Let's talk about abortion ....

But being a male I do not feel that I have any right to force my beliefs onto another person.

I see a few legal problems here with this issue.

Firstly a disclaimer I'm not at all interested one way or the other and while the wording that I'm going to use here is strictly a medical definition which I may or may not necessarily believe in it however from a medical stand point accepted as correct.

Firstly if the court was to over turn the Roe V Wade decision how long would it be before more stringent laws where passed to protect the rights of the unborn?

Now to the reality of the situation of unborn Humans is that from a medical standpoint the fetus is nothing more than a parasite on its host {The Mother} until it can support its own life's functions. So just what would be the legal position if a woman was to have a spontaneous abortion that could be read as a miscarriage?

Would states setup laws to specify how expectant mothers should behave? What they could involve themselves in and how to live to protect the unborn child?

If so who pays?

Would a mother be held criminally liable for an accident where the fetus was lost if no other parties could be held to blame?

Take for example a pregnant woman falling down a flight of steps and miscarrying, now would the owner of the steps be held responsible if they where poorly maintained?

Would the mother be held responsible if she just tripped and fell unintentionally though this would be impossible to prove?

Who would be held responsible if the woman was tripped and fell but the person responsible was untraceable? Again impossible to prove in a Court of Law unless we are prepared to be under constant video surveillance.

Giving a legal status to an unborn child has a myriad of potential problems associated with it and the shorter the time that the fetus is viable the less rights it should have conversely the longer that it is viable the more rights it should have.

Incidental who should shoulder the cost for long term premature births? This often involve hundreds of thousand of Dollars to maintain life and often has an unsatisfactory outcome with either the infant dying or having massive injuries that are impossible to overcome. In a case like this who should be held responsible for the ongoing costs of maintaining the life of this child?

I mean long term if the infant lives not just the 4 - 5 months involved in the ICU ward of the Post Natal Hospital Ward but their entire life?

Now if a State was to legislate that the Fetus has all the rights of a human conversely shouldn't the State then take responsibility for that child?

If this was to happen what exactly would be the role of the parents?

Currently we have the ability to keep a fetus of 26 weeks Gestation alive and hopefully achieve a long term survival rate and as time goes on I'm sure that this will improve to a greater extent so where exactly should we draw the line?

Should we stop medical advances in the care of preterm deliveries?

Should a line be drawn in the sand that the medical people will not offer any treatment for a preterm delivery before a certain number of weeks gestation?

If that was to be enacted doesn't it fly in the face of the Hypnotic Oath that is taken by all Doctors which effectively says "Do No Harm?"

Now I'm personally not taking a stand one way or the other but I believe that issues like these must first be addressed before we can begin to decide if a Fetus has all the rights of a human life. Until we address these issues the rest is nothing more than hype by special interest groups which should be avoided at all costs.

Also should a viable fetus that is brought about by a criminal act {rape} be given the same rights as one that is not?

Who is responsible for a viable Fetus which does not embed itself on the wall of the uterus?

If all Human rights where given to a fetus at any stage of what one side likes to call life would not this fertilized cell have the same rights as a new born child?

Who would police this and how?

Should a fetus that is horribly deformed and had little chance of having a quality of life be allowed to continue?

Should a Fetus which is a danger to its host be allowed to continue? If all humans have the same right to life what in a case like this would give the Fetus a greater right to life than the host {Mother?}

But I'm open to other points of view.

But first leave out all the hype and emotion and think from a LEGAL point of view rather than the hysterical way that both sides of this debate carry on.

They both claim to be correct but are unwilling to look at all the potential "Legal" problems and what would be the result of giving a 2 hour old Fetus the same rights as one that had gone 41 weeks to term.

What many people do not understand is that it is the Fetus which unhindered starts labor not the host.

Also those involved should all have a look at the medical instruments used for Virginal Deliveries before they begin to start sprouting off in their beliefs.

Col

First I don't like getting involved in the abortion issue...WAAAAAAAAY to controversial, and frankly I don't think I have much right as a man talking about what women should (or should not) do. I will say I think its sad and as it would be -- ironic that "right to life" folks kill abortion doctors under the pre-text of "all humans have a right to live" (ok so why did you KILL a human to say all humans have a right to live?).

Very good point btw, about the sixth commandment as it applies to military -- they kill all the time don't they?

Also you know something I think about too...who is right when they pray?

I mean the guys in the army of country X pray to god "Please give us the guidance, courage and strength to defeat our enemies"...while the guys in the army of country Y pray the exact same thing about the army of country X.

So both sides are praying for essentially God's help in killing the other side.

just my two cents.

Never assume something is obvious when there is a huge debate raging. Secondly, don't assume that the meaning of a command in the scripture is necessarily obvious. The command not to murder is the foundation of the belief that abortion is wrong. Then there is Jesus' statement about the "kingdom of Heaven belonging to such as these (children)." Abortion is not specifically mentioned, but then again there are many things not mentioned specifically in the scripture. For example, it never mentions that killing someone by shooting them with a firearm is forbidden, but the command to not murder is still there. War and self-defense seem to be the only exceptions.

A pregnant woman has within her the natural product of human reproduction, a child (as opposed to a cancer). The child has human DNA unique to itself. He or she is taking in food and growing. Given time and barring complications, the child will be born and still require food, shelter, and lots of care. If the child were not alive in the womb, he or she would not be taking in food and growing. If the child were not human, he or she would not have human DNA. Therefore, killing the child on purpose is considered murder.

God doesn't care what people's opinions are. He is a king, not a president. He expects obedience not debate. Most people don't like that. He already knows that the vast majority of people reject his authority and/or existence. Jesus said that the verdict has already been given, and that even though God sent light into the world, that people loved darkness instead because their deeds are evil. Therefore Christians shouldn't expect unbelievers to act in accordance with God, and so they will use their rights as citizens to vote in laws that are in line with their beliefs. Even if laws can't change hearts, they can do some good.

I appreciate the way you posted this. I will add my two cents for what they are worth. Before I do though you stated that you were sure that abortions were being carried out during the time of the bible and you were right. In the bible Jesus talks about a place called where the worshipers of Ba?al sacrificed their own children to the god. Now it doesn?t specifically say they were born or unborn but the end result is the same.

Now the bible makes several references to the pre-born. ?He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God:? Hosea 12:3
?For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.? Luke 1:44

These indicate that life occurs long before a child is born. Now that said it is difficult to argue ones point that taking the life of an innocent unborn child is murder when one is speaking to non-Christians. So my argument to them is this:
In today?s society there is no constant legal definition of life. There are, however, both medical and legal definitions of death. It is from these definitions that I postulate my argument for life beginning prior to birth. It is widely recognized that there are two medical definitions of death. The first is biological death which is when the heart stops and the second is clinical death which occurs when brain activity ceases. Legal death in most states matches the definition of clinical death. With this definition we can then say that as life is the opposite of death then life begins when brain activity begins. Brain activity begins very early on in the fetus.
Most people will talk about ?viability? which is a term used when discussing the child?s chances of survival outside the womb. The younger a child is removed from the womb the less ?viable? the child is as he or she has a lower chance of survival.
Suffice it to say that terminating the life of a child that could survive out of the womb is plain unadulterated murder.
?What about in cases of incest or rape?? I have personally met a woman who was the product of rape and she was a smart energetic woman who was loved by her parents regardless of the nature of her conception. Rape is a terrible thing but to compound the rape with the murder of another is a perfect example of sin begetting sin.
?What about in order to save the life of the mother?? I hear this too and my heart breaks when I contemplate it. This is the only time when I think abortion should be considered, but this is only my opinion.

Exodus 20:13 states "You shall not murder" as the 6th commandment (New King James Version). To help understand what is meant, Exodus 21, the chapter following the 10 Commandments, gives some situations where the Death Penalty may be applied (more often than with the current use of it in the USA in states where it is allowed). Other chapters give other crimes punishable by death. One thing that is interesting is that the concept of premeditated murder is taken in account in Exodus 21:12-14

12 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee.
14"But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die.

This is the foundation of the concept that the death penalty (1st Degree Murder) is for premeditated murder only. Lesser penalties for murder or manslaugter in the heat of passion or negligence. It can be inferred that killing in battle is not murder, as many heroes of the Bible, (David and Gideon, for example) were soldiers who fought against Israel's enemies and were praised, not condemned for it, in the Bible.

You don't have to be a Christian or Jew to believe in the right to life of prenatal babies. I am an atheist and I am pro-life.

If you look at the situation from a scientific perspective you will note that the egg and sperm are both alive. Once the two combine they create a fertilized egg with a unique DNA combination. The fertilized egg is alive. Pro-choice people will make several assertions about the fertilized egg which are not true.

First the pro-choice people want to believe that the fertilized egg is not human. I say that although the egg is only one cell it is human because it is certainly not anything else. Humans come from humans. There can be no intervening period that procreation takes something that is not human and turns it into a human. It's just not logical or scientific.

The pro-choice people say that the fertilized egg doesn't have all of the organs of a human or that it doesn't look human. I say that a newborn baby doesn't have all of the bones that it will have when it is an adult. You cannot use the stage of growth in the human to say that this stage doesn't qualify as human but the next stage does qualify. That again speaks to the issue above of a human developing from something that is not human. It isn't scientific.

Pro-choice people say that the fertilized egg cannot survive on its own so it is not an independent life. I say that a newborn baby cannot survive on its own either. Before it is born the prenatal baby is dependent on the mother's body to survive and develop. After birth the newborn is still dependent on a care giver of some sort to feed and clothe it. So you can say that the newborn is an emotional parasite of sorts. The point is that the newborn is not completely independent so dependence on someone else can't be used to determine whether the baby has a right to life. Post natal babies are completely dependent on others just to survive. This dependence lasts for several years. Yet the right to life of the post natal baby is not questioned. So it should be for the prenatal baby.

I think that it is useful to point out that the tactics of the pro-choice people over the last thirty years is highly comparable to the strategy used by the Nazis to 'sell' the idea of genocide to the public. First the Nazis declared that several groups in society were not human. These groups included the Jews and the Slavs. Next they said that these sub-humans were a problem and should be eliminated, much like the unwanted pregnancies are a problem to be eliminated. Lastly Nazi 'doctors' decided that they should be able to use these sub-humans in horrific medical experiments. This is comparable to the current issue of using stem cells from embryos for medical research.

I think that the moral situation in America and, frankly, throughout the entire world, is abysmal. Abortions and stem cell research are available in almost any developed country. Stem cell research is going on in many European countries and possibly in some Asian countries as well. What is in the future? I believe that the stem cell issue will become accepted, just as abortion has become. Once that happens then in about thirty years doctors will want to use fetuses from abortions for medical research. Thirty years later doctors will want to use newborns.

It seems to me that aborting a pregnancy can only be justified as self defense of the mother. In other words if carrying the baby to term will cause harm to the mother then abortion is ethical. I cannot think of any other circumstances that taking a human life at any stage is acceptable.

and keep them coming. Already in this short period of time you have clarified an issue as succinctly as it is probably possible to.

My special thanks to those who know the Bible better than myself, and came up with relevant passages.

I have now done a search for "womb" and come up with 70 verses, most of which definitely state or imply that the foetus is a person.

Hi Julian,

Here is how I understand the Catholic perspective on the issue of abortion.

1. Life begins at the moment of conception. That is the point in time where the immortal soul of new life is created.

2. We have been commanded both that thou shalt not kill, and to protect the least among us.
Some of the US Bishops made a strong point that because a fetus cannot protect itself that abortion is a much greater crime than the death penalty.

So,
3. Abortion is a violation of the 6th commandment and our duty to protect those that cannot protect themselves.

Much like the Christian fundamentalists in the US, the Catholic Church supports only abstinence as an acceptable form of birth control. Every intimacy between a man and a woman must have the potential of creating a child or it is not "righteous" love.

A few interesting observations:

I consider myself to be full "Pro-Life". That is, I am opposed to abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and the death penalty.
A significant number of people in the US who claim to be "pro-life" also fervently support the death penalty.
One of the things that bugs me about GWB is he claims to be pro-life. But in reality is only anti-abortion.

When US sex education courses cover abstinence, there is no specific definition of what abstinence is. Many in the US define abstinence as only avoiding traditional intercourse. All other sex acts are allowed.

In the US, abortion services are considered by some to be a right.
Yet, no other elective medical procedure is given the same status.

Chas

Here, as promised, is a detailed comment from a friend who is both Jewish and a scholar of Hebrew.

Hi Julian
The answer you need is THOU SHALT NOT MURDER. Any other answer would have prevented killing for food, on the one hand, and killing in self-defence (war) on the other.
Notes for Exodus 20:13: The King James version and other old translations had "kill". However, the usual words for killing are not used here; rather it is ratzach, which generally refers to unauthorised homicide, perhaps one that called forth blood vengeance. In time, ratzach came to be associated with killing out of hatred and malice. The penalty for murder is given in Exodus 21:12. See also Deut. 5:17.

Deut. 5:17: THOU SHALT NOT MURDER.
Notes for Deut 5:17: The older (KJV) translation was "You shall not kill". But while in English there is a distinction between "kill" (which may be authorised by the state or be accident) and "murder" (which is unauthorised and malicious), the Hebrew ratzach cannot be clearly distinguished from the more frequent harag (kill). However, the commandment deals obviously with homicide and hence those supporting pacificism or the abolition of capital punishment cannot justifiably base themselves on this word but must look to other reasons.

It's also interesting to note that the seven Noahide Laws include a prohibition against murder. These laws, according to Rabbinic teaching, were binding on all humanity (and probably descended via the Code of Hammurabi, or something similar). While Jews were subject to the extensive provisions set out in the Torah, all non-Jews must observe at least a number of fundamental precepts deemed essential for the maintenance of a decent society.

In interpreting Gen. 2:16, the command to Adam, i.e. humanity, is taken to imply that all men can have a concept of God and are therefore forbidden to blaspheme or to practice idolatry. "Commandment" is taken to presuppose law, hence meaning that every society is bound to establish courts of law.

The Rabbis, therefore, established six basic laws: Humanity may not worship idols, nor blaspheme God; he must establish courts of justice and must not kill; he may not commit adultery and he must not rob. A seventh law was added after the flood, that it was prohibited to eat the flesh of a living animal.

The long and short of all this is that a society can arrive at and must come to observe a minimum of religious and legal precepts.

My own view? A woman can do as she pleases with her own body. It's her choice (or not) to have an abortion, and no-one else, other than her doctor, should have any say.
Those who thought that the church and state were separated long ago are dead wrong when it comes to issues like these -- the church's very heavy hand is still seen in topics such as abortion. And it's high time the church (very broadly speaking, of course) butted out of politics (state) and women's lives (in this case).

Gret Racine

I was only trying to look at the "Legal Aspects" of what are suspose to be the meaning of being human.

All to often we get carried away with our own beliefs and tend to forget that there are other points of view.

Incidental while it is correct that in IVF when several Embryos are implanted some may become viable and some may not the same thing happens in nature and from medical research there are numerous reported cases of the fertilized cell not embedding itself on the wall of the uterus and simply getting flushed away with other fluids durring the menstrual cycle.

But what worries me is not the Religious Implications but what will follow when man made laws are enacted to protect the unborn child! These are where the beginning of our civil rights tend to get squashed and I consider it nothing more than the thin end of the wedge which eventually will crush all of our rights in a misguided attempt to protect the rights of the child. Some where there has to be a balance put in place and from what I'm seeing here that is unlikely to happen.

I notice that no one seems willing to take up on my original posting to give "Legal Arguments" rather than pure emotional arguments for what they want.

Until these possible Legal Implications are addressed this particular topic will remain emotion filled and there will be no firm outcome.

Also you have to remember that Man made Laws are subject to scrunchy and may prove not only to be unworkable but also illegal.

By the way I do have my own firm beliefs but as yet I chose not to share them as I would like to see people attempt to answer my questions. This is because while I believe that I'm correct in my beliefs I'm not stupid enough to believe that I have all the answers or that I'm always right. If people can come up with reasonable answers to my questions I may change my mind on this topic but I have my beliefs because I have not seen any reasonable well thought out legal arguments on either side.

They are all emotion and nothing else!

Col

Finally a considered well informed answer.

About the only hole I see in your response is in the last sentence

-----------------------------------------------
"So Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism and all of the Jewish scriptures apply to Christian theology."
-------------------------------------------------

What you should have said was that only the Jewish Scriptures Approved by the Roman Catholic Church apply to Christian Theology. There are many Jewish scriptures that have not gone through the constant reediting that are not approved by the Roman Catholic Church but remain basic to Jewish values.

The main trouble here is that the Church of Rome held all the religious writings and all Christian Beliefs spring from those scriptures that where the sole property of the Catholic Church for so long.

Also you forgot to mention that when "Emperor Constantine" converted to Christianity to make it acceptable to the general population of Rome he changed all the religious festivals to be in line with the then Sun Worship which was the Predominant Faith of the time so there where very few differences between the two faiths and it made it extremely east to go from one faith to the other hence the migration to Christianity that started about this time. But Constantine not only changed the religious festivals he also basically corrupted the original Pauline Christianity and that is what we have today admittedly it has gone through many forms and grown since that time it is all based upon what Constantine had to do to make Christianity acceptable to the Roman Population of the time.

As far as The Roman Church controlling all education and developments do not believe me but go to one of the few remaining documents regarding the Knights Templar the Papal Bull that disbanded them and read exactly what they where accused of as "Demonic Practices" which was the main reason for the Pope having justification to disband them but the reality of the situation was that they had grown far too powerful and where a direct threat to the Popes dominance.

Col

Were abortion outlawed without inserting programs to assist struggling parents, it would be no different than saying , "I care about the life within the mother, while it is in utero. But once the kid is born, you are on your own."

Affordable daycare is an issue. So many preschool education programs have been whittled out of budgets and mandated Federal educational standards are underfunded to be effective.

There is no true family-supporting legislation requiring employers to ante up anything. The Family Leave act is without pay, it only ensures that a position will be held for you if you need to use it. For many families 12 weeks without pay to take care of a very sick family member or newborn (after the state's maternal leave) is enough to send the family into a financial tailspin from which it may never recover.

If abortion is outlawed our entire society has to be supportive. Some pregnancies occur despite using contraception - part of the answer would be better contraception. While single parenthood is more common, it is no less stigmatized than it had ever been. It can not possibly help matters when women are still not getting paid fairly for the same work that a man does. Many of the available jobs do not offer health care. 2 parent working families can tell you how litle support there is for the family.

What about child support?

I had always thought the abortion issue was a thinly veiled racial issue.Looking at the statistics, it seems that there are 60-65% "white" abortions as "other." Most of the anti-abortion activists are white (men.) Consider that the Civil Rights act of 1964 was only 9 years old at the time abortion was legalized in 1973. These enormous changes in society are not readily or immediately absorbed and integrated. The issues are tied together, in that the rights' of disenfranchised people were recognized and then legislated to protect those freedoms. Our society is slowly adapting to the new way of thinking, but the old ways die hard.

Under the banner of "Family Values" the war is waged against self-determination. Giving women those rights changed the old rules and the relationship/marriage dynamic, yet the double standard yet survives, and will for at least another generation. In the house, little matters about the Civil Rights act. The real issue is not about foetal life, but about control and subjugation. The issue at hand is not only physical, but fiscal as well. Think about it. In the anti-abortionist's line of thinking, abortions shouldn't be permitted, and support won't be given - deal with it. What is a person to do?

Pro-choice is more pro-life. Pro-choice does not force abortion, but at its best, every child is wanted and born into a flourishing, supportive, loving and caring environment.

Anti-abortion is about control. The child must be kept, and there is little help available. What kind of mother would that make? What kind of child would be raised under duress? How is that pro-life?

If there is to be respect for all life from conception onward, then how do war and capital punishment fit into the picture? Humantarianism or peace? Socially speaking, we are still squabbling toddlers, and have a long road ahead to reach our best society.

The truest test is the one that walks into the house. An adolescent daughter, who scored 1600 on her SATS and tells her parents she's pregnant. A young family with 2 or 3 kids already can't afford another one. A middle-aged wife who already raised her family, and is looking forward to a new life - with grandchildren. A young son with a pregnant girlfriend, who wants nothing to do with the pregnancy. A cheating man, whose younger mistress wants the baby. These people need options, not condemnation.

Some Abortion statistics:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904509.html

Womens pay vs. Men's pay:

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/women/equalpay/ns04202004.cfm

Child support payments:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2004/reports/preliminary_data/#charts

Single Parenting:

http://www.baycongroup.com/education/car_single_parent.htm

Healthcare coverage and other issues:

http://www.childrensdefense.org/pressreleases/040713.asp

On Fatherlessness:
http://members.aol.com/asherah/fatherabsc.html

On anti abortion violence
http://atheism.about.com/library/books/full/aafprTargetsHatred.htm

To fall into the "Pro Life" category, how about having a look at some of the more hypocritical things that do occur to pregnant women?

Like the woman in the workplace who becomes pregnant is discriminated against for no other reason that the fact that she is pregnant.

Recently here in AU we had one woman refused care at a hospital for the delivery of her child because of her weight.

Finally my favorite one Breast Feeding a child in a public place. While a lot of the so called Pro Life people are all for a pregnancy going to term or as close as possible a lot of these very same people see it as offensive that the woman breast feeds her child in a public place while she is either out shopping for the families needs or as recently shown a Parliamentarian thrown out of Parliament because she was breast feeding her new born baby. The Official reason for this action was that no other parties other than the elected Politicians where allowed in the house and the baby did not fall into this category. However in this case the complaint was only made after she had brought the new born into Parliament several times previously and on the last occasion when she actually breast feed it. Actually it was while she was breast feeding the child that the official complaint was made and she was either asked to remove the baby or leave the House. Now if this was such an important thing she should have been told of the penitential problem on the first occasion when she brought the baby into the House and not left until she had brought the baby with her several times and only when she was breast feeding the child she quite rightly claimed that she felt embarrassed by this action.

Now I can understand some of the idea behind this rule as the Politicians do not want people in the House who might interfere with the smooth running of Parliament or do something that is far more serious, but on this occasion I really fail to see just how a new born baby would present any real threat to the Parliament.

Col

They seem to want the old ways back in place where the woman was the property of the man and was not considered as an equal partner or for that matter even human only property to be done with as the male saw fit.

Col

I'm a religious follower of the Muslim faith. I chose to migrate to America to further my prospects and for the education of my children.

Now here is the problem I have 175 wives with 450 children would I be allowed to keep all of my wifes and children in America?

If not exactly how do your laws protect my right to Religious Freedom?

Anyway stop dancing around the issue and answer my original post so far no one has had the guts to even attempt it!

It's here

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=163333&messageID=1675660

and as usual do not forget to remove any spaces that may have been inserted in the posting.

Also stop picking what you want and read the whole thing I didn't say that the Laws should give the Authorities the means to control what a pregnant woman does about the unborn but more to the point should the Authorities be able to tell a pregnant woman how to live, what medical treatment to have, how to deliver the baby and so on it was nothing at all about what rights the woman had but more to the point what rights would be taken away from the woman who was pregnant.

Col

Maureen,
Those are a terrible set of circumstances, and I wish that no one including yourself ever had to face such tragedy. To someone like you who has had to deal with things like this firsthand, I readily admit that I cannot fully appreciate the gravity of situations like that. My comments about abortion are targeting primarily the convenience type of abortion that seems to make up such a large percentage of abortions today.
Thanks,
Scott

I do not need condescension and pity from you or anyone else....
You said "Do you consider it proper to bring a child into this world where it will know nothing better than fighting on the streets for everything that it requires?"
My answer is yes. I believe that everyone has a right to life...even if that life is going to have tremendous challenges associated with it.
Is the only life that is worth living, the life that has a chance to recieve a social or economic advantage of some sort. I am not for suffering, but suffering is a reality of life, and death is not the answer for it. That is my opinion, now I gave you mine without disrespecting yours, can you do the same?
Scott

I'll be back later.

Maureen

Because a woman is pregnant she can not play in her normal sport lets say Netball, This was introduced as a LAW to protect the unborn child. Also she is prevented from smoking or drinking alcohol and whatever else the Medical Profession decreed is not safe for the unborn child.

The woman must undergo certain medical treatments and any free will is removed from the equation as the State dictates just how a pregnant woman is to behave.

These are what I was suggesting about Man Made Laws some Hypothetical event that could come about if a State recognizes the Rights of an Unborn Child above those of the already adult mother.

Not existing laws that most of us are happy to live with but as you so eloquently put it the Wacko ones that would not sound quite so Wacko if the life of the child was to be placed to a higher level than the life of the mother which all the Pro Life Movements appears to want to do.

Col

Having an abortion is a spiritual decision. No woman wants to do that or does it frivolously. There is great anguish and pain. Sometimes it is necessary. Government has no place in that decision.

Government should remain pro-choice and defer to religion, whatever religion that would be. Government is supposed to represent all of us.

As you refuse to acknowledge the actual Legal Implications of what you wish to believe and seem unwilling to even attempt to take it on board what you wish to impose upon others it is you who is out of touch.

Have a good look here it is males trying to control their women who are the major posters doesn't this tell you something?

You seem to think that decisions like this are made lightly which in some case they may be but in the majority they are not.

Perhaps you would like to return to the Good Old Days where Menstruating women where separated from the rest of the community and also at the time of the delivery. There is a remote valley in Northern Pakistan where the local Religion is not Muslim and it is claimed that the people who live here are descendants of Alexander the Great they have a communal dwelling in middle of the town where the women are segregated durring these times and in the case of a delivery the woman is confined for 20 days after the birth.

If this was to be adopted I'm sure you would be more than happy but of course it can not be as the women would be unable to continue working in any meaningful way. But then again it just might do something to cure the unemployment situation around the world. But of course when there are major wars to be fought the women could not engage in any form of work even to defend their country.

What I think you find hard to cope with is thew revolution that was brought about by WW11 where the women instead of being locked in the kitchen bare foot and pregnant where expected to get out and pull their weight for the good of the country. Well once you open the door you can never again close it and you get growth and development instead of stagnation which you seen to think is acceptable. You only want advancement if it is done by men for the benefit of men a very Muslim beliefs it seems to me!

Col

The so called Pro Life movement is incapable of seeing the wood for the trees and believes that this is a easy process with no possible side effects.

Even if the procedure goes without complications there can be lasting emotional complications and so far no mention has been made of the complications from any form of surgery.

They seem to think that because there is no visible scar there was no chance of complications.

This is a perfect example where a little knowledge is dangerous and the Pro Life Movement only has a little knowledge which supports their beliefs.

Col

Tomorrow than today.

I under stand your reasons and think you very brave to actually post your experiences here so if it's just me and no one else saying it

THANK YOU for your personal experience and I whole heartily agree with you and know just how hard the decision was unlike some others here who seem to think it is the easy option.

Col

I did not realize that the US Constitution protected the church from interference by the State but not the State from Interference by the Church.

I suspose you would find it acceptable if a majority of Fanatical Muslims got together and forced their beliefs onto the US Government to adopt.

I can just see it now no woman working any more, them all being forced to stay at home unless given approval by their husbands/fathers to go out and being locked away from the general population when menstruating and delivering children.

Some how that just doesn't wash with me and I can not see it happening but I'm glad to know that you approve of the USA becoming a "Rouge State" with vast stockpiles of WMD which they would then be free to use on any apposing country who didn't agree with them on purely religious grounds.

Col

and I appreciate your honesty and willingness to share your experience.
Scott

Or whatever you want to call it.

But on the flip side of the coin just what % of the people in these areas

-------------------------------------------------
What about the people that have risen to the highest levels of success and achievement that come from these backgrounds....(backgrounds of want and desperation?)
-------------------------------------------------

Reached this level and how many remain. Surely you can not argue that this is aceptiable!

until we have some better form of equality things will continue to decline and I for one do not want my children or their children to suffer for something that I could have been responsible for preventing.

Col

I will keep an eye out for the sarcasm alert you speak of.....
I cannot disprove the suggestion that foreigners coming into this country could impact its policies....If our countries citizens have a polar shift in their views, it will obviously affect who is elected. I do not seek to force my views on anyone. I will vote my conscience that is affected by my system of beliefs. If a majority of people feel the same way and vote...so be it....if people feel differently and vote....I will have to live with it....I already do live with a lot of rules regulations and policies with which I do not agree....I have no plans on moving though...I still like my country.

It was one thing that I did find as funny but the Sex Therapist's are making a killing by taking couples on romantic cruses and allowing them to get to know each other again.

Now there has to be something basically wrong over there for this to happen as it is the only place in the world which is making such a big deal out of the current position.

Col

You told Maureen...."THANK YOU for your personal experience and I whole heartily agree with you and know just how hard the decision was unlike some others here who seem to think it is the easy option."
I felt as if you were including me in saying the part about the "others here" who think it is an easy option....I definitely do not think that...

Maybe that was not an accurate conclusion .....If not, then I apologize

However, Maureen, I thought you could use a lift..

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

?Abstinence doesn't happen in the real world.?
Abstinence is a behavioral choice. It is absurd to think that people are slaves to their desires and incapable of controlling themselves. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said people refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions. No one compels you to have sex. It is in fact a personal drive that regardless of gender drives one to the act.

?Birth control fails.?
Very true. However, if abstinence does not.

?There are fatal and severe genetic defects.? I am at a loss here. Are you referring to defects for birth control?

?Women didn't invent sex - as far as I remember it takes at least two. (Yes, I'm baiting - I can't help it)?
Your absolutely right and I am glad you brought this up. In our society today the sub-adult male is encouraged by his peers to ?go out and make sexual conquest after sexual conquest? and the more he does and the earlier he does the more prowess he obtains. He becomes a ?player?. Conversely, (although not so much anymore) young girls are looked down upon when and if they give in and have sex. If she becomes pregnant it becomes completely her problem and she is forced to take the boys she?s slept with to the Jerry Springer show to get a paternity test to determine which one to sue for support. (Now I am baiting, sorry).

?It would seem in your world the woman would be left behind with the full responsibility.?
Sadly this is not my world but the world we live in. I agree with you that we need strong male role models in the lives of our young boys to show them what is right and what is wrong. Guidance to show them that what they are being fed by popular society is wrong and that they would be way better off forgoing sex until they?re married.

?The point which you have chosen to miss is if abortion becomes unavailable, then there has to be a better support network in place.?
I would agree you. However this needs to be a multi-pronged approach where we begin to teach our children (yes in school) at a very young age that sex before marriage is wrong and show them what it will lead to.

?Put your energies to good use. Have you ever considered volunteering your time to urban or inner-city youth to help them mend their ways??
I have two of my own and they?re all I can handle for now.

PS Jesus is a liberal.
I think your right. He was a radical in his time. He still kept the law though; all of it. He was the only one in all history who was blameless and kept every commandment and every law.

is also known as decision law is determined by the judges on the bench.

The legislative process is a slow one. When a case is tried calling into question laws in the books, case law is then made by the judge.

A lawyer or other legal beagle could explain it better.

Thats why sometimes you see book citings ie. NJSA 3:8b or case citings "Mennonite vs. Adams" etc.

Maureen