gadgetlady

I never said the articles proved anything. I simply said they were interesting.

Why is abortion "evil" and why would you never have one?

I agree that personalities should be kept out of the mix. The problem arises when the personality is indicted but the name is left out, making the person who posted appear to be neutral when they are in fact being anything but. It is ABSOLUTELY ok. Style is style and shouldn't interfere with the actual valid points of an argument. I think it's just funny that no one jumped to my defense when I was recently challenged on my posting style, yet several have jumped to TommyO's defense. Anyway, it's neither here nor there at this juncture. I think we've all made our points and should move on.

Not to re-hijack this thread (it can be a combo "Global Warming" and updates on green thread), I just read some interesting articles: UN forecasters say global temperatures to decrease in 2008 - Science, World needs more CO2, environment confab told, and Environmental expert chides media for reports on Antarctic ice breakage (OneNewsNow.com)

Nobody likes to be corrected. Whenever someone's posting style or grammar is challenged, the sense is that the bigger issue is being ignored. My posting style was challenged just a few days ago, actually . . .

BJean, I don't know if you're playing dumb or if you truly don't get this. TommyO was talking to ME, responding to ME, and discussing MY beliefs. He has SPECIFICALLY mentioned ME and MY beliefs, and THIS PARTICULAR belief about Intelligent Design / Creation Science in the past. Even if you didn't know about his past posts, the fact that I was the only one talking on the pro-life side at the time should have been a clue. Just as now, you are talking about ME. You know darn well that it was ME who pointed out grammatical and spelling errors. I have said that I shouldn't have done it and doing it was petty, but it doesn't change the fact that neither you nor TommyO can be so obviously "vague" about the person to whom you are directing your comments and then turn around and claim it was a generic comment.

It's not really that big a deal; just an observation I had. What we CAN agree on is that empathy is important :smile:

If you are not taught empathy but find yourself in a situation where you are able to mentally equate your dire straits to those of another -- in essence to come to the realization that you could just as easily be in the situation the other guy is in -- you can learn empathy from your circumstances. I only say this because I've seen "there but for the Grace of God go I" moments happen to people who haven't ever been empathetic before.

I've been mulling over this for a while, and I'm not sure I completely agree. I think we can be taught the value of empathy, but we don't really internalize it until we can hypothetically place ourselves in the position of the person for whom we want/need/expect to feel empathy -- which is something learned through life experiences (at least it was for me). I think it is completely possible to never be taught to have empathy, but to learn it as you journey through your own mistakes in life. Off topic a bit, I know, but this statement gave me pause and I really wanted to comment on it.

:smile: This makes me so very sad. I feel for her in so many ways. I don't think it's an easy choice, but I wouldn't say it was "haunting". How you portrayed your friend's choice and her ensuing emotional state clearly indicates a tremendous amount of regret. The scenario presented above wouldn't likely cause a "haunting" or having someone make a life-changing decision to live the rest of their life for that person (as you said your friend did). "Right" choices are not always easy, but they generally don't "haunt" you for the rest of your life. I'm sorry. I tried really hard to capture both the specific words and the spirit of her situation when I responded to you. I got the impression that both you and she believed the abortion, being the catalyst for change and what turned her around, was a good thing.

Pix, I can hear your friend's regret so clearly through you, and it makes me more sad than you know. A lot of people turn their lives around due to a defining moment or choice. There are prisoners in jail who regret very deeply what they've done and would never do it again -- but that doesn't take back the action for which they are being held liable. Just because your friend turned her life around due to her defining moment doesn't make the action that caused her regret right or good or laudable.

Why couldn't she clean herself up without killing her baby, too? Why did she require that particular catalyst to turn her life around? I cannot imagine a "right choice" "haunting" someone for the rest of her life. Generally, when something "haunts" a person, it was a wrong choice. Pix, I have no doubt that your best friend suffers greatly for her "choice" to this day -- even as you say it, I'm sure that the pain she is in daily is beyond what she can even share with you. While she was able to turn her life around, still yet many women experience the opposite: after their abortions they sink into a life of depression, drugs, and alcohol trying to bury the memories that haunt them (I'm sure those in favor of abortion will strenuously disagree with me here, but it's a fact for many -- not all -- mothers who abort). One of the best reasons to choose life is because where there is life, there is hope. Your friend doesn't have the ability to reverse her decision to abort her first child. You state that if she had given her baby life, that baby would have been born into "a life of pain and anguish." Not only is there no guarantee of that, but clearly she had the ability within herself to turn her life around -- and the preemptive killing of her child to accomplish that seems a bit incongruous, doesn't it? Now she is living that life of pain and anguish because of a decision that haunts her, when she could have taken the same steps she took to clean up her life AND carry her baby to term at the same time. She may tell you and/or you may surmise that the abortion was the best thing that ever happened to her and she would do it again, but I strongly suspect she says that to justify a decision that she regrets and would not choose again. She may not even know she's doing this, either. Can I ask you, if she hasn't received specifically post-abortion counseling already, to encourage her to do so? While this decision will always be with her, I know a lot of women who have experienced incredible healing through the counseling. I wish her my best and she will be in my prayers.

I beg to differ, BJean. There is history to TommyO's post. He was very specifically, personally, insulting me (or at least attempting to). He was around a long time ago (1-2 years?) when laurend and I had a very thoughtful, lengthy, and thought-provoking discussion about Intelligent Design / Creation Science vs. evolution. TommyO's comment to me on this thread (and on others) frequently pulls in his disdain for my personal beliefs: hence this was very much a "personal attack" that may have appeared to some as just random musings. That being said, I must apologize for how I responded. I should not have stooped to that level. It was petty and I should have ignored him, as I normally try to do. I will try harder in the future, until and unless his posts actually have legitimate points to make.

Oh, sorry. I have such a hard time reading your logical and well thought out posts without taking a mental red pen to them to correct your grammar and misspellings. But of course, I know I'm no match for your mental prowess on this or any issue. Just go right on continuing to not express your opinion. I'm fine with that, as I know precisely why you don't share your thoughts.

But in Doe, the "broad definition" of a woman's health included mental health in the determination of just one physician. Since an abortionist is a physician, this effectively makes abortion legal through 9 months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever. My point is that we shouldn't always blindly accept what is handed down by the court as gospel truth, because they are wrong sometimes. Your answer that you accepted what the court said on this issue begged the question: "Do you always agree with the court and is the court always right?" I guess the real question is "Do you accept what the court says simply because the court says it, or do you have other reasoning that makes you arrive at the same decision?" So some people say life happens at birth, some say at viability (which changes with medical technology), some say at the presence of a heartbeat, and some say at conception. The problem is, life is not arbitrary and not contingent on a mental decision by another human being. We have to assume one of these answers is right and the others are wrong; they can't all be right, because the question of when one's life began can't be different for one person than it is for another. In other words, both you and I were a life at the same time in our development. If my mother believed I was a life at conception and yours believed you were a life at viability, both can't be right. Their arbitrary belief doesn't change the facts. So given that life does in fact begin at some point (you would say as yet undetermined), is it not possible that it begins at conception and therefore we are deliberately ending over 1,300,000 lives every year in America? Add to this the fact that the average abortion is performed at 8-9 weeks, after significant fetal development has taken place (heartbeat, brain waves, all body systems present, some babies are even sucking their thumbs at this point), are you still OK with the possibility that we are committing mass genocide? I consider it a fact, but based on the above reasoning, isn't it at least a possibility for you? (BTW, the circulatory system is separate from the mother's at 21 days, around the time most mothers find out they're pregnant, and long before 6-8 weeks. Brain waves have been recorded at 42 days.) Fertilized eggs ARE human. They're certainly not anything else. They're not frogs or crickets or bananas. Once that is established, you then have to proceed to the question of whether they're life. I'm glad. You've challenged me, too. I am a big believer in education and some of the things we've discussed have never entered some peoples' minds. It is only through fleshing these things out that we learn.

I should add: I homeschool and am currently working on fine-tuning the phonics and spelling of my 2nd grader. The English language is so DARN confusing! Sometimes I just look at a phonics rule and throw up my hands.

I thought it was "glow-ster" with the "glow" rhyming with "ow" like in "ouch". I could be wrong, though. We visited MA several years ago and stayed up in that area and trying to pronounce the road signs as we drove along was a challenge!

Abortion is legal through 9 months of pregnancy. Where and when did the court say that human life begins when the child is no longer dependent on the mother? Will you stick with the court's decision if it changes? Is the court ever wrong? Has the court ever been historically wrong? Was it wrong in Dred Scott? A dead person is/was human; he is just dead. Because he died doesn't make him non-human. It makes him no longer alive. There are other criteria that define life; DNA is just the one that qualifies that life as HUMAN life. Why would you not support any woman who uses abortion like monthly birth control? If she accepts the potential of a scarred womb, infertility, death, etc., and there's nothing otherwise inherently wrong with the procedure, why wouldn't you support a woman having the right to do this? I don't expect you to answer anything like a "typical pro lifer". I'm looking for real answers and trying to get to the core of your beliefs -- and trying to get you to think about why you believe what you believe. I must have missed the answers because I don't know which two you're talking about. My hope is that getting you into a "gotcha corner" (whatever that is) led to some introspection and new thought processes. I don't expect to change everyone's mind with one argument or defense or challenge, but my hope is that over time the merits of the pro-life side will be self-evident.

This has been said more than once (by Marimaru also, I believe), and I have to completely agree. Faced with a choice between the imminent death of my child and any value-system I might have, I would have some pretty serious questions about my value-system.

Why is posting questions and challenging answers considered getting "walloped severely"? Again, why do you feel as if you've been beaten to a bloody pulp? Unless you feel the responses of the pro-life side have substantial merit and you can't defend the abortion position? I don't feel like I've been beaten to a bloody pulp or walloped severely about the head, neck and shoulders. I feel like I've been challenged and have responded to that challenge with simple facts and arguments. Sometimes I do feel alone, but I don't feel like what's been said to me or asked of me -- or how I've responded -- has been unfair. May I remind you, although you keep claiming the minority, that the poll is still running about 60/40 in your favor (the pro-life percentage has increased slightly in the past few days, but it's held pretty steady at about 60/40 since the early days of this thread). While I'd love it if you were the minority, it's quite simply not the case.

Oops, sorry. I already did re-ask the questions that were never answered. I read from the last thing read, not everything that's been said, before I post. I understand you won't be answering. I sure would like it if someone would, though.

Here are 4 I can think of just off the top of my head, without even going back in the thread: 1. When do YOU think life begins and what criteria do you use to support your position? 2. What, other than avoiding some vaginal stretching, is a valid reason for a partial-birth abortion? 3. What criteria or criterion were used to support the notion that black people are fully human? 4. You said that you felt abortion was sad or something along those lines (I don't remember your exact words -- maybe you said tragic?). I asked why.

Thanks, Elena. I do sometimes feel all alone on this thread.

Nobody said you've been "put on report". I reported you for a personal attack. I feel that your above post was snidely calling me intolerant and judgmental. Thank you for your apology. I'm glad to hear it wasn't your intent. I realize things can get heated. I just don't appreciate being singled out and called intolerant. And that is not MY intent, either. I just would prefer if you stop attacking me personally. I think the point has been made and beaten to death, so IMO we should just move on.

Then why weren't mothers charged pre-Roe?