Only someone who has never actively served on the board of a pro-life charity would claim that this is only “helping a little bit.” Such people have no idea of the kinds of sacrifices that these people make… and I say that as someone who spent years at the board chairman of one such charity.
I’d like to as monavis if he is concerned about child abuse and infanticide. I mean really, really concerned, not just spouting pious words. If not, then why isn’t he making sacrifices and adopting all of these children who would otherwise be abused or put to death? That is, if the objection that he previously stated truly has merit.
There are many principled vegetarians and vegans who disagree with you that animals are unworthy of protection, some of them for religious reasons that are just as sincere as your belief that human embryos have souls. Would you say that a Jainist lawmaker who held out on abortion and UHC unless animal slaughter is also banned being unprincipled? I’d say he’s principled, but at the same time not being reasonable, because the chances of animal slaughter being banned in this country in the near future is virtually zero and blocking legislation because of that one issue isn’t going to do a lick of good for anyone. Blocking it does nothing to advance his cause in the long run and only causes needless suffering.
You expect a woman to sacrifice her self ,and any children she has for her life time (and theirs because she cannot support her children(educate,clothe, see they get heath care,etc.)because you want her to use her body for a brood mare purpose.
I say it is a little bit you do, because a few baby articles does not fix a woman’s situation. If she works she is having some one else raise her child and misses out on a lot of things that are good for her and her child(or children). That is and should be her decision not yours.You make no mention of caring for the children or women for their life time. That is where I set the goal post, I didn’t move it just thought you would understand the difference between a year or two to a life time that you want the woman to commit to.
How many children have you had, how many have you carried, and also consider the woman’s partener;what kind of partener does she have to help her.
People are appalled by adultry, but do not consider the husband who sits in a tavern every night with the woman alone with the children etc. It should be up to the individual woman what her body and mind can take. I had a large family but I wanted them and had the means to care for them, but there are a lot of women who cannot do what I could, so I believe it should be up to the woman and she should be helped to avoid a pregnancy, thus avoiding the need for an abortion!
Of course I am not a prophet like you are,but I have lived long enough to see the results of what happens when a woman cannot hamdle pregnancy or child bearing.physicaly ,financially and mentally!
My saying bricker’s helping a little bit,was in comparison to the life time of the woman and child. He is doing what he does voluntarily. The woman in his way would have no choice! I have volunteered at a senior center, did charity work from my home, but never thought of it as a sacrifice, a volunteer can quit at any time a woman cannot if everyone thought as Bricker does. Concider the children who are starving to death in third world countries, and in places where a woman is considered a possion!
If every woman had the morning after pill available there would be very little, if any need for an abortion!
Perhaps I wasn’t clear,the egg being fertlized, implanted in the woman’s womb the being born, and raised to adulthood has always been my goalpost. That is the years for which help is needed.
I find most pro_birthers are against government giving aid to the woman and her children and do not want a tax increase. One needs to look to Haiti to see what over population and poverty does!
Most (That I know) do not want what they refer to as socalism, and are ultra conservatives, even though Jesus was a Socialistic person and a liberal!!At least His actions show that!
Perhaps you are doing something,but you expect a lot more from the woman, she is to sacrifice her entire life, and the life of any children she may already have ,so you can condem her for her use of her body and her choice to do what is best for her mental, physicial, and emotional health, and the finances of her family.You are volunteering and can quit at any time, but you do not want to give her a choice or understand the reasons of why she may make the decison she does.
As I see it, the ability to prevent a pregnancy to begin with, is money and time better spent; then give cribs, diapers etc. to all poor woman who make the choice to have a child, (even in 3d world countries) would be better spent.
How am I hindering her ability to prevent a pregnancy to begin with?
Once conceived, I do ask that she devote the approximately nine months necessary to ensure her child can live apart from her, yes. But Since I enthusiastically support adoption, I’m not sure why you believe I’m asking her to sacrifice the entirety of her life.
Nor does your reply change the initial fact that you offered a goal, found I could answer it, and quickly shifted to another goalpost. Most amusing about that is your current desire to avoid admitting it. You could simply say, “Yes, i did switch goals, because I stated the first one poorly;” you could say, “Yes, I did change the goal, because your answer made me realize my original goal wasn’t the right one;” you could say a whole host of things that would acknowledge that I answered your first objection.
But instead, you try to dance away from it. Why is that?
How does this compare to adopting a child and spending 18 years, 24/7, raising that child?
As a fence-sitting (pro-life leaning) person myself, I’ve adopted one, and am working on adopting another.
Please explain to us what you do on the board?
It’s not Monavis’s job to be compassionate. Sad to say, but it is true. The pro-choice crowd (pro-death, really; even if a fetus could be made viable they still want to kill them for stem cell harvesting and experimentation purposes) doesn’t base their views on compassion for others. They base it on selfishness. Blame the fetus for the results of their actions. Punish the fetus for being an inconvenience-er, I mean, “don’t doom them to a life of being unwanted!” Kill the fetus because s/he cannot fight back. Deny the unborn a voice because they can’t speak up for themselves. The strong step on the weak. That’s their definition of freedom: the right to say “fuck off” to any obligation of compassion.
I guess I don’t understand this? Doctors in Britian make more the US doctors. (Doctors in Germany make less but then again they don’t have $175,000 in debt upon graduating med school)
does a 10 min. MRI of somebody’s neck really cost $1,200 dollars?
should a polysomnogram (sleep study) cost $4,500 dollars?
does one aspirin tablet at the hospital really cost $6.00 dollars?
Should a 4 day stay at a hospital , 3 of those being post-surgery recovery, really need to cost $45,000 dollars?
funny how Medicare, who only insures elderly (people that tend to need more pills, surgeries, procedures and tests) and has an administrative cost of 3-4%, can pay less for the vast majority of medical procedures than for profit private insurance companies.
It’s all the CEO salaries and stuff that loads down the private companies. (just kidding; trying to be humorous here. hope that ain’t against the rules…)
Your government is not a theocracy; attaining grace is not its job and it is not obliged in any way, shape, or form to listen to your pope. You are. You said it yourself, yours is an all-or-nothing religion. As soon as your church came out in support of adequate health care you switched from that to “I don’t have to obey my church unless my government does,” which is nonsense because your government is not a christian body. This is all just a smokescreen for your own selfishness, as is decreeing those in need of healthcare to be “unproductive”, something which isn’t necessarily true and is certainly irrelevant.
On the subject of productivity, how productive are these fetuses anyway? Not very, I imagine. Odd that your want your tax dollars to go towards protecting those unproductive entities but not an out-of-work machinist with lung cancer or diabetes.
Why would you want your government to outlaw abortion without disbanding its military and adopting a pacifist philosophy across the board anyway? Seems to me that having one without the other is also contradictory (by your lights), but you don’t seem to be concerned about that. Why not?
Your entire argument is a mish-mash of contradictions and mistaken assumptions.
You are misquoting me, you call what I said a goal post,Your answer had nothing to do with my position.
It is more than 9 months, a woman never forgets the child she gave birth to. Perhaps you have closed your mind to accepting the fact that you want her to be forced to use her body like a brood mare? How many have you carried in your womb? There is a great stress for a woman to carry a child and it doesn’t end at 9 months. There are many women who have had post child birth depression, some have even taken their own life, and some even killed their children!
Because you can do something with out stress, doesn’t mean there are people who can. You feel for your (apparent) religious reasons that she should be forced to carry a fertile egg to frutitation, because you want her to do as you conscience dictates. If you were forced to give a body part to some one you (I believe would rebel) as most people would. The woman is the only one with her doctor’s advice should make the choice. Nor should any woman be forced to have an abortion.
Money, and time ,better spent on finding a sure proof birth control and the morning after pill. Because some religions believe it shouldn’t be used, people not of the persuasion should not have to follow those beliefs. Abortion is physically hard on a woman so prevention for those who do not want to be pregnant can do so. One needs just to look at countries like Haiti where it is 80% RC, and see the results of encouraging large families through guilt, to see the suffering the people go through every day.And did so even before the earth quake!
They do not just kill the embryo for the purpose of doing stem cell research! They do not use a feus for that! Can you look at a frozen embryo and say '"OH,What a cute baby? The embryo if not used would end up wasted. It is not a person yet. just like a horse 's embryo is not a horse. This is not a religious queston but one of biology.
Pro-choice people are really more pro-life that the so called ones who are really just pro-birth! Most of them could not give a hoot what happens to the egg once it becomes a person! Pro-choice people (for the most part) are interested in the already born,yes, even the woman. Many pro-birthers ,because they call them selves pro-life ,doesn’t mean they are! They are the extreme conservatives who balk at paying taxes to support a woman once she has 4 or 5 kids she can’t care for. They satisfy them selves by putting a few dollars in a collection box or help out about a few months of the childs life. I would like to see the Pro-birthers each adopt a family and support it (educate, feed ,train,house and see it has good medical care, until it reaches adult hood, to prove they are truly pro-life!
Even if there was a way to NOT destroy the embryo s/he would still be destroyed… because in the opinion of the scientific elite (as well as pro-choicers):
Why is it not a person? What makes a horse embryo not a horse? What magical line must be crossed? Fertilization is a much more logical line than viability, which is itself a constantly moving goalpost. What makes a human embryo less human than a human newborn? That it got out of the womb alive? Again, that’s a moving goalpost. Hell I recall the term “fetus ex utero” being used in some situations. Do they still use that? Ah, it appears they do.
An embryo already has an assigned gender. You cannot say that about sperm and eggs. It’s fairly common sense where the personhood line should be logically drawn: when science can tell you that a gender has been assigned and cell growth is in progress. Let nature take its course and you have a bouncing baby in 9 months.
But as I said, let’s just be honest here; the entire definition of personhood in this case is about taking rights away from the powerless.
I do not deny that a whole LOT of pro-lifers are merely pro-birth. But that is an unfortunate quirk of their mentality. It is not the NATURE of being pro-life. In fact there is very little that is LOGICALLY consistent with being pro-life and being anti-welfare, anti-social safety net, etc.
Agreed. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are pro-life in other areas. Some pro-lifers don’t give a shit about the welfare of the pregnant woman. A select deranged few will shoot abortion doctors. You and I clearly condemn this bunch.
However to be pro-life does not mean you MUST be so hypocritical.
Pro-choicers also, FYI, include people who oppose welfare. Plus a lot of men who PAY their girlfriends to get abortions to make it go away. Plus a lot of fiscally conservative Republicans who see abortion as a way to avoid the “welfare mom problem”. (Obviously I see no welfare mom problem; or specifically I do not see the “welfare mom” as the problem, but rather our pathetic excuse for an economy which totally fails its clear and obvious potential.) You may or may not be surprised to know that there are a LOT of pro-choice people who despise being levied extra taxes to help the down and out.
Pro-choicers also include Nobel prize winning geneticists who believe personhood shouldn’t be conferred until 3 days after birth. But since I am not saying they are the face of the pro-choice movement, perhaps you shouldn’t say some whackos are the face of the pro-life movement, eh?
And you are talking to a liberal pro-lifer who would MUCH rather pay taxes to support a mother of 5 kids than bail out an ailing corporation which fucked itself by using lobbyists to stop legislation that would have kept it from driving itself into bankruptcy.
Still, you aren’t wrong if your point is that a significant number of pro-lifers stop caring about the baby after s/he is born. As a pro-life leaning individual I openly profess that George Carlin was dead right about enough pro-lifers out there that his words are in fact wisdom: “If you’re pre- born, you’re fine. If you’re pre-school you’re fucked”.
Still, though, in this case you’re talking to a pro-life-leaning liberal who refuses to mince words in repudiating right wing/Scrooge style capitalism and all its tenets. I’m glad to pay taxes to support welfare moms, I despise paying taxes to support Halliburton’s no-bid contracts and the bailout of the big banks, I’ve donated MANY hours to crisis pregnancy centers, supplies to the troops, money to charities, and I am also trying to figure out ways communities can support themselves and create local jobs.
Does one (and a second pending) kid suffice? Adoption is VERY difficult. I had to go all the way to Nigeria to adopt. Over here you’re looking at tons of red tape and drama… but still my wife and I are paying for a single pregnant college student’s medical care to carry her baby to term so we can adopt it. And she might still get an abortion or have a miscarriage, and our money we spent would go down the toilet.
I would like to see more pro-lifers distinguish themselves as pro-lifers and not merely pro-birthers in this manner as well.
But more importantly, I would like to see more of us compassionate pro-lifers get a voice in politics. There are a LOT of pro-lifers like me out there. We’re just waiting for the liberals and Democrats to evolve into a Big Tent policy on abortion so we can take the pro-choicers AND the Scrooge capitalists by surprise.
And given that many pro-choicers still cling to this image of the selfish hypocritical pro-lifer, it will be one hell of a surprise when the pro-life liberal voice is finally heard.
Oh and I also support abstinence education as a goal for potentially sexually active teens, but not without the backup plan of educating them on the use of condoms and contraception in case one thing leads to another. And I also support ANY person who is about to get sexually active, to get tested and demand the other person get tested.
So yeah… I kind of screw up the pro-choice propaganda machine a bit.
Then you aould be just as pleased if I sold you a horse embryo so you could pay several hundred dollars to ride, or a fertile egg to feed your family instead of a full grown chicken? Since there is no difference what would the difference be?
A good excuse in my opinion, to try to keep a woman a slave to being a brood mare. Just like people used religion to justify slavery in the past.
It is a matter of pushing your religious beliefs on all others not a matter of biology.
I commend you for adopting “A” child, because you wanted one,but you didn’t take into consideration the woman who would endanger her life to bring the egg to frutation. Nor did you state how many children she already had.each case is different and that should be a good reason why it should be an individule woman’s right to decide what she wishes to do with her body.But that doesn’t take care of the hundreds of thousands that die of starvation or some illness every year in 3d world countries or even using Haiti as an example where the country is said to be 80% RC, and are taught that birth control is a sin or use the most un-natural method of which they approve!
I was a teen ager in the 40’s. Abstinence was the only method taught (Just like Sarah’s daughter was) It just doesn’t work. There are many needy families who use the so called natural way and still have children they cannot afford or want. So then all these families should be supported by those who call themselves pro- life and are against providing the morning after pill or the other birth control methods.
Abstinence works better than any other method, if it’s actually used. It has in common with every other method that it doesn’t work if you don’t use it.