I beg to differ with you at least the Conservative right wing is more interested in living someone else’s life for them in many ways, because they have a different religious belief than others. The one’s I know that are the most self scarificing are moderate Republicans or Democrats. Too many of the religious right spend more of their time trying to make people live according to their doctrines, and forget about separation of Church and State.
I am a registered Republican, but very seldom vote that way because the right wing tries to force their beliefs on others.
Too many who call them selves Christian forget the words Jesus was quoted as saying," Sell what you have, give it to the poor , then come and follow me". As a post script; Planned Parent hood’s Purpose is just to help the people have only the children they can afford to care for. They do give medical care, birthcontrol etc. to help the poor people out. They do what the Sa and the churches do not do!
Religious garbage that has zero connection to reality. None of that happened.
This again. Love is just another emotion, and not a particularly benevolent one. Love can just as easily cause evil as it can prevent it; it’s morally neutral.
I never stated that Adam and Eve actually happened in this post, just that it is ancient wisdom, perhaps told in a way to make it understandable, as such a parable.
Woman will never get beyond misogyny if they are forced to deny who they are and live a lie. Abortion will never be safe legal and rare unless the reason for abortion lines up with accepting the fetus as a child, a continuous flow of unending life from parent to child, and when sad situations happen abortion is needed the woman would find great comfort and strength in her loss. In this case no laws are needed restricting or permitting abortion.
Women need to overcome misogyny for who they are, not who they can pretend to be. That comes from recognizing the truth that a child in her womb is her child and she is a mother and no amount of semantics can change that.
The story of Adam and Eve is just a story, and if you choose to believe it is more that is your right. However,many people do not believe as you do. Truth must be sought before belief. Aesop’s Fables carry a moral story as well, many of the ideas are sound by many writers, but do not apply in all cases. and Jesus (you claim to follow) also made it clear that there are exceptions to the Law,when he talked of David eating the temple bread when he was hungry. He also despised the Pharisee’s who went by the letter of the law,and not the spirit, and used the good Smaritain as an example.
It is my belif that a person should tend first to their own faults,and worry less about the private lives of others. In the rare cases that it brings harm to others that is another story, but to call a woman a murderer when they do not know her circumstance, is wrong. Why are those people so taken with how another lives? I wonder if it is them just trying(like the pharisees) to put their own faults behind them. Jesus sort of backed this idea up, when he accused the Pharisee’s of seeing a speck in their neighbors eye, but couldn’t see the plank in their own!
Being the fact that you are NOT a woman you cannot know what a woman feels.
There is no child until it can be recognized as such! No person can be forced to have children because some other busy body thinks they should.
I still contend it is a matter of self preservation. No one else can read or know the compacity of what a woman can take. If one truly believes in their God, then leave the judgment up to God! It seems to me too may people want to live someone else’s life for them, but would put up a fight were they put in a simular situation!!
Being the fact that you are NOT a woman you cannot know what a woman feels.
QUOTE]
Yes, but kanicbird has made numerous posts in the past and present about how a woman feels, how she ought to feel, what she knows, etc. despite the fact that he is not telepathic.
“The U.S. doesn’t do enough to combat poverty overseas because there’s still poverty!”
That would be the equivalent of your argument. I could donate 100% of my income to fighting poverty, and it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Would that mean I didn’t do enough? Or would it mean that I can only do so much? Really, now. Your argument is ridiculous. Aside from the fact that you’re laboring under the assumption that every child who lives in poverty was unwanted, you’re laboring under the assumption that more abortions would lead to decreases in poverty. Neither of these assumptions are really true.
It’s nice to see that you’re trying to channel your inner Stephen Douglas, who somehow tried to argue that people should be able to decide for themselves whether to own slaves based on their own religious views ('cuz, you know, most of those pesky Christians were staunch abolitionists). As it stands, your post is an intellectual cop-out. Even if, for example, I followed a religion in which child sacrifice was considered integral in appeasing the gods, I would not be allowed to engage in child sacrifice and no talk about “not forcing others beliefs on me” or the “separation of Church and state” would change that. I’m also fairly confident that you would not show up to defend my right to “religious freedom” nor would you rail against any, say, Christian who showed up to argue that human sacrifice should not be allowed, regardless of one’s religious beliefs.
Really, you’re just using the whole religious angle as a selective crutch when it’s in your best interest to do so. But how can you pick and choose when, where and under what circumstances it’s okay to “force” someone to conform to a belief they don’t hold themselves and when it’s not okay to do so?
Incorrect. Planned Parenthood’s purpose, aside from making money, is to ‘help’ people only have the children they care to give birth to. Whether or not the woman can afford that child is wholly inconsequential.
The cost of raising a child in today’s money is about 250,000 dollars. That is a huge financial commitment. People who are not paying to raise the kid, presume they have the right to decide if a woman should have a child when she gets pregnant. Some people realize that they can not give a good life to a child and decide to delay a kid until they can. That is their right.
I do not believe in abortion, therefore you have to have the kid. It is also your problem how you will come up with the money. If a child is raised in poverty, that is too bad. Not my business.
It is nuts.
Der Trihs and Monavis your arguments are getting weaker and weaker.
Der Trihs just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting that it is garbage (of any type) is a reaction of a three yr old throwing a tantrum. Without listening without thinking, it is exactly what religion is about.
Monavis, I have not have been a woman, but I sure as hell have been a fetus and certainly know what esteemed value there is in a mother, how that is the highest position that anyone can aspire to.
You gave me words of the anointed one, I return them to you:
[QUOTE=John 9:41]
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
[/QUOTE]
The point I am trying to make is that If any person wants to force another to do their bidding, then they should make as much a sacrifice as they expect others to do. I don’t think it is my right to make some one else do something because I believe differently. As far as I know, no person wants to be a slave, yet forcing a woman to use her body in some way, because another person thinks she should is wrong, and a kind of slavery to the beliefs of another. It is legal to have an abortion in this country up to a certain point, and to me the best solution to stop abortions is to see that the woman has proper birth control and/or the morning after pill. She should not be forces to bear a child she can’t care for or have a child for someone else, it should be her choice and with the advice of her doctor.
If a woman wants to carry a child for 9 months it should be her choice, not mine or of someone else!
And if a person is truly Pro-life then they should care about all people all over the world. They are already born and part of society!
As a post script, there was a man (the story was on TV) who taught the poor in Bali that they could help their children more by having less, he showed them that having two children could provide more food for just 2 children than 4 or 5. Because their farms were just 2 acres, they could feed 1 or 2 children better. It is only logical that a pie cut into 8 pieces leaves less for each person than if it were cut into 4 pieces.
One of Haiti’s problems is over population, as the case in many other 3d world countries. And here in the US money goes further if one makes $15,000 a year if there is one to feed than if the same family has 10!
Perhaps you use the word of some one who said someone said something, and you believe that person, that is your right, but that doesn’t mean I have to believe such statments are made, nor that the person was anointed by anyone!
You were not a person untill you reached personhood,your life line goes back many centuries, to your first ancestor. You once were just one of a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg. I don’t pretend to know it all, and I know for sure that you don’t either.
But I wouldn’t try to push you into doing something you thought was wrong ,nor to make you do something I thought you should do. I am not the steward of your life nor are you of mine!!! You can think my argument is weak, and that is fine by me. I believe you should be able to think your own thoughts even though you may think you have the right to think for others!
I agree that a good mother is one of the most admirable people that could ever be.
However, not every woman is cut out to be one, just as every man is not cut out to be a father.
That’s just the way it is. It doesn’t mean they don’t aspire to be greater than they are; they’re simply good at other things.
I’ve never had a burning desire to have kids–and now, at 46, I’m a bit past my prime for motherhood anyway. I don’t think of myself as defective for it.
Like most of the gibberish you spout, this makes about as much sense as a candy bar made of nails.
Everyone existing was once a fetus. That is utterly meaningless in the context of this discussion, or really, any discussion. Having been a fetus provides you with no knowledge, no insight, no material information of any sort. It’s piffle. It’s less meaningful than the fact that you were once a kindergartener. You actually learned something in kindergarten.
And motherhood is not an honored position, not in this world, nor even in this country, and any value placed upon it is purely personal. That’s not a rationale for anything either.
Your position has no basis in anything but your own religious beliefs. Science does not support you. Law does not support you. Cultural fact doesn’t support you. Nothing of any concrete merit backs up your ideals, which in fact are a direct line toward the oppression and harm of families.
That isn’t much of a point. Imagine that my next door neighbor has a newborn and wants to throw him or her into a river. Would me wanting to stop her from doing so be conditional on me providing her financial support to be able to take care of that child.
So do you agree that people should be allowed to engage in child sacrifice according to their own religious beliefs? If not, then the above quoted statement is meaningless fluff.
You can’t force someone into the naturally deriving consequent of an action they willfully engaged in. That would be akin to me deciding to charge up hundreds of thousands of dollars of credit card fees and then when my bill comes, argue that I’m being forced to pay up against my will.
Which is why states along the west coast and northeast have lower abortion rates than those states in the midwest and South. In case you didn’t quite catch the underlying meaning there, they don’t, and some states along the west coast and in the northeast have an abortion rate two to three times higher than the national average. It’d be nice if you weighed rhetoric against reality.
I’d ask why it should be her choice, and you’d probably tell me because it’s her body. I’d ask why it being her body is important, and you’d probably tell me because pregnancy is “dangerous” and, as a result, she should have the right to accept that risk. I’d ask you what accepting that risk has to do with the majority of abortions and, as you have, you’ll ignore it or just repeat the “Her body, her choice!” mantra.
Returning to this “point”, of which it really is not, doesn’t help your argument. Cutting past all the flowery language and extreme obfuscation, when you get right down to it and look at the reasons why women have abortions (Table 2 and 3), you’ll quickly notice that the majority of abortions are done for a reason independent of the fact that it the woman’s body which literally have nothing to do with the fact that it’s the woman’s body. Saying she should be allowed to have an abortion because it’s her body is a meaningless statement, since the only part her body plays in deciding to abort is that she has the ability to abort. What you’re really saying when you say abortion is ‘okay’ is that the woman is having an abortion for an acceptable reason. And if, for example, you think having an abortion because a woman cannot afford to care for a child and doesn’t want to give that child up for adoption is a perfectly valid reason to kill her unborn child (or fetus or whatever you want to call it), then why does the same not hold true, say, in the case of a born child? Her reasons for killing her born would be the same as the reasons for killing her unborn child, and both would have the same effect on her.
…That is, of course, your argument really isn’t about “her body” so much as the unborn not having reached some stage of development to which you ascribe some kind of moral worth. I’d be willing to bet that’s what it really is, given how few pro-choicers actively believe a woman should have an an unfettered right to an abortion throughout all of their pregnancy, seeing as how the woman’s body is always involved in pregnancy.
Just about as much as being pro-choice means you have to support every choice an individual can make, amirite?
Aside from being a common pro-choice tactic, this is a response which truly lacks substance.
That’s false.
Who cares? This is not an arguing point at all, seeing as how (s)he apparently disagrees with the current laws.
I’m curious, what is this supposed to mean? If it means what I think it means, then I’d say you’re probably a little behind the proverbial eight-ball. But I’ll wait until you tell me what this means so I can make sure.