Okay, manimal, I went to the Bible looking for truth, here’s what I found:
Ecclesiastics 25: 19, 24
“No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman…Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die.”
Genesis (see 2:4-3:24), after tempting Adam to eat the forbidden fruit God says to Eve:
“I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.”
But this really isn’t the direction I want this debate to head. I’m a bit confused, are you now in the pro-life camp? I’m glad you’re here to help provide some insite into abortions. Can you help me find a compromise?
HELL NO! What a crazy idea to think that a woman would crave sexual enjoyment!
In other words, you layed there like a dead fish while the guy went to work on you. Note for the future: Most guys like women who enjoy sex.
Pretty sad that you just gave in to sex when you had no interest. Why is that?
I want a loving relationship, but I certainly wouldn’t want a relationship with a frigid ice queen who doesn’t crave sexual enjoyment, who just lays there and endures it because it’s neccesary to keep a relationship going.
Kind of painting half the human race with a broad brush, aren’t we?
Remember anything from when you were in the womb? Nope. Want to know why? You were not self aware back then. You had no concept of existance. Neither did your unborn child. It was merely a potential, not actual, person.
To be blunt, there’s more where that came from. You can have another one, can’t you?
Tell that to my father. He went to court to gain full custody of my half sister from her negligant drug abusing mother. Guess where my sister is getting her support from? Hint: Not a woman.
Well, I’d hope that the woman would have an orgasm as well, or at least gets some pleasure from it. I really feel sad for you if you don’t enjoy sex at all. If your perception is that the woman always just submits while the guy gets his rocks off, I don’t think that’s neccesarily accurate. Females have been known to initiate sex, or gasp even LIKE sex on occassion.
My mother is a college teacher. I’m sure she could support the family all by herself if she had to.
Cite?
Good to know you’re al least that generous.
And there’s also a passage in exodus that says that if you cause a woman to miscarry, you get a fine as the judges impose on you. Not exactly ok, but not exactly murder either.
If you want to condemn abortion based on the bible, tell me your feelings on wearing mixed fabrics.
Considered a sin by who? By you?
I’ve read it. And on the subject of abortion it’s very ambiguous.
If you should get pregnant, I would fully support your right to keep the baby no matter what anybody thinks of you. Right to choose works both ways.
In some cases, yes, abortion could probably be that dangerous. But those aren’t all the same cases.
It’s her decision. That means I - or you - or the government - don’t have the right to tell her when to make it either. If she’s going to have it, why does it matter when it happens?
Do you not understand the objections to this idea? You’ve also indicated you think a great many of these abortions are elective, since you accuse women and doctors of “faking it.”
This is not something all pro-lifers engage in. It’s despicable behavior in my opinion, but that’s something else.
I consider myself pro-choice, and to me it makes sense not to allow abortions when the child/fetus is able to live without the mother. If there are cases where you can’t get the child out alive without a significant risk of killing the mother, I’d value the mother higher, but I’ve no idea if this is a real possibility or hypothetical. Also, I don’t have problems with some kind of restrictions for late abortions, as long as there’s considerable respect for the pregnant woman’s point of view.
In Norway, the pregnant woman decides before the twelfth week of pregnancy. After that, requests for abortion must be approved by a committee of two doctors. They are obliged by law to place significant weight on how the woman considers her situation, and social reasons are specifically mentioned in the law. Abortion is not done on viable fetuses. (Summary in English, full text in Norwegian.) This seems to work well for most pro-choice people - I haven’t heard of anyone lobbying to change the law to something less restrictive, anyway. A few political parties are against the current law from a pro-life point of view.
It’s probably also relevant that in Norway, all medical care for pregnancy, birth and abortion is free. So is medical care for children younger than 7. Thus, medical bills aren’t a factor in the abortion issue here.
Last year, there were about 13,000 abortions decided by the pregnant woman, 500 late abortions approved by a committee, and 100 applications for late abortions which were not carried out because of rejection from the committee or “other reasons”, whatever that is. (More statistics in English).
Ummm, except your premise is all wrong. Yes, I do make medical decisions for my minor child; he’s all of nine months old. However, most practitioners respect an older child’s right to at least express his wishes, or at least have some input in his treatment.
Furthermore, the ONLY time my husband (or any spouse) is legally entitled to make medical decisions in my behalf is when I am unable to do so for myself, and so far, that hasn’t happened yet. That my husband could make decisions for me when I am capable of doing so strikes me as being somewhat oogy.
Since you seem to be so hung up on the notion of elective abortion in the third trimester, I’d like to see some cites from reliable sources with statistics on how many women actually do undergo elective (i.e. not medically necessary) abortions in the United States. Then report back.
There was a Pit thread not too long ago where it was determined that all pro-lifers DO engage in this. The pro-life camp agreed that support for an action = involvement, and not one pro-lifer claimed to not support the act of blocking clinics. Beware…it is NOT a friendly thread.
Ah, I did my search using the keywords “knew” (not “knit”) and “womb” and the Jeremiah quote is closer to manimal’s mangled version than the Psalms reference, though some conflation had obviously taken place.
By the time most women have confirmed pregnancy, the embryo that they are carrying is already possessed of some measure of the functions which are quantified as “life” in those outside the womb. An embryo has differentiated heart and brain tissue at three weeks gestation, and a beating heart at four weeks gestation. (Cite from Medline/National Institutes of Health) (That heartbeat is detectable at seven weeks.) And of course each embryo has its own DNA, marking them as a unique, individual human.
How can it be expected that someone who considers themselves pro-life can “compromise” to allow the destruction of this being at any age unless completely necessary? And by necessary, I mean that it’s life or death one way or another – the situation should most certainly rise to a “the mother will die or be incapacitated if the pregnancy is continued” level of severity.
Any compromise beyond that is not pro-life. No matter how “realistic” or pragmatic such an agreement may be, one could not, by definition, support life and be willing to accept that there are any elective reasons which would justify its destruction.
tlw I consider a compromise as a trait of a reasonable person. I’m not calling you unreasonable, but some times in life, to get most of what we want, we need to give up just a little. Now, I respect that in our case here, a ‘little’ refers to killing babies, and a compromise is a dangerous term to apply.
But consider hildea’s post, 13,000 elective abortions. I see that as a failure for the pro-life camp. Your goal (and I paraphrase) is to achieve zero abortions, but I don’t believe this is attainable. We could continue screaming the virtues of right-to-life until we’re blue in the face, but we still won’t reach zero. If we could get that number down to 12,000, or 11,000, I’d see that has working towards our goal and very positive steps. But your refusal to compromise causes the pro-choice camp to do the same. I’m hoping that if you offer up some concessions, just a few, the pro-choice camp will give up a few concessions. In the end, there will be fewer abortions (obviously not zero) with a reasonable amount of choice (possibly with a time limit but also fewer anti-abortion commercials) and both sides will win. I’m asking you to allow some elective abortions, ease off the protesting, and in exchange the pro-choice camp will do something, I’m still not sure what. Maybe emphasize ‘life’ as a choice? tlw, what is it going to take to get you to allow some elective abortions?
Julie, your example said WAY more than you could ever imagine.
You are exactly right that compromise means dealing with idiots. And while idiots are the majority, the rest of us are going to have to work extra hard to convince them the world is round. If I can convince just one idiot that the world is more like a contact lens than a record, I feel I’ve acomplished something.
Unforunately, most of those idiots are willing to kill to ensure that the world remains flat. If you aren’t willing to concede that the world isn’t completely round (which its not), the Flat World Advocates are going to get a President in the White House, a judge on the Supreme Court, and Flat World Text books into the schools, and the end of the day kids are throwing eggs at your house yelling “round world FREAK.” Compromise if all we have left.
But what have you accomplished? It just means one wrong answer has been substituted for another, and while the top side of a contact lens may seem more earthlike, the bottom (eye-ward) side sure as heck doesn’t.
So, now you’ve worked hard. You’ve compromised. And the answer you’ve come up with is silly.
Who is “willing to kill to ensure that the world remains flat”? I don’t think I’ve stabbed anyone in this discussion yet, though there have definitely been some rapier wits involved.
There are some aspects of abortion debate that I can’t compromise on. The woman’s health and life will always be the most important factor to me. You asked if I were willing to set a time limit on abortion, and I am. But there has to be this exception. Even many anti-abortion advocates would insist on an exception for the life of the woman. In other words, “compromising” it away leaves no one happy.
Baby steps my dear Julie, baby steps. Today we teach them the world is like a contact lens. Tomorrow we say, “perhaps it looks like a contact lens from the top, and the bottom like two contacts together.” After that we can work on smoothing out the edges and adding a molten core.
You name a debate, I’ll name someone willing to kill/die for the cause. Galileo and Copernicus received plenty of criticism and jail time working the idiots away from the flat world theory*—but I digress.
But this is good, we’ve got something to work with. I agree, and I think most pro-lifers agree, the mother’s health is important, so let’s say, “abortion in the case of the mother’s health.”
Now, as for a time limit on elective abortions, care to give a number? I think we’ve got the ball rolling. Baby steps.
*Actually the Earth centred universe but I kept the flat world thing there for continuity.
They don’t agree, do they? ‘Pro-lifers’ who are willing to compromise on this issue are now pro-choice (because just as a matter of logic, you can’t oppose the CHOICE being made to have an abortion and be pro-life, now can you?). The issue has become that polarized.
You’re pro-choice, yes, emacknight (based on your earlier statements)? You don’t seem to know much of anything about the issue or the arguments. The label pro-choice states very directly that abortion is meant to be A choice. Women can CHOOSE to have one, or (as most do) CHOOSE to give birth.
Why can’t we accomplish this through education and better birth control instead of banning abortions that may be necessary, or restricting the right of women to choose? Nothing wrong with having fewer abortions if that’s how it works - nobody’s arguing that we should have more! That would seem sensible to me, and yet many on the pro-life side oppose that course of action as well (see the Bushies’ push for abstinence-only education).
Both sides have mutually exclusive goals, emacknight…
