• sweet_cookie01 said on May 15, 2007....

  In my opinion if the situation is delicate for the mother or the fetus i would consent to abortion but other than life threatening situations i wouldnt agree.

  If one didnt want to get pregnant she should have taken precautions... we are not in the old age where contraceptives are not available... how much does a pill cost or a condom cost? It doesnt take much to avoid getting pregnant and end up terminating pregnancy.

  It is a consequence one should be prepared for the moment she open her legs and he gets into it.

• D6fer said on May 15, 2007....

  What if the mother in question was you?

• sweet_cookie01 said on May 16, 2007....

  i did base my answer thinking if i were in that situation...

  d6fer i am doing my part not to get pregnant since its too risky for me... i am taking my pills religously to avoid being in that predicament... but if worse comes to worse and i do get pregnant unexpectedly i will make sure i get the best doctor available to help me continue my pregnancy without jeopardizing my life and my baby's life... you see my daughter is a miracle baby because when i was in my early teens the chances for me to concieve was grim... so if i do get pregnant again its a blessing!

• D6fer said on May 16, 2007....

  Sorry....it's just that you said "the mother" instead of "me" or "I" .....thought you may have a differing opinion on abortion between what is right for you and what you feel is right for others.

• TinSoldier said on May 16, 2007....

  I am personally against it. However, I am afraid that I would bend or break my own moral principles if my wife got pregnant at this point in our lives. That is very difficult for me.
  
  I don't know if I would choose the right option or the expedient option in that case.
  

• sweet_cookie01 said on May 16, 2007....

  its okay... i for one cannot decide for other women... each have their own opinion and why... and i have learned to respect that...

• D6fer said on May 16, 2007....

  I like your honesty TS....I know what you mean....I'm 42....43 in a couple months.....my kids are nearly all grown up.....it would kill me to start over.....still I wouldn't want her to have an abortion.....I sometimes think of what it would be like to do it all over again....what would I do differently.

• D6fer said on May 16, 2007....

  I really don't like the idea of abortion per se.....but I have to admit....if I knew a crack whore was getting an abortion....I wouldn't lose sleep

• WhiteDaisy said on May 16, 2007....

  All about choice really but sweet is correct - you don't want to fall pregnant use protection! for those who didn't think they needed to or they did and it didn't work well its another story isn't it.
   
  I think TS is correct in saying that you never really know until you go there.... personaly I'm not saying I've seen too many posts here about the topic and I don't really want to get in to it. *-}

• D6fer said on May 16, 2007....

  I think people tend to be afraid of what other people will think of them for their beliefs on this subject.....no matter what the opinion.

• silverwhisper said on May 16, 2007....

  i don't have any kids yet so no, i wouldn't. if there was a health risk i'd consider it but it isn't my body that's gotta handle the 9 months, so she gets a greater say than i do.
  
  ed

• mommyof2 said on May 16, 2007....

  Truly I think it's murder and would never do it even if it meant I could die I would still carry and give birth to the baby that GOD meant to be here, no matter how old I am. As far as others that's their life.

• pickersplock said on May 16, 2007....

  I would never have one.

• bloc said on May 16, 2007....

  I think it's ok if it's very early in the pregnancy. I also think that they should be rare. 

• louthomas said on May 16, 2007....

  This is something between a gal, the possible father, and God.  It is NOT any of my business, or that of the government, or of ANYONE ELSE.
  
  It's the prospective mom's body and, thus, her business.
  
  This isn't empty talk.  Been there, when my girlfriend told me she was PG.  I gave her the full range of options: have it, and I'd sign a support document, marry me, or abort the child.  See, it was HER LIFE and HER BUSINESS.
  
  NO ONE, I submit, has any right to comment on her and/or her decision.
  

• husbandhater said on May 16, 2007....

  Done it before, not proud of the fact that I did, but my choices were slim and I was already using controceptives that somehow my body rejected. I feel a woman's body is her temple and it is no one's right to tell someone else what to do with it or pass judgement on them. If they feel abortion is the way to go I'd rather see that than hear about some poor kid on the 6'oclock news who was murdered by a parent or their s.o. when their mother could have chosen to keep them away from the misery. This is a very personal choice and all the right to life advocates are not lining up to say I'll adopt this kid if you have it so why tell anyone what to do with their body when you won't step up to the plate yourself?
   
  I DO THINK OF THOSE CHILDREN EVERYDAY OF  MY LIFE AND I MOURN THEM AS IF THEY WERE ALIVE ON THIS EARTH. I WONDER WHAT THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE> HOW'D THEY SOUND. THIS IS NOT A LIGHT DECISION. IT HAUNTS YOU.
  But in the same breath I KNOW MY LIMITS AND WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT HANDEL.
  To me abortion is about knowing your limits.

• CamDaMan20 said on May 16, 2007....

  Its nobodys decision but the woman making it.  It should be a private medical procedure. 
  
  The Government has no place in the decision making policies of motherhood w/
  regards to abortions other than to provide laws to ensure access to same and that clean safe medical facilities be required to provide same under strict confidence to the woman.
  
  Cam.
  

• NotSoSinglechick25 said on May 16, 2007....

  While I am pro-choice, there are very few circumstances that I believe I would have an abortion.  I do not want to have children of my own for various personal reasons so I am responsible in protecting myself.  Abortion should not, in no uncertain terms, be used as a form of birthcontrol, which appears to be the case sometimes.

  J

• D6fer said on May 16, 2007....

  I think it is very interesting that almost every comment here leans closer to the right even though some advocate abortion. No one seems to think it is something that would fit their situation.

• curmudgeon said on May 16, 2007....

  As a married man, I would hope that any decision made in this circumstance would be at least discussed between the two of us. Of course, as I'm not the one to carry the baby to term the decision is ultimately hers.

  I can't imagine that any woman could make this decision lightly.

• Expendable said on May 16, 2007....

  Sometimes, abortion is a necessity. 

  No contraceptive is 100% perfect. Accidents and assaults happen. While you're jeering at the 20-somethings who know their situation better than you do, think about the other children, barely teens but already pregnant, not at all ready for this new life growing in their tiny wombs.

   

• Trinov said on May 16, 2007....

  Abortion is a choice that I would hope that no woman has to face. Personally I spent many years trying to bring a pregnancy to term, and did not succeed, and every time a fetus died it was emotionally as if I had lost a baby.
   
  But we cannot stand in the shoes of a teenage girl whose boy friend is just a frightened boy, whose parents would possibly disown her, who would not have the strength physically or emotionally to be a mother to a child, for babies grow into children who need an adult mother.
   
  I had a high school friend whose parents supported her and adopted her out of wedlock (as they used to say) baby. I had another friend in college who came from a background where her family might have killed her (no kidding) and I was the one who went to those in the dorms who had 'the list'. There was no way the father of the baby, a very selfish guy, would have married her. He didn't help her in any way. Her life was indangered by the illegal abortion, but her life would have been, and this is what she felt, in danger from her family.
   
  The best of all possible worlds is not here yet, and birth control should be the choice of a responsible adult woman who respects her own physical and emotional health. In the ancient world and into the middle ages the women, especially the 'wise women' knew much more about birth control,  and the witch hunts were possibly a means of destroying the 'women's knowledge about this and about birthing etc. We need to reclaim this knowledge and the old knowledge of keeping a healthy pregnancy. (I read about a tribe in South America where they did not believe that a couple could be sterile).

• TinSoldier said on May 16, 2007....

  My main problem is that those new lives want to live as much as anyone or anything else... that's my main hangup about it.
  
  I wouldn't jeer at anyone, but rather I would shake my head in sadness of what could have been.
  

• Expendable said on May 16, 2007....

  Life is sometimes so very unfair TinSoldier. People can be too.

• MissMimi said on May 16, 2007....

  Abortion is a decision that should be between a woman and her partner, her physician, and her conscience. Where it does not belong is in the Congress, the Oval Office or the Supreme Court. Having said that, D6fer, the last thing I would call myself is an abortion advocate. Abortion should never ever be used as a form of birth control, but it absolutely should remain a safe, legal option for those women who have made that very difficult decision. Many years ago I was in the position of having to decide, and I will tell you, it was agony.

• Eilan said on May 16, 2007....

  Mimi, you took the words right out of my mouth.

• RiddleGirl said on May 16, 2007....

  I am EXTREMELY against abortion.  As a woman who has been trying to conceive for many years without success, I feel it is an abomination to end a baby's life.  Women always have the option of giving the baby up for adoption, and there are plenty of women out there like me, who would be more than happy to raise that child as their own and give them all the love they deserve.

  There are very few reasons I can think of to terminate a pregnancy.  If the pregnancy will severely harm the mother, if it is a case of child abuse or abuse of the disabled.

  Personally, if I were to get pregnant, even if the doctor told me it could potentially kill me, I'd still try everything in my power to carry it to term.  Even if I were raped, I would carry it to term.  No matter what, if it's MY decision, I could never kill a baby.

• Expendable said on May 16, 2007....

  The problem historically is that incest and rape victims were denied abortions. Still are in some places. Look at Roe vs. Wade. Or that Irish girl who just got the right to travel to England to get her abortion. Or the doctors in Columbia who got condemned by the Vatican for giving a 13 yo girl an abortion.

  By the way, are you aware of just how many older children are in foster care right now in your state?

• brokenandused said on May 16, 2007....

  I do not agree with abortions, unless in the case of a rape or something of that sort where  it was not the "intent" to get pregnant. I think sex these days is like making a peanut butter sandwich -it's no big deal. People think its a right to have children, i believe it's not, it's a privilege and a blessing. I doubt i will have any kids, rather i'm going to try to take care of the ones who are already here who don't have mothers or fathers.

• RiddleGirl said on May 16, 2007....

  Yes I know how many older children are up for adoption in my state, and if it were within my means, I would take each and every one of them.  I do agree with brokenandused in that people are not thinking of sex the right way and don't think responsibly when it comes to birth control. 

  I ended up quitting my job at Guardian Insurance company because many (almost all) of their insurance policies cover abortions, but NOT birth control pills or IUDs!  I had such a moral problem with that, I could not work for them.  Especially when I'm answering questions like "I've already had 3 abortions this year, is there a limit?"  and "Why doesn't my policy cover birth control pills?  I'm not ready to have children yet."

• sweetsoul said on May 16, 2007....

  I'm strongly pro-choice. I believe a woman should have a variety of options and one of those options is to have an abortion. I'm not saying having an abortion is the right answer for everyone, but that option should be available to them. I did my time as a sexual assault crisis counsellor and I'll be damned if I'll say those women are to be vicitmized twice and forced to remain pregnant.
   
  It's not an issue for me, hasn't been for ages, but I dont know what my answer would be if I became preganant when I didn't want to be. I don't think having an abortion would have been my first choice...but I'll be honest and say I really have no idea what I'd do unless I was actually in that position...and I'm never going to be in that position.

• D6fer said on May 16, 2007....

  interesting....still getting the "it's not for me, but" vibe

• southerngirl said on May 16, 2007....

  I say, to each it's own, meaning to every one that had to make a decision of this title, you have my blessing, if I had to vote on a matter of this sort, I dont think that I would tell anyone how I voted, this is a very sincere post blog and there are precussion behind this act, if plan are not thought out, you got to be ready for this decision.

• silverwhisper said on May 17, 2007....

  d6, re-read mimi's response.
  
  ed

• minniemouse said on May 17, 2007....

  D6......just because its "not for me" does not mean I lean to the right or am against abortion.  I am STRONGLY pro-choice.  I would CHOOSE not to have one, but NO ONE should stand in the way of another woman CHOOSING to have one. 

  MM

• sweetsoul said on May 17, 2007....

  Agreed minniemouse...it's the difference between being pro abortion and pro choice.

• Trinov said on May 17, 2007....

  Perhaps in the near future we will have the technology, as envisioned by Robert Heinlein in the 1950's-to safely remove every embryo and fetus and store them safely until one of the parents, relatives or others would decide to adopt them. Then maybe we can also hope to educate the younger generations for relationships of love and not casual lust. But that won't work without being examples, for children learn how to behave from what they see on the ground, not from what is preached to them on high. The trouble starts when the parental good examples are negated by a strong teenage peer group that is bolstered by a media that is pushing casual sex. Religious groups with their own school systems have a better chance of getting across the message of sex being a part of a loving adult relationship, and the isolation from the media and a negative peer group also makes a difference. But nothing is guaranteed, we all have the free will to make mistakes (and try to correct them with some kindness towards ourselves and others).

• D6fer said on May 17, 2007....

  I like the honesty shared here! Thanks!

• cotteralladams3 said on May 18, 2007....

  It is not right to force a woman to carry a child into this world against her will.  There are many emotional, financial and personal aspects to it.  She must be in the right frame of mind.  A lot of people have kids they don't want and that is regrettable.  While adoption is always an option, there are plenty of abandoned older kids, nonwhite kids and disabled kids to choose from.  People pass them up in hopes of white newborn baby girls.  That is not something you can control.  It is part-tragedy and part lack of supply.  If a teenage girl wants to raise the child herself, that is her right.  The parents and the father should help financially and offer emotional support.  I can say from personal experience that marriage won't work.  Mine really ended three years ago.  I stuck it out for my son but worked most of the time.  Not worth it.  I wish I had filed two years ago.

   

• theobjectionist said on May 18, 2007....

  Abortion is an evil that is needed in society. The idea of ending a human is life is troublesome but in reality you are not killing a human person, just a small group of undifferented cells.

• TinSoldier said on May 18, 2007....

  For me, though, once it is no longer a "small group of undifferentiated cells" it becomes ethically problematic.
  
  Once the average person can recognize some human qualities -- a heartbeat, a nervous system and a brainstem, head and hands and torso, legs, and feet -- then at that point it becomes a child to me, with most of the rights and responsibilities that that entails.
  
  
  

• D6fer said on May 18, 2007....

  I think that we are becoming so jaded to immoral behavior that abortion has become an option to more people than it would have been 30 years ago.

• theobjectionist said on May 19, 2007....

  I think immoral behavior is a subjective term as morality itself is subjective.

  Is it immoral to use drugs? Morality doesn't play a part in this situation at all but most will say that it is immoral. However, I did not say abuse of illegal drugs, just drugs like any person would take to cure an ailment.

  My point is that morality is definately relative to a situation and a person. What a women chooses to do is up to her but I can tell you that forcing someone to give birth against their consent is VERY VERY immoral, in my view of morality.

• shiningstar said on May 19, 2007....

  For me the question might be answered by understanding why any woman would be placed into a situation of having to choose to have an abortion.  I believe that abortions are an example of a failed society. Why do women not have the money,  the means to take care of a baby? Why are most of the women in the world so poor that they know that they cannot afford a child?  Why is there such a social stigma attached to abortion?  If a man gets a woman pregnant she is the one who is looked down upon while he is considered a "stud".  These double standards are part of the problem and need to be addressed. In Iraq,  Iran and many other countries women are murdered by their own familes if they are raped.  They fault  is hers and the family faces disgrace. Children often live in the streets because they are unwanted and are social rejects due to their lack of social positioning. These should be the questions.

• D6fer said on May 19, 2007....

  theobjectionist......If the woman became pregnant without her consent then you may have a point.....but if she was a willing participant in the primary action then she has a responsibility.

• shiningstar said on May 19, 2007....

  You are so-o-o correct my friend but the responsibility is always to Self for there is no other.  Self alone makes a decision and self alone lives that decision.  Self is always the lawgiver and the one that lives the choices that each make for self. Life is an alone process from beginning to end.

• D6fer said on May 19, 2007....

  some lives just end sooner rather than later, and that individual gets no choices.

• shiningstar said on May 19, 2007....

  It is all choices, my friend. The Father has given all to each of us and granted us the freewill to do as we choose, without judgement. There are no accidents.. All freely choose to come and go according to what it is they need to learn, to grow or to help another to grow. Even to believe this or not is a choice. But it is our choice. What if a child entered a womb and changed it's mind? Does it not have the right to withdraw? What if it lives only for a few days. Does it not have that choice? Victim consciousness is religious consciousness and denies it's own power for it chooses not to have responsbility consciously. But we can all learn for it is all about to change.

• husbandhater said on May 20, 2007....

  I sincerly feel sorry for those that have problems conceiving or that can't. I would gladly offer you my eggs if I could. Just now I took a depo shot and I'm bleeding like a stuck pig and I wasn't suppose to get a period till june 1st, I'm also in the worst pain with this bleeding. This also happened when I was on the patch and had to be taken off b/c the hormones are too much for my body. I don't want to tie or cut my tubes as this is very permenant but I don't want to be pregnant for awhile and I've taken precautions so now what? And for anybody to know my husband and I are having sex maybe twice a month partly b/c I fear getting pregnant.

  So abortion should remain an option. Those that can't conceive I would like to hear that you DID adopt a child and are happy. I'm not saying that having your own should remain a dream but maybe the right child is out there awaiting you and trying to open the door for your natural born to come. This is what happened to my aunt and her husband who couldn't conceive they adpoted and she was pregnant a couple of months later with her one and only son after 10 years of marriage and fertility doctors.

  Open your heart and mind and you might find the key to your door way also. And remember that love comes in all shades and disabilitys. The beauty of life is waiting for you so go get it women and men. And it doesn't have to be an infant, a white child or a 2yrold. Widen your spetrum. I know it's easy for me to say but think about it!

• shiningstar said on May 20, 2007....

  You are so correct my friend. Just a brief word to you about my experience. I tried for 11 yrs to get pregnant.Shots,ect. Stopped trying became pregnant in 3 months.  I believe it is the stress of trying that keeps one from getting pregnant.  Just food for thought.  All children are a blessing to our world.  May we create a world of lov and peace that works for all of the children everywhere.

• cotteralladams3 said on May 20, 2007....

  It is not a big deal to Europeans, really.  I come from an immigrant family. In France, they just give you a pill to get it done and over with.  This is a Catholic country, but the French are unbothered by a lot of things, like nudity and gays.  None of this bothers me.  Really, honestly, I am more bothered by cruelty to children or animals, mistreatment of women, people living in poverty, unnecessary wars and other things.  I am bothered by people destroying nature.  This doesn't bug me, but that's my world view.  It is an issue to some people.  It can be better than the result.  Think about who is going to raise all these unwanted kids born and why should women have to give birth to them so that someone can adopt them, as if you are a better parent automatically because you are married, make money and are over thirty-five.  It has nothing to do with it.  It is fine if you want that.  I may get married again myself.  Not right now but in a few years, we want to give it time.  The adoption industry is about money, paternalism, elitism and corrupting the system.

• anonymous said on May 20, 2007....

  My ex-wife is over thirty and when we were married and she had money, she was a lousy parent, so the thought that it must be better is silly.  Actually, it is not about who gave birth to who but how you parent, though most adopted kids go looking for their biological parents suggesting that the connection is important. 

• shiningstar said on May 20, 2007....

  If third women all over the world had a real voice in the matter of abortion I am willing to bet that those who have 10 and 15 children that they cannot feed and take care of would rather have aborted.  But their religion forbids it.

• southerngirl said on May 20, 2007....

  So much informations to defend one's thought's on this subject, to kill, or let live.

• silverwhisper said on May 20, 2007....

  not everyone perceives it as killing.
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on May 20, 2007....

  What do we call it if women are forced to have children that they know they are not able to have, for health reasons,  cannot afford to have,  cannot feed and shelter?  How is it valuing a child and it's most precious life if it comes to those who cannot care for it and must slowly starve before the Mother's very eyes? --It appears that often we do not see children as equals any more than we do others from different races,  genders,  cultures or beliefs.  One example is that Mother's who have the Father's of their children abandon them  are not celebrated and looked up to like those who go to war and lose their lives .  They receive a better life,  more attention,  more money  but the same thing happens to the children in both circumstances.  Neither has a Father and the support that comes from him. Yet society treats them different in almost everyway.

• LifesLittleMistakes said on May 20, 2007....

  I am very pro-life. I believe that the only time an abortion should be preformed is when the child will be born with a major mental handicap. As for rape cases, the child is an innocent who did not get to choose and should be given a chance at life. I did a report in high school on abortion which made me sick, have you ever looked at photos ofthe babies or actually watched a video of an abortion taking place. It's horrible.

  I am 22 with two kids. They weren't planned but I never considered abortion. I was 16 when I became pregnant with my son and I got pregnant with my daughter to my than best friends husband. I do not want anymore children and am on birthcontrol, but if I did becoem pregnant I would keep the child no matter what, even if I knew it could kill me I would have the child.

  If you are not ready for children and do not want them, then you shouldn't have sex. And if you do have sex then you should go get fixed. Yes it is a womens body but it is also a life in there, not just a mass of cells. The child doesn't get to have a say it what happens to them, they should be given a chance at life. If you have a child and cant take care of him/her then give them up for adoption, it might not be the best life but at lest they have a life.  You can dissagree with me if you want to, but that is my opinion.

• cotteralladams3 said on May 21, 2007....

  I am not against morality.  I just don't think it is as black-and-white as evangelical Christians would make it.  I don't hate them but I certainly don't agree with them.  Isn't war immoral if it is not about self-defense?  I might understand the occupation of Palestine, but while it's necessary, is it right in an ideal sense?  It is necessary but the right thing to do in the long term is to negotiate a homeland to end the plight of these people.  Totally different issue, I know.

  It is not wrong to seek out an abortion, but it is better to avoid the need for it.  After having one, one should learn from one's mistakes of not using birth control.  Of course, it fails and it's not always effective.  Bad things happen to people.  People have sex when drunk or stoned, they get caught off guard, it's in the heat of the moment, adultery, financial problems, end of relationships, health problems, psychological problems, youth, need for college, travel, not wanting a child out-of-wedlock, unemployment, damage to the fetus, disabilities, substance abuse, etc.  I could go on and on.  This is why I'm pro-choice. 

  It is not murder to abort a fetus but it is wrong to have several abortions.  I might understand a second time if the fetus is severely deformed, the woman was assaulted or in an abusive relationship, a case of severe mental illness, life endangerment or substance abuse.  I believe the government should only pay for one and the second one should be paid for only under certain conditions.  Nobody gets another one after that.  If you can't learn after one, you have a problem.  If you are in a bad situation a second time, you are lucky to get it covered.  After that, you are just an idiot and it shouldn't be allowed.

• rmuxagirl said on May 21, 2007....

  If I was pregnant....abortion would never be an option.

• cotteralladams3 said on May 22, 2007....

  It is sad that people have fertility problems but if you wait till your late thirties or forties to have kids, you may need extra help.  It is sad that fertility treatments fail but it is not the fault or responsibility of an eighteen-year-old girl who gets pregnant.  It is not right for the system to do what it did in the past.  They used to force girls to give up the children.  The church and social services supported this.  I do think it is better for the girl to stay with her parents and that's why it irks me that here they give you a free two-bedroom apartment if you get pregnant.  That is fine for a twenty-five-year-old single mother of two who is going to school and working part-time.  It is better for the girl to be with the parents. 
  
  In the past, the parents could force the girl to put the kids up for adoption.  If she gets kicked out or the parents wish her to leave, she should go to a group home, shelter or be placed in foster care.  Assuming no other relative or the guy's family doesn't want her.  My point is that adoption and foster care are solutions in some situations but do not solve all problems and are not always the ideal. Family reunification can be the ideal. 

  So can helping a single parent.  I am against the assumption these girls should just be made to put up their own children for someone else's benefit and believe me, private agencies make money off of that.  In the past, social workers and government agencies would not have existed without teenage pregnancy.  It is not a new thing, you know, it was happening in the forties and fifties.  Now they don't force you to marry the guy.  That wasn't a solution, either.  Doesn't work out most of the time.  Still, a guy should pay child support, his family should help out, and he should see his kid at least two days a week.  There is a double standard on parenting for young couples.

• shiningstar said on May 22, 2007....

  One of the many issues about abortion is that the rich can afford it and the poor cannot.  The rich can go to a good doctor and be taken care of where there is no threat to their health.  But the poor are delegated to coathangers and pills that are often a threat themselves.  Back alley doctors take care of them .  This is the reason for legalized abortions.  The ISNESS is that each woman must have the choice to do what she will with her body and no one can change the fact that this is how it is.  No one can force another to do something that they do not feel is correct for them.  If we really wanted to end abortions we could make men more responsible instead of always saddling the woman with a problem that it takes two to create.

• lidstrom82 said on Jul 27, 2007....

  Abortion is kind of like divorce...nobody looks forward to it or anticipates it with excitement, but in extreme circumstances it seems like a necessary evil, or a viable choice, or something like that.
  
  Here's something interesting, though: marriages in which spouses decide divorce is not an option, usually have a high commitment level and can endure through dry periods of the marriage. What would be an equivalent to that with abortion? There's a couple options...
  
  One obvious one is just to not have sex if you're not ready for the consequences of pregnancy. For many women, being a mother is the highest achievement and honor they can reach. The miracle of creating a life is an awesome thing. But unfortunately it's seen as a burden for the unprepared. Simply not having sex until you're ready, married or not, will solve almost the entire problem in itself. Believe it or not, human beings can have that kind of self-control to abstain from sex, if for no other reason to avoid creating a life they can't care for.
  
  In extreme circumstances like sexual assault, what if the abortion causes more emotional turmoil for the woman on top of the actual assault? Giving such a baby up for adoption is affirming the baby's life while giving it a chance to be cared and loved by adoptive parents. Life is an amazing gift whether you create it with your spouse or adopt it from other parents.
  
  What about the poor? That is a tough question. It's hard to afford children, and just as hard to afford birth control to prevent pregnancy in itself.
  
  Because of the controversy, because of the aftereffects on the woman, and because life is a gift, not something to "fix" out of panic or lack of options...abortion may be best used as a last resort. Even then, I've heard of couples who kept the baby when it was a life-or-death decision between the child and the mother.
  
  I've also heard about how most women who have an ultrasound and see the fetus first, rarely have an abortion. They see the life inside them, wholly dependent upon the mother for sustenance. Unfortunately, I wonder how many abortions occurred from an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality, that as long as the mother didn't see what would be terminated, it was an easier choice to make. That is faulty thinking, friends. If it's that hard to witness, maybe one should reconsider the abortion in the first place.
  
  As a child who lived, I'm happy that my mother loved me enough to affirm my life.
  

• D6fer said on Jul 28, 2007....

  well said lidstrom82.....I recently had my thoughts on abortion put to the test....it is a tough decision....we thought our daughter could be pregnant....my wife wanted her to get an abortion if she was....I was tempted...but then brought forth the adoption option.

• bloc said on Jul 28, 2007....

  @d6
  I know that we get into at times, but I wish you and your family the best. I'm glad that it seems that situation is OK now. One of my cousins went through that and went the adoption route after getting help from planned parenthood.
  
  lid said: "I've also heard about how most women who have an ultrasound and see the fetus first, rarely have an abortion. They see the life inside them, wholly dependent upon the mother for sustenance"
  
  
  Here is where the abortion debate usually breaks down. I absolutely believe that a baby in the 3rd trimeser is a baby. However, I do not believe that 4 cells, that require a microscope to see, is a baby. Most pro-lifers fail to acknowledge this point of view. 

• silverwhisper said on Jul 29, 2007....

  that's why most pro-lifers argue that life begins at conception: there's no one place at which you can point at a zygote or fetus and say "here it's [x] but there it's a baby". kinda sidesteps the whole thing.
  
  ed

• D6fer said on Jul 30, 2007....

  bloc...thanks

• lidstrom82 said on Jul 30, 2007....

  That's a really tough one...4 cells can't sustain itself very well, but neither can a fully formed baby at birth. Left uncared for, the baby will die in both cases. From conception till early childhood, during pregnancy and after birth, that being is completely dependent upon the mother for all its needs, and later both parents for shelter and protection.
  
  When people realize they are pregnant, they know that means eventually, barring medical complication or tragedy, they will have a baby within the year. It's going to happen. Do they carry the baby to term and raise it? Put it up for adoption? Have an abortion because the pregnancy was under brutal circumstances? Abort because they can't afford a baby? Go through with it with an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality?
  
  It's seems like a double standard when we have people advocating the rights of animals, caring for their pets better than they do for other people, and doing all these things to promote life in other ways...and yet aborting a fetus because they can.
  
  What if some advocate abortion at very early conception because they'd rather do it before those cells become something much more? What if it's a selfish urge inside to "terminate the baby before it forms into arms and legs and we have to deal with our conscience?" I know this is not the thinking behind all abortions...it is merely food for thought. In fact, it's almost better in some ways to not let a child live, than for a child to be raised without hope or health or proper nurturing from parents.  It might be said a baby in Heaven is better than a child taught wrong, or uncared for, and thus putting them through Hell. But that doesn't make us "right" necessarily for aborting a baby and saving them from possible pain. What it is, simply, is God making the most out of our often-misguided decisions. I say misguided because there are women who aborted a baby because it made sense at the time, but are haunted emotionally by the consequences. I'd want to save them from that pain.
  

• bloc said on Jul 30, 2007....

  "It's seems like a double standard when we have people advocating the rights of animals, caring for their pets better than they do for other people, and doing all these things to promote life in other ways...and yet aborting a fetus because they can."
  
  
  This is where the debate breaks down. pro lifers use the term fetus to apply to what are two distinct things in the eyes of someone like myself. I agree with you if you are talking about a fetus in the 3rd trimester for example, but not if you are calling 4 cells a fetus. 
  
  
  Speaking of double standards, i'm always intrigued to see how pro lifers can defend the death penalty or wars like the one in Iraq. It seems to contradict their "value of life".

• lidstrom82 said on Jul 30, 2007....

  My usage of the word fetus was referring to any baby conceived in the womb regardless of cells, but I just looked and found that "fetus" actually refers to the baby from the end of the 8th week and beyond until birth, so my usage of it was erroneous. The correct term is apparently embryo.
  
  For the sake of the topic at hand - abortion - we can save the more political comments for another blog, bloc :) It is probably best to value all life, though what do we do in matters of self-defense in war? It's a tricky issue at best.
  
  But with abortion, for what it is, we've got a bun in the oven and from what I understand bloc, you don't support abortion in the third trimester. How do we figure out the rights of an unborn child without its major bodily components formed? That's a sticky issue for sure.
  
  So with the terminology now clear, a fetus is the baby after 8 weeks, and is an embryo in the first 8 weeks prior. The point remains that we can value life in other ways, but why not a baby regardless of its developmental stage? I agree about the third trimester, bloc, I just take the idea more to the extreme in that a less-developed being that is not a formed baby yet is still grounds to defend that life and let it grow, rather than abort. That's just my position on the matter.
  
  D6fer, I'm glad that you had a good perspective on it. Unfortunately, we can't always predict the effect an abortion will have on women emotionally and psychologically. In my time of studying psychology, there can be devastating effects on the woman, and some of them carry that pain with them the rest of their lives. I don't believe they merely feel that guilt because of pro-lifers condemning them. I think deep down, those women understand the value of life, and it is unnatural to abort the embryo, or fetus. The later it's done, the worse the negative effects tend to be.
  
  I heard of a state that was considering a law that would make it mandatory for women to have an ultrasound before going through with an abortion. The idea is that the woman would see the child inside them and decide not to. Making it mandatory may not be the best way to regulate it (should the government have a hand in that?), but what are those women recognizing when they have an ultrasound and decide against the abortion? Is it a need to uphold life? We're not talking about an enemy on a battlefield, or a convicted killer. This is its own issue. Human life is human life, to be sure. Question is, does an embryo have the same rights as a born child or adult? Namely, the right to life? What do you guys think?
  
  
  

• bloc said on Jul 30, 2007....

  In my view 4 cells do not have feeling or Consciousness so there is no harm done if we abort it. 
  
  "The point remains that we can value life in other ways, but why not a baby regardless of its developmental stage? "
  
  I know I'm repeating myself, but words matter. 4 cells are not a baby in my eyes. I believe that we should value the life of a baby, but 4 cells is not a baby.
  
  
  Another interesting tangent is the meaning of life. You clearly mean human life. Have you seen the way animals are treated in factory farms? I'm always left wondering how people that make such passionate arguments about protecting the life of 4 cells will at the same time passively support the abuses of animals. If 4 cells are worthy of protection why not  living cow?

• lidstrom82 said on Jul 30, 2007....

  The answer to that is, God gave us dominion over animals to provide clothing, shelter, food, and the like. Brutalizing them isn't a good thing, just as exploiting people in sweatshops for clothes ain't a good thing. Thing is, how responsible are we for that?
  
  I understand what you mean about 4 cells not being a baby. We're just of a different mind about that, that's all.
  
  
  

• bloc said on Jul 30, 2007....

  " Thing is, how responsible are we for that?"
  
  Well, most pro-lifers are die hard republicans which also means die hard free market supporters. If a person pays for food that comes for brutality are they not responsible in some way; especially if they believe that the government should take a back seat to the market?

• lidstrom82 said on Jul 31, 2007....

  Hey bloc, you want to talk politics or abortion? :)

• bloc said on Jul 31, 2007....

  i was trying to talk about the value of life, but yeah, it's a tangent. I'm not sure if these things can be completely removed from politics, but politics wasn't the point I was making. My point is that I believe we bear at least some responsibility for the things we passively support such as factory farms. 
  
  
  
  

• lidstrom82 said on Jul 31, 2007....

  Sure they're/we're responsible, that's why I posed the question. The topic was abortion, so I was wondering where the comments about diehard republicans and government and all were coming from.

• bloc said on Jul 31, 2007....

  because the pro-life movement tends to be heavily republican and heavy republicans usually believe that the market should regulate itself for the most part.
  
  
  Assuming a person is pro-life and generally against regulation then they have to take moral responsibility for their choices for food sources and the practices of those food sources.
  
  
  Again, there seems to be a lot of overlap between pro-lifers and the pro death penalty movement.  
  
  
  Basically, I'm endlessly fascinated by the impassioned pleas of the pro life movement given it's support of things in other realms which seem to betray the "value of life".

• lidstrom82 said on Jul 31, 2007....

  That makes sense, bloc. It really does.
  
  I use the Bible as a starting point, in that abortion is never really discussed as far as I know, and murder isn't allowed; however, putting someone to death for committing an offense is endorsed.
  
  Personally, I don't really see military strength being able to stabilize Iraq's government, and I don't think sophisticated weapons are going to talk the loudest when confronting an enemy with a political and religious agenda against the western world.
  
  The death penalty is a shaky issue. The Bible does condone putting to death an offender, but then again, you have Jesus saving a woman from stoning when caught in adultery, an offense punishable by death in those days. Which speaks louder? Death, or grace? I can't control pregnant women considering abortion, or those in the justice system who decide whether or not to condemn someone to death, but I would hope to avoid loss of life whenever possible.
  
  As for cruelty to animals in terms of processing meat, or exploitation in sweatshops, I think the American public is largely unaware of where their sustenance and clothing comes from. Not all sources of meat and clothing are bad, but most of us buy things without thinking twice. I agree on taking responsibility; in fact I wish it were done more.
  
  To me, democrats do not have a strong base yet. Obama would probably be my choice in that arena. Conservative Republicans have pushed too hard and have come across like bullies or misinformed old fogies, I dunno...but I sure don't like the ultra right wing movements of evangelicals in the Republican party. Jesus Christ is not a tool to be shared in a political arena to "win back the government", but a personal faith to be shared with others.
  
  Everyone values life to some extent, but it seems we all differ on what counts as worthy to let live.
  
  
  

• cotteralladams3 said on Jul 31, 2007....

  The moderate pro-choice argument is stolen by people who think that teenage pregnancy is a good idea and insist on offering daycare, welfare and apartments through social services to teens. There are other options, including adoption. A girl should keep her kid only if the courts deem her fit to be a parent and her parents will support her. Then the system can step if absolutely necessary and she should have to take a parenting course, continue her education and join a support group. Ironically, the PAC at many schools oppose birth control and sex education. Put these two ideas together and it is no wonder there is a high rate of teenage pregnancy accompanied by substance abuse, poor nutrition, STD's and a lack of prenatal care. Common sense dictates that nobody under nineteen is bound to be a good parent. The guys walk off. It is this idea that girls must have sex at age fifteen, whether or not they want to. It is peer pressure, not the availablity of contraception and condoms, that encourages this. I would prefer if they're going to do it, give them protection against STD's and pregnancy. Still, something should be done about peer pressure and attitudes towards young women. The whole expectation that girls must sleep with guys for their attention and cannot say no. Some of them lack self-esteem.

• bloc said on Jul 31, 2007....

  The death penalty is a tough subject. Most people start with the assumption that a persons guilt is known absolutely, yet this is not the case. All human run systems are error prone and there will be errors in handing out the death penalty. How can we accept the state killing an innocent person by mistake if we value life to such a degree that killing 4 cells is called murder?
  
  
  I'm endlessly fascinated by peoples moral beliefs, what they are based on, and how they are applied to different situations. Unfortunately, most people have only given superficial thought to their morality. 

• lidstrom82 said on Jul 31, 2007....

  I think it might be that the media is at least partly responsible for sending up sexualized images of teenagers. You've got MTV who simultaneously studies young teens for trends while also broadcasting what is acceptable for our young generation. You might call it clever marketing, or insidious, but if TV raises our children more than the parents do, you'd better believe that what kids see on a screen - tv, movie, computer, etc. - will make them curious about what all the excitement is about sex.
  
  Teenage girls largely struggle with self-image and confidence, and boys their age are mostly too immature to guide them in a respectable way. Not all men are ogres, but if the mainstream media gives us images that we continually accept, we're going to have sex on the brain fairly often. You might not be thirsty until you see a Pepsi ad, and then you've got the idea in your mind. If you see enough sex, you're probably going to have a more difficult time controlling your hormones and your sexual urges, especially if you're a teenager.
  
  How do we say contraceptives or abstinence is cool? Simply by appealing to the brain they have. Assume they know a thing or two, and give them the facts. If pregnancy only occurs naturally through sex, will a 15 year old girl be that eager to start, knowing the possible event of pregnancy? Is it really worth it to live in fear of what the pregnancy test says, when you're in the middle of high school and struggling with your image enough as it is?
  
  I'd have to say that sadly, the messages we see every day helps necessitate the peer pressure, because it tells teens what is socially acceptable, without informing them of std's or pregnancy or the emotional distress of bad relationships that get too physical too soon.
  

• D6fer said on Jul 31, 2007....

  bloc...or any pro-abortionist for that matter......I have a question for you....the incubation period for a chickens egg to hatch is 21 days....up until what day would you feel comfortable watching someone smash it with a hammer?

• anonymous said on Jul 31, 2007....

  Good one D!

• bloc said on Jul 31, 2007....

  I wouldn't feel comfortable watching anyone smash it with a hammer for no good reason. 

• TealDragonfly said on Aug 09, 2007....

  I would have to say I am a pro-lifer, although, I often times wonder how powerful a movement it would be if the pro-lifer's and pro-choicer's pooled their resources and aimed directly at the crux of the issue...preventing unwanted conceptions.
   
  I do recognize that my belief system is based on the assumption that life begins at conception and that is in fact an assumption. Even in Roe vs. Wade, the determination of when life begins and the legal aspect of abortion was sleekly sidestepped by the court stating that that determination would require the expertise in fields the members did not have and stuck to the issue truly at hand, were Texas abortion statutes unconstitutional. My mother is of the belief that abortion is wrong except in the case of rape, molestation, etc. In her terms, "if you play you pay"...to me..that isn't pro life, it's pro punishment.
   
  If those in power to make law avoid the issue like the plague, who am I to determine for the world? What I know is what I believe so I am compelled to behave accordingly, however, I not only lack the power to make decisions for others, but also lack the accountability for their actions.
   
  I was told I couldn't have children when I was 16, and then proceeded to get pregnant when I was 19. It was sooo not the ideal situation, but I was grateful to be able to have children. The duality of the experience really demonstrated to me that depending on the upbringing, the experience, the desire for children, the circumstance, etc. wieghs heavily in people's view on this topic. There is nothing more personal or intimate than having another human growing inside you (and in respect for fathers, to have contributed a unique part of you in the creation of another human). How do you legislate or moralize something that goes so far beyond gender, race, citizenship, personal rights, geography, religious beliefs and culture? Not something I feel I am equipt to do.
   
  On a similar note, the death penalty has also been mentioned, essentially I view that as retro-active abortion and am against that as well for the exact same reasons. Life is not deserving of life simply because it is innocent IMNSHO. I'm not certain anyone can 'deserve' life. But I am certain that it is not my place to take a life. (That having been said, I *am* human..and there are a number of people whom I think the best part of them ended up on the sheets. Was that too graphic?)

• D6fer said on Aug 09, 2007....

  nah....feel free....be graphic as you like! I like your take on this......I disagree on the death penalty though....I think it is a necessary evil if you will....A deterent....murderers have had their chance at life, and chose the path they walk....I don't however believe all should be killed....depends on the circumstances......catch a guy screwing your wife and kill him in rage....no death penalty......break into a home, rape, murder, mutilate and burn a small child.....then hang em high!

• TealDragonfly said on Aug 09, 2007....

  In regards to the necessary evil of the death penalty, I do not feel it is the only option we have. The concept of laws and punishments for the breaking of those laws is essentially to protect our society. We can protect society via imprisonment. My view is that if you reject the laws of a community then you are forfeiting your rights and protection under that community. Therefore, you can live with all others who also have rejected the community. This would mean figure out your own source of food, electricity, medical care, etc., and regulate yourselves in any way you see fit. You just can't do it within the society you are exiled from. The way I see it, choosing to be lawless equates the loss of the protection from law.
   
  I do realize there is a huge difference between specific crimes, and I haven't fully concluded how that would be dissected, but the general idea in my mind is the differentiation between a crime against an individual vs. a crime against the society. ie: stealing a car would be a crime against the individual, killing or maiming a child would be a crime against the society.
   
  Alternatively...we could just make shooting people legal for any reason or even no reason. We'd probably lose a lot of good people in the first 30 days or so...but after that...I would imagine we would have a much more polite society. (ok, being sarcastic here).
   
  Honestly though, it is irrational to me (for example) that as a nation we do not have basic medical care available to all, however inmates do (despite the fact that what they do have sucks..it's still more than what a lot of law abiding citizens have available).
   
  I did have to chuckle at the no death penalty for killing a guy sleeping with your wife though. Is that a guy thing? If I were prone to reacting that way, I'd be much more inclined to shooting the spouse that broke their vows than the person who made me no promises and owed me nothing.

• shiningstar said on Aug 09, 2007....

  A woman's body belongs to her and her alone.  It must be her discision as to abortor not.  It will be her life that she dedicates to years of child raising and if she does not want to do that,  is unable or feels unable both she and the child will pay the price.Society in general also pays the price as children who are raised by uncaring Mothers or those unable to provide for them often end up on the streets,  on drugs, suicidal and on the government dole. Until there is a law on where and how and when to display and use a penis I remain dedicated to the woman's right to choose.

• D6fer said on Aug 11, 2007....

  actually....no one can be turned away for medical attention in this country....so in a sense we do already have national health care....I just don't think that the people that are currently mismanaging trillions of dollars are going to be able to manage a health care system.

• shiningstar said on Aug 11, 2007....

  People are turned away every day for healthcare free and otherwise. People who have not experienced Americas healthcare system often see it as it is.  People are turned away and just stop trying to get healthcare after being refused for so long or even humiliated for asking for it. There are medical teams that fly all over the world to operate on children with cleft plate for free yet we in America have children who cannot speak because of this condition and are in their 50's. If we took care of our own in stead of flying doctors out of the country to take care of others we perhaps would be ina better position in most of the problems that now face this country. What a woman does with her personal body is far down on my list of problems today.When they pass lawson what a male can and cannot do with his penis I might want to take another look at the womens issue of her body and her rights.Since the focus of abortion is placed on abstinence perhaps if a huge fine was imposed on men who took their organ out and used it to plant an unwanted seed that would help.  Or perhaps science can use the new technology to reverse the deed and allow the seed to go back to the male that implanted it and allow him the pleasure of having his seed in his own body and watching,  feeling it grow. Then he can have the equal pleasure of raising it and caring for it just as Mothers have always done. I guarantee it would change the male perspective about both Motherhood and abortion.

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 14, 2007....

  As bad as America's health care system can be, not every country's medical care system has it all. It might be a service extended to the government for all its citizens and more, but you'll still have people waiting months for all sorts of ailments. I know what you mean about men being able to conceive, shining. It would give a certain perspective of appreciation toward women and their plight in giving birth - the pains of childbirth are not equalled in naturally occurring male anatomy, if I'm not mistaken. Life is a precious thing to be defended, so ultimately the responsibility is up to the parents, married or not, to respect it. If a couple find they are pregnant and cannot support the baby, they probably shouldn't have been having sex in the first place. That's the kind of responsibility I'm talking about. Don't support the cause if you can't deal with the effect. There are vicious men who would force sex upon women in a disrespectful, even violent manner. It is an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy for the woman. In those cases, you could abort, but there are instances where the abortion procedure emotionally scars a woman for life. It lends credibility to the idea that abortion is an unnatural process that can have more than physical consequences. I would hate for a woman who got pregnant from rape to go through with an abortion and have to deal with the added pain of terminating an embryo/fetus, depending upon the development of the baby in the womb.

• D6fer said on Aug 14, 2007....

  never ceases to amaze me....people using wild hypotheticals to make a point.....women know what their reproductive organs do, and are for.....men and women are different....men do not need perspective on what it is like to be a woman, because they have their own role in life.....why can't we leave it at that? let men be men and women be women....we all have our own burdens respectively.

• TealDragonfly said on Aug 15, 2007....

  It always intrigues me when I hear women (my own mother included) speak of the unspeakable pain of childbirth. Maybe I have a high pain tolerance, maybe I just experience it differently but I gotta say, I'd take giving birth over a broken bone any day of the week. (And I've done plenty of both including a ruptured uterus).
   
  I do have to agree with lidstrom82 in that if you aren't prepared for the consequences, you shouldn't play the game. Unfortunately, we all know it doesn't work that way for many people.
   
  In the case of rape, I watched a close friend of the family's go through that ordeal, she chose to give birth, her husband was absolutely amazing in that he was very supportive of keeping the child as his own if she wanted to as well. In the end she gave the little boy up for adoption, mostly because she was afraid that her reaction over time would be unfair to the child whether she intended it or not. It was such a painful experience for the two of them, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Nor would I want to be the one standing in judgement of her decisions.
   
  D6fer...I agree that it isn't neccisary for men to experience childbirth, however, as you say, men have their own role in life...one of them being provider for the offspring their reproductive organs contribute to. I think the ills that lay between the genders on this topic are far more societal than chromosome. Accountability has become a choice in recent generations and that has nothing to do with possession of a penis vs. a womb.

• shiningstar said on Aug 15, 2007....

  TealDragonfly;  of course it has everything to do with penis versus womb. Women ,  traditionally,  are the ones who raise the children.  I would venture to say that if all of the men who used their PENIS to create a child,  stayed around and raised it and supported it as a father is supposed to do,  finanically and emotionally there would be few of the social problems that exist in todays world.  Women are PRESENT at birth and usually for the duration whereas men appear to be "sperm donators"  wanting no responsibility for the offspring produced from their sexual encounter.  The bright side of this is that children were no longer raised with that dominating male in the house who tormented them.  Women received the worst by becoming both Mother and breadwinners but at least she did not have to listen to a male tell her that he was made to rule over her. Now the males are in confusion for no one wants to listen to them anymore.

• D6fer said on Aug 15, 2007....

  I agree with you both....there should be accountability....I think a man that contributes to a life has a responsibility to that life......freeze his assets if neccesary!

• shiningstar said on Aug 15, 2007....

  D6fer;  Look at the men who produce 10 or more children but are unable to fully support one/  Freezing assets will not work unless the organ is rendered unoperational.--Just a wk or so ago remember the Jim Brown case where 12 children appeared after his death? I teach consciousness because it is only the personal consciousness of each person that will ever change this situation.Even if condoms and birth control pills were given out for free the people would continue to produce children. How many Catholics are there in the world who would refuse and how about most of the other third world religions?.  It appears that those who seem to need it the most refuse it based on religious beliefs.

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 15, 2007....

  You can't blame religion for all such bad choices, shining. A man with no religion, whether false or true religion, has even less of a stable morality to hold themselves to, other than their upbringing, which isn't always healthy or benevolent. I'm tellin' y'all, religious or not, we're all sinful. It's the same thing as saying we're not perfect, which more people actually agree with.
  
  Sinful people will make bad choices of who to sleep with, whether or not to use contraceptives, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or just having a lack of self-control. I think it's going to be hard to control any such behavior unless there is a universal morality to hold everyone up to the same standard, not only to avoid getting pregnant, but to those considering rape.
  
  
  

• shiningstar said on Aug 15, 2007....

  I did not say the word "sinful".  Any person can see that where religion rules women are severly oppressed,  have no rights and bear children they cannot feed.Yes,  religion creates this!  The only sure way to end abortions is to do away with the male part that creates the children,  which by the  way, the male is note required to stay around and raise or support the children.

• TealDragonfly said on Aug 15, 2007....

  shiningstar...accountability is not gender specific. It is the woman's womb, she needs to take care in what she participates in placing there, it is the man's sperm, he needs to take care in where he's depositing it. Yes, typically it has been the women who have raised the children. That is a choice they have made. The ability to abandon your child is not restricted simply because you have a uterus. *Any* woman is able to leave their child at any time just as many men can't even fathom leaving their child.
   
  I would wholeheartedly agree that if both parents committed to the child (regardless of the relationship between the two of them) that the child would benefit. It takes both genders to create a life and I believe the ideal is that both would raise it. Mother Nature..she's not so stupid. (IMNSHO).
   
  In regards to the men who produce 10 children they can't provide for...where is the intelligence of the women bearing these children? I think I might be a bit more offended by the actions of my gender than those of these men. And just so misogynist doesn't spring to mind, I have two ex-husbands that are as useless as tits on a boar. I can rant and rave all I want about what losers they are, ok, they are, But ultimately my decision to have my children was mine, as was keeping them, as was being a big enough moron to have them with obviously the wrong two guys. That does not excuse their abject lameness as human beings in my book. (Ok..so maybe I'm a tad bitter..lol.)
   
  As for how many catholics would refuse to use condoms or birth control pills? Well, I'm catholic, my mother is catholic. She has 8 children, two are adopted, two are her step children, she wanted one of her own (me). Desparate to not have more children (finances) she stepped outside the norm of her faith. My younger sister was conceived while she was using an IUD, my younger brother was conceived using spermicide and condoms and my youngest sister was conceived while she was on the pill. Finally she cut my dad off until he got 'fixed'. Ah..abstinence can be effective. My point is, the Catholic church does provide for methods of family planning, they just require some thought and effort. (ok, it's a royal pain...but if you're serious..it works at least as well as other forms especially considering the inconsistant ways bc often times gets used).
   
  Third world countries are a whole other issue. Take the sudanese for example...the value of the continuation of their culture is placed above the lives lost to keep it. It could be their culture, their religious beliefs or their societal construct. We may not like it, we may be horrified with it. But it is theirs to value as they see fit. Much like the original topic. I believe a life begins at conception, as such, abortion is no more and no less than killing a five year old to me. However, I also recognize that as strongly as I believe that, others believe life begins later in the pregnancy or at birth just as strongly. Until I can absolutely prove when life begins, or absolutely refute other's beliefs, I am in no position to sit in judgement, let alone legislate another's beliefs, especially when it comes to something so inately personal as reproduction.
   

• TealDragonfly said on Aug 15, 2007....

  shiningstar...there are actually two ways to get rid of abortion. Castrate all the men, or remove all the uterus'. I'm just curious, why is it that men should be held accountable for the whole conception? You almost make it sound like we women are inept or incapable of thinking or acting in our own interest. And yet...who is it that are raising the majority of these men? Who typically spends the most hours with them during their formative years? Hell, who outnumbers men world wide?
   
  What man jumped up and said..."This child rearing stuff sucks sooooooooo badly that facing my death while hunting the mammoth is a piece of cake in comparison." Call me crazy, but I'll take the kidlets any day of the week!

• shiningstar said on Aug 17, 2007....

  I think all are taking this on a more personal basis than universal.  Sure there are exceptions to every rule but I believe it is EASY to see the countries that are more under religious rule have women with no rights.  Look at Mexico mainly Catholic. Iran,  Iraq,  Pakistan,  Isreal the list goes on, where women are murdered for being raped and abortion is not an option.  Nor is any kind of birth control and what man wants to contro; his sexual urges if there are no consequences for him?

• D6fer said on Aug 17, 2007....

  Shining....last time I checked....all of the women I see come equipped with a mouth....and with some training, they could be taught to form the word "no"....see the man follows his urges and in the case of non-rape, he asks if the woman would like to have sex with him...then it is her option to say yes or no.....I know if I had the ability(or curse) of having a living being forced through a small orafice in my body...creating massive pain.....I would weigh my options very carefully on whom I would be having sex with!....You seem to think pregnancies are all the fault of men and their penis....while women have been using their vaginas for millions of years to get what they want from a man.....how about some equality in blame here?

• pickersplock said on Aug 17, 2007....

  Ooh, ooh, ooh!

  I know how to say NO, D!!!!

• TealDragonfly said on Aug 17, 2007....

  shiningstar...I get what you're saying, and there is no way in hell I would want to live in a country that didn't allow the freedoms I have. However, when we are speaking of other cultures it is very difficult to understand the acceptance that is demonstrated when we were raised in cultures whose beliefs differ drastically. (Bear in mind, this is not a defense of any particular culture.)
   
  Take sweat shops, from the american perspective these are wrong, inhumane etc. On the other hand, americans  working "only" 8 hours a day, "only" 40 hours a week, "only" five days in a row is viewed by many cultures as simply being lazy and expecting 'entitlement'.
   
  My point is, that what you are suggesting is that someone outside the culture  in question should be allowed to dictate how that culture evolves. To my way of thinking, that is the same violation as someone dictating what another person can do with their bodies, albeit on a macro level.
   
  D6fer...I have to agree with shiningstar in that the choice to say 'no' is not always available in some cultures. Of course, it wasn't always available in ours..it is now. Proof positive that cultures can and do change.

• shiningstar said on Aug 18, 2007....

  I have not said that anyone is to dictate to anyone.  What I have said is that religions dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her body as opposed to men who have never had such dictates imposed on them. Of course women can SOMETIMES choose who invades her body and implants a child.  However in religious socitites there are no equal rights for women and a male can have sex with her ANYTIME HE CHOOSES.  Not her choice at all.Women have been know to have 30 children in one lifetime.  It is also a programming whereas women are taught and raised that it is their portion in life to produce as many of their kind as they can. Programming is not choice.----In the South,  where I live and was raised,  women allow the men to choose what to eat,  where to eat, what house to live in and where, what TV station to watch.  Everything,  traditionally has been how tp please a man and live as his "help-mate".  Not live for self,  take responsibility for self and make choices that work for woman.

• D6fer said on Aug 18, 2007....

  yeah yeah....I get the whole against her will thing...that much we can agree on....anyone who is being intelligent about it and opposes that kind of treatment of women, should certainly consider whom they vote for....the dems could care less about women of other cultures....they prove that every time they speak of opposing our efforts  in the mid-east.....my point is more domesticly speaking, where the majority of abortion takes place as a matter of birth control.

• TealDragonfly said on Aug 18, 2007....

  So..not being from the south, I suppose I can't truly take objection to your presentation of how the hundreds of thousands + people function in gender roles there, but I do have to say I know a helluva lot of southern men and women who function as responsible and respectful couples and individuals. I must just attract anomalies of all sorts. ;-)
   

• shiningstar said on Aug 18, 2007....

  A lot of women LOOK free but sometimes if they knew the entire story  it may not be so.  And I do not think it is a southern thing.  Religion is everywhere and the male dominates. It is like abuse. Many women do not LOOK abused but they are.Because of the religious hold in the USA the Bible Belt is still the most uneducated and have the highest rate of abortions legal and non-legal. What goes on behind closed doors is often not what is presented to others outside.

• TealDragonfly said on Aug 18, 2007....

  I know the mental and emotional dynamics of domestic violence all too well. But as you say, nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors. There are seven forms of domestic violence, physical being only being one of them. Sadly, women are very well represented among the perpetrators.
   
  I do find it interesting that the arguement is that these women being forced to have sex and give birth because of male and religious dominance are actually 'bucking the system' and having abortions regardless of that male and religious dominance.

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 20, 2007....

  Whoa now, I just think shining is blaming religion for abuse of women. We're not in the early 20th century anymore, pal. The Bible Belt is most likely much more educated than you say, but male dominance really only factors in to isolated cases of abuse or rape. Yes, they happen, but no, they're not the norm. And in the case of the Bible Belt, they are NOT facilitated by religious means. What an insidious thing to say, that the Bible Belt is uneducated, and suggesting it's a good example of male dominance. Why not point to Thailand and Cambodia, where children are sold as prostitutes to men who are sex tourists, taking a week off of work to get pleasure from children forced to give it. No shining, the Bible Belt is the least of our problems. And suggesting it came from religious means (aka Christian, if we're talking about the Bible Belt) is no less than you demonstrating religious prejudice.
  

• shiningstar said on Aug 20, 2007....

   82  I was raised in the  good ole Bible Belt and live in it today so please ALLOW me to share on this post with others as to what I have seen, live in and know as a lifetime fact.What you believe is ,  indeed,  your business,  but so is what I believe mine.-- And,  Yes,  indeed,  I do blame religion for teaching the abuse of women.  And they have done so since they began.  Just what do you think male dominence is all about 82?  Male dominating over who?  the only sex left is female.  Perhaps you should check out the history of your chosen religion for it is filled with oppression and suppression of all women.

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 20, 2007....

  Yes, Christian (and all human history) is marked with oppression. It's our sinfulness shining, whether we believe in Jesus as the savior from our own sins or not.
  
  But the fact remains that you cannot judge ALL religion by ONE region where ONE religion is dominant. You can't say the Bible Belt is indicative of where all oppression and suppression come from. The Bible does not support it. The Bible contains slaves, but God outlines loving guidelines for slaveowners regarding slaves - thus, slavery in the Bible is not the oppressive, demeaning practice that mankind made it to be not that long ago.
  
  In the same way, women were created as helpers and supporters to men, and that is the original biblical intent - not the oppression and suppression that people have justified with religious, social, or gender role reasons.
  
  So in effect, even though your fellow man justifies things with not just religion but other influences, you are blaming all religion for the problem of abortion. And I just feel that's short-sighted. You can explain your position if you want, but will you admit its faulty when given more information?
  

• shiningstar said on Aug 20, 2007....

  Women  ARE NOT created to be helpers and supporters of men.  It is this religious thinking that creates Lifetimes,  generations of oppression and supression of women and makes them such easy prey for sexual exploitation. Women are EQUAL to any man,  any time,  any place,  any where. Why do we fight for equal rights all over the world if THE MEN  of the world can not even see their own Mothers and sisters as equals and free them?  Such a tradgedy that any male on the planet lives with such demeaning beliefs about women.

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 20, 2007....

  I don't disagree that "religious thinking" has caused some awful oppression, shining. It's just that the Bible hasn't necessitated those beliefs. You'll find mankind has interpreted it wrong and made bad conclusions from God's Word - everything from the Crusades to bombing abortion clinics, to the Spanish Inquisition and that "Jesus Camp" movie. Even the Old Testament portrays women without some rights they enjoy today.
  Consider though, that many Christian churches have female pastors, deaconesses, and church leaders. Women are equipped to lead. The Bible teaches that all people are equal in the sight of God, and getting away from that in any way IS demeaning. I agree with you there, shining. But I don't believe it is rooted in religious thinking. It's rooted in human sin.

• bloc said on Aug 20, 2007....

  @lid
  the parts of the Bible I've read portray women as beneath men. Did we have this discussion before?

• shiningstar said on Aug 20, 2007....

  Again ,  I say,  if you have not read of the  history of your religion,  regardless of what it is, all religions have systematically created the abuse of women,  their inequality, their suffering and placed men over them as if they were children. The plight of the American Indian and the Black people was directed by the religions who also claimed to make their people as children with the males of religion over them. I cannot name one righteous thing that religion has contributed to the world. But I do believe that there is a chance that they might one day bring forth something worthy to the world.  Where there is life there is hope.  Peace

• anonymous said on Aug 23, 2007....

  no one is going to school themself on the development of a child when the child is not wanted, the only information these parties would want to know, is can i get rid of this burden, most worrier about the outcome of there feeling after, when the process is over.

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 23, 2007....

  Hey bloc! My memory's a bit hazy about a previous discussion of this...what did we conclude on it? Can you reference some scripture you read about women being beneath men?
  
  To my knowledge, Eve was created from Adam, and they were both fully formed at their creation, not grown as a child from the womb. Eve was the one who ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and gave it to Adam, but I wouldn't conclude from that that women are weak and should be deprived of rights.
  
  Shining, religion has made a mockery of God's Word, and Muslim extremists are making a mockery of the Koran today. It's not unheard of. I believe the Bible, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is the one truth to follow - what mankind has made of it, which you could call religion, has not always been good.
  

• bloc said on Aug 23, 2007....

  my memory is fuzzy as well, which is why I asked. It was discussed, but I can't remember if you were involved or not.
  
  
  Here is a list of some quotes from the bible. Keep in mind that I don't konw the context, and in some cases I don't find the quotes bothersome. However, some of the them appear to be clear sexism to me.

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 23, 2007....

  Thanks for the info, bloc, I appreciate it.
  
  Just looking at the verses, some of them are in line with what God intended, some were out of context (that is, it wasn't supporting the sexism claimed by the source), and some I'll have to look into.
  
  It is God's intention that a man be morally upright, gaining his strength from God, and that by following God, he is a noble and blameless man. In this way, he is the spiritual head of his household, leading and protecting his wife.
  
  When we get away from God's intention, we have men who are anything but leaders, and I understand how that angers women - they deserve a man who can take care of their needs as a husband - no wife wants a man that does not contribute to the marriage, or doesn't make the wife feel safe and wanted.
  
  The verse in Leviticus about a woman becoming unclean after giving birth to man - God was establishing laws of sanitation, for the protection of the mother, for His people. It didn't make the woman inferior by being unclean - it was protecting her health while her body healed from the childbirth.
  
  The Ecclesiastes verse - apparently, Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, and it is basically about how he was just about the wisest man who ever lived. With that wisdom, he knew exactly what things in life were worth having, and what wasn't. He said "everything is meaningless!" before concluding that God was the most worthwhile purpose to live for. I believe he also warned against a foolish woman - whose heart is snares and nets, who trap foolish men, but those who listen to God will not be fazed by her. Clearly, it's not all women in general Solomon is warning against, so that verse was taken out of context by the source.
  
  The Job verse explains that anyone born of a woman - that is, everyone except Adam and Eve - is not justified with God (in other words, pleasing to God) in the  Old Testament unless they obey God. Keep in mind that this is in the  book of Job, where when satan took away everything but his life, his wife was like "curse God and die!" (exact quote). Despite that moment of whack-ness, Job apparently had his wife back, and God didn't destroy her. When Job proved God right by being righteous - even after satan killed his children, took away his land, and covered his body in painful sores - Job was given twice as much as he had before, and apparently his wife wasn't turned into a grease spot by God, after she cursed God...lol...you see, that proves God isn't chauvinistic!
  
  

• bloc said on Aug 23, 2007....

  "In this way, he is the spiritual head of his household, leading and protecting his wife. "
  
  This sounds inherently sexist to me.

• anonymous said on Aug 23, 2007....

  82--That is another thing about religious people,  like you. You all say,  think,  feel that you KNOW what "God" intended. How presumptious of all of those like you.  Just because you have been TRAINED to believe what Jehovah wanted does not include what "God"  the creator of all life wants.Since one can easily look around and see the diversity of every kind of life and life form one must know that the very thing Jehovah hates God revels in.  Peace.-----And,by the way, women are equal to any man and there is not any man ever on the planet,  including Jesus who did not come into life through the womb of a woman. How can any man deny a woman her right to be all that she can be and desire to keep her barefoot and pregnant serving him and call himself a man? Only religion creates a world where men are afraid of women and the power that they hold. Such as the comment"women getting everything" from men through their vaginas.  Pray tell what else has religion left them?  And it constantly tries to control that too.Blog will not recognize me tonight but of course it is shiningstar.

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 23, 2007....

  anon - it's not presumptuous if you just take the Bible at face value. It was written so we can know God. And the Bible does not call for women to be slaves to their men, as some have suggested.
  
  People make a big ballyhoo-hoo about the "wives, submit to your husbands" verse in the Bible, without taking the time that right next to it, it says, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church" - what did Jesus do? He gave up His life for the church. Men are called to be servant-hearted and sacrificially giving to their wives. The worst guys you'll meet are the ones who know they're physically stronger than women, and take advantage of them for it. Or use the woman's respect for them and take advantage of that. And the Bible condemns men of such bad character. So exactly who was trained to think what here, shining? It is better to receive instruction from an unchanging God than to make up your one's own reality, or mix and match the realities of a few philosophical positions. Your bad experience in the Bible belt does not demonize all of Christianity.
  
  Bloc - same thing I just said - the man is the spiritual head of the household - which is an enormous responsibility, by the way - so it's not like the man is getting a free ride there. What's wrong with a man leading and protecting his wife? What's inherently sexist about loving your wife enough to lead her to good situations for her life, and protecting her from the men who actually DO pose a threat?
  
  A small example: my wife has never had to open a car door since we've been dating and got married. Am I sexist because I think she can't do it for herself? No way! I demonstrate love even in the small things so that she'll never have to open that door. In the same way, God calls men to be of strong character, and do love as a verb, not just a lofty feeling. So if a man does something for a woman she can do for herself, it's not automatically sexist. Often, it's honoring the woman...even if it's just opening a car door.
  

• shiningstar said on Aug 23, 2007....

  I do not "demonize"Christianity.  Historically they have done quite a good job of that themselves based on their behavior and deeds.Why would a man be the "head of the household spiritually or otherwise???Does not woman have a spirit and a mind to discern it with. Even your w240 recognize women as "heads of households".  Even the missionarys today are giving tools for life to the women in third countries because it is proven that if you help a woman she will help her children,  her family,  her village and the world.  Where have the men been the past 2000 yrs.?  Creating wars for Jehovah of course and killing the children,  women and the familes of the world.  So much for "family" values.  It is wonderful that you open doors for your woman.  But for self,  I would much rather open my own door and have my voice have equal power with any mans,  equal pay,  equal rights and not be considered a second class citizen created or made to serve anyone as their "helpmate".  I know you mean well 82 but turn the thinking around and see if you would like to change places with any woman,  any where?  Peace

• TealDragonfly said on Aug 23, 2007....

  In all actuality, women hold very high positions in many christian faiths. It was a woman who first ate from the tree of knowledge (first excercize in free will.) It was a woman who gave birth to Christ (do ya think the creator of all doesn't have the ability to do it otherwise?), it was a woman Christ appeared to first after his death, etc. etc. You listed Mexico as a mainly catholic nation..and yet that is a society that is matriarchial in nature.
   
  As for wars, one of the key strategies when overtaking another country was to kill all the men and assimilate the women. (Wouldn't change places with the men in that instance.)
   
  I have my doors opened for me, I have spiders killed for me, I make more money than both my ex's combined, my vote counts as a man's, I suffer from no restrictions based on my gender, I have a legacy of five children (three of them the most delightful masculine males I could meet.) I own my own home, have complete ownership of the remote control (very important).
   
  I am not pigeon holed into only having value in what I provide financially, I do not have to tolerate losing out on jobs because corporations have a 'quota' to fill, I am not denied my rights to my children routinely by the courts, I have not been blamed for every ill that happens in the world, I am not forced to register for the draft regardless of my political beliefs, I have social support available to me should I need it.
   
  I get to wear jeans if I want, I get to wear a dress if I want, I get to change my mind a million times, I get to lash out monthly just because I feel crappy, I get to enjoy sex whenever I want, however I want. AND...I will always know, forever more, just how many children I have in this world regardless of what I decide to do with them. Oh, and I am one hell of a helpmate when I feel like it.
   
  From my standpoint, what man wouldn't want to be me? ;-)
   
   

• bloc said on Aug 23, 2007....

  "What's wrong with a man leading and protecting his wife?"
  
  There is nothing wrong with that. What's wrong here is assuming that it's the man's role to lead and the woman's role to be lead.

• lidstrom82 said on Aug 24, 2007....

  It really is a sticky issue, bloc. Certainly, women lead, in public, families, and churches alike. I would suggest that the ideal is for all men to be leaders in different ways. Without the biblical precedent for the man to be head of the household, I wonder what we would do otherwise.
  
  My heart goes out to women who are single parents, providing for their children and themselves by playing the role of both parents. It makes me want men to be more responsible, more reliable, and more of the leaders they were apparently built to be. Women are more than able to handle a challenge of single parenthood, for example, but should they have to? Or should men take their leadership roles to heart?
  
  Tealdragonfly, you said some sweet stuff. Great perspective!
  

• shiningstar said on Aug 24, 2007....

  It most certainly is a great perspective tealdragon but unfortunately it does not apply to most of the women in the world and I believe that you must know this. I really was speaking to those males who want their women to be "helpmates"  or as we say in the south"keep them barefoot and pregnant".Peace

• TealDragonfly said on Aug 24, 2007....

  shiningstar...I was not saying that all women experience the influence, the independence or the freedom I enjoy. I was responding to your suggestion to lidstrom82 that he "see if you would like to change places with any woman,  any where?" Hell, I wouldn't want to change places with any woman OR man in a lot of places at the moment. But given ANY woman in the world, too broad a paintbrush.
   
  I guess what I'm really saying is that yes, there are situations where women are oppressed, there are situations where men are oppressed, or blacks, or indians, or asians, or the poor, or the disfigured, or the handicapped, or children, etc. etc. What offends me is your blanket attitude that all men are inherently capable (and willing) of oppressing all women. Some men, some women...but not all and I take personal offense to having my gender considered that stupid, or weak as a whole. Not when I, and especially the millions before me who paid much dearer prices have demonstrated that we are anything but stupid and weak. Nietzsche says it best...
   
  " No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
  
  Unless you're an amateur victim ('cause professionals get paid.) The fact is, where we are today is the direct result of decisions we made yesterday. I am not willing to rely on other people changing the world to better suit me. If its that damn important to me...I'll do it myself, or die trying. Blaming someone else for your life changes nothing and gives far too much power to others.
   

• shiningstar said on Aug 25, 2007....

  I am blaming no one here nor have I said that on this or any other post Tealdragonfly;  It is remarkabke to me that you perceive it that way.  Nor am I saying that all men or all women are oneway or the other.  What I am saying is that generally and generationally  and historically  women have been oppressed by men.  Religion is the culprit behind this attitude.  You can call it a blanket attitude but my view represents the social consciousness that prevails even today. Perhps if you are male you have not experienced this in your life but that does not alter the fact that it is true for most of the women of the world.  And yes women play the victim role and it works so well for them. They could have just said  BA Humbug and spit in religions eye and refused to live under and mandate that did not support them.  Even today women who are controlled by religion say that they are free.  When Jesus told the Hebrew people that he came to free them they told him that they were Abrahams people and were always free. Obviously they did'nt get it either.---No do not rely on any one besides self to change anything.  Never give your power away. That is,  indeed, the message.

• TealDragonfly said on Aug 25, 2007....

  shingingstar...You *are* blaming men. And you *are* blaming religion. In your suggestion to Lidstrom82 you said, "any woman, anywhere".  How else is that to be interpreted other than ALL women have it bad? I am merely responding to what you have in fact said.
   
  Frankly, I don't object to you blaming either men or religion, they all have played their part. What I am arguing is that women also play their part. I think you misunderstand my use of the term amateur victim. Survivors make changes, amateur victims make no attempt to make changes but expect the world to make changes for them even when they are a part of the problem.
   
  I return to my original statement...accountability has nothing to do with uterus or penis, it has everything to do with the society. And societies are made up of both men and women.

• shiningstar said on Aug 25, 2007....

  Since I know that I am not blaming anyone for in my reality blame gets one no where. It is the solving of these things that provide interest for me.  If your perception is that "I blame",  that is your perception not mine.  Peace.

• karta.devera said on Nov 27, 2007....

  I am pro-choice, but I don't think would ever have one myself.
  Under no curcumstances would I do it now, that is.When I was 17 and if I
  had gotten pregnant then, I might have had one though, so yes I am
  pro-choice, but right now I would never deny any soul that will honor
  me with choosing me for its mommy the pleasure of growing up around
  corky silly, wonderful, modest me!~
  :))
  

• Taffy000 said on Dec 10, 2007....

  Last week I heard this radio show out of Atlanta.  The host had a woman on who was anti abortion.  They specifically talked about all of the Black women who had abortions.  Somehow my perception is that most Black women have their children.  I think there are too many children in the world who people don't care about.  I'm one of those children.  I was given up for adoption.  I can tell you if my mother had wanted to get an abortion I would not hold it against her!!! Do not bring a human being into the world if you can't love it completely and take care of it and be a good mother.  I can tell you no one is going to love your baby like you are.  Few people will even accept an adopted child! 

  I'm so sick of hearing middle aged White men decrying the evils of abortion.  If these White men had to care for these unwanted babies they'd be singing a different tune I can pretty well guarantee that! 

• shiningstar said on Dec 12, 2007....

  I prefer to look at this as a consciousness issue.The things that we are conscious of we can change. When we understand the reason for abortions(and each is different and personal)  then we can choose ways of creating a better world for all people. An example. If people are too poor to support their chilldren we might consider the wages of the poor.  If they have no home for a child we might consider why this is and solve it.  If it is an unwanted child we might search for the reason this is.  But another thing that I will throw into this mix is why the controversity of saying that 4 cells or 100(baby or fetus)  are to be honored at all cost but then when it gets to be thousands of cell(grown-up) we do not appear to have a problem with legally murdering it or subjecting it to the random crimes on the strreets. When does love and honoring begin or end?Peace

• lidstrom82 said on Dec 12, 2007....

  That's a good point, shining...what's the limit at which we value or honor life? 4 cells or more? We can always find hypocritical views on valuing life - one person will scream bloody murder over cruel treatment of animals, yet will willingly support the death penalty.
  
  A coworker of mine is pursuing a master's degree, and they said fellow students at the college decry use of animal fur while supporting abortion...killing an animal for fur is bad, but aborting a living fetus (or embryo, depending upon the stage of pregnancy) that depends on its mother for nourishment and sustenance is acceptable? Does that seem unreasonable in some way to anyone?
  
  
  You might say that if an embryo does not count as a living thing, abortion is more acceptable. What I struggle with is that an unborn child is even more helpless than a newborn baby, until it matures into the 9th month and is able to function outside the womb.
  
  
  I've also heard the idea that if our parents decided to abort us, we wouldn't hold it against them. Of course not - we wouldn't have any choice in the matter - we'd be dead. And if we had been aborted babies, we would have missed out on any and every thing of life we enjoy.
  
  One controversial point I've also heard is that women who have ultrasounds while considering abortion, for the most part, don't go through with it. There's something about seeing the baby, alive, inside of you, that leads women to have second thoughts. I heard that some states are thinking of making ultrasounds mandatory before a woman has an abortion, but that is strongly opposed by some people.
  
  My question is, if you're that intent upon the abortion, why would an ultrasound make any difference? I assert that abortion is easier to do when it's "out of sight, out of mind." The proof is that once we see that baby, through ultrasound or birth, the decision becomes harder. I believe it's the drive to nurture and protect life, a God-given desire we all understand. It's much easier to abort a child you've never seen, and thus effectively numb that desire to protect that life.
  
  It was Ronald Reagan who said this: " I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." It's the great irony that we use our living breath to try and justify how we can end other lives legally and ethically.
  
  We must consider that if we go down an unethical path, it raises many more questions than it answers. I find that the more we make right decisions, the simpler life becomes. Sometimes a black-and-white viewpoint is taken too far, but I really believe that the less abortions occur, and the more we do to help pregnant mothers who are unprepared for motherhood, the better off modern society will be.
  

• bloc said on Dec 12, 2007....

  Here is the problem I have with the absolute position on abortion. Those that promote that view use language that misleads. For example "The proof is that once we see that baby". I ask a simple question. Is the image below a baby? Is it a person? Does it feel pain, emotions, or have self awareness? Could you distinguish it from other cells from other forms of life such as animals or plants? 
  
  
  The answer is no, it's not a baby, it's not a person, and it's not murder to discard it. 
  

  
  

  
  

• lidstrom82 said on Dec 12, 2007....

  Haha, at least we know your opinion, bloc.

• bloc said on Dec 12, 2007....

  did you catch any of my comments where I talked about various Christian beliefs regarding the moment the soul enters the body?
  
  
  I recently learned that many Christians believed at varying times in history that life began at "quickening" which is when the mother first feels the fetus move. This is obviously well after conception and it was the official position of a few different Popes amongst other leading Christians. 

• lidstrom82 said on Dec 12, 2007....

  As far as a Christian position, bloc, let me share a thing or two...
  In the Bible, God is speaking to Jeremiah, and says this:
  "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations."
  This passage states that before Jeremiah was even conceived in his mother's womb, God knew Jeremiah specifically, as a unique human being set for a specific purpose.
  If God knew Jeremiah before his mother even knew lil Jere was coming along, doesn't He know us all before we are conceived? That raises the question: if God loves and values us before we become what we see in that picture you posted, bloc, shouldn't we also love and value that life?
  It's interesting to hear past Christian positions on when the soul enters the body. I don't think we will ever discern that correctly. Besides, it's not hard to find Christian churches/institutions that take biblical words and come to unbiblical/misguided conclusions.
  Let's consider this thought too: if God saw fit for us to live before pregnancy even happened, doesn't that mean that we are MEANT to live, regardless of whether the mother is willing/able to raise that child? The whole idea is that God has us planned out before we're even a fertilized egg. He knows our life story, what purpose we will serve, and will work in everything we do, good or bad, so that ultimately His good intentions will be brought forth, despite our goof-ups and mistakes.
  With all that purpose behind even one human life, multiply that by over 6 billion and you have the world's population, full of promise and potential. Who are we to decide that one unborn embryo should be discarded? If only God knows what one baby is capable of, what they'll be, and who they are, then I can't imagine we look very smart making the choice to terminate a pregnancy.
  We only see the consequences of raising a child looming over the horizon - we don't see what the child will become, and honestly, a woman who's never been a mother, may not be able to see the blessings of motherhood that she would have if she carried the baby to term.
  Those are all thoughts to chew on and consider thoughtfully. I think my position is that we only know of pregnancy by physical means, but a soul, a personality, is not tangible - there's something more. And I believe God is behind it all. If He truly does value every human life He created, setting us apart and knowing us before we physically exist, then we are missing the point if we focus on how old the embryo/fetus is, and we devalue what He created by deciding that some of His children can't ever grow because we can't afford, handle, or tolerate it.

• bloc said on Dec 12, 2007....

  "if God loves and values us before we become what we see in that picture you posted, bloc, shouldn't we also love and value that life?"
  
  if we believe this, or many of the other assertions you make in your comment, then it also leads us to the conclusion that an unfertilized egg and a sperm are human beings.
  
  
  "If He truly does value every human life He created"
  
  
  
  is it safe you are opposed to the death penalty and torture as well? 

• lidstrom82 said on Dec 12, 2007....

  That's not at all what I was saying, bloc. Seek clarification first. Then we'll move into other topics such as the death penalty and torture.

• shiningstar said on Dec 12, 2007....

  My strongest point here is the individualizm of Self. No one has the right to interfer with a woman's choice to choose abortion or not to choose it. If we believe in equality we must support individual rights. Each person will fell differently about this and each, alone, must face this, and live with their decisions. Life is personal. No one will die for you so why should you live for their beliefs? Who can know another's life or their beliefs? Only you, the Self, the true I AM, can decide how to handle any situation let alone this issue.-For all of those preaching religion of the Old Testament Jehovah had no problem killing thousands of Egyptians babies nor having a child offered up as a human sacrafice. One either honors and respects children or they do not from beginning to end. One can't cut it up into little pieces and pick and choose times, places or the babies to honor and respect.Peace

• bloc said on Dec 12, 2007....

  @lid
  I am seeking clarification, but I guess I didn't state it in the form of a question ;)
  
  
  Not being a religious person it's difficult for me to understand things that seem arbitrary yet absolute. If God values every life before it's in the womb what conclusion does that lead reading the sperm and egg that form the fetus in the womb?
  
  
  @shining
  "No one has the right to interfer with a woman's choice to choose abortion or not to choose it."
  
  
  I don't agree with this view either, assuming I understand you correctly. I certainly believe that a fetus in the 8th month of pregnancy is a human being deserving of human rights. 

• one_wired_kitty said on Aug 01, 2008....

  Althought I'm not a republican (i.e. bush should have been impeached - but that's a new thread) ....

  I am opposed to abortion. The embryo (sp?) and the fetus are life and do not need to be destroyed because you "just don't want kids". I can't get pregnant. Never have been able to - probably never WILL be able to. It pains me to see women who are capable of carrying and decide to destroy it.

• Taffy000 said on Mar 16, 2009....

  Whatever a woman decides to do it's her decision and her decision alone.  If you don't want to get pregnant yourself, don't.  If you're an old grey haired man shooting blanks you REALLY have no business telling a woman what to do with her life. 
  

  Kitty-I don't see the connection.  I was given up for adoption.  If my mother had enough money to have had a abortion I wouldn't fault her for it.  To grow unwanted, misused & abused isn't an easy thing to deal with on a daily basis.  I don't know if I can have children or not.  That won't have any impact on what I've done in the past.  It will be my lot in life.  That reminds me of seeing adoption shows where a mother "changed her mind."  I'm suppose to cry for a potential adoptive parent because a mother decided to keep her own baby?  It's not right.  If a woman truly doesn't want a baby or can't raise it then I don't fault her for having an abortion.  At least that one child won't grow up to be the next Charles Manson whose mother didn't want or love him either.

• one_wired_kitty said on Mar 16, 2009....

  AH .. so sorry, dear. Forgot I commented ... Please forgive me.

  Part of my decision to not have children stems from not being able to conceive.

  -----------

  At least that one child won't grow up to be the next Charles Manson whose mother didn't want or love him either. - That's an unknown. The aborted life could have also grown up to be the next Bill Gates.

  -----------

  I'm not asking you or anyone else to agree with me. I'm just stating my opinion that abortion is the murder of those who have no voice and no choice ... and in my opinion ... it also saddens me that we as a society pitch a fit over someone kicking a puppy but we don't bat an eye over a woman who aborts a child (to me - it's a child from conception to birth).

• shiningstar said on Mar 17, 2009....

  Life is about personal self. Only self lives life in the moment. No one really knows exactly what they would do or how they would react in any given situation. Each person makes a personal choice based on their envirement, beliefs and past experiences. Only the woman facing the situation of being pregnant knows how she feels. To place a blanket judgement over every woman denies her given right to exercize her freedom of choice. Particularly when it is not about her beliefs only the beliefs of others who are not having the experience of pregnancy. Like sex one can not have it in their bedroom and then go next door and ask someone how that felt. ALL is personal experience.

• one_wired_kitty said on Mar 17, 2009....

  That's true, shining.

Comment on "Your thoughts on abortion."

Currently tagged	abortion relationships personal choice politics Right To Choose reproductive rights life murder choice (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously