On Easter Sunday Cormac Murphy O’Connor, head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, attempted to draw a parallel between the Nazi extermination of the Jews and Britain’s abortion policies. To reinforce this he argued that there had been the “termination of six million lives in the womb since the Abortion Act was introduced”. He added that the “developments in stem-cell research, euthanasia and IVF are taking us” towards the situation in Nazi Germany.
This seems to be both poor history and incompetent politics. The Catholic Church has lost millions of supporters because of its 19th century views on sex (including my wife and all her sisters).
However, to link those in favour of abortion with Nazi Germany is going to make a lot of non-Catholics very angry. Although Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly support the Catholic Church’s views on abortion, politicians cannot be seen to be seen as associated with such a smear on those women who make such a difficult decision to have their pregnancies terminated.
Interestingly, it was only in 1869 that the Roman Catholic Church decided that all abortion was homicide. This was the work of the reactionary Pius IX. Up until that time (based on the teachings of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas) the Church did not see the foetus in the early stages of pregnancy as a human person. Augustine in fact compared the foetus in the early stages of pregnancy to vegetation.
It is also a myth that Nazi Germany was in favour of abortion. In fact, it was virtually impossible to get an abortion (or birth-control help) in Nazi Germany. Instead, women were encouraged to have very large families.
As Isle McKee, a member of the German Girls' League, recalled in her experiences in her autobiography.
We were told from a very early age to prepare for motherhood, as the mother in the eyes of our beloved leader and the National Socialist Government was the most important person in the nation. We were Germany's hope in the future, and it was our duty to breed and rear the new generation of sons and daughter. These lessons soon bore fruit in the shape of quite a few illegitimate small sons and daughters for the Reich, brought forth by teenage members of the League of German Maidens. The girls felt they had done their duty and seemed remarkably unconcerned about the scandal.
Martha Dodd, My Years in Germany (1939) wrote:
Young girls from the age of ten onward were taken into organizations where they were taught only two things: to take care of their bodies so they could bear as many children as the state needed and to be loyal to National Socialism. Though the Nazis have been forced to recognize, through the lack of men, that not all women can get married. Huge marriage loans are floated every year whereby the contracting parties can borrow substantial sums from the government to be repaid slowly or to be cancelled entirely upon the birth of enough children. Birth control information is frowned on and practically forbidden.
Despite the fact that Hitler and the other Nazis are always ranting about "Volk ohne Raum" (a people without space) they command their men and women to have more children. Women have been deprived for all rights except that of childbirth and hard labour. They are not permitted to participate in political life - in fact Hitler's plans eventually include the deprivation of the vote; they are refused opportunities of education and self-expression; careers and professions are closed to them.
Maybe it was Germany’s policy on birth-control and abortion that was the real reason why the Roman Catholic Church decided not to criticise Hitler's domestic policies.
Full Version: Abortion and Nazi Germany
Conners comments are of a political rather than religious nature. This is an obvious attack on feminism, and womens rights in general. This kind of reactionary thinking must be opposed by progressive's or as history has shown, an attack that is specific, soon becomes general. I belive that this is all of a piece with Government attacks on Human rights legislation,both here and in America (Patriot act 1&2) Democratic freedoms that have taken century's to achive, are being demolished before our eye's. Radical thinkers need to wake up before it's to late
I HATE when people bring up such insane remarks like that. I'm pro-choice ( and I never want kids ), and I'd appreciate people keeping their laws and their religion off of my body. It's even worse to compare it to something so extreme as Nazi Germany, it'd be like comparing your fish dying to 9/11.
Sometimes, people really just need to shove their foot in their mouth.
Sometimes, people really just need to shove their foot in their mouth.
Regardless of one's position on abortion, does any one really dispute that human life begins at conception? That's science, not religion.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Aug 8 2005, 07:28 AM)
Regardless of one's position on abortion, does any one really dispute that human life begins at conception? That's science, not religion.
This is a point made by anti-abortionists. They argue that this means that those performing abortions are guilty of murder. More rational members of society argue that life begins when the baby is capable of independent life. Until then, the foetus is part of the mother. This was also the view of the Roman Catholic Church until the middle of the 19th century.
"... at least one [sperm] will reach the egg, fertilize it, and conception will take place. A new life will begin." (page 15)
"... the egg which, if fertilized, gives rise to a new life." (page 3)
The above quotations are from a 1960 McGraw-Hill Inc. book on Conception, Birth and Contraception. The book had the input of Planned Parenthood and the Sex Information & Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).
"This book provides a solid base for understanding the anatomy of reproduction," wrote Mary S. Calderone, MD, Executive Director of SIECUS, in her Introduction to the 129-page book. "
"... the egg which, if fertilized, gives rise to a new life." (page 3)
The above quotations are from a 1960 McGraw-Hill Inc. book on Conception, Birth and Contraception. The book had the input of Planned Parenthood and the Sex Information & Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).
"This book provides a solid base for understanding the anatomy of reproduction," wrote Mary S. Calderone, MD, Executive Director of SIECUS, in her Introduction to the 129-page book. "
John wrote:
More rational members of society argue that life begins when the baby is capable of independent life.
John, this statement does not, in my opinion, make rational or scientic sense.
Assuming the position that life begins with what has been termed "viability" do you then oppose the taking of human life after viabilty, except in cases where the life of the mother would be jeopardized by the continuation of the pregnancy?
Also, when a human being, for medical reasons, is no longer capable of "independent life", is that person no longer alive? I work with a fellow whose mother has had both legs amputated due to diabestes. He and his sister take round-the-clock care of the mother. She could not live "independent" of them. Is she then dead?
How do you define "life"?
More rational members of society argue that life begins when the baby is capable of independent life.
John, this statement does not, in my opinion, make rational or scientic sense.
Assuming the position that life begins with what has been termed "viability" do you then oppose the taking of human life after viabilty, except in cases where the life of the mother would be jeopardized by the continuation of the pregnancy?
Also, when a human being, for medical reasons, is no longer capable of "independent life", is that person no longer alive? I work with a fellow whose mother has had both legs amputated due to diabestes. He and his sister take round-the-clock care of the mother. She could not live "independent" of them. Is she then dead?
How do you define "life"?
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
Scientifically, life begins at conception. This is really indisputable.
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
Scientifically, life begins at conception. This is really indisputable.
A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data."
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals."
Source: Randy Alcorn.
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."
Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data."
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals."
Source: Randy Alcorn.
Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the discoverer of the cause of Down Syndrome, has stated: “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion … it is plain experimental evidence.”
Dr. Hymie Gordon, chairman of the department of genetics at the Mayo Clinic, has said: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Sir William Liley, a key pioneer of fetal therapy, writing in 1972 in his famous article, “The Foetus as a Personality,” demonstrates that we have moved away from the view of the fetus as an inert, unformed passenger awaiting arrival at the destination of life, and have seen the fetus as a splendidly functioning human, full of vigor and very much in command of the pregnancy.
Dr. Hymie Gordon, chairman of the department of genetics at the Mayo Clinic, has said: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Sir William Liley, a key pioneer of fetal therapy, writing in 1972 in his famous article, “The Foetus as a Personality,” demonstrates that we have moved away from the view of the fetus as an inert, unformed passenger awaiting arrival at the destination of life, and have seen the fetus as a splendidly functioning human, full of vigor and very much in command of the pregnancy.
Conceding that I MIGHT be wrong that life begins at conception, I offer the position of Juan A. Williams expressed at his speech at the 2005 Haverford College Commencement ceremony:
As a dad let me say to parents here today, you’re on the path to answering that ancient question, “When does life begin?” As you know some say that life begins at conception, others believe that life begins at birth, but I truly believe that life begins once the kids get out of college.
As a dad let me say to parents here today, you’re on the path to answering that ancient question, “When does life begin?” As you know some say that life begins at conception, others believe that life begins at birth, but I truly believe that life begins once the kids get out of college.
Is this your way of saying you are against abortion? I’m not keen either and would much prefer people to use birth-control. However, I do believe that women have the right to decide if they want an abortion or not. I think it is especially unpleasant for a male-dominated church to tell women what they should be doing in these difficult circumstances. As Nic pointed out, she wants “people keeping their laws and their religion off of my body.”
I see these anti-choice protestors outside clinics, screaming, "Killer," and "Whore." I look at those people, shouting judgements, and they have no clue in hell what the girl's story is. I would like to see ANY of these pro-life morons put themselves in the shoes of a rape victim whose body isn't strong enough to handle giving birth, or even carrying to term. Walk a mile in that, then tell her that you have a right to choose what she does with her body, and then tell her that your holier-than-thou attitude is rightfully deserved because YOU'VE never had to make a choice like that.
If she wasn't at the clinic, she'd be at home in her bathroom trying to do a vintage abortion with a coat-hanger, and she'd probably die because of it. But this is what all these pro-life people think should happen? Women are going to have abortions whether it's legal or not, but when they're legal - they have a better chance at surviving.
In a perfect world, abortion wouldn't be needed. But in a perfect world, I could find a doctor to sterilize me at 18 instead of telling me, "This is a life changing decision, and you'll change your mind!" However, someone my age could go to the doctor and say, "I want to have a baby, give me IVF!" and the doctor would say, "Cash or charge?" This society is so intent on pleasing those that breed, and those who don't have kids are royally screwed.
If you don't believe in abortion, fine - don't have one! Nobody's forcing you to, but these pro-lifers keep insisting that because they believe something, because their god-of-choice says so, it should become LAW. Seperation of church & state, MAYBE you've heard of it - or have you ignored my governmental rights recently?
If she wasn't at the clinic, she'd be at home in her bathroom trying to do a vintage abortion with a coat-hanger, and she'd probably die because of it. But this is what all these pro-life people think should happen? Women are going to have abortions whether it's legal or not, but when they're legal - they have a better chance at surviving.
In a perfect world, abortion wouldn't be needed. But in a perfect world, I could find a doctor to sterilize me at 18 instead of telling me, "This is a life changing decision, and you'll change your mind!" However, someone my age could go to the doctor and say, "I want to have a baby, give me IVF!" and the doctor would say, "Cash or charge?" This society is so intent on pleasing those that breed, and those who don't have kids are royally screwed.
If you don't believe in abortion, fine - don't have one! Nobody's forcing you to, but these pro-lifers keep insisting that because they believe something, because their god-of-choice says so, it should become LAW. Seperation of church & state, MAYBE you've heard of it - or have you ignored my governmental rights recently?
QUOTE (Nic Martin @ Aug 8 2005, 02:39 PM)
I see these anti-choice protestors outside clinics, screaming, "Killer," and "Whore." I look at those people, shouting judgements, and they have no clue in hell what the girl's story is. I would like to see ANY of these pro-life morons put themselves in the shoes of a rape victim whose body isn't strong enough to handle giving birth, or even carrying to term. Walk a mile in that, then tell her that you have a right to choose what she does with her body, and then tell her that your holier-than-thou attitude is rightfully deserved because YOU'VE never had to make a choice like that.
If she wasn't at the clinic, she'd be at home in her bathroom trying to do a vintage abortion with a coat-hanger, and she'd probably die because of it. But this is what all these pro-life people think should happen? Women are going to have abortions whether it's legal or not, but when they're legal - they have a better chance at surviving.
In a perfect world, abortion wouldn't be needed. But in a perfect world, I could find a doctor to sterilize me at 18 instead of telling me, "This is a life changing decision, and you'll change your mind!" However, someone my age could go to the doctor and say, "I want to have a baby, give me IVF!" and the doctor would say, "Cash or charge?" This society is so intent on pleasing those that breed, and those who don't have kids are royally screwed.
If you don't believe in abortion, fine - don't have one! Nobody's forcing you to, but these pro-lifers keep insisting that because they believe something, because their god-of-choice says so, it should become LAW. Seperation of church & state, MAYBE you've heard of it - or have you ignored my governmental rights recently?
If she wasn't at the clinic, she'd be at home in her bathroom trying to do a vintage abortion with a coat-hanger, and she'd probably die because of it. But this is what all these pro-life people think should happen? Women are going to have abortions whether it's legal or not, but when they're legal - they have a better chance at surviving.
In a perfect world, abortion wouldn't be needed. But in a perfect world, I could find a doctor to sterilize me at 18 instead of telling me, "This is a life changing decision, and you'll change your mind!" However, someone my age could go to the doctor and say, "I want to have a baby, give me IVF!" and the doctor would say, "Cash or charge?" This society is so intent on pleasing those that breed, and those who don't have kids are royally screwed.
If you don't believe in abortion, fine - don't have one! Nobody's forcing you to, but these pro-lifers keep insisting that because they believe something, because their god-of-choice says so, it should become LAW. Seperation of church & state, MAYBE you've heard of it - or have you ignored my governmental rights recently?
Great posting Nic. What would you say in reply Tim?
A post that starts by calling pro-life adherents "morons" hardly merits a reply.
It is not a question of religion.
John, you have made the point that atheists can have moral principles and I believe that you do. I believe that the moral principles do come from God however. Be that as it may, any moral person recognizes that greatest crime a person can commit is the taking of another human life.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was an atheist when he came to the realization, through his medical training, that the abortions that he was performing were indeed the taking of human life and he could no longer countenance it.
Nic talks about pro-life demonstrators screaming at women entering abortion clinics. I have never seen this happen, and indeed it would be counter-productive to their cause. More often, I believe, pro-death advocates reap scorn and abuse on pro-life demonstrators. Dr. Nathanson stated he decided to become a Cathloic (I am not a Catholic myself, by the way) when he saw the kindness the pro-life people demonstrated to those who cursed them.
My point is that the societal sanctions against murder do not violation the provision of the separation of church and state, any more than sanctions against robbery or other crimes that are also condemned in the Bible and in the Koran. The increases in medical knowledge in the last century clearly demonstrate that life begins at conception. The issue that must be addressed is at what point life should be protected by the state. Clearly the fetus in the mother is a separate and distinct human being being sheltered and nurtured by the mother's body.
It is not true that pro-life advocates do not care for the plight of the woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Indeed, most larger cities have organizations to assist such women that are organized and funded by pro-life proponents.
It is often true that women who undergo abortions suffer deep psychological effects as they later realize that they have indeed taken an innocent human life. These possible consequences are never discussed by the doctors who profit from performing abortions. But the pro-life movement also assists women in recovering from the scars of abortion by demonstrating that they can achieve forgiveness.
Certainly there can be difficult questions that arise, such as Nic's point about the rape victim. But very few abortions result from rape and most are simply for convenience. Would Nic support a prohibition on abortion except in cases of rape or where there was a serious issue of the health of the mother?
Since the science is now clear that a separate human life begins at conception, it seems difficult, I think, to countenance the taking of that life except under very unusual circumstances such as rape or the health of the mother.
It is not a question of religion.
John, you have made the point that atheists can have moral principles and I believe that you do. I believe that the moral principles do come from God however. Be that as it may, any moral person recognizes that greatest crime a person can commit is the taking of another human life.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was an atheist when he came to the realization, through his medical training, that the abortions that he was performing were indeed the taking of human life and he could no longer countenance it.
Nic talks about pro-life demonstrators screaming at women entering abortion clinics. I have never seen this happen, and indeed it would be counter-productive to their cause. More often, I believe, pro-death advocates reap scorn and abuse on pro-life demonstrators. Dr. Nathanson stated he decided to become a Cathloic (I am not a Catholic myself, by the way) when he saw the kindness the pro-life people demonstrated to those who cursed them.
My point is that the societal sanctions against murder do not violation the provision of the separation of church and state, any more than sanctions against robbery or other crimes that are also condemned in the Bible and in the Koran. The increases in medical knowledge in the last century clearly demonstrate that life begins at conception. The issue that must be addressed is at what point life should be protected by the state. Clearly the fetus in the mother is a separate and distinct human being being sheltered and nurtured by the mother's body.
It is not true that pro-life advocates do not care for the plight of the woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Indeed, most larger cities have organizations to assist such women that are organized and funded by pro-life proponents.
It is often true that women who undergo abortions suffer deep psychological effects as they later realize that they have indeed taken an innocent human life. These possible consequences are never discussed by the doctors who profit from performing abortions. But the pro-life movement also assists women in recovering from the scars of abortion by demonstrating that they can achieve forgiveness.
Certainly there can be difficult questions that arise, such as Nic's point about the rape victim. But very few abortions result from rape and most are simply for convenience. Would Nic support a prohibition on abortion except in cases of rape or where there was a serious issue of the health of the mother?
Since the science is now clear that a separate human life begins at conception, it seems difficult, I think, to countenance the taking of that life except under very unusual circumstances such as rape or the health of the mother.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Aug 8 2005, 08:28 AM)
Regardless of one's position on abortion, does any one really dispute that human life begins at conception? That's science, not religion.
Hi Tim
That grass growing outside my door is "life" as well. Presumably, scientists are right that there is "life" on other planets too, but is it intelligent life? Is the fetus a fully formed human? No, and you can't pretend it is. The mother, who has to care for the offspring, must have the choice whether to bring the fetus to term and let it be born. Quasi-religious arguments should not intervene in this process.
All my best
Chris
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Aug 10 2005, 10:42 AM)
A post that starts by calling pro-life adherents "morons" hardly merits a reply.
It is not a question of religion.
John, you have made the point that atheists can have moral principles and I believe that you do. I believe that the moral principles do come from God however. Be that as it may, any moral person recognizes that greatest crime a person can commit is the taking of another human life.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was an atheist when he came to the realization, through his medical training, that the abortions that he was performing were indeed the taking of human life and he could no longer countenance it.
Nic talks about pro-life demonstrators screaming at women entering abortion clinics. I have never seen this happen, and indeed it would be counter-productive to their cause. More often, I believe, pro-death advocates reap scorn and abuse on pro-life demonstrators. Dr. Nathanson stated he decided to become a Cathloic (I am not a Catholic myself, by the way) when he saw the kindness the pro-life people demonstrated to those who cursed them.
My point is that the societal sanctions against murder do not violation the provision of the separation of church and state, any more than sanctions against robbery or other crimes that are also condemned in the Bible and in the Koran. The increases in medical knowledge in the last century clearly demonstrate that life begins at conception. The issue that must be addressed is at what point life should be protected by the state. Clearly the fetus in the mother is a separate and distinct human being being sheltered and nurtured by the mother's body.
It is not true that pro-life advocates do not care for the plight of the woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Indeed, most larger cities have organizations to assist such women that are organized and funded by pro-life proponents.
It is often true that women who undergo abortions suffer deep psychological effects as they later realize that they have indeed taken an innocent human life. These possible consequences are never discussed by the doctors who profit from performing abortions. But the pro-life movement also assists women in recovering from the scars of abortion by demonstrating that they can achieve forgiveness.
Certainly there can be difficult questions that arise, such as Nic's point about the rape victim. But very few abortions result from rape and most are simply for convenience. Would Nic support a prohibition on abortion except in cases of rape or where there was a serious issue of the health of the mother?
Since the science is now clear that a separate human life begins at conception, it seems difficult, I think, to countenance the taking of that life except under very unusual circumstances such as rape or the health of the mother.
It is not a question of religion.
John, you have made the point that atheists can have moral principles and I believe that you do. I believe that the moral principles do come from God however. Be that as it may, any moral person recognizes that greatest crime a person can commit is the taking of another human life.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was an atheist when he came to the realization, through his medical training, that the abortions that he was performing were indeed the taking of human life and he could no longer countenance it.
Nic talks about pro-life demonstrators screaming at women entering abortion clinics. I have never seen this happen, and indeed it would be counter-productive to their cause. More often, I believe, pro-death advocates reap scorn and abuse on pro-life demonstrators. Dr. Nathanson stated he decided to become a Cathloic (I am not a Catholic myself, by the way) when he saw the kindness the pro-life people demonstrated to those who cursed them.
My point is that the societal sanctions against murder do not violation the provision of the separation of church and state, any more than sanctions against robbery or other crimes that are also condemned in the Bible and in the Koran. The increases in medical knowledge in the last century clearly demonstrate that life begins at conception. The issue that must be addressed is at what point life should be protected by the state. Clearly the fetus in the mother is a separate and distinct human being being sheltered and nurtured by the mother's body.
It is not true that pro-life advocates do not care for the plight of the woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Indeed, most larger cities have organizations to assist such women that are organized and funded by pro-life proponents.
It is often true that women who undergo abortions suffer deep psychological effects as they later realize that they have indeed taken an innocent human life. These possible consequences are never discussed by the doctors who profit from performing abortions. But the pro-life movement also assists women in recovering from the scars of abortion by demonstrating that they can achieve forgiveness.
Certainly there can be difficult questions that arise, such as Nic's point about the rape victim. But very few abortions result from rape and most are simply for convenience. Would Nic support a prohibition on abortion except in cases of rape or where there was a serious issue of the health of the mother?
Since the science is now clear that a separate human life begins at conception, it seems difficult, I think, to countenance the taking of that life except under very unusual circumstances such as rape or the health of the mother.
You've never seen people screaming outside clinics? I have. I've also seen news reports about supposedly "pro-life" wackjobs blowing up clinics, killing everyone inside. Yeah, because the life of several masses of cells is worth SO MUCH MORE than the lives of people that have lives, family, & friends.
I know SEVERAL women that have had abortions that don't regret it, and that don't feel badly about it. I'm a member of a community board online that has a few hundred of those women. Hell, check out http://www.imnotsorry.net
And no, I wouldn't support a prohibition on abortion EVER. It's my body, it's my uterus - and until I can find a doctor that will sterilize me, abortion is an option I would take without a second thought. I have dreams, I have a life that I've worked really damn hard on - I'm not going to spend nine months pregnant and eighteen years paying for one mistake that, knowing how impatient I am, I'd probably wind up pulling an Andrea Yates on.
I KNOW this about myself, I know I'm impatient, I know I'd resent something that took my life away, I know that when in restaurants - I ask to be sat as far away from small children as they can put me. My favorite restaurant, in fact, is where nobody under age five is admitted.
I'm in a relationship, with a guy that I'm crazy about. He treats me wonderfully, and he makes me happy. He doesn't pressure me, he adores me for who I am, and he's loyal to me. No matter how many precautions I took if I were to have sex with him - accidents can happen. I'm not giving my life up for a mistake, and I'm not living a Puritan existance because that's not who I am.
Here's how I see my life going. I'm going to go to community college for two years, so I can save up enough money through a job to afford a starting life at a college away from home. I'm going to double-major in history & political science, and hopefully intern at a Presidential library. After graduation, hopefully I'll be able to become an archivist for a branch of the NARA - my #1 choice would be the JFK Library in Boston.
Kids don't fit into that. EVER. I don't like kids, I don't think they're cute. The idea of a child touching me with it's clammy, germy hands - makes me want to vomit. I'm not a kid-friendly person. If I was forced to stay pregnant, I seriously would rather put a gun to my head than deal with that.
And then these pro-life nitwits say, OMG WELL ADOPTION IS ALWAYS AN OPTION! Yet, I find it ironic how these people, when they are discovered as infertile and someone suggests adoption, they get this horrified look on their face and say, "BUT IT'S NOT PART OF MEEEEEEEEEEEEE."
This INSANELY stupid mentality that every woman regrets an abortion BECAUSE OMG I KILLED A BAYBEE is shoving you into the era when women couldn't vote. Not all women melt into puddles of goo at the thought of a baby. I grimace when I hear one crying, and I think they're ugly.
You believe in god, right, Mr. Gratz? And so you believe god created us all, and loved us all? Then surely this same god, if we follow that belief, also gave us free will, correct? So, by that token - who are you and your braindead pro-life cronies to defy the choices that your god gave us to make?
One can understand why abortion inspires or perhaps ignites very strong feelings on both sides.
Some women feel as Nic does that it is wrong for the state to tell them what they can do with "their bodies" (even though, clearly, the fetus living within them is a separate human being). Perhaps a better way to put it is that these women feel that because their body must feed and nurture the fetus during gestation, they should have the right to terminate the pregnancy if they choose.
Anti-abortionists (I am being careful deliberately not to use termsw such as "pro-life" and "pro-death") strongly believe that it is without dispute that when a woman has an abortion she is killing a separate and distinct human life and that this is tantamount to murder.
Despite these strong feelings, I think the debate on abortion should be polite and intelligent civil discourse. Calling people who support the other side names accomplishes nothing, of course, than to further "fan the flames" of this heated issue.
I therefore find it ironic that while Nic condemns anti-abortionists who she claims call names at women entering abortion clinics (a phenomenon I have not observed among the anti-abortion protestors I have known) her own post is full of vituperation, e.g. "braindead pro-life cronies".
I won't even comment on the fact that Nic goes on at length about how much she dislikes kids. What I will say is that almost every anti-abortionist I know loves children. Try to understand the other side, Nic. I have seen the photos of what an abortion does to an almost fully developed fetus.
One hundred years ago part of our society felt that blacks were property not people. The impetus for prohibiting slavery, which was introduced into American society by English slave-traders, came from the Christian-oriented abolitionist movement. Just as pro-abortion advocates claim the state should have no right to interferere with their "bodies", one hundred years ago the slaveholders claimed the state should not have the right to interfere with their "property". I am sure the slaveholders also thought the abolitionists were "braindead".
Some women feel as Nic does that it is wrong for the state to tell them what they can do with "their bodies" (even though, clearly, the fetus living within them is a separate human being). Perhaps a better way to put it is that these women feel that because their body must feed and nurture the fetus during gestation, they should have the right to terminate the pregnancy if they choose.
Anti-abortionists (I am being careful deliberately not to use termsw such as "pro-life" and "pro-death") strongly believe that it is without dispute that when a woman has an abortion she is killing a separate and distinct human life and that this is tantamount to murder.
Despite these strong feelings, I think the debate on abortion should be polite and intelligent civil discourse. Calling people who support the other side names accomplishes nothing, of course, than to further "fan the flames" of this heated issue.
I therefore find it ironic that while Nic condemns anti-abortionists who she claims call names at women entering abortion clinics (a phenomenon I have not observed among the anti-abortion protestors I have known) her own post is full of vituperation, e.g. "braindead pro-life cronies".
I won't even comment on the fact that Nic goes on at length about how much she dislikes kids. What I will say is that almost every anti-abortionist I know loves children. Try to understand the other side, Nic. I have seen the photos of what an abortion does to an almost fully developed fetus.
One hundred years ago part of our society felt that blacks were property not people. The impetus for prohibiting slavery, which was introduced into American society by English slave-traders, came from the Christian-oriented abolitionist movement. Just as pro-abortion advocates claim the state should have no right to interferere with their "bodies", one hundred years ago the slaveholders claimed the state should not have the right to interfere with their "property". I am sure the slaveholders also thought the abolitionists were "braindead".
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Aug 10 2005, 09:42 AM)
John, you have made the point that atheists can have moral principles and I believe that you do. I believe that the moral principles do come from God however. Be that as it may, any moral person recognizes that greatest crime a person can commit is the taking of another human life.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was an atheist when he came to the realization, through his medical training, that the abortions that he was performing were indeed the taking of human life and he could no longer countenance it.
Since the science is now clear that a separate human life begins at conception, it seems difficult, I think, to countenance the taking of that life except under very unusual circumstances such as rape or the health of the mother.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson was an atheist when he came to the realization, through his medical training, that the abortions that he was performing were indeed the taking of human life and he could no longer countenance it.
Since the science is now clear that a separate human life begins at conception, it seems difficult, I think, to countenance the taking of that life except under very unusual circumstances such as rape or the health of the mother.
I do not need to be a Christian to know that killing is wrong. I am very disturbed to discover that people need to read the Bible to discover what is morally “right” or “wrong”. They are bound to be confused if they rely on their reading of the Bible. It was written by a lot of different people and is full of contradictions. There are also great contrasts between the Old and New Testaments. I would have thought that Christians would have relied more on the teachings of Jesus Christ but it is clear from the views expressed by Christian fundamentalists like Tim that they rely heavily on the Old Testament for their opinions: “an eye for an eye” and all that.
Christian fundamentalists remind me most of the people they hate so much – the dogmatic Marxist. They search through the Bible in order to find quotations that support their reactionary views. This is why they usually end up with quotes from the Old Testament as Jesus was a very progressive thinker. He of course rejected ideas such as “an eye for an eye” and was into turning away from violence and forgiving his enemies. It is the correct reading of the New Testament that inspired people like Martin Luther King. Not the words of revenge and hate in the Old Testament.
You say you are pro-life but in fact, going by your postings on this forum you are very much pro-death. You appear to see nothing wrong with killing people as long as they can be portrayed as the enemy. Even if they are innocent civilians, if they make the mistake of living in the same town as Muslim fundamentalists they are an acceptable target for American bombers. See for example the thread on the Just War:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3776
You don’t seem to be very pro-life when it comes to capital punishment. The rest of the western world brought an end to this barbaric activity many years ago. Yet the Christian fundamentalists in America are all in favour of it and pillory any leading politician who does not go along with them.
The same goes for people who believe in the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first few weeks after conception. They are condemned by Christian fundamentalists as being “murderers” and doctors who carry out what is a legal act are abused and physically attacked.
What you don’t seem to grasp is that you are the mirror image of the Muslim Fundamentalists that you hate so much. Unable to make your own moral decisions you commit intellectual suicide and blindly follow your leader, in your case, George Bush.
You have an ideology that I abhor. That is understandable as it is a reaction to the sixties progressive movement. It is an attempt to give the power back in society to the male ruling class. You have course been very successful in America. Although you have your Iraq War you will not convince young women to give up control over their bodies (I suppose you are also against sex before marriage).
The point is that old men like you can pontificate all you want but the secret is out, sex is pleasurable. Mistakes will be made, especially in societies that appear keen to deny young people information about sex, and women will get pregnant when they did not intend to. They will then have abortions. Legally if possible, illegally if they must (women have always done that and in the past thousands have paid the ultimate price for their actions).
John wrote:
What you don’t seem to grasp is that you are the mirror image of the Muslim Fundamentalists that you hate so much.
John, you must not read your Bible much. Jesus said: "Love your enemies; be kind to those who despitefully use you" (Quote is from memory.)
I do my best to hate no one.
This does not mean, however, that our society does not have the right, indeed the obligation, to use violence if necessary to protect innocent lives.
Let me try to illustrate it. It would be too hard to use my own daughter.
If a Christian parent saw someone about to murder his or her child, the parent would have the right, indeed the obligation, to protect the child, including if necessary killing the assailant. Should the assailant succeed in killing the child, however, it would then be the Christian's obligation to forgive, and even love, the person who had deprived him of her of his or her most precious possession.
The right, indeed the obligation, to kill if necessary to protect an innocent life extends even if it is not your own child. The state's right, indeed obligation, to wage a "just war" is derived from these same principles.
The difficulty in a war, and why wars are so abhorrent, of course, is that innocent noncombatants will inevitably die. Indeed, even many of the combatants can perhaps be deemed innocent since they may be forced to follow the commands of the evil people leading their society.
By the way, I am curious: why do you necessarily think I am "pro capital punishment"? (Not to say that I necessarily oppose it.) It is the Catholic position, of course, to oppose both abortion and capital punishment.
What you don’t seem to grasp is that you are the mirror image of the Muslim Fundamentalists that you hate so much.
John, you must not read your Bible much. Jesus said: "Love your enemies; be kind to those who despitefully use you" (Quote is from memory.)
I do my best to hate no one.
This does not mean, however, that our society does not have the right, indeed the obligation, to use violence if necessary to protect innocent lives.
Let me try to illustrate it. It would be too hard to use my own daughter.
If a Christian parent saw someone about to murder his or her child, the parent would have the right, indeed the obligation, to protect the child, including if necessary killing the assailant. Should the assailant succeed in killing the child, however, it would then be the Christian's obligation to forgive, and even love, the person who had deprived him of her of his or her most precious possession.
The right, indeed the obligation, to kill if necessary to protect an innocent life extends even if it is not your own child. The state's right, indeed obligation, to wage a "just war" is derived from these same principles.
The difficulty in a war, and why wars are so abhorrent, of course, is that innocent noncombatants will inevitably die. Indeed, even many of the combatants can perhaps be deemed innocent since they may be forced to follow the commands of the evil people leading their society.
By the way, I am curious: why do you necessarily think I am "pro capital punishment"? (Not to say that I necessarily oppose it.) It is the Catholic position, of course, to oppose both abortion and capital punishment.
Re capital punishment, I have reservations because of my lack of confidence in the results of the legal system (unfortunately). Recently Florida released a man who had served over thirty years for a series of rapes for which he was apparently innocent. And it appears evidence is building that at least one man has been wrongfully executed.
Be that as it may, assume there is no doubt whatsover that a person has brutally raped and murdered five females. I see a distinction between state execution of that criminal, administered as painfully as possible, and a doctor ripping apart an innocent, eight month old female fetus within her mother's womb, when the abortion is solely for the convenience of the mother. Neurologists understand that fetuses at that age feel pain.
As I said, however, while I do approve of the concept of capital punishment both as just punishment and as a deterrent, the possibility (probability) of error is causes me obvious concern about its administration.
Be that as it may, assume there is no doubt whatsover that a person has brutally raped and murdered five females. I see a distinction between state execution of that criminal, administered as painfully as possible, and a doctor ripping apart an innocent, eight month old female fetus within her mother's womb, when the abortion is solely for the convenience of the mother. Neurologists understand that fetuses at that age feel pain.
As I said, however, while I do approve of the concept of capital punishment both as just punishment and as a deterrent, the possibility (probability) of error is causes me obvious concern about its administration.
As has been stated, sexual activities ARE pleasurable. I'm 18, and I've known that since puberty. I don't believe in saving myself for marriage, just for love. I'm not eager to sleep with everyone that looks my way, I believe in a need for trust. That said, I KNOW how to protect myself. I know all about condoms, the pill, IUD, depo, and my future goal of sterilization. However, ACCIDENTS DO HAPPEN.
One girl I know, is 18, and since August of last year, has had sex with 3 different men - usually after only knowing them a week or so. Personally, the idea of doing that, freaks me out - but it's her body, and her life. She wants a LOT of kids, and is constantly trying to get pregnant. We used to be friends, until I told her having a kid at 17 would be really stupid & that it costs a LOT to raise a kid. She didn't like hearing that, so she stopped talking to me. She kept insisting, and does to this day, that her parents ( who live in the very poor side of town ) would buy a house for her & baby, would pay for everything baby needed, as well as college for her. I told her frankly that she was living in a dream world.
I have to drive 30 minutes away if I want birth control pills, because so many pharmacists are refusing to fill it because it MUST MEAN I'M HAVING SEX! Er, only that I'm not. I'm a virgin. Pretty much the only virgin I know. I want to be on the pill because I have endometriosis, and it helps - since no doctor will sterilize me.
I'm in love with my boyfriend, and I want to be with him, but we haven't gotten there yet. When we do, we know how to protect ourselves, and we're both willing to take responsibility.
This isn't just my body, this is my LIFE. If I got pregnant on accident, my choices would be either risking my life ( as due to medical complications, I cannot carry a baby to term ) at 18, and giving up all the dreams I have and don't want to let go of.. Or abortion. Several women don't regret their abortions, as I've pointed everyone to already - http://www.imnotsorry.net
I don't believe in drinking, or smoking. Both of them could lead to death, or - if you're drinking & driving, possibly several deaths. However, I realize there's a lot of people that drink, and a lot of people that smoke. My boyfriend smokes. I'm not trying to, ban smoking because I disagree with it. I believe people are smart enough to make their own decisions.
I understand, Mr. Gratz, that you're extremely conservative. My grandfather's like that, but he also is a lot like Archie Bunker - which is precisely the reason he hasn't met my Hispanic boyfriend. However, not everyone thinks like you do. If you don't believe in abortion, as I've said before - don't have one. Don't support your wife/girlfriend/mistress/daughter/daughter-in-law/niece getting an abortion. However, who are YOU to take away MY rights? This is my body, my uterus. Quite frankly, if you want the baby to live so badly, YOU carry it around for nine months & raise it for eighteen years. If "god" wants it to live, HE can carry it for nine months and raise it.
On another message board I'm on, this one girl is 21 and is pregnant with her first child - by a man with 3 other kids. Every day brings another post with pictures of her disgusting pregnant belly, or ultrasounds, or information on how sick she gets in the morning. However, I made a post about graduating with a 4.0, and I was ignored. It really seems like the world cares more about breeding than anything that requires a brain, not just working sex organs.
Therefore, it's no surprise that people still exist that think it's their place to tell me how to live my life and what choices to make with my body. If you wanted to go out right now and get a tattoo - go on with your bad self, make your skin look like a graffiti wall. Hell, get piercings - make yourself look like a walking pincushion. None of my business. To me, it's not a child, it's a mistake - and it's MINE to get rid of.
I know a 16 year old that's pregnant right now. She wants an abortion, but her mother is making her have the child to teach her a lesson ( making her, basically, by not giving permission for an abortion as you need in Texas ). Yeah, that's really smart - the girl can't take care of herself, so let's give her a BABY to take care of! Makes perfect sense!
All these people try to convince me to spread my legs and breed, and I really think it's because misery loves company. They say, "It's different when they're your own." Then I see people who say that in the news for raping their kids, or not feeding them, or beating the crap out of them. Yeah, must be different when they're your own. Or, "Who's going to take care of you when you're old?" My stepfather's kids don't TALK to him, so that pretty much ruins that idea. "But your kid could cure cancer!" Don't you think Charlie Manson's mother thought the same thing? Pretty soon, you can fill a Bingo card with all the excuses I hear from mainstream America about why I should HAVE TO BREED. Nevermind that I don't want to, because EVERYONE WANTS THE BABIES!
Sigh. This country has baby-rabies so badly, it's sickening.
One girl I know, is 18, and since August of last year, has had sex with 3 different men - usually after only knowing them a week or so. Personally, the idea of doing that, freaks me out - but it's her body, and her life. She wants a LOT of kids, and is constantly trying to get pregnant. We used to be friends, until I told her having a kid at 17 would be really stupid & that it costs a LOT to raise a kid. She didn't like hearing that, so she stopped talking to me. She kept insisting, and does to this day, that her parents ( who live in the very poor side of town ) would buy a house for her & baby, would pay for everything baby needed, as well as college for her. I told her frankly that she was living in a dream world.
I have to drive 30 minutes away if I want birth control pills, because so many pharmacists are refusing to fill it because it MUST MEAN I'M HAVING SEX! Er, only that I'm not. I'm a virgin. Pretty much the only virgin I know. I want to be on the pill because I have endometriosis, and it helps - since no doctor will sterilize me.
I'm in love with my boyfriend, and I want to be with him, but we haven't gotten there yet. When we do, we know how to protect ourselves, and we're both willing to take responsibility.
This isn't just my body, this is my LIFE. If I got pregnant on accident, my choices would be either risking my life ( as due to medical complications, I cannot carry a baby to term ) at 18, and giving up all the dreams I have and don't want to let go of.. Or abortion. Several women don't regret their abortions, as I've pointed everyone to already - http://www.imnotsorry.net
I don't believe in drinking, or smoking. Both of them could lead to death, or - if you're drinking & driving, possibly several deaths. However, I realize there's a lot of people that drink, and a lot of people that smoke. My boyfriend smokes. I'm not trying to, ban smoking because I disagree with it. I believe people are smart enough to make their own decisions.
I understand, Mr. Gratz, that you're extremely conservative. My grandfather's like that, but he also is a lot like Archie Bunker - which is precisely the reason he hasn't met my Hispanic boyfriend. However, not everyone thinks like you do. If you don't believe in abortion, as I've said before - don't have one. Don't support your wife/girlfriend/mistress/daughter/daughter-in-law/niece getting an abortion. However, who are YOU to take away MY rights? This is my body, my uterus. Quite frankly, if you want the baby to live so badly, YOU carry it around for nine months & raise it for eighteen years. If "god" wants it to live, HE can carry it for nine months and raise it.
On another message board I'm on, this one girl is 21 and is pregnant with her first child - by a man with 3 other kids. Every day brings another post with pictures of her disgusting pregnant belly, or ultrasounds, or information on how sick she gets in the morning. However, I made a post about graduating with a 4.0, and I was ignored. It really seems like the world cares more about breeding than anything that requires a brain, not just working sex organs.
Therefore, it's no surprise that people still exist that think it's their place to tell me how to live my life and what choices to make with my body. If you wanted to go out right now and get a tattoo - go on with your bad self, make your skin look like a graffiti wall. Hell, get piercings - make yourself look like a walking pincushion. None of my business. To me, it's not a child, it's a mistake - and it's MINE to get rid of.
I know a 16 year old that's pregnant right now. She wants an abortion, but her mother is making her have the child to teach her a lesson ( making her, basically, by not giving permission for an abortion as you need in Texas ). Yeah, that's really smart - the girl can't take care of herself, so let's give her a BABY to take care of! Makes perfect sense!
All these people try to convince me to spread my legs and breed, and I really think it's because misery loves company. They say, "It's different when they're your own." Then I see people who say that in the news for raping their kids, or not feeding them, or beating the crap out of them. Yeah, must be different when they're your own. Or, "Who's going to take care of you when you're old?" My stepfather's kids don't TALK to him, so that pretty much ruins that idea. "But your kid could cure cancer!" Don't you think Charlie Manson's mother thought the same thing? Pretty soon, you can fill a Bingo card with all the excuses I hear from mainstream America about why I should HAVE TO BREED. Nevermind that I don't want to, because EVERYONE WANTS THE BABIES!
Sigh. This country has baby-rabies so badly, it's sickening.
Nic: You’re a credit to your generation. The only problem is that people like Tim Gratz are running your country. Let us hope that people like you get control one day.
Hi Nic
I just wanted to thank you for your frank and interesting post of today, 04:06 PM. Good luck to you and your boyfriend, Nic.
Chris
I just wanted to thank you for your frank and interesting post of today, 04:06 PM. Good luck to you and your boyfriend, Nic.
Chris
Thanks, you two. :] I get so much drama for speaking my mind elsewhere, it's nice to have a little support.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Aug 11 2005, 10:40 AM)
I see a distinction between state execution of that criminal, administered as painfully as possible, and a doctor ripping apart an innocent, eight month old female fetus within her mother's womb, when the abortion is solely for the convenience of the mother. Neurologists understand that fetuses at that age feel pain.
How many abortions take place at 8 months? Who is demanding that women should have the right to have abortions at 8 months?
Have you got anything to say about the thread on Christian Fundamentalism? It will be a shame if no one is willing to defend this highly worrying development in the United States.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4654
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Aug 14 2005, 02:20 AM)
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Aug 11 2005, 10:40 AM)
I see a distinction between state execution of that criminal, administered as painfully as possible, and a doctor ripping apart an innocent, eight month old female fetus within her mother's womb, when the abortion is solely for the convenience of the mother. Neurologists understand that fetuses at that age feel pain.
How many abortions take place at 8 months? Who is demanding that women should have the right to have abortions at 8 months?
Completely agreed. I don't think abortions should be performed after the fetus could survive on it's own outside the body of it's mother. Before that point, it is a mass of cells, and I feel no guilt about "killing" said lump of cells.
QUOTE (Nic Martin @ Aug 14 2005, 08:37 AM)
QUOTE (John Simkin @ Aug 14 2005, 02:20 AM)
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Aug 11 2005, 10:40 AM)
I see a distinction between state execution of that criminal, administered as painfully as possible, and a doctor ripping apart an innocent, eight month old female fetus within her mother's womb, when the abortion is solely for the convenience of the mother. Neurologists understand that fetuses at that age feel pain.
How many abortions take place at 8 months? Who is demanding that women should have the right to have abortions at 8 months?
Completely agreed. I don't think abortions should be performed after the fetus could survive on it's own outside the body of it's mother. Before that point, it is a mass of cells, and I feel no guilt about "killing" said lump of cells.
As the Roman Catholic Church believed up until the 1860s.
Tim, you might be interested in joining this debate on Christian Fundamentalism.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4654
We are currently having difficulty getting people to defend this philosophy. You have shown on several different threads: abortion, George Bush, Iraq, Just War, corruption in the Republican Party, etc. that you are one of these Christian Fundamentalist extremists. As I said on the thread this morning:
The teachings of Jesus Christ have motivated reformers with a social conscientious for centuries. Most of the much needed reforms that took place in the UK in the 19th century came about because individuals had a good knowledge of the teachings of Jesus. This included the successful campaigns against slavery and child labour in the early part of the 19th century. The demands for universal suffrage and the welfare state in the second-half of the 19th century mainly came from those inspired by the reading of the New Testament. George Bernard Shaw once claimed that Jesus was the world’s first socialist. Others, like the historian Richard Tawney, rightly pointed out that the Labour Movement in the UK had been more influenced by Methodism than Marxism.
The link between Christianity and reform has been in evidence throughout the world. This includes the United States. You have followed a similar pattern to that of Europe. The campaigners against slavery were devout Christians. The early Labour movement relied on the leadership of Christians. After the war, committed Christians such as Abraham Muste, George Houser (two men that deserves to be better known), and Norman Thomas helped establish the first effective civil rights groups such as Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR). Like the Quakers, members of the FOR were Christian pacifists (based on their interpretation of the teachings of Jesus).
The success of the FOR inspired the setting up of the Congress of Racial Equality. Again this was a Christian pacifist organization. In early 1947, CORE announced plans to send eight white and eight black men into the Deep South to test the Supreme Court ruling that declared segregation in interstate travel unconstitutional. Organized by Baynard Rustin, this two week pilgrimage through Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky was the beginning of the civil rights movement.
CORE inspired others to join the struggle for civil rights. In 1957 Rustin, Martin Luther King and Ralph David Abernathy established the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). The new organisation was committed to using nonviolence in the struggle for civil rights, and SCLC adopted the motto: "Not one hair of one head of one person should be harmed."
In the 1950s and 1960s several members of organizations like CORE and SCLC were murdered by people who considered themselves as Christians. This raises the important issue: How can the followers of Jesus Christ come to such different conclusions?
History gives us an answer. Christian reformers have mainly belonged to smaller religious groups that have not been under the control of the state. Ever since the nationalization of the Catholic Church by the Romans, the state has been very good at using Christianity to support the status quo.
In recent years, in the UK and most of Europe, virtually all Church groups, have been on the side of reformers. When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister she accused the leaders of the Church of England of being Marxists. Despite this, church leaders continued to give into this attempt at smearing them and they played an important role in stopping the welfare state from being dismantled under Thatcher's extreme right-wing government.
The continued liberalism of religious leaders was reflected in the almost complete unity they showed in the campaign against the Iraq War.
The United States has not followed this pattern. The main reason for this was the McCarthyism that took place in the late 1940s and early 1950s. This period of history managed to virtually destroy the reform movement in America. Those that survived were in such a minority that it was possible to smear them as being “Marxists” or “Communists”. J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI played a very important role in this. All the leading figures in the civil rights movement suffered from being identified as “left-wing”. Leaders of CORE and SCLC were common targets for Hoover. Especially when people like Martin Luther King became concerned about issues like the Vietnam War and the plight of the low paid.
It is this irrational fear of “leftists” that is often displayed by Christian Fundamentalists like Tim Gratz. This is why I asked Tim about his actions during the Civil Rights campaigns. For people like Tim showed no interest at all in civil rights during this period. Instead they joined J. Edgar Hoover in going along with the idea that it was some sort of “communist conspiracy”.
It is no surprise that it is now these old Cold War hardliners are now supporters of Christian Fundamentalism. It also helps to explain why they are unwilling to speak up for the poor and the dispossessed today. Instead they are advocates of maintaining the privileges of the rich and powerful. How can they defend this position that is so different from that advocated by Jesus Christ? With great difficulty and helps explain why it will take a brave (or foolish) supporter of Christian Fundamentalism, to join this debate.
Maybe you are willing to brave or foolish enough to join the debate.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4654
We are currently having difficulty getting people to defend this philosophy. You have shown on several different threads: abortion, George Bush, Iraq, Just War, corruption in the Republican Party, etc. that you are one of these Christian Fundamentalist extremists. As I said on the thread this morning:
The teachings of Jesus Christ have motivated reformers with a social conscientious for centuries. Most of the much needed reforms that took place in the UK in the 19th century came about because individuals had a good knowledge of the teachings of Jesus. This included the successful campaigns against slavery and child labour in the early part of the 19th century. The demands for universal suffrage and the welfare state in the second-half of the 19th century mainly came from those inspired by the reading of the New Testament. George Bernard Shaw once claimed that Jesus was the world’s first socialist. Others, like the historian Richard Tawney, rightly pointed out that the Labour Movement in the UK had been more influenced by Methodism than Marxism.
The link between Christianity and reform has been in evidence throughout the world. This includes the United States. You have followed a similar pattern to that of Europe. The campaigners against slavery were devout Christians. The early Labour movement relied on the leadership of Christians. After the war, committed Christians such as Abraham Muste, George Houser (two men that deserves to be better known), and Norman Thomas helped establish the first effective civil rights groups such as Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR). Like the Quakers, members of the FOR were Christian pacifists (based on their interpretation of the teachings of Jesus).
The success of the FOR inspired the setting up of the Congress of Racial Equality. Again this was a Christian pacifist organization. In early 1947, CORE announced plans to send eight white and eight black men into the Deep South to test the Supreme Court ruling that declared segregation in interstate travel unconstitutional. Organized by Baynard Rustin, this two week pilgrimage through Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky was the beginning of the civil rights movement.
CORE inspired others to join the struggle for civil rights. In 1957 Rustin, Martin Luther King and Ralph David Abernathy established the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). The new organisation was committed to using nonviolence in the struggle for civil rights, and SCLC adopted the motto: "Not one hair of one head of one person should be harmed."
In the 1950s and 1960s several members of organizations like CORE and SCLC were murdered by people who considered themselves as Christians. This raises the important issue: How can the followers of Jesus Christ come to such different conclusions?
History gives us an answer. Christian reformers have mainly belonged to smaller religious groups that have not been under the control of the state. Ever since the nationalization of the Catholic Church by the Romans, the state has been very good at using Christianity to support the status quo.
In recent years, in the UK and most of Europe, virtually all Church groups, have been on the side of reformers. When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister she accused the leaders of the Church of England of being Marxists. Despite this, church leaders continued to give into this attempt at smearing them and they played an important role in stopping the welfare state from being dismantled under Thatcher's extreme right-wing government.
The continued liberalism of religious leaders was reflected in the almost complete unity they showed in the campaign against the Iraq War.
The United States has not followed this pattern. The main reason for this was the McCarthyism that took place in the late 1940s and early 1950s. This period of history managed to virtually destroy the reform movement in America. Those that survived were in such a minority that it was possible to smear them as being “Marxists” or “Communists”. J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI played a very important role in this. All the leading figures in the civil rights movement suffered from being identified as “left-wing”. Leaders of CORE and SCLC were common targets for Hoover. Especially when people like Martin Luther King became concerned about issues like the Vietnam War and the plight of the low paid.
It is this irrational fear of “leftists” that is often displayed by Christian Fundamentalists like Tim Gratz. This is why I asked Tim about his actions during the Civil Rights campaigns. For people like Tim showed no interest at all in civil rights during this period. Instead they joined J. Edgar Hoover in going along with the idea that it was some sort of “communist conspiracy”.
It is no surprise that it is now these old Cold War hardliners are now supporters of Christian Fundamentalism. It also helps to explain why they are unwilling to speak up for the poor and the dispossessed today. Instead they are advocates of maintaining the privileges of the rich and powerful. How can they defend this position that is so different from that advocated by Jesus Christ? With great difficulty and helps explain why it will take a brave (or foolish) supporter of Christian Fundamentalism, to join this debate.
Maybe you are willing to brave or foolish enough to join the debate.
QUOTE (Nic Martin @ Aug 8 2005, 03:39 PM)
If you don't believe in abortion, fine - don't have one! Nobody's forcing you to, but these pro-lifers keep insisting that because they believe something, because their god-of-choice says so, it should become LAW. Seperation of church & state, MAYBE you've heard of it - or have you ignored my governmental rights recently?
The Church and State can be separate, the ideology, the philosophy, they can be integrated into the personal or the collective politics of elected office. Opposition to abortion as a political idea is not controversial within a global context.
In the United Kingdom the State and Church are linked & Prime Minister Blair has the job of approving the Anglican hierarchy. The state religion may be running a poor second to the Roman Catholic faith with worshippers.
John,
I love good discourse but this is nasty. I suspect there are those who have been verbally reprimanded for name calling on this site, which is just what THIS is:
"And then these pro-life nitwits..."
"you and your braindead pro-life cronies..."
I'm sure my response will elicit invective just as I am sure that the tirade will be sanctioned, indeed praised, to wit:
"Nic: You’re a credit to your generation. The only problem is that people like Tim Gratz are running your country. Let us hope that people like you get control one day."
That's nothing if not scary. I happen to be pro choice but I'd like to see something other than howling.
Obviously, Mr. Gratz has become a favorite target of some, but he appears to have conducted himself as a gentleman here - at least that is the conclusion I've drawn since joining a couple of months ago - and has presented his sides of arguments well.
Hang in there, Tim. You ARE a gentleman.
John Gillespie
I love good discourse but this is nasty. I suspect there are those who have been verbally reprimanded for name calling on this site, which is just what THIS is:
"And then these pro-life nitwits..."
"you and your braindead pro-life cronies..."
I'm sure my response will elicit invective just as I am sure that the tirade will be sanctioned, indeed praised, to wit:
"Nic: You’re a credit to your generation. The only problem is that people like Tim Gratz are running your country. Let us hope that people like you get control one day."
That's nothing if not scary. I happen to be pro choice but I'd like to see something other than howling.
Obviously, Mr. Gratz has become a favorite target of some, but he appears to have conducted himself as a gentleman here - at least that is the conclusion I've drawn since joining a couple of months ago - and has presented his sides of arguments well.
Hang in there, Tim. You ARE a gentleman.
John Gillespie
Thank you, John. I am afraid that on occasion I responded in kind but I have apologized for doing so. But I think most objective readers of the Forum would recognize the truth of what you posted.
I once read, and I believe it is true, that the mark of political maturity is the refusal to impugn an opponent's motives or sincerity.
Granted, there are "disinformation agents" and there have been people with "hidden agendas" but unless proof of such conduct exists I think it is appropriate to assume that a debating opponent sincerely believes in the merits of his or her position.
Take the "intelligent design" debate. It is clear that there are brilliant intellects on both sides of the question. Each side should recognize that. Each side should also recognize that "truth" cannot be determined by assessing the number or percentage of educated people asserting one of the positions. Certainly the history of both science and medicine teaches us that new evidence and increased knowledge often invalidates theories that have been widely held for years. Proponents of intelligent design should accept that opponents sincerely believe that intelligent design can never be a part of science and that its teaching denigrates science. On the other hand, opponents of intelligent design should accept that proponents sincerely believe that evolution is only a theory and a theory that cannot address important questions such as the origin of matter and life.
I strongly believe that civil debate is important for two reasons: not only can it lead to the discovery of new truths but it can also lead to the understanding of the humanity of the opponent so the opponent is respected rather than being villified.
I once read, and I believe it is true, that the mark of political maturity is the refusal to impugn an opponent's motives or sincerity.
Granted, there are "disinformation agents" and there have been people with "hidden agendas" but unless proof of such conduct exists I think it is appropriate to assume that a debating opponent sincerely believes in the merits of his or her position.
Take the "intelligent design" debate. It is clear that there are brilliant intellects on both sides of the question. Each side should recognize that. Each side should also recognize that "truth" cannot be determined by assessing the number or percentage of educated people asserting one of the positions. Certainly the history of both science and medicine teaches us that new evidence and increased knowledge often invalidates theories that have been widely held for years. Proponents of intelligent design should accept that opponents sincerely believe that intelligent design can never be a part of science and that its teaching denigrates science. On the other hand, opponents of intelligent design should accept that proponents sincerely believe that evolution is only a theory and a theory that cannot address important questions such as the origin of matter and life.
I strongly believe that civil debate is important for two reasons: not only can it lead to the discovery of new truths but it can also lead to the understanding of the humanity of the opponent so the opponent is respected rather than being villified.
Tim,
You're certainly welcome. I thought it appropriate that the hateful rant from which I quoted comes under the thread of 'Abortion And Nazi Germany." I thought the responses under it (actually there were two, as I recall) were shameful and cowardly, like people I saw here in Boston who were gushing over the Mapplethorpe exhibit(s) some years ago.
I reiterate I am pro choice but the caveat REALLY upsets the Progessives: pro choice and no government funding! Ted Kennedy is personally opposed, but...as he used to say quite often. He wants the government to underwrite, though.
But lately I confess I've been pondering the efficacy of establishing clinics on the Mexican border (ingress only) or even in Guantanamo. Hey, everybody wins!
Regarding Intelligent Design, it comes down to the lack of humility before God (ohmig_ _; am I allowed to use the G word? I mean, it's ok to engage in vicious personal attacks with the requisite name calling but we've got standards of decorum here.
So, Tim, the next time people decide to belch innuendo regarding your professional background and make with the personally malicious mots just tell 'em you understand. It's not be design.
Yours truly, John Gillespie
You're certainly welcome. I thought it appropriate that the hateful rant from which I quoted comes under the thread of 'Abortion And Nazi Germany." I thought the responses under it (actually there were two, as I recall) were shameful and cowardly, like people I saw here in Boston who were gushing over the Mapplethorpe exhibit(s) some years ago.
I reiterate I am pro choice but the caveat REALLY upsets the Progessives: pro choice and no government funding! Ted Kennedy is personally opposed, but...as he used to say quite often. He wants the government to underwrite, though.
But lately I confess I've been pondering the efficacy of establishing clinics on the Mexican border (ingress only) or even in Guantanamo. Hey, everybody wins!
Regarding Intelligent Design, it comes down to the lack of humility before God (ohmig_ _; am I allowed to use the G word? I mean, it's ok to engage in vicious personal attacks with the requisite name calling but we've got standards of decorum here.
So, Tim, the next time people decide to belch innuendo regarding your professional background and make with the personally malicious mots just tell 'em you understand. It's not be design.
Yours truly, John Gillespie
Nic wrote:
If you don't believe in abortion, fine - don't have one! Nobody's forcing you to, but these pro-lifers keep insisting that because they believe something, because their god-of-choice says so, it should become LAW. Seperation of church & state, MAYBE you've heard of it - or have you ignored my governmental rights recently?
Nic, I will do my best to keep this civil.
The fact that the Bible states "Thou shalt not steal" does not mean that laws against theft, forgery, etc violate the doctrine of separation of church and state. Do you really believe that the government only has the right to criminalize conduct that is not condemned in the Bible? That position would also exclude laws against perjury.
The question, of course, is whether the unborn child living within the mother is a human life worthy of protection. The latter three words are of the greatest importance because, I submit, it is impossible to deny the fetus is a separate human life.
Is it difficult for you to understand that pro-life people believe that all human life deserves protection and that the destruction of the life within the mother's womb is tantamount to murder? You do not agree with the position, of course, but surely you are capable of understanding it.
By the same token, anti-abortionists must understand the position of pro-choice advocates that comes down, I think, to the following: even though the fetus is a separate living organism, because it is living within and dependent upon the mother's body, the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy because she has the right to control her own body.
Surely you would not contend that after a baby is delivered, the mother or father has the right to kill the newborn. The philosophical choice whether the unborn life is as worthy of protection by the state as life after birth may be difficult but certainly society has the right to make that decision.
Your first sentence is tantamount to asserting: "If you don't believe in murder, fine, do not commit one." The logic is clearly specious. It all comes down to the decision whether unborn life merits state protection.
I would also point out that there are atheists who are also against abortion, e.g. Nat Hentoff. And Dr. Nathason was an atheist when he became anti-abortion.
If you don't believe in abortion, fine - don't have one! Nobody's forcing you to, but these pro-lifers keep insisting that because they believe something, because their god-of-choice says so, it should become LAW. Seperation of church & state, MAYBE you've heard of it - or have you ignored my governmental rights recently?
Nic, I will do my best to keep this civil.
The fact that the Bible states "Thou shalt not steal" does not mean that laws against theft, forgery, etc violate the doctrine of separation of church and state. Do you really believe that the government only has the right to criminalize conduct that is not condemned in the Bible? That position would also exclude laws against perjury.
The question, of course, is whether the unborn child living within the mother is a human life worthy of protection. The latter three words are of the greatest importance because, I submit, it is impossible to deny the fetus is a separate human life.
Is it difficult for you to understand that pro-life people believe that all human life deserves protection and that the destruction of the life within the mother's womb is tantamount to murder? You do not agree with the position, of course, but surely you are capable of understanding it.
By the same token, anti-abortionists must understand the position of pro-choice advocates that comes down, I think, to the following: even though the fetus is a separate living organism, because it is living within and dependent upon the mother's body, the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy because she has the right to control her own body.
Surely you would not contend that after a baby is delivered, the mother or father has the right to kill the newborn. The philosophical choice whether the unborn life is as worthy of protection by the state as life after birth may be difficult but certainly society has the right to make that decision.
Your first sentence is tantamount to asserting: "If you don't believe in murder, fine, do not commit one." The logic is clearly specious. It all comes down to the decision whether unborn life merits state protection.
I would also point out that there are atheists who are also against abortion, e.g. Nat Hentoff. And Dr. Nathason was an atheist when he became anti-abortion.
You see, the problem with your "points," Mr. Gillespie, is that you do not know me. This summer, I volunteered as an escort at an abortion clinic. I saw first-hand protestors throwing things at girls that were raped by their family members, and had to make a choice based on their own mental health. I heard them shouting, "WHORE!" and "YOU F***ING SINNER." That doesn't make you all nice and cushy comforted around people just like that. When you're taking all of that so some poor young girl doesn't have to, and you have people like Mr. Gratz in that crowd, you eventually get to a point where you just SNAP, and you refuse to sit back and let these girls be judged unfairly by people with made-up statistics and complete bullshit rationalizations, "YOU CAN'T CONTROL YOUR LIFE BECAUSE MY GOD SAYS SO!"
I admit that it's not necessary to use name-calling, and I admit it makes me a hypocrite, considering I spend a lot of my time trying to stop fights on the JFK board. However, you deal with half of what I saw, and not want to just slap the woman with 4 kids that doesn't believe in birth control - even after FIVE miscarriages & 2 of her 4 living children being mentally disabled ( don't you think that's your body's way of saying, HEY, I CAN'T HANDLE THIS? ), when she says, "YOU STUPID WHORE!" to a girl who was a virgin until her brother took PCP and raped her for TWO HOURS.
And, Mr. Gratz - the problem with what "the bible says" is that not EVERYONE reads or believes YOUR bible. There are different religions, with different belief structures. I have my own beliefs about this world, and none of them include the existance of your god, or a need for your bible.
There's a law in this country now, where if a robber shoots a woman that, didn't even know she was pregnant yet - he can get an extra sentence for a life that nobody knew was there. That's BS. That's steaming, fly-infested, BS. But I digress...
I don't have issue if you drink, smoke, eat meat ( which, considering I was a vegan for 3 years until I had to stop due to a health problem - I could say OMG YOU'RE MURDERING ANIMALS YOU MEAN MEAN MAN! ), get tattoos, get piercings, or want to play with anal beads until you get off. It's your body. It's your life. I believe that, beneath all your rigid beliefs in institutions such as religion, there's actually a man intelligent enough to make your own decisions about your life. What I don't understand is how you deny me the same courtesy, and why you won't keep your rosaries off of my ovaries.
I saw an article, about a woman who had an abortion, and the result was left inside of her, which could have killed her. It was about, a centimeter big. Looked like a little pink blob. Do I think that's wrong? No. It doesn't even have a fully-developed heart to pump through it's non-existant system, so how is it alive?
As previously mentioned, grass is alive, yet you mow it. Animals are alive, yet you eat them. Plants are alive, I imagine you eat them too. "BUT PLANTS & GRASS DOESN'T HAVE FAMILIES!" Animals do. Animals have families, have feelings, have emotions. Yet you see no problem killing them. Why just humans? Why be so arrogant that you think humans are all that's worth protecting? And if humans are so valuable, why do you support the war? Why would you insist that a girl like me, whose body cannot handle carrying a child to term, has to die for a baby she doesn't want - when the baby would die anyway?
I realize that for the continuation of the human race, people have to breed, it's a fact of life. However, when 400,000 children die a DAY due to starvation, I don't think it's your right to insist that I MUST BREED OMG!
If you would care to work for a medical license, Mr. Gratz, and perform an endometrial ablation, as well as a tubal ligation on EVERY SINGLE woman that doesn't want kids EVER, maybe you'd see the abortion rate go down. I have friends that have had multiple abortions due to circumstances beyond their control ( such as a girl I knew that was continually raped by family, and couldn't talk to anyone until she mentioned it in her suicide note ).
Arguing with you is much like arguing with a brick wall. No matter how many times I shoot down something you say ( such as your claim that most women regret abortions, which is just flat-out not true ), you don't even try to admit that you were wrong. Bringing up the religion card, though, I believe is a sign of desperation - or extreme narcissism ( then again, reproduction is narcissism ), to think everyone has to bend down to what a god they might not believe in "says" through a book "he" probably had nothing to do with. I believe that it's no mistake that everything listed as a sin in the bible, was frowned upon by society before the bible was written. "Hey kiddies, if some invisible man in the sky says that you can't do this or he'll put you in time out, people would avoid doing it! Hee!"
The fact is, there is a difference between walking up to someone and shooting them point-blank, then the removal of a parasite that you never gave permission to be there.
So, Mr. Gratz, let me ask you this. Are you prepared to sterilize women who never want children? What about women, like myself, that could die before the fetus-in-question had transformed enough to survive? Sterilize them, too? Are you prepared to visit adoption centers all over the country, and look at the overcrowding and say that women should suffer through pregnancies they don't want in order to further crowd those centers? SEVERAL adoption centers won't take a child unless it's a "pure-bred" white baby, so what about all the Asian, black, or Hispanic babies? Where do they go when their parents don't want them? Well, they'll probably wind up in a dumpster - and then people like you will condemn the mothers, even though you put them in that situation.
I admit that it's not necessary to use name-calling, and I admit it makes me a hypocrite, considering I spend a lot of my time trying to stop fights on the JFK board. However, you deal with half of what I saw, and not want to just slap the woman with 4 kids that doesn't believe in birth control - even after FIVE miscarriages & 2 of her 4 living children being mentally disabled ( don't you think that's your body's way of saying, HEY, I CAN'T HANDLE THIS? ), when she says, "YOU STUPID WHORE!" to a girl who was a virgin until her brother took PCP and raped her for TWO HOURS.
And, Mr. Gratz - the problem with what "the bible says" is that not EVERYONE reads or believes YOUR bible. There are different religions, with different belief structures. I have my own beliefs about this world, and none of them include the existance of your god, or a need for your bible.
There's a law in this country now, where if a robber shoots a woman that, didn't even know she was pregnant yet - he can get an extra sentence for a life that nobody knew was there. That's BS. That's steaming, fly-infested, BS. But I digress...
I don't have issue if you drink, smoke, eat meat ( which, considering I was a vegan for 3 years until I had to stop due to a health problem - I could say OMG YOU'RE MURDERING ANIMALS YOU MEAN MEAN MAN! ), get tattoos, get piercings, or want to play with anal beads until you get off. It's your body. It's your life. I believe that, beneath all your rigid beliefs in institutions such as religion, there's actually a man intelligent enough to make your own decisions about your life. What I don't understand is how you deny me the same courtesy, and why you won't keep your rosaries off of my ovaries.
I saw an article, about a woman who had an abortion, and the result was left inside of her, which could have killed her. It was about, a centimeter big. Looked like a little pink blob. Do I think that's wrong? No. It doesn't even have a fully-developed heart to pump through it's non-existant system, so how is it alive?
As previously mentioned, grass is alive, yet you mow it. Animals are alive, yet you eat them. Plants are alive, I imagine you eat them too. "BUT PLANTS & GRASS DOESN'T HAVE FAMILIES!" Animals do. Animals have families, have feelings, have emotions. Yet you see no problem killing them. Why just humans? Why be so arrogant that you think humans are all that's worth protecting? And if humans are so valuable, why do you support the war? Why would you insist that a girl like me, whose body cannot handle carrying a child to term, has to die for a baby she doesn't want - when the baby would die anyway?
I realize that for the continuation of the human race, people have to breed, it's a fact of life. However, when 400,000 children die a DAY due to starvation, I don't think it's your right to insist that I MUST BREED OMG!
If you would care to work for a medical license, Mr. Gratz, and perform an endometrial ablation, as well as a tubal ligation on EVERY SINGLE woman that doesn't want kids EVER, maybe you'd see the abortion rate go down. I have friends that have had multiple abortions due to circumstances beyond their control ( such as a girl I knew that was continually raped by family, and couldn't talk to anyone until she mentioned it in her suicide note ).
Arguing with you is much like arguing with a brick wall. No matter how many times I shoot down something you say ( such as your claim that most women regret abortions, which is just flat-out not true ), you don't even try to admit that you were wrong. Bringing up the religion card, though, I believe is a sign of desperation - or extreme narcissism ( then again, reproduction is narcissism ), to think everyone has to bend down to what a god they might not believe in "says" through a book "he" probably had nothing to do with. I believe that it's no mistake that everything listed as a sin in the bible, was frowned upon by society before the bible was written. "Hey kiddies, if some invisible man in the sky says that you can't do this or he'll put you in time out, people would avoid doing it! Hee!"
The fact is, there is a difference between walking up to someone and shooting them point-blank, then the removal of a parasite that you never gave permission to be there.
So, Mr. Gratz, let me ask you this. Are you prepared to sterilize women who never want children? What about women, like myself, that could die before the fetus-in-question had transformed enough to survive? Sterilize them, too? Are you prepared to visit adoption centers all over the country, and look at the overcrowding and say that women should suffer through pregnancies they don't want in order to further crowd those centers? SEVERAL adoption centers won't take a child unless it's a "pure-bred" white baby, so what about all the Asian, black, or Hispanic babies? Where do they go when their parents don't want them? Well, they'll probably wind up in a dumpster - and then people like you will condemn the mothers, even though you put them in that situation.
They're not my "points", as you put it. I never used that word but simply quoted the salient parts of your angry, venomous and personally mean-spirited vitriol. Do not misquote me; and I've got MUCH better ways to spend my time than reading your empty dispatches and wondering why you're still allowed to participate here. Go ahead, take your best shot. I won't read it but maybe some of your invertebrate partners will be amused.
QUOTE (John Gillespie @ Sep 1 2005, 12:25 PM)
They're not my "points", as you put it. I never used that word but simply quoted the salient parts of your angry, venomous and personally mean-spirited vitriol. Do not misquote me; and I've got MUCH better ways to spend my time than reading your empty dispatches and wondering why you're still allowed to participate here. Go ahead, take your best shot. I won't read it but maybe some of your invertebrate partners will be amused.
One question, though - if you're so against caring, why did you bother replying at all? If you have things so more important, why waste your time in the first place? It's all fine and good to say you don't care, but the fact is, you still took your precious time to rag on me. More than once.
QUOTE (Nic Martin @ Sep 1 2005, 03:45 PM)
There's a law in this country now, where if a robber shoots a woman that, didn't even know she was pregnant yet - he can get an extra sentence for a life that nobody knew was there. That's BS. That's steaming, fly-infested, BS. But I digress...
I
I
Pregnant women can often be specifically targeted for murder. Homicide is a leading cause of death among pregnant women in the United States.
Laws that differentiate between types of victim are not entirely uncommon.
Murdering a judge is now a capital crime in Texas (due to legislative change) and shooting a police officer may be viewed similarly etc.
The alleged superfluousness or unreasonableness of mandatory and consecutive tariffs for multiple crimes is a different issue.
Nic wrote:
Arguing with you is much like arguing with a brick wall. No matter how many times I shoot down something you say ( such as your claim that most women regret abortions, which is just flat-out not true ), you don't even try to admit that you were wrong.
This is exactly what I wrote:
It is often true that women who undergo abortions suffer deep psychological effects as they later realize that they have indeed taken an innocent human life. These possible consequences are never discussed by the doctors who profit from performing abortions.
Perhaps since Nic apparently does not read correctly, perhaps she does not hear correctly either. I would really like to try to verify her complaints about epithets being yelled at people entering abortion clinics. Even if it did happen, it of course adds nothing to the debate about whether society should protect the unborn.
I would also point out, as John has noticed, that on this thread it is you that has called pro-life adherents "morons" and "nit-wits". Again, the fact that you use invective does not disqualify your argument, but from an objective standpoint, I don't think it in anyway advances your points with anyone who might be undecided.
Nic, I never said most women regret abortions. I wrote that often happens. Often could be, e.g. 25%, perhaps even 20%. Most means more than 50%.
So since you claim I did not apologize, I submit it is now YOUR turn. But let's not stop with just one apology.
You also wrote:
I realize that for the continuation of the human race, people have to breed, it's a fact of life. However, when 400,000 children die a DAY due to starvation, I don't think it's your right to insist that I MUST BREED OMG!
Whatever led you to believe that I thought it morally wrong for you (or any other man or woman) to reproduce if you do not want children? If you do not take adequate precautions, however, I believe the proper solution is to offer the child you conceive for adoption, not to kill it.
Arguing with you is much like arguing with a brick wall. No matter how many times I shoot down something you say ( such as your claim that most women regret abortions, which is just flat-out not true ), you don't even try to admit that you were wrong.
This is exactly what I wrote:
It is often true that women who undergo abortions suffer deep psychological effects as they later realize that they have indeed taken an innocent human life. These possible consequences are never discussed by the doctors who profit from performing abortions.
Perhaps since Nic apparently does not read correctly, perhaps she does not hear correctly either. I would really like to try to verify her complaints about epithets being yelled at people entering abortion clinics. Even if it did happen, it of course adds nothing to the debate about whether society should protect the unborn.
I would also point out, as John has noticed, that on this thread it is you that has called pro-life adherents "morons" and "nit-wits". Again, the fact that you use invective does not disqualify your argument, but from an objective standpoint, I don't think it in anyway advances your points with anyone who might be undecided.
Nic, I never said most women regret abortions. I wrote that often happens. Often could be, e.g. 25%, perhaps even 20%. Most means more than 50%.
So since you claim I did not apologize, I submit it is now YOUR turn. But let's not stop with just one apology.
You also wrote:
I realize that for the continuation of the human race, people have to breed, it's a fact of life. However, when 400,000 children die a DAY due to starvation, I don't think it's your right to insist that I MUST BREED OMG!
Whatever led you to believe that I thought it morally wrong for you (or any other man or woman) to reproduce if you do not want children? If you do not take adequate precautions, however, I believe the proper solution is to offer the child you conceive for adoption, not to kill it.
Nic wrote:
As previously mentioned, grass is alive, yet you mow it. Animals are alive, yet you eat them. Plants are alive, I imagine you eat them too. "BUT PLANTS & GRASS DOESN'T HAVE FAMILIES!" Animals do. Animals have families, have feelings, have emotions. Yet you see no problem killing them. Why just humans?to be added
Something seems to be wrong with this logic.
What is Nic's position? Since our society (well, since every society since Sumeria) believes the taking of a human like wrong but not the destruction of plants and grass, Nic seems a problem with this?
What does she advocate? That since one can kill grass in Texas, one should also be allowed to kill people? A frightening thought if that is her position. JFK was killed in Texas, I guess she might as well quit the assassination forum.
Or is it her position that society should prohibit the killing of all life, both plant and animal life? That position is frightening for different reasons, of course.
Nic, you may not agree with me, but it is my (moronic, nit-wit) position that society has the right to take the position that it can criminalize the taking of human life without making it a crime to mow the lawn.
Does John seriously think it better for people who follow your logic to be ruling this country?
As previously mentioned, grass is alive, yet you mow it. Animals are alive, yet you eat them. Plants are alive, I imagine you eat them too. "BUT PLANTS & GRASS DOESN'T HAVE FAMILIES!" Animals do. Animals have families, have feelings, have emotions. Yet you see no problem killing them. Why just humans?to be added
Something seems to be wrong with this logic.
What is Nic's position? Since our society (well, since every society since Sumeria) believes the taking of a human like wrong but not the destruction of plants and grass, Nic seems a problem with this?
What does she advocate? That since one can kill grass in Texas, one should also be allowed to kill people? A frightening thought if that is her position. JFK was killed in Texas, I guess she might as well quit the assassination forum.
Or is it her position that society should prohibit the killing of all life, both plant and animal life? That position is frightening for different reasons, of course.
Nic, you may not agree with me, but it is my (moronic, nit-wit) position that society has the right to take the position that it can criminalize the taking of human life without making it a crime to mow the lawn.
Does John seriously think it better for people who follow your logic to be ruling this country?
From today's "Key West Citizen":
KEY WEST — Sarah Bleckley's parents cried as a guard led their daughter away in handcuffs Wednesday to begin a five-year prison sentence for leaving her newborn baby in the stairwell of a Key West hotel in May of 2003.
Bleckley, 25, pleaded no contest to manslaughter. Her sentence includes an additional 10 years of probation after her release.
Judge Mark Jones had to decide on a prison sentence between three and seven years, giving Bleckley credit for the 352 days she had already spent in the Monroe County Detention Center.
In 2003 Bleckley, then 23, gave birth to a baby girl in the Radisson hotel in Key West. She wrapped the infant in towels, placed her in a plastic bag and left the bundle in an outdoor stairwell. A hotel security guard later found the bag and began to deliver it to the garbage, but while separating the hotel's towels from what he thought was garbage, he found the dead newborn.
Kill a baby a day before it is due, no problem.
Kill a newborn baby, get five years.
Something is wrong with this picture!
KEY WEST — Sarah Bleckley's parents cried as a guard led their daughter away in handcuffs Wednesday to begin a five-year prison sentence for leaving her newborn baby in the stairwell of a Key West hotel in May of 2003.
Bleckley, 25, pleaded no contest to manslaughter. Her sentence includes an additional 10 years of probation after her release.
Judge Mark Jones had to decide on a prison sentence between three and seven years, giving Bleckley credit for the 352 days she had already spent in the Monroe County Detention Center.
In 2003 Bleckley, then 23, gave birth to a baby girl in the Radisson hotel in Key West. She wrapped the infant in towels, placed her in a plastic bag and left the bundle in an outdoor stairwell. A hotel security guard later found the bag and began to deliver it to the garbage, but while separating the hotel's towels from what he thought was garbage, he found the dead newborn.
Kill a baby a day before it is due, no problem.
Kill a newborn baby, get five years.
Something is wrong with this picture!
Two words: Oh please.
Tim, it's time for me to be brutally honest. I think your logic goes somewhere along the lines of the people that voted Peroutka.
You keep throwing out nonsense comments to attempt to discredit ME without coming up with any facts, actual statistics, or support AT ALL for your conclusions. Since you can't attack my facts, which are entirely true - you attack me? Who DOES that after about 4th grade?
You keep slinging out that it's killing a BAYBEE, and tell me that I could put it up for adoption. I don't know about YOUR ability to read, but as I've said before in this topic, I could not medically carry a child very long into the 2nd trimester without dying myself. My body can't take it. I have health problems, and GETTING PREGNANT would KILL ME. Not GIVING BIRTH, actually BEING PREGNANT. I cannot have a parasite leeching off of my body, because I WILL. NOT. SURVIVE. That means BAYBEE won't either. Great, the funeral home would be burying a girl that's actually APPLYING herself in her life ( as opposed to the hundreds of my peers that are getting knocked up and don't get to go to college ) because someone thought it was their right to tell me I had to die, because they wouldn't grant me an abortion. What's murder now? But as long as I don't try to save my own life with an abortion, I'm okay by you?
Women like this are common, so it's not just me. 670,000 women die a YEAR in America from pregnancy related complications. A woman is 13x more likely to die during childbirth and pregnancy than by an abortion. Fact. What would you say, Mr. Gratz, if you were a doctor, and had to look at that woman's parents, and tell them that because of the politics of people like you, they have to bury their daughter. Or their sister, or their friend, or their wife. Would you be prepared to do it 670,000 times a year?
Your views are stuck somewhere between, "BITCH FIX ME SOME PIE," and not letting women vote. The 50's is over, there aren't any June Cleavers today. Telling a woman that she has to die so you can sleep better that she didn't have the right to stop it, is a really scary idea. It sounds a lot like what a serial killer's thought process would be like - taking control of a woman's right to her OWN LIFE, and only letting her die. And you have the balls to call ME a murderer?
I'll give you fair warning now, if you can't actually put up facts, or attempt to shoot mine down, I'm no longer interested in your immature bickering. You've proved your point, you're a close-minded asshole that can't support anything you believe in with fact - and I've proved mine. To use a common phrase, "Put up or shut up."
Tim, it's time for me to be brutally honest. I think your logic goes somewhere along the lines of the people that voted Peroutka.
You keep throwing out nonsense comments to attempt to discredit ME without coming up with any facts, actual statistics, or support AT ALL for your conclusions. Since you can't attack my facts, which are entirely true - you attack me? Who DOES that after about 4th grade?
You keep slinging out that it's killing a BAYBEE, and tell me that I could put it up for adoption. I don't know about YOUR ability to read, but as I've said before in this topic, I could not medically carry a child very long into the 2nd trimester without dying myself. My body can't take it. I have health problems, and GETTING PREGNANT would KILL ME. Not GIVING BIRTH, actually BEING PREGNANT. I cannot have a parasite leeching off of my body, because I WILL. NOT. SURVIVE. That means BAYBEE won't either. Great, the funeral home would be burying a girl that's actually APPLYING herself in her life ( as opposed to the hundreds of my peers that are getting knocked up and don't get to go to college ) because someone thought it was their right to tell me I had to die, because they wouldn't grant me an abortion. What's murder now? But as long as I don't try to save my own life with an abortion, I'm okay by you?
Women like this are common, so it's not just me. 670,000 women die a YEAR in America from pregnancy related complications. A woman is 13x more likely to die during childbirth and pregnancy than by an abortion. Fact. What would you say, Mr. Gratz, if you were a doctor, and had to look at that woman's parents, and tell them that because of the politics of people like you, they have to bury their daughter. Or their sister, or their friend, or their wife. Would you be prepared to do it 670,000 times a year?
Your views are stuck somewhere between, "BITCH FIX ME SOME PIE," and not letting women vote. The 50's is over, there aren't any June Cleavers today. Telling a woman that she has to die so you can sleep better that she didn't have the right to stop it, is a really scary idea. It sounds a lot like what a serial killer's thought process would be like - taking control of a woman's right to her OWN LIFE, and only letting her die. And you have the balls to call ME a murderer?
I'll give you fair warning now, if you can't actually put up facts, or attempt to shoot mine down, I'm no longer interested in your immature bickering. You've proved your point, you're a close-minded asshole that can't support anything you believe in with fact - and I've proved mine. To use a common phrase, "Put up or shut up."
Just another comment..
Tim, I respect you as a JFK researcher. I respect pretty much everyone on that board, for what they do. This isn't about JFK.
Tim, I respect you as a JFK researcher. I respect pretty much everyone on that board, for what they do. This isn't about JFK.
I think it is rather unfortunate that this thread has been allowed to degenerate into name calling and unpleasantness.
I would urge members to continue to make their points as firmly as they like but within the parameters of acceptable academic discourse.
I would urge members to continue to make their points as firmly as they like but within the parameters of acceptable academic discourse.
QUOTE (Tim Gratz @ Sep 2 2005, 05:40 AM)
From today's "Key West Citizen":
KEY WEST — Sarah Bleckley's parents cried as a guard led their daughter away in handcuffs Wednesday to begin a five-year prison sentence for leaving her newborn baby in the stairwell of a Key West hotel in May of 2003.
Bleckley, 25, pleaded no contest to manslaughter. Her sentence includes an additional 10 years of probation after her release.
Judge Mark Jones had to decide on a prison sentence between three and seven years, giving Bleckley credit for the 352 days she had already spent in the Monroe County Detention Center.
In 2003 Bleckley, then 23, gave birth to a baby girl in the Radisson hotel in Key West. She wrapped the infant in towels, placed her in a plastic bag and left the bundle in an outdoor stairwell. A hotel security guard later found the bag and began to deliver it to the garbage, but while separating the hotel's towels from what he thought was garbage, he found the dead newborn.
Kill a baby a day before it is due, no problem.
Kill a newborn baby, get five years.
Something is wrong with this picture!
KEY WEST — Sarah Bleckley's parents cried as a guard led their daughter away in handcuffs Wednesday to begin a five-year prison sentence for leaving her newborn baby in the stairwell of a Key West hotel in May of 2003.
Bleckley, 25, pleaded no contest to manslaughter. Her sentence includes an additional 10 years of probation after her release.
Judge Mark Jones had to decide on a prison sentence between three and seven years, giving Bleckley credit for the 352 days she had already spent in the Monroe County Detention Center.
In 2003 Bleckley, then 23, gave birth to a baby girl in the Radisson hotel in Key West. She wrapped the infant in towels, placed her in a plastic bag and left the bundle in an outdoor stairwell. A hotel security guard later found the bag and began to deliver it to the garbage, but while separating the hotel's towels from what he thought was garbage, he found the dead newborn.
Kill a baby a day before it is due, no problem.
Kill a newborn baby, get five years.
Something is wrong with this picture!
Sending that lady to jail for five years is a disgrace. In the United Kingdom or Ireland she would probably not have spent a day in jail.
Andy:
Is anyone going to enforce the rules of this Forum?
Frankly I have to believe that posts such as Nic's just discredit the entire web-site among civilized intellectuals of whatever political persuasion.
It is also ironic coming from someone who emphasized in her posts alleged name-calling by anti-abortion demonstrators (a phenomenon I never encountered when I worked with them).
Is anyone going to enforce the rules of this Forum?
Frankly I have to believe that posts such as Nic's just discredit the entire web-site among civilized intellectuals of whatever political persuasion.
It is also ironic coming from someone who emphasized in her posts alleged name-calling by anti-abortion demonstrators (a phenomenon I never encountered when I worked with them).
Thank you, Mr. Gratz, for further proving my point that you have to attack me instead of actually bringing up stats & facts beyond what your bible says. I'm no longer interested in this conversation, as it's going nowhere.
Andy, I am genuinely sorry for the effect this has had on the forum, however you must admit that it is an insanely "hot button" topic that obviously a lot of people feel passionately about. It's difficult to restrain such strong feelings, ever.
Andy, I am genuinely sorry for the effect this has had on the forum, however you must admit that it is an insanely "hot button" topic that obviously a lot of people feel passionately about. It's difficult to restrain such strong feelings, ever.
Nic, you call me an anus, I object, and you claim that I am attacking you?
It's both pathetic and funny at the same time.
It's both pathetic and funny at the same time.
QUOTE (Nic Martin @ Sep 4 2005, 07:27 AM)
Andy, I am genuinely sorry for the effect this has had on the forum, however you must admit that it is an insanely "hot button" topic that obviously a lot of people feel passionately about. It's difficult to restrain such strong feelings, ever.
Thanks. I agree by the way that it is difficult to restrain strong feelings on this topic. I feel very strongly in favour of the woman’s right to choose and get very angry when confronted by blatant misogyny dressed up unconvincingly as "religion".
However it is important to engage on the issue rationally and calmly. Thus no matter how tempting or indeed apposite it appears to label Mr. Gratz "anus" we should restrain from doing so
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.