Ok, people...this is such a hard discussion, and as evidenced by the past arguments here on Totse, this thread may very well become a sore spot.

I want to talk about abortion, again.

The specific aspect I want to focus on is the "woman's right to choose".

This is the paramount defense of legalized abortion, however in testimonies of women who have had abortions, they almost always say that they had not idea what the emotional and physical affects of abortion were. They were never told what a horrible experience it would be.

If you don't have the information, how can you make an educated decision ?

Can it be said that there is a hidden agenda within the abortion movement to make money, and therefor NOT giving all the information benefits them ?

The religious pretenses of this thread is evident...Christians believe that life is more important than inconvenience. Why does it seem as if those that do NOT believe in God think the opposite ?

Here is a website, FULL of women's testimonies about their abortions - all of them regret, and all of them suffered greatly because of their abortions.

http://www.afterabortion.org/maintest.html

Isn't this enough to say, "Abortion isn't ethical, and it certainly doesn't benefit women in any way." ?

It's enough to say that you're a fucking idiot. If I run straight into a wall, bare faced, I'm not going to like the results. Maybe women should think what they hell they're doing before they screw. And in case of pregnancy through rape, it's not like the whole experience is a walk in the park. Still, none of this you spewed has got jack fucking shit to do with abortion.

I mean, by your logic, we should make chemo therapy illegal because people who are treated by it suffer greatly. What kind of a fucking dumbshit moron are you? Keep religion and religious dumbfucks out of politics, with knives, guns, or nuclear weapons if necessary. God damn useless good for nothing pieces of shit.

I totally agree that women who don't want babies shouldn't have sex...but no one wants to talk about abstinence, now do they ?

If we don't educate people about abstinence, how can we blame them for being promiscuous ?

That is completely off the subject, first of all. Secondly, you have no basis for thinking I am an idiot. Why bother posting ?

I have no moral conviction one way or another regarding things like chemo...it's their own body, so I think it is their right to decide what they do with it.

However, in abortion, women are deciding FOR their children whether they are to live or to die. The baby has no voice.

Again, this is off topic. If you want to participate, read the thread topic again, and try to respond accordingly.

Religion is a part of EVERYTHING, whether you like it, or not.

I was told you are intelligent...that you are a system administrator or something to that effect.

I have yet to see this blazing intelligence in the hate-speech you post here on Totse.

Try and be more constructive, would ya ?

I think people who aren't Christians see it differently maybe because they have an anti-christian agenda. They see being pro-life as being christian.

I don't see how anybody, religious or not, could not see abortion as murder. It has nothing to do with a woman's body. It a human being, I'm sorry. It obvious to me. If its a human embryo or whatever, it is still human.

This really is the modern day holocaust.

[This message has been edited by Zman (edited 05-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If we don't educate people about abstinence, how can we blame them for being promiscuous ?

Religions have been telling people not to be promiscuous for thousands of years with lousy results. And non religious people would need some really good non-moral based reasons to wait till they are registerd with the government to have sex. A better option would be to educate people about birth control and make it availible to anyone. No matter how good masturbation technology becomes people are going to have sex.

quote:That is completely off the subject, first of all. Secondly, you have no basis for thinking I am an idiot. Why bother posting ?



He is Snoopy after all.

It benifits men as we don't have to pay child support. And if you want less abortions then have the government distribute more protection... Or it could be a huge conspiracy to get people to have more kids=More religious people=more $$$$ for the religon. Guns, drugs, free abortions for all.

Religion should stay out of the government.



President George W. Bush is a vocal opponent of abortion, and has continued efforts to ban abortion, including appointing religious extremists to the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. WTF?

What does religion in the government have to do with the humanity of abortion?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



The religious pretenses of this thread is evident...Christians believe that life is more important than inconvenience. Why does it seem as if those that do NOT believe in God think the opposite ?



So... Christians should have a child every nine months until they can't anymore? I mean, what about all the lives that could have resulted from all the sex they chose not to have because of the convenience of not having to support or raise more children?

I guess people who do not believe in God are free to think the opposite without incurring an eternity of wrath.

abortion for any reason other than to save the life of the mother is murder.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

This really is the modern day holocaust.

The practice of abortion predates modern times.

Without abortion, mass starvation will become the 'modern day holocaust'.

Abstinence is wishful thinking. It is human nature to have sex. Humans stop being rational enough to weigh the consequences when their bodies are being pumped full of hormones. One cannot make people rational in this regard without first eliminating love.

An unwanted pregnancy can occur when people are seduced, when their contraceptive failed, and when using contraceptives is taboo in their culture. Forcing people to bear the burden of an unwanted pregnancy through government regulation is an unnecessarily high level of social control.

How does (voluntary) abortion negatively affect society? It does not cause a state of fear and intimidation like the murder of children and adults does. The positive effects are less child neglect and a higher quality of life through population control.

The rite to life and the rite to choose are not oppositional.

I've said before, DS: sometimes people make bad decisions because the situation they're in is so bad there are no good decisions to make. So, they try to make the least painfull decision - the least damaging decision. Sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they're right, sometimes they never forgive themselves for whatever it is their choice was but that's free will for you, huh?

Just because bad things exist in the world, doesn't mean you have to crusade against them. Just because abortion exists doesn't mean you have to get one.

But, as a Christian, DS, you should try to be more empathic of the desperation a female would have to be in to drive her to get an abortion. Imagine what desperation and pain someone would have to be to make that decision. Just like an animal gnawing off it's paw to get out of a trap. You can't treat it like it's botox - like it's something they want to do. It's something they feel forced to do. And would it be better if they were instead forced to carry the baby to term? Become disillusioned and learn to hate the baby and themselves, mistreat the unborn child because of their disdain for their situation?

I mean, there is no good answer and I think you should try to be a little more like Jesus on such a matter.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:The rite to life and the rite to choose are not oppositional.

sorry LC but i think ,on this one, that you are wrong.(you also know how much i respect your views otherwise).

there is a name for people who think they have the right to choose over the life of another...

abortion is murder

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

sorry LC but i think ,on this one, that you are wrong.(you also know how much i respect your views otherwise).

there is a name for people who think they have the right to choose over the life of another...

abortion is murder



How alive a fetus is is as debateable as how alive Terry Schiavo was. I'm not saying DS should be pro-abortion, I'm just saying that you can't always control the horrible things people are forced to do or feel forced to do. And because of this we shouldn't deny them at the very least, our sympathy.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:How alive a fetus is is as debateable

that is a moot point. personally i think more government effort and finance should be spent finding out exactly when human life begins. NOT philosphically or theologically but physically.

that would end the debate for most 'normal' people.

but until we get that far i think it is our duty to err on the side of the unborn.

I refuse to mix politics and religion. You have a conscience. Use it.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

that is a moot point. personally i think more government effort and finance should be spent finding out exactly when human life begins. NOT philosphically or theologically but physically.

that would end the debate for most 'normal' people.

but until we get that far i think it is our duty to err on the side of the unborn.

I can't say I see things from the same POV, but I definitely support all scientific and theological/philosophical/spiritual research on life.

Also, while I see where you're coming from and I think you're totally right to your opinion, there's a large part of me that believes that men should have no more opinion on abortion than women should have opinions on circumcision. You will never have to be pregnant, have morning sickness, get stretch marks, carry a baby to term, give birth, and feel that specific attachment that comes with being the mother that carried the child. So, I have to say, I imagine it's a lot easier to a man to throw his opinion on abortion around either way, simply because he is sort of an outsider on the whole matter.

That aside, I don't disagree with your logic, but I disagree that others should be able to control anothers life. Especially if they are the givers of life.

My personal opinion, if you want to know is that as long as the fetus is inside the mothers womb the womb is the fetuses infinite universe as far as the fetus can tell. Therefore all the fetus experiences is the mother and through the mother, making the mother it's god. And as long as the mother is it's god then she should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy just as god is allowed to terminate us. However, once the child is born, the mother is no longer it's infinate universe. The child has become one of the human race and shares the same god as we do. The ultimate god, for as far as we can comprehend. After that, the woman no longer is allowed to terminate her creation.

Others may disagree and that's okay. I'm not trying to convince or convert anyone.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by Pow r T och:

I refuse to mix politics and religion. You have a conscience. Use it.

I also think this is a very wise statement. I believe religion is the politics of spirituality and once you get politics mixed up with spirituality it loses it's meaning.

I also, though, believe that the power of the mind and the power of the spirit is incredibly powerfull and if enough people believe something is true they can make it true.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I totally agree that women who don't want babies shouldn't have sex...but no one wants to talk about abstinence, now do they ?

If we don't educate people about abstinence, how can we blame them for being promiscuous ?

That is completely off the subject, first of all. Secondly, you have no basis for thinking I am an idiot. Why bother posting ?

I have no moral conviction one way or another regarding things like chemo...it's their own body, so I think it is their right to decide what they do with it.

However, in abortion, women are deciding FOR their children whether they are to live or to die. The baby has no voice.

Again, this is off topic. If you want to participate, read the thread topic again, and try to respond accordingly.

Religion is a part of EVERYTHING, whether you like it, or not.

I was told you are intelligent...that you are a system administrator or something to that effect.

I have yet to see this blazing intelligence in the hate-speech you post here on Totse.

Try and be more constructive, would ya ?

Yes, you're a fucking idiot. You see, when a woman is pregnant, THERE IS NO BABY. There's a baby after it comes out of the woman. As long as it's in the woman, it's part of her. It's attached to her. If she stops eating, she dies, and it dies. So it's not a living creature, it's part of a living creature. Now just as long as you're talking about rights, who the FUCK gives you the right to even form an opinion on abortion or pregnancy altogether, when you can't even get pregnant?! You have NO right to decide on that. And that fact that you're religious, I'm denying the right to fucking anything.

Law and religion are not the same, and should be kept separated. You wanna hear some fucked up stories?! There are places where abortion is both illegal and socially unacceptable. You know what women do there?! They walk around for 9 months strapping in their stomach so they don't look pregnant, and then they give birth to the little shit themselves, and drown it in a river. That's pretty fucking badass if you ask me, but how the fuck is that socially acceptable and abortion isn't?!

And I never said that if women don't want children, they shouldn't fuck. YOU said it. A woman can't get pregnant on her own. Fucking involves at least two people. Should the woman get pregnant, both her and the man in question are responsible for the shit they're in. Having the right to abort, is common sense. Put yourself in my shoes. I get some chick pregnant. We're not able to abort. Well, FUCK that. It's gonna die anyway, and whole lot of fucking other people as well. What the hell, does a religious person know about sex, love and commitment? You know nothing. You are nothing. You don't even have a fucking mind.

I'm sick of people talking of rights to live. You can stick your pissy little life up your ass when I rip our your jugular. The parasite has no way to defend itself, and loses the right to live, unless its parents grant it that right. It's the same everywhere. None of us have a right to live. The powers that be grant us that right. For the same fucking deal, we could get prosecuted like oh so many people in oh so many places. And fuck, some of us should.

I have to say, although I'll bet I cop a torrent of ammusing insults - Snoopy's recent posts in MGCBTSOOYG are actually legitimate contributions to the discussion and appear to be well thought out an articulated.

Anyways...



Banning abortions won't stop abortions.

Abstinence only education will increase the number of abortions.

Abstinence may be the only 100% effective form of birth control, but abstinence only education is the most worthless piece of shit, barely holding back from pushing religious values on children program that this bloated excuse for a federal government has ever put in place.

Federalism at its worst.

Kids have been fucking when those hormones come knocking since the beginning of humanity, and you can bet that they will be doing so until the end.

"Mary and Peter" have been sneaking off the the Hay loft for as long as any western country has existed.

Seriously DS - you say abortion = murder.

Well fine.

Unless Pre marital sex = murder, isn't it reasonable to take the lesser of two evils, possibly accidentally encourage it through making it safer, then to stubbonly try to outdo primal urges that cannot and will not be done away with? - especially since that lesser evil will be happening anyway?

[This message has been edited by dearestnight_falcon (edited 05-16-2005).]

You Christians always claim to go for the humane solution, but you’re all just narrow minded fools. You never consider the social situation surrounding those people. I thought religion meant about caring but my experience is that religion is a very judgmental machine that’s only concerned with following strict rules so your place in heaven doesn’t come in vain.

Well you can’t solve problems like this with strict one lined rules, we’re talking about humans here, I mainly find my self in what Snoopy said;

I just wanted to share this.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

I don't see how anybody, religious or not, could not see abortion as murder. It has nothing to do with a woman's body. It a human being, I'm sorry. It obvious to me. If its a human embryo or whatever, it is still human.



ok a bunch of cells is not a life. a fetous (sp?) is not a life, its a cluster of cells with the potential to make life. its been shown that up until something like the 3rd trimester or something the fucking thing doesn't even have a heartbeat let alone a brain or 'soul' or anything that comes close to being a life, hence it is not murder to kill it. if you cut off a finger is it murder? No because your finger doesn't think, its not alive its just a bunch of cells. the only way you can think its murder is if you hold to the christian idea of conception being the moment of the soul entering hence if your not christian you don't see it as murder. best way i've heard it described: "your not a person till your in my phone book".

oh and to Digital_saviour, hae you ever asked women who had no way of raising a kid yet fell pregnant at 16 and kept the child how painful it was for them? ever ask an 18 year old unwed mother living off welfare or dole payments how fucking regretful THEY are?

So? Its going to be a person. Therefore, it has the dignity of a human.

And since when do circumstance allow behavior? What do we do when homeless people rob stores? Throw them in jail..No matter what, people need to grow up.

QUOTE Originally posted by Snoopy:

Yes, you're a fucking idiot.[b]let's see if you belong in this category too. Did i hear that you are a systems analyst? and you cant even realize the one's and zeros' of this situation....(oh wait, i may be getting ahead of myself..

[b] You see, when a woman is pregnant, <b]THERE IS NO BABY[/b>. There's a baby <b]after[/b> it comes <b]out[/b> of the woman. As long as it's in the woman, it's part of her. It's attached to her. If she stops eating, she dies, and it dies. So it's not a living creature, it's part of a living creature.

Your definition is that a baby is only a baby until it escapes from the host (woman), prior to that you describe that baby as an "it" and say that "it's not a living creature, it's part of a living creature.". We have a few problems. First, the baby is not an organ or even something that helps keep the woman alive, so i must assume that you mean the baby is a parasite because it is not an intergral part of that woman. But you say that "it's not a living creature"; however, a parasite is a living plant or animal that lives on or in another oragnism. So, the baby must be a living creature.

So now, we should ask, what is the genetic makeup of this living creature? Does it have all the genetic info that any human (outside said woman) has? Or does it have the possibility of becoming other than human?

Now just as long as you're talking about rights, who the <b]FUCK[/b> gives you the right to even form an opinion on abortion or pregnancy altogether, when you can't even get pregnant?! You have <b]NO[/b> right to decide on that.

First, the Government gives DS the right to have an opinion on abortion...it gives us all the right to have opinions on pretty much anything.

Second, it seems to me that you cannot get pregnant either, since you said,"Put yourself in my shoes. I get some chick pregnant. "

So by your own arguement, you should not even be allowed to have an opinion.

And that fact that you're religious, I'm denying the right to fucking anything.

did your parents have any kids that lived?

Law and religion are not the same, and should be kept separated. You wanna hear some fucked up stories?! There are places where abortion is both illegal and socially unacceptable. You know what women do there?! They walk around for 9 months strapping in their stomach so they don't look pregnant, and then they give birth to the little shit themselves, and drown it in a river.

And that makes your point how?

You think that is fucked up, in other words- wrong, bad, not good even.. but it really is the exact same thing as abortion. It is killing a child <period>. It makes little difference whether it is before or after birth... that little bit of difference is the length of time the woman is inconvinienced...or the fucked up man that is inconvienienced by his chick performing the way he wants.(sex,getting him a beer,feeding his sorry ass, taking care of his other kids, etc).

That's b]pretty fucking badass[/b if you ask me, but how the fuck is that socially acceptable and abortion isn't?!

You did not show that it was acceptable. You didnt even show that this story is true... i'm not questioning it, cause ive heard of this too... all you showed was that, that is what happens. People try to deal with things the best way they can.

A woman can't get pregnant on her own. Fucking involves at least two people. Should the woman get pregnant, both her and the man in question are responsible for the shit they're in.



Ah, but last i heard, the guy does not have the right to disagree with the woman's choice... not even if he wanted to raise the kid.

Having the right to abort, is <b]common sense[/b>.

It is only common sense if one is convinced that the child is not a living, human child.

Put yourself in my shoes. I get some chick pregnant. We're not able to abort. Well, b]FUCK[/b that. It's gonna die anyway, and whole lot of fucking other people as well. What the hell, does a religious person know about sex, love and commitment? You know nothing. You are nothing. You don't even have a fucking mind.

Wow!! and this statement is indicative of what YOU know of love and commitment?

I even feel so strongly against abortion, that i would have argued with your mom to allow you to live... who knows, maybe i did.

I'm sick of people talking of rights to live. You can stick your pissy little life up your ass when I rip our your jugular. The parasite has no way to defend itself, and loses the right to live, unless its parents grant it that right. It's the same everywhere. None of us have a right to live. The powers that be <b]grant[/b> us that right. For the same fucking deal, we could get prosecuted like oh so many people in oh so many places. And fuck, some of us should. /QUOTE

I agree with you here, none of us have the right to live...except-- God is the "powers that be" that grants us life... here, as a means to be granted eternal life.

But, thanks for the smiles..i do get a kick out of the amount of times you describe yourself as badass. Who are you trying to convince? yourself?.... Let me say this another way (since you had mentioned driving fast in exotic cars): If you had a Lamborgini, would you need to fly up and down the street to prove how fast it can go? Or could you drive slow, letting people drool because they know how fast it can go?

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

that is a moot point. personally i think more government effort and finance should be spent finding out exactly when human life begins. NOT philosphically or theologically but physically.

Physicaly it begins when the sperm fertalizes the egg. If you want to go with that definition the pill is murder and IUDs are murder because they prevent the egg from implanting. This means that if stem cell reasearch is banned zygotes in test tubes are more human than zygotes in women. But even in healthy women about 80% of fertalized eggs get not further than that and die before implanting. So being alive is manslaughter or child neglect at the minimum. Criminal courts would never touch those but some nutjob special intrest groups could probably try to sue someone on the behalf of America's billion of unimplanted children.

If you want to get technical a mother snapping a babies neck when it is born is not murder it's infanacide. A lesser crime stemming from the fact that pregnancy make women crazy.

If you want to go into when a human becomes a person the answer depends on the country they live in. Generaly from age 16 to 21. That is when they get full rights. Unless they have a mental disability then they are never full persons. Unlesss you are a full person other people dertermine whether you live or die. This happens somewhat regularly when Jehovas Witnesses kill thier children by not letting them get tranfusions.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Physicaly it begins when the sperm fertalizes the egg. If you want to go with that definition the pill is murder and IUDs are murder because they prevent the egg from implanting. This means that if stem cell reasearch is banned zygotes in test tubes are more human than zygotes in women. But even in healthy women about 80% of fertalized eggs get not further than that and die before implanting. So being alive is manslaughter or child neglect at the minimum. Criminal courts would never touch those but some nutjob special intrest groups could probably try to sue someone on the behalf of America's billion of unimplanted children.

If you want to get technical a mother snapping a babies neck when it is born is not murder it's infanacide. A lesser crime stemming from the fact that pregnancy make women crazy.

If you want to go into when a human becomes a person the answer depends on the country they live in. Generaly from age 16 to 21. That is when they get full rights. Unless they have a mental disability then they are never full persons. Unlesss you are a full person other people dertermine whether you live or die. This happens somewhat regularly when Jehovas Witnesses kill thier children by not letting them get tranfusions.



actually i do think that the IUD is abortion and murder. but the pill isn't..as far as i'm aware.

and yes,before anyone says it, i do know i live in the wrong century .

*goes back to reading his autographed copy of 'first blast of the trumpet '*

The pill does not preven conception it makes the womb inhospitable by changing the hormones that would normaly make it posibble for a zygote to implant and develope. How it that any diferent that doing it with a physical device?

To my understanding, all an IUD does is trick the body into thinking it's pregnant.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I'm a dumb fucking retard who sucks at quoting people.

I agree, cornhole.

Umm... for the dude who thinks that IUD's are murder and doesnt know bout the pill -

The pill merely prevents implantation of the egg - the normal pill and the morning after pill both do exactly the same thing, just that while the normal pill is carefully regulated low dosage, the morning after pill is more of a "FUCK, WE CAN'T LET THIS LITTLE BUGGER IMPLANT, NUKE THE HELL OUT IF HIM, REGARDLESS OF HORMONAL FUCKUPS" type dosage.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

I agree, cornhole.

Snoopy, i hope that made you feel better. You know, more of a "badass". http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

All these people debating whether the IUD or the pill is more murderous are idiots who never had sex, nor will have any anyway. I can see how not being able to get laid will turn people into religious fucktards. Dickhead, you're not morally responsible if you don't have sex before marriage, you just can't get any pussy. Same goes for fat/mormon women. Get fucked or die trying.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

All these people debating whether the IUD or the pill is more murderous are idiots who never had sex, nor will have any anyway. I can see how not being able to get laid will turn people into religious fucktards. Dickhead, you're not morally responsible if you don't have sex before marriage, you just can't get any pussy. Same goes for fat/mormon women. Get fucked or die trying.

Do you ever say anything even remotely worthwhile?

Without anyother info, not having sex before marriage means only one thing... being a virgin before marriage. Without any other info, it does not mean being morally resposible nor does it mean you cant get laid. The moral responsability comes only from the choice of abstinance.

In MY OPINION, any form of birthcontrol (including the Catholic rhythm method) is just as wrong as the next form.

<<asks jackketch if i can read 'first blast..' over his shoulder>>

Holy shit you people are shitheads. The only person I agree with on this thread is Snoopy. Including all the insults to the dumbasses on this thread. It's natural to fuck ok. Yes I do want to fuck but hell if I want a fucking baby. Sorry I'm not a religious fuck who thinks if they don't fuck before they are married that thier better than everybody else. It's the animal inside you that wants to fuck and hell if you can control it. And yes all you religious cunts out there. We are animals. We are no better than anything else on this planet except for a higher brain compacity. Now get it through your ignorant heads that people are going to fuck. And no matter what your opinion. There is always going to be birth control. And on the abortion matter. It's perfectly ethical for the parent to choose. The baby has absoultaly no rights until it is born. Until then it's a part of the womens body. Dammit you religious fucks piss me off.

Bible Thumpers Suck the Abortion. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v322/n_ight_vision/churchsign.jpg)

[This message has been edited by The_Nazi (edited 05-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

The rite to life and the rite to choose are not oppositional.

I've said before, DS: sometimes people make bad decisions because the situation they're in is so bad there are no good decisions to make. So, they try to make the least painfull decision - the least damaging decision. Sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they're right, sometimes they never forgive themselves for whatever it is their choice was but that's free will for you, huh?

Just because bad things exist in the world, doesn't mean you have to crusade against them. Just because abortion exists doesn't mean you have to get one.

But, as a Christian, DS, you should try to be more empathic of the desperation a female would have to be in to drive her to get an abortion. Imagine what desperation and pain someone would have to be to make that decision. Just like an animal gnawing off it's paw to get out of a trap. You can't treat it like it's botox - like it's something they want to do. It's something they feel forced to do. And would it be better if they were instead forced to carry the baby to term? Become disillusioned and learn to hate the baby and themselves, mistreat the unborn child because of their disdain for their situation?

I mean, there is no good answer and I think you should try to be a little more like Jesus on such a matter.

Cheers,

Lost

Lost, you speak to me as if I have never been in such a painful situation. I can say that LIFE is more important than inconvenience, because I was in that situation. I guess you didn't see the last abortion thread, where I gave my story.

I had a child that was VERY unwanted, by everyone but me. I had no support. I had no money. I had no choices, other than adoption and abortion.

And instead of being selfish, and thinking only of my needs and desires, I thought of myt beautiful little baby girl FIRST.

I went ahead with the pregnancy, even though I was unwed, and very young. I endured a great amount of ridicule and judgement for it, too. But I didn't give a crap. SHE had the right to live, no matter WHAT. It's never right to kill a child.

Please don't tell me how I should be more like Jesus...Jesus was compassionate, and I am. If I run across a mother that is faced with this horrible situation, I give a shoulder. I give a home. I have helped several girls get through this, and they are thankful that they DIDN'T have an abortion, now that they have their bouncing babies. One girl did go ahead with it, and she is still calling on me today to ask for support. And I give it. I in no way condone making the mother's feel bad for their situations ! Jesus abhorred sin, as do I. The only difference is, I sin too. So, as much as I would like to pass judgement, it is not my place, and I cannot bring myself to do it. Jesus would love the person, and not the sin. This is exactly what I try to do.

Sin exists in this world, and YES - I DO HAVE TO FIGHT AGAINST IT. Sin does nothing but tear people apart...read the testimonies of these women...they ALL regret their abortion, and they have all lived a life of suffering as a result of their decision.

If not for the baby, then for the mother should we fight against abortion. The women suffer the longest.

I have never met a mother that hated her baby...my sister, in fact, was a crack addict, and found out she was pregnant. She wanted an abortion, but couldn't afford it. She finally had my nephew, and now she loves every minute of being a mother, and has actually cleaned herself up. I have never seen her this together, and all because she finally loves something more than herself.

For those of you who aren't parents, you can't know what a change a child can make in your life. Don't minimize the power of a mother's love.

There is a good answer...but in order to accept it, we have to believe that there is something bigger than us that gives us a model of what unconditional love is like. Most of us don't want to, or can't. That's fine, but children shouldn't die because of our stubborness.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

How alive a fetus is is as debateable as how alive Terry Schiavo was. I'm not saying DS should be pro-abortion, I'm just saying that you can't always control the horrible things people are forced to do or feel forced to do. And because of this we shouldn't deny them at the very least, our sympathy.

Cheers,

Lost

It's not debatable. A fetus IS a baby ! Now, if you are arguing how alive a ZYGOTE is, you might have a point.

Most women don't know they are pregnant until they are at least 8 weeks. The baby has a complete nervous system, a brain, eyes, fingers, and toes, at that point. There is NO WAY you can ignore that, and say it isn't a human being.

No one is FORCED to do anything...there is an enormous amount of ignorance in this world about what abortion is, and what it entails. The reason is that no one wants to talk about it, and the people that DO the abortions don't want mother's to know what is really going on, because they would never go through with such a gruesome act if they knew.

Sympathy these mother's have...the right to murder, they should not.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

Also, while I see where you're coming from and I think you're totally right to your opinion, there's a large part of me that believes that men should have no more opinion on abortion than women should have opinions on circumcision. You will never have to be pregnant, have morning sickness, get stretch marks, carry a baby to term, give birth, and feel that specific attachment that comes with being the mother that carried the child. So, I have to say, I imagine it's a lot easier to a man to throw his opinion on abortion around either way, simply because he is sort of an outsider on the whole matter.

As much as I respect you, Lost, I have to say that this is the very same thinking that has ruined America...the feminists have castrated men of their right to be men. Men are parents, too.

Sure, there ARE cases in which men (respectively "boys") leave their women to "deal" with the problem of a pregnancy. THOSE men should have no say, whatsoever. If they shurk off their responsibility, then they shouldn't have any right to an opinion on the matter.

However, there have been countless men that weren't ALLOWED to have an opinion, when they wanted to be a part of it. What of their rights ? If they want that baby, shouldn't they be able to have as much of a say as the mother ?

quote:That aside, I don't disagree with your logic, but I disagree that others should be able to control anothers life. Especially if they are the givers of life.

This is NOT about control. Women seem to think that if they are not allowed to get an abortion, they are being stripped of their rights...no one else has the right to murder, so why should they ?

Abortion is the only surgical procedure (that is NOT cosmetic in nature) that is considered a "choice". All other surgery must be medically necessary, or a doc won't do it. Only 1% of abortions can truly be deemed medically necessary...what is wrong with that picture ?

I have been in desperate need of a hysterectomy for years...I couldn't find a single doctor that would do it, because I am too young. Yet if I were 14, I wouldn't even need my parents' consent to have an abortion ? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE ?

quote:My personal opinion, if you want to know is that as long as the fetus is inside the mothers womb the womb is the fetuses infinite universe as far as the fetus can tell. Therefore all the fetus experiences is the mother and through the mother, making the mother it's god.

The same people who cry "INJUSTICE" at the thought of a God that would murder His own creation seem to think that the mother of an unborn child has the right to murder HER own creation. Interesting.

quote:And as long as the mother is it's god then she should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy just as god is allowed to terminate us.

The difference being that the infant is INNOCENT (and paying for it's mother's sin), while the people God has gotten rid of were sinners and blasphemers of God (thus paying for their own).

BIG DIFFERENCE.

quote:However, once the child is born, the mother is no longer it's infinate universe.

NOT TRUE.

An infant does not begin to differentiate between "self" and "mother" until about 16 months of age. Until then, the infant thinks the mother is itself, and vice a versa. Google it.

quote:The child has become one of the human race and shares the same god as we do. The ultimate god, for as far as we can comprehend. After that, the woman no longer is allowed to terminate her creation.

Others may disagree and that's okay. I'm not trying to convince or convert anyone.

Cheers,

Lost

I respect your opinion, but in light of the fact that we are talking about LIFE here, I must adamantly disagree with you.

When you have children, you will understand things differently.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 05-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Darkness Consumes:Sorry I'm not a religious fuck who thinks if they don't fuck before they are married that thier better than everybody else...

...Now get it through your ignorant head

Well, somebody is misunderstanding Christianity. It is either the Christians "who think that thier better than everybody else" or you thinking that that is the case, or both.

Christianity teaches that there is none good, not even one. We are all sinners. All are in need of a Savior.

Sure people are going to fuck. There really are only three questions that matter in this topic:

Does God exist?

and

Did He say 'save it for your spouse'?

and

Does killing a fetus fall under that commandment of "Thou shalt not kill"?

If the truth is yes to ALL of these, then anything that stops the possible life of a child is wrong by God's standard.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Yes, you're a fucking idiot. You see, when a woman is pregnant, THERE IS NO BABY. There's a baby after it comes out of the woman. As long as it's in the woman, it's part of her.

Basic science tells us that it is YOU who are the idiot.

There is a recognizable HUMAN being inside a woman's belly after only 8 weeks of pregnancy. It has eyes, ears, legs, a heart, a brain, and everything else we have come to recognize as life.

To say otherwise is just moronic.

quote:It's attached to her. If she stops eating, she dies, and it dies. So it's not a living creature, it's part of a living creature.

Being attached to something doesn't make you ONE with it. That's the most assanine thing I have ever heard you say.

Does a plecostamus become a fish tank, simply because it is attached to it, and relies upon it for food ?

What about the scavenger fish that hang off of whales and sharks ?

They all depend upon their host, but they are most certainly still their own entity.

quote:Now just as long as you're talking about rights, who the FUCK gives you the right to even form an opinion on abortion or pregnancy altogether, when you can't even get pregnant?! You have NO right to decide on that. And that fact that you're religious, I'm denying the right to fucking anything.

Again, you have proven what an idiot you are. Not to mention bigoted.

I can't get pregnant, since about 9 weeks ago. I have three children. I had no problem getting pregnant prior to my hysterectomy. I have every right to enjoy my children, your children, their children...and love them when no one else will.

You are such an asshole, I can't even believe you exist.

quote:Law and religion are not the same, and should be kept separated.

Even before I was a Christian I was against abortion...why ? I won't EVER condone the burning of infant flesh, or the ripping apart of innocent limbs.

It's murder, no matter WHAT religion you belong to.

My faith is irrespective to my support of life.

quote:You wanna hear some fucked up stories?! There are places where abortion is both illegal and socially unacceptable. You know what women do there?! They walk around for 9 months strapping in their stomach so they don't look pregnant, and then they give birth to the little shit themselves, and drown it in a river. That's pretty fucking badass if you ask me, but how the fuck is that socially acceptable and abortion isn't?!

It's still murder, whether it is done after birth, or before.

I see no difference.

It's all messed up, and still doesn't condone it.

quote:And I never said that if women don't want children, they shouldn't fuck. YOU said it. A woman can't get pregnant on her own. Fucking involves at least two people. Should the woman get pregnant, both her and the man in question are responsible for the shit they're in.

But a lot of men DON'T participate..in fact, they practically force women to have abortions, by relinquishing responsibility. Most women can't afford to raise babies on their own...as you said, it takes TWO.

Maybe we should murder the sperm donors that FORCE women into such situations ! By your thinking, someone MUST die. Why the innocent child ? Why not the party that doesn't want to be responsible for their own actions ?

quote:Having the right to abort, is common sense. Put yourself in my shoes. I get some chick pregnant. We're not able to abort. Well, FUCK that. It's gonna die anyway, and whole lot of fucking other people as well. What the hell, does a religious person know about sex, love and commitment? You know nothing. You are nothing. You don't even have a fucking mind.

Again, idiocy reigns supreme.

I wasn't always a Christian, and I am not religious. If you want to insult me, at least know what you are talking about.

I love my husband very deeply. We have GREAT sex, too.

I love my children more than life itself.

I lived on the streets for a long time...I have served in the armed forces and seen the world. I am not some pious little weakling wearing amish garb. I am a regular woman, that has been through hell and back during my time on this earth...so, I ask you: who the hell are YOU to judge ME ?!

quote:I'm sick of people talking of rights to live. You can stick your pissy little life up your ass when I rip our your jugular. The parasite has no way to defend itself, and loses the right to live, unless its parents grant it that right. It's the same everywhere. None of us have a right to live. The powers that be grant us that right. For the same fucking deal, we could get prosecuted like oh so many people in oh so many places. And fuck, some of us should.

That totally didn't make any sense, so I won't respond to it.

Suffice it to say, you are an angry little man, and you just hate yourself.

I feel sorry for you.

*******************************

For those about to flame me for the namecalling above, save it. I have the right to defend myself, just as much as anyone else here.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 05-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



For those about to flame me for the namecalling above, save it. I have the right to defend myself, just as much as anyone else here.





No you do not. You surrender that right whenever you claim to follow the teachings of Christ.

If you insult him, then you most certainly do not follow his teachings, but the opposite.

quote:Originally posted by pot_prince:

ok a bunch of cells is not a life. a fetous (sp?) is not a life, its a cluster of cells with the potential to make life. its been shown that up until something like the 3rd trimester or something the fucking thing doesn't even have a heartbeat let alone a brain or 'soul' or anything that comes close to being a life, hence it is not murder to kill it. if you cut off a finger is it murder? No because your finger doesn't think, its not alive its just a bunch of cells. the only way you can think its murder is if you hold to the christian idea of conception being the moment of the soul entering hence if your not christian you don't see it as murder. best way i've heard it described: "your not a person till your in my phone book".

oh and to Digital_saviour, hae you ever asked women who had no way of raising a kid yet fell pregnant at 16 and kept the child how painful it was for them? ever ask an 18 year old unwed mother living off welfare or dole payments how fucking regretful THEY are?

*clears throat*

A FETUS is a life.

An EMBRYO is a life.

A zygote is alive, though arguably not a recognizable HUMAN BEING.

Please break out a dictionary, and know what it is you believe.

I can't believe how ignorant some people are...not stupid, IGNORANT. Ignorance is the very reason why abortion is so widely accepted.

A heart beat exists at about 8 weeks. That's in the FIRST trimester. After 12 weeks of gestation, NOTHING new forms...what has already formed (a human being) just grows larger.

A finger cannot, and never will be, a sentient being, capable of sustaining it's own existence. Dumb comparison.

I don't need to ask unwed young mother's what they went through to justify my beliefs...I WAS THAT YOUNG GIRL.

quote:Originally posted by Donny Darko:

You Christians always claim to go for the humane solution, but you’re all just narrow minded fools. You never consider the social situation surrounding those people. I thought religion meant about caring but my experience is that religion is a very judgmental machine that’s only concerned with following strict rules so your place in heaven doesn’t come in vain.

Well you can’t solve problems like this with strict one lined rules, we’re talking about humans here, I mainly find my self in what Snoopy said;

I just wanted to share this.

I DO care...that's why I am against abortion.

I don't hate these women...I empathize with them. I know what pain they suffer BECAUSE of abortion, not in spite of it. Unwanted children are PAINFUL, whether you abort them, or keep them. Either way, there is pain...but there doesn't have to be murder.

I have a few girlfriends that have had abortions. I am there for them.

I don't follow a religion. That was very presumptuous of you.

quote:First, the Government gives DS the right to have an opinion on abortion...it gives us all the right to have opinions on pretty much anything.

Second, it seems to me that you cannot get pregnant either, since you said,"Put yourself in my shoes. I get some chick pregnant. "

So by your own arguement, you should not even be allowed to have an opinion.

HAHAHAHA

Awesome !

MasterPython - You made some very good points.

Thanks for your contribution.

I am seeing some people say that IUD's are murder...how so ?

I had an IUD for 2 years. It prevented life, which is not the same as TAKING it.

It stopped me from getting pregnant, which is a GOOD thing.

Contraceptives aren't murder, in my opinion. They don't take life, they prevent it.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

To my understanding, all an IUD does is trick the body into thinking it's pregnant.

Cheers,

Lost

Actually, an IUD gives off copper diodes...which makes the body assume (rightly) there is a foreign intruder in the womb, thus making it inhospitable. The body perceives that conditions are not favorable for fertilization.

Progesterone levels increase in women who have IUD's, since it is this very hormone that prevents fertilization.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



No you do not. You surrender that right whenever you claim to follow the teachings of Christ.

If you insult him, then you most certainly do not follow his teachings, but the opposite.

No, I don't.

Does that make me a less than perfect Christian ? Of course it does. But I am still human, and I still make my own choices.

I strive to keep those choices within the realm of what Christ would want, but I can't always do that.

I don't have to sit around and be a doormat.

I never claimed to be perfect...just forgiven.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



This is the paramount defense of legalized abortion, however in testimonies of women who have had abortions, they almost always say that they had not idea what the emotional and physical affects of abortion were. They were never told what a horrible experience it would be.

If you don't have the information, how can you make an educated decision ?

How are they going to inform them of an experience which is completely personal and different for each individual? They can't. Which is exactly why the possible emotional effects are not explained in detail... because they can' be!

quote:

Can it be said that there is a hidden agenda within the abortion movement to make money, and therefor NOT giving all the information benefits them ?

You have said this in the past, yet give absolutely no evidence to support it. In fact, if I remember correctly, you actually gave an argument against it. You cited that abortions have decreased then it means that either there is no such campaing to further abortions, or that the campaign is a complete and utter failure.

quote:The religious pretenses of this thread is evident...Christians believe that life is more important than inconvenience. Why does it seem as if those that do NOT believe in God think the opposite ?

Because there are countless of other living things who who have no concern for in our daily lives.

What makes you believe a fetus is more important than a rat, is simply YOUR religious beliefs.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, I don't.

Does that make me a less than perfect Christian ? Of course it does. But I am still human, and I still make my own choices.

I strive to keep those choices within the realm of what Christ would want, but I can't always do that.

I don't have to sit around and be a doormat.

I never claimed to be perfect...just forgiven.



No. If you make the concious desicion to insult, even when you know you shouldn't, then there is no excuse.

If you argue there is an excuse, then there would be no reason to believe in the Christ, since I could say "I'm a sinner, I'm not perfect, I will be forgiven".

Sorry, but that's not how it works. The forgiveness of sin and the act of repenting itself, involve contriction and conversion among other things.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-18-2005).]

I didn't say that there was an excuse for it...what I said was that I am a human being, and in such a state of existence I have a natural tendecy to want to defend myself. We all do.

Being a Christian doesn't change that...we have to ALLOW Christianity to vanquish such desires in us.

I haven't gotten to that point yet. I am trying, but am not yet successful. That doesn't make God not exist, and it doesn't prove that Christianity is an act of futility. It means I am not perfect, and never will be.

Non-Christians expect Christians to be living spotless lives, and when they fail to do so they point fingers and conclude that therefore Christianity is false -- after all Jesus seems to set the bar pretty high of what His followers would be like... How should I respond ?

This is important and a difficult one to answer. Let me give it a try. I am a Christian, not because of other Christians. In fact, I've met a lot of lousy Christians in my life. Even more, I've met a lot of people who are lousy humans but they use the label "Christian" to make themselves look better (I guess). Does this mean that I, like the non-believer, am not a Christian? I don't think so. Christianity is about Christ. I am not impressed with Christians, but I am impressed with Christ. So I follow him, because even though others (including myself) have a hard time of it sometimes... he didn't have a hard time of it. I don't claim to be able to empower non-believers to live a good life. But Jesus can if they allow him to form their souls. In our culture, I believe that many Christians do a lame job of following Jesus because, as I mentioned in a previous answer, most people aren't taught how to follow Jesus. So what do we expect of people who receive Jesus as their Savior but are not taught how to follow Him? I expect them to come up pretty short. Whose fault is that? Well, many factors, of which our culture is part of it. But let me add one more thing: I find that whether Christian or not most people claim that they know what goodness is and that they should be good people and that most of them, in their honest moments, have a hard time doing that too. So we're all hypocrites in some sense. Now the question is: who will help us? I think only Christ can help us with this predicament. The Bible calls it sin. It also says that Christ died for the unrighteous (all of us) so that he might bring us to God. Our goal is to be brought to God and to be transformed by Him in the process. This is a long journey...but it doesn't negate the truth of Christ. Again, look to Christ. He is the one that is claiming to be the answer. It's our job to point to him with our life and always allow him to be the final authority.

~ http://www.rzim.org/publications/essay_arttext.php?id=19#10

quote:How are they going to inform them of an experience which is completely personal and different for each individual? They can't. Which is exactly why the possible emotional effects are not explained in detail... because they can' be!

Example 1: During saline induced abortions, the infant struggles violently as it's flesh is burned from it's bones. Mother's can feel this, and know distinctly at what point death occurs, as the infant becomes still. Usually about 12 hours later, the infant is still born, after hours of hard labor.

Women are not told of this.

The struggling always comes as a surprise, but by the time it is happening, it is too late to back out.

If women knew the torture that would occur, they would be less likely to proceed.

Example 2: In the Silent Scream (episode 3 can be seen here, in which you can see the infant being ripped apart by a suction tube via ultrasound images: http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm ), we know that suction abortions are violent, and cause pain.

There are testimonies on the website of women that have seen this video, and have chosen not to get an abortion as a result.

Again, the knowledge prevents the murder.

I maintain that if women were actually educated about abortion, it would happen a lot less. I also maintain that NOT giving all the information is not giving women a "CHOICE", it is deluding them into thinking that abortion is simply a form of birth control, and nothing more.

quote:You have said this in the past, yet give absolutely no evidence to support it. In fact, if I remember correctly, you actually gave an argument against it. You cited that abortions have decreased then it means that either there is no such campaing to further abortions, or that the campaign is a complete and utter failure.

I gave proof of it above, by showing that EDUCATION prevents abortion from happening.

And the decline in abortions shows that the anti-abortion movement is succeeding in educating people about what abortion really is.

There is no other conclusion to be had.

The failure of the pro-abortion campaign does not rule out their agenda...if they are trying to swindle women into having abortions, the outcome of their efforts is not proof or disproof of their agenda, either way.

quote:Because there are countless of other living things who who have no concern for in our daily lives.

Ummm...grammatical errors prevent me from understanding the intent of this statement.

Please fix it, so I can address it.

quote:What makes you believe a fetus is more important than a rat, is simply YOUR religious beliefs.

Yes, and no.

Of course, Christianity teaches us to respect human life.

This merely solidifies what I already felt - human beings are the most important species on the planet.

However, if that belief relied solely upon religious pretenses, I don't see how it would be nullified.

Valuing human life above all other life doesn't seem like such a bad thing, in my opinion.

We are not talking about murdering rats...we ARE talking about murdering humans, though.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 05-18-2005).]

quote:I didn't say that there was an excuse for it...what I said was that I am a human being, and in such a state of existence I have a natural tendecy to want to defend myself. We all do.

Being a Christian doesn't change that...we have to ALLOW Christianity to vanquish such desires in us.

You evaded the point. It being, that you surrender the right to insult people, if you are to call yourself a Christian or a follower of the teachings of the Christ.

That you're physically able ot, of course, but you're not morally, or spirtually able, to since you surrender that right if you are to call yourself a Christian.

Hence, completely justifiable for me, or anyone else to point out how you've just broken the law of god.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Example 1: During saline induced abortions, the infant struggles violently as it's flesh is burned from it's bones. Mother's can feel this, and know distinctly at what point death occurs, as the infant becomes still. Usually about 12 hours later, the infant is still born, after hours of hard labor.

Women are not told of this.

The struggling always comes as a surprise, but by the time it is happening, it is too late to back out.

If women knew the torture that would occur, they would be less likely to proceed

Again, exactly what happens and what is felt is practically impossible for one to know without a first hand account, which is exactly why it is practically impossible to explain.

Moreover, why would I believe you that this isn't informed to the patient?

quote:Example 2: In the Silent Scream (episode 3 can be seen here, in which you can see the infant being ripped apart by a suction tube via ultrasound images: http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm ), we know that suction abortions are violent, and cause pain.

There are testimonies on the website of women that have seen this video, and have chosen not to get an abortion as a result.

Again, the knowledge prevents the murder.

I maintain that if women were actually educated about abortion, it would happen a lot less. I also maintain that NOT giving all the information is not giving women a "CHOICE", it is deluding them into thinking that abortion is simply a form of birth control, and nothing more.

They ARE educated. They are of course not going to be guilt-ridden into not having it, and thus in effect forcing them to something they do not want.

quote:I gave proof of it above, by showing that EDUCATION prevents abortion from happening.

And the decline in abortions shows that the anti-abortion movement is succeeding in educating people about what abortion really is.

There is no other conclusion to be had.

The failure of the pro-abortion campaign does not rule out their agenda...if they are trying to swindle women into having abortions, the outcome of their efforts is not proof or disproof of their agenda, either way.

No. You have NOT shown evidence of this conspiracy theory of pro-abortion clinics deliberately not educating people. Back that up.

quote:Ummm...grammatical errors prevent me from understanding the intent of this statement.

Please fix it, so I can address it.

Geez, it was atrocious. My mistake.

I meant to say, "Because there are countless other living things who we have no concern for in our daily lives."

quote:Yes, and no.

Of course, Christianity teaches us to respect human life.

This merely solidifies what I already felt - human beings are the most important species on the planet.

However, if that belief relied solely upon religious pretenses, I don't see how it would be nullified.

Valuing human life above all other life doesn't seem like such a bad thing, in my opinion.

We are not talking about murdering rats...we ARE talking about murdering humans, though.

Lets not kid around, we're talking about killing an unwanted being, that serves no purpose in its current state, to society or the woman. Much like a rat. That YOU believe it is more important than a rat, is as correct as the woman believing it is less important; less correct I'd say, since it isn't your rat to begin with.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You evaded the point. It being, that you surrender the right to insult people, if you are to call yourself a Christian or a follower of the teachings of the Christ.

That you're physically able ot, of course, but you're not morally, or spirtually able, to since you surrender that right if you are to call yourself a Christian.

Hence, completely justifiable for me, or anyone else to point out how you've just broken the law of god.

Stop it. I didn't EVADE anything. If I didn't address a specific aspect of your post, then it wasn't intentional. EVER.

Now, I don't surrender my right to insult people simply by dedicating my life to Christ. I am supposed to, of course...but I don't HAVE to. In this, I am a flawed Christian. Salvation ensures that I remain a Christian, however, despite my sin )past, present, and future.)

God makes no such law. If you knew God, you'd know that. Again, I encourage you to read the Bible.

Pointing out how I am a hypocrite doesn't prove that I am not a Christian, nor does it prove that Christianity is flawed.

It proves that I am a hypocrite, and in this specific aspect, I never claimed not to be.

quote:Again, exactly what happens and what is felt is practically impossible for one to know without a first hand account, which is exactly why it is practically impossible to explain.

Moreover, why would I believe you that this isn't informed to the patient?

First, if you knew about the abortion process, you would know that they don't tell you the gruesome details. Hell, they don't even tell you about the option of adoption.

Second, check the testimonies...they all say they weren't informed of anything other than the fact that the baby would be exterminated.

During every saline induced abortion after 8 weeks, thrashing about occurs. It is not hard to understand why that is.

Your point is weak, and I expect better of you.

quote:They ARE educated. They are of course not going to be guilt-ridden into not having it, and thus in effect forcing them to something they do not want.

As a humanist (if I am wrong in using that label, feel free to correct me), I think it would be most obvious to you of all people how ignorant the majority of humanity truly is.

They are not educated about what actually takes place. Many testimonies state that they were told that the baby was nothing more than a blob of flesh. While that may be true in a nominal amount of abortion cases, in most, of which occur after 8 weeks of gestation, the baby is NOT a blob of flesh. No woman could look at her child, whom has fingers and toes, and go ahead with an abortion.

It has nothing to do with guilt, but ethics.

quote:No. You have NOT shown evidence of this conspiracy theory of pro-abortion clincis deliberatly uneducating people. Back that up.

Yeah, I have. The fact that you don't want to see my point in those facts doesn't make them any less viable.

They deliberately keep information from women that may produce undesirable effects for their industry.

Go to the planned parenthood website. I challenge you to find me ONE gruesome detail about what actually goes on in an abortion. All they do is talk about the woman's right to choose. Very empowering and all, but ommission of facts is the same as lying.

It is not educational to only hear ONE SIDE of anything.

quote:Geez, it was attrocious. My mistake.

I meant to say, "Because there are countless other living things who we have no concern for in our daily lives."

It's cool. *lol* I was positive that you meant something worth commenting on, but I just couldn't tell "what". http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

What things don't I have concern for ?

I am not going to be a vigilante for muskrats, who face imminent extinction, over the life of a human child.

Does that mean I don't care ? Or that I wouldn't rescue one if I saw it hurt ?

Of course I would. I saved a mouse last year...a little baby mouse. My husband found it in a field...so young it couldn't open it's eyes. I fashioned a little den for it out of wood shavings and a cardboard box. I spent $40 on a light that would warm it. I took gerbil pellets and crushed them in water to make a paste and hand fed this mouse for 4 weeks. Eventually, my cat ate him, but I sure did try !

I care about all life, but I put more stock in humans than I do anything else.

If that is not what you meant, go ahead and expound.

quote:Lets not kid around, we're talking about killing an unwanted being, that serves no purpose in its current state, to society or the woman. Much like a rat. That YOU believe it is more important than a rat, is as correct as the woman believing it is less important; less correct I'd say, since it isn't your rat to begin with.

Whether it serves a purpose at the time of the decision or not is irrelevant...especially since that is up to perception.

For couples that CAN'T conceive their own children, that unborn child is very much wanted. Hell, the mother of the child could even profit off of it. She gets compensated, and the baby gets to live. What's wrong with that ?

I don't agree that my perception that the life is worth more than a rat is equal to the mother not wanting the child.

We are talking about life, and the murder of it. It's important, and I will not yield.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

First, if you knew about the abortion process, you would know that they don't tell you the gruesome details. Hell, they don't even tell you about the option of adoption.

Second, check the testimonies...they all say they weren't informed of anything other than the fact that the baby would be exterminated.

During every saline induced abortion after 8 weeks, thrashing about occurs. It is not hard to understand why that is.

Your point is weak, and I expect better of you.

Those terribly bias testimonies are not evidence of anything. If anything, they are evidence of the lengths anti-abortionists would go to further their cause, a length that so obviously includes exploiting the pain those women felt.

Moreover, it is certainly not a weak argument. Not only is the saline method hardly used anymore, not only is it tremendously difficult to explain what is actually felt without first hand account, but you're still left with the reason that they do not want to guilt anyone into keeping an unwanted child.

quote:As a humanist (if I am wrong in using that label, feel free to correct me), I think it would be most obvious to you of all people how ignorant the majority of humanity truly is.

They are not educated about what actually takes place. Many testimonies state that they were told that the baby was nothing more than a blob of flesh. While that may be true in a nominal amount of abortion cases, in most, of which occur after 8 weeks of gestation, the baby is NOT a blob of flesh. No woman could look at her child, whom has fingers and toes, and go ahead with an abortion.

It has nothing to do with guilt, but ethics.

Ethics has EVERYTHING to do with guilt!

You evaded the point completely and only offered that terribly erroneous bit.

In fact, that bit actually works against you. Not only is guilt intertwined in ethical debate, it would actually be unethical for the medical practioner to talk the patient out of the abortion, let alone guilt ridding them in order to change their opinions to fir YOUR agenda.

quote:Yeah, I have. The fact that you don't want to see my point in those facts doesn't make them any less viable.

They deliberately keep information from women that may produce undesirable effects for their industry.

Go to the planned parenthood website. I challenge you to find me ONE gruesome detail about what actually goes on in an abortion. All they do is talk about the woman's right to choose. Very empowering and all, but ommission of facts is the same as lying.

It is not educational to only hear ONE SIDE of anything.

You haven't shown how they keep information!

Not only that, but I already justified this, even if it did occur, this making this point moot.

quote:What things don't I have concern for ?

I am not going to be a vigilante for muskrats, who face imminent extinction, over the life of a human child.

Does that mean I don't care ? Or that I wouldn't rescue one if I saw it hurt ?

Of course I would. I saved a mouse last year...a little baby mouse. My husband found it in a field...so young it couldn't open it's eyes. I fashioned a little den for it out of wood shavings and a cardboard box. I spent $40 on a light that would warm it. I took gerbil pellets and crushed them in water to make a paste and hand fed this mouse for 4 weeks. Eventually, my cat ate him, but I sure did try !

I care about all life, but I put more stock in humans than I do anything else.

If that is not what you meant, go ahead and expound.

Every single step you make, you kill living things. Every single keystroke you have entered here, in order to type your responses in totse, has resulted in the killing of bacteria; things that are alive.

Every time you go to shop at the mall, to go outside for a walk, you have killed living things; including but not limited to, bacteria, mosquitoes, ants, flies, etc.

You obviously do not care too much about bacteria, since if you did, you wouldn't be posting in totse. You don't have to post in totse... so if you cared enough about it you would stop.

quote:Whether it serves a purpose at the time of the decision or not is irrelevant...especially since that is up to perception.

For couples that CAN'T conceive their own children, that unborn child is very much wanted. Hell, the mother of the child could even profit off of it. She gets compensated, and the baby gets to live. What's wrong with that ?

I don't agree that my perception that the life is worth more than a rat is equal to the mother not wanting the child.

We are talking about life, and the murder of it. It's important, and I will not yield.

The purpose being up to perspective already serves as an argument against your denial of rights.

Adoption is not available for everyone. Not only can it create more stress, more legal responsibility, and more emotional baggage, but there is quite simply not enough people willing to adopt.

As for you not believing that it is worth as much, please show me how it isn't. How will you do such a thing? Give me YOUR opinion? That doesn't prove anything. It actually serves to show how subjective the issue is.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Stop it. I didn't EVADE anything. If I didn't address a specific aspect of your post, then it wasn't intentional. EVER.

Now, I don't surrender my right to insult people simply by dedicating my life to Christ. I am supposed to, of course...but I don't HAVE to. In this, I am a flawed Christian. Salvation ensures that I remain a Christian, however, despite my sin )past, present, and future.)

That is exactly the definition of surredering a right! Like I said, you are physically able to do so, but do not have the right to do so. That is, you are not justified in doing so.

That's exactly the definition of not having a right! I am physically able to kill someone, but I am not legally nor morally justified in doing so, hence I do not have the right!

quote:

God makes no such law. If you knew God, you'd know that. Again, I encourage you to read the Bible.

Pointing out how I am a hypocrite doesn't prove that I am not a Christian, nor does it prove that Christianity is flawed.

It proves that I am a hypocrite, and in this specific aspect, I never claimed not to be.

You are claiming that there is no law which mandates you to love your fellow man? An then you ask me to read the bible? If you knew god you'd know that such a law exists.

And yes, it proves how you're not a Christian, since it proves how you give no important to the deliberate, and conscious breaking of his laws. You know you are wrong in doing so, and continuew to do so. That is not the sign of a Christian, however you want to paint it for your own selfish benefits.

No...belief in Christ is the only requirement for salvation.

If YOU knew about Christianity, you would know that.

The rest of the Bible is written as a guide to ensure we have fruitful, fulfilling lives. We are saved and going to heaven upon belief in Christ, and nothing more.

My being a wretched human being doesn't change that, since salvation is not conditional upon our performance. If it were, none of us would be going to heaven !

You simply don't understand Christianity...*shrugs*

http://members.tripod.com/~joseromia/samuel.html

Nope.

Not a human being.

Just an insignificant blob of flesh.

LET'S KILL IT !! (It has spina bifida, and is therefor not suitable for existence...it will only be a burden to it's parents, and society as a whole. It is completely justifiable to exterminate it's life, based on these beliefs.)

"As much as I respect you, Lost, I have to say that this is the very same thinking that has ruined America...the feminists have castrated men of their right to be men. Men are parents, too."

- I agree that men are parents, too, but I don't believe they have as much to do with the pregnancy process as the woman does. And that is why I don't think they should be able to control whether or not abortion is legal or not. I mean, birth control laws are run by men. Why do you think they've been so lax on promoting a pill for men? There's a million pills out there to make men more horny, but none to make them less? There's a man behind that somewhere, because I think men are horny enough. If you can't fuck, you shouldn't be fucking.

"This is NOT about control. Women seem to think that if they are not allowed to get an abortion, they are being stripped of their rights...no one else has the right to murder, so why should they ?"

- DS, this is all about control. You take a womans right to choose away and you take about one of her rights. You are controlling her right to freedom of choice. The right to her pursuit of happiness. And not everyone believes that the baby is an actually baby as long as it's in the womb. In Judaism it's believed that the spirit doesn't enter the body until it breathes it's first breath.

"The same people who cry "INJUSTICE" at the thought of a God that would murder His own creation seem to think that the mother of an unborn child has the right to murder HER own creation. Interesting."

- I have never cried injustice, if that's what you're implying, simply because I don't believe god kills people. I believe he can, but I don't think he does. A woman can kill her fetus, but that doesn't mean she does.

"When you have children, you will understand things differently."

- I have children, DS. But, from what I know, you do not.

We have a difference in opinion.

Cheers,

Lost

I stand corrected. I did not know you had children.

I have 3. I have been very clear about that MANY times here on Totse. Kinda weird that you never saw that.

Anyway, I am too tired to give a decent response to the rest of your post, and you deserve that, so...I will refrain for now.

God bless, and goodnight.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No...belief in Christ is the only requirement for salvation.

If YOU knew about Christianity, you would know that.

The rest of the Bible is written as a guide to ensure we have fruitful, fulfilling lives. We are saved and going to heaven upon belief in Christ, and nothing more.

My being a wretched human being doesn't change that, since salvation is not conditional upon our performance. If it were, none of us would be going to heaven !

You simply don't understand Christianity...*shrugs*



Nice try changing the argument, I clearly said FOLLOWING HIS TEACHINGS, NOT "salvation".

Not to mention that this is quite simply misleading, since belief in Christ must also be coupled with the following of his commandments. If you had read the bible, you would have known this. There would be absolutely no reason for there to be commandments in the first place, if we didn't need them!

Apparently it is YOU who do not understand Christianity.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

http://members.tripod.com/~joseromia/samuel.html

Nope.

Not a human being.

Just an insignificant blob of flesh.

LET'S KILL IT !! (It has spina bifida, and is therefor not suitable for existence...it will only be a burden to it's parents, and society as a whole. It is completely justifiable to exterminate it's life, based on these beliefs.)

Everything you said here has pretty much shown how you're not truly a Christian; this blatant attack clearly shows this once more.

I never claimed I like to kill fetuses. I also never claimed I agreed with abortion at the later stages of the pregnancy.

Anything else you want to jump to conclusions about, and ignorantly attack me? I'm all ears.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-18-2005).]

Wait. I know DS is going to be and probably wont respond for several hours, but I want to state here and now that I want you DS to curb your enthusiasm. That goes for everyone else, but as a respected member of this forum, DS, you're setting a bad example of language and bad example of tolerance for other peoples opinions.

If the hostility in this thread continues the debate will become moot and I will have to close this thread. And I don't want to do that because it's a valid thread, so, please, everybody take your heads out of your asses and try to be a little more tolerant.

Cheers,

Lost

Excuse me ?

How am I setting a bad example ?

Snoopy has been calling me a "fucking idiot" for days...you have said nothing. NOW, you start accusing me of setting a bad example ? I'm not even a mod, whom SHOULD be setting a good example !

That just downright pisses me off.

I don't feel I have said ANYTHING out of line, and if you feel that tolerance is so important it would serve your power trip to be around more often to curb everyone else's enthusiasm !

Yes, you mentioned "everyone else", yet it seems to be a trend with you lately to chastise me specifically, when I am certainly not the worst of these.

Gimme a break, Lost.

I am well within respectable boundaries, here, and I challenge you to show me where I am not.

Rust, I am merely showing that ignorance cannot be tolerated within the realm of abortion. We must all know exactly what it is about, before we make judgement calls.

That post certainly wasn't directed at YOU. Though my post followed yours directly, I didn't address it to you, so you can safely assume that it was meant for everyone.

I was being facetious, in case that was lost on you.

Abortion is abortion. There are no grey areas. If you vote to allow it to be legal, then you must accept the responsibility of the fact that MANY infants this age AND OLDER die everyday as a result of a "woman's right to choose."

My husband's sister has a friend that waited until she was 6 months pregnant...denial, I guess...to decided to have the procedure done.

While the first clinic she went to was ethical enough to say, "You're too far along, and we won't do it.", she did manage to find a doctor that WOULD.

Because it is legal for anyone to do it, this scenario is all too common. It's senseless, and could be avoided.

To exist in this rose colored world, where only zygotes get aborted, is idiocy.

If you support abortion being legal, then you DO support abortion during the late stages of pregnancy, since there is no distinction within the law to differentiate between early abortion, and late abortion. Legal is legal.

You also support the murder of fetus' if you support abortion, because again, there is no provision for what stages are unacceptable at this time.

If you can't understand this one size fits all mentality when it comes to abortion, then you ought not vote for it to be legal.

quote:Posted by Rust:

Again, exactly what happens and what is felt is practically impossible for one to know without a first hand account, which is exactly why it is practically impossible to explain.

...and then...

quote:Those terribly bias testimonies are not evidence of anything.

So, first hand accounts are the only way to definitively explain what happens during an abortion, yet these firsthand accounts are not good enough because...

...YOU claim they are biased ?

First, you must prove that they are biased (and why) in order for that assertion to hold any water.

Second, nobody can win with you, no matter what, can they ?

You left no room for movement within those two statements. Is this the world according to Rust ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

I would also like you to explain how you do not contradict yourself with these two statements.

Testimonies of doctors (who aren't BIASED by religion) in court hearings:

~ http://www.eadshome.com/PartialBirthAbortion.htm

Looks like someone/\ is obsessed with this thread... 10 replys in a row.

Where does Jesus say that life does not begin with the first breath? Nowhere?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Most religious groups are anti-abortion so if there was a law prohibiting abortion then the law would be benefiting the religious organizations and would be a law respecting an establishment of religion and thus un-constitutional.

Testimonies of women who don't seem to be Christian:

~ http://www.gargaro.com/regrets.html

I am posting this because I don't want it to be said that only CHRISTIANS who have had abortions experience suffering and pain as a result.

No matter how you look at it, a woman's right to choose ends up being a woman's right to suffer.

I think the Bible is very clear on this subject. We shouldn't murder.

Anyone here that is not a Christian that thinks abortion is wrong ?

Any Christians here that think abortion is right ?

quote:Anyone here that is not a Christian that thinks abortion is wrong ?

well a lot of X-tians wouldn't consider me a believer and i was anti abortion long before i got faith...even back when i was a violent criminal.

quote:Originally posted by The_Nazi:

Most religious groups are anti-abortion so if there was a law prohibiting abortion then the law would be benefiting the religious organizations and would be a law respecting an establishment of religion and thus un-constitutional.

If these groups really cared about the constitution and stuff they would just base the law on racisim and zenophobia. Saying that they need to keep America full of Americans so there is no room for immigrants.

quote:Originally posted by The_Nazi:

Looks like someone/\ is obsessed with this thread... 10 replys in a row.

Where does Jesus say that life does not begin with the first breath? Nowhere?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Most religious groups are anti-abortion so if there was a law prohibiting abortion then the law would be benefiting the religious organizations and would be a law respecting an establishment of religion and thus un-constitutional.

No, it would be benefitting 46 million children (who have died because of abortion since the 70's).

Here is some scripture that tells us how God values human life at conception:

Job 31:15 - "Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?"

Isaiah 44:2 - "This is what the LORD says — he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen."

Luke 1:44 - "As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy."

Jeremiah 1:4-5 - "The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

This forum isn't about religion permeating government. It's about preserving human life.

How can you quote such things in light of this ?

I can't believe you can use this to somehow justify the murder of innocent children.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Testimonies of women who don't seem to be Christian:

~ http://www.gargaro.com/regrets.html

I am posting this because I don't want it to be said that only CHRISTIANS who have had abortions experience suffering and pain as a result.

No matter how you look at it, a woman's right to choose ends up being a woman's right to suffer.

It is still a right, it is their problem to deal with the consequences be they positive or negative

I think the Bible is very clear on this subject. We shouldn't murder.

You did not answer my question. Find an area in the bible that Jesus specifically states that life begins at conception.

Anyone here that is not a Christian that thinks abortion is wrong ?

Any Christians here that think abortion is right ?

Yes. Although I am not into the whole conservative bush-loving thing. I bash all religions equally. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif) The only opinion that is not some corrupt religious leader's opinion is that life starts when the individual is able to take its first breath.

And this looks like propaganda http://www.eadshome.com/GeorgeWBush.htm.

quote:You are such an asshole, I can't even believe you exist.

That's the point, honey. You can't believe I exist, because you're a weak little shit and only believe in nice things. You don't need to believe in me to exist though. You'll see that when your babies get smacked to death against a wall. Oh shit, I've seen people do this in the war. It really puts the zang in your spine. You have to be one fucked up freak to enjoy seeing that. But we can all get pushed so far as to do it.

Post-incunabula abortion. Hahhaha, I love it.

You need to learn how to read my post. But you don't seem to be able enough. Mentally, that is. Who said anything about anyone forcing to abort? The point is, there are women who WANT to abort, and they should have the right to do so. Your opinion whether abortion is murder or not is irrelevant as is your life. Get it now?

Oh besides, I can form an opinion on anything I like and no matter how foolish, extreme, surreal or irrational it may seem, I can still pass it as relevant. I'm just that much of a badass.

Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked (Psalm 82:3-4).

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? (Proverbs 24:11-12).

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

That's the point, honey. You can't believe I exist, because you're a weak little shit and only believe in nice things. You don't need to believe in me to exist though. You'll see that when your babies get smacked to death against a wall. Oh shit, I've seen people do this in the war. It really puts the zang in your spine. You have to be one fucked up freak to enjoy seeing that. But we can all get pushed so far as to do it.

Post-incunabula abortion. Hahhaha, I love it.

You need to learn how to read my post. But you don't seem to be able enough. Mentally, that is. Who said anything about anyone forcing to abort? The point is, there are women who WANT to abort, and they should have the right to do so. Your opinion whether abortion is murder or not is irrelevant as is your life. Get it now?

Oh besides, I can form an opinion on anything I like and no matter how foolish, extreme, surreal or irrational it may seem, I can still pass it as relevant. I'm just that much of a badass.

Lost, please tell me how I am setting a worse example than him in both language and tolerance ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, it would be benefitting 46 million children (who have died because of abortion since the 70's).

Here is some scripture that tells us how God values human life at conception:

Job 31:15 - "Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?"

Isaiah 44:2 - "This is what the LORD says — he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen."

Luke 1:44 - "As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy."

Jeremiah 1:4-5 - "The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

This forum isn't about religion permeating government. It's about preserving human life.

What the fuck? http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif) So totse is pro-life now????? I thought it was My God Can Beat the Shit Out of Your God not pro-life abortion clinic bomber recruting ground http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

How can you quote such things in light of this ?

Something called the 1st ammendment?

I can't believe you can use this to somehow justify the murder of innocent children.

I define children as human, not a bunch of cells. And that abortion hand pic could have been faked. All they had to do was to grab the fetus' hand and put it on the guys glove. Mabey unbiased information next time?

Few overarching and undergirding influences in life are at once dominant and faltering as the power of a culture. There is implicitly in all of us a tacit surrender to its demands while we supposedly boast individuality and freedom of thought. That entrapment alone ought to alert us to the privilege and peril of being part of a drift that offers change, but carries us unawares into turbulent terrain. This subsuming effect of culture is analogous to the heartbeat of a people. For that reason alone I found a friend's description of a heart attack he had suffered very pertinent and illustrative. Being only in his thirties when the heart attack occurred and a medical doctor by profession made his description all the more intriguing. He described the pain as different to any other pain he had ever felt. Every prior injury or hurt, whether a broken arm or a sore knee, was always a pain that he saw as a hurt to a part of his body. In some measure he could separate himself from the pain. "But during my heart attack," he said, "I was in the pain. There is no other way to describe it." The notion conveyed is instructive--that the very organ that should have been pumping life was instead disseminating pain. That is a powerful statement when one thinks of how a feeling or a mood can be so all-consuming, and can define the core of existence.

I can think of no better analogy to describe such total absorption than the dominant cultural mood that now holds modern men and women in its clutches. So engulfing is its power that we cannot discuss this essential theme of our culture at its crossroads without being locked into it ourselves. We are in it, and are hard-pressed to find a fulcrum outside of it with which to leverage a shift.

There is an old Chinese proverb which says that if you want to know what water is, don't ask the fish. The reason is that the fish does not know what any other kind of existence offers because it is submerged in the monotony and single vision of a water-logged existence. To the fish, no other existence is possible, and therefore its own is unappraisable in terms of contrast.

That insight also has a message for those immersed in a situation, reminding them that closeness does not guarantee a correct perspective. Sometimes a culture can subliminally and mindlessly absorb ideas into its consciousness and transmit the same, so that it is hard for those within it to be objective about the validity or superiority of its practices when measured against a counter-perspective. In other words, if we want to know what America is like, the surest way to that understanding may not be to ask one who has been culturally American all his or her life.

It is not easy to admit this blind spot that plagues us all and breeds a subtle form of prejudice. I well recall my own struggle with cultural awareness in the early days of my relocation from one part of the world to the other. I would become very agitated whenever I heard a public speaker report on his or her impressions of a recent trip he had taken to the land of my birth, for oftentimes the images conveyed were in terms of shock and speechlessness because of the conditions witnessed--some for good and some for ill. This troubled me greatly for it seemed exaggerative, embellished for the sake of effect, and far removed from my perceptions of life as I had experienced it, growing up in those very surroundings. The annoyance never abated until years later when I returned there for a visit, and was completely unprepared for being overcome by my own reactions to all that I saw and felt. I did not recall being overwhelmed by these same conditions when I had lived there. But now my responses seemed to echo in self-indicting fashion those I had heard described by eyes to whom it was foreign.

The same holds true for a westerner who has lived in the East and returns to the West years later. All of a sudden definitions of wants and needs take on new points of reference. Priorities all become rearranged. There is sometimes more justification in the surprise reaction of unfamiliarity than there is in the desensitization that comes from immersion. We all remember the old analogy of the frog that is gradually boiled when it is first placed in a cauldron of cold water. The frog continues to swim in comfort, oblivious that it is being boiled to its own death. On the other hand, if that same frog were to be placed in boiling water, it would immediately leap out of it for safety. The gradual change was unnoticed and accommodated beyond reason, while the drastic change met with self-preserving common sense.

This is not to deny that being part of a culture brings about a level of comfort with the ways and means by which people live. It is only to caution that familiarity does not guarantee sensibility or objectivity. Proximity is not synonymous with understanding. Indeed, modern technology may mean that proximity makes us more vulnerable to distortion and victimization as the ideas that are thrust upon our imaginations, and the "heroes" that are created everyday by the media, condition our consciousness in ways that make political totalitarianism, by contrast, seem tame. We are unavoidably beguiled in this so-called postmodern world to an unprecedented degree. The constant bombardment of ideas and images fashions the tastes of a whole generation, and results in altered beliefs and lifestyles that make even what was once aberrant gradually seem normal. The double-edged tragedy is that we are not only in such an environment as this, but that any sound of warning that we are being boiled to our own death is contemptuously mocked as insane.

In the midst of this consciousness that seeks control over our sensitivities, we must find a way to understand what is happening to us as a civilization, or we are doomed to destinies of alarming possibilities. For at any given time on this planet of ours, minds are almost certainly at work at a feverish pace--penning modern day versions of Mein Kampf or Das Kapital; wondering what new worlds to conquer or what old hates to avenge; ponderously preparing new technologies that will make our present holdings dissatisfying and obsolete. Some movie mogul somewhere is possibly discussing a script that will tear away at any last vestige of reverence still residing in the human heart. Some new weapon may be in the works that could bring the world to its knees, at the mercy of an autocrat. And while all these possibilities loom, none of us knows what new diseases, atrocities or tragedies await us at the turn of the next century.

Immersed in this mix of change and decay, can we at least understand the dimensions we confront? Can we appeal to our collective conscience, while there still remain in our midst some who are sensitive to the realization that there must be fences in life, else predators, with unrestrained and insatiable passions, will break down every wall of protection, and plunder at will everything we treasure.

Bearing in mind that we are not only near to this cultural explosion but are also, in fact, in it, the better part of wisdom calls first for a diagnosis. What is it we are supposed to be near to and immersed in? The answer to that may at first seem to be protracted, but a simplistic approach for the sake of brevity only adds to the shallowness that is symptomatic of our crisis of thought. When the mindset of a culture has cut deeply into one's own thought life, the correctives must also be deep.

The first step is to diagnose the moods of the present that mold our modern consciousness, moods that are dictating behavior. Once these are understood we may well be shocked by the realization of how much a victim each of us has become to the molding and manipulative power of culture, and we may well exclaim, "This is true! This is what I have become!" It is only this depth of analysis that awakens us not merely to the decisions that we make each day, but also gives us that incisive understanding of why we have made those decisions, or why we have chosen certain lifestyles. An awareness of the profound impact of culture can be a rude awakening but a necessary one. For it not only reveals the rationality or irrationality of our reasons; it also exposes the inevitable consequences of such choices we make, consequences which we might wish to escape, but find are unalterable.

One of the symptoms of modern and postmodern change is the large stock of new words, or certainly the new use of old words--terms such as "user-friendly," "downsizing," "multiculturalism," "politically-correct," "homophobic," "postmodern," "poststructuralism," and "deconstruction." If the cartographers of our time are working away furiously to draw up new maps as empires get further subdivided each day, our neologists (those who invent new words) are living at a boom time for their preoccupations. One such word that we are all now accustomed to hearing repeatedly is "secular," or "secularization." I would venture to suggest that if we paused long enough we might find ourselves stumbling when asked to define what this word really means. The word itself has a broad sweep, and in differing contexts brings a different spin to the central idea. For our purposes we will concentrate on the term in its social implications, because it is the process of secularization that is one of the most powerful conditioning influences in cultural formation today. Virtually every major decision that is made, and that affects our mind-molding institutions--even in the highest offices of the land--is made on the basis of a secularized worldview. This factor more than anything else is the vantage point behind the emotionally charged debates that are at the forefront of western life, and to varying degrees, in other parts of the world as well.

What does secularization really mean? With a touch of humor and an edge of sarcasm, the following lines summarize this new reigning worldview:

"First dentistry was painless.

Then bicycles were chainless,

Carriages were horseless,

And many laws enforceless.

Next cookery was fireless,

Telegraphy was wireless,

Cigars were nicotineless,

And coffee caffeineless.

Soon oranges were seedless,

The putting green was weedless,

The college boy was hatless,

The proper diet fatless.

New motor roads are dustless,

The latest steel is rustless,

Our tennis courts are sodless,

Our new religion--godless."

(Arthur Guiterman, "Gaily the Troubadour")

A secular worldview is admittedly and designedly the underlying impetus that presently propels western culture. The central feature of that outlook assumes that this world--the material world--is all that we have by which and for which to live. How all this came about is a historian's challenge and a sociologist's occupation. The reality that secularism is the philosophy of choice for American government, and of our culture, is inescapable. Any view of a spiritual essence or of otherworldliness is by definition considered irrelevant or irrational. Secularism, or "saeculum," is implicitly "this worldly."

Peter Berger, the renowned sociologist and Director of the Institute for the Study of Economic Culture at Boston University, defines secularization as "the process by which sectors of society and culture are removed from the domination of religious institutions and symbols." He expands on this in the following way:

"When we speak of society and institutions in modern western history, of course, secularization manifests itself in the evacuation by the Christian churches of areas previously under their control or influence as in the separation of Church and State...or in the emancipation of education from ecclesiastical authority. When we speak of culture and symbols, however, we imply that secularization is more than a social-structural process. It affects the totality of cultural life and of ideation, and may be observed in the decline of religious content in the arts, in philosophy, in literature and, most important of all, in the rise of science as an autonomous, thoroughly secular perspective on the world." (Berger, The Sacred Canopy, New York: Doubleday, 1990).

The choice of words Berger makes is very interesting indeed, and the broad sweep that his lines encompass is of enormous importance: "The evacuation of the church...the emancipation of education." The former speaks of a fleeing body, the latter of a liberation of the enshackled mind. All of the images stirred up are emotionally charged, and are alluring as a study in themselves. Simply stated, this definition of secularization asserts that public life is to be governed by laws that are not influenced by religion, or any transcendent sacred notion.

However, lest we get too far afield, I shall borrow from a more poignant definition that will focus on the aortic valve of secularization as it enables the flow of ideas which energize our current culture. Social analyst Os Guinness defines secularization as "the process by which religious ideas, institutions, and interpretations have lost their social significance."

Herein lies not only the heart, but the will of the issue as crafted by the protagonists of secularism. Religious ideas have been rendered senseless in the social arena by the gladiators of the intellect. This is indeed stronger language than terms like "evacuation." Eviction is the more accurate term, and for some, public eradication and humiliation of all religious belief would even be the goal. If free enterprise as an economic theory allows for competition in the marketplace to determine what the consumer wants, then by the same process, secularization has conveyed to those who promote religious ideas that the consumer does not want them bidding for any of their "products" in matters of state. It all sounds very harmless and perhaps even fair, but the intended banishment goes far beyond a mere separation of identity.

The contention being made here--that this is not a mild-mannered drawing of the lines but, more accurately, a hostile take-over--is not even slightly overstated. No one with any real knowledge of our moral struggles today will deny this philosophical attack upon the moorings of contemporary society. The effect of secularization in rendering religious convictions inadmissible in the public arena is touted in vengeful terms. Philosophy has vanquished Theology; Reason has embarrassed Faith.

As a test of this thesis, imagine with me a scenario featured on a prime time television program. A volatile moral issue that divides the nation is being discussed by a panel of experts. If that panel were comprised of an educator, a philosopher, a civil libertarian, a politician, a lawyer, a journalist, and a minister, who would be considered by the listening audience to be the most "biased" or "irrelevant" on the subject, and therefore, the least credible? Without a doubt, it would be the minister.

As much as one would seek to be irenic and conciliatory on this sad prejudice, it is fatuous to deny that in academia, and even more so in the media, the person in ministry today is often portrayed with ridicule or bias. It is not uncommon for hostility to be vented against the one who comes with a Christian perspective on any issue. The title "Reverend," especially if borne by one of a conservative stripe, is represented as denoting anything but scholarship. The assumption is blatantly made that all who are "this worldly" are either well-informed or transcendently objective, or both. They supposedly have no hidden agendas, and possess no ulterior motive of trying to bring society under repressive views. At the same time, it is implied that it is only the religious who are bigoted and prejudiced, who seek to put culture's head under their tyrannical heels.

When religious ideas are discussed, they are most often conveyed as oppressive or antiquated. Seven decades after the Scopes Trial there is still a clear aspersion in the discussion of that event, casting the religionist as the butt of the rationalists' ridicule. The one who believes in God as the author of the universe is dismissed as an intellectual dinosaur who has out-lived his or her usefulness, and who ought not to continue to exist. The witch hunts that seek to destroy belief in the sacred depict religious belief as unwelcome and prejudicial. "Alas! let us show God-talk for what it is," they say, "full of ignorance and repression, signifying hate and intolerance." It is little wonder, therefore, that students entering university are very guarded about their religious belief for fear of being outcasts in the world of learning.

This is a radical inversion, is it not? For at one time the educated were the churchmen, and the halls of learning were founded by those in religious leadership. In a strange twist the secular powers charge that it is religious exploitation that has brought about our present situation, and therefore, it is payback time.

It is important then to understand how this state of affairs came to be. Let us look at it in two stages. The first will be to trace the evolution of secularism from being merely a voice among many vying for allegiance to becoming the reigning mind-set, having the power to grant or ban admissibility of all other views. The second will be to bring a full understanding of where secularization leads in its logical outworking. The latter is felt in practical terms, while the former--the analyses of the antecedents of the secularist mood--is unwittingly ignored as purely academic. To be fair and accurate, both aspects are important if one is to counter the situation with intelligence. The causes and the results are with us today. Not only are they both important for understanding, but also for appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of a secular perspective. We have much to learn from that worldview.

Our focus in this instance will be the secularization of America as we see within this nation both the zenith of western culture and the nadir, if a secularized worldview becomes sovereign in matters of moral direction. We must come to grips with that result. It will not do to cling to the cause and wish the result away. Reality does not play mind games. What is more, to anesthetize the mind in order to abort what of necessity comes to birth when wrong ideas are conceived and are borne in the womb of culture, will kill the very life-giving force of the nation that nurtures that idea. It does little when life is lost to cry out, "I think I have killed her."

~ http://www.rzim.org/publications/essay_arttext.php?id=16

* ~ * ~ *

Abortion...

HOW DID WE GET HERE ??

Here's a little fact:

There are women who WANT to abort, and they should have the right to do so, cause if they don't, they'll do it on themselves in ways a hundred times more horrible..

quote:Originally posted by The_Nazi:

I define children as human, not a bunch of cells. And that abortion hand pic could have been faked. All they had to do was to grab the fetus' hand and put it on the guys glove. Mabey unbiased information next time?

Ummm...a baby's hand is a baby's hand.

I don't believe I was trying to say that the baby GRABBED the doc's hand, and even if I did, it would bear no relevance on the point.

That's a baby, and you can clearly see that. The baby is 21 weeks old, and there are many babies at this age that get aborted, BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL to do so. THAT WAS THE POINT.

This is a very famous surgery...it isn't faked. Google "Samuel Alexander", and you will see.

Stop grasping at straws to make yourself feel better.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Also, I said "THIS FORUM", and I should have said, "THIS THREAD". My bad.

I won't be recruiting anyone to do anything (such as bomb a clinic).

Murder is murder, no matter how it is delivered.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Here's a little fact:

There are women who WANT to abort, and they should have the right to do so, cause if they don't, they'll do it on themselves in ways a hundred times more horrible..

That is such a pathetic excuse for legalizing abortions, I won't even bother ripping it to shreds.

*sighs*

Here's another fact:

Abortion is already legal.

For keeping them legal, then.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

For keeping them legal, then.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

They'll remain legal in societies dominated by intelligent people, and they'll remain illegal in societies dominated by idiotic people.

Abortions, Guns, Drugs=Freedom.

quote:Originally posted by The_Nazi:

Abortions, Guns, Drugs=Freedom.

Digital Saviour, for all your sanctimonious arguments, you have totally lost touch with the reality of what you're talking about. You want to know what your morals, forced on others, would lead to? If a mother is determined not to raise a child, a number of things will happen if you remove her freedom to abort:

First, as Snoopy said, that baby will die. Either it will die after it is born, arguably a much worse thing than before birth, while it's still a fetus whose brain hasn't approached awareness of the world. Otherwise abortions will still take place, you're deluded if you think otherwise, the difference is they will be done with coathangers or by shady doctors being paid to do it illegally. In this case there is a chance the mother will die along with the fetus, and their blood will be on your hands, along with those of the rest of your kind who insist on forcing your morality on others.

The second option is that they will be raised in an orphanage. I'm sure there are some decent ones, but many are bad places to grow up, and even a good one means a life deprived of parent figures. Even the lucky few who get taken into adoption, only an even smaller set will find happy homes, many others will not. Again, their broken lives are as a result of your imposed morality.

Third, if the mother didn't want the child, and she is forced to raise it because she can't abort, what do you think this will cause? If you think she will miraculously start to love the child then again, you're deluded. This might happen a small fraction of the time, but a more natural response is for the mother to resent the child. In many cases of unwanted pregnancy the guy will not be a hero and marry her, because we don't live in a make believe wonderland, we live in the real world. So you'll have children being brought up without a father, and with a mother who hates them. Apart from having an unhappy childhood, this kid will have the psychological influences that gear him towards having a personality disorder, and so an unhappy adult life too. Again, this is the result of your meddling.

The problem with you overly zealous religious types isn't what you believe, it's that you try to impose your fucking beliefs on other peope, and in the process you radically simplify the situation in question. This case is no different from any other. If you actually cared more about the wellbeing of other people than the nagging discomort you feel when people don't act in accordance with your beliefs, the world would be a much happier place.

Incidentally, I have two points to throw your way and see if you can come up with a good response.

First, in the Bible, the same text that anti-abortionists of your kind refer to, God didn't seem to have much trouble killing babies or sanctioning their death:

quote:Every living thing on the earth was drowned [including pregnant women, and babies - ED.]

?Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

- Genesis 7:23

Thus saith the LORD? Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.

- 1 Samuel 15:3

Joshua destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD commanded.

- Joshua 10:40

The LORD delivered them before us; and we destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones.

- Deuteronomy 2:33-34

Kill every male among the little ones.

- Numbers 31:17

The wind of the LORD shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and?Samaria shall become desolate?they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

- Hosea 13:15-16

With thee will I [the LORD] break in pieces the young man and the maid.

- Jeremiah 51:22

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

- Psalm 137:9

Personally, Noah's flood seems to be something I'd have a hard time defending from the charge of being abortion on a massive scale.

These examples in the Bible, compared to what religious anti-abortionists claim, create a contradiction. Either God is not infallible, or else the Bible might be incorrect in parts, in which case it's not a perfectly reliable reference to support arguments of morality.

The second point has to do with the fate of aborted fetuses. Your claim is that they have a soul from the moment of conception, which is why it is a sin to abort. So then, what happens to the souls of aborted fetuses?

If they go straight to heaven, this seems to be an infinitely better outcome than the possible ones I listed in my last post. In fact what you and your kind would be doing by removing the right to abortion is directly causing the suffering of the souls who would have otherwise been aborted. This sounds sinful to me.

If they go straight to hell, then we have another problem. Approcimately 50% of all fertilised eggs don't successfully implant in the uterus of a woman, and pass out of her body when her next period comes, she is never even aware of having been "pregnant", Since this fetus according to you has a soul, then for nearly ever person who has ever lived, there is a soul who went to hell for no fault of its own or anybody else, because of how God feels about "abortion". That seems like a pretty major theological problem for you to justify to me. And everything I said has not been of my own creation, this is your logic, the difference is that it has been developed rather than simplified and used as meaningless catch phrases.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

So, first hand accounts are the only way to definitively explain what happens during an abortion, yet these firsthand accounts are not good enough because...

...YOU claim they are biased ?

Yes. Can you not see the difference between the two things?

I'm saying that their accounts, as well as the website you provided is terribly biased. That does not mean that the only way to completely explain the feelings and emotions of the procedure is via a personal experience of it; it you means that we must strive to look for an unbiased one.

quote:

First, you must prove that they are biased (and why) in order for that assertion to hold any water.



The general bias of the site, which I am more concerned about, since it is it who asks me to believe those personal accounts:

"This is a prime example of how pro-abortion researchers twist the rules of scientific debate to their own end"

http://www.afterabortion.org/russo.html

" These programs may be supported and funded by humanitarians, but it is sadly clear that they are often run by zealots who have little regard for individual rights, cultural and religious norms, or national sovereignty. "

http://www.afterabortion.org/RU486.html



quote:

I would also like you to explain how you do not contradict yourself with these two statements.

I do not contradict myself, because I never claimed the opposite.

I still claim that the most accurate way to know how an abortion feels like, is to actually have one yourself; what I am debating is the bias in site that wants me to believe those testimonials.

Furthermore, and this is something I didn't expound before, but now I can having done further reading in the website; almost all the testimonies either blame family members for the lack of support/education, or quite simply also site another person who had absolutely no problems with the abortion, practically nullifying their own account!

quote:Originally posted by The_Nazi:

Abortions, Guns, Drugs=Freedom.

You forgot pre-marital sex http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

"Please break out a dictionary, and know what it is you believe."

nor is a dictionary god, a baby is only a person when they have had an experiance. can u remember the womb?? i don't think so. ergo, you truly get the right to chose when u r born. until then, its the mothers choice

erm i dont quite see where this gets so complicated folks. quite honestly you can quote as many paragraphs from the bible as you like and your point remains that abortion is a sin, condemed by god and yadiya but i agree with snoopy's point that you cant realy mix up religion and law in a country that allows any religion (in theory). The final judge should look at it this way...

"yes you want to abort. i am well aware that it is against the will of god and that you will be commiting a murderous sin. But... that's between you and god;. In my court, as long as there are people who want to abort, they may feel free to do so. If you wish to press murder charges, you may feel free to do so."

you have to keep in mind that abortion DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF MURDERING THE UNWANTED CHILDREN. you see if abortion is made a form of murder then a mother can very easily just starve for a week and have a miscarriage. It is just plain impractical. The final judge is god right? So as long as we here on earth cant make up our minds, the ladies can take it up with god when they die. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

NOT TRUE.

An infant does not begin to differentiate between "self" and "mother" until about 16 months of age. Until then, the infant thinks the mother is itself, and vice a versa. Google it.



Thats actually most of the reason I'm pro-choice. That baby is not a person. Up until it can distinguish between itself and reality, it is no better than any other mammal. Less of a person than a dolphin is. It has no legal rights. And I do accept that this logic approved of killing a 1 year old. But giving birth should be a reasonable cut-off point.

Until a child is sentient, it has no rights. And I do support giving rights to a primate or dolphin that demonstrable has sentience. They'd be the equivalent of a profoundly retarted person.

Naw, Chimps>some humans. (http://politicsofpain.homestead.com/files/bush_monkey.jpg)





[This message has been edited by The_Nazi (edited 05-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

The whole point of religious freedom is keeping one religion's beleifs from interfering with the others. Im tolerant of religions, but I beleive if the religous are stubborn enough to neglect reality, then at least keep it to yourself. Thats what the bill o' rights is for, to protect me from you. ALL you have to go with is undettering hope, no FACT based reason to keep fetus's alive. There are people that with that same passion, soul, and beleif beleive in things such as cannibalism. Who is right? Unless you can prove you know god exists and his intentions, then keep your beliefs to yourself. If you know that you have the VIP ticket to heaven because you kept your babies, then why do you care what other people do?

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>Youre going to heaven

<LI>theyre going to hell

<LI>You cant change their minds

<LI>Mind your business.

</UL>

You seem to think that just because abortion is legal EVERY woman wants to have one. No smart woman wants to say, "put that condom away, I can always got get my womb slashed open later." So basically, only the stupid women and uneducated women will get UNWANTED pregnancy and abortions anyway.

[This message has been edited by Spic Power (edited 05-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Lost, please tell me how I am setting a worse example than him in both language and tolerance ?

I have singled out Snoopy several times. You wouldn't notice because I wasn't addressing you.

Really, DS. You're not keeping an open mind about this. You refuse to less this be a debate. This whole thread is you just saying your side of the story and attacking anyone who has a different viewpoint and it's getting old. I mean, what's the point of this thread if it's just 4 pages of you yelling at people about fire and brimstone. This is ridiculous.

If you want a debate, you have to be open to others opinions. And you're not being open. And because of this, this thread is pointless, and I'm going to close it soon because apparently this thread is all about what you have to say on the subject. I think you've gotten your point across pretty well. So, why is it still here?

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

If you want a debate, you have to be open to others opinions. And you're not being open. And because of this, this thread is pointless, and I'm going to close it soon because apparently this thread is all about what you have to say on the subject.

Actually, when its two VERY closeminded biased people arguing, it gets creative. i got something out of snoopys post, except he kept saying the same shit just a little angrier each time.His sudden recent interest in religion makes me think he wants to kill himself or something though. Digi's arguements reassure me that IM right to not beleive in god as well. Beleive it or not i kind of pity her.





[This message has been edited by Spic Power (edited 05-18-2005).]

Digital Saviour, I haven't been on totse long, but it has repeatedly crossed my mind that you seem slightly out of place here among all the depraved godless lunatics found on all the boards. I've also noticed that you have only been posting on the religion board, and that all your posts tend to be supporting orthodox Christian views, while trying to change disbelievers minds (which of course fits with your screen name).

I've got to ask... are you some kind of Christian on a mission/crusade on totse, a walk in the valley of darkness to redeem our souls or something along those lines? Because that's how it looks.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ok, people...this is such a hard discussion, and as evidenced by the past arguments here on Totse, this thread may very well become a sore spot.

No, Really?

I want to talk about abortion, again.

You want to deny everyone thier rights and flame anyone who does not agree that the devil created abortion.

The specific aspect I want to focus on is the "woman's right to choose".

roe vs. wade is not going anywhere

This is the paramount defense of legalized abortion, however in testimonies of women who have had abortions, they almost always say that they had not idea what the emotional and physical affects of abortion were. They were never told what a horrible experience it would be.

Abortion&gt;have more people to rape the earth.

If you don't have the information, how can you make an educated decision ?

By disregarding your propoganda.

Can it be said that there is a hidden agenda within the abortion movement to make money, and therefor NOT giving all the information benefits them ?

No, abortions benifit the populace as a whole.

The religious pretenses of this thread is evident...Christians believe that life is more important than inconvenience. Why does it seem as if those that do NOT believe in God think the opposite ?

Regardless of an individual's viewpoint religion should not fuck with government. Non-religion should not fuck with government either but this is not as much of a problem.

Here is a website, FULL of women's testimonies about their abortions - all of them regret, and all of them suffered greatly because of their abortions.

http://www.afterabortion.org/maintest.html

So, in what way does that change anything?

Isn't this enough to say, "Abortion isn't ethical, and it certainly doesn't benefit women in any way." ?

It obviously benifits women if they want the cells aborted.



Who cares if its ethical? There is no state religon.



Btw,

This

Thread

Sucks.



[/thread]