would view motherhood. And I don’t believe that you or any other woman really believes this in her heart. Yes, a baby requires you to sacrifice. But no thing worth having in this world doesn’t require a sacrifice. In fact, the joy you will experience is in direct proportion to the sacrifices you are willing to make.
Motherhood itself is under attack in this culture, where women are taught to believe that giving of themselves to another is demeaning somehow, the stripping of her “rights”. Happiness and freedom do not come from fulfilling our own desires all the time. Paradoxically, the more you are willing to give up, the more free you will be and the happier you will be.
But you would not be here if your own mother had not sacrificed herself for you, and countless times. Does she wish you had never been born? On the contrary, I’m guessing that having you as a daughter gives her life great meaning, purpose and happiness. Putting your own wants and desires aside to serve another is the very thing that allows humanity to exist at all. And it’s the very thing that makes us happy, especially in the long run.
Now, whether you want your baby or not when you’re pregnant means nothing to that child when it is born. You will make sacrifices for him or her,
no matter how easy a child it is, or how much you wanted it. And even if you want the baby and love the baby, as most of us mothers do, there will be times when you don’t particularly feel like serving the baby’s needs. But you do. It’s a little thing called love. The love between a mother and a child is no small thing. In fact, it’s one of the most powerful things in the world. There’s nothing else like it, and that’s why abortion is so wrong. It twists love into death.
My point is, we cannot choose to love only on our own terms. Love always involves sacrifice — the greater the love, the greater the sacrifice we are willing to make. A woman who chooses abortion is choosing not to love, and that is the saddest thing in the world. She has no idea that the love she is withholding will only fill her own soul with emptiness and regret.
I thank God for my children. Without them, and there are seven, so far, my life would be so much less joyful. Yes, I could do what I wanted when I wanted. But what is the meaning in that? If I don’t live for love, I live for nothing and nobody.
I pray for your change of heart and others like you.
Comment posted March 13th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Lauren says:
Hey folks—sorry I’ve been away I started school again today from Spring Break
“May I remind you that you are a former fetus, and you mother could have chosen to end your life in which you would not have the right to choose to have sex outside of marriage. ” -Sydnie
What the heck does this mean Sydnie? I’m a former fetus? I’m also a former sperm and a former egg, and a former two year old and a former 15 year old and a former 18 year old and a former 20 year old. You have no point. If my mother had chosen to terminate her pregnancy I would not exist. Sounds pretty crappy now, but I dont think I would have had much thought about it when I was a zygote. Do you remember being a zygote? Do you know anyone that does?
What does Jesus say about war? Blessed are those that are the peacemakers. Plus he rejected all notions of law at that time which stated eye for an eye as its basis and also I remember this “turn the other cheek” notion, but who knows that probably isnt like a central theme jesus presents (sarcasm).
“You accuse us of looking at issues in terms of black and white, and yet that’s precisely what you’re doing on the question of who wrote the books of the New Testament. Nevermind the decades of debate, the disputes and differing schools of thought, not to mention the various biases and agendas—on both sides—that are brought to the question. No, because your teacher in your one undergraduate class declared that it’s “certain” we don’t know who wrote most of those books, why, it must be so.”
LOL eric… my teacher happened to be a Catholic priest. lmao.. Just because you face ignorance about your professed religion doesnt mean what I’m telling you is wrong. Ask any scholar or in fact anyone that has done any reasonable amount of study at the Vatican and they will tell you the same. The fact that you think the actual apostles wrote the Bible and you use it as a roadmap to preach is quite scary. It shows just how ignorant many right-wing “christians” are. This is not an opinion, this is fact. If you don’t like it, I’m sorry. That’s why people like you reject evolutionism. If you dont like it you just say oh no that’s wrong. Fucking weird but whatever. My grandfather was in the seminary and my grandmother was a cloistered Catholic nun for many, many years. I come from a long line of devout Catholics that would tell you what I am telling you. It has nothing to do with my issues or non-issues with the church, it is fact.
Shame on me for thinking the Bible shouldnt be the be-all to end-all of telling us what it takes to be a good person when a large portion of it is a giant game of telephone, in languages that cannot be translated lol.
I dont mean to be condescending. But when someone preaches at me or tells me or others what I can and cannot do on the basis of their closely held beliefs, recognize that me and others are going to hold you to the same standard of questioning what you believe in. When you do not know the basic tenets of who wrote what you are preaching, it is disturbing and you begin to lack credibility. I am not an expert, but I know enough to tell you that you are mistaken. Faith should be a challenge and a question, not an all-encompassing answer. You can never know faith in anything until you question. To me, you seem like another one of those blind believers, unwilling to doubt yourself and your beliefs. Think for a second, just imagine that you might be wrong. Imagine that all this stuff you talk about Jesus, is all wrong. I know it’s hard to move past it, but to have doubt enables faith. God’s greatest gift to us was our mind. And by God I am going to use it.
“And I think it was Lucy who said it (sorry, but there are so many comments that it’s getting confusing) but a mother is more than a mere incubator when a human being is growing inside her.”
Sunnyday, you would argue that a woman is a mere vessel of the zygote inside of her and therefore does not have rights. Don’t point fingers when your argument is contradictory. Btw, I can use zygote if you use chromosome. Rightwingers tend to use science when it is convenient!
“essentially he/she is protected from the things that we in the “outside world” are exposed to, and here i’m referring more to transgressions of the law such as murder, rape, theft — any form of assault and violence”
Then why bring a child into the world if this is what he/she experiences? Your argument is weak, back it up. Crap, I really dont want to have a child in a world where “criminals abound”. Lol.
April… you clearly misunderstand what it is to have choice. You have the choice to be a mother. You have the choice to be a careerwoman. You have the choice to be religious. You have the choice to not be a mother. All of these choices is a celebration of womanhood. Unless of course, you’d like to reverse the clock for us 200 years, I suggest you start learning that womanhood is not defined by motherhood.
Have you ever met someone who was abused, unloved, and unwanted? I have. April you act as though that every child once born is immediately loved and doted upon. When you come back down to earth, let’s talk. Until then, you can enjoy fairyland while the rest of us don’t think that way.
As for all of you that have had your own children and march against abortion. You are hypocrites if you do not adopt. Unless you are willing to take these children, you are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
Comment posted March 13th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Sydnie says:
First of all, we do plan to adopt! as you know that costs a lot of money up front so we have to save for it! we are going to adopt older children that often get pushed aside for the babies. what are you talking about the war and all? have i ever implied that I am for war? and what does that have to do with abortion? maybe it does because abortion is war on teh child.
I do want to say this to you Lauren, I think it is great that you seek answers about religion and the bible,and teachings. You are right that is the only way you learn. And speaking of translations I agree with you as well. I am fluent in portuguese and I know that there are many things that simply do not translate. If you are familiar with the catholic faith then you are aware that we are based not only on sacred scripture but sacred tradition. I myself, put more emphasis on this. I know scripture is important as well but I also think that (maybe you have seen the documentary on the histroy channel about the bible and jesus having siblings and a child of his own, or perhaps you have read the da vinci code) I found both of these to deep root my faith even more, as well as open up the possibility that jesus may have had a daughter. I think that would be experience life on earth to the fullest. The bible only tells us what is necessary for salvation, in the grand scheme of things that is not important. I definately think you learn best by questioning and I think that is why you are spending time on this site. I have enjoyed talking to you and getting another perspective, not looking to change my mind but try to understand the other side. I still haven’t understood under any circumstances where abortion is justifiable. I think it is selfish. And you think it is bad that we think having a baby defines us? well I think it is bad when your career is what defines you. That is what we live for these days, status and money you know? I think that is so sad. Not that I am not guilty of that myself, I always think it would be nice to have money. I do realize now that what make me the happiest in this life are my children. recently I have really realized how much more they matter then anything esle after My dad had a car accident 7 months ago and is still in the hospital and is a tetraplegic. It has actually made me see how much a loving compassionate God we have. Sound crazy?! I can imagine. My dad has made a lot of bad choice and was an alcoholic most of his life (that was not the cause of his accident) He has almost died many times and I see how many chances God has given him, and really wants him to go to heaven. Unfortunately, my dad still seems unwilling to change. I don’t know what is in his heart and can’t judge but seeing how he treats the nursing staff is really sad. I hope you realize how much of a loving God we have as well. Seeing how much God has done for my dad to try to see him I see how much her cares and makes me all the more certain he would never want abortion to exist in our world.
Comment posted March 13th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Sydnie says:
hope that made sense my mind is fried. Just had a nursing exam…sorry if it didn’t. Good night! God Bless :o)
Comment posted March 13th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Sarah says:
I am amazed by the statements posted here - and confused too.
“Then why bring a child into the world if this is what he/she experiences? Your argument is weak, back it up. Crap, I really dont want to have a child in a world where “criminals abound”. Lol.”
(I’m sorry but I have to address my question to the person who wrote it) Then why are YOU here? Why do you continue to to live in a world where “criminals abound”? There must be something in “this life” that you like or live for — and you deny the aborted babies from having them.
“…to have choice.” We may have choices and we love having a lot of them. But the premise of having choices lies on the intellect of the person - if a woman is in a dire situation (for whatever reason), I can’t blame her if she becomes emotional or she may “think” that there’s not much of a choice but to abort the baby. But being too poor is not even a justifiable excuse for killing a human being in a womb. If it is a justification, then why in the world are the women in third world countries give birth to babies? I really don’t understand where some of the posted statements are coming from. (Apologies)
“Womanhood is not defined by motherhood.”
This is another mind-numbing statement and it almost knocked me off my chair. Maybe the author meant, “not solely defined”?
“Have you ever met someone who was abused, unloved, and unwanted?”
Yes. If I say I am abused, unloved and unwanted, does it mean that I could be justifiably killed too?
And isn’t it true that most of the babies that were put up for adoption had mothers who refused to abort their “tissues”? They “knew” too well that there are other “choices”.
Apologies again, call me naive but I’m really surprised with what I am reading in this “thread”.
Comment posted March 13th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Lucy says:
April,
Motherhood under attack? Yes, I suppose it is arguable that if my mother had chosen to not have children, that I, being her child, would not be here. I’ll grant you that, and boy that was a puzzle. Would I have known had she chosen otherwise? I don’t think so; we obviously would not be having this discussion, but my suspicion is that I wouldn’t care. Yeah, my mother made a point of letting me know on a regular basis how much she regretted having me, offered to kill both me and her on several occasions. On a few occasions I thought she was actually going to do it. So you lose your second bet my dear.
I’ve grown though, I’m past it, I’ll just not have you telling me who I am. Motherhood is not under attack in this country. Why is it whenever something else gains equal or close to equal value the assumption is made that the former champion is under attack. Motherhood is safe as safe can be. It’s just that in modern times women have realized that they can do other things if they wish to.
What the devil is wrong with women choosing not to get married; not to have children, to instead pursue a career. What is with this crusade to make women feel as though they are less than women if they do not choose to be mothers, and if they must obtain some respectable feminine career that exihibits their softer qualities. Rejection of progress is one thing, attempting to scar young girls and women for accepting is quite another. The Amish have chosen to Reject progress, but I don’t have them telling me to turn out the lights and give away my car. What is wrong with women opting to acknowledge that they nor a child would benefit from the split of their time between family and career and therefore opting to be responsible and not have children.
Sacrifice, I know, sacrifice the career, the car, the home, the hopes, the dreams, put the virgin in the volcano and call it a day would you. Sacrifice has not led to the perpetuation of humanity. Wait, I take that back, for some of you, yes, Sacrifice has been the only reason for your perpetuation. Without the existance of those who were capable of developing the instruments that you so brazenly demand be sacrificed to you; those who discovered how to grow crops in mass, those who figured out how to keep the dirty water away from the clean water, figured out how to herd cattle, write, read, count, invented the wheel, communicate on any level, And here, in America, without those who understand what Freedom is, and that it must be defended against those who seek it’s destruction, and that no sacrifice is possible, lest it be lost, Without those who understood what it was and created it…Yes, without those people and their zest for life that caused thier blindness, preventing them from understanding that they were indeed being sacrificed, yes without them those who so steadily believe in human sacrifice would not have persisted. For those of us who do not believe in human sacrifice, we understand that nothing but exchange by mutual consent will allow humanity to exist in peace.
We acknowledge that an actual does not have to sacrifice herself to potential. When a woman becomes a mother it should be when she is ready to devote herself to helping a new life learn how to live. It should not be because she has been coerced into it. It should not be because she has been ordered to sacrifice herself to someone she did not agree to sacrifice herself too.
Please understand, I am not looking for your consent to be free to choose. I am telling you that I will retain my freedom to choose.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 12:05 am
Lucy says:
Sarah, I don’t agree with you, but at least you make sense.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Lucy says:
Sydnie,
I never said that there was something wrong with choosing to be a mother. I’m sorry your sister forfeit the right to choose, but she chose. She had options, of course under those circumstances it is hard realize that you have options. Premarital sex does not lead to marriage, even when there is pregnancy. You, I believe, have declared you were pregnant out of marriage, and did not marry the father. You are correct that women do have other choices. I do not argue with that. Abortion is intended to be a last resort. Contraceptives are not 100percent effective, and not all women feel comfortable with adoption. I think that you’ll also grant me that there are already many unwanted and unadopted children available for adoption.
I think that I must tell you that after my abortion I never had a suicidal thought, nor did I feel guilty. What I felt was alone, I bought what was being sold. I grew up in an authoritarian household where none of the above options, short abistence would have been counted as an option. But, as you may have caught in an above post, healthy wasn’t exactly a descriptive term that could be applied. I did not think that I could talk to anyone regarding what I was experiencing. I was confused, and generally uncertain. I had been prepared by an upbringing in a Southern Baptist Church for the experiences that you listed above. I nearly thought there was something wrong with me for not feeling that way. I had braced myself, but it never came, the guilt, the pain, the suicidal tendancies. I’m not a statistic in a magazine or on a website or from propaganda. I’m real, I’m flesh and blood, that is my experience. I realized that those of us who have had abortions need to stop giving in to those who tell us what we are. We need to speak. We did nothing wrong. We have no reason for guilt. Some may feel regret, that’s all based on what drove them to their decision.
I do not count my abortion as a loss, though I thank you because I know your intentions were well. I’m strong now, I wasn’t then. Whether I could have raised a child well is irrelevant, but, what I knew was I didn’t want a child. I understand that their are Forty weeks between conception and birth, I know that in that time one can grow attached. I think that there is likely a link to how willing one is to consider opening oneself up to the possibility. You may have been in a better position for that. I don’t think I was. I know I wasn’t. I’m still not. I’m sure your children are wonderful, and I’m sure that you are a great mother.
I am at a loss for why you seem opposed to women choosing not to have children. It seems that abortion isn’t even the factor on that one.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 12:30 am
Lucy says:
Sydnie, you’re right, Being a servant is a horrible way to describe being a mother. You would never describe it in those terms, neither would any woman who would be worth having as a mother. Can you tell me that you actually believe that a woman who sees it that way should be a mother?
Arguing that members of society do not have an obligation to pay for the children of others is not hypocripsy on my part. It is quite in line with what I’ve stated, nor is it a contradiction to the idea that women should excercise their mental facilities in deciding whether or not to have children.
I don’t know how to explain to you why it makes sense that Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer counseling, though I’m not sure that that is true, at least not 100 percent. No, it isn’t from fear that the woman will change her mind.
Science has not proven that life begins at conception. Not real science. A faith based imposter that has gained credibility under our current administration has certainly been behaving as though they had proven the impossible, but I’m afraid it isn’t so. The very basic vital organs required for independant survival do not exist at conception. The mind and the capacity for basic reasoning skills certainly don’t exist. Of course the chromosomes are there, the chromosomes come from the parents, they don’t grow there later. This is, as I understand it, the basis for stem cell research.
Stem cell research is another potential casualty in this battle for the anti-abortion crowd (I borrowed that from Leondard Peikoff, it’s more fitting than Pro-Life). Stem Cell research is a wonderful branch of scientific exploration that will, if allowed, in the future, prolong, improve, and save actual lives. I don’t understand how it can be justified to stifle this life saving exploration. It really will be a matter of choosing the Petri dish or the child it could save, as Lauren introduced earlier in this exchange. She was mocked for it, but it is real.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 12:47 am
Lucy says:
Lauren, sorry break had to end. Hope it’s good to be back. (in school)
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 12:49 am
Lucy says:
Lauren, You may be interested in a website, http://www.abortionisprolife.com/
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 12:55 am
Lucy says:
Sydnie, while I’m thinking of it. The new law in South Dakota only penalizes doctors and not the women seeking abortions, am I correct on that. Presuming I am, how is that. If the belief is truly that the fetus is a human being that should have rights that supercede the rights of the mother then isn’t the charge against the doctor murder? Since when do we fine people for murder? I think that you’ll also agree that such a pitinance of time surved would never be accepted for a murder of an actual human being, and to issue a fine would be nearly offensive.
How is it that the woman seeking the abortion is not penalized in these cases if the fetus is an actual human being and she is then by all definitions taking out a hitman via a medical procedure. If an individual in legitamite murder cases, pays someone to commit the murder, they share the guilt of the crime.
What is actually occuring that fines and and jail that are less than would be acceptable for a small time marijuana dealer are being administered for what the anti-abortion zealots will declare to be pre meditated murder?
Something isn’t right, and I’ve been trying to figure it out. I was hoping that you could help me out and explain it.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Sydnie says:
Wow I am so sorry about how you grew up that is so sad! Now I understand why you feel the way you do. One thing I do agree with you on and sorry if I offend anyone, but I think that if you want to raise a family you should not have your children in daycare 40 hours a week. We are taught that we only have value if we have a career but that is simply not true! I know there are situations that can;t be helped and this has to happen but when women have enough money and choose to go to work anyway, that is sad. And if you have those thoughts and feel as if you don;t want to be a mother maybe you shouldn;t be.I am in school right now to graduate in may and I feel I have missed so much but being in school, thank God my mom is able to watch them I wish I could stay at home but right now it is not possible. When I do work, we are going to work it so they don;t have to go to daycare and we get to raise them…this is just my opinion. If anyone is offended I am sorry but this is how I would rather live my life, as a stay at home mom. I am at a loss for how killing a child is better then giving one up for adoption? Maybe thre are a lot of children who are “unwanted” but there is a shortage of babies that is for sure! I think the main reason is a lot of them have been abused and people are not willing to give them all the time and love they need. This is what we plan to do later, though i know it will be hard. I don;t see how having a career is more fulfulling then children? (unless you allow society to think for you, besides taht is a selfish way of thinking!) Glad the homoerectus didn;t feel that way!
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Sydnie says:
i will get back to you later. Have to go to “sunday school” right now.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 8:30 am
Lauren says:
Sydnie—the war answer was to eric who wanted to know what Jesus said about war, so relax.
I agree with you that it is bad to let a career define you. I think understanding the world around you and trying to help it and not just petition against it really is why we are here. You have a problem with the environment? Stop driving an excursion. You have a problem with abortion? Advocate for abstinence, sex education, and birth control. You have a problem with our president? Vote. Could you imagine if I campaigned against all of those things and did the opposite? That would make me such a hypocrite. This is where my history with the Christian right begins…
A few years ago when I was in high school a good friend of mine committed suicide. He was one of the nicest, smartest, funniest kids you will ever meet. He would never hurt anyone, but it turned out people were hurting him. In a moment of desparation and sadness he killed himself. He left behind hundreds of friends and family members that were trying to cope with such an incredible loss. We had a guestbook for him so that we could all write messages to him and we could come and grieve. you want to know what the little fucking pricks from your side of the aisle did? They came and wrote that there is no way he was going to heaven because god did not let people who committed suicide in. They accused me and my friends of “forgiving” his sin. They looked for any moment they could chastise him for committing an awful mistake and did it all in the lense of Jesus. Well fuck that. I dont like people who tell me or others what to think when it comes to God. I dont like other people telling me what God thinks or what God would do when I die. How’s this… Shut the hell up and keep it to yourself. If you think abortion is going to make you go to hell, then dont have a fucking abortion. Am I pissed? Am I being a little crazy? YES. AND I LIKE IT THAT WAY.
That’s nice Sydnie that God has been there for your dad… but what about all the people He hasnt been there for? How do you rationalize that? How do you justify the children in the ghetto without parents to take care of them or the people that are tortured everyday for just standing up for what they believe in? It’s very hard some days to believe that our fortune is due to a benevolent God. It is easier to believe that God has a microscope and we’re all sitting on an ant hill. I choose not to think that way, but I’m saying that it is easier.
Sarah- I deny potential babies everyday by not sleeping iwht my boyfriend without protection. To argue that I’m denying something life is to argue that I owed something life and that I do not. How’s this, if I ever get pregnant and dont want to be, i will give you the zygote to raise because you seem like you know what to do with these babies.. Really, you can just take my zygote ok. You are pretending that these clumps of cells, which they are my friend (if you cite chromosomes I can cite clumps of cells), are bouncing beautiful babies and I’m just taking a knife and stabbing them. That would be wrong. A woman’s choice to not carry a pregnancy may be emotional, but it may also be rational. To simply say, it’s ok she’s poor, or it’s ok she can discontinue everything she worked for, is completely out of touch and shows you lack sympathy for anyone that isn’t you. I’m glad you’ve never faced such a horrible dilemma, and I’d be scared to see what you do when faced with one. You said call me naive but.. ok. you are naive.
Don’t feel alone Lucy. There are more women like us around than there are women like them. you can always email me at lpatriz@luc.edu if you feel you need to get something off your chest. As soon as I’m done with my post, I am going to check out that site. I think I’ve seen it before and if I remember correctly I liked it. And no, not good to be back at school.. Three semesters left woohoo… you’re studying econ and philo? I’m acct and finance weeee… lol
Sydnie—you brought up some intersting points. This is the definition of feminism. You have the right and the ability to a choose a path in life that makes you happy. You chose motherhood. Feminists of past have made the mistake of forgetting about this extremely important role in our society. You raise our future and that is quite possibly the most important role. That being said, I too have a choice as to whether or not I want to have children. I could go work for the Peace Corps, or be a careerwoman, or even join the military. We live in an age where we have choice. Remember not that long ago when we didnt have the choice to decide our futures and men decided them for us? Let’s not revert to that, ok. Let’s stand up for our mothers, our daughters, our sisters, our grandmothers, by saying we control us by controlling our bodies, our government, our business, and our land. It’s incredibly empowering. Not until we do that can we eradicate the need for abortion. That is why I am part of the group College Advocates for Reproductive Education (CARE).
I have to go to acct now.. so peace in the middle east ya’ll. Love, Lauren
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 9:11 am
sunnyday says:
“Sunnyday, you would argue that a woman is a mere vessel of the zygote inside of her and therefore does not have rights. Don’t point fingers when your argument is contradictory. Btw, I can use zygote if you use chromosome. Rightwingers tend to use science when it is convenient!”
You sure add a lot of stuff to what a person writes, Lauren. Pls don’t do it because it doesn’t facilitate rational discussion. Every human being has rights — babies and mothers included. I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m thinking that mothers have no rights. And it doesn’t matter to me whether you use zygote, chromosome or any other term you’d like as long as clarity and accuracy are what we all aim for.
Then why bring a child into the world if this is what he/she experiences? Your argument is weak, back it up. Crap, I really dont want to have a child in a world where “criminals abound”. Lol.”
Crime happens in our world and unless one loves and celebrates violence, he’s not going to add to it by supporting in any way the violence that is committed on women using suction machines and other devices for killing the life she’s carrying inside her, which will result in physical, emotional and psychological trauma in one way or another. And then, without being less important, there’s the violence that’s committed to a baby everytime this allegedly safe procedure is performed.
Why bring a child into a world where crime abounds? Because there is always hope. Crime is not the only thing that causes suffering in our lives; we will always experience suffering in one form or another but that is no reason to shrink back from life. When i referred to our world as a place where transgressions of the law happen, i didn’t know i would sound like i hate this place. I don’t. Obviously, someone missed my point of contrasting the world “outside” and the world where the preborn baby resides.
If a lot of violence takes place in our world, I think any person in his right mind would not deliberately add to it by supporting acts that do more violence.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 9:12 am
sunnyday says:
April, you wrote some very thought-provoking things in your comment (#60). Thanks for that; it’s all very edifying. I especially think this part is very helpful –
“But no thing worth having in this world doesn’t require a sacrifice. In fact, the joy you will experience is in direct proportion to the sacrifices you are willing to make.”
– and this –
“And even if you want the baby and love the baby, as most of us mothers do, there will be times when you don’t particularly feel like serving the baby’s needs. But you do. It’s a little thing called love. The love between a mother and a child is no small thing. In fact, it’s one of the most powerful things in the world.”
– and this too –
“Happiness and freedom do not come from fulfilling our own desires all the time. Paradoxically, the more you are willing to give up, the more free you will be and the happier you will be.”
Reminders like these become so significant for me particularly during very trying moments, so again, thanks!
Wishing you and your family well. =)
Sunnyday
P.S. I wish I knew how to put those smileys here instead of just the ” =) “…
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Lucy says:
Sydnie, that isn’t the way I feel, that is what I have come to understand. You should know that I once believed that abortion was wrong as well, until I understood the requirements for that belief and what it did to women. I don’t believe that sacrificing a woman to a fetus is acceptable. There are plenty of children in the world. This isn’t to say that people who want children shouldn’t have children…merely that Supply and Demand concepts cannot be applied to adding human beings to the planet.
I think that choosing to be a mother is itself a career choice. I understand the pay is lousy but nobody becomes a teacher to get rich quick. I personally do find the pursuit of a career in which I can do the things I wish to do to be more fulfilling than the concept of having children. It’s a personal preference. I think that if you are in a position where it is financially feasible to stay at home with the kids and that is where you will be the most fulfilled than that is great.
I don’t believe that we are discussing killing a child until it is born. Until then it is a fetus, it is a potential human being, not an actual. It is an idea whose time, until birth, has not come. Once born it will have to think to survive, it needs freedom to do so. It must be allowed to begin to develope the skills that it will need to survive. I’m sorry to continue referencing the child as it, but gender bias…it’s not to offend. Within the womb, it does not need to think to survive. Arguably it cannot, and does not know how too. Within the first trimester the fetus does not even possess the vital organs neccessary for survival. It is literally a mass of tissue, that yes possess the same human DNA that your finger would still possess if your finger was removed, or is in a strand of your hair. We do not however categorize fingers and strands of hair as human beings, and when they aren’t there the rest of the body does not cease to be human, which works out well for a few of the men that I work with.
Leonard Peikoff provides an excellent analogy. An acorn is a potential oak tree, if it falls and implants itself in the ground, with the proper conditions it will grow up to be a oak tree itself one day. Under no circumstances would we declare the acorn to be an actual oak tree.
As for the homo erectus, they may very well have felt that way, they may just not have had the ability to produce a method to achieve the results they desired. It is afterall not a coincidence that the homo erectus does not exist today.
You are correct in your assertion that women in this day and age who choose to stay at home and raise a family are viewed negatively. I believe that this perspective is as erroneous as the perspective that this is the only viable option for women. Women did not fight for so long for fewer options, but for more. This does not mean that women get to have their cake and eat it too. I should except that there are limitations on my time, and that I need to be economical in my utilization of it, this is where the supply and demand comes in. Women fought to have the right to make these decisions. Staying home and raising a family should be just as respectable as obtaining a high paying career. The importance was that the woman choose. However, as it stands, women who choose to stay home are frequently percieved as old fashioned, and victims of a patriarchial society. In some instances this may be correct, but even in those instances, it should be understood that the woman in question has still chosen.
I do not choose to pursue a career because society dictates that I should. That is what I value. What I value may happen to seem to align with societies values, but this is not the basis of my choice.
You are correct, it is a selfish way of thinking to refuse to sacrifice yourself to anothers whim. It is selfish to work dilligiently in pursuing a career. It means that I value my self. Just as you should value yourself. I know that we’ve been trained to understand that this is a bad thing but it’s not. What is wrong with being selfish? How can I value anyone else, including a child, unless I value myself? How can I expect anyone else to value me if I don’t?
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Lucy says:
I guess Sunnyday doesn’t want to tell me about their amazing mind reading abilities. Oh, well, perhaps next time. I just would love to learn, it would be so useful.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Lucy says:
oh, and I think Sunnyday, that you’ll grant me that if you insist that the zygote deserves to exist at any cost, then the woman has lost her rights as soon as she decides she would like it not too. There is at very least, a situation where both woman and cells cannot both have rights. Please read your first post again if you can’t understand why it sounds as though you view the world as doom and gloom.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 9:36 am
sunnyday says:
Lucy, I am telling you, it just sounds that way (the doom and gloom thing). But then I suppose since you interpret my statements as reflections of a mind-reading ability on my part, then I suppose you think that you have this ability to assume that I don’t like the world. =) If that is how you interpret it, nothing I can do about it. However, it would cause some miscommunication already and prevent a clearer discussion.
Besides, if i hated the world like some people seem to, I would probably agree with them that it is better to kill unborn children.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 9:49 am
sunnyday says:
Am wondering. Do those in this thread who view abortion is fine believe in God?
I believe that my life is precious — in fact, invaluable — to God and that doesn’t make any other person’s life less precious in his eyes, including those who are yet to be born. IMO.
I realized over time that it’s harder for someone who believes there is no higher being than he to understand the eternal worth of each human being.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Lizzie says:
well as for rights for women… that baby has a 50% chance of being one right? so where are her rights?
and birth control… well for every action there is a reaction and if someone isnt ready for a baby then they shouldnt be having sex… there are other ways to have fun and show love
and for people who dont want God involved in this then alright… science right?… if a thing grows then it must be alive… and how is a human defined scientifically? in 7th grade science I was taught a human was basically a mass of cells with 46 chromosomes, a fetus has that. Its alive and it has the 46 chromosomes to define it.
there is no excuse except for personal selfishness.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “What does Jesus say about war? Blessed are those that are the peacemakers.”
Lauren, I’m going to give this one last try. You asked me to imagine for “one second” that my faith is wrong. I don’t have to imagine it for one second because I already more than imagined it for about 150 million seconds—for nearly ten years, as I’ve already said, I completely rejected the Catholic faith.
Now I’m going to ask you to imagine something, for more than one second; specifically, for as long as it takes to read this comment. I’d like you to imagine that I’m not the “blind believer” you think I am, but an informed and intelligent person who has in fact studied these matters from both sides and reached sincerely, thoughtful conclusions different from yours. I know you don’t believe it—you’ve made that perfectly clear—but just for the sake of, say, an experiment, try imagining it for the next few paragraphs.
Okay. Let’s assume for the moment that Jesus actually said “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Mt. 5:9a). I think he did—in fact, I’m sure he did. You’ve informed us that the scriptures are unreliable, but now you say this is what Jesus said, so I’m going to take you at your word that you think he did.
First, if Jesus really said this, I don’t see exactly how it matters whether it was taken down by Matthew the Apostle, or an disciple of Matthew, or somebody else. Somehow this saying of Jesus’ got written down, and unless you think that scribe had access to a functioning crystal ball, the only possible explanation is that it was handed down, intact, from someone who actually heard it. The salient question here is whether we have here an authentic teaching of Jesus.
But Jesus also said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Mt. 10:34b).
How do we square that with “blessed are the peacemakers”? One answer is to insist that Mt. 5:9a is an authentic teaching of Jesus, while Mt. 10:34b is not. I don’t know on what basis one would make that claim, though, since to do so depends on a particular interpretation of who Jesus was and what kinds of things he might be likely to say; it really comes down to “Jesus wouldn’t say that because I don’t like it.”
Both statements fit with the portrait of Jesus that we get from the Gospel According to Matthew, given to making bold, challenging statements, and not afraid of paradox. Moreover, in light of the overarching theme of Matthew—The Kingdom of Heaven—both statements makes sense and in fact fit together.
Jesus in Matthew is preoccupied with the Kingdom. When he speaks of “peacemakers” he is not speaking in the narrow sense we might imagine today of, say, a war protestor. In fact, there isn’t any indication that he was thinking in terms of “war and peace” at all, but rather in the much broader sense of interior peace and even eschatological peace in eternal union of God. This of course isn’t incompatible with working to avoid warfare, but it is not limited to that sense nor should it be construed as a blanket statement against war.
Consider Jesus’ encounter with the centurion in 8:5-13. Here Jesus was given the opportunity to say, as he said to the woman taken in adultery and to so many others, “Go and sin no more.” But he did not. If Jesus were going to reveal his opposition to war, this would have been the golden opportunity; the centurion was ready to do whatever he said—he could have told him to lay down his arms. But he did not. On the contrary, he was clearly impressed with the centurion’s comparison of his own authority over his troops to Jesus’ authority over life and death. If not an implicit approval of soldiery, this is at least not the condemnation we would expect from an opponent any use of military force.
So we find that in fact Jesus really said little or nothing about war. The peace that he’s talking about is not merely the absence of war; in fact, that kind of interior peace is possible even in wartime (witness St. Joan of Arc, a soldier, a military leader, inspired by a divine confidence that can only be called peace of heart—whose goal, by the way, was to bring “peace” to France, in that other sense of an end of hostilities with the British aggressors).
Similarly we have to look at Jesus statement to “judge not” (Mt. 7:1) in the context of his entire mission. He can’t possibly have meant, as so many opponents of the pro-live movement claim, never to recognize something as evil and call it that, nor ever to recognize anything as sin or anyone as a sinner.
Nearly the first words out of Jesus’ mouth were “Repent!” He charged his disciples to carry that message to the four corners of the Earth. He railed against the scribes Pharisees, told any number of people to “Go and sin no more,” and condemned any number of practices as sinful.
So what did he mean by “judge not”? Again, he can’t have meant not to see anything as sin, or to imagine nobody is a sinner.
What he meant was not to presume to know the interior disposition of any other person, nor to dismiss anyone on account of their sin. Our preoccupation should be with facing our own sinfulness and helping to lead others out of sin—not to condemn them, hate them, despise them as unworthy or write them off as not worth the trouble.
Now, I know you don’t believe that we adhere to that model. I know you think we judge others in the worst possible sense, the very sense that I’m saying Jesus denounced. But again, just for the time being, imagine that we really aren’t the horrible “hate-filled” people that you think we are.
Imagine that we’re sincere when we say that we don’t hate the women going into abortion facilities but actually feel tremendous compassion for them. Imagine that we don’t even hate abortionists, but rather pray for their conversion—many have converted precisely because they were treated with love and compassion by pro-life activists.
In fact, it is precisely because we love these people that we are there. More, it is precisely because we are not judging them that we are there; it is precisely because we believe them worthy of forgiveness and grace, because we believe them to be something more than their faults and failings, because we believe every single person to be capable of goodness and self-sacrifice that we are there outside abortion facilities and in the public square with the pro-life message.
And Lauren, it is because I am not judging you, rather than writing you off as hopelessly unreachagle, that I am troubling to write this message at all—because I am willing to “turn the other cheek” on all of your insults, knowing full well (though I hope I’m wrong) that you’ll come back with another batch of them.
I am truly tired of the insults, but on one level I understand and almost appreciate them. It must be much more comforting to believe that those who think differently from you are knuckle-dragging neanderthals who haven’t got a clue even about their own so-called holy books than to believe there are intelligent, well educated people who have reached radically different conclusions about life’s deepest questions than you have.
That’s a troubling attitude to see, but at the same time it suggests a certain devotion to the truth, possibly even to the power of reason. You’re so convicted about what you believe to be the truth that you can only explain others’ disagreement with you as an basic incapacity to grasp the truth as you see it. It all seems to reasonable to you, so those who can’t see it must not be reasonable.
I don’t say it’s a particularly mature attitude to philosophical disagreements, but there’s a kind of innocence and even a sort of piety in your whole attitude that, despite all the mean-spiritedness, is really almost admirable.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Eric says:
Lucy writes: “An acorn is a potential oak tree, if it falls and implants itself in the ground, with the proper conditions it will grow up to be a oak tree itself one day. Under no circumstances would we declare the acorn to be an actual oak tree.”
Nor would we declare a newborn infant to be a teenager, nor a toddler to be an adult. Nor would most people call an oak sappling an oak tree, for that matter.
We can only call an acorn a “potential oak tree” because plant biology is so radically different from animal biology, paticularly the biology of the higher mammals. We do not have a static “seed” stage like an oak tree; there is really no analogous stage in human development.
A zygote or embryo is nothing like an acorn that can be set on a shelf for a couple years, sitting quietly while one contemplates its potential to become an oak tree. And the term “oak tree” refers specifically to the rooted, leafing organism at a later stage of development.
Again, nobody would call a newborn an adult; the term “adult” like the term “oak tree” refers to the mature organism. Yet a botanist certainly would be able to identify the acorn as that of an oak.
The difference in an embryo is that this potential—to grow into an adult, not to “become a human being,” which it already is (it exists, is a “being”; and is “human,” just as the acorn is “oak”)—is being realized dynamically; animal life, once begun, unfolds in a constant process without a seed-stage pause like the oak.
The “proper conditions” for an embryo or fetus to grow successively through the stages of neonate, child, adolescent, adult and elder are already present when that embryo or fetus is destroyed by abortion. That development is already taking place, and if your standard for whether it can be aborted or not is its dissimilarity to a mature human being, then you’ll have to allow the extermination of newborns as well (which for all I know you do).
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Sarah says:
“I deny potential babies everyday by not sleeping iwht my boyfriend without protection.”
Ok, I’d rather focus on the Abortion issue-the subject of the thread. Birth control (natural & unnatural, the need or the must or the desire to use it etc.) is another topic.
“To argue that I’m denying something life is to argue that I owed something life and that I do not. ”
I’m sorry but I did not say that you “owe” it. Notice that my comment is in the form of questions. You may think that I am instilling a guilt factor here by concluding that way but it’s how YOU perceive my questions - is that the reason why you did not answer them? My reason for asking is pure and simple, what makes some people think & assume that the baby will “dislike” or “hate” or “prefer” not to live in a world where “criminals abound” when in fact, the very same people who claim so ARE living and may be “enjoying” the same world? Do you see the contradiction?
“How’s this, if I ever get pregnant and dont want to be, i will give you the zygote to raise… Really, you can just take my zygote ok. ”
Thank you, NOW you’re talking about “other choices”. I’m sure you know that there are more.
“… because you seem like you know what to do with these babies.. ”
I frankly don’t know ALL of the choices (I AM naive, remember?) Like I said earlier, “choices” are recognized by the people themselves depending on their intellect and may I add, their exposure and emotional makeup. I won’t even judge you. I won’t even dare tell you what your choices are because I may not be able to give you everything, There are people who could do it better than I. I am sure that there are people and organizations near you who could make a list of “other choices” for you. (Notice again, that americans are given more choices than other countries. Life is good isn’t it?)
“You are pretending that these clumps of cells, which they are my friend (if you cite chromosomes I can cite clumps of cells), are bouncing beautiful babies and I’m just taking a knife and stabbing them. That would be wrong.”
You may call it anything, actually (Freedom!).
I’d like to know what’s the difference though: “Taking a knife and stabbing them” vs. scraping the “clumps of cells”, deprive it of the necessary nutrients to become a full-blown human being like you & me and flush it out of the womb - what’s the difference?
I don’t even say that the “clumps” of cells will [always] turn out to be bouncing beautiful babies”. But if I follow your thought - are you saying that if they are not bouncing beautiful babies, it is justifiable to kill them? Then it is also justifiable to kill handicapped people too?? Are we now discriminating the handicapped? Genetic cleansing? Gee — say it isn’t so. *smiles & winks*
I just can’t understand how they could “foresee”, “foretell”, “prejudge” and actually believe that the “clumps of cells” would turn out to be a nuisance that should be scraped off. Times like these, I truly appreciate the resilience and resourcefulness of impoverished mothers who are willing to work hard to give good lives to “tissues” instead of cutting the living daylights our of them.
Now, I just learned that some people perceive and treat these “clumps of cells” like warts! They see a spot of wart and immediately imagine a great inconvenience, a nuisance! So scrape it off, is that it? (Sweet Muffins!!! talk about learning new things everyday!)
“A woman’s choice to not carry a pregnancy may be emotional, but it may also be rational. ”
I agree, that’s why I said I don’t blame them and followed a question after my statement (which again, was not answered).
“To simply say, it’s ok she’s poor, or it’s ok she can discontinue everything she worked for… ”
Sorry but the very reason why I am asking questions is to understand where you are coming from. I actually find it ironic — people who imply that aborting babies because (1) they may be less perfect [not bouncing beautiful babies], (2) they could grow into a poor environment [crminals abound] and (3) the mothers’ achievements [everything she has worked for] may be hindered would also talk about “symphathy” at the same time.
Does it mean that they find symphathy towards themselves but not sympathy to the babies?
Note: I agree of course that we are free to symphathize with EVERYONE and EVERYTHING- the mothers, all living AND even non-living things important to our ecology - does it exclude babies anywhere there?
“…, is completely out of touch…”
that’s why I’m asking questions. Out of touch with what? With poverty? Sorry but I grew up in a poor country and I could go on and on about describing poverty to everyone - but my exact point is this: how come ‘impoverished’ mothers could stretch their limits and strive so much to give good lives to their babies instead of aborting them? And to think - most of them don’t have organizations that could support them, unlike in the US. Again, my question wasn’t answered.
“…shows you lack sympathy for anyone that isn’t you. ”
*smiles* Having said my previous statements, may I now ask if this statement is much more appropriately addressed to the people who are symphathetic to the mothers but more often than not, remains apathetic to the unborn children?
“I’m glad you’ve never faced such a horrible dilemma, and I’d be scared to see what you do when faced with one. ”
Thank you, and I certainly hope that organizations geared towards supporting women in crisis realize how important they are insofar as providing info about women’s “choices” are concerned.
“You said call me naive but.. ok. you are naive.”
Thank you again. Like you, I used to say “whatever makes ‘em happy, let ‘em do it”. Until of course I learned about all the other “choices” available to women AND babies. It took a while and lots of weighing- asking questions, listening and doing some browsing on my own. To be honest with you - the answers that I got here are very much like the same answers that I got earlier. That’s why I am still unconvinced that killing “tissues”is justifiable up to now.
And hence I’m still “naive” when I am faced with people who believe otherwise.
Thanks!
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Sarah says:
Lucy says:
… I don’t agree with you, but at least you make sense.
Thank you Lucy. I still believe that we could - somehow - find a common ground.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Sydnie says:
i thought I would address some previous questions or accusations I copied and pasted them from 2 different sites. (oh and somewhere else I picked up the genetic view) The biblical quote was from some pro life site but the scientific stuff was for a medical site. Please at least read through the myths and facts because that addresses some specific question both lucy and lauren posed. ;o)
‘And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with a child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then shalt thou give life for life… (Exodus 21: 22-23″ - this was just to say that yes the bible does address abortion.
The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.
• At 20 weeks the baby is viable.
• At 6 weeks we can measure brain waves.
• At 6 weeks he begins to move his arms and legs.
• At 3 weeks his heart begins to beat.
A. Basic human embryological facts
To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization-the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte-usually referred to as an “ovum” or “egg”), which simply possess “human life”, to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.
Myth 1: “Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions-and that is ridiculous!”
Fact 1: As pointed out above in the background section, there is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess “human life” and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual “human being.” Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings-they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman’s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.
Myth 2: “The product of fertilization is simply a “blob,” a “bunch of cells”, a “piece of the mother’s tissues.”
Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a “blob” or a “bunch of cells.” This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother’s and the father’s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a “piece of the mother’s tissues”. Quoting Carlson:
“… [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species.”15 (Emphasis added.)
Myth 3: “The immediate product of fertilization is just a ‘potential’ or a ‘possible’ human being-not a real existing human being.”
Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a “potential” or a “possible” human being. It’s an actual human being-with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Lucy says:
Sunnyday, my mind reading commentary is in regard to your statement at the end of the 36th commentary, your first. Your last statement regarding the peace of anyones mind. If you say now that you do not view the world as doom and gloom I have no choice but to believe you and to hope that is true.
If you would like to question my belief in God, I will first have to ask for proof of a God. My answer is no, I do not believe in God. Actually, let me be fair, as I can no more prove that God does not exist than you will be able to prove that God does exist I believe that the jury is still out. I do not believe in the worlds organized religion that wish to cite God as an excuse to bully the remainder of the population to do thier bidding. I am opposed to this God being waved around and used as a threat, I am exhausted by it.
Being as I trust you will not be able to prove the existance of God anymore than I can prove he doesn’t exist, I ask you to cite me one example where this God has done less harm than good. Please make it of historical reference, not biblical or personal. Please feel free to reference any God, Zeus will do just as well as Allah.
Believe or not believe in God, I acknowledge him as nothing more than a format of government. As a form of government I do not acknowledge the authority of that government as being an instrument of control in my life, and will not follow the whimsical, irrational will of such a government until it forces me by the utilization of physical force.
I value my life now. From the time that I was born until the time that I die is all I know to be available to me and all I need to know to be available to me. I did not choose life, I will not choose death, but it is mine now and it is my responsibility and I will utilize it in any matter I please as long as it does not harm another actual individual. I am alive now and will work to make the most of my life until it is over. I will not live my entire life hoping and praying for death.
I don’t believe in killing children. I think kids are pretty cool. I think they should be treated in a fashion that behaves as though they are expected to grow up and be pretty cool adults. Might cut back on that whole crime problem your talking about.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Lucy says:
Geez Eric,
I’m not a college professor, I’m not impressed by how many pages you can fill up. I mean if you’ve got nothing to say, then so be it, but no need to ramble on about forever for evidence. I’ll take your word for it.
Duh, we wouldn’t call an infant an adult or a volvo, what’s your point. An infant is an infant for specific reasons, there are qualifying factors, the same as toddler and so forth. We wouldn’t give car keys to a toddler for specific reasons too, we also wouldn’t give them to certain adults for good reason, that does not make that adult a toddler. Citing a bunch of nonsense does not a point make.
Oh, and I assume that you don’t usually end meaningful commentaries with empty hostile attacks. For all you know I support killing newborns? Of course. Because that would be the same as chopping down an Oak tree to me. Let’s be grown ups can we?
Actually, we can set an embryo on a shelf for a few years and then take it down, implant it and grow a child. It’s kind of been going on for awhile. Many women are taking advantage of it because of the late starts in trying to start families because of careers and such, eggs are more fertile when women are younger so they set them aside and then take them back when their older. Science is a marvel. They’ve been doing it with mice for years, they have embryos of mice just kind of sitting on shelves filled with different genetic makeups and then when an order comes in they pop it into a female and out comes a baby mouse ready to be tested.
Of course for what it’s worth, I can also identify the fetus of human as being the fetus of a human. I don’t identify it as a human. Nor does a botanist identify the acorn as an oak tree. In both instances they are both examples of potential.
I think that you’ll find that the seed does not pause for breaks when the conditions are right. Where humans are concerned we differ from the tree by being able to think. Part of the conditions being correct for humans has to do with being able to provide food for the child once it is born, amongst other considerations.
I’m going to suggest that the tree doesn’t have to deal with those kinds of concerns. Feel free to figure out how I’m wrong though.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Lucy says:
Oh, and Eric, do you usually end meaningful discussions with empty, hostile attacks. For all you know I kill newborns? Yes, of course, because to me it’s no different than chopping down an oak tree. Come now, let’s all be grown ups here.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Lucy says:
Sydnie, was it a website that you acquired that information from? If so, would you please give me the address, or if a book the name of the author so that I might take a closer look?
Are you still looking for an explanation for the questions regarding the law that I asked you for?
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Sydnie says:
Lucy, that is correct about the new ban in SD. I don;t think the bill is perfect, if it were it would allow no exceptions! and you are right it would have more of a penalty. In my opinion I think that this is a great starting point! Any baby it saves is worth it to me! I would have even gone for limiting to first trimester, having to wait 24 hours, counseling during that time, exceptions for rape and incest as well just for a comprimise. I did not think this would pass the way it is written but am extatic that it did. Do you know there were some pro lifers that would not sign because of the exception for mother;s health? I think you have to start somewhere! and this is very good!
btw, you already mentioned 90 in 89?
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Sydnie says:
there it is now!
yeah I will look for it. I found it in ask jeeves and thought I bookmarked it but can;t find it :o( and I did mention medical site up above, what I meant was from a doctor (I don;t trust doctors much at all, just happened to believe what this one said)
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Sydnie says:
http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/whendoes.html
I found it! guess I was off the mark! It is a canadian site. that makes me like it all the more! let me know if you think the sources are not sufficient. My husband is taking a logic, and statistics class and we are learning about how misleading many things are so I am usually careful about what I actually consider based on its references and methods. I didn;t have a whole lot of time i just skimmed this one rather quickly.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Sydnie says:
Lucy, btw, good point about the weak punishment for abortions! I agree with you but think it is a good starting place!
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah, I think that we could reach a consensus on numerous things. I don’t know if we could reach an absolute agreement, but I think that it would be an interesting discussion.
It might be worth noting that the doom and gloom commentary was anti-abortion. Life is ten months of nirvana in the womb then it sucks till heaven was against abortion. I thought I was jaded, but at least I’m not vindictive.
I’m going to sound like I crossed over, but I agree, poverty is not a reason in itself not to have children. We open up a whole new can of worms if only the wealthy can have children.
Women in many developing countries are also denied rights to their bodies. They have children, but they are also frequently viewed as the property of men, and are impregnated against their will, by men who do not ‘rape’ them because you can’t ‘rape’ the property. I’m not arguing that these women should not have children, I’m arguing that they should have a choice, rights. They frequently do not have access to birth control methods. One of Bush’s first acts in office was to cut off financial aid to any organization providing any family planning services besides abstinence training, which cuts back on the ability to provide things like condoms and more useful there, the pill. The thing is, abstinence is only an issue when both individuals have a say in what is happening. I think you’ll agree that most women would abstain from rape with glee, and I can’t think of anything else to call it when they are not given the status to consent. This is also one of the driving factors behind the spread of STD’s, primarily Aids in developing countries. Womens rights are vital. Bush likes to give lip service too it, but actions are louder. Pretending reality isn’t there does not make it go away.
Which is another issue, kind of random but, I guess in fairness, I shouldn’t ask you Sarah, since you are naive, but so am I in regards to this. Perhaps we can put our heads together and figure it out. Why is it a frequent practice for anti-abortion zealots to concede pregnancies that result from rape or incest? Do we have scientific evidence that children that are the result of rape or incest are more likely to commit these crimes. Is it genetically engineered? Are we therefore preventing more rapists and incestous members of society. Can we employ the same tactics for murders, burglars, and other criminals? I mean I didn’t know that we were that advanced. Or is it an irrational offering of sympathy to a victim, making the coerced continuation of the pregnancy of the unwilling woman, who, perhaps had one to many drinks and a unfortunate one night stand suffer the punishment for her mistake?
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Sunnyday says:
Just a note: my question about belief in a God was posed because I’d like to understand others more. I’d actually be content with a “yes” or “no” to the question, and I’d leave it there. Lucy, I appreciate your elaborating on your views on the matter =) but at this point, I’d rather not get into a deep discussion on God.
My statement about not having peace of mind is based on the documented cases of women who have had induced abortions, and persons who have performed abortions. I also have in mind the documents and seminars I’ve attended on Post-Abortion Syndrome, testimonies of post-abortive women and talks given by counselors who have dealt with Post-Abortion Syndrome survivors.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Lucy says:
Sydnie, Thank you for pointing out my double. I thought I had cut it out. Either way, I don’t think it will hurt anything to mention it again.
Thank you for the site. I am also generally distrustful of doctors. Why do you trust this one? We generally trust people who say the things we are comfortable with more than the ones who do not. They recently performed a study, I say they, because I don’t remember who, so take it with a grain of salt, but my experience says its true. Regarding Political party issues, Those who are loyal Republicans will generally accept a Democrats idea if a Republican says it, and the same is true vice versa. It’s a little scary and it explains the current administration. Yikes.
It is absolutely true, carefully examine all sites. Our goal should be to reach absolute reality. We may never get there, but this is what we should strive for. We should always use caution in determining what we believe. That is why I want a closer look at that information. I haven’t yet, but I will. Personally, the fact that it is from Canada doesn’t impress me, but Socialism doesn’t exactly set well with me. But, I still want to look at it. Afterall, the authors deserve that much consideration before judgement.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Sydnie says:
Well when it comes to rape and incest, this is a tragic situation, in which combined make up 1% of all abortions (this was one of the highest I saw and if I remember right it was the CDC (don;t trust them either but many people do) pro life sites was far less, pro choice sites far more but any way you look at it, it is a small percentage but does exist. As I beleive I stated before, a child may be the greatest gift of peace and unconditional love a woman may recieve and by rejecting it she misses out on that. I know of people who have conceived in these circumstances that are very pro life (because of the wonderful gift that they did not want.) again from a pro life source…we do offer sympathy for the woman and that is a terrbile thing to go through, but at the same time in especially cases of incest the perpetratoer can then be causght! Many victims of this actually see this as a way out, and love that child so much regardless of the circumstances. Also the child should not have to pay his life as a debt for this terrible act…
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Lucy says:
Sydnie,
Please don’t take this the wrong way. But you should have backed the anti-abortionists who refused to sign. Either the fetus is or isn’t a baby. Either it is or is not more valuable than the rights of the woman. Either the woman is also guilty or the law is unjust. Afterall, no doctor can perform an abortion if there is not a woman seeking an abortion.
I have more to say on this, however for the moment I must go. I’ll finish later. I will also hopefully have time to look at the site. Thank you for providing the link. I appreciate that.
I am guilty of thinking in absolutes Eric, and I am not going to apologize for it. I will change my mind when there is evidence that I should.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Lucy says:
Before I go, Sunnyday,
Than yes. But irrelevant. Forget the propaganda. Forget the documentation. I’m telling you, as a woman who has had an abortion, that I have peace of mind. I’m letting you in on the gag Sunnyday.
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Sydnie says:
I agree with what you said as well. I have no reason to trust him other then that I agree with his view. But I am an independent, not repulican or democrat. I sit in the middle but will always vote prolife! No matter whose side it is. I am not completely against democrats I am married to one! Neiter one of us believe in t he 2 party system…and i think it is rediculous that the government does not give women the (and families) the right to choose homebirth (I ended up being 2 c sections so i understand the dangers as well I think they should at least be checked out to make sure there are no obvious problems but allowed to have her baby where she wants, in sd this is illegal) or why we can;t choose not to vaccinate (though I found a loophole through religious exemption while sending my kids to catholic school and that is that live viral vaccines such as mmr and vericela are derived from aborted babies.) I think we should be able to choose jsut yes or no, not have to find loopholes these are our babies! the govt is aware of teh dangers and that they have NEVER been PROVEN effective! So I do believe a woman should have the right to choose but not when it results in the end someone else;s life. guess i got off topic there! this is why I agree with your doubting everything! (or maybe that was lauren) I don;t think parents should blindly rely on a physicians word and take her children in to innoculate them with poisons! sorry off topic again!
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Sydnie says:
but i thought this was not black and white? and whatever it takes to save a baby is worth it for me! these exemptions based on 2004 statistics would ahve allowed 24 abortions and prevented 768! that is huge! Though I am horrified about the 24 that die, at least 768 beautiful babies wuold have keot their lives! gotta go as well! talk with ya later!
Comment posted March 14th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Lucy says:
Sydnie,
Sometimes the facts do not correlate with our viewpoints and will force us to change them. I have not looked at the information yet and will keep that in mind as I look. Choosing our guides based on what we want to be true isn’t the way to find out what is real. Basing it on what is logical and rational is the way to find these things. We should also base our choices on a set of morals that we follow that is based on our values. It’s a Philosophy established by Ayn Rand called Objectivism. This means that based on your values you would never have an abortion. Of course, I’m not telling you what to do, that’s up to you, I’m merely making an assumption based on our discussions. It says other things, but you can look it up if your interested.
I was what would have to qualify as an animal rights activist. Not like member of Peta or Alf activist by any means, as in didn’t wear leather, tried to make sure that all of my hygenic products were not tested on animals and didn’t contain animal products. I still am a vegetarian, after thirteen years it is simply impossible for me to look at meat and see food, so I can’t see myself eating meat in the foreseable future. What I was using for rational was the treatment that animals recieve on the farms they are raised on for slaughter. The way they are penned together and the sort. I thought I had information, of course it was all coming from groups that advocated this, and so it has to be granted that it wasn’t in their best interest to explore, or expose other aspects of what was happening.
I was researching a paper for school when I found a shocking bit of information. In the 1960’s The NFO, part of the United Nations, had issued a law stating that anybody raising livestock and poultry would be required to increase the amount that they were raising. I can’t find any information on whether this law is still being enforced, or for that matter if it is being acted on habitually without enforcement. The original goal was to lower world hunger with this demand. Naturally it doesn’t work that way. It changed my understanding of what I was looking at. It forced me to question everything and arrive at new possibilities, and made me aware that asking questions about what you think is right is always a good idea, just to make sure that it is fully understood. I never did anything that makes the news let me tell you, but I probably could have been one of them that does something ridiculous.
My point is, that while you are reading the ideas that match your own, which is also a good idea, I recommend reading the arguments of those who are presenting other ideas as well, and giving them at least enough consideration to obtain good reasons to reject them. It sounds as though your already doing that to an extent.
I’m glad that you agree that women have the right to choose, I know that you are assigning limitations on it, but I would have expected that, and it’s logical no matter what. I agree that as acting represenative of an individual presumed to be to young to make such crucial decisions for themselves that the parents, not the government should be making the decisions. I also respect your consistancy on this one. However, in the issue of innoculations against diseases that can sometimes be deadly or crippling, I am curious that the concern of the already aborted fetus outweighs the conern for your living children. Unless I misunderstood, which I acknowledge to be possible.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 12:59 am
Lucy says:
Sidney,
Not black and white? I am talking about womens rights and you are talking about the rights for what you percieve as children, do you see room for grey? We are discussing justice here. We must allow room for error only so that we can learn what that means. The pursuit that we are attempting to learn, to achieve is absolutely black and white.
Whatever it takes is risky. I’m not even willing to do whatever it takes. There are some freedoms that I believe to be vital to having the opportunity to pursue justice. Would I prefer it if people did not march in front of Planned Parenthoods with signs that lead bypassers to draw conclusions based on basic emotional reactions rather than well reasoned thought, Yes. However, the right to do so, as long as it is not on Private Property, is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. As long as that is intact the rest can be rebuilt, with that gone it’s time to throw in the towel. So wave those signs, wear out the pavement, hand out flyers, I don’t remember who said it, but, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Nobody likes it when the KKk goes out marching either but we just have to suck it up. Peaceful demonstrations must be defended. Frankly, the primary problem is when the anti-abortion people go out killing doctors. Oh, we also don’t like it when individual women are harrassed and feel threatened when attempting to enter an abortion clinic. That’s not good.
It’s that whole at any cost thing that bothers me about those numbers. I’m forced to acknowledge that those are definitely impressive numbers. Especially for South Dakota, which from my understanding had one clinic and it was operated by people from out of state due to threats. It really is the perfect bait for getting the other side to do something really stupid, like take it into a court system weighted against reason.
What I understand those numbers to mean is that 768 women were victims of having the rights to their own bodies abducted by the government that presents itself as the world defender of personal liberty. 24 women narrowly escaped the same fate. 768 women will now be a bridled slave to a fetus for 40 long weeks, where they will experience not the wonders of pregnancy, but the horrors. They will be terrified by the thoughts of what is in store for them. They will weep for the lives they always dreamed of. Some of them will be forced to tell friends and family of news that they would not have otherwise given. Some young girls will be forced out into the street, pregnant, terrified, lost and alone. Victims of incest will walk around carrying the permanent reminder of their pain for nine months, and then they will be forced to look at a child that they will wonder what features it will have of the relative that did this. Victims of rape will carry and raise the product of a violent nightmare that haunts women for life without a permanent reminder. No matter what, even in the event that the woman should learn to love the child an be glad that she went through with it, nothing will change what has occurred. Her rights were stripped from her, her right to think, to choose, to accept consequences for her actions be they positive or negative have been stripped from her by people who have never met her and wouldn’t recognize her on the street.
Of course when I say 768 of, I am actually guessing to high. A percentage of those women will seek illegal abortions. You won’t have record of them as abortions because it doesn’t work that way. Instead they will suffer infections, brutal injury, suicide, they will die from complications from back alley abortions because they cannot be performed in safe, clean medical facilities, and may not be performed by people who know how to perform abortions. They will have retained their right to choose, and choose from what few deplorable options have been left available to her. It will still be too late to think abstaining would have been good just as when abortion was legal. Adoption is still not an option for her for reasons that she understands. Perhaps she did or did not utilize contraception, they do fail, maybe they failed.
768, higher I’m sure, from a number like that some were probably potential twins, babies….of any appearance and health status, are most likely to become statistics. The women who will give birth to them if they avoid other tradgedies have already listed them as unwelcome. I suppose that they could at that point resort to Adoption, but that’s the survivors of 768 or more children whose mothers would have aborted them before they knew what was going on being shoved into a system that won’t identify them any differently than 768 more or less. Women who could have coped with abortion are now forced to cope with giving away a child that in some situations they may have developed attachements for, but can’t support, so they spend their lives tormented by not being able to keep this child. Ect, Ect, ect.
It isn’t hypothetical, this is what happens. This is kind of like starting Prohibition again and pretending not to know what will happen. When we learn to understand that stoves can burn we stop touching hot stoves. We just need to expand this ability to other areas of our existance. This is like the people who think that Soviet Russia was a fluke in regards to what happens under Communism, so they want to try it again. Scientific experimintation is one thing, illogical determination to avoid the facts is something else. Women must have the rights to determine what happens to their own bodies. This includes control over anything hitching a ride on the inside. It is the dependant, she the independant. (Tax forms need not be discussed). Once it is out, not able to exist outside, but doing it, breathing of its own accord, eating, (meaning it is not using the tube, not that the child is fixing and obtaining its own supper). Then it is a person, having and requiring rights.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 1:56 am
Lucy says:
Sydnie, I also feel sympathy for the women who suffer from these terrible crimes. That the criminals be caught is great, but it doesn’t solve the entire problem. If you know people who have chosen to keep the children than that is their choice and I respect that. I dont’ think that I could have done it. What about the rights of the woman. How many times within one crime must her rights be violated?
Under what circumstances does a womans body become her own?
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 2:01 am
Lucy says:
Sydnie,
Not that it is my business, but if you would prefer to be a stay at home mom and have the means to do so, why are you going to school for nursing? Nursing is a wonderful profession, it requires drive and ambition, an understanding of most things that doctors know, an ability and willingness to pick up new information on a regular basis, and I think that is a great thing to go into. I hope that you will enjoy it.
However, as you have expressed a preference to staying at home with your children, why are you choosing to do differently. I’m just curious. I think that there is also merit in a woman choosing to devote her time to her children. It is not an easy job. Yet, I understand that it can be rewarding…for those who choose it.
Someone who would rather work in the wilderness would likely be unhappy being a nurse.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 2:07 am
Lucy says:
Lizzie,
Once again a strand of your hair is also composed of the correct number of chromosomes, as is every cell in your body.
Stem cell research is based on the fact that the clump of cells is composed of the exact number of chromosomes neccessary to make it a part of a human. It is at the point holding the potential to be any part of the human being. It is not a human being. You may be saving hair, fingernails, or an appendix.
Of course there are other ways. Only have sex when you want a baby is about what is being pushed isn’t it. Next thing we’ll be having witch trials. I so hope I’m exaggerating…and not giving out ideas. Did you know that the Puritans had sex with the kids in the room? Seriously, no joke. They were also against Christmas. They saw through to its Pagan Roots. They were pretty much against any public displays of anything, except the burning of witches of course. But sex with kiddies in the next bed over, that was okay.
Oh, and careful before you approve aborting the boy fetusses.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 2:30 am
Sydnie says:
I have a lot to say but my princess wants me to read her some books so I am going to do that but let me say we DO NOT have teh means for me to stay home. We are broke and live in a terrible neighborhood with children who have not been raised with any limits. We are doing without a lot! I wish we had the means! IF my husbands business takes off when they get an actual building, we will have the means. For now I am going to be a nurse so that I can work half time, and still make really good money. I can also work nights, or weekends so that my husband can be with the kids and we won’t need daycare. For the record, right now they go to grandma while i am at school, clinical, precepting. I am so grateful for taht! She doesn’t charge us, we really would not survive if we had to pay for daycare! I am glad my mom has a flexible job, and loves the kids enough that she is happy to watch them. btw she cried for a month when I told her I was pg with my daughter, wouldn;t speak to me for a week. Now she loves my daughter more then anything, and my father loves her more then he loved anything in his life! It took my mom till I was 6 months pg and had a rollover car accident and could have lost my life as well as Madyson’s. Thank God for the hospital they stopped my contractions and I carried her to term. This UNWANTED child has brought so much love. I would be willing to bet that 9 times out of 10 it turns out like this. And you have no idea how scared i was to tell my parents! but I was going to sacrifice that for my child, hands down! I am just thankful that her father NEVER brought up abortion, adoption yes but not abortion! Guess taht is one good quality he has..oh and that he loves his little girl almost as much as himself. That is great progress!
will get back later gotta read now!
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 8:22 am
Sydnie says:
Ok where to start…as far as teh source I have made up my mind based on taking science classes, and Denver has a great museum that shows life from conception on. also i think pbs and nova have a great video that illustrates this all the way to a natural (graphic ) birth. i had to watch this in a physiology lab. those are 2 credible sources. next time you go to denver check it out. maybe I can find you the nova link. there are several shows on tv and by looking that these “neutral” sources it is obvious to conclude that live begins at conception it is an AMAZING process. I was jsut randomly looking for something quick for you to see. you like philosiphy. there are several famous philosiphers that have concluded that life begins before birth (not all at conception) but these were also A a long time ago so they weren;t able to see what we can now. My husband believes in the right to choose, though he dosn;t believe in abortion, he thinks they should have the option (he is changing his mind though, having kids does that do you ) I told him that a good percentage of the epople that support baby killing are animal rights activists and veggies, he said but that doesn;t make sense? and he didn;t believe me! He is right it doesn;t make sense. i agree with you! those animal conditions are disgusting! and they are locked in cages and can;t roam free, poop on each other and we eat this? we do buy mostly organic to rid of chemicals and pesticides and prefer free roaming meat. I have thought about becoming a veggie myself (most of my friends are too, and I see how well you can eat iwthout the meat) once I am able to cook a lot more )out of shcool) I will at least cut way back. but yeah I agree with you.
Do you realize what it takes for a woman to get pregnant? i mean do you realize there is something that takes place that she chooses to do? Its not like a baby is placed randomly into the wombs of women and they can;t do anything about it. (in 7.6 of those woman from sd couldn;t have) but other then that…You seem to be forgetting that. Also do you think that illegal abortions do NOT exist right now? my great great aunt performed illegal abortions in Rapid city years and years ago. Ironically in the house that is now SDSMT’s catholic meeting place for mass and prayer group. I don;t understand where giving away a child is worse then killing a child? I guess you guys PRETEND that it is not a real baby, that is the only thing I can think of! still have more but my son is up now!
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Lucy says:
On the vegetarian issue, my point was that was doing it for the wrong reasons. The reasons for the deplorable treatment of animals were being caused, are being caused, by what was supposed to be a solution. In fact, it is economically unwise for farmers to do such things because of the cost unless there is a reason that is outside of their control. Being a Vegetarian is something you can choose to do for many reason. At this point I am because I don’t think I could eat meat, and sincerely I didn’t like it that much in the first place. I’m glad that I live a life that allows me to make that choice, if my survival depended on it, I’d probably eat meat. Of course in situations where food is a contributing factor in the issue of survival meat is usually pretty scarce….irony, that’s the favorite arguement of the people against vegetarians, what if it was all that was available to you…funny, of course they have good reason. The animal rights activists behave as if they haven’t an ounce of common sense and are constantly harrassing meat eaters. It’s disgusting. So I get the whole defense thing.
My only point is, sometimes the information we get can be misleading and it is important to be willing to give up our perspectives if we are offered concrete evidence that we should. Quality not Quanity. I got my information about the farming stuff from people who are more than likely animal rights activists.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Sydnie says:
I agree with your point and I don’t agree you should ever take someone’s word for soemthing. you need to do the research yourself, from credibles souces which are hard to find. that was the hardest thing about choosing not to vaccinate. every source was biased one way or another. It was hard to find just the facts you know? with abortion I imagine it is the same way. (well I know) but wathing show from teh discovery channel like “In the Womb” shows step by step what happens, we don;t even fully understand it an never will! but it is obvious there is life from the begining. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a veggie or animal rights activist,its just that it doesn’t make sense to save the cows, but not the human?
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Sydnie says:
By the way, as I said before, I work in the newborn nursery that is where I am precepting. You know many days we have 20 babies, some days we have 10. I can;t help but wonder what happened to the rest of the babies but i guess I do….roe v wade. (based on lies) and taken the lives of over 43 million!
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Lucy says:
I know that you are busy, That’s sweet that your daughter wants you to read to her. Madyson is a pretty name, and I like the spelling.
Money problems are terrible, but doing what we want to do sometimes gets shoved aside by what we must do. I get it. Believe me, I don’t want to go to work most days, but it’s not forever, within the millenium I will finish school and be doing what I want to do. With 994 years, less a couple of months, I think I’ve got a shot at making it just inside the deadline.
I’m still reading over the information that you’ve sent me. I want to look at it a little more closely so I don’t jump to any rash conclusions about it.
I have no doubt that there are Philosophers that argue that life begins before birth. There are Philosophers who argue that we are incapable of thought. That just because I think the wall is blue does not make it blue, and that I can never really know what color the wall is. There are those of them who believe that we have no ability to make a choice because our lives are mapped out by fate.
As was stated on the site you directed me too, “The question as to when a human ‘person’ begins is a ‘philosophical’ question-not a scientific question. Of course a philosophical question requires a philosophical answer. Which sometimes requires more questions before a question is arrived at. Scientific information is vital to the process of developing a Philosophical answer. That is why we are so fortunate to have an active, and sometimes free scientific community. They have done so much that we have benefitted from and we should be grateful to them everyday.
Afterall, you are going to school for a medical field. Without the risks taken by the brave medical students who robbed the graves when people believed the dissection of corpses was unethical and against God’s will so that they could begin learning the things that we know now about the human body, so that you might become a nurse. In fact, without them, we wouldn’t have all of the precise knowledge that we have about how a child comes to be, scientifically. Techniques that allow for safe medical treatment of women who have chosen to take their pregnancy to term and encourage the potential to actualize would not exist. Without the freedom of choice these things would not be possible. Do you realize how many problems could have been solved for your daughter before she was born if she had them prior to birth, due to medical ingenuity. How many things can be determined so that upon her birth they can meet problems head on to increase her ability to a healthy individual. I mean the child mortality rate has been driven down so far, and if we leave science alone and let it operate, it may one day be nill. All because a few rebelious medical students bucked a dogmatic system.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Lucy says:
I was never interested in saving the cows. There isn’t a whole lot of discussion about cattle abortions. I just wanted them to have better conditions, and be slaughtered in more friendly manner. It doesn’t make any sense, I assure you. I once read where a Vegan argued, against someone who said…but plants are alive too, don’t you want to save the vegetables…vegetables don’t scream as loud when you kill them. We’re just trying to save our ears.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Lucy says:
Sydnie,
You assume that a few less babies on a given day is an indication that there have been more abortions? You do realize that fewer people having sex, which would be the whole abstinance thing, would also lead to fewer babies right. Or more protection being used, greater access to condoms, birth control pills, etc, would also reduce the number of births. I would also feel safe in arguing that while it is stated that a child is born somewhere every second, or is it every minute, that the world is a pretty big place, and statistics being what they are, that does not mean that an even number are being born everywhere everyday. Maybe the other ten are in Chicago, or China. Mexico is experiencing a Population explosion, the same with India, maybe they are there.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Lucy says:
I have to go for now, I have a class to go to, and I’d like to read over the information you gave me. Hope your day is going well.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Eric says:
Lucy writes: “Oh, and Eric, do you usually end meaningful discussions with empty, hostile attacks. For all you know I kill newborns?”
Lucy, I didn’t mean to attack you. There are many people who actually do support the killing of newborns, such as Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer.
The logic of abortion—that it’s okay to kill a human person in the womb but nowhere else—is so flimsy that there are those willing to take the same arguments used for abortion and apply them to newborns who present some kind of particular difficulty to their parents, such as being severely disabled—or who survived an abortion procedure. States and the Congress have actually had to pass laws against the practice.
The fact that you take my remark—which was actually meant as an simply acknowledgement that I don’t know where you stand on the issue—as an insult is encouraging, though. I’m glad that you don’t support legalizing infanticide; I just wish you’d extend the same protection to unborn children as well.
I wish that you were as insulted at the suggestion you support abortion as you were at the suggestion that you might support infanticide. That same sense of recoiling disgust that you feel about infanticide—that’s what we feel about abortion.
Let’s take another look at what I said:
“[I]f your standard for whether it can be aborted or not is its dissimilarity to a mature human being, then you’ll have to allow the extermination of newborns as well (which for all I know you do).”
My point was to show what’s wrong with the acorn analogy that you used. An embryo does not have “potential” the same way that a seed does. A seed is made for this long static period, even if it does not occur in the lifecycle of a particular oak tree. An embryo is not made for that static period, even if we can impose it technologically, in a limited way.
Aside from comparing fundamentally dissimilar things, the analogy breaks down for its use of “potential” as if in opposition to “being.” But as I pointed out, just as an embryo has a potential to grow into a newborn, a newborn has the potential to grow into an old woman.
If you’re going to hinge your argument on this “potential” business, I really don’t see how you can draw the line at birth. I haven’t read every comment you’ve written on this long, long comments board, so possibly elsewhere you’ve said you opposed late term abortions. But I don’t see how you can if you adhere to the logical consequences of this analogy you used. Nor, for that matter, the euthanizing of newborns.
The fact that you’re insulted by the suggestion that you support (I didn’t say actually perform!) the killing of newborns suggests that in the end you don’t really adhered to the logic that what things look like, what we call them, what their “potential” is, is a good standard for deciding who is a human being.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Sarah says:
Lucy says:
Sarah, I think that we could reach a consensus on numerous things. I don’t know if we could reach an absolute agreement, but I think that it would be an interesting discussion.
Thanks Lucy. I tried reading some of your comments and I think we would both agree on the rights of women (to have choices, making decisions etc. etc.) Our difference lies in our overall concept of (1) “choice”, (2) freedom and (3) when “life” begins. Your discussion with Sunnyday speaks of the first item and your discussion with Eric & Sydnie tackles the latter. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
My concept of choice includes abortion because it is real and it happens - but it doesn’t mean that it is a good choice. The dilemma starts when we talk about “good choices and bad choices”. And the dilemma stems from the various standards of “good & bad” in various cultures and societies.
“Freedom” can be viewed as mere “freedom to exercise your rights” but most people forget that “freedom” has a parameter too- we are free to exercise our rights as long as we do not infringe the freedom and safety of others.
“Life” begins when it exhibits signs of life — growth, change, development. In plants, a small root coming out of a seed is a sign of life. When pearls show signs of growth, it is a sign of life. When animals breathe, it is a sign of life. When a “body” has a pulse, it is a sign of life. When a finger lifts or moves, it is a sign of life. When a mole exhibits a change, it is a sign of life. So when “clumps of cells” exhibit a change, a growth, a development - isn’t it a sign of life too? Science have succeeded in dissecting anything that they could dissect and come up with multitudes of scientific terminologies which define facts and realities “scientifically”. Notice that science is independent from laws and morals. It does not need the law nor the society perception to make scientific results. And so, if we are to discuss when “life begins”, it is important that we define it scientifically. I am sure that you are perfectly able to it without anybody else’s influence. I have written mine and I do not know if you agree with the simplicity of it. I may be able to explain it scientifically but for now, I choose to keep it basic. It might help to know also that even Planned Parenthood org admits that life begins at conception (upon union of sperm & ovum; fertilization;).
>It might be worth noting that the doom and gloom commentary was anti-abortion.
Thanks for the info. However, I do not speak for any of the pro-xxxx organizations. I am keeping my mind open for any “sides” although it is quite obvious that I am coming from a side that coincides with some of the ideals of prolife.
>Life is ten months of nirvana in the womb then it sucks till heaven was against abortion. I thought I was jaded, but at least I’m not vindictive.
Glad to know that whatever happened in your past did not make you vindictive at all. I assume that your statement about “heaven” meant religion. It could also be viewed from another angle. Laws had also come into the picture. Notice that this whole shebang of abortion being classified as murder or an act of mercy is a product of the sorry debates in courts. The world is being dragged into the dizzying roller coaster ride of dissecting each stage of the baby’s growth to determine if indeed, a “life” is ended by “abortion” at various stages. (Note: If I allowed myself to be caught with the ride, I too could find myself in a status quo and wait for the time when science and law declare a solid judgement - and hence my judgement will be at their mercy. Sorry but I can’t call that real freedom. I have my own idea on “when life begins” and I am careful about it. No matter how scientists and lawyers would twist & turn the issues to advance their own propaganda, I will still stick to my own definition UNLESS they can offer me a better one).
>I’m going to sound like I crossed over, but I agree, poverty is not a reason in itself not to have children. We open up a whole new can of worms if only the wealthy can have children.
A common ground.
>Women in many developing countries are also denied rights to their bodies. They have children, but they are also frequently viewed as the property of men, and are impregnated against their will, by men who do not ‘rape’ them because you can’t ‘rape’ the property. I’m not arguing that these women should not have children, I’m arguing that they should have a choice, rights.
I agree that women should have choices and they should have rights. We have to consider though that moral standards, traditions and practices differ from one society to another. I agree that some women in developing countries are not even aware of their rights - that is why women’s organizations have a very important role in our modern world. The primary obstacle in advancing the info drives is the fact that some societies are patriarchal by nature - and believe it or not - women are comfortable with it. As a result, american women cannot generally conclude that asian women (et al) are stripped of their rights as women. It’s a cultural difference and america has no right to judge them as “less advanced” or “less free” just because america has its own standard of “freedom and rights”. No one can impose their own standards to other countries, we can only try to inform them but that’s about it. Our support comes AFTER they agree to our notion of “rights & freedom”.
The basic idea in women’s rights is “what women think is most comfortable for themselves” in various situations - as opposed to what “we” think is most comfortable for them.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Sarah says:
Lucy says,
>They frequently do not have access to birth control methods. One of Bush’s first acts in office was to cut off financial aid to any organization providing any family planning services besides abstinence training, which cuts back on the ability to provide things like condoms and more useful there, the pill. The thing is, abstinence is only an issue when both individuals have a say in what is happening. I think you’ll agree that most women would abstain from rape with glee, and I can’t think of anything else to call it when they are not given the status to consent. This is also one of the driving factors behind the spread of STD’s, primarily Aids in developing countries. Womens rights are vital. Bush likes to give lip service too it, but actions are louder. Pretending reality isn’t there does not make it go away.
Rape and STD are undoubtedly problematic issues, I agree. The pill? I have seen a lot of ill effects on women’s bodies specifically, their reproductive organs. I myself have refrained from using it because of the recent medical problems that I have. Again, that is something that we may have to look closely into. We may have all the freedom to do anything with our bodies, but taking care of it is a paramount concern.
Others may be repulsed by the fact that some organizations seem to impose laws or use their power & influence to manipulate the environment or judge others who do not conform with their ideals - but let’s face it, it still depends on how the individual would perceive the WHOLE scenario. Example is the availability of condoms in schools: let’s admit it, when condoms are everywhere, the idea of having sex is handy. If abortion is legal - the idea of aborting babies is handy too - right? It becomes a “comfy” option. These kinds of scenarios are products of what I personally describe as, “when mistake becomes an excuse and when excuses become a practice”. Just a personal opinion though (but it still doesn’t change my respect to people - whether they aborted babies in the past or not - the more important thing for me is how they live their lives now and how they strive to avoid doing things that lead to mistakes).
>Which is another issue, kind of random but, I guess in fairness, I shouldn’t ask you Sarah, since you are naive, but so am I in regards to this. Perhaps we can put our heads together and figure it out. Why is it a frequent practice for anti-abortion zealots to concede pregnancies that result from rape or incest? Do we have scientific evidence that children that are the result of rape or incest are more likely to commit these crimes. Is it genetically engineered? Are we therefore preventing more rapists and incestous members of society. Can we employ the same tactics for murders, burglars, and other criminals? I mean I didn’t know that we were that advanced. Or is it an irrational offering of sympathy to a victim, making the coerced continuation of the pregnancy of the unwilling woman, who, perhaps had one to many drinks and a unfortunate one night stand suffer the punishment for her mistake?
I’m not so sure if I understand what you meant about “conceding to pregnancies that result from rape or incest”. From what I know, only abortion from pregnancies that endanger the mother’s life is acceptable to them. And I share the same sentiment. And the prime mover of my basic belief is the value of life - at any stage, any kind and any form.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
lauren says:
Good for you Sunnyday that you believe in God. my beliefs or non-beliefs are really none of your business. When you profess your faith in such a public manner you begin to look very egotistical. How the hell do you know what God thinks? People have been looking for the meaning of life since the beginning of time and for you to claim to know what god wants and thinks is extremely arrogant. That or you are high on something and in which case, let me have some of that shit.
Science correction: not a fetus at conception, it is a zygote.
Oh eric.. i do find it baffling for someone who studied for many, many years about his own faith and thought the actual apostles wrote the Bible. Sorry, this is true.
I never said that I think Jesus necessarily said that and nor do I use it as a reference or justification behind my actions. Unlike some people who use the Bible or the Koran to make “holy war” I do not. I do things because they feel right to me and are moral to me. I don’t need some ancient book to dictate my life. You asked me what your book said about war. I told you. I never claimed I did or didnt buy into it myself. As for the contradictions in the Bible that is precisely one of my points. How could Jesus be so wishy-washy? Lol. He seems awfully indecisive for the son of God. But you’re right, I’m sure Jesus wouldve bombed Iraq. WWJB?! We all know how much he enjoys bombing innocent people til their death and doing it for financial spoils. How Christian… You are the devout Christian that throws the Bible around to justify what you do, I don’t. You need to square what you believe, not me. My observation of your ignorance about the authors of the bible wasnt an insult, it was merely an observation. It is an observation about your culture that is baffling and I come across it everyday. It saddens me.
And eric again, so what that stages of development have occurred in the womb? That still begs the question of whether you think there is a difference between a petri dish and a two year old. But that’s ok, just say you want to save the petri dish (i’m dying to hear it!)
You want to know what I believe? I believe I wasnt put on earth to do this with you people. We were put on earth to help each other and love each other and be tolerant of one another. To seek solutions and not hatred, to fight for justice where there is injustice and to find common ground on moral dilemmas. I view my role as a peacemaker and a realist. I view my role as a friend and those who are the weakest (actual living, breathing, walking human beings). I view my role as a problem-solver and not a spewer of hatred and division. I fight racism, bigotry, and religion that people apply to their narrow views. I stand up for what I believe in because I believe it is right and I dont need to put some book in front of me to shield myself from criticism. For too long the anti choice movement has used the Bible for its Crusade. Instead of being able to take criticism many on your side put Jesus in front of you and say SPIT ON HIM, but not on me and if you do, you are insulting Christianity. Well fuck that. Put yourself out there. Do it because it’s what you believe in and what you’d believe in without religion.
April I’m sorry but you are a moron. if you do not understand the concept of moral relativism I am sorry for you. if you dont see the difference between a clump of cells and a baby then there is no convincing you. You are out of touch with reality and common sense. And no, I’m not advocating for the death fo the handicapped asshole. I had a severely handicapped brother and believe me I know the difference. Can you please read previous posts before telling me that I said criminals abound? I was joking about what I think sunnyday said about criminals abounding. I think we live in a pretty decent world here in America. Albeit a sheltered, lazy, idiotic world, but a decent one at that.
Sydnie—how do you know that that Exodus quote is about abortion? It may indeed be, but how do you know? I’ve read a lot of literature in my day and some thigns are just interpretive. It could just as well mean dont punch a pregnant lady in the stomach right?
Again, sydnie there are people who do not believe that this 4 week old zygote is the same thing as a full grown human. I’m sorry, I know you dont like this, but some people think in moral relatives. BTw sydnie it is good to look for unbiased scientific “facts” beforeyou go citing them as evidence. Of course physicians for life are going to tell you what I wanted to hear. If i came on here and cited Planned Parenthood I wouldvebeen shot down just the same.
Sydnie that’s a great and inspiring story to share with pregnant women that are unsure about keeping their babies. However, not every pregnant woman is going to feel the way you do. It seems like a nice idea that 9/10 women will be happy that they kept their baby, but I’m afraid that probably isnt true.
Giving away a child is different because that child is now a full person unlike the potential life. Some women know that adoption is not an option for them (particularly black women which is sad but true we live in a racist country). Neither Lucy nor I support baby-killing. We dont think the way that you do but that doesnt make us baby killers. We may as well call you pregnant woman killers and pregnant lady fascists if you want to be that way. How’s this, dont tell me what to do with my body and i wont tell you what to do with yours… Roe vs. wade was based on lies… what lies??? That women want control over their bodies and dont want religious zealots going on a crusade for the “unborn”.. I wish you could see it how we see it and that you people are absolutely out of your mind insane.
Eric just because you cant get your mind around the fact that some people just dont see a zygote in the first trimester the same as the zygote in the 2nd or third does noot make them think that infanticide is ok. The fact that this unfathomable to you shows your unwillingness (I doubt incapability) to understand rationally.
Dude i think people who equate the availability of condoms to the chances of having sex have never had real passion with a member of the opposite sex. Human beings have sex. It is their nature and that is what is one of our most human characteristics. If you think by putting condoms around is going to somehow make people bound with sexual energy that previously laid dormant is idiotic at best. Condoms and other birth controls are our best protection against abortion.
Anyways it’s late and i need to go to bed. I’m glad I came on this site after my rage and fury of seeing the morons on lagrange road protest. My pug hung out the window and barked at you all. She laughed as hard as I did. But I will have you know, it did instill a new passion in me and forced me to join up with the pro-choice movement.. Don’t worry, this is a fight for womens’ lives and womens’ rights. We will never give up.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Sunnyday says:
Lauren, God’s blessings be with you — I mean it. That’s about all I will say to someone who relishes spewing off hostility. I’d rather discuss with someone who shows some willingness to learn or who, at least, shows common respect for other people despite differences in opinion.
Comment posted March 15th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Quinn says:
Lauren,
Jesus, Paul, the author of Hebrews (Peter?) and John in the Book of Revelation all upheld and supported God’s death penalty (Mark 7:9-13; Acts 25:11; Rom 13:4; 1 Tim 1:8-10; Heb 10:28; Rev 13:10). During Jesus’ earthly ministry He never said that capitol criminals should not be executed by the government anymore, but upheld the criminal justice system that HE GAVE to the world even requiring that His desciples obey even the least of the commandments (Matt 5:17-20).
You’ll find this article on the New Testament support for the death penalty enlightening. Actually, most who read this blog will probably find it enlightening
http://www.theologyonline.com/DEATH.HTML
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 2:28 am
Quinn says:
Lauren asked
“How the hell do you know what God thinks?”
I know what God thinks because He became man and lived and died and rose from teh grave and ascended into Heaven and did it all with MANY witnesses observing it all. And Christ’s life, death and resurrection are subject to historical scrutiny so that we can KNOW whether He did in fact live, die and rise from the dead. Its not NONFALSIFIABLE, but FALSIFIABLE.
What I believe God says is based upon the historical reality of Jesus Christ.
By the way, all embryologists recognize that human life begins at fertilization. So, given the choice of believing those scientists or believing some girl in high school named Lauren about WHEN life begins I think I’ll go with the embryologists.
That’s my only post responding to any of Lauren’s stuff. You can ask questions on my blog though, if you can make an argument based on facts. That’s the only sort of arguments I value on my blog.
Warring against evil with my Savior Jesus Christ.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 2:39 am
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “Oh eric.. i do find it baffling for someone who studied for many, many years about his own faith and thought the actual apostles wrote the Bible.”
Lauren, nobody every claimed the “Apostles wrote the bible” (by “bible” here I assume you mean Gospels). Of the four Evangelists, only two were Apostles, Matthew and John.
Neither Mark nor Luke were Apostles, though possibly Mark was a disciple of Jesus. Tradition has it that Mark was a disciple of Peter, which is consistent with the treatment of Peter in the Gospel ascribed to him. Luke was a disciple of Paul.
But in any case what I actually said was, “My judgment is that in general the traditional attributions of the books of the New Testament are valid” (emphasis added) while allowing that the Gospels may have been “dictated [by the Evangelists] to others, or written down later by the disciples of those men.”
Yes, I did glibly reply to your question to your question, “Who wrote the bible,” “Matthew Mark, Luke, John,” etc., but my first reply was “Dan Brown”! How about a little leeway for give and take?
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 6:55 am
Sydnie says:
Lauren I really don;t have time but I just wanted to say that obviously you are uninformed! Apparently you don;t know anything about Roe v wade. I have met Roe herself and she is fighting to overturn it. She did have an abortion and she was homeless, money was offered to her to lie about her reasons and the numbers were also exagerated. Look it up. PP was also founded by a female hilter.got more for you and lucy but got to go offer a hand to the wonderful people who chose life!
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 7:02 am
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “April I’m sorry but you are a moron. . . . asshole.”
Lauren, “peacemaker” that you are, you might want to reconsider the paragraph in your last comment that is addressed to “April.” April (who happens to be my wife and the mother of my seven children) wrote exactly one comment (#60), which said nothing about the topics you attribute to her in that paragraph:
I think you owe April and apology. (BTW, I think I just learned everything I need to know about your authority to ascribe authorship.)
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 7:03 am
John says:
Sydnie writes:
“I have met Roe herself and she is fighting to overturn it. She did have an abortion and she was homeless…”
You rightly point out that Norma McCorvey — “Jane Roe” in the case Roe v. Wade — is now pro-life.
Just to clarify, though: neither Norma McCorvey nor Sandra Cano — “Jane Doe” in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case of Roe v. Wade — ever had an abortion. (Sandra Cano is now pro-life as well.)
You can read more here:
http://www.prolifeaction.org/faq/abortion.htm#roe
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Lauren says:
Eric, you’re still not taking responsibility for the fact that you were wrong on the authorship of the Bible. I also dont claim to be tolerant of idiocy. If I think you’re being an asshole, I’ll let you know.. In which case I thought April was. I’m sorry this troubles you. I know that you didnt claim that all the apostles wrote the Bible, but you did claim some did (which none did). Paul was not an apostle DUH… But you’re losing my point, I could give a crap what you believe in your religion. If you cant defend what you believe in without invoking a book which is subject to criticism itself your argument has weak legs to stand upon.
Quinn you are clearly unhinged. If you want to cite your lizard-brained bigotry via the Bible, go ahead.
Dear people of this site (stolen from a letter to Dr. Laura)
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Answer those questions for me folks!!!!
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Lauren says:
You do realize that most women who have had abortions dont come out and be pro-life like you say they do. Just a thought though.. Perhaps Ms. Roe was sick of all you nutjobs lambasting her and using her as a martyr for your cause that she figured it was easier than you all holding prayer vigils on her front lawn.. Could be wrong, but that is a theory…
As for april, my apologies, I shouldve called out Moron Sarah rather than you for the criminals abound statement.. I take responsibility for things I said but please recognize it was due to error rather than intent. Eric seven children is too many. Oh wait, that’s not my place to tell you that.. and it is not your place to tell me how many I should have:)!]
One more comment to quinn–I’m not a high school student. I’m a college junior and I have been featured on CNN, FOX, and Inside Edition. I’m a writer and a blogger and I’ve studied at Princeton, Georgetown, and Loyola. Do not talk down to me Mr. Moral Authority. I’m sorry that you have the answers to the meaning of life, I’m afraid I am not as fortunate as you to have God come down from his silvery clouds and speak to me personally. Let me know when you stop convincing yourself of this crazy-ass reality you have created. If you are indeed taking hallucinogenic drugs can you please tell me which they are so I may start taking them as well. It must be so nice to convince yourself of things and then call them “faith”
Quinn if there is no debate as to capital punishment in Christianity, then why does the Catholic Church oppose it?
I dont like capital punishment personally. I think it’s much more of a punishment to sit in jail than to die.. Also in terms of pragmatics, it costs more to execute someone than to jail them for the rest of their lives.. Plus I dont think killing someone is really believing in redemption or turning the other cheek (as personal morals, not biblical ones).
Sydnie, I know a lot about Roe vs. Wade. I know a lot about Roe vs. Wade because I wrote a 30 page paper on the case, as well as taking 2 constitutional law courses (one at princeton, another at Loyola). If there is something new that you dont think I know about Norma McCorvey or the case, please let me know.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Lauren says:
I’ll be up front about Margaret Sanger.. She did advocate for eugenics.. That is widely known. Do I or Lucy advocate for Eugenics? No. We are not “hitlers” of our day because we advocate for womens’s rights. To equate us to Margaret Sanger is unfair. It is just the same as me to compare you to neo-Nazi groups which are by no means left-wing groups but right-wing. The Nazi party was one of the most right-wing groups in recent history. Perhaps we shoudl compare you to Eric Rudolph? I didnt think so. Avoid the rash characterizations when you know damn well our philosophies are the same. There are nutcases in every group. Differentiating between the two is the challenge, but I would have to say most of you dont advocate for the bombings of birth control and family planning clinics? Correct me if I’m wrong.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Sarah says:
Call me anything you want, Lauren. I may agree with you if you could show me my iq exams. Otherwise your words remains unsubstantiated and weightless. For all we know, I may have an iq of an idiot. You know of course, that these words that we are using refer to iq levels - right?
>..if you do not understand the concept of moral relativism I am sorry for you.
Mm, your posts doesn’t show any proof that you understand it either. But I’ll take the liberty of defining it for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
>if you dont see the difference between a clump of cells and a baby then there is no convincing you.
Like I said in my previous post addressed to Lucy (who picked up the topic and exhibited excellent ability to carry a decent conversation), we are talking about LIFE in ANY form.
Any grade schooler could see the difference between clumps of cells and a baby, but the form is not the issue - the issue is the LIFE that these “clumps of cells” and babies have. They are both alive! If “form” is the issue then handicapped people shouldn’t be alive too; if “kind” is the issue then poor people shouldn’t be alive too.
Do you see the point? If you can prove that these “clumps of cells” do not exhibit signs of life, then this discussion with you may make some sense.
>You are out of touch with reality and common sense.
Like I said in my previous post addressed to you… I will modify it for your sake: how can you say that I am out of touch with reality and common sense? And allow me to borrow your own phrase: “back it up!!!”
>And no, I’m not advocating for the death fo the handicapped asshole. I had a severely handicapped brother and believe me I know the difference. Can you please read previous posts before telling me that I said criminals abound? I was joking about what I think sunnyday said about criminals abounding.
There you go, Lauren. Do you now see the consequences of recklessness in words and actions?
Of course I saw your discussion with Sunnyday and I also saw how the issues were thrown to the gutters when you opted to address it with “jokes”, invectives and sarcasm (ad hominems).
Do you realize now that your own careless pronouncements could be overturned and used against you? If another teener hears you talk that way on a mic or a megaphone, do you think you can get a chance to redeem yourself from the blunders caused by your “jokes”?
And lastly, do you now know that sarcasm leads you nowhere?
>I think we live in a pretty decent world here in America. Albeit a sheltered, lazy, idiotic world, but a decent one at that.
Good. So there’s not much weight found in your sarcastic remarks.
Last note: Since you take liberty in name-calling and diminutizing the issues by joking around & since you think that you are free to berate others, then I am also free to tell you that you merely dodged the issues presented to you, retreated to the corner by redirecting abortion issues to religion & the bible [sic] and ad hominems. I repeat, you weren’t able to properly address ANY of the issues presented to you. I’d be scared to entrust [my] women’s rights issues if it’s going to be handled in the same manner that you did the “abortion topic”.
Btw, you need to learn the law of contradictions. You sound like an intelligent woman, you’ll be able to grasp it - see for yourself the implications of your “jokes” and “sarcasm” in regard to your behavior and pro-abortion philosophies.
Until then, I doubt that anything productive will come out of any discussion with you.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Lucy says:
Lauren, it was actually Sunnyday who feels the world is filled with ‘criminals abound,’ Sarah, also expressed that it was a ridiculous statement. Sorry, I just don’t think that Sarah should have to take the wrap for that one. Alice was the one in favor of Human Sacrifice. It’s true, she only posted once and it was targeted at me. She was in favor of human sacrifice…makes everything come up roses.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Lucy says:
Eric,
I’m glad it brightens up your day to learn that I find you insulting. I also find it insulting that you blatantly declare that it would be an inconvience for you to read the statements made on here thoroughly to fully understand an individuals position, and feel that levying attacks, (I know, I misunderstood, us girls, we’ll do that), is the best way to learn what those positions might be. This leaves us in a postion where we are wasting time on such things as whether or not 2000 years plus is the equivalent of saying more than 2000 years, and discussing whether or not an oak tree is a baby or a puppy, or a whatever.
There is no issue as to whether or not to kill babies Eric. This is not an issue, this is a crime. If there are people in favor of homocide those people are called criminals. This is not a debate that is being had anywhere, this is a crime that hasn’t been discovered yet. If you don’t report what you know you might be viewed as an accomplice Eric. Wouldn’t look good for the cause would it. What are you talking about? This would make the news.
I’m guessing we’re talking about an issue of life support again aren’t we. I mean really, I think it’s great. While I can’t back it up with evidence, so take this with a grain of salt, It is my guess that when the medical wonder of a life support system was first developed the very same people who now declare it as a ‘God’ given right, declared it a violation of God’s will to keep someone alive artificially, they probably declared that medical science was playing God. It will be the same with Stem Cell Research, just wait.
No, Eric, I am actually not in favor of a Ban on D&E’s. This is where we run into problems. As long as the Fetus is in the womans body the womans rights trump the Fetus, which is a collection of cells Eric. What do you think that your body is composed of Eric, Gummy Bears? Do you think that once your body hit air it magically altered from whatever it was inside mommies womb? I’m not going to do this twice. Keep an eye out for the response I have to Sydnie on the information that she gave me. If you think you can be bothered.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Lucy says:
Lauren, I love that gag letter for the Dr. Laura show. I never get tired of running across it, I mean it, I think it’s great. It’s one of those things that leaves you with nothing else but a sense of, Wow, wish I had thought of that.
That’s an impressive list of shows that you’ve been on, do you mind if I ask what for?
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Lucy says:
Sydnie,
That’s nice that you met Roe. That she has changed her mind and gone anti-abortion isn’t really important. I’ll admit, it was a good ruling on shaky grounds. If they paid her and she accepted the money than that was her choice. Force requires a weapon, generally a gun or legislation, money is not a weapon. Money is a tool. What she was willing to do for money is not my problem. She had every right to say no. That she was homeless is unfortunate, but that is also not a contributing factor to the issue.
I do not recognize emotional outcries to be the same as rational arguements. Declaring Lauren or I Hitlers is nonsense. I mean, for what it is worth I could take it and throw it back in your face and liken you to Mousilini, who saw it as best that women would leave the workforce and have children so that they could, lets say, raise a proper army. I am in no fashion a Socialist, I think that I have already expressed my disgust at Socialist ideas, which you should assume spill over to Communism and Fascism. I’m also against Tyrants and Dictators. I believe however, you have on occasion indicated that you are in favor of Socialist and perhaps Communist policies. I could loosely argue an implied support of Fascism, but it isn’t really important.
Frankly Sydnie, you have already declared that you feel that diverting rights of the woman to the fetus should be done by any means. I can only infer from some of the statements that you have posted that you are prone to emotional outbursts, perhaps of a violent nature when faced with statements that differ from your own viewpoints.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Sydnie says:
Lauren, http://www.christianviewpoint.com/html/30_Years_of_Lies.htm
these have direct quotes from roe herself, thank you john for clearing that up! ;O) not good enough for you Lauren here is a video clip or norma herslef speaking to CNN http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/video/ gee lauren, if you are really as educated and experienced as you say you are I am very disappointed to say the least and not impressed by your intelligence that is for sure!
I am impressed by you Lucy, you keep a cool head and a good meaningful argument that stays close to topic. You don;t try to make attacks by insulting others’ intelligence just to get around what our issure is here. Its been great talking with you and with you I will agree to disagree! i hope things go great with you as you persue your education!
Lauren I guess bless Eric’s heart for wanting to try to reach you. I’m not that great of a person.
all I have to say is A WOMAN HAS
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Sydnie says:
sorry, A RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT SHE DOES WTIH HER OWN BODY. SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING TO, ESPECIALLY KILL ANYONE ELSE’S BODY. PERIOD.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Sydnie says:
By the way Lucy I guess I forgot to say I think you will make a wonderful lawyer that I know will do a great job defending women. :o) I am very happy that someone with such a background is able to make something wonderful with her life! Even if your mom isn;t maybe that proud of you I am! And I can see that you are a wonderful person. Even if we disagree on a big issue!
love, Sydnie
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Sydnie says:
sorry lucy missed comment 136. until now, I don;t think I called you and Lauren Hitler’s. I called Margaret Sanger a Hitler. If I did I guess it came out wrong but I am pretty sure it was sanger…and the Mousilini comment is a little off base but whatever,…i don;t really care if you misunderstand my beliefs…
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah,
I am sorry that you are experiencing health problems. I agree that it should be acknowledged that the pill may have adverse affects for some women. This is true of every medication available however, and there are many women who take it with no problem at all. However, I do agree it is best to find out more, and to grant access to information regarding all possible risks to all women who wish to take it. I think this is a fair statement regarding all medication however. I’m also not opposed to making it available only upon request, but I favor individual responsibility.
I certainly can’t admit that the availablility of condoms makes choosing to have sex an easier option. I think that it makes it a safer option, presuming they are used. I think that it will reduce the amount of teen pregnancies. I am also without the ability to declare that the available of abortions increases the amount of abortions obtained, making it an easier option. I’ll grant you, having the option of legal abortions available makes it a safer option. I don’t believe it makes it easier. No, that’s not true, I know it doesn’t make it easier.
I can understand the complicated nature of deciphering between the logical and the emotional, believe me. I said I do not regret my choice and I am telling the truth. I’m telling you that it was not an easy choice and that is true. Emotionally, I understand the ability to believe that what was in me was a real baby. I understand the idea that she would laugh and play, grow, run, fall, cry, learn, and all kind of things. She, I don’t know what your experiences are Sarah, you unlike me have not poured yourself on the table and you’re probably better off for it, but none the less, I can tell you that for all that I am I know that it was a she. It was female. Emily, I would have named her Emily. I don’t know why. I knew an Emily when I was younger and I liked the name. It’s a name that is soft and sweet, and yet somehow still somehow manages to pack a punch. It’s the ending, it’s definitive, strong. Emily. But, there’s always reality. Nowhere to live, no money, no education. I was confused enough about my own life, The least I could do was not screw up another life. Intelligence is relative, there’s the top and the bottom and I’m not either of those, That puts me in the middle with the rest, we’re all smarter than someone and someone is always smarter than us, I think that at least I was smart enough to know that I would just be screwing up another life. I would make mine worse, and screw up hers. What right did I have to do that to her? Since Logically, I knew that what I had in me was a growing body. It might have been a boy, I’m not psychic, I don’t know. Yet, still, I just knew. Everything that makes it a baby would come later. I had all of the cells, the forming of bones and muscles and nerves, the abilities for reflexes would be forming, but that didn’t include the parts that made her Emily. As Sydnie stated, that takes nine months, well 10 really.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Sydnie says:
that is wierd, my comment137 still has not gone throughI, will try it again!
Sydnie says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Lauren, http://www.christianviewpoint.com/html/30_Years_of_Lies.htm
these have direct quotes from roe herself, thank you john for clearing that up! ;O) not good enough for you Lauren here is a video clip or norma herslef speaking to CNN http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/video/ gee lauren, if you are really as educated and experienced as you say you are I am very disappointed to say the least and not impressed by your intelligence that is for sure!
I am impressed by you Lucy, you keep a cool head and a good meaningful argument that stays close to topic. You don;t try to make attacks by insulting others’ intelligence just to get around what our issure is here. Its been great talking with you and with you I will agree to disagree! i hope things go great with you as you persue your education!
Lauren I guess bless Eric’s heart for wanting to try to reach you. I’m not that great of a person.
all I have to say is A WOMAN HAS
I will try it again!
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
Sydnie says:
if you want to get technical, 9.5! he he he! Lucy that is great that you named her. I think you are probably right that she was a girl, its funny how you just know…but that is probably why you don;t feel bad, and I sincerely hope you never do! If it means anything to you, or whether or not you believe me I would never hold it against you. I do think that the best thing you can do is name (it) because (it being ball of tissue baby however you define it was a piece of you) and I think Emily is a beautiful name. That is what I wanted to name my daughter but her dad didn;t like it. I still want my Emily some day! my husband likes the name so maybe our next girl! : )
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Sydnie says:
i’m still showing 2 of my comments missing. 142, and 137 do you see them?
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah,
So, no, the availability of a safe abortion, does not make it easier, but that which is easy isn’t alway right. As Sydnie can tell you, she also made a difficult decision that she is glad she made. No, for reasons that I would not like to expound on, imagine that, adoption would not have been an option, and yes protection was used. I agree that there are such things as good and bad choices.
I also favor the rights of people to make those good and bad choices and discover the consequences they yield, be they good or bad. I don’t expect anyone to save me from the consequences of my decisions, nor do I expect to be required to save anyone. This is just as long as a decision does not impede upon the right to choose enjoyed by another individual.
You’d be amazed, I’ve taken the same Philosophy teacher twice and he loves to begin the Semester by asking what people believe Free to be. While the actual answer requires an extensive deal of thought, and I don’t know if it can be rendered in the short quip he’s looking for, the common response is the equivalent of noone tells me what to do. Of course, when your 18, I think that is pretty important. Oh, and I should say that the ‘actual answer’ could also probably vary from individual to individual and still be counted as valid. I think that as long as it includes a mandate that it not impede on others ability to be free then we’re good. So, the question is, is the fetus an other. This is the question we’re asking right. We have the freedom to do as we please as long as we do not impede upon the rights of others, and accept the consequences of our chosen actions correct. So, does a fetus count as another, and what are the determining factors?
I believe I understand you to be defining ‘life’ as the process of growth and developement that is attributed to anything that we would qualify as living. Needing nutrients to continue existence. Of course, that’s a loose definition, I would find a more sophisticated one but, I think that it is enough to differentiate between a plant and a rock, and it includes humans. Nutrients being anything we view as vital, sun, water, food, shelter, etc….if we might use it a little generously for the moment. You’re arguement then being that because the fetus is growing in the womb, and requires nutrients to contine, that it is alive. I can’t argue with that.
I mean I could argue that our body also begins to disintegrate while we’re alive, and continues to well after we’re dead and one would hardly delcare a corpse alive because it does the same thing as a living person. I’m sure that you could poke holes in that comparrison with great enough ease. Here, I’ll poke the first one, noone is expecting the corpse to be any part of what we consider alive, no matter how we define alive there is no expectation.
I think expectations are a big part of this.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Lucy says:
Sydnie, they are there, you posted them both.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Sydnie says:
Lauren, http://www.christianviewpoint.com/html/30_Years_of_Lies.htm
these have direct quotes from roe herself, thank you john for clearing that up! ;O) not good enough for you Lauren here is a video clip or norma herslef speaking to CNN http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/video/ gee lauren, if you are really as educated and experienced as you say you are I am very disappointed to say the least and not impressed by your intelligence that is for sure!
I am impressed by you Lucy, you keep a cool head and a good meaningful argument that stays close to topic. You don;t try to make attacks by insulting others’ intelligence just to get around what our issure is here. Its been great talking with you and with you I will agree to disagree! i hope things go great with you as you persue your education!
Lauren I guess bless Eric’s heart for wanting to try to reach you. I’m not that great of a person.
all I have to say is A WOMAN HAS
I will try it again!
no they aren;t maybe this time it will go through
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Sydnie says:
Lauren, ok here I had a site that was about 30 years of lies.
these have direct quotes from roe herself, thank you john for clearing that up! ;O) not good enough for you Lauren here is a video clip or norma herslef speaking to CNN here was a link to that might have to put roe v wade in on a search and see what you come up with. I think this did not go through both times becasue of the websites so I am trying again without. you must not have done very good reasearch on roe v wade for a 30 page paper and btw, gee lauren, if you are really as educated and experienced as you say you are I am very disappointed to say the least and not impressed by your intelligence that is for sure!
I am impressed by you Lucy, you keep a cool head and a good meaningful argument that stays close to topic. You don;t try to make attacks by insulting others’ intelligence just to get around what our issure is here. Its been great talking with you and with you I will agree to disagree! i hope things go great with you as you persue your education!
Lauren I guess bless Eric’s heart for wanting to try to reach you. I’m not that great of a person.
all I have to say is A WOMAN HAS
I will try it again!
no they aren;t maybe this time it will go through
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Sydnie says:
guess that is what it was, the websites it wouldnt take.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah,
I have no grounds to argue with you that some countries and their cultures and moral standards are different than our country and our culture, and the moral standards we try to adhere to. I do not agree however that I have to view them as equal to us because of their differences. I don’t believe that gives me the right to change them either if they do not wish to change. I also acknowledge that there are women who are perfectly content to relinquish rights to the men in their lives. They don’t even percieve it that way, this is just the way it is. We percieve it that way because for us it is unthinkable, well for me and I am going to assume others, I shouldn’t speak for ‘us’, The you and them of us can speak of it themselves.
Whether rights are taken away or given away does not eliminate the deference of rights from the original owner to another. I might view the exchange differently because of these factors but I will still be forced to admit that the original owner is no longer in possession of their rights and someone else is. I would also question what has driven those that give their rights away to do it. Coersion comes in many forms. I also believe that a person must take their own rights back, they may ask for assistance, but they must initiate the action, otherwise, I do violate their right to give their rights away for any reason of their choosing.
I can argue that we in America are ‘more free’ than others. Once a person gives away their rights they are no longer in possession of it. If I do not give away my rights, then I am in possession of them. My rights are my freedoms to make my mistakes and enjoy my accomplishments. I can be ‘freer’ to do this. For instance, Hong Kong is the freest country in the World.
I can also argue that we are more advanced, the procurement of rights leads directly to advancement. Innovations such as come from America do not occur in the overwhelming numbers under without freedoms to make mistakes and enjoy accomplishments. It is only where the individual thrives. Granted, we’re not as free as we once were, and our status as advanced is suffering because of it. Someone is on top, someone is on the bottom everyone else is in the middle. We’re all fighting to maintain or improve rank. They are the developing countries for a reason.
I completely agree, we should not impose what we believe to be ‘comfortable’ on another woman anywhere. Their understanding of ‘comfortable’ is likely to be different. I think though that they should be free to choose their preferred level of comfort and do what they can to the best of their ability to achieve it. I also believe this for men.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
Sydnie says:
ok my 148 was supposed to go in 137 just to clarify. I wouldn’t go through becauase of the websites I had included for reference. it showed them posted on my user but said “awaiting moderation” so there I sent it in 148. Seems to come out of nowhere so that is the explanation.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah,
I also agree that treating a law as though it is the final word simply because it exists is a poor practice in reasoning. We have seen enough unjust laws that harmed people not only made it onto the books but stay for an unacceptable. If we assume that morality is determined by law then we have problems. We should each develop our own understanding of what morality is. This does not eliminate the neccessity of government and laws, but we are supposed to watch it, it is ours in this country and not the other way around, and without a code of morals the unjust laws not only make it to the record but remain on the record. No government has any power that we did not grant it or neglect to remove from it.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Lucy says:
Sydnie,
Thank you for the compliments on my abilities as a potential lawyer. I appreciate the vote of confidence, I hope that I’ll prove worthy of it. A lot of women who have abortions name their fetus. It is a potential child, and it is our potential child. We all have different reasons for our choices. I do not agree that women should use abortion as a form of birth control. This is damaging to thier body, and their mind I would assume. Though I would also assume that the utilization of abortion as a form of birth control is an indication of a troubled individual from the beginning. Voltaire said Use, do not abuse, Excess nor abstinance ever made man happy. (This is not in regards to abstaining from abortions) There is no such thing, (I hope), as Pro-abortion, I don’t believe that it should be used recklessly, I believe it as everything requires careful thought and consideration.
I didn’t understand this when I was nineteen. In Authoritarian, I think I’m saying that right, homes there is no opportunity to learn reasoning skills. You develop nothing but the most basic survival skills. The only things that saved me were my best friend and the fact that I loved to read and would bury myself in books. You’re primary goal is to not get hit again and to avoid the yelling but you have rankings of them in preferencial order and that’s not fun. Questions are a bother and you learn not to ask. Requests for explanations are met with because I said so.
Should I have made better choices, should I have had more respect for myself, yes. I wish I had. But I didn’t.
Thank you for wishing that I never feel bad about it. That means alot. I’m also glad that you are happy with your choice to have your daughter. I hope that you are able to have your Emily in the future. I can believe you’ll make a great nurse. You have a definite caring and concerned nature, and are obviously inquisitive, I think that you’ll do well.
Why attack anyones intelligence. We all know different things. We have all chosen different priorities in the information we seek. I couldn’t tell you a thing about nursing and I don’t know whether or not you have studied anything in Philosophy. I’d like to believe that we’re all just trying to figure things out to the best of our abilities. Perhaps if we just listen to one another we’ll learn something.
I agree that everybody has the right to do what they will with thier own body. I also concede that they do not have the right to harm anothers body. My confliction is the contradiction in terms that an individual is housed within another. Cannot exist otherwise. The rights that we have agreed are and are not possessed are applied to the individual.
We should remember that This country is the first to recognize the rights of the individual, and even though it seems as though we should be old hands at this, in the grand scheme of things these ideas don’t even register on the radar. Since we are the very first at attempting to recognize and operate according to individual rights we should define what that means. This was presumably done by the founding fathers of this country, however, as Sarah and I discussed, these things need to be questioned and weighed against our own standards of just. Disagreeing with them based on reasoned investigation would be right in line with what I believe they intended. So would agreeing by the same means.
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
rosie says:
Lauren,
Exactly how many abortions have you had and why do you feel such a need to justify it?
Comment posted March 16th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
rosie says:
What does the bible say in regard to abortion? Well……
Isaiah 5:20-21
Proverba 8:36
2 Kings 24:3-4
Psalm 139:13,15
Psalm 22:10-11
Pwsalm 106:35,37-38
Exodus 21
Luke 1:15
Matthew 18:10-14
Deuteronomy 24:16
Proverbs 31:8-9
these are just a few….
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Lauren says:
I’m sorry that you still do not understand my point with moral relativism. I’m not going to try to explain wikipedia to you either. If you dont understand the concept and the correct connotation I used it in, I apologize to you. Read some more, you’ll get the hang of it!!!!
Alright you are out of touch and common sense. The majority of America agrees with me and not you. An even larger majority of women agree with me and not you. You are out of touch with the reality that there is a difference between clumps of cells and a full grown fetus. Understanding the difference is certianly key to understanding that there is a diffence between aborting cells versus aborting a 4 month old fetus. If you are having trouble understand, please read again. You may not agree with my stance, but please tell me you at least understand where I’m coming from. Do i have to spell it out to you and talk with my hands to make you understand what I’m saying.. Christ.
I dont give a crap that I use ad hominems. This is life. If you cant handle being called a bad name cry about it there is nothing I can do. I feel passionately and I do think you’re an idiot. If you dont like it, I’m sorry. I know I’m not going to convince you but if you ask stupid questions or say dumb things I may in fact call you a moron or an asshole (depending upon which I think is most accurate) Btw, the asshole comment was completely justified when I was asked if I advocate for the death of the handicapped especially when I took it personally due ot having a handicapped member of my family. Don’t equate cells with a living person and I wont call you an asshole, fair?
I dont think that using them makes me less effective of a speaker, just makes you less effective in terms of responding to the essence of what I said to you.. Tell me what you’d like me to answer in substance Sarah and I will. I dont know what i apparently have not answered for you but will gladly do so when prompted. You dont think calling a whole group of people might be somewhat adhominem as well? Oh wait, you think that is accurate.. I think asshole is accurate as well so swallow it and get over it.
Sydnie you still have failed to teach me anything i didnt already know about roe v. wade. I know she didnt have an abortion and I know that she know “regrets” getting to the point she did in the case. I knew that.. What is your point though? Make a point, please.
Rosie how’s this… fuck off. It’s none of your god damn business how many abortions I or any other woman has had. One in four women will have an abortion by the time she is 40 and that is a tragedy–that you werent aborted yourself.
people like you is the reason abortion exists.. Ok maybe that was a little rash and mean, but I’m angry. Who the hell do you think you are to ask me or anyone a question like that? I will not dignify that with an answer. hAve a good day. If I gave a shit what the Bible said about anything I would probably use it, but I dont give a shit because (SEE COMMENT 129)
Peace in the Middle East ya’ll and happy st. patricks day.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Sydnie says:
Lauren,
I’m sorry you are such an angry person, I feel badly about whatever happened to you to make you so angry. I think you will find that your hateful words mean nothing to us here though, we are strong enough and have enough happiness and goodness in our lives that you don;t bother us, and we can even love you for who you are….Hugs to you!
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Sydnie says:
Lucy, thank you for your words! ; )
What progress you have made, you are definately against the odds that something good can come from those circumstances. I think I can see that your decision that you made may have been out of love for you child. Right or wrong, good or bad, agree or disagree with you, I see that you did it out of LOVE for your child! I am glad you opened up here because I understand a little more now. That is why I agree you must never judge! (believe me, my heart doesn’t judge women who have done this but occasionally my mind does, I try not to let myself do that though) I am glad you said that most people (if any) are not pro-abortion. I think that is the idea I get when i hear women passionately arguing for rights to choose this option. (that they are simply PRO ABORTION)
thanks for clearing that up. I think it important for me to understand the other side, even if I never agree with it.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Sarah says:
Hello Lucy!
It’s nice to ’see’ you and thank you for the clarifying note that you made earlier. Now more than ever, I am much more careful in getting involved in these issues. (This post may be long - I do not want to cut your messages so you can easily tell me if I misunderstood you. Apologies to you, to John and others)
My doctor advised me to be more careful in food and habits, I need to be “healthy” and as much as possible, be free from anything that could cause cancer or anything that could cause cervical & hormonal abnormalities. I actually volunteered to give up pills and she appreciated it. A friend gave me two sites where the effects of contraceptives are discussed. Since I am not in the field of medicine, I rely on doctors and medical sites for information regarding my health issues. After a while, I decided to ‘go natural’ on a lot of things - food, drinks, habits. So far, I am under observation and my doctor is optimistic about my ‘recovery’. Thanks for the concern, I appreciate it.
I’d welcome any comment from you regarding these two sites that I am trying to study: http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=192 and http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp3300.html
Don’t worry though if you choose not to comment on the sites, I won’t be offended at all. (Having this discussion with you - courtesy of John’s site - is already a great help).
>I certainly can’t admit that the availablility of condoms makes choosing to have sex an easier option. I think that it makes it a safer option, presuming they are used. I think that it will reduce the amount of teen pregnancies. I am also without the ability to declare that the available of abortions increases the amount of abortions obtained, making it an easier option. I’ll grant you, having the option of legal abortions available makes it a safer option. I don’t believe it makes it easier. No, that’s not true, I know it doesn’t make it easier.
I agree that legalizing abortion does not make the act and the consequences of it any easier, I am talking about the decision-making process being easier (I have an illustration below).
This is where my naivete comes in Lucy, I’m in the US for a number of years and I haven’t been exposed to the norms. Thank you for taking time & effort to explain it. It helps me understand a lot of things in a lot of ways.
You see, I grew up in a country where virginity of women is treasured - by both sexes. (I know I know, it sounds outmoded, *smiles*). Abstinence is generally not a new practice there either. We have no divorce, pre-marital sex is discouraged by most institutions and abortion is not legal. I agree with you, to some extent legalizing abortion COULD be a safer option. BUT in a country where abstinence is a ‘practice’ and pre-marital sex is ‘discouraged’, legalizing abortion becomes moot and expendable [except in cases when the mother is in danger]. Of course mistakes could happen, I would never claim that there are no “unplanned pregnancies” there, but that’s what they are, “mistakes and accidents” (no sugar coating). Instead of building abortion clinics, we built organizations which provide emotional and financial support to pregnant women so they could go through their ordeals. IMO, legalizing abortion is like condoning such mistakes and legalized abortion can be used as a vehicle for more mistakes. I am not saying that I am correct, and I’m not saying that this system is ideal for america too.
But the basic truths are clear: (1) responsible sex minimizes unplanned pregnancies, (2) mistakes are viewed as mistakes and (3) there are people who are willing to support them to go through their ordeals. Needless to say, America has more resources and more organizations who can do the latter. So other than the american mindset and practices, I am optimistic that american teens could have more choices other than having an abortion.
To further illustrate my statement about sex & abortion being handy by the presence of birth control & legalized abortion, allow me to describe the mindsets of teeners (and these are real cases): 1. a high school classmate bragged, “my gf initially said no when I asked her to sleep with me, but she later agreed when I told her I’ll wear condoms”. 2. A very promising, young girl just had her fullbright scholarship approved but some weeks later she found out she was pregnant. After her futile search for doctors, her parents learned about her condition and promised to support her and her child. Now she is on her way to completing her master’s degree. Needless to say, if abortion was legal when she was under stress, she could have ended up aborting the baby. These are of course some samples only, but I hear some american kids saying the same words every now and then too.
This is also why I oppose to having condoms and pills in schools. The message that it relays to the kids goes beyond what is written on the product covers. Having them at arms length (and for free at that) spells a lot of difference when these products are some miles away from them. Let’s compare it to the accessibility of cigarettes - we know of course that one reason why cigarettes are highly priced is because we do not want it to be easily bought by kids. Of course one would argue that cigarettes are health hazards while condoms are not, but we are talking about accessibilities and the mental signals that go along with it. IF my kids would need birth control products, I surely wish that they would have access to it when they can already drive to get it and pay for it too - meaning, when they are already of age and financially ok. And if possible - get it when they can already afford the consequences of accidents or when the product fails. IF they would need the products.
If the products are up for grabs in schools, then anybody can use it without regard to their age of minority and their financial status. I do not need to explain what happens when the product fails.
And then of course, we cannot expect our kids to be as responsible as adults. That’s why they are “kids”, they need to be guided by adults so bad choices and mistakes can be minimized. Which is logical- I mean, parents are supposed to be wiser than their children, “been there, done that” could be (lovingly) applied in guiding teeners too. (Guidance is different from running their lives, and being a dictator is different from being a responsible parent).
>I have no grounds to argue with you that some countries and their cultures and moral standards are different than our country and our culture, and the moral standards we try to adhere to. I do not agree however that I have to view them as equal to us because of their differences. I don’t believe that gives me the right to change them either if they do not wish to change. I also acknowledge that there are women who are perfectly content to relinquish rights to the men in their lives. They don’t even percieve it that way, this is just the way it is. We percieve it that way because for us it is unthinkable, well for me and I am going to assume others, I shouldn’t speak for ‘us’, The you and them of us can speak of it themselves.
Agreed. I also don’t believe that we can say we are all equal. There’s a lot of variables involved in the word.
>Whether rights are taken away or given away does not eliminate the deference of rights from the original owner to another. I might view the exchange differently because of these factors but I will still be forced to admit that the original owner is no longer in possession of their rights and someone else is. I would also question what has driven those that give their rights away to do it. Coersion comes in many forms.
There are a lot of reasons for “giving their rights away”. There are women who are willing to give up some of their rights for the sake of love and family roles. Some are influenced by religion. Some are influenced by money. Some are naturally submissive. The personality of the woman makes a lot of difference. I agree, coersion and abuse could also push anyone into a situation where choices are literally stripped. And it happens to both men and women.
>I also believe that a person must take their own rights back, they may ask for assistance, but they must initiate the action, otherwise, I do violate their right to give their rights away for any reason of their choosing. I can argue that we in America are ‘more free’ than others. Once a person gives away their rights they are no longer in possession of it. If I do not give away my rights, then I am in possession of them. My rights are my freedoms to make my mistakes and enjoy my accomplishments. I can be ‘freer’ to do this.
Agreed.
>I can also argue that we are more advanced, the procurement of rights leads directly to advancement. Innovations such as come from America do not occur in the overwhelming numbers under without freedoms to make mistakes and enjoy accomplishments. It is only where the individual thrives. Granted, we’re not as free as we once were, and our status as advanced is suffering because of it. Someone is on top, someone is on the bottom everyone else is in the middle. We’re all fighting to maintain or improve rank. They are the developing countries for a reason.
I agree that freedom plays an important role in the advancement of the country. I cannot readily conclude though, that america’s status is suffering because of diminished freedom. There’s more to advancement than freedom. And besides, “advancing towards a goal” requires a common goal - which as far as our discussion is concerned, is not specifically stated.
>I also agree that treating a law as though it is the final word simply because it exists is a poor practice in reasoning. We have seen enough unjust laws that harmed people not only made it onto the books but stay for an unacceptable. If we assume that morality is determined by law then we have problems. We should each develop our own understanding of what morality is. This does not eliminate the neccessity of government and laws, but we are supposed to watch it, it is ours in this country and not the other way around, and without a code of morals the unjust laws not only make it to the record but remain on the record. No government has any power that we did not grant it or neglect to remove from it.
Agreed. There is a danger though: morality standards are highly relative. And although I agree that we are free to form our own individual standards, we also have to consider that we also need a degree of cohesiveness to neutralize the society from falling apart. At least a set of core values that would protect our society from going downhill, else we may end up killing each other. I’m just happy that here in the US, a threat against life - ours and others - is ‘prohibited’ by law. I just wish that it applies to babies too.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Sarah says:
Lucy said,
>… So, the question is, is the fetus an other. This is the question we’re asking right. We have the freedom to do as we please as long as we do not impede upon the rights of others, and accept the consequences of our chosen actions correct. So, does a fetus count as another, and what are the determining factors?
Frankly Lucy, I see not much of a difference between the rights of the fetus and mine. We both have lives. I would not deny my fetus of the rights that I enjoy as fully grown humans just because he is “younger” than me. The only difference that I see is this: we, as grown individuals already had the chance to work our way up to the ladder of life and hence some of us know what is due to us based on what we worked for and what we, as valuable parts of the society deserve. The fetuses haven’t had that chance yet, but the basic right to live safely in the womb is still due to them. The determining factors are the same because there is no reason for us to treat them less - we have already agreed earlier that fetuses are alive - and so anything that is due to us as adult human beings is also due to them as young human beings. They also have their needs and since they are (still) helpless, they need to be nourished and protected. Notice that in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the levels start with the physiological needs and seconded by safety - again I find no reason why the hierarchy would exclude fetuses. I guess my point is self-explanatory and I could relate that to what Sunnyday wrote earlier — peace [physical safety] starts in the womb.
>I believe I understand you to be defining ‘life’ as the process of growth and developement that is attributed to anything that we would qualify as living. Needing nutrients to continue existence. Of course, that’s a loose definition, I would find a more sophisticated one but, I think that it is enough to differentiate between a plant and a rock, and it includes humans. Nutrients being anything we view as vital, sun, water, food, shelter, etc….if we might use it a little generously for the moment. You’re arguement then being that because the fetus is growing in the womb, and requires nutrients to contine, that it is alive. I can’t argue with that.
A common ground.
>I mean I could argue that our body also begins to disintegrate while we’re alive, and continues to well after we’re dead and one would hardly delcare a corpse alive because it does the same thing as a living person. I’m sure that you could poke holes in that comparrison with great enough ease. Here, I’ll poke the first one, noone is expecting the corpse to be any part of what we consider alive, no matter how we define alive there is no expectation.
I think expectations are a big part of this.
>I partly agree with you about the role of expectations. We cannot expect a dead corpse from exhibiting signs of human life, unless of course if we believe that it would resurrect (*winks*). And yes, I follow your thought about my use of “change” and “development” in my loose definition of “life”. Notice though, that when I mentioned signs of life on bodies, I mentioned “pulse”. When I mentioned “clumps of cells”, I included “growth”. A corpse has signs of “life” as a matter - such is also the reason why I mentioned the “pearls” (it highlights my blanket definition of “life” and the signs of it). A corpse exhibits change and development into another matter but it does not have a pulse and neither will it grow back to a body like ours or a zygote. (And so the changes in the corpse do not qualify in my definition of signs of life for human bodies).
And you’re correct, we expect a corpse to decompose because we know that it would decompose; in the same manner that we agreed that the fetus is alive because it is growing in the womb and we expect it to grow because we know that it would grow.
However, our expectations should not be mistaken as facts. They do not always coincide with what is actually happening or what will actually happen.
It’s good to know that you loved your philosophy class, I’m a business major and philo classes aren’t offered to us. I must admit my envy when you told us about the routine opening question of your professor, it surely breaks the ice.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Sarah says:
Dear Lucy,
I’d like to say “I know” and “I understand” what you’ve been through but it would be a lie. No one will ever know how it is until we go through the same situation. I am in no position to judge you and in no way will I condemn you for your past.
You are no lesser person than most of us here, you are a wise woman, a brave soul, a courageous spirit that could make a lot of difference in the future. I see the beauty in you and the peace that any child would love to feel from a mother. That’s all that matters to me, and the future Emily’s… God bless.
Sarah
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Sarah says:
Ooops… not sure what happenned but this should have preceded message 159.
Hello Lucy,
It’s nice to ’see’ you and thank you for the clarifying note that you made earlier. Now more than ever, I am much more careful in getting involved in these issues. (This post is rather long, I didn’t want to cut your messages so you could easily tell me if I misunderstood you. Apologies & thanks to you, John and the others)
My doctor advised me to be more careful in food and habits, I need to be “healthy” and as much as possible, be free from anything that could cause cancer or anything that could cause cervical & hormonal abnormalities. I actually volunteered to give up pills and she appreciated it. A friend gave me two sites where the effects of contraceptives are discussed. Since I am not in the field of medicine, I rely on doctors and medical sites for information regarding my health issues. After a while, I decided to ‘go natural’ on a lot of things - food, drinks, habits. So far, I am under observation and my doctor is optimistic about my ‘recovery’. Thanks for the concern, I appreciate it.
A friend gave me two sites about the effects contraceptives. These are the sites that I am presently studying. Will appreciate your feedbacks on them (but don’t worry abt it, i won’t be offended at all should you choose not to comment - this discussion with you is already helping me a lot.)
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=192 and http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp3300.html
>I certainly can’t admit that the availablility of condoms makes choosing to have sex an easier option. I think that it makes it a safer option, presuming they are used. I think that it will reduce the amount of teen pregnancies. I am also without the ability to declare that the available of abortions increases the amount of abortions obtained, making it an easier option. I’ll grant you, having the option of legal abortions available makes it a safer option. I don’t believe it makes it easier. No, that’s not true, I know it doesn’t make it easier.
This is where my naivete comes in Lucy, I’m in the US for a number of years and I haven’t been exposed to the norms. Thank you for taking time & effort to explain it. It helps me understand a lot of things in a lot of ways.
You see, I grew up in a country where virginity of women is treasured - by both sexes. Abstinence is (generally) not a new practice. We have no divorce, pre-marital sex is discouraged by most institutions and abortion is not legal. I agree with you, to some extent legalizing it could be a safer option. So in a country where abstinence is a ‘practice’ and pre-marital sex is ‘discouraged’, legalizing abortion becomes moot and expendable [except in cases when the mother is in danger]. Of course mistakes could happen, I would never claim that there are “unplanned pregnancies” but that’s what they are, “mistakes and accidents” (no sugar coating). Instead, some organizations provide emotional and financial support to pregnant women so they could go through their ordeals. Legalizing abortion is like condoning such mistakes and legalized abortion can be used as a vehicle for more mistakes. I am not saying that this system is ideal, and of course I would not say that america should follow the same.
But the basic truths are clear: (1) responsible sex minimizes unplanned pregnancies, (2) mistakes are viewed as mistakes and (3) there are people who are willing to support them to go through their ordeals. Needless to say, America has more resources and more organizations who can do the latter.
To further illustrate my statement about sex & abortion being handy by the presence of birth control & legalized abortion, allow me to describe the mindsets of teeners (and these are real cases): a high school classmate bragged, “my gf initially said no when I asked her to sleep with me, but she later agreed when I told her I’ll wear condoms”. A very promising, young girl just had her fullbright scholarship approved but some weeks later she found out she was pregnant. After her futile search for doctors, her parents learned about her condition and promised to support her and her child. Now she is on her way to completing her master’s degree. Needless to say, if abortion was legal when she was under stress, she could have ended up aborting the baby. These are of course some samples only, but I hear some american kids saying the same words every now and then too.
This is also why I oppose to having condoms and pills in schools. The message that it relays to the kids goes beyond what is written on the product covers. Having them at arms length (and for free at that) spells a lot of difference when these products are some miles away from them. Let’s compare it to the accessibility of cigarettes - we know of course that one reason why cigarettes are highly priced is because we do not want it to be easily bought by kids. Of course one would argue that cigarettes are health hazards while condoms are not, but we are talking about accessibilities and the mental signals that go along with it. IF my kids would need birth control products, I surely wish that they would have access to it when they can already drive to get it and pay for it too - meaning, when they are already of age and financially ok. And if possible - get it when they can already afford the consequences of accidents or when the product fails. IF they would need the products. If the products are up for grabs in schools, then anybody can use it without regards to age and financial status. I do not need to explain what happens when the product fails.
And then of course, we cannot expect our kids to be as responsible as adults. That’s why they are “kids”, they need to be guided by adults so bad choices and mistakes can be minimized. Which is logical- I mean, parents are supposed to be wiser than their children, “been there, done that” could be (lovingly) applied in guiding teeners too. (Guidance is different from running their lives, and being a dictator is different from being a responsible parent).
>I have no grounds to argue with you that some countries and their cultures and moral standards are different than our country and our culture, and the moral standards we try to adhere to. I do not agree however that I have to view them as equal to us because of their differences. I don’t believe that gives me the right to change them either if they do not wish to change. I also acknowledge that there are women who are perfectly content to relinquish rights to the men in their lives. They don’t even percieve it that way, this is just the way it is. We percieve it that way because for us it is unthinkable, well for me and I am going to assume others, I shouldn’t speak for ‘us’, The you and them of us can speak of it themselves.
Agreed. I also don’t believe that we can say we are all equal. There’s a lot of variables involved in the word.
>Whether rights are taken away or given away does not eliminate the deference of rights from the original owner to another. I might view the exchange differently because of these factors but I will still be forced to admit that the original owner is no longer in possession of their rights and someone else is. I would also question what has driven those that give their rights away to do it. Coersion comes in many forms.
There are a lot of reasons for “giving their rights away”. There are women who are willing to give up some of their rights for the sake of love and family roles. Some are influenced by religion. Some are influenced by money. Some are naturally submissive. The personality of the woman makes a lot of difference. I agree, coersion and abuse could also push anyone into a situation where choices are literally stripped. And it happens to both men and women.
>I also believe that a person must take their own rights back, they may ask for assistance, but they must initiate the action, otherwise, I do violate their right to give their rights away for any reason of their choosing. I can argue that we in America are ‘more free’ than others. Once a person gives away their rights they are no longer in possession of it. If I do not give away my rights, then I am in possession of them. My rights are my freedoms to make my mistakes and enjoy my accomplishments. I can be ‘freer’ to do this.
Agreed.
>I can also argue that we are more advanced, the procurement of rights leads directly to advancement. Innovations such as come from America do not occur in the overwhelming numbers under without freedoms to make mistakes and enjoy accomplishments. It is only where the individual thrives. Granted, we’re not as free as we once were, and our status as advanced is suffering because of it. Someone is on top, someone is on the bottom everyone else is in the middle. We’re all fighting to maintain or improve rank. They are the developing countries for a reason.
I agree that freedom plays an important role in the advancement of the country. I cannot readily conclude though, that america’s status is suffering because of diminished freedom. There’s more to advancement than freedom. And besides, “advancing towards a goal” requires a common goal - which as far as our discussion is concerned, is not specifically stated.
>I also agree that treating a law as though it is the final word simply because it exists is a poor practice in reasoning. We have seen enough unjust laws that harmed people not only made it onto the books but stay for an unacceptable. If we assume that morality is determined by law then we have problems. We should each develop our own understanding of what morality is. This does not eliminate the neccessity of government and laws, but we are supposed to watch it, it is ours in this country and not the other way around, and without a code of morals the unjust laws not only make it to the record but remain on the record. No government has any power that we did not grant it or neglect to remove from it.
Agreed. There is a danger though: morality standards are highly relative. And although I agree that we are free to form our own individual standards, we also have to consider that we also need a degree of cohesiveness to neutralize the society from falling apart. At least a set of core values that would protect our society from going downhill, else we may end up killing each other. I’m just happy that here in the US, a threat against life - ours and others - is ‘prohibited’ by law. I just hope that it applies to babies too.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
April says:
This exchange between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is very interesting and very exhausting. So much has been said, and so much remains to be said. I just want to address a couple of things, but I don’t have time to say everything I’d like to.
First of all, I think someone called me Alice, which was my grandmother’s name, but my name is April. I was also accused of being in favor of “human sacrifice”, which is really ironic, because that’s exactly what abortion is. I was actually advocating the very unpopular idea that to love requires sacrifice, and that many women refuse to make that sacrifice, before and after their unwanted baby is concieved.
I’ve been accused of being in “fairyland”. This is so funny, because my beliefs are completely grounded in reality. First of all, the fact that sex can and does lead to pregnancy should lead us to take sex very seriously. I won’t have sex with anyone who doesn’t love me enough to be accountable for the results, namely my husband. The fact that sex and babies are connected seems to be such an inconvenience to so many people, that I can only believe that they are decieved as to the nature of reality. Least of all, they are unhappy with the reality of sex.
If you think that sex is a need and a basic human right, and that the baby that results is not your responsibility, you are really living in fairyland. You are willing to trample on the basic civil rights of another person, namely the right to life, because you’re not willing to restrain your desire for sex. This is wrong.
Even if you don’t believe that that early stage of life has any worth, what gives you the right to definitively decide that for another person, and not just any other stranger, but your own child. Can you at least give the baby the benefit of the doubt? Isn’t there a part of you that isn’t quite sure if the baby’s life has value or not? What if somebody proved to you that the early fetus is a person and that you would be causing it great suffering to kill it? Will it ruin your life to carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption? Really?
What is bothering me is Lucy’s characterization of the women who have unwanted pregnancies, 7 hundred and some who will be absolutely miserable for nine months, slaves to their “fetuses” who will subsequently ruin their lives, and will never realize their dreams and what an awful tragedy this is. It is bothering me, because it’s not what really happens. Talk to women who have changed their minds about aborting and carry the child to term, only to discover how it doesn’t ruin their lives at all. Instead, the child may give them the surprise of their lives — that they learn to love the baby and find themselves amazed at how the baby changes their lives so much for the better. The vast majority of women do not regret having their children. The exception does not make the rule.
This in fact, happened to me. I concieved my first baby out of wedlock and thought my life was ruined. I went through great anxiety, but over the course of a few months, decided to marry my boyfriend, now my husband, and we became a family. When our baby was born, he changed our lives for the better, and our lives improved in every way. I don’t believe my experience was a singular one. By carrying the baby, I opened my eyes to what real love is. When I saw my baby’s face, I was rewarded for my decision not to abort him. He was so beautiful, and I suddenly couldn’t believe that I could have not wanted him at some former time.
What happened to me is not the exception, but the rule. I think the idea that an unwanted baby will ruin your life is a horrible lie. A lie that we tell ourselves to justify abortion. But like all lies, it will fester in the soul and someday, the pain will come, the knowledge of what really happened. I wish no woman would have to feel that kind of pain.
I know what the pro-choicers will reply, that they are at peace with abortion, and that the zygote is not a real person, just a potential person. And keep your rosaries off my ovaries. Open your eyes to the nature of reality. The reality of abortion is that it’s violent to the body of the baby and the body of the woman. It tears a living person out of the sanctuary of it’s mother’s womb and calls that freedom. In what other situation in life do we call killing our flesh and blood freedom , a right. It’s really twisted.
God be with you
April
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Sarah says:
oops.. don’t know what happened but this post should have preceded message #159. sorry it’s too long.
Hello Lucy,
It’s nice to ’see’ you and thank you for the clarifying note that you made earlier. Now more than ever, I am much more careful in getting involved in these issues.
My doctor advised me to be more careful in food and habits, I need to be “healthy” and as much as possible, be free from anything that could cause cancer or anything that could cause cervical & hormonal abnormalities. I actually volunteered to give up pills and she appreciated it. A friend gave me two sites where the effects of contraceptives are discussed. Since I am not in the field of medicine, I rely on doctors and medical sites for information regarding my health issues. After a while, I decided to ‘go natural’ on a lot of things - food, drinks, habits. So far, I am under observation and my doctor is optimistic about my ‘recovery’. Thanks for the concern, I appreciate it.
>I certainly can’t admit that the availablility of condoms makes choosing to have sex an easier option. I think that it makes it a safer option, presuming they are used. I think that it will reduce the amount of teen pregnancies. I am also without the ability to declare that the available of abortions increases the amount of abortions obtained, making it an easier option. I’ll grant you, having the option of legal abortions available makes it a safer option. I don’t believe it makes it easier. No, that’s not true, I know it doesn’t make it easier.
This is where my naivete comes in Lucy, I’m in the US for a number of years and I haven’t been exposed to the norms. Thank you for taking time & effort to explain it. It helps me understand a lot of things in a lot of ways.
You see, I grew up in a country where virginity of women is treasured - by both sexes. Abstinence is (generally) not a new practice. We have no divorce, pre-marital sex is discouraged by most institutions and abortion is not legal. I agree with you, to some extent legalizing it could be a safer option. So in a country where abstinence is a ‘practice’ and pre-marital sex is ‘discouraged’, legalizing abortion becomes moot and expendable [except in cases when the mother is in danger]. Of course mistakes could happen, I would never claim that there are “unplanned pregnancies” but that’s what they are, “mistakes and accidents” (no sugar coating). Instead, some organizations provide emotional and financial support to pregnant women so they could go through their ordeals. Legalizing abortion is like condoning such mistakes and legalized abortion can be used as a vehicle for more mistakes. I am not saying that this system is ideal, and of course I would not say that america should follow the same.
But the basic truths are clear: (1) responsible sex minimizes unplanned pregnancies, (2) mistakes are viewed as mistakes and (3) there are people who are willing to support them to go through their ordeals. Needless to say, America has more resources and more organizations who can do the latter.
To further illustrate my statement about sex & abortion being handy by the presence of birth control & legalized abortion, allow me to describe the mindsets of teeners (and these are real cases): a high school classmate bragged, “my gf initially said no when I asked her to sleep with me, but she later agreed when I told her I’ll wear condoms”. A very promising, young girl just had her fullbright scholarship approved but some weeks later she found out she was pregnant. After her futile search for doctors, her parents learned about her condition and promised to support her and her child. Now she is on her way to completing her master’s degree. Needless to say, if abortion was legal when she was under stress, she could have ended up aborting the baby. These are of course some samples only, but I hear some american kids saying the same words every now and then too.
This is also why I oppose to having condoms and pills in schools. The message that it relays to the kids goes beyond what is written on the product covers. Having them at arms length (and for free at that) spells a lot of difference when these products are some miles away from them. Let’s compare it to the accessibility of cigarettes - we know of course that one reason why cigarettes are highly priced is because we do not want it to be easily bought by kids. Of course one would argue that cigarettes are health hazards while condoms are not, but we are talking about accessibilities and the mental signals that go along with it. IF my kids would need birth control products, I surely wish that they would have access to it when they can already drive to get it and pay for it too - meaning, when they are already of age and financially ok. And if possible - get it when they can already afford the consequences of accidents or when the product fails. IF they would need the products. If the products are up for grabs in schools, then anybody can use it without regards to age and financial status. I do not need to explain what happens when the product fails.
And then of course, we cannot expect our kids to be as responsible as adults. That’s why they are “kids”, they need to be guided by adults so bad choices and mistakes can be minimized. Which is logical- I mean, parents are supposed to be wiser than their children, “been there, done that” could be (lovingly) applied in guiding teeners too. (Guidance is different from running their lives, and being a dictator is different from being a responsible parent).
>I have no grounds to argue with you that some countries and their cultures and moral standards are different than our country and our culture, and the moral standards we try to adhere to. I do not agree however that I have to view them as equal to us because of their differences. I don’t believe that gives me the right to change them either if they do not wish to change. I also acknowledge that there are women who are perfectly content to relinquish rights to the men in their lives. They don’t even percieve it that way, this is just the way it is. We percieve it that way because for us it is unthinkable, well for me and I am going to assume others, I shouldn’t speak for ‘us’, The you and them of us can speak of it themselves.
Agreed. I also don’t believe that we can say we are all equal. There’s a lot of variables involved in the word.
>Whether rights are taken away or given away does not eliminate the deference of rights from the original owner to another. I might view the exchange differently because of these factors but I will still be forced to admit that the original owner is no longer in possession of their rights and someone else is. I would also question what has driven those that give their rights away to do it. Coersion comes in many forms.
There are a lot of reasons for “giving their rights away”. There are women who are willing to give up some of their rights for the sake of love and family roles. Some are influenced by religion. Some are influenced by money. Some are naturally submissive. The personality of the woman makes a lot of difference. I agree, coersion and abuse could also push anyone into a situation where choices are literally stripped. And it happens to both men and women.
>I also believe that a person must take their own rights back, they may ask for assistance, but they must initiate the action, otherwise, I do violate their right to give their rights away for any reason of their choosing. I can argue that we in America are ‘more free’ than others. Once a person gives away their rights they are no longer in possession of it. If I do not give away my rights, then I am in possession of them. My rights are my freedoms to make my mistakes and enjoy my accomplishments. I can be ‘freer’ to do this.
Agreed.
>I can also argue that we are more advanced, the procurement of rights leads directly to advancement. Innovations such as come from America do not occur in the overwhelming numbers under without freedoms to make mistakes and enjoy accomplishments. It is only where the individual thrives. Granted, we’re not as free as we once were, and our status as advanced is suffering because of it. Someone is on top, someone is on the bottom everyone else is in the middle. We’re all fighting to maintain or improve rank. They are the developing countries for a reason.
I agree that freedom plays an important role in the advancement of the country. I cannot readily conclude though, that america’s status is suffering because of diminished freedom. There’s more to advancement than freedom. And besides, “advancing towards a goal” requires a common goal - which as far as our discussion is concerned, is not specifically stated.
>I also agree that treating a law as though it is the final word simply because it exists is a poor practice in reasoning. We have seen enough unjust laws that harmed people not only made it onto the books but stay for an unacceptable. If we assume that morality is determined by law then we have problems. We should each develop our own understanding of what morality is. This does not eliminate the neccessity of government and laws, but we are supposed to watch it, it is ours in this country and not the other way around, and without a code of morals the unjust laws not only make it to the record but remain on the record. No government has any power that we did not grant it or neglect to remove from it.
Agreed. There is a danger though: morality standards are highly relative. And although I agree that we are free to form our own individual standards, we also have to consider that we also need a degree of cohesiveness to neutralize the society from falling apart. At least a set of core values that would protect our society from going downhill, else we may end up killing each other. I’m just happy that here in the US, a threat against life - ours and others - is ‘prohibited’ by law. I just hope that it applies to babies too.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
sunnyday says:
A person may say he has a right to smoke, and society will grant him that right. At the same time, others may say they have a right to clean air. Is there a way for all to exercise their rights without encroaching those of the people around them? The only way I see is to require the smoker to do his thing in a place so that the smoke doesn’t reach other people and doesn’t pollute any place that other people go to. This way, only he is exposed to the pollution he produces.
The problem starts when a smoker insists that his right to do his thing is an absolute right. Later on, he starts denying that smoking damages the body in any way, even extolling its benefits on the digestive process, on dealing with stress. Pretty soon the little concern he had about the effect of second-hand smoke on others is forgotten, prompting him to come up with a declaration like “there’s no such thing as clean air” or “only in utopia can there be clean air.” Later on he may buddy up with others who believe that human beings don’t need clean air to survive, finding strength in their common desire to keep their habit with no concern for the welfare of others in society. While they go on with their smoking, the pharmaceutical industry, cancer specialists (many of them well-meaning and carrying out their God-given vocation) and most of all the tobacco industry become wealthier than ever.
The norm has become to light up and to blow the smoke in others’ faces. The battle cry — I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT I WANT. Meanwhile, those who remain steadfast in their fight for clean air don’t relent either, determined to love smokers and non-smokers alike even if the latter seem to have forgotten the concept and possibility of self-mastery, lost hope of being able to quit and to live a healthier lifestyle, and forgotten what it’s like to live without cigarettes, enjoying the fabulous taste of food, the smoke-free air and the good company of people who don’t carry lighters and who would gladly support — if given the opportunity — any smoker who desires to lick the habit for good.
** In any free society, people who insist on hurting themselves and hiding behind the smoke can do so — as long as they keep the smoke to themselves. Once the smoke reaches another person, it is time to cry “foul!” and act — while putting on a gas mask for the long road ahead.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Sydnie says:
well said April, Sarah, and Sunnydays! very good points! You women are wonderful! Makes me proud to be a Christian! (Catholic) either way you look at it. : ) God Bless!
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Lucy says:
I have to go, I can’t comment, but as an individual who has been smoke free for two months now, three in just two weeks, I just had to say, Sunnyday, what the….
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah,
Thank you. I am glad that you don’t understand and that you don’t know. I hope that this is one thing you remain naive about forever. I hope that you will never find yourself in a position to need to even contemplate the decision, no matter what you would or would not choose.
Look, I’m going to be brutally honest here, something new and different for me…This is one of those things that I get in my head, I understand it, I see how it works, but somehow I can’t seem to get the words together to express it correctly. This makes me appreciate it when you bring up an error in how I’ve expressed something. It will help me understand where I’m going wrong, and force me to think of it in a different way. It might even lead me to change my mind, but I think that is going to take more than this to do that, but who knows. I sincerely thank you, I’m enjoying the discussion. I just wanted to let you know that I really am trying to think of how to make sense of this in writing, but it just keeps coming out bad. I’m not pro-choice persay so I can’t very well argue their points, because I don’t always agree with them. I’m not pro-choice because of the same reason Eric opposes being referred to as ‘anti-choice.’ I don’t believe that all choices are good and should be made. Just as he’s not opposed to all choices. I’m not asking you to look the other way because of this, I’m just explaining because I can’t get it to come out right, and…now I’m rambling.
Age is not the issue. The fact is, which I imagine you’ll grant me, that when a woman is pregnant there are two lives in one, as the fetus is in the woman. Now, you argue that we are talking about two distinctly individual persons, correct? I say that there is a body inside a person with the potential to become a person but at the moment is simply a developing body, right. You say, correct me when I’m wrong, that the woman and the fetus both enjoy rights that are assigned to an individual person, correct. We both agree that time inside the womb is not a factor in the scenerio correct, we both agree that the status at the first second is the same at the last when the fetus is in the womb of the mother, we just differ on what that means right.
Now, what rights does the woman have while the child is in her womb and when the child is not in the womb, desire for child aside. Does the woman have the right to stop eating? May she intentionally cause harm to her own body? May she eat nothing but Sugar? May she smoke? Drink? May she take any medication that she merits neccessary at any point in time? May she excercise to excess? Be it for legal or accepted social standards, or medical recomendations is she limited from any of these activities in either circumstance or is she free to in both?
If she is not free to do any of these things in either scenerio what is the imposing factor preventing her from taking these actions? Are there scenerios in which the imposing factors do not exist and she may assume these activities?
Human life requires thought to continue. The woman must think in order to survive. She must think in order to obtain her food, her clothes and her shelter. She will have to think in order to maximize the possibility of successfully bringing the fetus to term. She relies on the thoughts of others to help her to do so. There is a reason that the infant mortality rate has been on the decline, it isn’t random. When the fetus is born and becomes a baby she will have to think to keep the baby alive. She will have to think in order to maximize the potential that her child will grow into an adult that remains alive. Her rights are what allow her to do this. Historically, and in some cases actually, she would otherwise be at the whim of a monarch or a dictator, or other individual who keeps people alive only as long as they suit their purposes, and determine at what level any given person will live. There are those who actually see this as a preferred way of living. Of course, the numbers attempting to flood into America are reported as higher than those trying to get out. People risk their lives everyday to get into Hong Kong, the waiting list to get into China, is to the best of my knowledge, rather short. It appears that as a rule people recognize the merits of a system that requires thought and permits rights that allow for it to happen with a greater degree of ease. Appearances can of course be decieving.
Now the fetus doesn’t need to think to live. It requires the mother to think to live. (I am, just so we’re clear, also opposed to the welfare system.) It requires no rights that open the gates to improved status of life. (It’s popular to cry about the alledged evils of money, but then again I don’t see these people voluntarily living in the most impoverished areas they can find, nor do I see anyone sticking around when the opportunity arises to get out.) It doesn’t have to think to acquire food, shelter, clothing. It doesn’t have to think in order to acquire the best medical attention possible. This isn’t a matter of not knowing as much as the mother. This is a matter of not requiring the knowledge.
I believe that it is arguable that a newborn baby must be able to think enough to figure out how to tell any caregiver that it is hungry. I think that it is fair to assume that any newborn must figure out a way to relay to his/her caretaker it’s basic requirements to sustain life. I think that it is safe to declare that such a communication system is less sophisticated, but then again I know guys who pride themselves on being able to belch their names…so the standard of what qualifies as viable communication should be left to the thought process required for its production, not what we think of the results.
The newborn is required to establish ways to communicate, to acquire its needs. This does not require an ability to speak, there are other methods of communicating besides speaking. We convey messages on a regular basis with rather simple methods, but they each relay a desire or a need.
As the child gets older it’s needs advance and so does their need for new and improved methods of communication, which requires thought, they can learn from a more experienced individual or discover it themselves.
The point is, in order to exist, a fetus does not need to do any of this. As long as the mother eats, the fetus eats. A newborn does not enjoy this benefit, it must eat of its’ own accord, and must find away to make this happen.
Being as a Newborn and a Woman must utilize the same tools to remain alive, and a fetus does not. It is my contention that this is a distinct difference between the two. If a difference exists the word equal does not apply. What the inequality means may still be a contention, but the equality is non existant.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah, that rights are neccessary for freedom, and that the ability to think requires freedom, and the link between freedom and innovation that is required for advancement is evident, it’s effect on America can be witnessed by the rise of innovations in the nineteeth century. That it has declined seems evident to me. I don’t see nearly as many advancements being made, and I find that, unless I am missing something, the decline was directly related to the increasing impositions placed on personal liberty regarding business. Some such interventions that have caused a decline are the Sherman Anti Trust Laws of…I want to say 1910, but I believe I may be thinking of something else and that 1890 would be correct.
I can also cite the Grameen Bank to be a source that has opened doors allowing for greater innovations. In large by offering greater opportunities for women. I strongly advise reading more about it, it is one of the most magnificant establishments of the modern day. As a business student you might be particularly interested in it.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah,
I will also grant you that expectations do not equal fact. I think that has actually been my arguement all along.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah,
I agree one hundered percent. Kids are kids because they need guidance and not control. They do not know as much, they need to learn, I find myself in the same boat very frequently. I do not know enough and need to learn. In fact, my goal when I walk into any classroom is to walk out knowing one thing that I did not know going in. In fact, within this blog I have learned many things that I did not know coming in, and for that I am grateful. So I feel as a person experienced in the need for guidance, if you will, that properly guiding a sexually curious kid about what the risks and options are is vital.
Now, I’ll grant you, I’ve run across kids whose parents let them have sex in the house, buy them cigarettes, and other things that I don’t believe to be the mark of a responsible parent. When I say let I mean let. There was a line in a teen drama once regarding the distribution of condoms where one of the characters argued that, if you have a swimming pool and a young child, you instruct them that they are not to get in the pool without supervision, you explain the risks involved in disobeying this instruction…but you teach them to swim just in case they do what kids sometimes do and ignore you.
I saw the line of pregnant girls going through my own high school. I don’t know what conversations were taking place in their homes. I don’t know who cared, and who looked the other way. I don’t know which parents created an environment in which their child could ask any question no matter how challenging it might be for either side to address. I dont’ know which ones came from homes where open dialogue was impossible.
And, yes, it is inarguable, because it happens everyday. Some kid gets all of the information, all of the benefits that can be imagined and still does something that can be regarded as a less than intelligent choice.
Oh, and if you want to know why most of the big Tobacco companies haven’t done much more than fain concern at the restrictions placed on how and when they can advertise it’s because all of the anti-tobacco companies have picked up the slack…and now its free. The taboo nature makes it look all the more appealling. I never saw a anti-smoking ad that didn’t make me want a cigarette right then and there. Removing the condoms isn’t going to change anything, except at least this time the girl is smart enough to only agree once he puts one on. Usually they get away with all kinds of crazy reasons not to wear them, and they get away with less…”You’d do it if you loved me…if you really loved me.” I mean, you see a pitfall, I see a step in the right direction. It might not be the desired goal, but its in the right direction. Of course our different judgements are probably based on our backgrounds.
I agree completely that sex should be engaged in thoughtful manner. I even agree with April that we need to set standards for who we will sleep with and tall dark and handsome is not what I mean. I believe that self respect is required before this can occur. When we lack self respect we don’t know that we deserve to have standards met, I’m glad that April was in possession of a sense of self worth that allowed her to make that judgement. I truly am, I wish more individuals were, It’s not just women either, it’s also men. If we are more thoughtful, then yes, unplanned pregnancies will be minimized, and in more circumstances they will be percieved as unexpected, but pleasant surprises instead.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah,
A mistake is indeed a mistake. I can’t call it anything else. I take Tae Kwon Do. There is a sign in the changing room that advises that we build a character we can live with. I fully agree with that, I believe that how we deal with our mistakes is part of that. I realize that you and I have varying understandings of what that means. I personally respect that. I think that you do as well from what you say and how you say it. I can only personally make the best decision that I can, make the decision that I can live with, because in the end I am the one that will have to live with it. I am the only one who cannot walk away from me.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah,
My immediate response to the epm site is that I don’t trust religion to make scientific evaluations. On the first one you listed, I have read it, courtesy of Sydnie, and am even less appreciative of religion masquerading as science, and find it particularly offensive that they are such poor imposters.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Lucy says:
April,
See, I should have bet. I was going to bet your husband if you possessed the capacity to post in the first place you would also be capable of requesting any apologies that you deemed neccessary. Then I thought, no, what if she proves me wrong…but here you are. It turns out you do not need him to speak for you…see I was right.
Oh, and I’m the one who said you were an advocate of human sacrifice. I do so enjoy the fact that you first declare that I’m wrong, then declare that it is a neccesary component of love. It is a neccessary component of tolerance…not love. Sacrifice requires giving something of greater value for the purpose of acquiring another. If there is something of greater value that you must give up for your children and husband they would then be of lesser value by relative comparison, then what are we discussing?
Once again we’re at the lesser points of having children. Man, Sydnie is applauding you? What for…Sydnie is far superior the woman you are. See, Sydnie wishes she could stay home with her children, it pains her to go to school and miss out on time with her children. For Sydnie loving her children requires no sacrifice…it is everything else that requires the sacrifice. Time with her children is the greater value. That is what she gives up to the tolerance of doing things that she still does for the purpose of providing a better life for herself and her family. If you wish to understand what is done for love than I suggest you take your advice from Sydnie.
Namely your husband? Well, I guess that clears up the whole what’s being sacrificed for what issue doesn’t it…You won’t sleep with anyone that doesn’t love you enough to stick around no matter the consequences and this is Namely your husband? What do you have a harem?
I’m glad I’m troubling you April, we wouldn’t want the waters to go stagnant would we. You feel that you need to make sacrifices in order to love your children…that you do it because it is the ‘right thing to do’ and you question my arguement that some women regret becoming mothers?
My exact concern is that you are the rule and not the exception April. I want the rule to be Sydnie, April. I want to live in a world where everyone has Sydnie as a mother. If I had to choose between mothers April, I’d pick Sydnie. I’ve had the bad and can recognize it, I’ve learned to recognize the good.
If you are grounded in reality….placing me in fantasyland…then I am so grateful to be in fantasyland.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Lucy says:
Sydnie,
Thanks. I’m glad that my experience could be of use to you, I think that this is important. I truly do not expect you to believe that what I did was right. I just want to make sure that there are all kinds of experiences had by women who have abortions, and mine is one.
I truly don’t think that anyone is Pro-abortion, and I am hardly an optimist…I would feel sorry for anyone who was actually Pro-abortion. In fact, I can tell you that I would prefer to advocate methods for women to avoid finding themselves in a position where they need to consider this as an option.
Doing everything in the world to instill a sense of high self awareness, and of self worth I think is at the top of the list. A girl or young woman who holds a higher view of her self worth is more likely to be selective about who she sleeps with and when. They are more likely to think things like…I don’t want to jeopordize my ability to get into school, I don’t want to damage my health. There are a list of things that might go through the head of a young woman or a girl if she has a greater sense of self pride;self respect.
I think this starts at home, doing things just as you do, such as leaving the computer so you can read to your daughter. That you put something else aside to spend time with her is already working to instill a greater sense of self worth in her. I know that going to school takes you away from her but you can let her know that you are doing it for her because she is worth it even though it saddens you to spend time away from her. You can tell her as often as you can, as I’m sure you do, how much you love and miss her. If you do everything possible to let her know how valuable she is to you, she will be all the less likely to make choices that will cause her any form of harm.
They say that our goal is supposed to be to leave the next generation just a little bit better off than we were. It sounds to me that you are already doing a great job at making that goal a reality because of the choices you make and the person you are. I hope you are proud of yourself. I am, and I know that your children will be when they are old enough to know what that means. I think you are a very inspiring person.
Comment posted March 17th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
April says:
Lucy,
First of all, I wasn’t directly responding to Lauren’s comment that I was an idiot because she argues in an insulting and an insane way, and I frankly do not have the time or energy to argue or even converse with that type of a person. She’s clearly unhinged and needs psychological help.
You, on the other hand, have demonstrated the capacity to represent your ideas with some clarity. Your outburst, however, at me is a little confusing. I’ll try to explain what I mean by love and sacrifice again.
I have a deep love for my children. They are the center of my life right now, because they are all 13 and under and need my time and attention. I enjoy being with them and doing things with them and for them. I’m affectionate and loving with them, but also have rules that I enforce, like no hitting and insulting one another, for one. And I’m lucky enough to be able to stay home with them. I was lucky enough that when I became pregnant, it was with a man that I loved who loved me.
We have made many sacrifices to be able to have this arrangement whereby we are open to more children. One is financial. I had to quit my job, which I loved. I used to teach Montessori, and I had dreams of my children being educated in the Montessori school in which I worked. It was a wonderful place. But when I became pregnant with my third child, we realized that it was just too expensive. I could either work basically just for tuition, or I could stay home and we could have a bigger family. We decided that having more siblings was a greater gift for our children than a Montessori education, and there are actually lots of similar things we can do at home educationally.
So, although I wanted to stay home, it was a sacrifice to give up my career. Staying at home was the best thing for my children, but I missed my job and still miss it. T
There’s also the sacrifice of being pregnant many times. It’s hard. I’ve had 2 c-sections, and that’s hard. My body bears the scars of childbirth. But when I look at my children, I know they were worth all the sacrifices I made and more. The pain that I went through is healed over by the joy I have in them and the joy they have in being alive.
Then there’s the daily sacrifices you make as a mother. I’m sure Sydnie knows all about those. Your kids need you when you don’t feel like serving their needs. They fight, they need lots of help, they make messes, they need to eat . My life would be simpler without them. Sometimes I miss my freedom. I don’t know any mother who doesn’t.
But I made the decision and continue to make the decision to sacrifice my own wants and sometimes needs to fill the needs and wants of my children. Paradoxically, this makes me a happier person. No not happier all the time every moment of every day, but I have experienced moments of joy that were just not possible before I had children. I have experienced the fulfillment of nursing a baby through a week long flu to see her recover and smile again, and this happiness is better than a week long vacation to Maui. I have experienced the satisfaction of teaching my four oldest children to read, and go on to enjoy reading all my favorite childhood books. The joy of sharing a joke with my older boys and just laughing together.
Mostly it’s the fulfillment of seeing my children grow and become capable of loving themselves. The way my son will take the baby out of my arms and play with her for a while when he sees that I’m tired. Or the way my daughters will read books to each other at bedtime. Or just the incredible cuteness of my 8 month old baby as she learns to crawl up the stairs. The adorable things my 3 year old says. All these things make me realize that the sacrifices I make are small compared to the fruit that they have brought in my life and the lives of my husband and children.
I admire Sydnie too, for struggling and sacrificing and doing what it takes to raise her children. Motherhood isn’t easy, and without a husband it’s a lot harder. I was raised by a single mother for much of my life, and I have nothing but admiration for her. I’m sorry you feel so much anger towards me, and I’m a little confused as to why. Perhaps you are seeing me as similar to your own mother? Anyway, got to go, the kids are up.
April
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 8:08 am
Lucy says:
April,
It sounds as though perhaps the word sacrifice is the wrong choice for what you are trying to convey. A sacrifice truly does by definition require giving up a higher value to a lower value. If it was of lesser value we wouldn’t want it and would hardly refer to it is a sacrifice, it is simply ridding ourselves of or trading up…we do not sacrifice the jetta for the porsche, but the other way around, this would constitute trading up. If the things in question are of equal value it is simply a trade. It sounds as though that perhaps you have made a trade. You have traded a job you loved for a family you love. Which believe me, not that it matters what I think, makes me feel much better about you and what you are saying. I think that a lot of women do that. It is true, my mother was always willing to sacrifice my brother and I. We were the lesser value.
I’m sorry that I expressed anger to you earlier…to be honest, your first two posts read rather like attacks themselves from my perspective. If my perspective is wrong then I am glad for the misunderstanding and apologize for the results. Sarah, Sydnie and I have been attempting to understand each others perspectives by open dialogue. I personally, and by their words, I suspect that they, do not want to lay down a blanket statement and expect it to be taken as matter of fact. We would like to bring each other to a better understanding of our viewpoints in an effort to leave one another with a better understanding what what is happening. I think that it has as of yet been a successful pursuit. I know that I have learned a great deal from both of them, and now from you. I have been given a great deal to think about via this peaceful and respectful exchange. I appreciate that. As has been discussed amongst the three of us, I will believe what I believe until I have reason not too, I do not want to hold on to the belief if there is a reason not to.
From my situation I can’t tell you that I’m the rule and not the exception. What I can tell you with my situation is that blanket statements made regarding women who have had situations are unwise because there are exceptions, and each individual has a different experience. Just as women who have children are all unique and different.
From the statement you made just above I get a much better understanding of what you were trying to say the first time. There are those of us however who do not view being in the position of motherhood as a personal option, as we do not view it as being the joyous experience you propose. I am personally of the mind that I, as such a woman I should not put children in a position where such a view is held. It isn’t fun being the kid who was sacrificed, and it takes years to heal from. You lack self confidence,and self respect, you actually do believe the worst about yourself at most times. It is only by sheer luck of having met wonderful friends who allowed me to develop a better sense of myself that I have the ability to do anything that I am doing today.
I don’t want to do that to a child. Ever, and I don’t want to risk that I will. As I said, I’m sorry for the angry words and what appears to have been a misunderstanding.
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 9:04 am
April says:
Lucy,
The definition of sacrifice I am using is this: To forfeit (one thing) for another thing considered to be of greater value. This is a definition I found in the dictionary. It’s not the same as a trade. In a trade both things are equal and each party recieves something of equal value. In a sacrifice, one person gives up something valuable for another’s benefit.
It sounds as though you feel you were the victim of your mother’s bad mothering. I’m sorry that any woman would make her child feel unwanted and unloved. That’s just wrong. It’s especially hard for a child when the mother is rejecting. I had a father who rejected me, and that is hard in many ways, but my mother gave me unconditional love, and that saved me. I think women who had hateful or unloving mothers tend to be very scared of motherhood themselves and that’s understandable.
But I encourage you to forgive her as well as you can and realize that you are a different person, capable of reflection and the ability to be a different kind of mother. Precisely because of the experience you had, you will be hyper aware of how your actions and your words could be hurtful to your own children, and you can stop the cycle of abusiveness/neglect that you experienced. Motherhood can be very healing. You have a second chance to love and be loved unconditionally.
I’m sorry to appear judgemental. I could have been in your position a few years earlier in college before I met Eric. Now I shudder to think what I could have done, if I had become pregnant. I never had to make that choice at that time in my life.
It took me a long time to come to a pro-life point of view. Faith in a loving God, though, was the clincher for me. Until I saw the humanity of the fetus, and came to believe in the sanctity of human life, I wasn’t quite able to get past the exceptions.
Peace,
April
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 11:31 am
lauren says:
Sydnie, I’m very well-adjusted and I resent the suggestion that I am otherwise. I get angry because people have made some pretty bold suggestions (that I and others who support a woman’s right to choose are “pro-abortion”, and that God essentially disagrees with me, something none of us can know). I should be angry. However, just the fact that I get angry does not define me as an angry person. Blog posts can hardly define a person, as I assume yours do not define you or anyone else on here.
Sarah is it possible to enjoy sex without the intention of producing babies? Can sex be a message of love or a sign of passion? It is in my belief possible to enjoy sex without always having babies on the brain. Using the unnatural/natural comparison is really unfair. It is unnatural to take an advil when I have a headache. It is unnatural to go to the doctor when I have a heart attack. It is also unnatural to keep someone on life support when they are in a persistent vegetative state, wouldnt you agree? I too have been made sick by my birth control pills, which sometimes happens. I had to find a new method of birth control that did not make me sick. Anything you put in your body has side effects. For example if I eat a hot dog, I’m probably gonna feel a little fat. But if I eat a salad I’d probably feel a little healthy. If I put hormones in my body, I may feel sick. That said, have you ever had surgery? when I took vicodin I felt a little sick from that as well, but you wouldnt suggest I go without pain medication. That’s nice that you have opted not to take birth control, but your objections to it as “unnatural” seem a little shaky, given that about anything we ingest is in its own way unnatural.
April, what country are you from out of curiousity? Abstinence and female virginity is lauded in Saudi Arabia as well but they also beat their wives and have public executions. Sometimes being backwards in one way leads to or realtes to being backwards in others. I dont advocate for abstinence or non-abstinence. I support self-respecting, non-exploitive sex. I dont want you all to think I’m some sex-fiend. I think pornography is wrong and exploitive of the participant and viewere (although impossible to police) and that prostitution is wrong and should be illegal in all circumstances. I do however believe that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want in their bedroom without interference by anyone or anyone in the government. Laws against sodomy are particularly disgusting to me, because really i could care less what two consenting adults do with their time. Even if I were ultra-Christian and did think that being gay was a “sin”, I am willing to accept that others do not think the way that I do and that I shouldnt be arrogant enough to enforce my own beliefs on others. I can petition others to think the way I do in the marketplace of ideas, but to force someone to act or behave in a way because my morals say that is “bad” is more wrong than what I believe the sin is. You shouldn’t have to force anyone to do something you should be able to convince them with your words. The same goes for the right to choose. You have yet to convince the majority of America that you are right therefore your place in society is to convince those to follow you, but not to force people into it. I believe if you cant convince those around you that what they’re doing with regards to abortion is wrong, you dont get to say oh well i’ll just make it illegal for them. It just means you believe your argument is not good enough.
“If the products are up for grabs in schools, then anybody can use it without regard to their age of minority and their financial status. I do not need to explain what happens when the product fails. “-April
This is an attitude, which is not totally uncommon, which concerns me greatly. Why should you be financially able to secure means of protection. In fact, these are the people that should get the birth control FIRST. They are in no place to be raising a child or getting pregnant. Birth control is expensive and many insurance policies cover VIAGRA and not birth control pills. Please explain to me that policy. A man has a right to a boner but a woman does not have the right to say when she wants to have children. This just proves many of the sexist attitudes behind the anti-choice movement.
I was a kid once and in many ways still am. If you’re going to have sex, you’re going to have it. A condom is not going to change that. I’ve heard of friends using seran-wrap and even going so far as pouring chemicals into their genitals to stop pregnancy. If we grant access to contraception, we will be able to limit abortion. I’ll tell you why, the women who get pregnant have less of an “excuse” as you say to have one if they had access to contrac eption. Today many women simply cannot afford birth control or are simply ignorant to it because their school taught them “abstinence” only. This may be irresponsible to you, but it is fact.
April, I know youre not intentionally arguing for the rights of women to be taken away, but in subtle ways you are. By excusing the difference between rights between men and women as simply “cultural differences” or “gender differences” is quite disturbing. As a human race we should not tolerate this. If a woman chooses to listen to whatever her husband says, thi sis her choice, but she has the freedom to say tomorrow she no longer wants to. I can’t imagine what it would be like to live in a country where I did not have that option.
Sunnyday- I do not understand your point on smoking. Smoking is gross and there is no reason for it. Smoking in my face infringes upon my rights to breathe clean air. Smokers are stupid and should be allowed to smoke, but just not in my face. I agree, but I still dont understand where the hell that came from.
Lucy I am extremely disturbed by your comments on welfare. THe number one recipient of welfare is single white females. To assume that these women somehow dont want to get out of the system that cursed them, is also disturbing. A vast majority of our homeless people are veterans. There are many misunderstandings when it comes to the welfare system and I get extremely upset when others disseminate them. Do you see those that are on welfare as lazy? THe problem exists in our education system which i based upon wealth of the parents. I grew up in Frankfort, IL, which would’ve sent me to Lincoln Way East High school. We had some of the best facilities in the world, a virtually olympic sized swimming pool, clean classrooms, some of the best teachers and why? Because our parents were rich. Now I live on the southside of Chicago where the schools are abominable and that the children go into the classroom hungry and leave unable to read because their teachers can barely read themselves. The process of poverty is cyclical. The majority of bankruptcies happen because people have a health crisis and do not have health insurance. I could go on and on, but to narrowly marginalize those that are not as fortunate in society as simply “lazy” is really quite scary and sad. If I have misunderstood your thoughts on welfare, please correct me. I used to feel the same as you until I researched and studied and talked to others, and then my mind changed. Please tell me if you do feel this way, I can at least try to change your mind.,
Lucy I agree with you on the sites provided. You should never use a biased source to cite your reasonings… Particularly, abortion statistics from a pro-life group.
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
lauren says:
I forgot to add a note on the single white females. it is single white mothers… people who are pro-life and anti-welfare baffle me.
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Lucy says:
April,
I think that we are talking about the same thing and saying it differently. I’m going to take the meaning of what you are saying to be that I have misunderstood your original words and you have chosen to leave things behind that under different circumstances you would have retained but, because you found yourself in a position in which remaining at home with your children, for a variety of reasons, worked to have the greater value for you. Please tell me if that is an acceptable understanding for me to come to of what you are saying.
I’m sorry that your father rejected you, but I am glad you had such a wonderful mother. Please do not understand me to be in opposition to motherhood I am not. As I have stated to Sydnie I understand it to be a very important role for any woman to take on, I believe that a woman who undertakes such a challenge deserves a great deal of respect. They have a very vital and underacknowledged role in shaping the future people of the world. If you feel that motherhood is under attack, please let me say that it is not my intention to be one that makes it so. I believe that choosing to be a full time mother is as worthy an option of how a woman can choose to use her life as any career that yields more financially lucrative results. I just happen to believe that there is also nothing wrong with choosing other careers in lieu of motherhood.
In the instance that I had children I could never ask them to love me unconditionally. Unconditionally means just what it says. This means that under any and all conditions they must love me. Do I have the right to expect their love if I treat them poorly? I can’t speak for how I would love them, this is part of my concern. I can speak for what I would ask for however. They also didn’t ask to be born, didn’t ask to be here. I didn’t ask to be born, or for anything that happened to me outside of my control.
I understand your advise to forgive my mother. I’m more interested in healing the wounds it left me with. She denies that anything ever happened…which leaves me no ability to forgive anything, and simply makes it worse. I understand that more than likely her behavior was not malicious in intention. There has been a family history on her side, and she was as much a victim of it as I. That I recognize it, and recognize the fact that I don’t know how much I understand about it is one way that I am able to curb the cycle. For me forgiveness would be empty, understanding is something I can aim for.
I once held an anti-abortion perspective. My understanding of when life begins and what it means to be alive have been greatly altered. It might surprise you to know that I had even participated in drives to raise funding to support the anti-abortion side. My perspective changed well prior to the abortion, and has remained on the side that continues the legalized option of abortion. My understanding of what life is, and when it begins…when it exceeds the demonstration of a pulse and what it means to be alive have altered. What I have come to understand, the philosophies I have discovered make it so that I can no longer give a newborn baby and a fetus the same status. I understand that you disagree with that…I even understand why.
The thing is, I am not harmed by you disagreeing with me in an of itself. I disagree with many things with people who I consider close friends. In fact later this evening I have plans to spend time with a friend who I regularly debate the pros and cons of socialism with. I am opposed and he is in favor. We listen to one another and learn. I don’t know that either side is listening on this issue, I think we’re just standing in the street screaming at the top of our lungs. Nothing gets solved, we all just get hurt…and as is demonstrated by this very site, the next generation is left with the same tired old battle to fight.
The odds are pretty good that I would have to do a pretty good song and dance routine to convince you that there are reasons to differentiate between a newborn baby and a fetus, right. You would have to do a pretty good song and dance routine to convince me that a woman is mandated to surrender her life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a fetus that I do not believe to meet the neccessary standards of an individual to whom these rights are guaranteed. I have been on the other side, it sounds as though you have been either on the other side, or on the fence.
I don’t believe in God, or at least anything that you would qualify as God…I can’t explain it. I can understand why and how you believe in God, and I respect it. I figure if I’m wrong and you’re right I’ll be dealt with when the time comes right. If I’m right and your wrong then we’re both fine in the end and I accept the risks that I take. My wish to respect religion, because I believe that properly it can be helpful to people, a source of healing, and harmless if used properly to the individual rights I believe in, is why I have restrained from giving my opinion of who wrote the bible in that tired arguement between your husband and Lauren. However, as I have attempted to make clear, I am above and beyond all else a firm believer in the bill of rights and the first amendment. Freedom of religion is a must, we have seen historically….and presently….what the results are when religion attempts to make uninvited appearances in peoples homes. It should be a personal decision between every individual and the God of their choice. I believe that every individual is free to speak of thier God to the extent that the other member of the conversation is willing to listen. I believe that if an individual manages to peacefully persuade another person that they have the right God than so be it.
It is my belief that in order to uphold this amendment, that guarentees that you do not have to acknowledge Buddah as God as much as it guarantees that a Pagan does not have to acknowledge Christ, and etc, etc… Religious beliefs cannot dictate the laws of this country. I have seen no scientific a
data that first impresses to me that it is real scientific data…for instance-
“Myth 8- ‘Pregnancy begins with the implantation of the blastocyst 9i.e., about 5-7 days)’
Fact 8- This defintion of ‘pregnancy’ was initianted to accommodate teh introduction fo the process in ‘invitro’ fertilization, where fertilization takes place artificially outside the mother in a petri dish, and then the embryo is articficially introduced into the woman’s uterus so that implantation of the embryo can take place. Obviously, if the embryo is not within the woman’s body, she is not ‘pregnant’ in teh literal, traditional sense of the term. However, this ‘artificial’ situation cannot validly be subsituted back to redefine ‘normal’ pregnancy….” this is from the http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/ site that Sydnie provided me with. While the entire site is suspect, the insinuatin that an invitro pregnancy is ‘abnormal’ presented by an ‘embryologist’ sents out warning signals that this is not something a true scientist would do. A true scientist would have stuck with traditional and non traditional, but would have never questioned the normality of the pregnancy.
As the current administration has openly imposed his own religious beliefs on scientific funding I cannot find reason to believe that ’scientific’ information that is currently being produced regarding what constitutes life is suspect at best. It is not that I believe that the government should pay for stem cell research…I simply don’t believe that it should be done to pacify God…I also don’t believe those funds should be redirected to ’scientific’ agendas that do. Science is not by design a practice that is guaranteed to side with or against any God. It is a seperate entity of its own accord.
That was a bit of a tangent, but I think that these things are important.
I am truly glad that you are happy with your decision to be a mother. I am glad that you find it rewarding. I hope you can understand how I might not feel the same way.
I hope that there can be more reasonable discussions and fewer accusations and less anger.
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Lucy says:
Lauren, I have to ask you…what does the skin color or ethnicity of the mothers in question have to do with anything? Do you feel that white mothers deserve more or less liberty than black mothers or asian mothers or so forth. Why is this an issue?
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Lucy says:
Lauren…
Are you assuming that I myself am white? Have I stated that I am white? Are you assuming that I am wealthy? Have I given you any reason to suspect that I am wealthy? Did I say that I was opposed to welfare based on laziness? Where do you suppose that these ‘free things’ come from that you wish to provide to the poorest first?
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Lucy says:
Lauren,
Why do you believe that people who are not financially capable of providing the means for safe sex, (and by comparison, condoms are cheaper than diapers and formula, as I’m sure that April and Sydnie will back me up on), Why do you think that being poor eliminates the need of an indivudual to take responsibility for their actions, to think before they act and make every attempt to make the best decision? Why do you think that white people should be granted some kind of greater allowance than people of other races and ethnicities?
Who are you to condescend to people with less money and feel that they are somehow less capable than people with money. Need I provide you a list of quite well known people who have risen out of poverty to become wealthy, and often famous? That this is a list composed of multiple ethnicities and on occasion women? I gave Sarah the name of a group to look into…The Grameen Bank….look it up. All poor, none white, and they are making it. Not because someone took pity on them, and declared that without a handout they couldnt’ do anything, but because someone argued that they could do anything and just needed the opportunity if they would take it.
Who are you to require that people who have more money are required to give it to the poor? Where do you think that money came from? Do you think they got lucky…someone just liked them better? We are not living in a Monarchy…there is no king handing out favors. What do you think this is?
How can you alledge to defend the rights of women when you procede to make it clear that you are primarily out to defend the rights of poor white women? Do you feel that somehow they are more deserving of rights than other women?
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Lucy says:
Lauren…,
What does your living in Frankfort have anything to do with? Are you upset that you had the opportunity to attend one of the best public schools in the state? Do you feel that somehow this is a disservice?
What do veterans have to do with Welfare. Why do you see taking care of people who have served for the purpose of protecting your freedoms as somehow being connected to the Welfare system? If those men and women are coming back truly incapable of supporting themselves, and we believe that we are sending them to defend us, then is our freedom not worth the cost of food, shelter and clothing of the men and women who go and defend it? Is that not part of the debt we owe them if they cannot provide for themselves due to reasons that occured from them defending us. That this debt is not being paid is an issue that needs to be addressed, but please don’t call it welfare. I don’t make a welfare payment when I pay a debt I owe. Welfare is not a debt I owe, white, red, yellow, black or otherwise shaded, it is not a debt that I owe. It is not a debt that I demand.
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Lucy says:
Lauren,
For what it’s worth, as a former smoker, I take afront to your smokers are stupid comment. As a matter of fact, the majority of smokers that I have ever known are very, very intelligent individuals, a couple nearing genius status, and certainly above the gifted marker.
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
rosie says:
Has anyone seen “The silent scream”?
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
April says:
Lucy, you say,
“The odds are pretty good that I would have to do a pretty good song and dance routine to convince you that there are reasons to differentiate between a newborn baby and a fetus, right. You would have to do a pretty good song and dance routine to convince me that a woman is mandated to surrender her life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to a fetus that I do not believe to meet the neccessary standards of an individual to whom these rights are guaranteed.”
Okay, I see the differences between a fetus and a baby. A fetus is utterly dependent on his mother for life. He is not equipped to survive outside her womb until about 20 weeks gestation, and then with extraordinary medical assistance. At the very beginning stages of life, human beings look pretty strange to us, but after all, they are meant to be hidden in the deepest and safest recesses of our bodies until they are cute enough to be born.
My question is, how do you decide when a fetus becomes a person. It is certainly alive, and human, so doesn’t that make it a human being? If it’s a human being, doesn’t it deserve the same protection that all other human beings are priveleged to have as inalienable rights?
If you leave God out of the discussion, can you boil it down to a civil rights issue? The fetus, who is a human being, has a greater claim to the right to life than the woman, who has a claim to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some rights are more important than others. Life trumps happiness.
If you claim that the fetus is not a person until he is born, then you open the door to infants born alive, left to die in a hospital garbage can, and partial birth abortion, killing the baby right as he is being born. Absolutely horrific acts, almost everyone agrees. If you claim that say, the fetus is not a person until the second trimester, what gives you the authority to decide it? Shouldn’t the benefit of the doubt go to life and not death? We could go through various milestones of fetal development, but what does that say about personhood? That’s a hard thing to define, and not something to take lightly. The only really logical thing to say is that personhood begins at conception.
As far as the woman’s rights, she may very well feel they are being trampled by being “forced” to be pregnant for 9 months. But I would rather see her lesser rights, to less than a year of her happiness, and her freedom not taken away but certainly curtailed, those rights taken from her, than the right of the child to his very life, taken away from him. Excepting in cases of rape and incest, she chose to take part in an act which she knew could lead to pregnancy. That’s life, very simply. As Garrison Keillor says (in a story about the priest in Lake Wobegone, ” If you don’t want to go to Minneapolis, what are you doing on the train?” We’re talking basic human biology. This is how it works. I got pregnant 3 times on birth control, different kinds. I’m not the only one. Most women seeking abortions were using birth control. Life has its own agenda.
Pregnancy does not take away one’s entire freedom or pursuit of happiness. Many women can and do work throughout the entire length of it, and if the baby is given up for adoption, she need not pay any medical bills or have any other expenses related to it. Pregnancy is safer for her health than abortion, and if it were threatening her life, she could be justified in having the baby removed from her body even earlier than her due date, with a good chance for the baby to survive and go on to live a happy life with parents who would love him.
Abortion is what is dangerous to her health, with many women unable to concieve again, an increased risk of breast cancer, and risk of uterine rupture from the procedure itself. Not to mention the psychological aftereffects which are extremely common.
Yes, I am surprised to learn that you were once pro-life. I’m sorry you’ve changed your mind. Perhaps if you come at it from a different angle you will see the truth of the pro-life position.
Hey, I love your name. One of our daughters is Lucy Evelyn. She’s a beautiful girl, almost 5. We named her after St. Lucy because she had such beautiful eyes. St. Lucy is the patron saint of eyes, because hers were plucked out by a Roman soldier who was angry that she wouldn’t marry him. Then her eyes grew back miraculously, and now she is always pictured holding a tray with her eyes on it. Pretty gory, Huh?
Anyway, thanks for the debate. I know it’s tired sometimes, but it is a very important issue, maybe the biggest issue of our day. I’m sure the women suffragettes got weary of promoting their cause too sometimes.
God Bless,
April
Comment posted March 18th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Sarah says:
Lucy,
Our discussion have presented a “partial solution” to minimize unplanned pregnancies: responsible sex/sex engaged in thoughtful manner [my words & yours respectively]. That of course, presupposes that the problem is the occurence of unplanned pregnancies and we will probably need to define “responsible” and “thoughtful” manners of having sex. Just to clarify: are unplanned pregnancies the problem or symptom of a problem? Conflicts are best resolved by nipping the problem in the bud, [the solution applied “directly” to the problem and not to the symptom or products of the problem]. I am inclined to suggest that the real problem is the prevalence of irresponsible manners of having sex which lead to unplanned pregnancies and hence, abortion is one of the “solutions” by some people.
You may not agree with me - but realistically, abortion is not addressing “the” problem of irresponsible sex. It merely attempts to address the “product” of the problem.
It’s obvious that I would prefer abstinence as “a” solution to the problem because like I said, (1) abstinence is not a new practice and (2) so far it is the “most effective” (I need not explain why). You mentioned “create the environment”. I couldn’t phrase it any better than you did. Creating an environment where abstinence is not an impossible task would be ideal and it does start in the family. Parents who practice abstinence would not find it hard to introduce and create such an environment. I am not advocating brain-washing, I am suggesting that abstinence could be a part of the value formation. Personally, my idea of responsible sex is having it when the teeners are already emotionally, [spiritually,] and financially prepared to have children and raise a family. So far, I don’t see any other birth control method that gives 100% effectivity assurance - that fact alone cannot be taken for granted if we are to responsibly plan our pregnancies or sexual relations. Now, one might ask: does it infringe woman’s rights to have sexual pleasure? No, because the woman is still free to decide - she is still free to weigh the consequences and calculate the risks involved.
Of course I realize that it is difficult - people find the drive of hormones and curiosity difficult to overcome. There are many pressures. But it can be reqarding too. All things considered, I would never say that it is easy for american families and teeners to achieve this and abstinence may sound too extreme - but then again, if we create an environment for it - it is NOT impossible. If there is any other solution that can directly address the real problem, I am sincerely open to hear it. Besides, if we are really serious about solving the problem then we need serious solutions.
I am surprised and delighted though, to find a blog maintained by young women who advocate modesty and abstinence- and they are US-based. It gave me the hope that it IS possible in the US.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 2:11 am
Sarah says:
Lucy said,
>Now, what rights does the woman have while the child is in her womb and when the child is not in the womb, desire for child aside. Does the woman have the right to stop eating? May she intentionally cause harm to her own body? May she eat nothing but Sugar? May she smoke? Drink? May she take any medication that she merits neccessary at any point in time? May she excercise to excess? Be it for legal or accepted social standards, or medical recomendations is she limited from any of these activities in either circumstance or is she free to in both?
>If she is not free to do any of these things in either scenerio what is the imposing factor preventing her from taking these actions? Are there scenerios in which the imposing factors do not exist and she may assume these activities?
To be very technical about it: the woman has the right to do anything with her body, as long as it doesn’t threaten life or diminish the value of life - hers, her baby’s and others’.
This is what I was trying to highlight when I posted my definition of “freedom”. There are other imposing factors: health (physical & mental), conscience (moral), law, social acceptance, guilt & sin (spiritual). There may be more and I may not be able to write them all down. We may even consider the maternal instincts, or at least the woman’s instinct to nurture. Do these factors impede the rights of the woman? Again, no. I’ll still say the same answer that I provided above - the woman is still free to decide - she is still free to weigh the consequences and calculate the risks involved.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 2:13 am
Sarah says:
Lucy hi,
Thank you for your patience. I realize that my inability to write well is becoming a hindrance and so I really appreciate your efforts in responding to my posts. I am a graduate of a business course but that was some 18 years ago, lol. I’m so sorry if I wrote it in a way that might have led you to think that I am still young. My grammar is my waterloo. Anyway, your recent responses confirmed a lot of my perception of your personality because when you said you’ll be “brutally honest” and you were “rambling”, you still managed to write decently and your “ramblings” are still very coherent.
Thanks.
Sarah
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 2:16 am
Lucy says:
April,
Thank you for the compliment on my name and the story that goes along with it, I didn’t know it, but somehow I find it to be more fitting than gory.
I really can’t see how defining individuality as beginning at birth opens the door for the justification of placing live babies in garbage cans.
Without the freedom of the right to think differently and the right to control ones own body the ‘extraordinary medical assistance’ you correctly cite would not exist. I believe that somewhere above I remarked upon the risks that individuals took to begin the process of examining the human body that led to those great achievements. It was religion that stood in their way, and societal stigmas based on religious dogma, just as it stands in the way of stem cell research now. My how we’ve grown.
Once again, courtesy of Sydnie, http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/ , “The question as to when a human ‘being’ begins is strictly a scientific question, and should be answered by human embryologists-not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human ‘person’ begins is a philosophical question…” In the effort to assure the casual observer that this is indeed a legitimate scientific document Dr. Irving herself explains that there is a difference between a human being and a human person, and that it is not the job of the science she claims to be a part of to define a human person. She of course spends the rest of the document demonstrating that she has forgotten this as soon as it was written, but it is written.
Alive has nothing to do with being a human being. Afterall, a corpse is no less a human being than I am. The condition of being a human being is based on having two parents that were human beings, having the correct amount of chromosomes to be a human being, as is argued in Fact 4, a response to the utterly ridiculous Myth number 4, “As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being and that that’s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.” As I have stated before, what did you expect, our bodies start out to be the bodies of bunny rabbits and somewhere along the line morph into the bodies of humans? Of course the physical elements are working into developing into a human being that we recognize. Do you know that a report came out a couple of months ago that our ears were originally used for breathing?
This is also the reason that stem cell research is so useful.
Telling me that my rights can be violated by a fetus for 40 weeks does not make me ‘feel’ that my rights are being trampled on. It lets me ‘know’ my trampled on. After all, just prior to that statement you argue that you won’t leave it to her imagination, you’ll let her know that the fetus trumps her.
Sure I can boil it down to a civil rights issue if you leave God out of it. This will just be a continuation of my explanation to Lauren earlier regarding why I am opposed to welfare. Those who cannot take care of themselves do not have the right to demand that those who can sacrifice their bodies, in the terms of welfare it is their bodies in the sense that it requires a forced relinquishment of the products of their physical and mental labor to those that are either less capable or less willing, in the terms of the denying a woman rights to her own body that you then turn over to the fetus that you yourself admit cannot live without her you commit the same injustice but attempt to validate it by holding up pictures of a fetus, just as Lauren attempts to validate wellfare by holding up images of veterans and of others who she declares to not be able to survive with the removal of the forced aid of others.
I’m sorry if you view sex as nothing more than a method of becoming pregnant. Though due to the historical imposition of such dogmas that make enjoying life, much less sex, a source of guilt and shame in women, I can’t say I’m surprised. Sometimes I ride the train, speaking of the actual train, because I find it allows me to think clearly for some reason. Sometimes sex is a wonderful way to celebrate the fact that I’m alive and that I can feel things, and that there is a man that I feel is worth my time. To me, Life is freedom and the pursuit of happiness. I don’t believe that Jefferson meant for the three to be ranked, I think that he meant them to be intertwined. It’s kind of like assuming that the first amendment is more important than the thirteenth, but the ninth declares that they shall not be valued by their place in line.
Dialation and Extraction Procedures are used very rarely, they are generally utilized in situations where the mother’s life is endangered by the continuation of the pregnancy, though I believe that the woman has the right to opt for this procedure if the fetus is still in her. The risk of this procedure is high for the woman. Unless the pregnancy is discovered late, which does happen, most women choosing to opt for abortions will do so in the first tri mester. It is when her health risks are lowest. It is generally not a womans preference to debate the subject for the majority of the pregnancy and then decide to have an abortion. It just doesn’t work that way.
The concept of what defines an individual person is not difficult at all. An individual person must think to survive. It must use reasoning skills, at varying levels, to acquire what it needs to survive. These things are not true of a fetus. A baby cries to inform you that there is a need they must have met. It is a form of communication, it might be viewed as a limited and unadvanced form of communication, but it is still a form of communication that the baby utilizes because they must convey that they are hungry, cold…I don’t need to tell you do I. You know that your children have been communicating with you since the moment they came out of your womb right. What cause do they have to believe that you are going to meet their requirements unless they notify you of what they are. They are also learning to identify those needs, which is a skill needed by you, I, and a newborn, but not a fetus.
Under no circumstances must a fetus perform the neccessary actions of an individual to survive. My friend just had a daughter and spent the majority of her pregnancy so sick she was actually incapable of working. She wanted her daughter, and once the post pardem (not sure if I spelled that correctly) depression passed she remembered that and is glad she had her daughter. She also chose to become pregnant, but was unable to work while pregnant, which she did not anticipate.
As Emerson stated, Nature is neither friend nor foe. Life may have its own agenda, but those medical advancements you wish to take advantage of are provided by mans ability to bend it to meet his will. This is even true of abortions, or the fact that so many pregnancies that are not aborted make it to term in this country, and in other countries that acknowledge and value this fact. Faith is a fine invention when gentlemen can see, but microscopes are prudent in an emergency-Emily Dickinson.
Many women have abortions that they might not have if not from pressure inspired by fear of the ramifications of their families, friends and churches learning of a pregnancy that occurred outside of what are viewed as acceptable circumstances. They are pressured by the man involved in some circumstances to end pregnancies that they would have otherwise maintained. Doctors advice, be it merited or not, also contributes to some abortions taking place. As it seems you can well appreciate it can be tempting to bow to social standards and try to meet them, fear can be powerful, social standards that indicate when a woman may and may not engage in sex inspire fear, confusion and shame. So, yes, they regret their decisions, because they were as good as made for them by outside sources, though I will still argue the decisions were theirs to make, I think we both know that sometimes we aren’t as strong as we’d like to be. Decisions made without thought of for poor reasons, or based on the ideas of others are just asking for future regrets.
It is also less than helpful that in a circumstance where a woman chooses to have an abortion for reasons of her own choosing that she is still frequently in a situation where she can’t speak to anyone. Please acknowledge that your statistics are skewed because women like me who do not regret their decisions are usually obedient to the dictation of societal standards that require that we sit down and shut up. Therefore the regrets are what are heard, and their reasons behind their regret are all to frequently silenced as well. So we end up in this vicious cycle where women try to cover up what society tells them is a mistake with another mistake. Because, I do believe that it is a mistake for a woman who does not wish to have an abortion to have one. Even in the instance that a womans life is endangered if the pregnancy is continued it is her life and her choice.
The reality is that I’m not attempting to make it so that my rights are left alone, I’m here to take them back.
I’m not the good little obedient woman who is afraid of the consequences of saying that I don’t regret my decision. I am saying it so that the record can be set straight. All women who have abortions do not suffer psychological distress, and a healthy percentage of women who do regret it would have been unlikely to have had the abortions in the first place if it were not for the cave men era stipulations placed on a womans sexuality.
I believe I’ve asked the question of others and been ignored. When does a woman have rights to her body? Meaning that it is her property and she may do with it as she sees fit. Should we tell the young girls that they should not allow young boys to tell them when they are ready to have sex, but that a fetus will tell them when they are ready to have a baby? Is that logical?
When does a man find themselves in a position where they are forced to give up rights to their body?
What a woman believes to be better for her health is up to her to decide. I chose to quit smoking because I found out I had asthma. However, I did not choose to smoke because I thought it was a healthy choice. In both cases I excercised my rights to control what I do to my body.
What you and Lauren both miss is that I have looked at it from another angle. I once agreed with Lauren on the issue of Welfare. Both of you are showing me angles that I have already rejected for lack of rational. Emotional pleas are inadequate substitutions for facts.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 2:52 am
Lucy says:
Sarah,
I would love to respond to you now, but must go to bed so that I can go to work in the morning. Plus I would like to take the time to think over the things that you have said before responding. Thank you for understanding.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 2:58 am
Sarah says:
I’ll respond on the other items later Lucy. ie. (w)holistic approaches.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 2:59 am
sunnyday says:
Rosie,
Hi! I’ve seen the first few minutes of The Silent Scream but as of now, I can’t bring myself to watch the whole thing. I know it’s not that long a film but I’m still psyching myself up for the experience of watching a baby get killed — and all this taking place inside a woman’s body.
I met Dr. Bernard Nathanson (the obstetrician who produced and is featured in the film) a few years ago, and I am amazed at the turnaround in his life. Though he is quite “grandfatherly” and has been devoting the past decade or so of his life to defending human life in all its stages, I’ve yet to see The Silent Scream.
Have you watched it? Can you tell me what actually happens in it? Maybe knowing what to expect will help give me the courage to see it for myself (we have a copy in the office I can easily borrow).
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 4:10 am
sunnyday says:
Lucy,
Congratulations for being able to stay off the cigarettes!!! I know that can be quite tough for many smokers who are bent on quitting. I have friends who have quit and then gotten back to the habit; a few are so far successful in their goal to not light up.
The comment about smoking (#165) can be interpreted in several ways, but what I had in mind as I wrote it was the dynamics of living in a society. People have rights as well as responsibilities. There are desirable and undesirable practices. Sometimes, a number of people will tend to be more focused on their own wants and needs, blatantly disregarding the welfare of other members of society. Then there are instances where certain forces are pushing for the acceptance of alternative ideas or institutions that happen to be a threat to the true and the good which the majority of society is preserving and protecting.
But ultimately, it’s a genuine concern for others that fosters unity and advancement of every member of society. Even when there are those who insist on giving in to selfishness, the rest who know better and have a greater capacity and willingness for self-giving compensate for others’ shortcomings. All for the greater good.
So this is basically what I had in mind when I was writing the smoking thing. Then towards the end I also figured that the whole piece can also apply to using foul language. That’s a limited view though, so I think it’s better to apply it to the bigger picture of life in any given society.
Hope everyone is having a restful weekend and poised for a productive week ahead!
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 4:42 am
Sydnie says:
Lucy,
Thank you so much for your words! They meant so much to me. Especially when my son cried for the first time when I left yesterday. I have always been able to calm him and explain (even though he is only 11 months and he always stays with family, hat is why he never cries) that I will be back. I never just leave. That was really hard for me so it was nice to have the words of encouragment. I will be able to do things for my kids taht I didn’t ahve. Like never go without electricity because my father drank the money away. They will be able to be involved in things and we should be able to take memorable family vacations (even we did that and those are some of my fondest memories, can’t wait to do that with my own children. Sometimes I forget those things so it is nice to be reminded! I can see a light at the end of the tunnel! I will be done soon and will take most of the summer off to live it up! I read some of your words to my mom and it brought tears to her eyes as well as mine! But know as I stated before I think I did I think you are a very inspiring person as well! We have learned a lot from each other! I am very grateful for the experience! And that is cool about the story of St. Lucy, that is very fitting for you! I had never heard taht one before either! That is really neat!
April, I think it was you that said you used to work at a montessouri school. That is awesome! My daughter attends a montessouri school at church that is a sunday school type thing. She loves it and I love it! If I wasn;t going to send her to catholic school i would definately send her to montessouri school! I think a good education is so important! Children should work up the their full potential. Now do you believe in schooling or unschooling? I have some friends that believe in unschooling (no grades, no forced learning, child led learning) and they do a montessouri school. i know little about it but still don;t see how it could work well, though I do think it is possible. Was just curious about what you do!
I’m kinda having a hard time thinking now but wanted to say more to both of you. My sister went to the doctor yesterday (the one I have been speaking about she is 35) they found some fluid coming out of her nipple along with a lump, could be nothing but we are really worried! Hopefully we will find peace MOnday after her mamogram.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 8:32 am
April says:
Lucy, you say,
I believe I’ve asked the question of others and been ignored. When does a woman have rights to her body? Meaning that it is her property and she may do with it as she sees fit. Should we tell the young girls that they should not allow young boys to tell them when they are ready to have sex, but that a fetus will tell them when they are ready to have a baby? Is that logical?
When does a man find themselves in a position where they are forced to give up rights to their body?”
You said a lot of other things too, but I’m trying to find the crux of the matter and focus on that.
A woman has the same rights as every other person. She has the right to do basically what she wishes as long as it doesn’t break the law, and this basically boils down to doing what she wishes as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s rights. Laws are about protection of people and property in most cases.
In the case of her becoming pregnant, her body is still her own, but another body has started to grow within her. You say that new body has no rights unless the woman decides to give it those rights, mainly the right to life.
My question is, “Why does the fetus have no rights?”
So far, your thinking seems to be that it’s because the fetus is entirely dependent on its mother. Can you explain why this dependency makes the fetus a non-person? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Thanks,
April
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 9:41 am
April says:
By the way, you said a corpse is a human being before. I say, a corpse used to be a human being. But does a corpse have rights? Does it deserve protection under the law? Actually, it is against the law to desecrate a corpse, but lawful to kill a live human being if it’s small and helpless enough. Does this seem logical?
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 9:43 am
rosie says:
Sunnyday,
Well I do agree that you shoul have a strong stomach to watch it. They do show baby remains and it’s really sad because they’re just dumped in buckets. The abortion shows the baby trying to move away from the probe, and the baby’s mouth is open in a silent scream, hence the name.
April,
Well said…the whole “is a unborn baby human” question reminds me a lot of the question “If a tree falls in the woosd and nobody’s around does it make a sound?” Even worse is that it’s illegal to even desicrate a grave but you can kill an unborn child. The fact that a man can’t carry a child makes our ability to be able to so awesome and I consider it a true gift.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Quinn says:
Hey Lauren, if you really think you’re so hot, then why don’t you have a public debate with me on abortion or a related topic? Heck, I’d even appear on TV on any news show. It would be great to see me making arguments based upon facts and seeing you respond with your drivel.
Its hard to believe that you are in college, because if you had some college education you would think that you’d be able to make much more persuasive arguments than you have so far. I don’t find any good arguments in your posts to justify your positions. Or is that how they argue at the colleges you’ve been at?
BTW, the NAZIs were Socialists. The National Socialist German Workers Party was called the Nazi Party. They were in no way “right-wing” as you claim. Do you really think that your claiming that the NAZIs were right-wing makes it true? Or do you think if you say it enough times that people will buy into your lie?
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Quinn says:
Lucy said
“I really can’t see how defining individuality as beginning at birth opens the door for the justification of placing live babies in garbage cans.”
To come to the conclusion that it is justifiable to kill your baby after birth, an immoral person does not need to define individuality as beginning at birth. Peter Singer argues that babies may be killed up to a month after birth because he sees their personhood (same as individuality?) coming into existence sometime within the first year of their life, but sometime after the first month. Here are his own words on the subject from this interview http://www.beliefnet.com/story/14/story_1447_1.html
“Babies become persons when they develop some kind of awareness of themselves as existing over time. That is, when they can grasp that they are the same being who existed previously and who may exist in the future. As for saying exactly when that happens, I can’t. I don’t think anyone can. Though I would say it happens sometime during the first year of life but not in the first month of life.
That’s why I’ve suggested putting a clear boundary on the time within which it is justifiable to kill a severely disabled infant. At one point, I suggested a 28-day boundary. But I no longer think that will work. It’s too arbitrary. I don’t think you would get people to recognize that there’s a big difference in the wrongfulness of killing a being at 27 or 29 days. So what do you do? I think you need to look at it on a case-by-case basis, given the seriousness of the problems, and balance that against the age of the child.”
So, according to the vile professor Singer, if a baby is severely disabled it may be justifiable to kill them sometime after their first month of life.
Steven Pinker, in the Nov 2, 1997 issue of the New York Times Magazine also argued in favor of infanticide (referring to it as neo-naticide). But, not on the grounds of when “individuality” or “personhood” began. He claims its part of our “evolutionary process” since there are animals that practice infanticide for the supposed benefit of the family. He concludes his argument saying:
“The baby killers turn out to be not moral monsters but nice, normal (and sometimes religious) young women.”
You can read Pinker’s entire article here http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/pinker.html
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Lauren says:
Lucy, as for the skin color, I make that point because a large segment of the anti-welfare is the white middle and upper class in my experience. Often, their ideas are paired with racism towards blacks. It’s sad, and I wasn’t attributing it to you, I was merely making my point as clear as possible. The white part sadly does surprise most. I wish to provide for poor people through taxes. What should we do? Let them starve? Do you have a better solution? because if you do lay it out there and I imagine that both the Democratic and Republican party will be banging your door down. I’m not saying we should give people fish, but give them a fishing rod. Your argument was a little hazy and would you please give me your reasoning behind being against welfare as it exists today or how it may exist.
And I never said white people should be granted more leeway, I was merely naming a statistic. You are granting people too much credit for saying poor people should be responsible for their action. You let me know when people stop having sex in Africa and spreading AIDS. Our government is giving billions of dollars worth of aid to Africa, and rightly so, and saying nope no condoms that’s naughty.. All the while, people are still having sex, and people are still spreading AIDS and having babies born with AIDs. We do need to grant access to contraception to everyone, not just those who can simply “afford” it. Sex is human nature and if you tell someone to “have some self control” see you 9 months with that baby or with an abortion.
Give me a fucking break Lucy. You know I didnt mean that I only defend poor white women. You took what I said out of context. I am very fortunate for having grown up in Frankfort, but what I’m saying is, it is fundamentally unjust and wrong that I can go to a school like that and a child in the inner city doesnt even have a shot when he gets to school. Look at the difference between Senn High School and Lincoln-Way and then come back to me. If you dont see the fundamental differences, then you need to look harder. Some of their teachers can barely read and are paid practically pennies on the dollar to what a Lincoln-Way teacher is paid. WRONG. Debate me on that point and we can talk, but if you keep telling me things I didnt say because you selected to take what I said out of context, this will not be a fruitful discussion.
Let us not forget that there are people on here calling you a murderer and you are offly quick to jump down the only persons throat who happens to be defending you. Just an observation.
http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/laurenpatrizi/BGR Here’s an article I wrote last june about race relations, religious hypocrisy, and economic justice in Frankfort
And here’s another article/debate I had with someone whose mind I changed about welfare and education. Please read this one if you are going to read any. http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/laurenpatrizi/CLrv The title is, The Real Left Behind Series, the Now Exposed Cyclical Process of Poverty.
I wish that there were that many success stories of impoverished people, but unfortunately your anecdotes are a minority.
Lucy, why would a person knowingly ingest something that is a carcinogen? Because back between the deep recesses of their mind there is stupidity. I know that it isnt just a bunch of morons that smoke, duh, but still smoking is stupid and therefore makes them stupid. It is completely pointless and a waste of time and energy.
No rosie, and enlighten us why we should watch propaganda…
“until they are cute enough to be born.”-April
Have you ever seen an ugly baby? I have lol.
April, it is possible to draw lines during which abortion is an acceptable process. Partial birth abortion is wrong unless it is in t he case of ht emother or it is certain that upon birth the fetus will experience untold pain and death. 2nd trimester abortion is wrong and should only be used in the most dire circumstances.. 1st trimester abortion should be limited as a last resort and not simply as a birth control method, like oops this si my 3rd abortion (this is rare anyways). Why do you think our side believes this? I’m not asking you to change your mind, but please just rationalize this for a moment and try to think from our perspective.
I heart Garrison Keillor, he is a “homegrown Democrat” as he calls himself. Nice reference.
“Abortion is what is dangerous to her health, with many women unable to concieve again, an increased risk of breast cancer, and risk of uterine rupture from the procedure itself. Not to mention the psychological aftereffects which are extremely common.”
Please this is pro-life propaganda and if you see this is true, then you need to go spend some time in a labratory or with a legitamate scientist that isnt pat robertson. Cite me some evidence april.. we all demand it.
Contrary to what I think you’d want to believe I have to legitimate studies not sanctioned or funded by any pro-choice group that tells a different story. First study: Most women don’t regret abortion Second Study: Study dispels Breast Cancer-Abortion link. http://www.webmd.com/content/article/27/1728_60593.htm
a study out this month finds that 80% of women were not depressed after having an abortion. In fact, the rate of depression in the postabortion group was equal to the rate of depression in the general population. As for post-traumatic stress symptoms, the rate was 1% in the postabortion group compared with an estimated 11% in women of the same age in the general population
Most women were satisfied with their decision, believed they had benefited more than had been harmed by their abortion, and would have the abortion again,” writes study author Brenda Major, PhD. “These findings refute claims that women typically regret an abortion.” Major is a professor of psychology at the University of California in Santa Barbara.
Nearly 70% of women reported being satisfied with the decision, and 72% reported more benefit than harm. Of those who reported depression or regret after the abortion, most were depressed or had emotional problems prior to becoming pregnant.
“Most women fare very well emotionally,” agrees David Grimes, MD. “It’s important to understand that abortion is not a problem, it’s a solution. The problem is the unintended pregnancy. When that is behind them they oftentimes will feel much better. But it is well documented that relief is the overwhelming response of most women.”
I know this may not fit what what you may want it to say.
According to data from 44,000 women who participated in the studies analyzed, researchers found no increase in breast cancer risk among women who had a pregnancy that ended in miscarriage or abortion. In fact, women who had a pregnancy that ended in abortion had a slightly lower (7%) risk of breast cancer, and the number of abortions was not associated with any change in breast cancer risk.
“You could argue that if anything there is a small decreased risk, but I think the main thing is that it confirms very strongly that we can say quite confidently that there is no increased risk,” says Beral.
Beral says the data collected from the 39,000 women who participated in retrospective studies were less reliable. Although the links between breast cancer and miscarriage were similar among the retrospective and prospective studies, the results on abortion and breast cancer varied widely between the two types of studies.
“If you’ve got something we know is correct, and something we’re not sure about,” says Bernal referring to the studies that look at data collection prospectively and retrospectively, “and we get a one-in-a-million chance that these results are similar, it suggests that the other ones are biased.”
Look, I understand your reasonings for being pro-life, but you basically cant just go “making up shit” to justify an argument. You must be wary of studies sanctioned by any biased party, be it left or right.
Lucy I regret that you think my reasoning for welfare lacks rationality. Let me turn what you deem are emotional pleas into facts so that you may be better equipped to understand where I am coming from. I am a pragmatic and when those facts move me, I intertwine emotion. I however like many people here dont get emotional first and then look for facts to back up my claim.
I’m going to insert a clip of one of the blog posts that I wrote about poverty, and feel free to read it if you want on here although the link is up as well…Who Experiences Homelessness?
* According to estimates, 23 percent of all homeless adults are veterans, and one-third of the homeless adult males are veterans.
* Twenty percent of homeless adults work full or part time.
* Thirty-four percent of homeless adults suffer from a substance abuse problem.
* Twenty percent of homeless adults report being diagnosed with a mental disorder.
* Approximately 166,000 people experience homelessness in the Chicago metropolitan area each year.
* People are homeless on average for six months.
* Of single-adult shelter users:
80 percent enter the homeless system only once or twice, stay just over a month, and do not return.
9 percent enter nearly five times a year and stay almost two months each time-utilizing 18 percent of the system’s resources.
10 percent, the remainder, enter the system just over twice a year and spend an average of 280 days per stay-virtually living in the system and utilizing nearly half its resources.
To assume that these people are lazy is simply ludicrous. Did you glance over the statistic that 23% of all homeless are veterans?…and another 20% are diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder. (hmm yeah they’re out on the streets because Reagan closed a lot of our mental health centers) Let’s yell at the people who have mental and health problems after Vietnam, and let’s yell at the people who have lost control of their minds. Let’s yell at the large female homeless population that was once in the middle class, but was raped, and now has found no way to go on except to live in poverty. These are HARD facts. Not some anecdotal evidence that you (and the large portion of white suburbia) have created to support your own neurosis.
Don’t you want to know WHY homelessness exists? Do you really chalk it up to JUST laziness? In every great system, someone is going to abuse it. Again, plain and simple. But for every great system that is abused by a minority, do we take the rights of that system away? I dont think so. Are you aware that the biggest portion of welfare recipients are single women that have children to feed and the fathers are refusing to pay child support. What are you going to do? Pull the spoon out of the babies’ mouths and call their mothers lazy? What you have to understand is that a large majority of the republicans jump all over family planning and believe welfare should be taken away. So what do these people do? The politicians sit in their pristine offices talking about these issues, but really do they matter to them? They have access to birth control (because it was affordable to them), they can pay for healthcare, and they never in their lives have had to even think about welfare for themselves. Welfare is an entirely different topic for an entirely different day and I will love to get into it later…
Let’s be fair OK, you tell me you wouldn’t curse the system if you grew up in the worst towns with the worst education and the worst of almost everything. You would. Plain and simple. It’s easy to call other people “cry babies” as you sit there out in Mokena.
One thing I really dont understand about “you people” is how you can sit there AND NOT CARE. How can you sit there from your comfortable computer chair and not even wonder what is going on this world.. You may disagree with the stands that I’m taking, but i’m not taking them for selfish reasons, I’m taking them because i BELIEVE in them. Maybe it’s about time that you believed in something rather than cursing the people that do.
I dont in the slightest think it makes me a communist for wanting a fair education system. In no state today does a full-time minimum-wage job enable a family to pay fair-market rent for a two-bedroom apartment. So let’s see,you go to a horrible school, have little to no education (that’s right, children leave their schools still not being able to read), you are expected to get a job with little to no help from your family, and then dont you dare expect a “handout” from the system that has screwed you since you were little. Puh-lease. I dont think that I even you can (IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT) can refute that. And one more thing, seriously you are just a fuck if you think that just because these people are poor that they do not care about the education for their children. You stand outside of a chicago public school and you can see their parents fighting and petitioning for a good academic environment for their children–one better than they had.
Ok that’s the end of the clip, moving on… if you are interested in this topic, I suggest you post on CP, it’s a great site which although it features progressive writers like myself, has a lot of different viewpoints that come on and post. You may even have your mind changed on some topics, as I have as well..
as for silent scream, how many weeks old is the aborted fetus in this video?
Oh quinn you are a silly silly person. Did you learn anything in your history class about Nazis? I will debate you any day of the week if you give me a prompt. I’m sorry Princeton, Georgetown, and Loyola are subpar schools and I must’ve learned nothing while I was there, you’re right. Silly me. I cant believe they are even accredited you know?
If you think National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) can be taken in a modern context through the definition of its independent words I have nothing to say to you. Are you telling me that because “socialist” is included in its party name that it is left wing? Are you fucking kidding me? Have you ever read anything, i mean, anything about WWII, germany, the Us, the entire last 100 years? I’m going to throw you a few bones and let’s see how you toss those around.
Various right-wing politicians and political parties in Europe welcomed the rise of fascism and the Nazis out of an intense aversion towards Communism. According to them, Hitler was the savior of Western civilization and of capitalism against Bolshevism. During the later 1930s and 1940s, the Nazis were supported by the Falange movement in Spain, and by political and military figures who would form the government of Vichy France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism Take a look at this site as well because this will explain to you the similarities between our current administration and hitler’s regime, in tactics anyways. Read it all and then let’s talk. No seriously ,let’s have an honest, no holds barred debate about Nazi Germany and how the hell you think they are somehow left-wing. You and every crackpot who has never studied history thinks that. Any major professor, teacher, or expert on the subject most likely agrees with me.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Lauren says:
my comment says awaiting moderation.. what the heck does that mean?
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Lucy says:
April,
I think that Sarah and I have established that man made laws are not the best source of definition for just and injust. Just and Injust should be, rather the source of the laws. I think history has established that man made laws are not always just. Assuming that one is without close examination does not exhibit the best of judgement. Hence, the legal status of what may and may not be done to a corpse is essentially irrelevant. The sources of such established policies are found in religious dogmas, superstitions, and in health concerns.
It’s nice however that you have decided to discount the established definitions of the Physicians for life. I wonder, what pray tell do you believe the corpse of human being to be if it is not the corpse of a human being. I would certainly grant that it is no longer a human person, I don’t think there is any Philosophy in the world that could defend a claim to the contrary.
Human life requires thought to continue. The woman must think in order to survive. She must think in order to obtain her food, her clothes and her shelter. She will have to think in order to maximize the possibility of successfully bringing the fetus to term. She relies on the thoughts of others to help her to do so. There is a reason that the infant mortality rate has been on the decline, it isn’t random. When the fetus is born and becomes a baby she will have to think to keep the baby alive. She will have to think in order to maximize the potential that her child will grow into an adult that remains alive. Her rights are what allow her to do this. Historically, and in some cases actually, she would otherwise be at the whim of a monarch or a dictator, or other individual who keeps people alive only as long as they suit their purposes, and determine at what level any given person will live. There are those who actually see this as a preferred way of living. Of course, the numbers attempting to flood into America are reported as higher than those trying to get out. People risk their lives everyday to get into Hong Kong, the waiting list to get into China, is to the best of my knowledge, rather short. It appears that as a rule people recognize the merits of a system that requires thought and permits rights that allow for it to happen with a greater degree of ease. Appearances can of course be decieving.
Now the fetus doesn’t need to think to live. It requires the mother to think to live. (I am, just so we’re clear, also opposed to the welfare system.) It requires no rights that open the gates to improved status of life. (It’s popular to cry about the alledged evils of money, but then again I don’t see these people voluntarily living in the most impoverished areas they can find, nor do I see anyone sticking around when the opportunity arises to get out.) It doesn’t have to think to acquire food, shelter, clothing. It doesn’t have to think in order to acquire the best medical attention possible. This isn’t a matter of not knowing as much as the mother. This is a matter of not requiring the knowledge.
I believe that it is arguable that a newborn baby must be able to think enough to figure out how to tell any caregiver that it is hungry. I think that it is fair to assume that any newborn must figure out a way to relay to his/her caretaker it’s basic requirements to sustain life. I think that it is safe to declare that such a communication system is less sophisticated, but then again I know guys who pride themselves on being able to belch their names…so the standard of what qualifies as viable communication should be left to the thought process required for its production, not what we think of the results.
The newborn is required to establish ways to communicate, to acquire its needs. This does not require an ability to speak, there are other methods of communicating besides speaking. We convey messages on a regular basis with rather simple methods, but they each relay a desire or a need.
As the child gets older it’s needs advance and so does their need for new and improved methods of communication, which requires thought, they can learn from a more experienced individual or discover it themselves.
The point is, in order to exist, a fetus does not need to do any of this. As long as the mother eats, the fetus eats. A newborn does not enjoy this benefit, it must eat of its’ own accord, and must find away to make this happen.
Being as a Newborn and a Woman must utilize the same tools to remain alive, and a fetus does not. It is my contention that this is a distinct difference between the two. If a difference exists the word equal does not apply. What the inequality means may still be a contention, but the equality is non existant.
You’ll forgive me I hope April, I copied that out of post that I made to Sarah a bit back, So some of it might seem a little out of place as to the question, but the answer is there.
Because if you insist that the woman retain the rights to her own body, and that the fetus is an individual that retains the rights to its body, the woman cannot simply choose to walk away from the fetus if it is doing something to her body that she does not like, which means that the fetus has greater power than she, making her less than an equal within the arrangement. As she cannot choose what the other individual does to her body she does lose rights to her body and is forced to surrender those rights to another individual, if you maintain that the fetus is an individual and is therefore afforded all of the rights guaranteed to an individual by the constitution. Of course, the problem is, that the two cannot both have these rights at the same time….
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Lucy says:
Quinn,
Of course the Nazis were Socialists, and left wing nut jobs, and the Fascists are Right wing nut jobs…Now that we have the nut jobs on the appropriate sides of the stage…..Whats the difference….they are all nut jobs.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Lucy says:
I have to ask,
This silent scream film that you guys keep talking about…I think I saw it years ago….does it serve as inspiration of some sort?
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Sarah says:
Lucy said,
“I believe that it is arguable that a newborn baby must be able to think enough to figure out how to tell any caregiver that it is hungry. I think that it is fair to assume that any newborn must figure out a way to relay to his/her caretaker it’s basic requirements to sustain life. …
“The newborn is required to establish ways to communicate, to acquire its needs. This does not require an ability to speak, there are other methods of communicating besides speaking. We convey messages on a regular basis with rather simple methods, but they each relay a desire or a need.
“As the child gets older it’s needs advance and so does their need for new and improved methods of communication, which requires thought, they can learn from a more experienced individual or discover it themselves.
“The point is, in order to exist, a fetus does not need to do any of this. As long as the mother eats, the fetus eats. A newborn does not enjoy this benefit, it must eat of its’ own accord, and must find away to make this happen. Being as a Newborn and a Woman must utilize the same tools to remain alive, and a fetus does not.
“It is my contention that this is a distinct difference between the two. If a difference exists the word equal does not apply. What the inequality means may still be a contention, but the equality is non existant. ”
Lucy,
I’m sorry but I can’t agree with the [implied] premise that the ability to think and/or communicate is a pre-requisite to attain the right to live. Neither does the ability to live independently.
If that premise is correct, then it should be able to prove its validity when applied consistently - even to the adults who are unable to think and/or exist independently (ie. mentally & physically handicapped and abused).
Please correct me if I misunderstood your statements.
Thanks.
Sarah
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Lauren says:
OMG no no no no no…. the Nazi Party was definitely NOT comprised of left-wing nutjobs…. the party was RIGHT-wing. I know present connotations of “socialist” mean left-wing but not then… god please read your history books this was NOT that long ago.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Lauren says:
My comment still says awaiting moderation so I’m going to reenter it here and see what PART ONE
Lucy, as for the skin color, I make that point because a large segment of the anti-welfare is the white middle and upper class in my experience. Often, their ideas are paired with racism towards blacks. It’s sad, and I wasn’t attributing it to you, I was merely making my point as clear as possible. The white part sadly does surprise most. I wish to provide for poor people through taxes. What should we do? Let them starve? Do you have a better solution? because if you do lay it out there and I imagine that both the Democratic and Republican party will be banging your door down. I’m not saying we should give people fish, but give them a fishing rod. Your argument was a little hazy and would you please give me your reasoning behind being against welfare as it exists today or how it may exist.
And I never said white people should be granted more leeway, I was merely naming a statistic. You are granting people too much credit for saying poor people should be responsible for their action. You let me know when people stop having sex in Africa and spreading AIDS. Our government is giving billions of dollars worth of aid to Africa, and rightly so, and saying nope no condoms that’s naughty.. All the while, people are still having sex, and people are still spreading AIDS and having babies born with AIDs. We do need to grant access to contraception to everyone, not just those who can simply “afford” it. Sex is human nature and if you tell someone to “have some self control” see you 9 months with that baby or with an abortion.
Give me a fucking break Lucy. You know I didnt mean that I only defend poor white women. You took what I said out of context. I am very fortunate for having grown up in Frankfort, but what I’m saying is, it is fundamentally unjust and wrong that I can go to a school like that and a child in the inner city doesnt even have a shot when he gets to school. Look at the difference between Senn High School and Lincoln-Way and then come back to me. If you dont see the fundamental differences, then you need to look harder. Some of their teachers can barely read and are paid practically pennies on the dollar to what a Lincoln-Way teacher is paid. WRONG. Debate me on that point and we can talk, but if you keep telling me things I didnt say because you selected to take what I said out of context, this will not be a fruitful discussion.
Let us not forget that there are people on here calling you a murderer and you are offly quick to jump down the only persons throat who happens to be defending you. Just an observation.
http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/laurenpatrizi/BGR Here’s an article I wrote last june about race relations, religious hypocrisy, and economic justice in Frankfort
And here’s another article/debate I had with someone whose mind I changed about welfare and education. Please read this one if you are going to read any. http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/laurenpatrizi/CLrv The title is, The Real Left Behind Series, the Now Exposed Cyclical Process of Poverty.
I wish that there were that many success stories of impoverished people, but unfortunately your anecdotes are a minority.
Lucy, why would a person knowingly ingest something that is a carcinogen? Because back between the deep recesses of their mind there is stupidity. I know that it isnt just a bunch of morons that smoke, duh, but still smoking is stupid and therefore makes them stupid. It is completely pointless and a waste of time and energy.
No rosie, and enlighten us why we should watch propaganda…
“until they are cute enough to be born.”-April
Have you ever seen an ugly baby? I have lol.
April, it is possible to draw lines during which abortion is an acceptable process. Partial birth abortion is wrong unless it is in t he case of ht emother or it is certain that upon birth the fetus will experience untold pain and death. 2nd trimester abortion is wrong and should only be used in the most dire circumstances.. 1st trimester abortion should be limited as a last resort and not simply as a birth control method, like oops this si my 3rd abortion (this is rare anyways). Why do you think our side believes this? I’m not asking you to change your mind, but please just rationalize this for a moment and try to think from our perspective.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Lauren says:
Part two I heart Garrison Keillor, he is a “homegrown Democrat” as he calls himself. Nice reference.
“Abortion is what is dangerous to her health, with many women unable to concieve again, an increased risk of breast cancer, and risk of uterine rupture from the procedure itself. Not to mention the psychological aftereffects which are extremely common.”
Please this is pro-life propaganda and if you see this is true, then you need to go spend some time in a labratory or with a legitamate scientist that isnt pat robertson. Cite me some evidence april.. we all demand it.
Contrary to what I think you’d want to believe I have to legitimate studies not sanctioned or funded by any pro-choice group that tells a different story. First study: Most women don’t regret abortion Second Study: Study dispels Breast Cancer-Abortion link. http://www.webmd.com/content/article/27/1728_60593.htm
a study out this month finds that 80% of women were not depressed after having an abortion. In fact, the rate of depression in the postabortion group was equal to the rate of depression in the general population. As for post-traumatic stress symptoms, the rate was 1% in the postabortion group compared with an estimated 11% in women of the same age in the general population
Most women were satisfied with their decision, believed they had benefited more than had been harmed by their abortion, and would have the abortion again,” writes study author Brenda Major, PhD. “These findings refute claims that women typically regret an abortion.” Major is a professor of psychology at the University of California in Santa Barbara.
Nearly 70% of women reported being satisfied with the decision, and 72% reported more benefit than harm. Of those who reported depression or regret after the abortion, most were depressed or had emotional problems prior to becoming pregnant.
“Most women fare very well emotionally,” agrees David Grimes, MD. “It’s important to understand that abortion is not a problem, it’s a solution. The problem is the unintended pregnancy. When that is behind them they oftentimes will feel much better. But it is well documented that relief is the overwhelming response of most women.”
I know this may not fit what what you may want it to say.
According to data from 44,000 women who participated in the studies analyzed, researchers found no increase in breast cancer risk among women who had a pregnancy that ended in miscarriage or abortion. In fact, women who had a pregnancy that ended in abortion had a slightly lower (7%) risk of breast cancer, and the number of abortions was not associated with any change in breast cancer risk.
“You could argue that if anything there is a small decreased risk, but I think the main thing is that it confirms very strongly that we can say quite confidently that there is no increased risk,” says Beral.
Beral says the data collected from the 39,000 women who participated in retrospective studies were less reliable. Although the links between breast cancer and miscarriage were similar among the retrospective and prospective studies, the results on abortion and breast cancer varied widely between the two types of studies.
“If you’ve got something we know is correct, and something we’re not sure about,” says Bernal referring to the studies that look at data collection prospectively and retrospectively, “and we get a one-in-a-million chance that these results are similar, it suggests that the other ones are biased.”
Look, I understand your reasonings for being pro-life, but you basically cant just go “making up shit” to justify an argument. You must be wary of studies sanctioned by any biased party, be it left or right.
Lucy I regret that you think my reasoning for welfare lacks rationality. Let me turn what you deem are emotional pleas into facts so that you may be better equipped to understand where I am coming from. I am a pragmatic and when those facts move me, I intertwine emotion. I however like many people here dont get emotional first and then look for facts to back up my claim.
I’m going to insert a clip of one of the blog posts that I wrote about poverty, and feel free to read it if you want on here although the link is up as well…Who Experiences Homelessness?
* According to estimates, 23 percent of all homeless adults are veterans, and one-third of the homeless adult males are veterans.
* Twenty percent of homeless adults work full or part time.
* Thirty-four percent of homeless adults suffer from a substance abuse problem.
* Twenty percent of homeless adults report being diagnosed with a mental disorder.
* Approximately 166,000 people experience homelessness in the Chicago metropolitan area each year.
* People are homeless on average for six months.
* Of single-adult shelter users:
80 percent enter the homeless system only once or twice, stay just over a month, and do not return.
9 percent enter nearly five times a year and stay almost two months each time-utilizing 18 percent of the system’s resources.
10 percent, the remainder, enter the system just over twice a year and spend an average of 280 days per stay-virtually living in the system and utilizing nearly half its resources.
To assume that these people are lazy is simply ludicrous. Did you glance over the statistic that 23% of all homeless are veterans?…and another 20% are diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder. (hmm yeah they’re out on the streets because Reagan closed a lot of our mental health centers) Let’s yell at the people who have mental and health problems after Vietnam, and let’s yell at the people who have lost control of their minds. Let’s yell at the large female homeless population that was once in the middle class, but was raped, and now has found no way to go on except to live in poverty. These are HARD facts. Not some anecdotal evidence that you (and the large portion of white suburbia) have created to support your own neurosis.
Don’t you want to know WHY homelessness exists? Do you really chalk it up to JUST laziness? In every great system, someone is going to abuse it. Again, plain and simple. But for every great system that is abused by a minority, do we take the rights of that system away? I dont think so. Are you aware that the biggest portion of welfare recipients are single women that have children to feed and the fathers are refusing to pay child support. What are you going to do? Pull the spoon out of the babies’ mouths and call their mothers lazy? What you have to understand is that a large majority of the republicans jump all over family planning and believe welfare should be taken away. So what do these people do? The politicians sit in their pristine offices talking about these issues, but really do they matter to them? They have access to birth control (because it was affordable to them), they can pay for healthcare, and they never in their lives have had to even think about welfare for themselves. Welfare is an entirely different topic for an entirely different day and I will love to get into it later…
Let’s be fair OK, you tell me you wouldn’t curse the system if you grew up in the worst towns with the worst education and the worst of almost everything. You would. Plain and simple. It’s easy to call other people “cry babies” as you sit there out in Mokena.
One thing I really dont understand about “you people” is how you can sit there AND NOT CARE. How can you sit there from your comfortable computer chair and not even wonder what is going on this world.. You may disagree with the stands that I’m taking, but i’m not taking them for selfish reasons, I’m taking them because i BELIEVE in them. Maybe it’s about time that you believed in something rather than cursing the people that do.
I dont in the slightest think it makes me a communist for wanting a fair education system. In no state today does a full-time minimum-wage job enable a family to pay fair-market rent for a two-bedroom apartment. So let’s see,you go to a horrible school, have little to no education (that’s right, children leave their schools still not being able to read), you are expected to get a job with little to no help from your family, and then dont you dare expect a “handout” from the system that has screwed you since you were little. Puh-lease. I dont think that I even you can (IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT) can refute that. And one more thing, seriously you are just a fuck if you think that just because these people are poor that they do not care about the education for their children. You stand outside of a chicago public school and you can see their parents fighting and petitioning for a good academic environment for their children–one better than they had.
Ok that’s the end of the clip, moving on… if you are interested in this topic, I suggest you post on CP, it’s a great site which although it features progressive writers like myself, has a lot of different viewpoints that come on and post. You may even have your mind changed on some topics, as I have as well..
as for silent scream, how many weeks old is the aborted fetus in this video?
Oh quinn you are a silly silly person. Did you learn anything in your history class about Nazis? I will debate you any day of the week if you give me a prompt. I’m sorry Princeton, Georgetown, and Loyola are subpar schools and I must’ve learned nothing while I was there, you’re right. Silly me. I cant believe they are even accredited you know?
If you think National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) can be taken in a modern context through the definition of its independent words I have nothing to say to you. Are you telling me that because “socialist” is included in its party name that it is left wing? Are you fucking kidding me? Have you ever read anything, i mean, anything about WWII, germany, the Us, the entire last 100 years? I’m going to throw you a few bones and let’s see how you toss those around.
Various right-wing politicians and political parties in Europe welcomed the rise of fascism and the Nazis out of an intense aversion towards Communism. According to them, Hitler was the savior of Western civilization and of capitalism against Bolshevism. During the later 1930s and 1940s, the Nazis were supported by the Falange movement in Spain, and by political and military figures who would form the government of Vichy France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism Take a look at this site as well because this will explain to you the similarities between our current administration and hitler’s regime, in tactics anyways. Read it all and then let’s talk. No seriously ,let’s have an honest, no holds barred debate about Nazi Germany and how the hell you think they are somehow left-wing. You and every crackpot who has never studied history thinks that. Any major professor, teacher, or expert on the subject most likely agrees with me.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Lauren says:
why the hell are my comments awaiting moderation.. i am concerned no one can see them…. can you see them?
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Lucy says:
Sunnydays,
Thanks for your support…I’m not that bent on quitting, right now I really want one, but I have asthma and I really want to breathe too, so I have to choose.
I kind of knew what you were getting at…I almost wish you knew what kind of world you were asking for…I’m stopped short by the consideration of the things that are happening in the world and that you might get your way. I’m not really in the mood to paint on the walls of a damp, dark cave personally, I’m content to let the Caves of Lasceaux stand alone. (They were created by an individual you know, one who thought for themselves…went against the societal norm,)and tribal group think does not lead to the penthouse.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Lucy says:
Lauren…
Just out of curiosity….isn’t the fact that they were nut jobs enough? Oh, and I hope one of the posts that are missing are the answers to my questions about what difference it matters if the women on welfare are white. I’ve been just dying of curiosity.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Sarah says:
Lucy asks,
“When does a woman have rights to her body? Meaning that it is her property and she may do with it as she sees fit. Should we tell the young girls that they should not allow young boys to tell them when they are ready to have sex, but that a fetus will tell them when they are ready to have a baby? Is that logical?
If we are talking about “rights to her body.. she may do with it as she sees fit” then it starts at the time when she can actually “do anything that she sees fit” - at the time that she can already think and comprehend.
But if we are talking about “rights to her body as her property” it starts from her conception.
“Should we tell the young girls that they should not allow young boys to tell them when they are ready to have sex, but that a fetus will tell them when they are ready to have a baby? Is that logical?”
No, it isn’t logical Lucy. Because the fetus doesn’t “tell” the mother when the mother should have a baby - it was the mother/father who made it possible for the fetus to exist - not the fetus.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah,
It is a requisite in maintaining the ability to live. I think that we’ve run across one of those instances that I worried about where I don’t quite explain myself as well as I’d like too.
I think that you’ll find that my premise does hold true. The level of ability to think is obviously different for reasons we are still in the process of learning. I think that you’ll grant me that a doctor requires a different height of ability to think than say a janitor. Please don’t misunderstand me to be saying that someone who is a Janitor is less capable of thought or something to that effect, but the job of a janitor requires less thought than the job of a physician. The requirement of amounts does not negate that both require thought. While an individual with a mental disability will more than likely not possess the ability to become a physician, a janitor is a reasonable option. And of course, some things that are counted as mental disabilities make for all the better of a doctor, it doesn’t as a rule indicate a lack of intelligene actually. As for the Physically handicapped, I think that you’ll grant me that I do not think with my hands. Steven Hawkins, if I have the name correct, is a wonderful example of a man who has a blatant Physical disability, but is a brilliant man. Michael J. Fox is another individual of a more modern and mainstream source that I can cite, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was the only President of the United States to be elected to, was it four and to serve three terms in office, with Polio. He is often regarded as one of the greatest Presidents our country has ever had. I’m sure there are others that just aren’t at the top of my mind, but as you can see, Physical Disabilities do not as a rule mean a lack of thought. Abuse has more of a factor of changing the way an individual thinks and not the result of removing an individuals ability to think.
There are individuals such as the case of Terry Shaivo that was in the public eye a couple of years ago where an individual is in a persistant vegetative state. Terry Shaivo was deemed to be completely brain dead by science and incapable of the efforts of communication that her family wished to credit her with. It was found that without the aid of artificial life support she would not live.
The availability of artificial life support to be held as the underplayed centerpiece of the debate was made possible by the ability of an individual to think and to act on their thoughts. 200 years ago no debate would have been held. The item which the debate centered around did not exist. Terry Shaivos non functioning brain would not have kept her body alive.
Without the ability to think, rights are a non issue, the ability to live, to retain life, is dependent on an ability to think. Different levels of life are maintained based on each individuals abilility to think or willingness to think, or ability to act on ones thoughts, but they are all related to thought.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Lauren says:
this is driving me nuts with my posts. im going to cut it up into segments and make multiple posts… and yes i did answer your question lucy..
My comment still says awaiting moderation so I’m going to reenter it here and see what PART ONE
Lucy, as for the skin color, I make that point because a large segment of the anti-welfare is the white middle and upper class in my experience. Often, their ideas are paired with racism towards blacks. It’s sad, and I wasn’t attributing it to you, I was merely making my point as clear as possible. The white part sadly does surprise most. I wish to provide for poor people through taxes. What should we do? Let them starve? Do you have a better solution? because if you do lay it out there and I imagine that both the Democratic and Republican party will be banging your door down. I’m not saying we should give people fish, but give them a fishing rod. Your argument was a little hazy and would you please give me your reasoning behind being against welfare as it exists today or how it may exist.
And I never said white people should be granted more leeway, I was merely naming a statistic. You are granting people too much credit for saying poor people should be responsible for their action. You let me know when people stop having sex in Africa and spreading AIDS. Our government is giving billions of dollars worth of aid to Africa, and rightly so, and saying nope no condoms that’s naughty.. All the while, people are still having sex, and people are still spreading AIDS and having babies born with AIDs. We do need to grant access to contraception to everyone, not just those who can simply “afford” it. Sex is human nature and if you tell someone to “have some self control” see you 9 months with that baby or with an abortion.
Give me a fucking break Lucy. You know I didnt mean that I only defend poor white women. You took what I said out of context. I am very fortunate for having grown up in Frankfort, but what I’m saying is, it is fundamentally unjust and wrong that I can go to a school like that and a child in the inner city doesnt even have a shot when he gets to school. Look at the difference between Senn High School and Lincoln-Way and then come back to me. If you dont see the fundamental differences, then you need to look harder. Some of their teachers can barely read and are paid practically pennies on the dollar to what a Lincoln-Way teacher is paid. WRONG. Debate me on that point and we can talk, but if you keep telling me things I didnt say because you selected to take what I said out of context, this will not be a fruitful discussion.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Lauren says:
Let us not forget that there are people on here calling you a murderer and you are offly quick to jump down the only persons throat who happens to be defending you. Just an observation.
http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/laurenpatrizi/BGR Here’s an article I wrote last june about race relations, religious hypocrisy, and economic justice in Frankfort
And here’s another article/debate I had with someone whose mind I changed about welfare and education. Please read this one if you are going to read any. http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/laurenpatrizi/CLrv The title is, The Real Left Behind Series, the Now Exposed Cyclical Process of Poverty.
I wish that there were that many success stories of impoverished people, but unfortunately your anecdotes are a minority.
Lucy, why would a person knowingly ingest something that is a carcinogen? Because back between the deep recesses of their mind there is stupidity. I know that it isnt just a bunch of morons that smoke, duh, but still smoking is stupid and therefore makes them stupid. It is completely pointless and a waste of time and energy.
No rosie, and enlighten us why we should watch propaganda…
“until they are cute enough to be born.”-April
Have you ever seen an ugly baby? I have lol.
April, it is possible to draw lines during which abortion is an acceptable process. Partial birth abortion is wrong unless it is in t he case of ht emother or it is certain that upon birth the fetus will experience untold pain and death. 2nd trimester abortion is wrong and should only be used in the most dire circumstances.. 1st trimester abortion should be limited as a last resort and not simply as a birth control method, like oops this si my 3rd abortion (this is rare anyways). Why do you think our side believes this? I’m not asking you to change your mind, but please just rationalize this for a moment and try to think from our perspective.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Lauren says:
Let us not forget that there are people on here calling you a murderer and you are offly quick to jump down the only persons throat who happens to be defending you. Just an observation.
campusprogress.org /pag e/commu nity/post/laurenpatri zi/BGR Here’s an article I wrote last june about race relations, religious hypocrisy, and economic justice in Frankfort
And here’s another article/debate I had with someone whose mind I changed about welfare and education. Please read this one if you are going to read any. campus progress.org/page/community/ post/laure npatrizi /CLrv The title is, The Real Left Behind Series, the Now Exposed Cyclical Process of Poverty.
I wish that there were that many success stories of impoverished people, but unfortunately your anecdotes are a minority.
Lucy, why would a person knowingly ingest something that is a carcinogen? Because back between the deep recesses of their mind there is stupidity. I know that it isnt just a bunch of morons that smoke, duh, but still smoking is stupid and therefore makes them stupid. It is completely pointless and a waste of time and energy.
No rosie, and enlighten us why we should watch propaganda…
“until they are cute enough to be born.”-April
Have you ever seen an ugly baby? I have lol.
April, it is possible to draw lines during which abortion is an acceptable process. Partial birth abortion is wrong unless it is in t he case of ht emother or it is certain that upon birth the fetus will experience untold pain and death. 2nd trimester abortion is wrong and should only be used in the most dire circumstances.. 1st trimester abortion should be limited as a last resort and not simply as a birth control method, like oops this si my 3rd abortion (this is rare anyways). Why do you think our side believes this? I’m not asking you to change your mind, but please just rationalize this for a moment and try to think from our perspective.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Lauren says:
AHHH my comments await moderation because they had links in them.. my links are spaced out so the website did not read them as links therefore you will have to repaste them and close the spaces to get to the sites.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Lauren says:
Part two I heart Garrison Keillor, he is a “homegrown Democrat” as he calls himself. Nice reference.
“Abortion is what is dangerous to her health, with many women unable to concieve again, an increased risk of breast cancer, and risk of uterine rupture from the procedure itself. Not to mention the psychological aftereffects which are extremely common.”
Please this is pro-life propaganda and if you see this is true, then you need to go spend some time in a labratory or with a legitamate scientist that isnt pat robertson. Cite me some evidence april.. we all demand it.
Contrary to what I think you’d want to believe I have to legitimate studies not sanctioned or funded by any pro-choice group that tells a different story. First study: Most women don’t regret abortion Second Study: Study dispels Breast Cancer-Abortion link. webmd.com/content/arti cle/27/1728_60593.htm
a study out this month finds that 80% of women were not depressed after having an abortion. In fact, the rate of depression in the postabortion group was equal to the rate of depression in the general population. As for post-traumatic stress symptoms, the rate was 1% in the postabortion group compared with an estimated 11% in women of the same age in the general population
Most women were satisfied with their decision, believed they had benefited more than had been harmed by their abortion, and would have the abortion again,” writes study author Brenda Major, PhD. “These findings refute claims that women typically regret an abortion.” Major is a professor of psychology at the University of California in Santa Barbara.
Nearly 70% of women reported being satisfied with the decision, and 72% reported more benefit than harm. Of those who reported depression or regret after the abortion, most were depressed or had emotional problems prior to becoming pregnant.
“Most women fare very well emotionally,” agrees David Grimes, MD. “It’s important to understand that abortion is not a problem, it’s a solution. The problem is the unintended pregnancy. When that is behind them they oftentimes will feel much better. But it is well documented that relief is the overwhelming response of most women.”
I know this may not fit what what you may want it to say.
According to data from 44,000 women who participated in the studies analyzed, researchers found no increase in breast cancer risk among women who had a pregnancy that ended in miscarriage or abortion. In fact, women who had a pregnancy that ended in abortion had a slightly lower (7%) risk of breast cancer, and the number of abortions was not associated with any change in breast cancer risk.
“You could argue that if anything there is a small decreased risk, but I think the main thing is that it confirms very strongly that we can say quite confidently that there is no increased risk,” says Beral.
Beral says the data collected from the 39,000 women who participated in retrospective studies were less reliable. Although the links between breast cancer and miscarriage were similar among the retrospective and prospective studies, the results on abortion and breast cancer varied widely between the two types of studies.
“If you’ve got something we know is correct, and something we’re not sure about,” says Bernal referring to the studies that look at data collection prospectively and retrospectively, “and we get a one-in-a-million chance that these results are similar, it suggests that the other ones are biased.”
Look, I understand your reasonings for being pro-life, but you basically cant just go “making up shit” to justify an argument. You must be wary of studies sanctioned by any biased party, be it left or right.
Lucy I regret that you think my reasoning for welfare lacks rationality. Let me turn what you deem are emotional pleas into facts so that you may be better equipped to understand where I am coming from. I am a pragmatic and when those facts move me, I intertwine emotion. I however like many people here dont get emotional first and then look for facts to back up my claim.
I’m going to insert a clip of one of the blog posts that I wrote about poverty, and feel free to read it if you want on here although the link is up as well…Who Experiences Homelessness?
* According to estimates, 23 percent of all homeless adults are veterans, and one-third of the homeless adult males are veterans.
* Twenty percent of homeless adults work full or part time.
* Thirty-four percent of homeless adults suffer from a substance abuse problem.
* Twenty percent of homeless adults report being diagnosed with a mental disorder.
* Approximately 166,000 people experience homelessness in the Chicago metropolitan area each year.
* People are homeless on average for six months.
* Of single-adult shelter users:
80 percent enter the homeless system only once or twice, stay just over a month, and do not return.
9 percent enter nearly five times a year and stay almost two months each time-utilizing 18 percent of the system’s resources.
10 percent, the remainder, enter the system just over twice a year and spend an average of 280 days per stay-virtually living in the system and utilizing nearly half its resources.
To assume that these people are lazy is simply ludicrous. Did you glance over the statistic that 23% of all homeless are veterans?…and another 20% are diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder. (hmm yeah they’re out on the streets because Reagan closed a lot of our mental health centers) Let’s yell at the people who have mental and health problems after Vietnam, and let’s yell at the people who have lost control of their minds. Let’s yell at the large female homeless population that was once in the middle class, but was raped, and now has found no way to go on except to live in poverty. These are HARD facts. Not some anecdotal evidence that you (and the large portion of white suburbia) have created to support your own neurosis.
Don’t you want to know WHY homelessness exists? Do you really chalk it up to JUST laziness? In every great system, someone is going to abuse it. Again, plain and simple. But for every great system that is abused by a minority, do we take the rights of that system away? I dont think so. Are you aware that the biggest portion of welfare recipients are single women that have children to feed and the fathers are refusing to pay child support. What are you going to do? Pull the spoon out of the babies’ mouths and call their mothers lazy? What you have to understand is that a large majority of the republicans jump all over family planning and believe welfare should be taken away. So what do these people do? The politicians sit in their pristine offices talking about these issues, but really do they matter to them? They have access to birth control (because it was affordable to them), they can pay for healthcare, and they never in their lives have had to even think about welfare for themselves. Welfare is an entirely different topic for an entirely different day and I will love to get into it later…
Let’s be fair OK, you tell me you wouldn’t curse the system if you grew up in the worst towns with the worst education and the worst of almost everything. You would. Plain and simple. It’s easy to call other people “cry babies” as you sit there out in Mokena.
One thing I really dont understand about “you people” is how you can sit there AND NOT CARE. How can you sit there from your comfortable computer chair and not even wonder what is going on this world.. You may disagree with the stands that I’m taking, but i’m not taking them for selfish reasons, I’m taking them because i BELIEVE in them. Maybe it’s about time that you believed in something rather than cursing the people that do.
I dont in the slightest think it makes me a communist for wanting a fair education system. In no state today does a full-time minimum-wage job enable a family to pay fair-market rent for a two-bedroom apartment. So let’s see,you go to a horrible school, have little to no education (that’s right, children leave their schools still not being able to read), you are expected to get a job with little to no help from your family, and then dont you dare expect a “handout” from the system that has screwed you since you were little. Puh-lease. I dont think that I even you can (IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT) can refute that. And one more thing, seriously you are just a fuck if you think that just because these people are poor that they do not care about the education for their children. You stand outside of a chicago public school and you can see their parents fighting and petitioning for a good academic environment for their children–one better than they had.
Ok that’s the end of the clip, moving on… if you are interested in this topic, I suggest you post on CP, it’s a great site which although it features progressive writers like myself, has a lot of different viewpoints that come on and post. You may even have your mind changed on some topics, as I have as well..
as for silent scream, how many weeks old is the aborted fetus in this video?
Oh quinn you are a silly silly person. Did you learn anything in your history class about Nazis? I will debate you any day of the week if you give me a prompt. I’m sorry Princeton, Georgetown, and Loyola are subpar schools and I must’ve learned nothing while I was there, you’re right. Silly me. I cant believe they are even accredited you know?
If you think National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) can be taken in a modern context through the definition of its independent words I have nothing to say to you. Are you telling me that because “socialist” is included in its party name that it is left wing? Are you fucking kidding me? Have you ever read anything, i mean, anything about WWII, germany, the Us, the entire last 100 years? I’m going to throw you a few bones and let’s see how you toss those around.
Various right-wing politicians and political parties in Europe welcomed the rise of fascism and the Nazis out of an intense aversion towards Communism. According to them, Hitler was the savior of Western civilization and of capitalism against Bolshevism. During the later 1930s and 1940s, the Nazis were supported by the Falange movement in Spain, and by political and military figures who would form the government of Vichy France.
en.wik ipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism Take a look at this site as well because this will explain to you the similarities between our current administration and hitler’s regime, in tactics anyways. Read it all and then let’s talk. No seriously ,let’s have an honest, no holds barred debate about Nazi Germany and how the hell you think they are somehow left-wing. You and every crackpot who has never studied history thinks that. Any major professor, teacher, or expert on the subject most likely agrees with me.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Lucy says:
Lauren,
I did not say people did take responsibility for themselves…I said they should. If you want to give away your money then so be it, but you tell me what right you have to decide what I do with mine? No, no Lauren, I do not know that you aren’t only defending poor white women….so no, I will not give you a break.
Lauren,
I am having a perfectly lovely discussion with Sarah, while our viewpoints may not match perfectly, and may never we are getting a better idea of where each other are coming from…or at least I am, I hope that Sarah has a better understanding of my position.
While Sydnie and I are also a long way way from agreeing with each other, we are each developing a better understanding of one anothers perspective, and I appreciate this.
I am enjoying my discussion with April as well, we got off to a rocky start, but I believe now that our statements and questions are aimed at a better understanding. I’ll grant you, April wants to convince me, and I’ll tell you I actually respect that, even though I don’t forsee it as happening.
I don’t actually expect that these women are going to approve of what I’ve done. I want them to know that the effects on the woman in question do not always match what is on the propaganda so that they can be better informed in their decisions. I don’t actually aim to change their minds on thier belief that abortion is wrong. My beliefs do not require theirs to change. My hope is that they will peacefully allow me mine, but that is all.
I didn’t ask you to defend me Lauren. If your insinuations were not from a racist perspective then I am glad to learn that. I am also not opposed to you giving your money to whomever you would choose. I do not wish to stop you, I have no reason to. However, my hope is that you will peacefully remove your hands from my money, which was earned by the workings of my mind and my body.
For what it is worth, I call the Ivy Leagues the Rich Kids Clubs, Let’s recall that President Bush does Hale from Yale. Caviar is just fish eggs at the end of the day sweetie, it’s what you do with it that counts. Perhaps you’ve heard Carnegie donated to the creation of, what was it, 200 or more libraries, and the internet is available in most libraires. It hardly takes a college education to acquire knowledge, and a college education hardly ensures against waste.
No, I’m not going to engage in an exchange that is a verbal assault from your end on the topic of anything. Verbal violence is also not a suitable substitution for logic and facts. I’m one of those horrible monsters you hate so much, I’ve seen your blogs. I’m a Capitalist.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah,
I will grant you that the mother and father are the cause of the fetus and not the other way around. That is perfectly logical.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah,
But if we are talking about “rights to her body as her property” it starts from her conception.
I don’t think I understand this fully, please explain further so that I can. Thank you.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Lucy says:
Sarah, I have to go right now. I promise that I’ll answer the rest of your posts as soon as I can. Thank you for understanding.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Lauren says:
Lucy do not assert that because you are a capitalist that makes you different than me.
I am a finance and accounting major for crying out loud (quite possibly the most capitalist based major you can get). Lmao. I do however dont believe people should starve on the streets and babies should go without shelter. Maybe you do. Sorry for you then.
The welfare system of giving the rod and not the fish is the best we have. It is what people should do and must if we want an orderly society. What do you think should be done with these people? Nothing?
Capitalism is by far the best system possible and to argue against it in theory makes sense, but in pragmatic senses no. Do not assert that you have read my blogs and therefore deduce that I am not a capitalist.
I think asserting equal opportunity and access to education does not make me a non-capitalist. If you could not understand my statement of fact that single white mothers are the number one recipients of welfare, and that in it of itself was to argue for tolerance and not racism then you really really really have not read my blogs. One of my central themes is arguing against racism. I have a huge poster sitting above me in my room with a fist that says “fight racism”. I have friends from all different races and have dated someone that was Mexican. Race does not concern me because I do not think in those lenses.
If you refuse to answer my question as to what you think should be done because you dont want to talk in superlatives or uncomfortable language, I am sorry for the sake of the discussion that some people on this blog cannot stomach anger. I can take anything anyone throws at me. I looked over this entire blog this evening and have discovered that most of my questions that I posed have not been answered. Meanwhile, people have accused me of being unfair to the argument while I’ve addressed almost every concern and question brought my way. If anyone has anything they want to throw at me, let’s do it!
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
rosie says:
The BABY in the silent scream is 11 weeks old, in it he/she is trying to move away from the probe, I think you would have to have the ability to think to move away from something that you’re obviously afraid of. Deny it all you want but everyone has the instinct to fight to live, some just don’t get the choice.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Eric says:
Lauren says, “My comment says awaiting moderation. What the heck does that mean?”
Comments with more than a certain number of links in them automatically trigger the spam filter are held for approval. Kind of a pain but without it the blog would be overwhelmed with ads for Cialis and online casinos.
Message are usually approved pretty quickly, but over the weekend, it can take longer. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Lauren says:
ahhh.. it’s ok. sorry for the multiple posts… yes.. gambling sites=no good. that or four hour long erections. Perhaps a little less divisive is my work on online gambling issues which you may be interested in as many Christians do some good work on this issue as well. This is the topic I’ve done a lot of work on and had some tv appearances for my work as well..
http://campusprogress.org/features/397/my-college-addiction
Comment posted March 19th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Lauren says:
the baby is a hemaphrodite Rosie?
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Lauren says:
Lucy–I had to think about your accusation for about an hour or so and I realized that your McCarthyesque tactics won’t get you far as a philosophy major. Ask me what I think dont tell me.
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 12:02 am
Sunnyday says:
Lucy,
I hope you find relief from your asthma soon. As my dad said once, dealing with (physical) pain can be quite difficult, but breathing problems are a whole different thing. He’d much rather have the pain than go through the experience of gasping for air. He had COPD and a little asthma, and his remark was made during one of his hospital confinements.
I just remembered one of those episodes when his health improved immensely after being so dependent on the oxygen tank for a long time. One day he went out of the house and walked around the garden, then sort of jogged on the way back to the door. He was exaggerating his movements and on his face was the most delighted expression I had ever seen on him! He was relishing the experience of moving around again and being able to breathe much more easily. I really hope your asthma doesn’t give you too much of a problem, Lucy, and that you feel better soon. =)
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Sunnyday says:
Rosie,
Okay at least now I know more of what to expect when I watch it.
I have another video here which I at least look forward to seeing in its entirety. It’s called First Days of Life and it shows the different stages of life before birth until the time the baby is born.
Btw, I’ve come across a movie called A Distant Thunder, in some websites/blogs. Have you seen that one? How does it tackle the issue of partial-birth abortion? The info in the website is quite vague.
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 12:49 am
Lucy says:
Sydnie,
I’m glad that what I said could help. You have also given me a different perspective on motherhood. It wasn’t that I was opposed for those who wished it, but that doesn’t mean that I had the best perspective of it. You’ve given me a better idea of the rewarding nature that the choice can have, and I appreciate that. I know that you will meet your dreams of family vacations, and all of the other things that build lasting memories.
I think that your story is one that would help young girls who find themselves in similar situations. It might not stop all of the girls, but you should know that a lot of those girls would like to have their babies, but give into fear provided by their friends and families as well as societal stigmas. In situations like that I have no doubt that they do end up living a life of regret and wonder. As I said earlier, I do believe that it is also a mistake for a woman who would like to carry her child to term is also making a mistake if she bends to the pressures of societies whims, I believe this is where your statistics of regret and pain are coming from, which is understandable. Your story of courage and strength could be a source of inspiration if you chose to share it with young girls in similar situations. I could only imagine that it would provide them a source of positive outcomes to consider when thinking of telling their friends and family unpopular news. It could lessen the sensation of feeling alone that goes along with such a situation, and perhaps relieve some of the confusion.
It’s up to you what you do with your story, but I just wanted to say that I think that it might be inspiring for others as well.
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 7:54 am
Lucy says:
Lauren,
You are correct, I should not have said the whole capitalist thing, I do believe in Capitalism, in its true format. but I don’t believe that this is relevant to the discussion at hand as a whole. So, your right, I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have said it. I take it back.
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 7:57 am
Sarah says:
Lucy says:
Sydnie,
“I’m glad that what I said could help. You have also given me a different perspective on motherhood. It wasn’t that I was opposed for those who wished it, but that doesn’t mean that I had the best perspective of it. You’ve given me a better idea of the rewarding nature that the choice can have, and I appreciate that. I know that you will meet your dreams of family vacations, and all of the other things that build lasting memories.
“I think that your story is one that would help young girls who find themselves in similar situations. It might not stop all of the girls, but you should know that a lot of those girls would like to have their babies, but give into fear provided by their friends and families as well as societal stigmas. In situations like that I have no doubt that they do end up living a life of regret and wonder. As I said earlier, I do believe that it is also a mistake for a woman who would like to carry her child to term is also making a mistake if she bends to the pressures of societies whims, I believe this is where your statistics of regret and pain are coming from, which is understandable. Your story of courage and strength could be a source of inspiration if you chose to share it with young girls in similar situations. I could only imagine that it would provide them a source of positive outcomes to consider when thinking of telling their friends and family unpopular news. It could lessen the sensation of feeling alone that goes along with such a situation, and perhaps relieve some of the confusion.
“It’s up to you what you do with your story, but I just wanted to say that I think that it might be inspiring for others as well. ”
I agree with all these. Thank you Lucy, Sydnie.
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 8:58 am
April says:
Here is a link to a site called godless pro lifers. The article I linked to uses strictly logical arguments to explain his stance on abortion. Within this site, there are many other articles that also argue against abortion from a non religious point of view.
Here’s the link: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/jones1.html
I have yet to see a truly logical approach to the pro choice side.
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Lucy says:
April,
An athiest who is opposed to both self-centered thought, probably due to lack of understanding, and anarchy. I’m very confused. Without a sense of self where does one get their basis for morals, if one doesn’t believe in anarchy, then one believes that they should be governed by something. When that something is not thought or God, then what is it? What is guiding him? Not his own thought, he opposes self-centered thought. This isn’t in defense of life, it’s just in opposition to death. The only operating system that I know of in the world that combines those ideas would oppose abortions. They need all the people they can get to be used as cogs in the wheel so that they can be used as nothing more than tools in a system. We call them communists. Sorry.
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Lucy says:
Have to go to school now. Algebra rears its ugly head.
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 10:25 am
April says:
Lucy,
An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in God. What do you mean by saying he’s opposed to “self centered thought?” It seems he is in favor of thinking, since he presented a well reasoned and logical argument.
I don’t understand what you are saying about the importance of thought. What does it have to do with the meaning of human life or abortion?
He nowhere states, nor is it implied that he is a communist. Nor do I get the idea that he is an anarchist. He simply believes that religion has no meaning for him.
Please find for me a well reasoned argument that the fetus is not a person, because it seems to me that the issue is boiling down to this idea. And the whole “capable of thought” thing doesn’t make sense. Do we grant basic human rights only to those who can demonstrate a capacity to think? Then chimpanzees should have all the rights we enjoy. And cats and dogs, for that matter. They clearly can think.
Speaking of thinking clearly, can you try to re-express what you just said?
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Sydnie says:
I don’t have much time to talk right now. I just had to say that yesterday when I worked we had a set of twins delivered (first babies of teh day) and we admitted them to the nursery. I asked the dad what the names were and the girl baby was Emily! Strange huh?!
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
April says:
Lauren says,
“April, it is possible to draw lines during which abortion is an acceptable process. Partial birth abortion is wrong unless it is in t he case of ht emother or it is certain that upon birth the fetus will experience untold pain and death. 2nd trimester abortion is wrong and should only be used in the most dire circumstances.. 1st trimester abortion should be limited as a last resort and not simply as a birth control method, like oops this si my 3rd abortion (this is rare anyways). Why do you think our side believes this? I’m not asking you to change your mind, but please just rationalize this for a moment and try to think from our perspective.”
First of all, I’m glad you believe there should be strict limits on abortion. That’s something we both agree on. Let me just ask one thing. What makes the first trimester different?
Besides the size and development of the fetus, is it essentially a different kind of thing than it is in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters? If so, how and why? Does it change from a non-person into a person at some point? From an object into a human being? And if so, when exactly is that point?
I understand that it’s harder to see the humanity of the fetus at very early stages. But because it’s hard to see, does that mean we can judge definitively that it is not worthy of basic human rights? You say it is a mass of cells or tissue. I say it is a very small human being worthy of protection. That I think is the crux of the issue.
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Sarah says:
Lucy says:
>But if we are talking about “rights to her body as her property” it starts from her conception.
“I don’t think I understand this fully, please explain further so that I can. Thank you. ”
Sorry I missed responding to this. Since I believe that the zygote has life and I’ve stated earlier that it has as much rights as any living human being, then the zygote’s rights to her body as her property starts when her life began, upon conception.
I guess this is the main difference between our ‘beliefs’.
Thank you Lucy, I enjoy our conversation too and you are right, I understand your stand much better now.
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Sarah says:
Correction*
Lucy says:
>But if we are talking about “rights to her body as her property” it starts from her conception.
“I don’t think I understand this fully, please explain further so that I can. Thank you. ”
Sorry I missed responding to this. Since I believe that the zygote has life and since I further believe that the zygote has rights that doesn’t differ so much from mine* (msg#160), then the zygote’s right to her body as her property starts when her life began, upon conception.
I guess this is the main difference between our ‘beliefs’.
Thank you Lucy, I enjoy our conversation too and you are right, I understand your stand much better now.
Thanks.
Sarah
Comment posted March 20th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
lauren says:
April,
Thank you for taking the time to answer one of my prompts, questions. Most people on here haven’t been able to do that, but thank you. This gets at the core to the issue I think. I think there is certainly a viability issue at play when it comes to first trimester abortions. Feelings of pain, development come into play. I know essentially it is a human being, after all it is not a dog or a cat. But I honestly see little difference between a first trimester zygote than from sperm and egg (I know, i know it is fertilized), but the whole oh it has x chromosomes thing doesnt really convince me. You amy not agree with me that first trimester abortion and third trimester abortion have different levels of moral reprehnsibility, but you can at least note their differences in development.
This is purely logical to me. Many state, well life begins at conception