Those who are pro-life, does it bother you that McCain...

[Peek a Boo]

Peek....where can we see abortion stats? It is my understanding that PP is not required to take or report any numbers regarding abortions. I believe hospitals have to report, but I'm not even sure of that.

 

Thanks,

Aggie

 

honestly, i haven't looked at statistics in a couple years, but i do remember that you basically need to look at LOTS of numbers and do some crunching adjusting for circumstances.

 

PP's own numbers about abortion on demand are really enough for me, and are the ones i take issue with. Most people needing a therapeutic or medically-necessary abortion are going to be in a hospital, not in PP.

 

But I do agree wholeheartedly that there are some situations where medical reasons for removing a dead --or deadly-- embryo/fetus is warranted.

back to my ectogenesis thread :D

 

The wiki has a general overview w/ lotsa links in their source material list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

 

same thing about ectopic pregnancies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

[mommytobees]

I agree and I love you Major Winters photo! I luv Major Winters.

 

Snicker, isn't he just a hottie!?!?

 

I hope the actor's show from last year is still going to be on, Life, I think it was called.

 

Kris

[Mrs Mungo]

Snicker, isn't he just a hottie!?!?

 

I hope the actor's show from last year is still going to be on, Life, I think it was called.

 

Kris

 

Yes, it is. My younger sister has been keeping me updated. :D

[sunshine]

Bush put us into a war--under his command, with fabricated information, he ordered troops to invade Iraq, violating UN treaties, violating section eight of the Constitution that says only Congress has the power to declare war, when we were under no direct and immediate threat, he sent troops in, and single handedly put us in a war. And, considering the number of people killed in Iraq is supposed to be well over the 100,000 the US gov't tries to estimate, and much closer to the 600,000 reported by other sources, I'd say we do know of a president of the USA that has blown up 200,000 people.

 

And, when we sent bombers over that dropped bombs on hospitals and schools, schools with small children, and we knew ahead of time what these buildings were, and that they were civilian territories, but our president had us drop bombs on them anyway, what would you say about him?

 

And when you talk of a terrorist dictator who killed over 200,000 people--that would mean that, without being legally elected by a majority of the people in his country, he took power anyway. He then fattened his own pockets, and the pockets of his friends, while the poor in the country went without and did worse, as did so many others, while he looked the other way. His country failed and floundered, while he lived it up, and he lied about how everything was going. He attacked whomever he liked, lying about why, and refusing to answer questions about it when asked, making up more lies and getting rid of people to cover his tracks. He ignored the UN, thinking he was above them. He made himself untouchable.

 

Hmmm, now why does that sound frighteningly familiar?

 

Make sure you click on the above link to blast my rep--I'm used to it :D

.

 

couldn't reply til now. I would never blast your rep for you stating your own opinion. And I hope that no one else would either.

 

I disagree with you. We do not live under a dictator. Our Congress carries the power. I don't know where you think that the President can send us to war without approval from Congress. Maybe I need to reread the Constitution:

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....

 

 

 

 

Again, reflect on the words of Madison: “The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.â€

Therefore, under our system of government although the president is personally convinced that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That was precisely why presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. intervention in World Wars I and II was right and just, nevertheless had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict. And the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same.

 

I think this says it all. without personal opinion.

I stand by my earlier post:

 

I know of no Armerican President who has single handedly started and continued a war

 

I know of no American President who has single handedly caused the death of 200,000 people

 

But I do know of a dictator who did kill over 200,000 of his own people

and hid in a hole

 

And I do know of an American Democratic Congress who has given power and funding for the starting and continuing of a war.

 

and I do know a well-trained mom who would never blast someone's rep for disagreeing with her. That would be me. :patriot:

[j.griff]

I do NOT see the people who are condemning women for having abortions offering to take THOSE children and raise them. Yes, there may be lines ad adoption clinics to adopt newborn white babies. My point is, if none of those who go around talking about how HORRIBLE abortion is, are going and offering to take those kids that are being aborted. Yes, there are orphanages, but HERE in our own country couples are going to other countries to adopt those children.

I have done my own fair share of research, and have obviously come to different conclusions that you. That does not make me 'uninformed'. Maybe I didn't take the time to clarify each and every point and back it up with linkage and such, but my opinion is not uninformed. And Kelli, I wasn't 'jumping on you'. You made some statements, and I just made statements of my own that disagree. I don't think we will ever agree on such issues, so I am bowing out. I can sense when it's a waste of time to continue a conversation.

[cricket1178]

I have been reading through this thread and am amazed that being pro-life is thought of as a contradiction if you are a supporter of the military. I support our troops who willingly, not forced, but willing joined up to protect our nation. These brave, young men and women are by their choice choosing to defend our nation. The unborn have no choices. I do not love war. I do not believe in choosing war when other viable, realistic options are available. However, when necessary, I am proud to know that we have individuals in our nation who are willing to say, "Send me."

 

I don't see abortion and having to go to war as the same things.

[cricket1178]

I do NOT see the people who are condemning women for having abortions offering to take THOSE children and raise them. Yes, there may be lines ad adoption clinics to adopt newborn white babies. My point is, if none of those who go around talking about how HORRIBLE abortion is, are going and offering to take those kids that are being aborted. Yes, there are orphanages, but HERE in our own country couples are going to other countries to adopt those children.

I have done my own fair share of research, and have obviously come to different conclusions that you. That does not make me 'uninformed'. Maybe I didn't take the time to clarify each and every point and back it up with linkage and such, but my opinion is not uninformed. And Kelli, I wasn't 'jumping on you'. You made some statements, and I just made statements of my own that disagree. I don't think we will ever agree on such issues, so I am bowing out. I can sense when it's a waste of time to continue a conversation.

 

I humbly disagree with you. I know there are many organizations, churches, and individuals who have offered to take these babies. Maybe not as many as you would like, but it is a problem of epidemic proportion.

 

I believe people could stand outside the clinics and offer to take the babies, but women would still choose the abortion. (again, jmho)

[sunshine]

ahem...

As for a pp's comment about the pro-lifers not wanting to care for those babies.

 

What blarney. Adoption is ridiculously difficult and expensive. And the requirements elliminate lots of people who would love to have more and would probably make very fine parents. For example, I wouldn't qualify because I don't meet sq footage requirements, or asset requirements, or I already have "too many" or or or...

 

But hey ...

If you have one or some you want to give away - feel free to send them my way. We'll make room for a bed and plate somehow despite what the state says.:D

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree: I WANT SIX!!!!!!!!! I will go to any abortion clinic and offer, any hospital anywhere. So would 5 of my dearest friends. BUt the problem is;

 

MONEY, they (either the biological mother, or the representative) want me to pay for everything. And I can't. Flat out can't, heck, I just made August's house payment today. But we have plenty of food to share and I am even willing to take those pills to make me lactate so I can provide free food to the little darlings..........send em on!!!!

[cricket1178]

Sorry this thread is getting away from the op question.

 

My answer is that although McCain isn't as pro-life as I would like him to be, I do find him to be the candidate most in-line with my views at this time.

[Peek a Boo]

I humbly disagree with you. I know there are many organizations, churches, and individuals who have offered to take these babies. Maybe not as many as you would like, but it is a problem of epidemic proportion.

 

I believe people could stand outside the clinics and offer to take the babies, but women would still choose the abortion. (again, jmho)

 

This is so true.

I'm sure j.griff doesn't SEE it, but that doesn't mean those people aren't out there DOING it. There is in fact quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. people go overseas to adopt because of the horrible adoption laws here in the US. That, or they believe that a kid in the foster system in the US is a WHOLE LOT better off than a kid in an orphanage overseas.

 

==================

 

and since someone has a concern w/ duct taping kids to the wall [per my sig line, lol], i wanted to offer this gem:

 

http://www.winstonscience.org/wsci/events/2008/ducttape.shtml

 

i can duct tape a kid to the wall in 90 seconds.

We practiced for WEEKS on this.

The 2yo doesn't mind as long as he can have a lollipop and watch a Bob the Builder video ;)

maybe I'll take a pic......

[emeraldjoy]

I have only skimmed the respones in this thread, please keep that in mind.

I am vehemently pro-life and I do not really think it is an issue of "level" as in the Mccain/obama arguments. Sounds sort of simple I know; but basically I think either you are or your not and in my opinion they both are not. The hypocrisy of it seems pretty evident to me in so many, many ways.

 

That being said; it is so, so, so much more than being willing to take the babies that would be born. I see a lack of support in much more key areas than that. I think that as a human race; pro-choice, pro-life aside, we need to look at why women (and men, I suppose) are even in the position where they need to make such a choice. I get so aggravated that this argument has become so dichotomous and i wish, very deeply, that we could all just come together with the common interest of a healthy (in body, mind, and soul) nation. One abortion doctor I spoke to not too long ago said that the first thing that most of her patients tell her when they are preparing for the procedure is that they are most definatley pro-life. Please think about this. How many daugthers are too afraid to tell their families or their churches that they are pregnent because of shame involved?

 

Both outlawing or supporting abortions are merely bandages in my book. Bandages covering up deeper problems that noone seems to want to talk about. It is really easy to judge those for making the choices they do or say, "I would take a baby any day", but how easy is it to bring fathers back into homes or address substance abuse issues? How easy is it to step outside of judgement and offer genuine support to a woman or girl in a scary situation? And I am not talking about a few diapers and a cordial visit or two. How deep does the support go? What about the children in our country who are in foster care, without families? How many are reaching out to those children? What about the woman who is facing a successive abortion, where would she find emphathy, not judgement? Outlawing abortion at this point would not eliminate the roots and I really believe the reasons that cause someone to make such a choice are the real issues here. I really believe that if we shifted out focus just a bit, we would all realize we are a bit more alike that we think and maybe we could get something productive done as far as the health our nations goes.

 

Just a rant; sorry for straying.

e

[PiCO]

Why does one need to be a "militant" pro-lifer to see the connection between two human rights issues?

 

I don't know. I consider myself pro-life, but I don't want to see Roe v. Wade reversed. I don't see the connection. It seems to me that people who do want to see Roe v. Wade reversed do see the connection.

 

I've been reading all your posts, Peek, because you usually help me understand the opposing viewpoint- but I am just not getting it. Thanks for trying, though!

[Peek a Boo]

I don't know. I consider myself pro-life, but I don't want to see Roe v. Wade reversed. I don't see the connection. It seems to me that people who do want to see Roe v. Wade reversed do see the connection.

 

I've been reading all your posts, Peek, because you usually help me understand the opposing viewpoint- but I am just not getting it. Thanks for trying, though!

 

 

That's ok :)

not everyone has to "get it" as far as I'm concerned.

do keep asking questions if you want.

 

In a nutshell I see abortion as a human rights issue --for BOTH humans involved.

 

Lots of abolitionists worked for overturning laws. Does that make them "militant"?

Is that how people/you define "militant" pro-lifers?

as those who want to see RvW overturned?

Other non-militant abolitionists would have been content w/ just making sure every slave was "a happy and cared for slave."

 

 

have you read my position in the ectogenesis thread?

That's probably about the most complete explanation of my view in one place ;) And it's probably about as close to ME "getting" the opposing view that aborting a human is ok --kinda like vegetarianism: i don't agree with it for ME, and don't even have to be a "militant vegan" to learn about it and try to understand things so that when i see something that might appeal to a friend I can recognize its qualities from her POV....

 

anywhooooo.

happy reading tho :)

[mommytobees]

Yes, it is. My younger sister has been keeping me updated. :D

 

Ohooo, yay!!!

 

I don't even know if I'm going to be able to get it here. We're 2 week tape-delay on AFN and some of the shows from last year didn't even get on the air.

 

Sigh.

 

The "hardship" of living overseas. :D

 

Kris

[nmoira]

Iraqis were dying in much larger numbers prior to the US involvement.

If you believe "official" US estimates. Not everyone does.

War Raised Iraqi death rate by 100,000 -- 2003

Iraqi dead may top 600,000 -- 2006

Huge Rise in Iraqi death tolls --2006

[mommytobees]

I have only skimmed the respones in this thread, please keep that in mind.

I am vehemently pro-life and I do not really think it is an issue of "level" as in the Mccain/obama arguments. Sounds sort of simple I know; but basically I think either you are or your not and in my opinion they both are not. The hypocrisy of it seems pretty evident to me in so many, many ways.

 

That being said; it is so, so, so much more than being willing to take the babies that would be born. I see a lack of support in much more key areas than that. I think that as a human race; pro-choice, pro-life aside, we need to look at why women (and men, I suppose) are even in the position where they need to make such a choice. I get so aggravated that this argument has become so dichotomous and i wish, very deeply, that we could all just come together with the common interest of a healthy (in body, mind, and soul) nation. One abortion doctor I spoke to not too long ago said that the first thing that most of her patients tell her when they are preparing for the procedure is that they are most definatley pro-life. Please think about this. How many daugthers are too afraid to tell their families or their churches that they are pregnent because of shame involved?

 

Both outlawing or supporting abortions are merely bandages in my book. Bandages covering up deeper problems that noone seems to want to talk about. It is really easy to judge those for making the choices they do or say, "I would take a baby any day", but how easy is it to bring fathers back into homes or address substance abuse issues? How easy is it to step outside of judgement and offer genuine support to a woman or girl in a scary situation? And I am not talking about a few diapers and a cordial visit or two. How deep does the support go? What about the children in our country who are in foster care, without families? How many are reaching out to those children? What about the woman who is facing a successive abortion, where would she find emphathy, not judgement? Outlawing abortion at this point would not eliminate the roots and I really believe the reasons that cause someone to make such a choice are the real issues here. I really believe that if we shifted out focus just a bit, we would all realize we are a bit more alike that we think and maybe we could get something productive done as far as the health our nations goes.

 

Just a rant; sorry for straying.

e

 

:thumbup: HERE HERE :thumbup:

 

Kris, who couldn't find a clapping hands smilie

[asta]

D & C means Dilation and Curettage. That's it.

 

It means you have your cervix dialated, and your uterus curettaged (ablated; with either a scalpel or a laser) to remove its lining. Whatever is in it comes out.

 

It doesn't necessarily mean abortion, as in aborting a fetus (though it may be part of that procedure); it is more often used to clear out damaged or cancerous tissue.

 

Here is a good link.

 

 

asta

[cricket1178]

I have only skimmed the respones in this thread, please keep that in mind.

I am vehemently pro-life and I do not really think it is an issue of "level" as in the Mccain/obama arguments. Sounds sort of simple I know; but basically I think either you are or your not and in my opinion they both are not. The hypocrisy of it seems pretty evident to me in so many, many ways.

 

That being said; it is so, so, so much more than being willing to take the babies that would be born. I see a lack of support in much more key areas than that. I think that as a human race; pro-choice, pro-life aside, we need to look at why women (and men, I suppose) are even in the position where they need to make such a choice. I get so aggravated that this argument has become so dichotomous and i wish, very deeply, that we could all just come together with the common interest of a healthy (in body, mind, and soul) nation. One abortion doctor I spoke to not too long ago said that the first thing that most of her patients tell her when they are preparing for the procedure is that they are most definatley pro-life. Please think about this. How many daugthers are too afraid to tell their families or their churches that they are pregnent because of shame involved?

 

Both outlawing or supporting abortions are merely bandages in my book. Bandages covering up deeper problems that noone seems to want to talk about. It is really easy to judge those for making the choices they do or say, "I would take a baby any day", but how easy is it to bring fathers back into homes or address substance abuse issues? How easy is it to step outside of judgement and offer genuine support to a woman or girl in a scary situation? And I am not talking about a few diapers and a cordial visit or two. How deep does the support go? What about the children in our country who are in foster care, without families? How many are reaching out to those children? What about the woman who is facing a successive abortion, where would she find emphathy, not judgement? Outlawing abortion at this point would not eliminate the roots and I really believe the reasons that cause someone to make such a choice are the real issues here. I really believe that if we shifted out focus just a bit, we would all realize we are a bit more alike that we think and maybe we could get something productive done as far as the health our nations goes.

 

Just a rant; sorry for straying.

e

 

I do appreciate what you have said here. I believe these issues need addressed and are being addressed. The problem is that I personally know too many woman who have had abortions because it was an inconvenience or embarrassment to them. Maybe you haven't run into any of those, but that is also the facts. This issue isn't only about the hard luck cases. It would be naive to think that making abortion illegal would solve the problem. In my opinion we have allowed abortion to be a much too easy option in this nation. However, it would also be naive to think we would be able to solve an issue of this magnitude in this forum so I humbly bow out. :D

[Twinmom]

I do NOT see the people who are condemning women for having abortions offering to take THOSE children and raise them. Yes, there may be lines ad adoption clinics to adopt newborn white babies. My point is, if none of those who go around talking about how HORRIBLE abortion is, are going and offering to take those kids that are being aborted. Yes, there are orphanages, but HERE in our own country couples are going to other countries to adopt those children.

 

 

I've not read the whole thread here and will not be doing so, but I did see this comment. Since I AM one of those women who stands up and takes the babies (yes, the non-white ones!) of women who would have otherwise aborted, I take offense to this. To offer one of my four examples, my DD9 was literally supposed to be aborted at 8 1/2 months through partial birth abortion. Instead, she's now a happy little girl getting homeschooled and loved in my house. Let me also add that I started my own adoption agency and placed many of these non-white, even disabled and drug addicted babies who would have otherwise been aborted into loving homes. There are many others out there besides me...my files attest to it.

 

Normally, I take offense to very little on this board, but I do take offense to this. We ARE out there, living out our convictions and our faith. Just because you've not seen us in action doesn't mean we don't exist.

 

OK, back to your regularly scheduled program. I'm not coming back again to this thread to respond, so no flaming will be listened to. :D

[TXMomof4]

This is so true.

I'm sure j.griff doesn't SEE it, but that doesn't mean those people aren't out there DOING it. There is in fact quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. people go overseas to adopt because of the horrible adoption laws here in the US. That, or they believe that a kid in the foster system in the US is a WHOLE LOT better off than a kid in an orphanage overseas.

 

 

 

This is where I see a WHOLE lot of contradiction.

 

We want to save Darfur, Ethiopia, wherever.

 

But don't send troops in there - I'm anti-war. ( I don't see a whole ton of volunteers to jump in the middle of a civil war to take food.)

 

Take care of the children of the world - but if you do you're neglecting the children of the US.

 

Feed the hungry in Haiti - but then you've neglected the hungry in America.

 

We can't do it all, but we sure do a whole darn lot. The hoops I see people jump through to get a child - whose mother doesn't even want it - is depressing and sad to me. Even after a child is born, the rights of the birthparents so far outweigh the rights of that child it is disgusting.

[Murphy101]

I do NOT see the people who are condemning women for having abortions offering to take THOSE children and raise them.

 

Look harder then is all I can tell you.

 

Altho some do condemn, many if not most, just feel a deep sorrow and pity for a person so low on hope as to kill their own baby or anger at the society that perpetuates that it's not a baby at all so those women can sooth their conscience by saying they aren't killing at all.

 

It is ILLEGAL for anyone to offer to just take those babies for those women. Yes, that's right ILLEGAL. Altho I think adoption shoudl be easier, I don't think just picking up a baby at the corner gas station is good either. The best those who are pro-life can do is offer information on where those women can go for assitance, be it financial, medical, adoption, or to raise their baby themselves.

 

Again, I deeply resent that you apparently think my mother should have just aborted me. After all, no one wanted me either.

 

MONEY, they (either the biological mother, or the representative) want me to pay for everything. And I can't. Flat out can't,

 

Some insurance companies pay for adoption maturnity fees same as they would the care of the policy holder.

 

But even so, it's outragiously expensive and difficult to adopt in the US.

 

D & C means Dilation and Curettage. That's it.

 

It means you have your cervix dialated, and your uterus curettaged (ablated; with either a scalpel or a laser) to remove its lining. Whatever is in it comes out.

 

It doesn't necessarily mean abortion, as in aborting a fetus (though it may be part of that procedure); it is more often used to clear out damaged or cancerous tissue.

 

asta

 

I'm sorry for having wrote curvature for some reason. I know what a D&C is and the many occassions where it might be neccessary, but have no idea what I was thinking whan I typed "curvature". Again sorry. Must have not had enough coffee when I typed that or something.:tongue_smilie:

[Murphy101]

This is where I see a WHOLE lot of contradiction.

 

We want to save Darfur, Ethiopia, wherever.

 

But don't send troops in there - I'm anti-war. ( I don't see a whole ton of volunteers to jump in the middle of a civil war to take food.)

 

Take care of the children of the world - but if you do you're neglecting the children of the US.

 

Feed the hungry in Haiti - but then you've neglected the hungry in America.

 

We can't do it all, but we sure do a whole darn lot. The hoops I see people jump through to get a child - whose mother doesn't even want it - is depressing and sad to me. Even after a child is born, the rights of the birthparents so far outweigh the rights of that child it is disgusting.

 

:iagree:

[sunshine]

 

Again, I deeply resent that you apparently think my mother should have just aborted me. After all, no one wanted me either.

 

:grouphug: I for one am glad you were not aborted.

 

Some insurance companies pay for adoption maternity fees same as they would the care of the policy holder.

 

But even so, it's outrageously expensive and difficult to adopt in the US.

 

 

My insurance company barely paid for my kids, and they definitely won't pay for anyone else's, they do not cover well checks for my kids nor do they pay for yearly physical exams, and they definitely don't pay for fertility treatments or birth control. But wait, they cover abortion.

 

How do you get the cool blue squares around your quotes? I can't seem to do it!

 

 

Back to the original question. yes, many things about McCain bother me. I think he is a Republicrat. A democrat hiding behind republican persona. I think he is an old school democrat, with possible leftist leanings that he is not even aware of. I was not going to vote for him until he chose Palin. I was going to vote for the Independent although that goes against my grain because I don't' think the Independents have gotten enough press this go around or really ever and a vote for them is almost a wasted vote.

But McCain made a tremendous move and chose Palin. I like her alot, warts and all. She has a past, so do I, she has a temper, so do I, she loves her country, so do I, she is singlemindedly against big government and wasteful spending, so am I. I think all special interest groups should raise their own money and let taxes only fund infrastructure that is not privately owned, city governments should function on city funds, same for the states, I think that the military should get more funding and that the educational system should be just that, to educate, not to form opinions on innocent children. social issues should only be handled at home, by people who influence their lives anyway. Health care should be through employers, at a reasonable cost and inflated prices of healthcare and pharmaceutical companies should have reasonable regulatory systems to keep it within reach of all people. The only tax payer funded health care should be for the disabled, over a certain age and under a certain age.I have been told by numerous doctors that the high cost of hospital stays comes from the inflated cost of medical suppliers and pharmaceuticals.

This may or may not be true, I am not that familiar with those costs. But I am familiar with the cost of a small business. There should be no government bailouts for any company unless it is a guarantee that all companies who fail will be bailed out. Just think of the entrepreneurship that would ensue if everyone were unafraid of starting a business because they knew the government would cover their losses if it failed. I would start one tomorrow!! A homeschool tea shoppe, complete with school nooks and crannies, a large library, playground for littles and a computer area and coffee shop on the other side.....oh to dream.. oh yeah and a thrift shop out back with used homeschool supplies too!!

[Peek a Boo]

This is where I see a WHOLE lot of contradiction.

 

We want to save Darfur, Ethiopia, wherever.

 

But don't send troops in there - I'm anti-war. ( I don't see a whole ton of volunteers to jump in the middle of a civil war to take food.)

 

Take care of the children of the world - but if you do you're neglecting the children of the US.

 

Feed the hungry in Haiti - but then you've neglected the hungry in America.

 

We can't do it all, but we sure do a whole darn lot. The hoops I see people jump through to get a child - whose mother doesn't even want it - is depressing and sad to me. Even after a child is born, the rights of the birthparents so far outweigh the rights of that child it is disgusting.

 

 

YES!!!

 

this where you get a lot of judgmental people jumping in and deciding that your values Just Aren't Going Far Enough.

blech.

[Greta]

I think that the pro-life ladies here have made some wonderful and valid points about being willing to "put their money where their mouths are" so to speak, and support a woman in giving birth and giving a baby up for adoption. I think that's wonderful and I wholeheartedly applaud you. It seems to me that both sides are in agreement that adoption laws and procedures need to be changed. I think that would be a fantastic place to start in solving this huge problem. I really hope that's something that lawmakers will come together on. Instead of emphasizing the gap between the two major political parties, this to me seems like an obvious place to build a bridge.

 

An unfair characterization was made, and you defended yourselves and the pro-life movement very eloquently. Now I would like a chance to do the same.

 

Again, I deeply resent that you apparently think my mother should have just aborted me. After all, no one wanted me either.

 

Martha, I know this wasn't directed at me, but I really think this is untrue of the person it was directed at or ANY pro-choice person I have ever met. None of us feel that women "should" have abortions. None of us are out there encouraging women to have abortions. If given the opportunity, many of us would in fact do the exact opposite. Our feelings are simply that this is something that should remain the private choice of the woman, and is NOT a choice that should be made by politicians who won't have to deal with the consequences of that choice for the rest of their lives. I am pro-CHOICE. Just that. Not pro-abortion. I have never and would never encourage anyone to have an abortion. I would simply defend her legal right to do so. Maybe you don't see the distinction there. But I assure you that to me it is a profound one.

[Murphy101]

:grouphug: I for one am glad you were not aborted.

 

thanks. my point was that a child not being wanted is NOT a good enough reason for abortion, imnsho. that's like saying if no one cares about a severely disabled person or an elderly person we should just off them too?? what a person WANTs or what would make their own life easier/better does not change that they should do what is RIGHT.

 

My insurance company barely paid for my kids, and they definitely won't pay for anyone else's, they do not cover well checks for my kids nor do they pay for yearly physical exams, and they definitely don't pay for fertility treatments or birth control. But wait, they cover abortion.

 

Yep. I said "some". My dh's employer is the same. the cover abortion, birth control, and IVF, but they do not cover midwives or adoption.:glare:

 

How do you get the cool blue squares around your quotes? I can't seem to do it!

 

lol you type "[" then then the word "quote" and "]" without any spaces at the beginning of what you wqant to quote. Then at the end of what you want to quote you type the same thing only you place a "/" between the first bracket and the "q".

 

so it looks like this:

 

[ quote ] whatever is quoted [ / quote ] but remove the spaces.

 

hth:)

[Murphy101]

Martha, I know this wasn't directed at me, but I really think this is untrue of the person it was directed at or ANY pro-choice person I have ever met. None of us feel that women "should" have abortions. None of us are out there encouraging women to have abortions. If given the opportunity, many of us would in fact do the exact opposite. Our feelings are simply that this is something that should remain the private choice of the woman, and is NOT a choice that should be made by politicians who won't have to deal with the consequences of that choice for the rest of their lives. I am pro-CHOICE. Just that. Not pro-abortion. I have never and would never encourage anyone to have an abortion. I would simply defend her legal right to do so. Maybe you don't see the distinction there. But I assure you that to me it is a profound one.

 

hmm, if that's what you say, then I have to presume that's what you mean.

 

I still disagree with it.:)

 

Every time I hear someone pro-choice saying they think it's okay for someone who is poor, ignorant, self-ish, doesn't want to be pregnant or a dozen other possible reasons given to have an abortion if they want it - they need to know they are saying it's perfectly fine by them that I and milliions of others like me had never been allowed to live.

 

Abortion = someone doesn't get the chance to live because society doesn't care if they are killed.

 

That's just wrong to me. I can't wrap my brain around how anyone can accept that as okay.:confused:

 

It's may be more palitible to accept by using terms like fetus or unborn - but that's not only what "it" is. "It" is a being, just as we all once were. "It" is someone in the making. Someone that could have been you or me, a president, a saint, a simple hard working man down the street.

 

When we say we're okay with those someone's being aborted, we're saying that the world won't notice the loss of you, or I, or that man down the street. That's some serious god-like hubris that I am personally just not capable of and don't want to undertake! And I've never met a person I'd feel comfortable letting have that kind of decision either.

[Haiku]

 

I believe people could stand outside the clinics and offer to take the babies, but women would still choose the abortion.

 

I think you are right, and as an adoptive parent, it really bothers me to see adoption touted as a cure for abortion. I believe that the two are only tangentially related.

 

Tara

[phathui5]

John McCain is not going to make abortion illegal if he is elected, so please don't vote for him because he's "pro-life." If you like him for other reasons, fine, but don't let that be the deciding factor.

[tibbyl]

For those claiming it is prohibitively expensive to adopt in the U.S., I just wanted to point out that if you adopt through your state's children's services department, typically there are no fees or the fees are significantly lower.

 

Obviously, the state agencies are not going to have as potentially appealing a variety of kids to choose from as the private agencies, private placement attorneys, or foreign countries. In our city, many of the kids available through DHS are minorities, older, or both.

 

Further, at least in our state, if you are willing to accept certain special needs kids, the state will continue to pay a stipend even if you adopt.

[Haiku]

Abortion = someone doesn't get the chance to live because society doesn't care if they are killed.

 

Hear, hear!

 

Tara

[Peek a Boo]

An unfair characterization was made, and you defended yourselves and the pro-life movement very eloquently. Now I would like a chance to do the same.

 

 

 

Martha, I know this wasn't directed at me, but I really think this is untrue of the person it was directed at or ANY pro-choice person I have ever met. None of us feel that women "should" have abortions. None of us are out there encouraging women to have abortions. If given the opportunity, many of us would in fact do the exact opposite. Our feelings are simply that this is something that should remain the private choice of the woman, and is NOT a choice that should be made by politicians who won't have to deal with the consequences of that choice for the rest of their lives. I am pro-CHOICE. Just that. Not pro-abortion. I have never and would never encourage anyone to have an abortion. I would simply defend her legal right to do so. Maybe you don't see the distinction there. But I assure you that to me it is a profound one.

 

GretaLynne, I'm sure you don't FEEL that way, but when you boil it down to brass tacks and look at the distinction for what it is,

you ARE defending the right to kill a human for convenience on demand w/o legal consequence or due process.

You are DEFENDING that choice to kill for convenience as a "right."

 

I believe very strongly that the right to KILL for convenience is NOT a right at all --no more than it was a "right" to own slaves. It is a travesty that a civilized society still recognizes a right to kill for CONVENIENCE and that people will actually defend that.

 

Society WILL have to deal with that as we grapple with human rights issues --not just the woman.

 

So while i realize you think you are defending something worthwhile, to us it defending something horrific.

 

Every time you say you are simply pro CHOICE, you need to be ready to spell out what that CHOICE is, what happens when that choice is exercised, and why that choice is good, right, and moral.

 

I am all for CHOICES --but not choices that result in the deliberate, intentional killing of another human. clarified: for convenience.

 

am i pro-life? not really -- I recognize that some times it is necessary to kill.

I would more accurately state my own position as being pro-Human Rights.

 

am i pro-CHOICE? sure.

 

am I pro-CHOICE TO KILL FOR CONVENIENCE? no.

[Peek a Boo]

For those claiming it is prohibitively expensive to adopt in the U.S., I just wanted to point out that if you adopt through your state's children's services department, typically there are no fees or the fees are significantly lower.

 

Obviously, the state agencies are not going to have as potentially appealing a variety of kids to choose from as the private agencies, private placement attorneys, or foreign countries. In our city, many of the kids available through DHS are minorities, older, or both.

 

Further, at least in our state, if you are willing to accept certain special needs kids, the state will continue to pay a stipend even if you adopt.

 

 

actually, the arguments I've heard about adoption in the US usually aren't related to money -- they are related to beurocratic red tape, requirements that otherwise great adoptive parents can't meet, and having extensive rights of a birth mother trump rights of adoptive parents.

 

regardless its impact on the abortion debate, i do think there's a lot that our adoption process needs to overhaul.

[Peek a Boo]

John McCain is not going to make abortion illegal if he is elected, so please don't vote for him because he's "pro-life." If you like him for other reasons, fine, but don't let that be the deciding factor.

 

 

he can't make abortion illegal, but he can provide a more conservative check on abortion issues that come from Congress.

[tibbyl]

Our state, for one, has indeed streamlined adoption laws. A decade or so ago, due to certain changes at federal policy level, states had financial incentive to speed up the parental rights termination process and make certain kids available for permanent adoption.

[Greta]

GretaLynne, I'm sure you don't FEEL that way, but when you boil it down to brass tacks and look at the distinction for what it is,

you ARE defending the right to kill a human for convenience on demand w/o legal consequence or due process.

You are DEFENDING that choice to kill for convenience as a "right."

 

 

 

Well, I've used this argument before, so I'm afraid I may be beating a dead horse here. I don't want to get into the kind of argument where we're both spinning our wheels and going nowhere. I have benefited from this conversation so very much, especially Kelli in TN's post, that really moved me. So I don't want to just let this degenerate into a yelling match. I'm only saying that up front so that you'll understand that my intention and tone here is meant only to present and my view, not because I expect it to change anyone's mind. I assume most of us have our minds firmly made up! :001_smile:

 

Anyway, my perspective is that no one "owes" their body to anyone else, even if it means keeping that other person alive. If someone else is dying of a disease or injury, and I could save them through a blood transfusion or donation of an "extra" organ that I can live without, etc., that does not obligate me to give it. My body is my own, and no one else's. No one has a "right" to my body for nine months if I don't want to give it. And since you've used the analogy of slavery here, I will say that to me, if a government steps in and forces a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, they have essentially made her a slave, have they not? They have essentially said that one party (the fetus) has legal rights to the body of another person against that person's will. In the eyes of the law, that woman has become little more than an incubator. I find that thought stomach-churningly repulsive.

 

Now, that said, in my case, if any fetus shows up in my womb, I will welcome it with tears of joy and tremendous warmth, happiness, and love! :D (Unfortunately, that isn't too likely to happen. But that's another story.) It's just that I find the thought of half of the population losing the legal right to own their own bodies to be even more disturbing than the thought of abortion. I completely understand that I'm not changing your mind here. I'm not trying to. I'm only trying to let you see that it isn't heartlessness on my part, it is a tough choice about what I feel is the greater good for society. There is no perfect solution to this issue, in my eyes. There is only the lesser of two evils, and that's what I choose.

[Murphy101]

I don't want to just let this degenerate into a yelling match.

 

agreed. I'mnot yelling from my end either

 

Anyway, my perspective is that no one "owes" their body to anyone else, even if it means keeping that other person alive. My body is my own, and no one else's. No one has a "right" to my body for nine months if I don't want to give it.

 

I would agree to a point...

 

that one party (the fetus) has legal rights to the body of another person against that person's will. In the eyes of the law, that woman has become little more than an incubator. I find that thought stomach-churningly repulsive.

 

This is the part I disagree with. Againt their will? If they don't want to give it (their body)? Bottom line is that unless it was rape - they were willing to enter into an act that causes pregnancy. But then when a pregnancy results they want to scream "foul"! What bull. Even if they use birth control, it has a failure rate and they need to accept that they are taking that level of risk that a pregnancy will result.

 

It's not like women are being dragged kicking and screaming into IVF clinics and implanted against their will. They are having sex and the result of sex can be pregnancy. If they couldn't accept that risk - they shouldn't have had sex.

 

If they take the risk, they have to take the consequences. No one is asking them to raise the baby, but it's just not an option to kill it.

 

It's just that I find the thought of half of the population losing the legal right to own their own bodies to be even more disturbing than the thought of abortion.

 

and yet, you would be okay with denying that same right to bodily integrity to the unborn?

the unborn in every one of those cases is being robbed of not just its body, but it's entire life!:confused:

[tibbyl]

I believe I just read in previous post that women should not have sex unless they are willing to risk pregnancy. Interesting. Wonder how many of us here have chaste marriages because we do not want to risk pregnancy.

[beansprouts]

I do NOT see the people who are condemning women for having abortions offering to take THOSE children and raise them. Yes, there may be lines ad adoption clinics to adopt newborn white babies.

 

#1. I do not and would not condemn a woman for considering an abortion. She has enough to worry about. One day I would love to get involved with counseling as I have a real heart for this issue.

#2. If and when the opportunity presents itself, I would adopt in a heartbeat.

[beansprouts]

and since someone has a concern w/ duct taping kids to the wall [per my sig line, lol], i wanted to offer this gem:

 

http://www.winstonscience.org/wsci/events/2008/ducttape.shtml

 

i can duct tape a kid to the wall in 90 seconds.

We practiced for WEEKS on this.

 

 

I can do it in 30. :tongue_smilie:

 

Who had that picture of the baby who was duct-taped to the refrigerator with the doll taped next to her. It was adorable!

 

Back to your regular thread now...

[Murphy101]

I believe I just read in previous post that women should not have sex unless they are willing to risk pregnancy. Interesting. Wonder how many of us here have chaste marriages because we do not want to risk pregnancy.

 

That's right.

 

I said sex can cause pregnancy.:)

 

Even when using birth control.

 

It makes far more sense to me for one to decide to not have sex than to risk putting themselves in a murderous situation because they know they wouldn't want to accept the possible consequence of having sex - pregnancy.

 

A pp said she couldn't stomach the notion of forcing a woman to let another being (the fetus) have use of her body against her will. My point was very simple - unless they were raped, they were willing to have sex. Unless they were extremely ignorant, they should know sex can cause pregnancy. Thus I don't buy the argument that those women are being forced against their will to have a pregnancy.

[Greta]

This is the part I disagree with. Againt their will? If they don't want to give it (their body)? Bottom line is that unless it was rape - they were willing to enter into an act that causes pregnancy. But then when a pregnancy results they want to scream "foul"! What bull. Even if they use birth control, it has a failure rate and they need to accept that they are taking that level of risk that a pregnancy will result.

 

You make a very powerful argument, Martha. And I would probably find myself convinced if it weren't for the fact that, as you point out, there is no such thing as completely effective contraception. If/when there comes a time that completely safe, completely effective birth control is universally available, I just may find myself on the pro-life side of the debate. Until then, however, I'm staying where I am. I think there are many valid reasons for couples to have sex beyond just procreation, and I think they have every right to the intimacy and pleasure of a sexual relationship without necessarily having to consent to pregnancy.

 

It's not like women are being dragged kicking and screaming into IVF clinics and implanted against their will.

 

But the reason this thread got started in the first place is because some (maybe many, I don't know) in the pro-life movement feel that even in cases of rape, a woman should not be allowed to abort. And that IS very much like being dragged kicking and screaming into a clinic and being implanted against their will . . . only worse!

 

 

 

Okay, now am I getting near that point where I'm spinning my wheels? :confused:

[tibbyl]

That's right.

 

I said sex can cause pregnancy.:)

 

Even when using birth control.

 

It makes far more sense to me for one to decide to not have sex than to risk putting themselves in a murderous situation because they know they wouldn't want to accept the possible consequence of having sex - pregnancy.

 

A pp said she couldn't stomach the notion of forcing a woman to let another being (the fetus) have use of her body against her will. My point was very simple - unless they were raped, they were willing to have sex. Unless they were extremely ignorant, they should know sex can cause pregnancy. Thus I don't buy the argument that those women are being forced against their will to have a pregnancy.

 

 

There was a recent poll here asking if members were through having children. According to your logic, all members, including conscientious birth control users, who responded yes should cease having sex with their husbands.

[emeraldjoy]

I wouldn't neccesarily claim that this is what Martha's logic says. I think, correct me if I am wrong, that her logic is simply saying, if you have s*x you can get pregnant. This is a physiological thing. It doesn't mean you cannot find pleasure in it outside of having babies, the logic (i think) simply points to how babies are made.

e

[Murphy101]

You make a very powerful argument, Martha. And I would probably find myself convinced if it weren't for the fact that, as you point out, there is no such thing as completely effective contraception. If/when there comes a time that completely safe, completely effective birth control is universally available, I just may find myself on the pro-life side of the debate. Until then, however, I'm staying where I am.

 

everyone's allowed an opinion.

even if it is a worng one.;)

 

I think there are many valid reasons for couples to have sex beyond just procreation,

 

 

I agree. there is intimacy, affection, bonding and such as well

I am NOT saying that sex between a husband and wife is only for making babies.

What I am saying is that sex does always carry that risk of pregnancy.

Mature people should understand that is the risk they take. If they cannot accept that risk, they need to rethink what they are doing and why.

 

I think they have every right to the intimacy and pleasure of a sexual relationship without necessarily having to consent to pregnancy.

 

a right? who has the right to sex? who has a right to pleasure? the pursuit of it? yes. A right to have it when they want it? debatable. LOL

 

pregnancy is the natural effect of sex.

one cannot concent to one and without concenting to the risk of the other.

 

But the reason this thread got started in the first place is because some (maybe many, I don't know) in the pro-life movement feel that even in cases of rape, a woman should not be allowed to abort. And that IS very much like being dragged kicking and screaming into a clinic and being implanted against their will . . . only worse!

 

at which point... I would have to say I can understand and have compassion for why a woman might be so inclined to abort, but I still would think it wrong. It's not the baby's fault she was raped. Killing the baby just makes another victim of the rape.:(

 

Okay, now am I getting near that point where I'm spinning my wheels?

 

No. Not at all. All you've done is make your own opinion clearer.

Well maybe you consider that wheel spinning?:)

 

There was a recent poll here asking if members were through having children. According to your logic, all members, including conscientious birth control users, who responded yes should cease having sex with their husbands.

 

How so? Are you saying that ALL those women who think they are "done" having children would get an abortion if they found themselves pregnant?!:ohmy:

 

Thinking one is done having children

 

or

 

planning to run asap for an abortion if they should get pregnant unexpectedly b/c they want to be "done"

 

are VERY different things.

 

If one would run for an abortion if they got pregnant and they know that they would - then yes they shouldn't risk having sex.

 

Millions of couples find themselves pregnant after thinking they are done having children for various reasons. But most would not consider having an abortion if they got pregnant unexpectedly.

 

hmmm, should we have another poll to find out?:001_huh:

[tibbyl]

So is life only precious while in the womb, but easily thrown away once born?

 

After birth, the little squirt should have the personal responsibility to pull himself up by his bootie-straps. After all, he had a free ride for nine months.

[asta]

I believe I just read in previous post that women should not have sex unless they are willing to risk pregnancy. Interesting. Wonder how many of us here have chaste marriages because we do not want to risk pregnancy.

 

I know some Catholics who have some serious dry spells.

 

Current doctrine specifically states that sex is solely for the purpose of procreation.

 

Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which "is on the side of life" teaches that "each and every marriage act must remain open 'per se' to the transmission of life." "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

 

[...]

 

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil

The Holy See, #2366, 2370

 

Everyone has their own thing.

 

 

asta

[tibbyl]

In effort to increase adoption rate, some years ago our state DHS promoted adoptable kids on evening news in manner similar to that of humane society showcasing companion animals available for adoption. Most were African-American or mixed race kids ranging from early school age to teen years. Unfortunately the campaign allegedly failed to result in increased adoption rate. Right now, TN has 9 pages of profiles of minors hoping to be adopted. The state pays court and legal fees.

 

 

http://www.adoptuskids.org/states/tn/browse.aspx

[tibbyl]

I Everyone has their own thing. asta

 

I agree, which is why one should not expect others to conform to their own religious guidelines regarding sex.

[asta]

I agree, which is why one should not expect others to conform to their own religious guidelines regarding sex.

 

:iagree: