Post Reply
Page 49 of 51  •  Prev 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Switch to Forum Live View An Abortion Super Center
5 years ago  ::  Jan 18, 2010 - 11:27PM #481
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Erey says:


I am not for ddemanding women have babies they don't want.  I think adoption is a beautiful option.  I am old enough now to witness lots of friends finding thier birth parents as well as friends whose children they put out for adoption finding them and forming a relationship.  It is lovely most of the time.  However I know adoption is not for every unwanted pregnancy.


At soem point before birth the child is not just the a nothing and totally at the whim of the mother. 


Just like we don't let mothers abuse newborns (if we can catch it).  AT some point that fetus became an unborn child. 


The child is never a nothing. It is the same being from the moment of conception, whatever one calls their  stage of development.  It doesn't suddenly change into a child  at some arbitrary point.  If we say it is not a real human because it is  not very developed, then we can also say that about a  5 year old. 


Before it is born, it is at the whim of the mother because it is still part of her.


The problem to solve is what is the proper role of society and its laws in regards to this.


I say while in the womb should be the responsibility of the mother. What to do with it, should be a moral problem the woman would have to decide.    She will decide according to her level of understanding. She will have to deal with the consequences.


 After birth, it becomes part of society and its laws. Then the laws of society would apply.


 I cant fATHOM a society where women can for no other reason than caprice terminate/kill thier unborn children in latter stages of pregnancy.   I am all for medical intervention and I can understand why people would want to terminate the pregnancy of a child that has no chance of normal development and will die probably soon anyway.  But I can't believe I am arguing with people that women should not be allowed to terminate late term pregnancies for no good reason.  I can't believe that so many of you would be fine with that.


I am not fine with people's ignorance and aggressiveness either, but  they are facts  and I have to deal with it.  But just passing laws may create more problems that it solves.


Luckily, we are not yet at the point China is in, where the overpopulation problem is so acute, the government have to take drastic measures.



Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 12:27AM #482
mountain_man
Posts: 40,556

Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:06PM, Erey wrote:

...At soem point before birth the child is not just the a nothing and totally at the whim of the mother.  Just like we don't let mothers abuse newborns (if we can catch it).  AT some point that fetus became an unborn child.  I cant fATHOM a society where women can for no other reason than caprice terminate/kill thier unborn children in latter stages of pregnancy.



They can't. I know many PLs actually believe a woman can ask for an abortion until the baby is more than half way out. That's just not the case. So called "late term" abortions are only done for medical reasons and not for capricious reasons as you believe. Of course, some dishonest doctor will do one if paid enough, but that's rare and not the normal way things work.


Hasn't all this been explained to you, and others on this forum, quite a few times by several different people? Why keep arguing the point when it's been thoroughly covered?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 10:49AM #483
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Hasn't all this been explained to you, and others on this forum, quite a few times by several different people? Why keep arguing the point when it's been thoroughly covered?


 


'Cause without distortions, the anti crowd dosen't have much in the way of any logical reasoning to stand on.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 10:54AM #484
LeahOne
Posts: 16,566

MM,  it's my impression the 'deafness' stems from the cult-like way many extremsts view the world.  Ex:  about 40 years ago, a coworker decided I'd 'attacked' her by stating that I intended to have  only 2 children, as I didn't see how I could do right by any greater number (I was 17 at the time).  She was a mother of 8...she *believed* my words were 'an attack', because she ASSUMED that what I thought of my limits, was what I thought of everyone else's too.


Some people are so thoroughly convinced that they are 'living right' and that there's only ONE way to do so, that everyone doing things any differently has got to be wrong.  (And no, they certanly don't need a religious orientation for it!)


Whether it's part of a 'religious' group or not, the 'us/them' tension can often be very strong.  It's just that the religious expressions like 'We're in this world but not of it' are the most often heard....  When it involves one religion or race as opposed to another, we are able to recognize it as bigotry.  But it can also be one religious POV against 'all comers', or on a not-obviously religious topic like, say, global warming....


The elephant in the room, of course, is overpopulation.  But regulating our replacement rate seems like a violation of some basic 'human right'.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 10:57AM #485
LeahOne
Posts: 16,566

Jan 19, 2010 -- 10:49AM, Christianlib wrote:


Hasn't all this been explained to you, and others on this forum, quite a few times by several different people? Why keep arguing the point when it's been thoroughly covered? 


'Cause without distortions, the anti crowd dosen't have much in the way of any logical reasoning to stand on.




Waiting for one of the 'True Believer' crew to inform CLib that he's 'not a real Christian'.....


(Psssst!  Clib!  'Logical reasoning' is not something the Robertsons and ilk have ever encouraged....)

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 11:06AM #486
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Jan 19, 2010 -- 10:57AM, LeahOne wrote:


Jan 19, 2010 -- 10:49AM, Christianlib wrote:


Hasn't all this been explained to you, and others on this forum, quite a few times by several different people? Why keep arguing the point when it's been thoroughly covered? 


'Cause without distortions, the anti crowd dosen't have much in the way of any logical reasoning to stand on.




Waiting for one of the 'True Believer' crew to inform CLib that he's 'not a real Christian'.....


(Psssst!  Clib!  'Logical reasoning' is not something the Robertsons and ilk have ever encouraged....)




 


Ah, Leah, it will be nothing new.  They often consign me to Hell.  I figure they know that place so well because it's their hometown.


AND, I always remember the Methodist bishop who rightly observed, "One does not take from a man's mind with reason, that which reason did not put there in the first place."

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 11:30AM #487
Erey
Posts: 19,411

Jan 19, 2010 -- 12:27AM, mountain_man wrote:


Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:06PM, Erey wrote:

...At soem point before birth the child is not just the a nothing and totally at the whim of the mother.  Just like we don't let mothers abuse newborns (if we can catch it).  AT some point that fetus became an unborn child.  I cant fATHOM a society where women can for no other reason than caprice terminate/kill thier unborn children in latter stages of pregnancy.



They can't. I know many PLs actually believe a woman can ask for an abortion until the baby is more than half way out. That's just not the case. So called "late term" abortions are only done for medical reasons and not for capricious reasons as you believe. Of course, some dishonest doctor will do one if paid enough, but that's rare and not the normal way things work.


Hasn't all this been explained to you, and others on this forum, quite a few times by several different people? Why keep arguing the point when it's been thoroughly covered?




 


Well honestly I am trying to understand - there seems to be a bit of ambiguity on this thread.  I also thought that you needed only a compelling medical reason.  But others on this thread are saying, no not true.  And further saying they would support a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy for any reason AT ANY TIME!  This really shocks me


 Abortion was a issue I explored many years ago and my conclusion at that tiem was early trimester gives women a grace period for an unwanted pregnancy but after that you need a compelling medical reason.  AT that time the pro-choice stance and I understood it would never be for terminating a late term pregnancy except in those dire circumstances.  I know NOBODY who felt it should be legal to terminate a pregnancy late term for anything but a compelling medical reason.   So I am a bit gobsmacked on the subject to be honest.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 12:06PM #488
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

Despite the undue burden provisions of Casey, which push the legal time for any abortion to viability, currently held to be at 28 weeks, before the state declares any legal interest in the fetus, the truth, Erey, is that abortions 'for any reason' are happening earlier and earlier, not later and later.  With the advent of medical abortions, most people contemplating an abortion because they simply don't want to be pregnant or have a child are having one in the first ten weeks of gestation, quietly, at home, without anyone the wiser.


However, at 19 weeks, when the family gets the bad news about the amnio, should they really have to travel out of state to end a pregnancy because their state doesn't allow 'second trimester' abortions? Casey says no.  When the family learns at 22 weeks that the fetus is a male and therefore will have haemophilia, rather than be a female carrier, should they have to travel far distances to terminate? Casey says no.


I think that is far more humane than the alternative, which is typically a woman, traveling across several states alone, dealing with the loss of a wanted pregnancy in a strange hotel room without family support, because someone has to stay home with the children and they can't afford for dad to take time off work or for the whole family to travel.  Or for a young teen who didn't even know she was able to get pregnant, let alone that she is several months along, having to go out of town without the care and support of family.


And should these people have to go to court to get an order to force a local hospital to perform an operation that they don't routinely do? 


No, Casey made a lot of sense on a lot of fronts. 

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 12:20PM #489
mountain_man
Posts: 40,556

Jan 19, 2010 -- 10:49AM, Christianlib wrote:

'Cause without distortions, the anti crowd doesn't have much in the way of any logical reasoning to stand on.



All their arguments are emotionally, not logically, based. That could be why they have to repeat their arguments as if they were new.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Jan 19, 2010 - 12:26PM #490
Erey
Posts: 19,411

Jan 19, 2010 -- 12:20PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jan 19, 2010 -- 10:49AM, Christianlib wrote:

'Cause without distortions, the anti crowd doesn't have much in the way of any logical reasoning to stand on.



All their arguments are emotionally, not logically, based. That could be why they have to repeat their arguments as if they were new.




honestly parts of this are new to me

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 49 of 51  •  Prev 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook