Manslaughter vs. abortion
The Assocated Press reported yesterday:
COLVILLE, Wash. – An 18-year-old pleaded guilty to trying to hire a hit man to kill his ex-girlfriend’s nearly full-term fetus and was sentenced to more than six years in prison.
Charles D. Young received 76 1/2 months in prison Tuesday after pleading guilty to first-degree solicitation to commit manslaughter. State law allows for such a count when a viable fetus is the intended target….
Note the word “manslaughter” was applied to “fetus.”
This is just one example how legalized abortion has convuluted U.S. law into a pretzel….
In this case, the fetus had rights and was called a “human being” by law, by the very definition of “manslaughter.”
In this case, the fetus was a human being solely because the mother wanted the fetus to be considered a human being.
Yet the mother could have left the courtroom after the baby’s father was sentenced to 6+ years in prison for trying to kill the “human being” inside her, and were she still pregnant, walked to the abortion mill down the street and legally killed the “fetus” inside her.
I’ve read many ridiculous attempts to parse words and definitions on this blog to condone abortion the last few days.
Here we had a “fetus” who was a “human being” by law. Explain that, pretzel makers.
(And don’t try to parse “viable.” In its 1973 Doe v. Bolton decision, handed down the same day as Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court stated a mother could abort her child anytime through nine months of pregnancy for “health” reasons. Its definition? “[T]he medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”)
[Hat tip: reader Phil]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It is so ridiculous to think that people can be charged for manslaughter if it was a “wanted” baby, but not for “unwanted” babies… as though the actual desire for the baby has some mysterious physical effect on the baby. Oooh, I want the baby, now it’s REAL. Oops, I don’t want the baby. It’s a Z/E/F now.
I totally think that guy deserves to rot in jail…but I also believe all the abortionists should rot in jail too. They’re doing exactly the same thing as what this guy tried to do. It’s not fair for one to be punished for this kind of atrocity and not others.
I think the position taken when enforcing this was that the only person who has the right to terminate the pregnancy is the mother. If someone forces her to abort, that is a violation of her right to bodily autonomy just as much as their forcing her to gestate.
Wrong, Samantha. The man was specifically convicted in a court of law for attempted manslaughter of a human being, in this case a fetus. The conviction had nothing to do with the mother’s “right to bodily autonomy.” It specifically had to do with the baby’s right to bodily autonomy.
As I said, explain that.
“And don’t try to parse ‘viable.'”
So…in other words, leave out the reasoning behind the ruling?
Samantha parses my request not to parse. Interesting.
Yes, Samantha, whatever rationale you will find on a pro-abortion website for the Supreme Court’s “health” exception – through which a Mac Truck could be driven – is irrelevant. The ruling is used to abort for any reason whatsoever by any means whatsoever for the entire nine months of pregnancy.
Stick to the topic, wiggly one.
If I understand correctly, the decision of the SC would require that she had sufficient medical cause to abort so late in the pregnancy. I have always understood that the reason for urging against late-term abortions is because the fetus exibits the qualifications that make it a person: one of those is brainwaves. The only reason for allowing abortions this late would be that the mother’s rights (life + bodily autonomy) would outweight the fetus’s (life). I just dont really understand why this is an issue. A person who is conscious can be killed; a person who is brain-dead can be removed from life support without legal recourse. It follows that the same would apply with a fetus.
PS In response to your “quote of the day” I withdraw my position on the ultrasound bill.
Samantha, you clearly are either unwilling or unable to respond to the topic, which is:
For purposes of law, depending on the circumstance, a preborn baby is either a “human being” that one can be convicted for “killing,” as the law specifically calls it, or a “fetus” for which one can legally pay to abort.
If I understand correctly, the decision of the SC would require that she had sufficient medical cause to abort so late in the pregnancy.
I think the problem here is that since this is open to interpretation, (which you prove by interpreting it)it can be anything a doctor decides it to be.
So you could abort a 9 month old fetus because you have a wart or a tooth ache. As long as you can find a doctor (Tiller) who will go along with your charade, you can terminate (well, alright, kill) your pregnancy (baby) at any time for any reason.
Jill, what the wierd Missouri Bill that they are passing for fetal stem cell that is worded so it appears that they are against it, but are actually for it? Fooling well meaning pro lifers into voting yes on it?
mk
Jill in response to the fact that I feel that I fully answered the question at hand, and you feel that I didnt, I absolutely agree with MK that the problem is the interpretation. However, the Supreme Court is infamous for this habit of using ambiguous wording. In that light, a law that conservatively defines the permissible health problems could be ruled unconstitutional. Until a precedent is set that more clearly confines this first one, a circular argument will ensue. Until a reason can be legitimately ruled in a circular court in favor of the interests of the fetus, this is how the law will be interpreted.
Not an answer, per se, but an analysis of the problem…
I wish I could use words like “circular argument” and “Until a precedent is set that more clearly confines this first one,”
You both sound so dang smart!
mk
I understand your point Jill, but i don’t have a problem with sending someone to jail for tying to kill a fetus while at the same time allowing the mother to abort it. It’s the mother’s rights that are being protected here, not the fetus. I know that’s what you object to, but it’s not a pretzel for this pro-choicer. Remember what someone said on the other thread, “personhood is a side issue.”
Yes Hal,
But remember who said it…SOMG.
wouldn’t want to be aligned with his camp even if I agreed with him.
No, Hal, personhood is THE issue here. That the man planned to kill what the law considered a “human being” is what landed him in prison for 6+ years.
In listening to all the arguments presented so far, what I see is s total lack of consideration for what plainly is right vs. wrong.
If abortion is murder, then no matter who does the killing, there should be consequences.
SamanthaT obviously believes that abortion is not murder in some cases as long as it fits into her morality/justification box. Sorry, SamanthaT, that’s playing God and the last time I checked you ain’t He.
That the man planned to kill what the law considered a “human being” is what landed him in prison for 6+ years.
Now we’ve got pro-choicers arguing with the law, based on thier moral beliefs. What do you think of that? Ironic, no?
If a fetus were given consistent rights as a “human being” in the U.S., recognized inconsistently at present, abortion would rarely be chosen as an option post viability.
Then, in most cases the baby could be delivered alive as quickly – and sometimes via the same method – as abortion.
“If abortion is murder, then no matter who does the killing, there should be consequences.”
Thats pretty obvious…but since abortion isnt murder what is your point?
“SamanthaT obviously believes that abortion is not murder in some cases as long as it fits into her morality/justification box. Sorry, SamanthaT, that’s playing God and the last time I checked you ain’t He.”
Wrong. As “murder” is “illegal killing,” it is up to the judicial branch of the US government. Whether or not abortion is a sin is up to God. I was merely commenting on the ruling, which seems to be that *abortion is never murder, but killing a fetus agaist its mother’s will is murder.* However, your highness, I apologize that I offended your superior intellect so severely that I required you to condescend from your lofty perch above us mortals to comment.
“Now we’ve got pro-choicers arguing with the law, based on thier moral beliefs. What do you think of that? Ironic, no?”
Bethany, the law says that abortion is not murder, and you refute that daily. Why arent pro-choicers allowed the same luxury? Just too low on the scum-o-meter, huh?
Samantha, I know for a fact I’m pretty low on the scum-o-meter. Afterall, according to Dante’s Divine Test, I’m going to the 6th Level of Hell, where all the heretics go. :)
Bethany, the law says that abortion is not murder, and you refute that daily. Why arent pro-choicers allowed the same luxury? Just too low on the scum-o-meter, huh?
The reason it is ironic,Samantha, is because you pro-choicers consistently tell us we should accept something “Because it’s the law”, and “its legal”. Well, here’s something that’s written in the law, and you object to it?
There is no double standard for those of us who are pro-life, however, because we admit, and have admitted all along that we do not agree with the law on this issue. However, you guys constantly criticize us for objecting to the law based on our morals!
Be consistent for once.
And Who said “Thou shalt not murder”?
Government laws change and vary with time and jurisdiction. When slavery was legal in the US it was still wrong. We went to war over the issue.
There’s a lot of things that are now morally wrong, but are legal in some states, i.e., legal protitution in Nevada. Do you then think that prostituion is OK because it’s legal in Nevada? Or, it is just OK when you’re on the Dude Ranch there? Does this fit into your morailty/justification box SamanthaT or do you choose simply to ignore the logic?
Is not God everywhere? Yes and His laws do not waver or change or are subject to the whims of mere humans.
Because the murder of unborn children is this country is currently legal will never make it right, ever. In God’s eyes it always has, is, and will always be murder. It’s our duty as his created for us to follow Him and not vice versa.
His Man:
YOu seem to be very concerned about the number of abortions that take place in the United States. Well what about all the other nations with legalized abortion? Why aren’t you over there protesting and helping the cause? Why aren’t you in India or China holding pictures of aborted fetuses outside clinics?
Because as I hope you know…women in India and China have abortions for reasons as “frivolous” as sex selection.
I can’t believe i’m agreeing with hisman on anything, but the morality or immorality of an act does not generally depend on whether it is legal or not. His example, prostitution, is a good one. It is legal some places, illegal others, but is not really immoral anywhere. Same with Marijuana. Same with abortion.
Of course, some things are immoral and not illegal.
As far as the issue of disagreeing with the law,[“Now we’ve got pro-choicers arguing with the law, based on thier moral beliefs. What do you think of that? Ironic, no?”] I don’t see any pro-choice people arguing that this man should not have been convicted.
“It’s our duty as his created for us to follow Him and not vice versa.”
Shame, that not all of us believe that…
Ingrid,
Yes, you can believe whatever you want but that does not change the truth, however, it can make one subject to being called an idiot.
You can believe that 1 + 1 = 0 however, to be consistent, don’t be using you’re computer then.
The truth is that abortion is murder, doing it has grave consequences, supporting it has grave consequences. We reap what we sow.
As I said: It may be true for you. Doesn’t make it real, though.
Rae,
Continuity of thought is difficult on a blog and especially difficult for pro-deathers, however, I will try to be patient with you. Perhaps it has something to do with a link between being pro-death and ADD (perhaps Jill can research this).
In the 12:02 pm post by SamanthaT, she had specifically mentioned the “US Governemnt”.
Yes, abortion is nurder everywhere. I am not a citizen of any other country but the US so I have no rights anywhere else, except those granted to foreigners which I do not think include the right of protest. You do however, give me some great ideas. Thanks.
Seems to me that the US would be a good place to outlaw abortion since we are a Superpower and have some say in the world, however, I can see this status eroding by the second for each abortion that we allow to stain our hands. God is not pleased.
“…since we are a Superpower…”
May I laugh? The US really need to get over this superpower complex and realize they’re a country like every other one.
His Man, yes, ADD runs rampant on this site. I think I even have it now, and I was previously unaware it is communicable.
“And Who said ‘Thou shalt not murder’?”
If you are referring to the Ten Commandments, my Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill.”
“Government laws change and vary with time and jurisdiction. When slavery was legal in the US it was still wrong. We went to war over the issue.”
Mmmkay. If that’s your opinion of what the civil war was about, you are certainly entitled to it.
“There’s a lot of things that are now morally wrong, but are legal in some states, i.e., legal protitution in Nevada. Do you then think that prostituion is OK because it’s legal in Nevada? Or, it is just OK when you’re on the Dude Ranch there? Does this fit into your morailty/justification box SamanthaT or do you choose simply to ignore the logic?”
No, I think prostitution is okay because it involves two consenting adults’ engaging in an agreement that involves the trade of services for money. It doesnt have a bit more to do with the laws in Nevada than it has to do with the color of a billy goat’s butt.
“Is not God everywhere? Yes and His laws do not waver or change or are subject to the whims of mere humans.
Because the murder of unborn children is this country is currently legal will never make it right, ever. In God’s eyes it always has, is, and will always be murder. It’s our duty as his created for us to follow Him and not vice versa.”
That is an issue between an individual and God. As I have said repeatedly, you do not live in a country that recognizes YaHWeH as the supreme moral authority. So what He thinks doesnt change the laws of a *secular* country.
Ingrid, you seemed to have some difficulty in understanding that truth is not relative. Do you see the screen you are staring at? That’s real, therefore true, despite the fact that you could choose to beleive it ain’t so. See the chair you’re sitting in? Get up, move the chair far away, now sit down while at the same time believing that you won’t fall to the ground. How do those glutes feel now? Real pain? True pain?
I could give you the benefit of the doubt understanding how you were brought up in a land where, well, there’s been some challenges to grasping that concept. I mean your country was responsible for the murder of 50,000,000 people a few years back and conspired with satan to attempt to murder off His chosen people. I could see how this would be difficult for a society to collectively accept without resorting to the use of the crutch of moral relatavism. You know, kind of like having to use cocaine as an escape mechanism.
Hmmmmmmm…….Pontius Pilate (you know the Roman Curator who Jesus faced at his crucifixion trial) asked the question, “What is Truth”, when The Truth was standing right in front of him. I don’t think Mr. Pilate will be able to claim ADD when he faces God, the consuming fire. Perhaps he’ll be able to sheepishly cop the SamanthaT plea…”Well, Lord of Heaven and Earth, King of Kings, Rose of Sharon, Prince of Peace, Lion of Judah, Alpha and Omega, Son of God, Righteous Judge, it was legal back in Roman times….to crucify an innocent human being (murder an innocent child)”
I’m really trying to stay respectful *insert a bunch of German curses* but – did you just blame my country’s history for the fact that I am pro-choice?
SamanthaT:
It’s really, really, really hard to try to reason with a person such as yourself. Your repsonse indicates a reprobate state that may be irrecoverable. I hope not. Perhaps you just have a contrary personality that refuses to absorb logic. Perhaps you have been so hurt, the wall are just too high?
You are now trying to tell me that prostitution is OK?
Have you ever heard of child prostitution?
And what healthy, well-adjusted, finanically secure woman would ever agree to giving up her body for money?
Here’s the scorecard on your values:
Prostituion: OK
Abortion: OK
Murder: OK
Theft: ?
Adultery: ?
Homosexuality: ?
Drunkeness: ?
Lying: ?
Rage: ?
Now here’ s scripture for you, Galations 5:
” 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Ingrid,
Country in pain and unwilling to face truth = moral relativism = liberal philosophy = liberal government = liberal laws = liberal schools = liberal students = liberal citizens who are willing to see abortion as murder.
Now, I realize there are plenty of Germasn who opposed Hitler as well as those who oppose abortion today. God has a way of keeping His remnant in places where He wants truth to shine.
Your views are extremely liberal and the result of the majority of Germans who embrace moral relativism. No?
This reminds me of the Laci and Scott Peterson story.When Laci went missing,the entire nation was worried for the safe return of Laci AND Conner.Nobody ever said Laci and her fetus.Her mother would have had a conniption fit!I read Sharon Rocha’s book.She wanted them both back!When the 2 were found,the entire nation,myself included,mourned them both.They were both people and they were both acknowledged as such.Personally,I couldn’t have seen it any other way!
His Man:
Oh noez! Liberals are soooo evil! Well excuse me for living.
And here’s my value scorecard, I copied it from above and finished it for you so you too can damn my eternal “soul” to the firey pits of Hell in which I belong:
Prostituion: Fine with me.
Abortion: I wouldn’t but it’s not my place to tell people otherwise.
Murder: Wrong, infringes on a person’s bodily autonomy.
Theft: Wrong, infringes on a person’s property.
Adultery: Wrong, it ruins the trust between people.
Homosexuality: A natural occurance, not a sin and should be embraced by society. They are people too and deserve the same rights as other born persons.
Drunkeness: It’s funny to watch people dance with lampshades on their heads…I personally don’t get drunk but whatever.
Lying: Wrong, damages trust.
Rage: What does this have to do with anything? Everybody gets angry sometimes. So I see nothing wrong with it as long as it’s justifiable (and not something ridiculous like “road rage”).
Momof3:
I have to disagree with you, sarcastically of course:
There’s was a least one person, i.e., SamanthaT, in our nation who, based on statements made in previous posts, thinks that Conner should only have been considered a person if the mother thought so.
Since Laci’s opinion was not avalible, we have to assume that SamanthaT would consider Conner to be Fetus X and therefore, not worthy of one ounce of concern or anxiety. Or perhaps the drama deserved only situational sympatico?
Your anecdote, however, shows the absolute hypocrisy, inconsistency and insanity of the pro-death stance.
Rae:
By your words you will either be justified or condemned.
So, based on the requriements of admission into God’s kingdom as descibed in Galatians 5:19-20, we all can see where you are going.
I know, according to Ingrid, it’s only to be if you believe it.
Hey, have you ever been to Dismey World? Now there a real, therefore true, lala land.
Jill,
Not only do I suffer from ADD but also from ITSFPTPD, Inability To Switch From Post To Post Disorder.
I understand they’re working on a vaccine, however.
“Seems to me that the US would be a good place to outlaw abortion since we are a Superpower and have some say in the world”
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
It’s people like you that make other people hate America. America isn’t the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Ingrid,
I’m sorry. Please don’t think that all Americans think like HisMan, because we don’t. ^_^ I’m studying abroad in Germany next summer (hopefully) and after grad school me and the bf are talking about moving there and raising our kids there (if things go well for our relationship).
His Man:
I’m gladly going to Hell, as far as I’m concerned, I’ll be buying the first round of drinks for all the “pro-deathers” I meet down there. And quite frankly, I’m glad I’m going to Hell, as I won’t have to deal with people like you, and that makes me extremely joyful.
And I wouldn’t really know what “God’s Requirements for Admission” are…as I really don’t believe in the bible, but you go ahead and keep blathering on about your beliefs and how all “pro-deathers” are going to Hell.
Danielle:
Sliced bread is waaaaay better than America is right now.
Just for the record, I have no problem punishing people who kill fetuses, with one exception: the mother in whose body the fetus lives (or whoever she hires to do it).
In my view, as long as the fetus is inside her body, living off her life-support functions, she’s entitled to decide how long it gets to do this.
Because it’s HER body, and HER life-support functions.
The personhood or non-personhood of the fetus makes no difference.
If a fully-grown person entered a woman’s body and began living off her life-support functions, she’d be entitled to kill and expel that person too.
Prostituion: if a woman/man feels the need to sell their body to make money, that’s their own choice.
Abortion: Same thing it’s a choice.
Murder: murder is not okay. #1 murder is illegal. #2 it takes away a persons right to autonomy.
Theft: I can understand people stealing things like food in order to survive, but other than that, get a job and pay for it yourself or do with out
Adultery: cheating is never right. If you don’t want to be monogomous then don’t be in a committed relationship or get married. But if we’re talking about swingers (who would be committing adultery in your eyes) then no, it’s not wrong. Those people choose to live their life that way and have agreed on it.
Homosexuality: Completely natural and I’m sickened that people think otherwise.
Drunkeness: Personally I don’t drink (I have an alcoholic uncle who turned me off to alcohol at a very young age), but it is amusing to watch the drunk people stumgling around.
Lying: No one in this world hasn’t lied about something in their life. Lying constantly in a relationship (any kind romantic or plutonic) is bad beacuse it damages trust and makes the relationship insincere.
Rage: Who in this world hasn’t been angry at some point in time? Now if you go beating your wife/kids in a rage, then there’s an issue. But if your upset and punching a pillow/body bag, there’s no harm.
“Sliced bread is waaaaay better than America is right now.”
Yeah it is! Can’t wait till 1/20/09!!
SOMG:
And you think the air you breath belongs to you? How amazingly arrogant and prideful is your justification of abortion. You fail to realize that every breath you take, every beat of your heart is a gift from the Creator.
Danielle:
Seems to me your morality is based on self-absorption as your determining factor on whether something is right or wrong is based on whether it hurts you personally.
Do you realize that this is a humanistic philosphy that requires that you take God out of the moral equation?
And you say that hoosexuality is natural. If it’s natural, why is it’s ultimate extrapolative result the extinction of the species. And how is that, what I assume, consistent with your belief in evolution? Do you support the extinction of human beings? Well, you get a pass on this item as it applies to the innocent human beings in the womb portion of the question since we already know your answer.
His Man:
What makes you think homosexuality isn’t natural? You do realize there are other animals besides humans (because as I’m sure you like to ignore the fact humans ARE animals) that perform in homosexual activities.
Just because not all the members in a population are homosexual doesn’t make it unnatural. I hope you also realize that the extrapolative result of anything is the extinction of the species. For example, eating can lead to the extinction of a species by exhausting our food supply till nothing is left and all that can happen is that we either eat eachother or die…but in the end everybody dies.
Danielle:
It’s a fact that we are a Superpower. It’s not my opinion. Ask any CNN talking head. At least they’re smart enoough to know this and admit it.
Bread, sliced or otherwise, yes, man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Um… I’m alive and it’s not because of the mouth of God.
I don’t think bacteria believe in God either and they are alive as well.
Curious.
HisMan,
Homosexuality isn’t natural? Really? So what makes animals “choose” to be gay? Hmm?
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
America needs to get off their high horse of calling themself a superpower. People despise us because of it and it makes me sick. I do not want to be lumped into a classification that has you in it.
Rae,
Eating results in the extinction of the species? How about breathing? Maybe we should all stop breathing because, according to Al Gore’s extrapolitive thinking process, it will result in all the oxygen being depleted from the atmosphere.
Ever heard of photosynthesis? It’s a truly natural process that not only makes plants grow that support and sustain life but it converts CO2 to O2.
The Creator created photosynthesis to sustain life.
He created heterosexual sex to sustain life.
Hey pro-deathers, sure you want to admit this person is on your side?
“Ever heard of photosynthesis? It’s a truly natural process that not only makes plants grow that support and sustain life but it converts CO2 to O2.”
Yes, but people are cutting down trees without thought meaning that CO2 isn’t being converted, twit. That’s what Al Gore is talking about. Not that we should stop breathing, just that we need to take better care of the Earth.
God is on everyone’s side. He loves all, to say He favors one or the other is not too smart. He claims His love for all, including sinners, through Jesus and the apostles.
In terms of heaven, it seems clear to me that by the Bible’s standards, no one is worthy
no offense to you atheists/agnostics/Jews/Moslems/pagans, etc, just my two cents
Danielle,
We breath in air which contains O2, N, etc.
We breathe out CO2.
Just wanted to clear that up.
His Man, no one is arguing that fact. What is being argued is that it is because of the destruction of the environment that the CO2 eventually may not be converted fast enough back into oxygen by plants.
No shit Sherlock.
And trees convert the CO2 we breathe out back into breathable air for us. No trees, not more coverting CO2 back to O2.
Did that make it clearer for you?
Photosynthesis was not made my God…it was an ability that evolved in a few organisms that allowed them to produce energy more efficiently thus leading them to be more successful and “fit” which allows them to dominate.
I hope you realize that plants weren’t the first organisms to photosynthesize, bacteria were. Try wrapping your tiny brain ’round that one.
And I have no idea what you’re raving about with the Al Gore thing…his whole stance is that if we keep deforesting and pumping CO2 into the atmosphere we’ll have more global warming which will lead to destruction of ecosystems and the environment.
Danielle, I’m leaving your post with the swear word up this one time because it’s honestly hysterical. But KNOCK IT OFF!
Kay, sorry. I’ll work on not swearing.
Funny thing is, I don’t swear in person at all, but *shrug* I guess I feel more confident on line.
Danielle,
What was the comparatve expulsion of pollutants into the air as the result of just the realtively recent eruption of Mt. St. Helens to let’s say, the emissions of coal fired power plants in their short existence on our planet or all the vehicles ever manufactured in the last blink of an eye 100 years?
Now, take the history of earth, which many of you liberal, pro-death, ALGORITES, say is billions and billions of years old and calculate all the zillions and zillions of tons of pollutants spewed into the atmosphere since then by all the volcanoes, forest fires, etc., etc. Amazing that we still have blue skys?
And what about Antartica, did you know that the ice cap is expanding on that continent?
We have a whole generation that has been lied to and I see the result of it in this blog. Our country has lost its way and the ability to think for itself by blindly following the likes of the Clintons and Gores whose only aim is and has been the accrual of money and power. I am amazed and people need to wake up.
Yes, liberals are teh evilz0rz! They are the reason for the world’s problems! Let’s kill them all! That will solve ALL of our problems.
I don’t support Al Gore by the way, and I think we are overreacting about global warming, but there is nothing wrong with trying to protect the environment is there?
Let’s kill them all! That will solve ALL of our problems.
You know, putting words in his mouth gets you nowhere.
I also wanna say I dont support Al Gore, nor do I support hilary, and I was too young to really know about Bill before the whole monica lewinsky scandal, so Ive got no opinion on him.
His Man, the things you mentioned do occur (volcanic eruptions, forest fires, etc), and they are believed to have had effects on the climate if they are significant enough. In comparison to all the pollutants sent into the air by human activity, I would think that those occurrences would realy be small potatoes, but Id have to do a bit more research.
Bethany, its sarcasm, not putting words in his mouth
I don’t support Al Gore. I haven’t even seen his film “An Inconvient Truth,” but I might now. There showing it tonight. But it’s at the same time as Pride Alliance. :-/
Let’s see natural pollution that the Earth is made to take care of or natural pollution plus human pollution? Hmm.
So your against conserving energy/saving trees because the 3vi1 liberals support it?
Dan: It’s true that forest fires and volcanic eruptions do have effects on climate…though volcanoes do more than forest fires.
For example, when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1993 (I think…don’t quote me on the year), it cooled the earth a few degrees for 10 years, we are now just getting over the effects of ONE volcano.
In the 1800’s, the reason Napoleon lost in Russia was because of a volcanic eruption in the Pacific ocean (Mt. Krakatau I believe) which erupted so violently it caused an early winter in Europe which lead to famine due to a shortened growing season.
Also, there is evidence that volcanic eruptions killed the dinosaurs.
Danielle, don’t worry. I have family in the states and I know they are able to use their brain and accept the fact that people have different views. And I’m sure that’s the case with most of the people, in the US, Germany or anywhere else. (Hey, try to stay somewhere west next year. We could have a drink together!)
“Our country has lost its way and the ability to think for itself by blindly following the likes of the Clintons and Gores whose only aim is and has been the accrual of money and power.”
No, I think your country has finally realized that the American way is NOT the only way to do things and people really try to realize that “Hey, there are others on the planet as well. Cool.” instead of blindly following a idiot of a president. (Which is really cool. There was a time when it took Germans a while to realize that, too.)
And I ask you again, HisMan – and give me a clear no or yes this time: Did you blame the history of Germany for the fact that I am pro-choice?
Bethany, its sarcasm, not putting words in his mouth
Dan, it would seem that way, but I don’t believe so.
Bethany:
It was sarcasm.
Ok. Good.
Dan and Danielle:
How many trees were snuffed out in the pyroclastic flow of Mt. St. Helens?
Hug a tree, kill a baby? Why does that sound insane?
Ingrid:
Your hatred of America is evident. That’s OK, I still think many American yong men and women would still have died for your freedom, even if they knew that you weren’t going to be aborted.
WTH? I never said I hated America, I said I’m glad that people over there start to realiu there are other people on the planet.
And if I hated America, it would be because of peole like you, who still see it as a superpower and insult everyone who disagrees.
But I’ve met some cool people from the stated online. Why should I hate them?
Jill,
Based on him saying that he doesn’t even know about the Clinton/Lewinski scandal, Dan can’t even be 18 and he’s already a pro-deather.
So sad.
His Man:
I’ve been a “pro-deather” since I was 13 when I was at religion class (Catholic religion class) and it was Roe v. Wade’s 35th anniversary and they were handing out stickers that said: “Abortion, the American Holocaust”. I just about ralphed a little in my mouth from the stupidity. From that day forward I was pro-choice.
His Man, 17 at the end of the month.
Hey Dan, you got a girlfriend? ;)
Nope, still single, lmfao
im one of those guys that falls in the “brother” category
Hm… I already have a brother ^^
Come over here, we’ll have a beer and talk. I’m bored right now.
Rae,
Thanks for telling us why you became pro-death.
I still don’t understand how your becoming pro-death was the result of a Catholic “pro-life” campaign. There’s a disconnect there. Was it the facts presented, the method of delivery? Did a girl diss you? There’s got to be something else for the root of bitterness that has taken hold in your heart, and at such a young age. Now, why did you really become pro-death? Can you be honest one more time?
Dan, thanks for being honest about your age.
eh, I personally see my age as a non-issue, but I know others may feel otherwise. Ive been dismissed simply because of my age before, so I know the prejudice is out there, but Id rather be honest about my age than lie to gain respect.
His Man:
It’s because they were demonizing women who had abortions and the fact that they had the gall to compare it to the Holocaust. Yes, I know, there have been more abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade than people killed in the Holocaust, but there really is a difference between the two.
Those who died in the Holocaust were already born, sentient people. They knew what was happening to them. They experienced the torture, the starvation. They knew what was going to happen to them, so on top of physical torture they had mental anguish as well.
To compare that kind of pain and suffering to the deaths of unsentient fetuses that can’t even feel pain (until approximately 23 weeks) much less think about what’s going on pissed me off.
Besides at that time I was pretty annoyed with Catholicism and it’s teachings so I was at that point rejecting anything and everything they tried to “teach” me.
I continued with my opinion on abortion after I got a bit older and did my own research and concluded that my position is the right one for me.
I hope that answers your question.
Well Dan you have my respect. I personally see you as a very mature person, especially for 17, and even though I disagree with you on your position on abortion, you are very respectful and answer questions honestly. And I really, really appreciate that.
Ingrid:
You said, “And if I hated America, it would be because of people like you, who still see it as a superpower and insult everyone who disagrees.”
Sorry, the fact that is that the US is a Superpower. I’m not neceesarily proud of that fact, just making a true statement. It’s a fact of history. Why do you think Iran doesn’t just go in and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Could it be they are not yet willing to be turned into a parking lot?
And I don’t see any German or other troops in military bases in the US. But I see them all over the world.
Now, I also said that we were slowly losing that position in the world because of our failure to take the moral high road on issues like abortion. Perhaps you sense this too and can’t wait for America to fail?
You would be wise Ingrid, to be more thankful. I understand that Europe, France in particular, are becoming more and more Muslim. How do you think you would look in a face scarf?
“Now, I also said that we were slowly losing that position in the world because of our failure to take the moral high road on issues like abortion”
or perhaps its because we deem it necessary to get involved in most other countries? Then again it could be the people who are trying to repress religions aside from christianity? Or maybe its because we dont do as much to help 3rd world countries as much as we could?
but hey, who knows, maybe its an issue of morality, or maybe its just politics.
and Bethany, thank you.
as for possible accusations that Im not patriotic or the like, hold them in. I have immense pride in my country, I may not agree with what the politicians choose as its course, but I feel I am very patriotic. Multiple family members served for the country as well, and I think part of my patriotism originated from that.
Just because I do not agree with how the government may be guiding the country, I will still feel for my country greatly.
“And I don’t see any German or other troops in military bases in the US. But I see them all over the world.”
The US is a nosy place who doesn’t know how to take keep to itself. It just has to be involved in everything because it’s so great. *rolls eyes* America is going down the toilet because of this mentality.
The US is a big bully who’s going to get it handed to them soon.
Danielle,
Please look at history before you show your ignorance: We’re in Germany and Japan because last time I checked we won World War II at a great cost in human lives and being in these countries were the Terms of Surrender. I mean Hitler was killing Jews in his crematoriums and the Japaneses thought some little wimp in a suit was god.
We’re in Iraq because Saddam Hussein wanted to foment war in the region, thinking he would come out top dog. Visions of grandeur based on Babylon returning as the great kingdom or something like that. Well, we all know where he is now.
We’re in Afghanistan because on September 11, 2001, we were attacked by Al Queda lead by Osama bin Laden, to bring down this country by attacking our Governement (The Capital and Pentagon) and our financial institutions (World Trade Center). This was planned by Osama and boys for years during the Clinton era when Bill was more interested in getting balled than being the moral leader of the Free World. And my God, we’re actually thinking of electing his wife as President.
And now we face this modern day Napoleanic, size- challenged, terrorist in Amedinejad, the leader of Iran. What should we do about him, Danielle? He would nuke us in a heart beat if he could and that with you sitting at your local Starbucks with flitters of “gag me with a spoon” playing in your vacuous head. Now here’s a guy who believes he can bring the 12th Imam, the Islam version of teh messiah, back who Amedinejad believes has been hiding out in a well since the 8th century, by fomenting world chaos. Guess we should just invite him to a Hollywood get together, huh? Don’t you think he was just testing the waters when the little maniac recently took 12 sailors hostage and then decided to release them. This guy needs to be eliminated and the faster the better.
No, Danielle, it’s not because we’re nosy, it’s because we were given a great mandate by God to be world leaders, moral leaders, and that by spreading the Gospel around the world. Since that seems to be less of a priority nowadays and with debauchery, abortion, and homosexuality on the rise, yes, I have to agree with your statement that we will be getting it handed to us soon, but not for being nosy. I assuem your not American since you seem so joyful at the prospect of America going down. Who will protect you Danielle, what country do you live in, please don’t tell me France or Germany, please?
Posted by: Rae at April 5, 2007 03:18 PM
“You do realize there are other animals besides humans (because as I’m sure you like to ignore the fact humans ARE animals) that perform in homosexual activities.”
Posted by: Danielle at April 5, 2007 03:30 PM
“So what makes animals “choose” to be gay? Hmm?”
Okay- this argument has always confused me especially from pro-choice.
yes, animals do have homosexual activities, but I don’t think animals care about their personal autonomy. I also don’t think there is another species on the planet that willfully and knowingly terminates its pregnancy.
I’ve just always found that odd.
I live in New York actually. But I’m planning on moving to Germany to raise my kids. Much better education system over there.
His Man, we lost fewer men in WW2 than many other countries, the cost was far greater for the ones who entered the war earlier while we sat around trying to make up our minds.
Japanese guy in a suit a God, thats called a piece of their religious beliefs/culture. They could easily say the same about Jesus, claiming some guy who was claimed to be born from a virgin wandered around talking about heaven.
We went into Iraq after weapons of mass destruction that didnt exist. Yay for the president using unreliable intel that he was warned about in the first place.
We wont be going Iran for a bit. No one wants to get into another war right now, and our troops are far too thin, and a reinstitution of the draft would lead to people fleeing to Canada. So Iran is going to have to wait.
“No, Danielle, it’s not because we’re nosy, it’s because we were given a great mandate by God to be world leaders, moral leaders, and that by spreading the Gospel around the world.”
too bad this country isnt based on the Christian religion.
mandate by God, where have I heard that before… Hitler maybe?
we didnt even become a world leader until after World War 2, our influence is recent. The past what, 63 years? We havent had power that long.
Valerie,
I don’t understand your question? Are you asking why pro-choicers say that it’s not a choice to be gay?? Or am I missing the point?
Valerie, there are animals that have “natural” abortions. Sharks that give live birth for instance. Often the first one to develop will eat its siblings in the womb, “aborting” them.
Also HisMan,
I love how you name places that we went in an destroyed. Nagasaki and Hiroshima? You’re worried about another country going nuclear? Look around, we’re the only one’s who ever resorted to nukes and we have more than any other country.
Male bears also eat their cubs (sometimes). That’s why in the zoo, the male bears are separated from their young.
“it’s not because we’re nosy, it’s because we were given a great mandate by God to be world leaders, moral leaders, and that by spreading the Gospel around the world. Since that seems to be less of a priority nowadays and with debauchery, abortion, and homosexuality on the rise, yes, I have to agree with your statement that we will be getting it handed to us soon, but not for being nosy.”
And you say that your nothing like the Phelps. Ha!
Lions slaughter there young when they take over a pride as well.
Danielle –
No, or maybe yes, I dont’ know really.
Its just that we compare ourselves to animals when we talk about homosexuality (which for the record, I have many homosexual friends), but we don’t compare ourselves to animals when it comes to abortion, feminism, etc. It just sounds like you are saying that homosexuals are animals but everyone else isn’t since no other human behavior is consistantly compared to animals.
See, you say that homosexuality is natural. Then you say personal autonomy is natural. But carrying a child may not be natural depending on if you want it. Now, I don’t know of any other animal that cares about the personal autonomy thing. Nor do I know any other animal that would consider pregnancy to be more parasitic than natural. But homosexuality is considered natural because animals do it.
Its confuses me.
Valerie, it is typically because one of the main arguments used against homosexuality is that it is “unnatural”, so homosexual animals are used to refute it. No one really argues anything else as unnatural, simply because we so many things that are unnatural that it makes no sense to argue from that point of view.
Dan – A natural abortion is called a miscarriage and that is natural.
As for sharks, that would be sibling rivalry.
And lions slaughtering their young is not, by any means, a knowing and willful abortion.
Here’s some more animals killing their young:
Cats, dogs, whales, rodents, insects and fish the commit infanticide for the following reasons: to gain food; to gain increased access to physical resources like food, nesting sites or space; to avoid caring for unrelated offspring; to bias the sex ratio of the litter. Adult males may kill a female’s young to increase his chances of mating. Infanticide may also be due to aggression or to disturbances in the physical or social environment. For example when female voles, mink and other mammals are in a state of psychological stress, they may eat their young.
Rats and mice: When populations of mice and rats rise rapidly, the hungry and stressed survivors may kill and eat young.
The caterpillars of Monarch and Queen butterflies often eat the eggs of the species.
Adult bottle-nosed dolphins kill the young of their own species.
Baboons also kill their young and occasionally even eat them. Dominant male gorillas and chimpanzees may kill the young of their species.
Valerie, it totally boggles my mind too…I mean, animals eat their young sometimes. Animals sometims eat their vomit or feces. Animals do all kinds of strange things that I would never consider “natural” for a human to do. Very perplexing.
Danielle’s above post kind of proves my point.
Oops, I meant to say “your” point, Valerie. lol
valerie, the shark eats its siblings in the womb, before they have even developed.
Dan –
EVERYONE who is pro-Life says that aboriton is unnatural!
Are you listening to yourself. ONLY homosexuality is considered animalistic but nothing else considered unnatural is? what?
“because we so many things that are unnatural that it makes no sense to argue from that point of view.”
Bethany, it has become unnatural to us now because we have adapted and evolved. We have found other ways to allow society to thrive, but that doesnt mean humans dont still have primal instincts. Some we can often repress/control, but there are others that are impossible, such as the drive for food, water and shelter.
If you argued abortion unnatural, youd have to argue EVERY surgical procedure unnatural, painkillers unnatural, medication unnatural, etc, the list goes on and on.
Dan –
If they haven’t developed then how can they “eat” each other?
Danielle – Being a Veterinary Technician and having studied much of ethology I know what animals do to their already born children. But what about the unborn?
They dont develop at the same rate, one develops first and eats the rest before they get a chance to completely develop.
Dan –
“Bethany, it has become unnatural to us now because we have adapted and evolved. We have found other ways to allow society to thrive, but that doesnt mean humans dont still have primal instincts. Some we can often repress/control, but there are others that are impossible, such as the drive for food, water and shelter. ”
So, hererosexuals have evolved but homosexuals haven’t, or is sex a part of the ‘impossible’ to control/repress even though there are many people who take vows of celibacy and don’t break that vow.
sexual attraction cannot be repressed. You may be able to stop yourself from sexual acts, but it is incredibly difficult and few are able to do so completely. Many people abstain for life, but may still masturbate, that is one example of sexual repression making itself known.
Dan –
Re: Sharks – That is not the mother knowingly and willfully terminating the pregnancy.
Re: arguing abortion unnatural and all other surgical procedures unnatural too – abortion is unnatural because it violates the natural instinct of the mother protecting their young.
And I never said either side evolved, I said people as a whole have moved forward and have developed what we know today as society, and it has gotten increasingly complex. Sexual urges are based out of primal instinct, and what triggers those urges in a person cannot be changed.
re sharks: the mother knows it is only ging to give birth to one pup because of this, two if shes lucky
re abortion: once again, that doesnt work. there are plenty examples where animals leave young to fend for themselves. Children used to be abandoned if they were too weak/small. Sadly they sometimes still are. The mother has no maternal instinct until birth, at which point the tie is created.
Dan – How does the mother shark knowing its going to give birth to one or maybe two pups have anything to do with abortion?
as for the instinct not being there until after the baby is born. Have you ever seen a pregnant cat defending its territory? How about elephants that will go to any lengths to protect the pregnant female? Dogs become more aggressive when pregnant. I don’t even want to discuss a pregnant wolf! Especially the alpha female!
The young that is eaten and abandoned is called survival of the fittest (I know you know that, just a warm up here) and we still have that today in humans. Now in the industrialized nations that is almost gone because of medicine, the sick do not drain the pack. But the pack does protect a healthy mother and the healthy babies. And humans by definition are pack animals, not sharks. Which is why I gave only mammals as examples, because, as you know, we are mammals.
Dan –
I like the conversation we are having, and I don’t want to leave, but it is after midnight here and I have to go to bed.
Hopefully we can continue tomorrow? ;-)
You are very good at debate.
Yes, and all this killing, human and otherwise, is evidence that we live in a fallen world that God will remake someday. Not evidence that homosexuality or abortion is right. To base human morality on what animals do and don’t do is the ultimate insult to God who made us to have dominion over all His creation. To think we have sunk this low is unconscionable.
Sin not only ruined it for us but for the natural world as well. This was never God’s intent.
And the new heaven and earth won’t include non-repentant baby killers.
“And the new heaven and earth won’t include non-repentant baby killers.”
Dude, God killed His *OWN* son. He was a murder too.
:-P
Dont forget, God gave Mary the CHOICE whether or not to give birth to Jesus, lol
Danielle,
Your heinous and vile comments are not worth a response.
okay – I have no problems with debating any issue. But making fun of my/our religion is enough.
What was just said is insulting and hurtful.
God did not murder his son. Everyone on the planet that was involved still had free will.
Mary was given the CHOICE if she wanted to CONCIEVE the child. And she told God she would. She deserves a little more respect considering the sacrafices she made to do that! She watched her own son be tortured, whiped, and nailed to a cross. She did that for us. It doesn’t matter if you believe or not, what matters is that there are alot of us that do.
I have always tried to be respectful of your belief’s. Please stop trashing mine.
Dan,
Good thing you weren’t one of those lost in WWII. I suppose to you, then and only then would your sacrifice have counted.
Yes and Roosevelt was smart enough to know that there was a right time to enter the war, like right after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. I mean look at what happened in Vietnam and now Iraq. Our throw away society has no stomach to stand up for as long as it takes to battle evil. Funny boy, you man enough to go risk your life and put on a uniform?
And please don’t compare Jesus to the Japanese Emporer. He’s still in the grave. My Lord was raised, big difference.
There were WMDs in Iraq. They were moved to Syria. You need to stop listening to the liberal media as well and read some books published by Saddam’s generals.
The mandate from God to preach the Gospel out of this country is evidenced by the fact that it happened. More missionaries and Bibles have been sent from this country to the whole world that any other coountry in history. That was God’s plan.
Now to compare that with satan’s plan to destroy God’s chosen people the Jews is totally ignorant and devoid of any reasoning capability or understanding. You should be ashamed for even thinking about such blasphemy.
“Good thing you weren’t one of those lost in WWII. I suppose to you, then and only then would your sacrifice have counted.”
Now that just ticks me off to no end. My Great Uncle is a Pearl Harbor surviver.My Grandfather was in the air force, my mom was in the navy. Dont judge me because I brought up fact. America was lucky in the war, that deosnt mean I dont appreciate the sacrifice that we made, it is simply fact that others sacrificed far more lives and loved ones than Americans did.
Once again, religious beliefs/culture. Everyone has different ones, its how the world works.
“There were WMDs in Iraq. They were moved to Syria.”
key word is were, the movement had been suspected before we went into Iraq. I shouldnt have said non existent, I should have said weapons that wernt there. My bad.
“Our throw away society has no stomach to stand up for as long as it takes to battle evil.”
I would blame that simply on better media coverage. If WW2 had the same coverage we have today, who knows what would have happened.
“Funny boy, you man enough to go risk your life and put on a uniform?”
I plan on going into the USAF ROTC in college, or at least hope to. Once again, dont assume.
“The mandate from God to preach the Gospel out of this country is evidenced by the fact that it happened. More missionaries and Bibles have been sent from this country to the whole world that any other coountry in history. ”
Do you have evidence of that? Im honestly curious, I would think Spain may beat us out.
His Man, I was remarking on the fact that the Mandate of God is far over used. Hitler used it. The Chinese used a version of it to determine rulers, Japan has had instances of it in history, the Crusades were “God Mandated”. Far more bad than good has been done under God’s Mandate
Oh and His Man, the only real reason we didnt go to war earlier is that the country as a whole still had isolationist sentiment. There was originally opposition to helping Britain in the war effort out of fear of being dragged in. The country was against the war until we were attacked at home. Only then was the country willing to go to war.
Valerie,
Puh-lease. You think it isn’t hurtful to have HisMan calling me a baby killer for my beliefs? Or having people tell me that my boyfriend is only with me for sex? Give me a break.
I don’t attack until I’ve been attacked. I’m allowed to have my opinions about your religion and I see a load of hypocrisy there.
God sent his own son to his death, but he’s a hero.
Easter/Christmas are original Christian holidays? Ha, then why was Jesus born in June, be “we” celebrate in December? Because Christianity wanted to wipe out the large pagan holiday at that time.
Christians are all loving and against killing. Yes, shall we look at how many wars took place in the name of Christianity? Holy Wars? the exterminating of Native Americans in the name of God? Crusades? Give me a break.
Ooo, or my favorite thing I’ve been hearing a lot on this blog: “I have a lot of friends who are homosexual, but I’m against homosexuality.” Newsflash, that’s not being a friend.
Some freaky stuff happens in the name of God.
A girl is kidnapped to become a child’s bride “and God told him this was the one.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/14/wsmart14.xml
This man “believed God told him to kill his family so he would be sent to prison, where he would save mankind.”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070328-1307-bn28brown.html
“Believing he was doing God’s will, a Texas man early yesterday picked up a rock and fatally beat a 75-year-old former Soviet dissident and prison camp survivor who had stopped by a New Jersey Turnpike service area for refreshments”
http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1174023377241770.xml&coll=1
“President Bush told two high-ranking Palestinian officials that he had been told by God to invade Afghanistan and Iraq”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/07/MNGNVF3SFM1.DTL
“The Middletown man accused of slaying his [adoptive] mother in his apartment earlier this month did so acting on a request by God.”
There’s a lot more that I can’t view without subscriptions to the online databases.
Ooo, or my favorite thing I’ve been hearing a lot on this blog: “I have a lot of friends who are homosexual, but I’m against homosexuality.” Newsflash, that’s not being a friend.
Do friends always agree with everything another friend does? Is that how friendship is?
I thought friendship was about being truthful and honest, and caring about one another? Does caring always mean agreeing on everything? How can I be friends with someone if I am lying to them?
I can’t tell someone “I think it’s ok that you do that”, if I don’t. I can be against what they do and still care about them as a person.
Using your own logic about what friendship is, how can you possibly say that you have pro-life friends? You disagree with them. How can you have friends who are religious? You believe they are wrong in what they do, and how they choose to live.
If “disagree with” equals “hate”….then I would say that by your own logic you cannot really have friends who are pro-life or religious, even though you claim you do.
“I don’t attack until I’ve been attacked. I’m allowed to have my opinions about your religion and I see a load of hypocrisy there.”
When did I attack you? When HisMan says stuff about one pro-choice person, everyone gets in because it affects them too. That is what I did. You trashed my religion, and continue to do so just because HisMan made you angry. Again, I ask, What did I do to you to deserve this?
I, Valerie, Have NEVER called you a baby killer, and if my memory serves I told you that your boyfriend was “a keeper” because of how he has stood by you during difficult times.
Why does it matter so much as to what days the holiday’s fall on. Alot of converts were Pagan. Gee, could this be why the Christian holidays are on the same days as the Pagans? Christians even celebrate Halloween! Gonna complain about that?
I have never denied that Christianity has a bloody past. Very bad mistakes were made. And Christians weren’t the only ones who made them either. To blame ALL of us on that is rediculous. Not every single Christian on the face of this planet was invovled in the crusades. As a matter of fact, their were alot of Christians who were against it and DIED because they stood up to what was right. But I guess you don’t want to hear about that do you?
Newsflash! I can disagree with someone’s lifestyle and still be a friend. See, there is something in Christianity that is called love and forgiveness. And that is what we do when we have a homosexual friend. I have a heterosexual friend that sleeps with different men almost every month, am I not her friend because I disagree with her on that? She knows how I feel. AND, by the way, I was the ONLY person who stood by her when she was diagnosed with cervical cancer because of HPV. I even took her to the doctors and held her hand while they were freezing her uterus! I guess I’m not a good friend though huh? I also help get therapy dogs-in-training to the local jails so inmates can help to train them. I do this because studies have shown that inmates that do this have a better chance at an early parole because of good behavior. Its good for the inmates and good for the dogs. Wow, I’m must be a horrible person for helping all these people and still disagree with their lifesyle.
See, another thing Christians have is the belief that you can love the sinner but not the sin. And since we are all sinner’s then we are all loved. But I guess you don’t want to hear about that either.
When you are ready to hear the truth (the bad and the good) and not just nitpick everything in order to find faults, let me know. I will be willing to discuss this with you.
However, classifying all Christians as insane because of a select few have lost their sanity is a bit insulting.
Soory, gals, most of my comments are directed at HisMan when relating to Christianity. HisMan hasn’t been as nice as you and he tends to push my buttons until I speak exactly what’s on my mind.
Valerie and Bethany,
Many of my gay friends (or people I’ve met through Pride meetings and GSA) would not consider you true friends. They hate the people who act like friends, but then go around saying how homosexuality is a sin and gays will go to hell. That doesn’t sound very friend like to me.
I also wonder, with young children in the house, would you be okay with allowing your gay friends to bring their significant others over to the house. How would you react if they acted like any hetero couple, maybe holding hands or something like that.
I’ve heard once to often so called friends of gay people saying that they can’t bring their partner because that’s unacceptable.
“Using your own logic about what friendship is, how can you possibly say that you have pro-life friends?”
I don’t have any profile friends considering the groups that I’m in i.e. Voice of PP, Pride Alliance, FaceAIDS. Not many pro-lifers to meet there.
“How can you have friends who are religious?”
I have friends who are religious, but I believe it’s there choice to be religious and don’t have an issue with it. If they tried telling me that I was wrong for not going to church and I was living in sin and going to hell if I don’t repent, then no, I would not be friends with them. At least not close friends, more like acquaintances.
That may sound horrible, but I don’t think I could stand having someone preaching against the way that I live my life.
Most of my religious friends are more spiritual though and don’t go to church or they practice vampyrism, wicca, zen, Buddhism, ect. Off beat religions.
“you cannot really have friends who are pro-life or religious, even though you claim you do.”
I’ve never claimed to have pro-life friends. I have none. If you still think I have, show me where, please.
“but then go around saying how homosexuality is a sin and gays will go to hell. ”
I have never said this. And I never would. I have always said (and I even put it on here before, by the way) That there are judgeable sins and unjudgable sins. A judgeable sin would be the kind you go to jail for, murder, theft, fraud… A unjudgeable sin are the ones like white lies, etc.
I do not believe that homosexuals are in the judgeable sin area. They do not hurt society. They do not injure anyone. They are assets to the community. Now some say they hurt society, but I have never seen any proof of this.
I would, and have, allowed my friends partners in the house. My children have met them. I don’t see any problems. My children are going to be raised like me.
oh – BTW – my beliefs on judgeable, non judgeable and homosexuals was developed during a conversation with a priest. He agreed with my assesment. We cannot throw the first stone because then somone would throw a stone at us.
Once again, Danielle, not ALL Christians tell homosexuals that they are sinners and going to hell. You don’t want us to judge your friends, you… so please stop judging me and my friends.
On a side note – In college, I was what my gay college friends called a “f*g hag” (don’t want to offend anyone). I didn’t have any straight male friends. You want to know what ticked me off the most? The guys in drag could wear high heeled shoes better than me!
oh – I also forgot –
In the judgable/unjudgable sins. It is up to God if anything is an unjudgeable sin. It is not up to me.
Murder/theft etc can be judge (jail) but it is still not up to us to say if it is a sin or not. Only God knows the heart of the person.
BTW – I was taught that in my Catholic education.
I’ve never claimed to have pro-life friends. I have none. If you still think I have, show me where, please.
If you don’t any friends on the entire earth who you disagree with in some way, you would have to be a very, very lonely person.
Some of my best friends I disagree with, but I do not judge or condemn them for their actions. that I see as wrong, knowing that I myself am a sinner, and I also have sins that they could look at and find disagreeable. (of course, there are limits to the sins I’ll allow inside my home- I would not allow someone to come in with their shoplifted goods, and I would not allow someone to come into my home cussing with my children present- what kind of an example would I be setting for my children if I did allow that in my home? Not a good one.). I know that the action is sin but I do not believe that I, a sinner, has the right to judge them or throw stones and say well I can’t be friends with you anymore because of this or that. Of course this doesn’t mean I have to allow it into my home. That’s different.
If you take your disagreements to the level that you’ll discontinue friendships based on whata person believes, then you Danielle ,are the judgemental, self-righteous one, not the other way around.
Many of my gay friends (or people I’ve met through Pride meetings and GSA) would not consider you true friends. They hate the people who act like friends, but then go around saying how homosexuality is a sin and gays will go to hell. That doesn’t sound very friend like to me.
They don’t sound like very good friends, if they require that you agree with them about everything in order to be friends with them.
I don’t require that people agree with everything I do in order to be my friend.
If I had a friend who happened to be a stripper, I would never ever decide that stripping was a good thing, just because my friend was a stripper. I would still say to myself, and anyone who asked, that selling your body is demeaning to yourself and it hurts you, and is wrong. (That’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it).
I do not believe for a second that it would invalidate my friendship with my friend. I don’t have to agree with her actions in order to be her friend.
Jesus Himself was friends with Sinners. He did not condone their actions, but he was friends with them.
And I never said gays go to hell, get your facts straight.
I have friends who are religious, but I believe it’s there choice to be religious and don’t have an issue with it. If they tried telling me that I was wrong for not going to church and I was living in sin and going to hell if I don’t repent, then no, I would not be friends with them. At least not close friends, more like acquaintances.
That may sound horrible, but I don’t think I could stand having someone preaching against the way that I live my life.
I dont think I could stand someone telling me I had to accept their lifestyle and condone it in order to be friends with them.
That is kind of like preaching to me.
You’re preaching at me right now, Danielle. Preaching at me that I am not as tolerant as you and therefore I am not as good as you. You’re more of a preacher to me than I’ll ever be to a homosexual.
I, as well as Danielle, have no pro-life friends. That’s more of a side affect of the fact that they usually strongly disagree with the way I live my life and my religious beliefs, and I dislike hanging around someone who disagrees with the very foundatins of my living. I simply would not hang around someone who thought the way I lived would earn me an eternal place in Hell.
It isn’t as though I go around asking all my friends if they’re pro life, and if they are, I suddenly cross them off the friends list. Heck, I’d prefer to have some pro-life friends: then I’d have someone in real life to argue with! That’s one of my favorite aspects of my relationship with my fiance: we can debate about religion until the sun comes up and still be snuggly in the morning. To be honest, the one pro-life person I know in real life refuses to speak to me. I’ve had a boyfriend look me in the eye and tell me to have a nice life before leaving for good, all because he found out I was pro-choice. I recently had a friend since 6th grade stop speaking to me because of my religious and political beliefs.
Point being, it often isn’t us who sever the ties with pro-lifers. I can’t speak for Danielle, but in my case, it’s usually the other way around. For that reason I don’t have pro-life friends.
Odd – I have many Pro-Choice friends. One of my closest friends who I have known for 19 years supports planned parenthood and the National Abortion Federation.
I’ve never stopped, or had a friendship stop, because of different religious and policals views. One of my friends hates, and I mean hates, the Catholic faith. We just don’t talk religion. And if it comes up, we don’t say anything out of respect.
I, as well as Danielle, have no pro-life friends. That’s more of a side affect of the fact that they usually strongly disagree with the way I live my life and my religious beliefs, and I dislike hanging around someone who disagrees with the very foundatins of my living.
Just like you, even though I will be friends with people who do things like support abortion and who engage in homosexual acts….it is very difficult to hang around them, when the disagree with the very foundations of our living.
Now I don’t mind being friends with them (the dictionary defines “friend” as “a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard”), but if they try to force their life’s choices on me, and tell me that if I don’t agree with what they do that I’m a cold, uncaring person, then we have a problem.
The problem is not that they are doing something that I disagree with, but because they are trying to force their ideas on me and make me feel it’s ok.
I may not hang around them anymore, but that doesn’t mean that I have stopped caring about them, or no longer consider them friends.
I never stop caring about them. I care about everyone. I simply disagree with their stance and don’t feel that I should be forced to agree with what they do.
There’s nothing wrong with me feeling (and stating) that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong. That’s what I believe. That’s what I believe based on what the Bible says. That’s my right to believe it, just as it is your right to believe abortion is acceptable.
For me, I find it much easier to hang around people who are pro-choice as long as we NEVER go there in debate. I avoid it at all costs with most people I consider friends. I dislike confrontation immensely. It’s easier to debate with someone that I have no emotional ties with.
Once they start telling me that I am an evil misogynist simply because I don’t want babies killed, I just don’t want to hang around them anymore.
Just like you don’t like to be told you’re going to Hell for your beliefs, I don’t like being told I’m a cold misogynist, a heartless person who only cares about a fetus (which is untrue anyway), and that I don’t support or care about women at all. It’s simply not true.
I hope all of that made sense…I was kind of rambling. :)
Less, 10:34a, said: “… the way I live my life and my religious beliefs, and I dislike hanging around someone who disagrees with the very foundatins of my living. I simply would not hang around someone who thought the way I lived…
It’s great that you get that choice, Less… to live, I mean.
It is the pinnacle of irony that you become your huffiest when defending your first right – to life and living it as you please – by becoming equally as huffy to proclaim that to do so you would deny others their first right – to life and living it as they please.
It’s worth noting that most professional ethical philosophers agree with the Washington court.
To wit:
(1) The fetus has no particular rights in and of itself, particularly not if it is violating someone else’s desire for bodily autonomy.
(2) If the mother willfully consents to bringing the fetus to term, then that desire extends certain rights to the fetus which it wouldn’t otherwise have, including a right to life.
If you want me to explain the general reasoning behind either point, I can; but my point is just that the people who think most about ethics from a rational perspective do not think of this as an irrational position. So, why do you?
Chris, do you really want to go there? Ok.
Pro-abort dissent with Roe v. Wade:
“In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people….
“Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun?s famously artless opinion itself. As a result, the pro-choice majority asks nominees to swear allegiance to the decision without being able to identify an intelligible principle to support it.”
Jeffrey Rosen ? Legal Affairs Editor, The New Republic, “Worst Choice,” The New Republic February 24, 2003 (https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20030224&s=rosen022403)
For Chris, pro-abort dissent with Roe v. Wade:
“Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore ‘represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes…. Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)…. [C]lear governing constitutional principles – are not present in either case.'”
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford) 2001, p. 194 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195148274)
For Chris, pro-abort dissent with Roe v. Wade:
“In the Court?s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.”
Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago and Democratic adviser on judicial nominations, “The Supreme Court 1995 Term: FOREWORD: LEAVING THINGS UNDECIDED,” 110 Harvard Law Review 6, 20 (1996).
“What I think is that it just doesn?t have the stable status of Brown or Miranda because it?s been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning…. As a constitutional matter, I think Roe was way overreached. I wouldn?t vote to overturn it myself, but that?s because I think it?s good to preserve precedent in general, and the country has sufficiently relied on it that it should not be overruled.”
Cass Sunstein, quoted in: Brian McGuire, “Roe v. Wade an Issue Ahead of Alito Hearing,” New York Sun November 15, 2005 (http://www.nysun.com/article/23046)
I have many pro-life friends, homosexual friends (I don’t find homosexuality to be a problem), conservative friends, etc.
Yeah, sometimes it gets annoying when the issue comes up. I’ve learned the hard way. So I just decide not to get into it. I like discussing philosophy. When it comes to politics I like to keep it at a discussion level. Debates with people of the opposite stance sometimes breeds insolence or makes people become irritated. So long as that doesn’t happen, we are cool.
I think it is entirely possible to become friends with people who think differently than you, or hold lifestyles you don’t agree with.
For Chris, pro-abort dissent with Roe v. Wade:
“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court…. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, North Carolina Law Review, 1985
Also, philosophy is constantly changing. It depends on the person as to what the outcome of a ‘theory’ is.
Philosophy – Noun, 1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology
Jill: My living isn’t violating another’s bodily autonomy, so yes, I do get that choice.
Bethany: While I disagree with your conclusions, you’re correct: it’s your right to think homosexuality wrong based on your religion. I can see why it would be difficult hanging around people who disagree with your beliefs. I think we are arguing the same thing from two differing positions, if that makes sense? I dislike judging people, so while I disagree with you and lots of what you say, I wouldn’t call you heartless or anything along those lines.
Valerie: I think that the difference between us is that I actively enjoy arguments and debates, so I would love to be able to do that with my friends. Unfortunately, most of my friends think the same way as I do, with the exception of my fianc
Less – I love to debate. My friend of 19 years that I mentioned before loves to debate too. You should see us get into it. But we still love each other when it is all done.
It is the person who hates my religion that I don’t debate with.
BTW – One of my sisters is Pro-Choice. My other sister and I like to gain up on her. It’s fun!
Less, 12:52p, said: “Jill: My living isn’t violating another’s bodily autonomy….”
Excuse me?
Valerie: Haha, that does sound like fun. My fiance and I are like that too: we debate forever and then talk about mushy couples stuff. It’s amazing! One morning he called to wake me up with a religious debate: best morning of my life. I can understand not debating with some people, though. Occasionally, people get really personal and then it’s just not fun anymore. I can imagine debating with someone who is deeply bitter about something you feel strongly about wouldn’t be anything but depressing.
Jill: I am alive, but as I am no longer a fetus, I am not dependent upon another for nutrients, shelter, etc. Thus, I am not violating another’s bodily autonomy.
Less, 1:04p, said: “I am not dependent upon another for nutrients, shelter, etc. Thus, I am not violating another’s bodily autonomy.”
Say a mom just had a baby and could only breastfeed. No formula available. No other women available to take over the job. But the mom doesn’t want to breastfeed. No reason, just doesn’t want to. Is she guilty of murder by neglect when the baby dies?
For Chris, pro-abort dissent with Roe v. Wade:
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”
Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School and lawyer for Al Gore in 2000, “The Supreme Court, 1972 Term
For Chris, pro-abort dissent with Roe v. Wade:
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe?s author like a grandfather.” …
“What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent – at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.”
Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Harry Blackmun, “The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell?s Nomination Only Underlined Them,” FindLaw Legal Commentary, Oct. 3, 2002 (http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html)
“[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes ? if you administer truth serum ? will tell you it is basically indefensible.”
Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Harry Blackmun, “Liberals, Don?t Make Her an Icon,” Washington Post July 10, 2003. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/08/AR2005070802261_pf.html)
For Chris, pro-abort dissent with Roe v. Wade:
“Blackmun
Say a mom just had a baby and could only breastfeed. No formula available. No other women available to take over the job. But the mom doesn’t want to breastfeed. No reason, just doesn’t want to. Is she guilty of murder by neglect when the baby dies?
OH but Jill, obviously you should know that little post-term human organism does not deserve to live in that situation, because it invades that poor woman’s right to autonomy, and obviously that makes it non-viable organism, and changes the actual structure of what might have been considered a baby (if it was wanted), into a parasitic creature which would have no human rights whatsoever. Don’t you know better?
Do you really support putting the rights of a parasitic post term human organism over the rights of it’s mother?
Shame on you for even suggesting such a thing.
Thanks for that site, Jill….awesome reference material!
OH but Jill, obviously you should know that little post-term human organism does not deserve to live in that situation, because it invades that poor woman’s right to autonomy, and obviously that makes it non-viable organism, and changes the actual structure of what might have been considered a baby (if it was wanted), into a parasitic creature which would have no human rights whatsoever. Don’t you know better?
Do you really support putting the rights of a parasitic post term human organism over the rights of it’s mother?
Shame on you for even suggesting such a thing.
You know, I figure this will easily be detected as sarcasm, but what scares me is that pro-abortion advocates probably agree completely with what I just said.
Jill, can you honestly give me an occasion where something like that would happen? That’s a ridiculous situation and you know that. The woman would be guilty of neglect, as she had other options which would NOT involve the newborn dying (adoption, formula, a wetnurse, pumping…). When a woman is pregnant and does not want the fetus violating her body autonomy, she doesn’t have another option.
Also, Jill, women don’t have abortions for no reason. It isn’t as though they “just don’t want” to carry the pregnancy to term. Economic factors are usually a huge part of the choice, perhaps educational factors as well. It isn’t a decision made lightly.
The woman would be guilty of neglect, as she had other options which would NOT involve the newborn dying (adoption, formula, a wetnurse, pumping…).
Um, no in her hypothetical situation she did not include the ability to give the baby formula.
“No formula available. No other women available to take over the job. But the mom doesn’t want to breastfeed. No reason, just doesn’t want to”
It isn’t as though they “just don’t want” to carry the pregnancy to term.
Many do it for that reason, Less. It’s silly to pretend otherwise…if it weren’t the case, why are there women having 5-9 abortions and up?
Bethany, would you mind proving that? The majority of women cite economic reasons for their abortion: in fact, that majority have at least one child.
I stand by the fact that the situation Jill provided is absolutely ridiculous. Under no circumstances would that happen. If you want a ridiculous solution to that ridiclous problem, I’ll give you one, but I have more respect for both of you than that.
The woman would be guilty of neglect, as she had other options which would NOT involve the newborn dying (adoption, formula, a wetnurse, pumping…).
So the ONLY reason the baby has rights is because the mother has other options? If the woman did not have other options, would the the baby would not have rights as a human being? Would it alter the baby somehow into a non-person?
Repeat pregnancy termination procedures are common in Canada (where 35.5% of all induced abortions are repeat procedures)1,2 and the United States (where 48% of induced abortions are repeat procedures).3,4,5,6,7 Rates of repeat induced abortion increased in both countries for an initial period after abortion was legalized, as a result of an increase in the number of women who had access to a first, and consequently to repeat, legal induced abortion.1,6,8,9 At present, rates of initial and repeat abortion in Canada and the United States appear to be stabilizing.2,7
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/5/637#R1-25
Oh Bethany, I don’t deny that there are repeat procedures. I was talking more about the fact that they do it “for no reason.” I highly doubt that, and would like you to prove it.
I stand by the fact that the situation Jill provided is absolutely ridiculous. Under no circumstances would that happen. If you want a ridiculous solution to that ridiclous problem, I’ll give you one, but I have more respect for both of you than that.
I dont think it’s ridiculous at all, Less. Not any more ridiculous than you pro-abortion advocates saying that that a baby in the womb can literally change from person to non-person simply by a woman’s decision.
Oh Bethany, I don’t deny that there are repeat procedures. I was talking more about the fact that they do it “for no reason.” I highly doubt that, and would like you to prove it.
By “no reason”, I obviously meant “no good reason”. There’s no good reason to kill a baby. Sorry.
Did I ever say that, Bethany? For me, viability changes that. And it’s ridiculous because it simply DOES NOT happen. Under no circumstances would a woman with a newborn be left with no options other than to neglect her child. Adoption, safe havens, and food stamps are all solutions to the problem that don’t involve the woman breastfeeding and doesn’t involve the infant dying.
Actually, no ! I just looked at what I wrote…you put words in my mouth. I did not say they do it for no reason.
You wrote:
“It isn’t as though they “just don’t want” to carry the pregnancy to term.
I replied:
Many do it for that reason, Less. It’s silly to pretend otherwise…if it weren’t the case, why are there women having 5-9 abortions and up? ”
Bethany, for you there is no good reason. Not all of us feel that way.
Did I ever say that, Bethany? For me, viability changes that. And it’s ridiculous because it simply DOES NOT happen. Under no circumstances would a woman with a newborn be left with no options other than to neglect her child. Adoption, safe havens, and food stamps are all solutions to the problem that don’t involve the woman breastfeeding and doesn’t involve the infant dying.
No more ridiculous than your position, Less.
Tell me how viability turns an otherwise non-person into a person? Is something added?
And please tell me the exact point at which something changes to make it a baby instead of a non-viable fetus?
“Just don’t want it” is a reason, Less. And it’s not a good one. Sorry.
Less, 2:19p, said: “Jill, can you honestly give me an occasion where something like that would happen? That’s a ridiculous situation and you know that. The woman would be guilty of neglect, as she had other options which would NOT involve the newborn dying (adoption, formula, a wetnurse, pumping…). When a woman is pregnant and does not want the fetus violating her body autonomy, she doesn’t have another option.
No, Less, the point of my scenario was to say the woman had no other option, no other person to hand her baby off to. The baby in my scenario is violating her mother’s bodily autonomy according to your definition.
So just answer the question.
And my scenario is less far-fetched than advocating third trimester abortions for “health of the mother.” In that case, there is absolutely no possible medical reason.
And get real on women having abortions for no other reason than not wanting the baby.
Jill, such a situation would not happen, sorry. There will always be someone else to hand the baby off to, even if it
Jill, such a situation would not happen, sorry. There will always be someone else to hand the baby off to, even if it
No, Bethany, but a fetus does become able to live on it’s own.
Yes, it does. Anybody knows that…
…and anyone with common sense knows that the fetus does not magically turn into a person when it’s able to live outside the womb.
Ok Less, gotta question for you. As everyone knows, there was a baby recently that was delivered at 22 weeks and survived. If a woman aborts her baby at 24 weeks and the baby actually had been viable (but she was unaware of this), did she do something wrong? Did she kill a baby or a non-person?
Bethany, that was an incredibly rare occurance. I have a cousin born at 24ish weeks and he legally and medically died several times: the odds for him living were close to nothing. For that reason, I think 24-26ish weeks should be the cutoff time.
That’s a sticky situation, and one that I know not all pro-choicers agree upon. I don’t believe she did anything wrong: she didn’t know that the fetus was viable.
That’s a sticky situation,
A sticky situation. That’s your answer.
I don’t believe she did anything wrong: she didn’t know that the fetus was viable.
Ok you answered one question. Now answer the other.
SOMG
If a fully-grown person entered a woman’s body and began living off her life-support functions, she’d be entitled to kill and expel that person too.
Not if she was the one that put it there…
mk
She killed a fetus, and, I believe, a non person. As I said, though, that’s just me, and it would be incredibly arrogant for me to claim to speak for all pro-lifers.
She killed a fetus, and, I believe, a non person. As I said, though, that’s just me, and it would be incredibly arrogant for me to claim to speak for all pro-lifers.
but didn’t you just state above that viability was the point where a fetus becomes a person and only then deserves protection of the law? Your conclusions are not consistent with each other. Either it’s a person at viability or it’s not.
I never said that a fetus became a person at viability: I said that at that point, I don’t believe abortions should be preformed except in the case of medical necessity. A fetus should have full protection of the law (and thus attain personhood) at birth.
What changes from before and after birth to make it a person? If it’s already viable?
After birth, it is no longer inside the mother and is breathing on its own. I believe the first breath endows personhood. As previously stated, however, these are my personal beliefs, not the beliefs of every pro-choicer.
Less –
Jill’s senerio actually just happened this year.
A couple with their two children, a baby and a toddler were driving during a snow storm. There was a road that was too hazardous to drive on and the state blocked it off. Later, someone -no one knows who – took the blockage down and this couple drove onto to road. They got stranded and couldn’t call for help because they were out of cell phone range. After a couple days (not sure how many) the husband left the car to get help. The Mother had to breast feed both children in order to survive.
It is not an impossible senerio. I will get you the news links, but it is dinner time, so it might not be until tonight.
If that’s really what you believe, Less, then why do you personally have anything against third trimester abortions for any reason at all?
And in light of the information Valerie just posted(which I remember now but had actually not thought about until she mentioned it), can you please answer Jill’s hypothetical question now?
In the case that Valerie posted, I believe that the woman could not be faulted if the children had died. It would have been unfortunate, but I think it would have been untoward to blame her for a very natural self-interest. I think it’s remarkable that she did save her children, and think she had to have been quite clever to think of breatfeeding the children. She is to be commended for her bravery.
I believe that, at such time as the third trimester, there are other options that would be far preferable. The woman could have have a c-section and then place the baby up for adoption. By this time, pregnancy is almost over, and I simply do not see the point of abortion, again excepting medical necessity.
There names were James and Kati Kim.
http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2006/1207/local/stories/8misfam.htm
Kati Kim told searchers they got stuck in snow once, managed to get turned around, then decided to stay put because they were low on gas. With almost no food or water, the family waited a week, running the car to keep warm at night, then burning the tires. When the small supply of baby food ran out, Kati Kim nursed her daughters.
I believe that, at such time as the third trimester, there are other options that would be far preferable. The woman could have have a c-section and then place the baby up for adoption. By this time, pregnancy is almost over, and I simply do not see the point of abortion, again excepting medical necessity.
I’m sorry, Less. I still don’t understand your position. You say you don’t think abortion should be an option at the third trimester, yet you say that there is no “person” until the baby takes its’ first breath. If there is no person, there is no murder, and there is (apparently) no crime. So what are you opposed to?
Besides, this still contradicts with your earlier position that a baby who is ABLE to live outside the womb is a person.
You said it would not be murder to kill a viable fetus as long as it is in the womb.
Your position is very, very unclear to me.
Bethany:
I believe that abortion is a viable option until the third trimester. I believe that at that point, the mother could have a c-section and give the baby up for adoption.
So long as the fetus is within the womb, it is not a person. It is a fetus. A fetus who is able to live outside a womb is viable, and as viable fetii would be able to breathe and live and be a person if removed, third trimester abortions, excepting medical necessity, is reprehensable. Fortunately, such circumstances rarely happen: almost never, as far as I’m aware.
Oh good grief, Less.
Ok here:
1.) So the woman should be forced to have a c-section and “turn the fetus into a baby” so that she can place the fetus (who hasn’t yet become a baby) into an adoption home?
2.) If she doesn’t do that, and she decides to abort, no harm done because it actually wasn’t a baby anyway?
3.) When in doubt, kill the baby who we do not know for sure is viable, instead of erring on the side of life?
Bethany, put very simply, I agree with the American Medical Association:
“The AMA recommended that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. According to the recommendation, except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors that demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery.”
Less, you may find me annoying because I’m not giving up on this, but please understand it from my perspective. You’re confusing! lol So please understand that it’s your own contradictions that keep bringing on the questions.
Question #1: Why save a fetus, in your words? If you don’t believe a fetus is a person, why worry about saving it, no matter what stage it is at?
Question #2: Why go to all that trouble to save a “near certain” viable pregnancy, if you don’t even believe a viable fetus has been wrongfully treated if it is aborted(as you stated above)?
Question #3:
If it’s about bodily autonomy, what if a woman who has the maternal health factor, doesn’t want to have a C-section and give her baby up for adoption? What if she says she’d rather abort? Do you then think it’s ok for her to abort in the third trimester, regardless of the viability of the fetus?
Question #4: Do you really think a viable fetus is a person?
And please really, really answer the questions.
Question #4 you may feel is already answered, but really, it’s not. You obviously feel that a viable fetus, even inside the womb, is entitled to some protection, for some reason. Why do you protect it, if it is not a person, is what I’d like to know.
No worries, Bethany! I’m spending the weekend with my parents, and they’ve curled up for a nap! I’m afraid I really don’t have much else to do.
Question One: I believe that as the pregnancy progresses and the fetus grows closer to viability, the closer it would be to rights. When viability is reached, rights would be attained with birth. Why not simply help it along? The woman would no longer be pregnant (no more violation of her bodily autonomy) and the fetus would have attained personhood. Everyone’s happy.
Question 2: I don’t quite understand how a c-section is really much more trouble than an abortion. I don’t believe a fetus has been wrongfully treated if aborted, but I believe that one should take the action that would cause the least harm to all involved. That would be a c-section.
Question 3: I really can’t think of a situation where that would happen? A c-section and an abortion in this case would have the same result for the woman: she would no longer be pregnant. All steps should be taken to avoid abortion past viability.
Question 4: A born baby (that sounds so odd to me) is a person: birth is the key bit of that.
For the record, Bethany, I would absolutely love for someone to find a way for a woman to end an unwanted pregnancy without killing the fetus. Until that day, however, abortions are needful for women who, for whatever reason, do not want to carry the pregnancy to term. In the third trimester, c-section is a way for the pregnancy to end without killing the fetus.
No worries, Bethany! I’m spending the weekend with my parents, and they’ve curled up for a nap! I’m afraid I really don’t have much else to do.
I wish I had more time to do this, cause I could debate about it all night. lol Unfortunately, I do still have things to do…I just have to keep going back and forth from the computer to other things in the house. haha
Question One: I believe that as the pregnancy progresses and the fetus grows closer to viability, the closer it would be to rights. When viability is reached, rights would be attained with birth. Why not simply help it along? The woman would no longer be pregnant (no more violation of her bodily autonomy) and the fetus would have attained personhood. Everyone’s happy.
okay.
Question 2: I don’t quite understand how a c-section is really much more trouble than an abortion. I don’t believe a fetus has been wrongfully treated if aborted, but I believe that one should take the action that would cause the least harm to all involved. That would be a c-section.
Ok, see this is where you’re contradicting yourself. At one point, you’re saying, why not just cause less harm to everyone involved..implying that you want to help the baby (who I do believe, from what you’ve said so far in this debate, you know is a baby, but for some reason just can’t bring yourself to call it such?)
as well as the mother, in this situation.
If there is no person involved, however, there is no other person to worry about except the mother.
It just doesn’t add up.
Question 3: I really can’t think of a situation where that would happen? A c-section and an abortion in this case would have the same result for the woman: she would no longer be pregnant. All steps should be taken to avoid abortion past viability.
Actually, it happens often! I have heard SO many women say that they would much prefer to abort than adopt, because when they abort, they think that it will solve the problem and they won’t have to worry about the baby. Kind of weird to think about but that’s how some people actually see it. They say that if they put it up for adoption they would be always wondering if the baby was ok and if he or she was in safe hands.
So, I don’t see it as impossible at all…highly likely, in fact.
Actually, I know a girl who was pregnant a couple of years ago, and was about 6 months when she found out that her baby had spina bifida. She said she was going to abort, because she wouldn’t be able to handle having another baby. I begged her not to, and one of my best friends begged her to please let her adopt the baby (she and her husband both agreed they would take care of it if she’d let them), because she couldn’t stand the thought of the baby being aborted. She promised to take good care of the baby and said she would never give it up to anyone else. However, the girl said “F** YOU!” and said she was going to abort, she didn’t care what anyone said. She was very hateful about it. The next thing I knew (and this part is one of my worst memories) we had seen the pictures she published on her web page, of her husband and her at the baby’s funeral. I know this has nothing to do with the topic, but the girl was SMILING beside her baby’s casket. I wanted to vomit, it made me so sick. How could she SMILE beside her baby’s casket, the very baby she killed because it was an inconvenience to her? In only about 3 more months she could have had the baby, and the baby could have lived with someone who cared about it!!!!
Oh this just makes me too angry, I have to change the subject…Sorry for digressing….
Question 4: A born baby (that sounds so odd to me) is a person: birth is the key bit of that.
Again, there is absolutely no difference between a baby who has taken a breath and a baby who has not taken a breath.
And you yourself want to protect a baby who you do not even believe is a person, and I just dont’ understand that. IF it’s not a person, what are you protecting? Why would you defend the life of a potential person? (you know, like if I wanted to defend Sperm).
Anyway, I might not be able to post a reply again till tomorrow. Talk to you more then.
For the record, Bethany, I would absolutely love for someone to find a way for a woman to end an unwanted pregnancy without killing the fetus. Until that day, however, abortions are needful for women who, for whatever reason, do not want to carry the pregnancy to term. In the third trimester, c-section is a way for the pregnancy to end without killing the fetus.
What is so special about a fetus if it’s not a person?
OK I really am leaving now lol
Bethany, nothing is particularly special about a fetus. But wouldn’t it be wonderful to not have to debate this? Wouldn’t it be wonderful to be able to work on the problem of unwanted pregnancy and not worry about the topic of abortion?
About question two, sure, I’d love for the fetus to live and grow and have a life. And I think, past viability, it would be able to do that. Before viability, I really do believe that the woman’s right to her own body is more important. But after viability you can have your cake and eat it to, so to speak.
About question three, I am very much against adoption. I think that the system is messed up beyond recognition, perhaps beyond saving. If for some reason, however, I wasn’t aware that I was pregnant until the third trimester, I would go ahead and put the baby up for adoption. I can’t claim to understand the mindset of your friend, but I can say that perhaps the illness was part of it? Some mothers would rather have their children dead than suffering.
The difference rests within the birth, to me. Again, this is just my viewpoint, not every pro-choicer’s. To me, once a fetus reaches viability, the issue becomes much more complicated, and more fuzzy. Deliving and placing the baby for adoption seems the best way to sidestep the complications: the mother is no longer pregnant, her offspring is alive, everyone wins.
Yeah, I recognize the jumping back and forth feeling. :P I’ve gone between reading for classes and debating, both here and on other sites. It gets disconcerting after a while! Good luck with Easter, by the way!
Jill,
None of your posts refuted my point.
Quiz: Do you know any professional ethical philosophers? Do you read any of their publications?
Hint: Professional ethical philosophers don’t care much at all about constitutionality, which is what virtually all of your posts discussed. Roe v. Wade is a court dispute — it is not a core consideration of who we are.
But fine, I’ll take you through their justification. One simple question I have for you: What makes us special?
Bethany,
I have never had a pro-life or extremely religious friend therefore I have never severed a tie with a friend over religious beliefs or political.
And no, me and my friends don’t agree on everything. Then again I don’t have very many close friends (social anxiety and panic attacks around strangers kind of prevents that).
And it’s not like I go around asking people their views before I’ll become friends with them. It’s just most of the time I meet people in groups of people that have similar views of mine.
I’m trying to work on accepting Christian people again. I’ve developed Christian phobia and I admit it honestly. I don’t like religion and I tend to hold it against people that I meet who are. It’s bad I know.
But I have learned a lot from my “religious” friends. They’re the only ones who bother to try and explain my crazy questions. And some of them have already upset some of you, while they simply sit down and try to talk to me about it.
I don’t know how this convo go so off… Jeez. I didn’t mean to attack you… I was actually trying to be very civil in my last post….
But if being gay is a sin and your gay friends don’t accept God or repent because they don’t feel they have to because they think that they are right, in HisMan’s words they are going to Hell because not accepting God is unforgivable. So isn’t thinking that being gay is a sin kind of already condemning them to Hell even if you don’t say it out loud? Just asking… Please don’t freak out on me again. I’m trying to keep my temper in check
Danielle, I promise you, I wasn’t angry in my posts to you. I realize i made four separate ones, but I had afterthoughts and had to come back and post them. I’m sorry if it appeared that I was angry with you. I was offended, but not angry.
You have to understand that when you make horrible jokes about Christians as a whole, it doesn’t sound very tolerant or nice at all, and people are going to be offended…especially when you say those rude things and then say that we are the intolerant ones… If you want to talk about a specific person who you feel is being hypocritical or mean, go right ahead…but try to stay away from grouping us all into one big judgemental blob. We’re all separate individuals. :)
I appreciate that you’re trying to relate your feelings in a way that I can understand now.
I’m trying to work on accepting Christian people again. I’ve developed Christian phobia and I admit it honestly. I don’t like religion and I tend to hold it against people that I meet who are. It’s bad I know.
Danielle, I am truly sorry that someone in your past hurt you and made you feel this way about Christians. I understand how you feel, I really do.. I have experience in the same thing, and I had to work my way past feeling like I was “being like them”…I didn’t want to feel like I was associated with anything that was remotely like their behavior. I felt that they were hypocritical and they didnt even really believe what they said they did. But I realized later that they didn’t represent the majority of Christians. Yes, every Christian is a sinner and has their faults, regardless of being a Christian. We still have our sin nature and will have it till we die (We’re saved by grace, not works). But they’re not all hypocrites. Some of us really do believe the things we say (like, we don’t just say it for people to look at us and say “oh wow, there goes a Godly person)… and we really do believe in the Bible, and we have the upmost respect for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Sometimes it’s hard to get over those old feelings, when you can’t help but remember people who were supposed to be Christians and they still turned around and hurt you in a way that you didn’t feel a Christian should. Sometimes people are not genuine and do lie about who they are, pretending to be something they’re not (Jesus did not like these people- just read anything he said to the Pharisees)…or perhaps they really were Christian and didn’t realize how deeply they had wounded you. You might need to confront them and maybe you could work out an understanding. I know it should be them coming to you, but if they werent aware of it, it’ll probably never happen that way.
Anyway, I said all that to say, please just don’t judge us all by a few people’s actions. :)
But I have learned a lot from my “religious” friends. They’re the only ones who bother to try and explain my crazy questions. And some of them have already upset some of you, while they simply sit down and try to talk to me about it.
I would have been more than happy to discuss it calmly…it was not easy however with comments like the Zombie easter greeting and other things that I’d rather not repeat that you said. I realize you were being defensive, but there’s better ways to do that than to insult a whole group of people’s God because one person you’re angry with.
That said, I’m not angry with you, just want you to understand why there was offense taken to your post, and I think you’d get LOTS of great and friendly responses from the Christians here if you’d just find a nice way to ask them. ;)
ut if being gay is a sin and your gay friends don’t accept God or repent because they don’t feel they have to because they think that they are right, in HisMan’s words they are going to Hell because not accepting God is unforgivable. So isn’t thinking that being gay is a sin kind of already condemning them to Hell even if you don’t say it out loud? Just asking… Please don’t freak out on me again. I’m trying to keep my temper in check
No, it’s not condemning them to Hell. Not at all. I understand why you feel that way, but it’s just a misunderstanding of our point of view.
I don’t have the authority to condemn anyone to Hell anyway.
If it were condemning them to Hell by saying they are doing something wrong, then I would be condemning myself to Hell for being a sinner as well.
(Also, Jesus didn’t come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.)
If I were to say that gay people were all going to hell because they were sinning, I would have to also say that I am going to hell that I was because I sin every day.
I hope this answers your questions.. Hope you have a great Easter tomorrow. :)
Bethany,
“If it were condemning them to Hell by saying they are doing something wrong, then I would be condemning myself to Hell for being a sinner as well.”
But you “repent” for your sins, right? A gay person who sees nothing wrong with their ways obviously would not. So there sins wouldn’t be forgive, like yours are (if I understand correctly). So because they don’t see anything wrong with their life and who they have a relationship/partnership with, they won’t meaning by lack of confession and repenting they go to Hell.
Right??
Yes, you are right, Danielle. But so would any unrepentant sinner. It doesn’t just apply to gays.
And as I said, I myself have no authority to condemn anyone to Hell. And I would never want to.
By the way, Jill asked a question to you in the other post, which I was actually going to ask you yesterday too. What is your view on the Muslim faith? I’d really be interested to hear your answer. You seem to be so angry with Christians and their faith, so how do you feel about Muslims and theirs?
Truthfully, I don’t know about the Muslim faith or history to make a judgment. I guess it’s because I’ve never been attacked by a Muslim so I haven’t felt the need to do research into it. :-/
Smooth.
Danielle has a point though, Bethany. I have more conservative Muslim friends than I do conservative Christian. Not a one has ever tried to convert me or ever slammed the way I live. I have, however, lost touch with several of my conservative Christian friends because of their judgements. I’ve been told by numerous Christians (HisMan, for instance) that I’m cursed to eternal punishment: despite the fact that most of my Muslim friends likely think the same, they don’t go around pointing that out. Frankly, I appreciate it.
4. Genesis 2:7. the argument for “breath” (nephesh). The argument goes that the first man, Adam, became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Since the unborn don’t ‘breathe’ until birth, they are not fully human. This argument is utterly vacuous.
First, it is scientifically imprecise to say that the unborn do not ‘breathe’ until birth. From conception forward, the unborn child receives and transfers oxygen, though not through the lungs. What changes at birth is the mode of breathing: instead of receiving oxygen through the placenta, the child begins to breathe through its lungs. Hence, the argument can be made that birth does not mark the beginning of human respiration.
Second, if the ability to sustain oxygen through the lungs is what indeed makes one human, then all those dependent on ventilators and oxygen machines would have to be classed as non-human.
I think that you have to take every single person you meet, and decide if that person is who they say they are, regardless of their beliefs.
Can you trust them? Are they honest? Will they turn on you when you don’t do what they want? Are they fair weather friends?
Before my conversion I had a number of friends that I believed I would die for.
After my conversion they sort of faded away…
I realized that many of these “friendships” were based more on partying together, and not really based on anything solid.
I was shocked. Once I stopped smoking pot, I lost about 6 of my “dearest” friends, including my absolutely best friend in the world. Why?
If I wasn’t smoking pot, I wasn’t any fun. I was a drag.
I didn’t want to hang around in bars and get s***faced. I didn’t want to wake up anymore not remembering what I had done the night before…
So, were we really friends?
If you had “religious” friends who said hateful things to you then they weren’t really your friends.
They were your conditional friends.
When you become someone new, you find new friends.
It only makes sense. You want to hang around people who enjoy the same things you do.
As I got older, I realized that what I like to do would probably bore most of my old friends to tears.
Going to mass, gardening, raising my kids, going to dog shows…
I just find that I don’t have time for nonsense anymore.
I don’t have any pro choice friends because we don’t play in the same circles. Don’t find many of them in the adoration chapel or at my pro life meetings or praying in front of the abortion clinic…
I have pro-choice acquaintances, but with limited free time (6 kids, remember), I find that I want to be friends with people who bring me “up” and help me to grow spiritually. I’m not condemning anyone, but I don’t think I have to prove that by “hanging” with people who live lifestyles that are opposed to mine. My time is too precious to waste on pointless attempts at friendship.
Would any of you want to go to Mass with me and then to the chapel, over to the pro life meeting and then home for a rosary? I didn’t think so. But would you condemn me for doing these things?
Friendship, real friendship, is two people sharing their souls and their hearts with each other, based on an incredible trust that is built by sharing values.
Don’t you think?
mk
J. R. Tolkien
”
Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.
”
Bethany,
I don’t have an opinion. I’m not trying to be smooth. I have no thoughts on the Muslim religion because I don’t know anything about it.
Trust me, I have no problem writing my opinions on this blog as you’ve seen, but on this topic I have nothing to say because of lack of knowledge.
There’s a lot about the world that I still have yet to learn about and probably never will in the short life span that life is.
Okay, Danielle, I believe you. :-)