gadgetlady

I wouldn't say that at all. If a mother's life is physically threatened if she carries the baby to term, then the abortion is taking one life to save another. But that's not the situation in this scenario at all. In this instance, someone claimed that a friend of hers had to have a partial birth abortion at 5 months. I asked why not deliver the baby alive instead of dead, since she was delivering an intact baby either way. (She wouldn't answer).

This is going back aways, but OK . . . A partial birth abortion at 5 months (which was the scenario presented) is a situation where the baby is partially delivered, intact, and then stabbed in the skull so the brains can be suctioned out. The baby is still delivered intact. There's no medical difference for the mother if the baby is delivered alive or dead. Why not preserve the baby's life?

I never said you were a bad Catholic or couldn't be a communicant member of your church. That's between you and your church leadership and is none of my business. I asked a question about the humanness of Jesus and John the Baptist in the womb (which you didn't answer). I ask the question because it's difficult for me to believe one thing because of my faith, but believe something completely contrary because of my politics, lifestyle, or (insert any other factor here). If that's not a problem for you and if your faith doesn't inform this issue for you, that's fine. I only asked the question because I truly don't understand the reasoning. Actually, my views have been questioned extensively. This is a very long thread and I don't know if you've been following all along, but a lot of hostile and demanding questions have been asked of me. I've never shied away from the questions and I've tried to always answer in a respectful way. I don't think I'm passive-aggressive, and I don't think trying to get to the root of someone's thinking is passive-agressive -- rather, my questions are very straightforward. Well, quite frankly, I don't like your misspellings and rambling method of dialogue either, but I don't keep hitting you over the head with it. Nat Hentoff was shunned by his fellow liberals when he changed his opinion on the abortion issue. He didn't change on any other issue, so his transformation to pro-life hindered his career as a liberal writer. He certainly didn't do it for political reasons. Bernard Nathanson went from being an abortionist, making a lot of money, to also being shunned by his former friends, in addition to being temporarily out of a job. So no, I don't think he did it for political reasons, either. I don't believe Ronald Reagan did it for political reasons but since I can't get inside his head, no one will ever know for sure. He did have a change of heart on a lot of issues after he was contractually obligated (through his job hosting General Electric Theater) to speak at GE plants across the nation. He called that time his "post-graduate education in political science". As I said, people DO change their minds, and just because those on LBT aren't public figures doesn't mean they can't either.

I do it so it's easier to follow. Sorry you don't like it. I don't much care for it either, primarily because I don't consider abortion a religious issue and it's generally illogical and ineffective to quote the Bible to people who don't believe in it. As an aside, I have seen Orthodox Jews and Muslims protest abortion. I've also seen athiests do it. I don't think I said or even implied you did. My last post (about how the discussion can be rational, sensible, etc.) was intending to compliment on the civility of your and my words to each other. I take this to mean you are a Catholic. Can you answer the question I posed to Rugman (which wasn't answered)? Here it is again: When Jesus was in Mary's womb, was He a human being? When He leaped in the womb in the presence of John the Baptist in Elizabeth's womb, was John the Baptist a human being? Had God created him? Did either of those two unborn babies have rights or a purpose on this earth? People DO change their minds on this issue. It does happen. Some very prominent people in history have changed their minds at varying points in their life: Ronald Reagan, Nat Hentoff, even former abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL, Bernard Nathanson, just to name a few. I have talked to people who have changed their minds after hearing both sides presented in debate format. I once participated in a debate where a woman sat in the front row and, at the end, approached me and told me she had been pro-abortion until the debate, but now she wanted to know how she could volunteer for the pro-life side. From Numbers favor prolific pro-lifers: as the pro-life/pro-choice debate moves into its fourth decade, the consequences of abortion are looming over many countries that face a decline in birthrates and population growth that could undermine social stabil (the article was written in 2002 but the trends mentioned have continued): A Zogby International poll commissioned for the Buffalo News (New York) in December found that 32 percent of Americans changed their opinions on abortion during the last decade, with 21 percent becoming more negative--indicating that those who changed negatively were twice as numerous as those who changed in favor. More than two-thirds of all queried said that they strongly would advise a pregnant woman not to get an abortion. Moreover, the strongest age group opposing abortion consisted of young people 18 to 20 years old. The tide is turning.

It's my understanding that because it happened in family court and involved minors, it's confidential. That was one of the big problems with the case: the decision came with absolutely NO warning at all. None of the homeschooling groups had any idea this was brewing -- it was just a blindside hit. No homeschooling group had any input or arguments before the court at all, and the mother was represented by a court-appointed attorney. If you want to read the actual decision, go to HSLDA | State Superintendent Supports Homeschooling and click on "Read the Court of Appeals Opinion" at the very bottom. It's also my understanding that this particular family was no stranger to the courts.

Your perception is probably relatively accurate. There are many Christians involved in this issue. There are also several secular groups who oppose abortion. Why is it a "Hang Up" for you if people of any particular faith fight for something? I'm not sure I understand the question, but I will try to parse it. Someone owned slaves (yes), some were Christians (yes, or called themselves Christians -- how a Christ-follower could ignore the clarity in the Bible that all human beings are of one blood is beyond me), are they to be condemned . . . because it was legal for ownership of slaves (OK, I think I see your question here -- the answer is emphatically YES! Just because something is "legal" does NOT make it "right." We are not excused for bad behavior by hiding behind a bad law. WWII, Hitler, and the Nuremburg Trials should have settled that matter forever. We condemn female circumcision in Africa because it's wrong. We don't excuse it by saying it's legal [if it is] or by saying it's part of their culture. It's just plain wrong to do that to another human being. Just as it's wrong to own a slave and it's wrong to take the life of an unborn child.) luluc, I don't have a problem with you stepping in with your opinion AT ALL (or anyone else for that matter). It IS possible to have a rational, sensible, non-personal, non-attacking discussion about this issue.

They spend their time composing grisly photographs -- what does that mean? I don't pass judgment. I empathize more than you can possibly imagine with these mothers. I have friends who have chosen abortion, friends who have chosen to keep their babies, and friends who have chosen adoption. I don't judge those who have chosen abortion. It's not my place. I know you think of me as this mean, judgmental monster who's trying to control people's sex lives, but it's just a figment of your imagination. It's not reality. I don't discount them at all; my citing women who get implants, etc. was not at all to compare them to women considering abortion. It was to emphasize that my goal is not CONTROL (as you indicated it was), but that I fully believe everyone should have the freedom to choose whatever they want to do in their lives -- with one caveat: that it does not infringe on the life of another innocent, unwilling participant. Undoubtedly. Also undoubtedly. Their help shouldn't come in the form of suggesting and allowing them to kill their offspring.

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was, when all is said and done, a Christian Reverend. That did not make civil rights a religious issue. There are people of most, if not all, faiths (and of no faith) that are pro-life. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of Christians -- of course there are -- but there were also a lot of Christians against slavery and in favor of civil rights. Their faith doesn't negate the truth in their arguments.

Nobody was attacked. This is a "personal" issue -- in effect, it involves persons. It's pretty difficult to discuss medical procedures undertaken on persons without getting "personal". In the other sense of the term "personal", attacking the person who posted the comment, I don't see where that was done in this case. The problem with that argument is the same as the problem with this statement: "If people don't believe in slavery, they shouldn't own a slave." The problem is, there's a second human being involved. This has nothing whatsoever to do with control. I don't have a problem with human beings doing whatever they want with their bodies, so long as what they do doesn't interfere with the life of another person. Women can have pre-marital or extra-marital sex all they want, heck even orgies if that's their thing (I don't think it's healthy but it's not my business). They can opt for birth control or sterilization to make sure their unions don't produce a child. They can do a whole host of other things that only affect themselves: inject themselves with sheep's urine to effect breast augmentation, get saline implants, get various parts of their bodies pierced or tattooed, etc. I DON'T CARE! When they cross the line by having their decision impact the very life of another human being, though, that's where I draw the line. Do you really, truly, honestly believe the the photos of aborted babies are COMPOSED!?!?!?!? That someone's photoshopping little baby body parts? Give me a break. Have you not seen pictures of in-utero development? This is not some giant hoax. This is reality. You refuse to look at the videos and the photos because you can't handle it -- you've said that on this thread in the past. I wonder if it's precisely because you refuse to look that you've been able to convince yourself they're not real and they don't exist. And that's exactly what I'm talking about with the ultrasound issue. It's much easier to deny the humanity of the unborn when you won't look. Just like it was much easier to deny what Hitler did until we saw the photos of the gas chambers and the dead bodies. We celebrate life when it's "wanted". Pregnant mothers gleefully show off their ultrasound photos from even the youngest gestational age. They have tickers and calendars telling them (and us) what's going on with the development of the baby. We have the ability to literally LOOK into the womb and see what's going on there -- if we want to. Nobody makes this stuff up.

It is not my personal experience, in that I have never sought an abortion and requested to see the ultrasound prior to the procedure. I have, however, spoken with many mothers who were denied (or never offered) the ability to see the ultrasound. That being said, prior to ANY medical procedure I've ever had, I have always sought to attain the highest possible amount of information before making my decision. If someone were to specifically decline information about the thing that is growing in the womb, it would make me wonder why. P.S. I've never shied away from ANY question asked on this thread. There is nothing about this topic that I refuse to discuss. Ask away!

You described an experience in an abortion clinic. I don't think it was unreasonable of me to assume that you were describing something you had gone through, although I did acknowledge on the front end that I wasn't sure that was the case. If you don't want to answer questions about something you brought up in the first place, you don't have to answer. Of course, if you don't answer you do run the risk that everyone reading your introduction of the issue and then your non-answer might arrive at their own conclusions (which may or may not be wrong). I don't say that to be snarky. It's just a statement of what will probably happen.

When someone opens up a line of discussion on a public forum, it is not an invasion of privacy for someone to ask questions related to that issue. No one is ever compelled to answer. I asked so as to gather information, not to look down on anyone. There are several mothers on this thread who have volunteered information about their abortions; whether those experiences have been positive or negative, information is always good as it helps us to learn.

Sorry. My bad. I couldn't tell from what you said, and it wasn't clear. Actually, I was wondering what the reason might be if she chose not to look. It is not the norm for abortion clinics to show ultrasounds to mothers prior to an abortion. I'm not saying it never happens, but it is not the norm.

Well, gee, they can't talk when they're 6 months old either. Guess it's OK to dismember them at that age, too?

For any of you who are following this, I just received the following email: On March 25, the California Court of Appeal granted a motion for rehearing in the 'In re Rachel L.' case--the controversial decision which purported to ban all homeschooling in that state unless the parents held a teaching license qualifying them to teach in public schools. The automatic effect of granting this motion is that the prior opinion is vacated and is no longer binding on any one, including the parties in the case. The Court of Appeal has solicited a number of public school establishment organizations to submit amicus briefs including the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, California Department of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and three California teacher unions. The court also granted permission to Sunland Christian School to file an amicus brief. The order also indicates that it will consider amicus applications from other groups. Home School Legal Defense Association will seek permission to file such an amicus brief and will coordinate efforts with a number of organizations interesting in filing briefs to support the right of parents to homeschool their children in California. "This is a great first step," said Michael Farris, chairman of HSLDA. "We are very glad that this case will be reheard and that this opinion has been vacated, but there is no guarantee as to what the ultimate outcome will be. This case remains our top priority," he added. Thank you for your continued support and prayers.

Oh, don't you know? It's because we hate women and think they should be barefoot and pregnant as that's their true place in life. HELLO!!!!!! We don't believe, no matter what the circumstances, that it's OK to kill people for the sake of convenience. And if the unborn baby is aborted, he/she IS getting punished -- by death. After you figure out how to ask all of the people involved -- the mother AND the baby -- then we can talk. In the interim, we will continue to be a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves.

I assume, even though you're talking in the third person, that this is your personal experience (please correct me if I'm wrong). Did you choose to see the ultrasound prior to the abortion?

I personally do not believe that the argument about whether the unborn baby has a soul can inform the abortion debate -- precisely because it is unscientific and unprovable. But I bring this up because you say you are a Christian. When Jesus was in Mary's womb, was He a human being? When He leaped in the womb in the presence of John the Baptist in Elizabeth's womb, was John the Baptist a human being? Had God created him? Did either of those two unborn babies have rights or a purpose on this earth? Abortion is the ultimate child abuse. You can't dismember a human being and then claim it was only for their good. . . . Well, I guess you can.

Rugman, there are dire and horrible social situations throughout the world. As Christians it is our job to care for the widows and the orphans. It is also our job to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. One does not negate the other. We should not advocate the killing of innocent human beings for any reason whatsoever, and it cannot be justified as a preemptive act of kindness. Out of control conceptions can be stopped. By preventing them. Killing the babies after they're conceived is not the answer.

If something is legal it is always right? If it's legal but still wrong, we never have a right to say it's wrong? What about when laws change? Abortion USED to be illegal in many states. Was it OK to say it was wrong then but not now? If it becomes illegal again, can we unzip our mouths?

I didn't. I was using serial killers as an example of something that is obviously criminal -- in response to your claim that we should never decide or judge anyone for anything.

green, I am so sorry to hear this news. What is your prognosis? Treatment? (you obviously don't have to answer if you don't want to). I know you're an athiest, but I want you to know I'm praying for you.

Then there's no reason for any laws whatsoever. There are things that are right and proper for human beings to do (especially to other human beings), and there are also things that are wrong and improper. One does not have to live a perfect life to call wrong, wrong. I'm sure you wouldn't tell a serial killer that what he's doing is perfectly fine, he only has to answer for himself, and it's not your place to decide or judge him.

I once had a friend who was very proud of her untanned skin. She always slathered on suntan lotion whenever going outside and was one of the whitest people I've ever known. She was certain that she would never get skin cancer. Then a report came out that there was something in suntan lotion that was shown to cause cancer. I have a favorite saying: life causes cancer.

To my dear WestCoastFatGuy: My apologies for not bringing this information "to light" prior to your purchase of the mercury-laden bulbs. In the future I will attempt to be more proactive on matters of this nature. In the interim, may I suggest that you only listen to right-wing radio and right-wing pundits, and only visit right-wing blogs and right-wing websites. In doing so, you can be confident you will always be right. :shades_smile: