gadgetlady

Watch the video, BJean, and tell me again it's a clump of cells. There is no such thing as a potential life. It's either life or it isn't. For that matter, what the heck is a COMPLETE life? A fully matured life? I don't think anyone is there yet! Is it a life with all organs fully developed? Then I guess no one is really alive until they reach puberty, because sex organs aren't fully matured until then. We are all in various stages of life. We are lives WITH POTENTIAL. But there is no such thing as a potential life. If it's a life, it's a life. If it isn't a life, there is the potential to create a life, but there is no potential life.

Wow. That's big of you. So you're saying it's either a life or it's not, so there is a possibility that in having an abortion, a woman is killing a human being. Doesn't it then make sense that we should make every effort possible to determine if she is or not? How snide. When have I NOT answered questions about this issue? You've asked this before and I've answered it before. I don't get to decide. I am not a judge. Judges get to decide. I support judges who will decide based on scientific facts about human life. I am not a politician, so I don't get to pass laws. I can certainly vote on laws, when appropriately presented to me, but I don't pass laws. It's not within my purvue. What, then, PROVES when something is a human life? Why is a black person not 3/5 of a person, but rather a full person. Why are Jews considered human life? Talk about not answering questions, why won't you answer those? How do you define human life? Who are you to disagree with the slave owners and the laws that were en force indicating that a black person was 3/5 of a person? If they wanted to own a slave, who are you to decide for them? Why was what Hitler did wrong? He considered the Jews (and others) to be sub-standard. With what criteria do you argue they were not? What is wrong with the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who believes infants should be killed if they don't meet certain standards within the first few weeks of life? I seriously doubt YOU will answer these questions. And don't try to answer with "it's obvious that THOSE people are human beings" because it was NOT obvious to the people who enslaved them, exterminated them, or believe they should be "euthanized". Your basic argument is that it should all be left up to interpretation. Look at history. Look what happened when people were allowed to decide for others whether the others' lives had value -- or whether they should even be defined as entities belonging to the human race. Right back at ya'.

I don't have a problem being called anti-abortion. I am anti-abortion. As to medical diagnoses, I am not going to split hairs. That's for doctors and judges to decide, whenever necessary.

What a great idea and great routine. I wish I had time to read more, especially the spiritual giants of our time. I was just thinking that when my kids are grown and leave home, I might want to go back to school and get my Masters in Theology. I doubt this book will be out on iTunes, though, as it was just released.

Amen -- isn't that the truth!!!! He is so, so, so good. All the time. I was just talking to my dh about this last night. Sometimes I just weep at the love He shows us.

Here's a more detailed story, found at Comatose man wakes to changed Poland - Wonderful World - MSNBC.com WARSAW, Poland - A railway worker who emerged from a 19-year coma woke to a radically altered Poland and thinks "the world is prettier now" than it was under communism, his wife said Sunday. Gertruda Grzebska, 63, said that for years she fed her husband Jan carefully with a spoon and moved his body to prevent bed sores. "For 19 years he did not move or say anything," Grzebska told The Associated Press by phone. "He tried to say things, but it couldn't be understood. Sometimes we pretended we understood." "Now he spends his days sitting in a wheelchair, and last weekend we took him out for a walk in his wheelchair," she said. "He was so amazed to see the colorful streets, the goods," she said. "He says the world is prettier now" than it was 19 years ago, when Poland was still under communist rule. "I could not talk or do anything, now it's much better," Jan Grzebski, 65, told TVN24 Television in a weak but clear voice, lying in bed at his home in the northern city of Dzialdowo. "I wake up at 7 a.m., and I watch TV," he said, smiling slightly. Wojciech Pstragowski, a rehabilitation specialist, said Grzebski was shocked at the changes in Poland — especially its stores: "He remembered shelves filled with mustard and vinegar only" under communism. Poland shed communism in 1989 and has developed democracy and a market economy. ‘This is my great reward’ Despite doctors' predictions that he would not live, his wife never gave up hope and took care of him at home. "I would fly into a rage every time someone would say that people like him should be euthanized, so they don't suffer," she told local daily Gazeta Dzialdowska. "I believed Janek would recover," she said, using an affectionate version of his name. "This is my great reward for all the care, faith and love," she told the AP, weeping. "He remembers everything that was going on around him," she said. "He talks about it and remembers the weddings of our children. He had fever around the time of the weddings, so he knew something big was taking place." Head injuries plus cancer In 1988, when Poland was still run by a communist government, Grzebski fell into a coma after sustaining head injuries as he was attaching two train carriages. Doctors also found cancer in his brain and said he would not live. Grzebski's wife took him home. Last October he fell sick with pneumonia and had to be hospitalized again, Grzebska said. Doctors' efforts led to the first signs of recovery. "He began to move and his speech was becoming clearer, although I was the only one to understand him," she said. Intensive rehabilitation brought more effects. "At the start, his speech was very unclear, now it is improving daily," said Pstragowski, who predicted his patient would soon walk. "I am sure that without the dedication of his wife, the patient would not have reached us in the (good) shape that he did." What an amazing and beautiful testament to the love these two people share for each other.

I'm not going to split hairs with the pro-abortion people (who call themselves "pro-choice"). If a woman will die if she carries the baby to term, then her life is threatened. If she is in danger of being ridiculed by her classmates or in danger of being sad because she didn't want a baby, then her life is not in danger. I guarantee you, if the law made abortion illegal again with that exception, I would stop trying to change the law. I would also stop fighting if the law made abortion illegal again with the exception of rape. Eliminating 99.5 to 99.99999%% of all abortions would make me quite happy. May I remind you, there was no such thing as a pro-life movement when abortion was illegal but with those exceptions.

Good for you. I'm glad you've made that clear to your loved ones and they're willing to give up on you.

You indicated previously that the question was human life. Specifically, you said "the question of human life is a matter of concience, not science." My response is that if whether or not it's a human life is a matter of personal choice, than one person's judgment is determining whether it is human life. Two mothers are pregnant. If one decides what she is carrying is human life and the other decides it isn't, are they both right? How is that possible? How can one's personal decision determine humanity. Isn't humanity an issue outside of personal feelings? Isn't it a matter of science? Just because people disagree doesn't mean they're all right. Some people agreed with Hitler --were they right?

Thank you for your clarification, 396power. I don't think you're an idiot. One has to be educated in poll-taking to set up a proper poll -- people get it wrong all the time -- even in the media. I assumed your third choice was rape, fetal deformity, etc., which is why I voted the way I did. I guess I assumed right. I think everyone else did, too -- as I'm confident people don't believe a mother should be required to die to save the life of her child (even though some would choose to). BTW, there are over 1.5 million abortions in the US alone every year, much more than 250,000. There were over 4,000 today alone.

It IS the issue. There are people who believe infanticide, that is the deliberate killing of newborns who are not "up to snuff", should be legal. Is their opinion of when human life begins a matter of conscience, not science? Because certainly THEIR conscience says the newborns are not full human beings. Why should the question of human life ever be left up to another's judgment? How about in the case of blacks, deemed legally to be 3/5 of a person? How about in the case of Jews and many others in Germany being deemed unfit to live?

I love this "dividing embryo" terminology you use. Why don't you go take a peek at the video at Abortion NO / The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and tell me how something with tiny hands, tiny feet, tiny developed fingers, fingerprints, a ribcage, a beating heart, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, etc. is something other than a human being. I dare you. Watch the video the whole way through.

This is a flawed poll. It was not well worded, and you know it. To extrapolate from a flawed poll that pro-lifers really don't care about mothers is not only equally flawed, it's ridiculous. I am a libertarian. I believe people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies whenever they want to. Where I draw the line is when another person's body is involved, which is why I'm pro-life. I have no interest in controlling people, invading people's homes or lives, or anything else. I simply believe that society needs to protect the most innocent and helpless of victims.

Let's be honest here. This whole argument is a red herring as well. Dr. C. Everett Koop, U.S. Surgeon General in the 1980s, wrote in his book The Right to Live, the Right to Die, "The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent."

Interesting article, Mark, but not representative of the movement. I think it's a bit similar to the information I posted about radical feminists advocating women who have never had an abortion get one so they can experience it. The mention of such a point of view caused you to create quite a ruckus, if I recall correctly, because you felt it was inappropriate of me to bring fringe elements like that into the argument. Discussions of it went on, and on, and on, and on, and on, as you beat me over the head saying the point of view didn't exist, and when I demonstrated that it did, you switched your tactic to beat me over the head saying I should never bring up a thing. I have no intentions of doing the same to you. I have never heard such a position and I don't believe it is representative of pro-lifers as a whole.

I guess we'll only know if we hear from the others, but I wouldn't doubt that many, if not all, made the same assumptions I did. I'm not confident that 396 understands the nuances of abortion polling. I think he meant the poll to have the options of pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion should be limited except for some cases -- as he had heard it worded in many national polls -- and he added a clarification of ONE of the "extreme" cases. His clarification may not have been exclusive in his mind and in the minds of others. The poll should actually have had some other options as well, and I think you would see many mor subtle nuances: "I believe abortion should be legal through all 9 months of pregnancy", "I believe abortion should only be allowed in the first trimester", etc. Anyway, it would make sense to hear from the others before you judge. After all, you made a judgment about my vote and that judgment was incorrect.

Hi guys. I don't have time to respond to the prolific posts right now, but I would like to respond on behalf of one who voted for option #1 in the poll. The poll wasn't worded very well. My first skim of the poll was to see the choices of "pro-life", "pro-choice", and "pro-life except . . ." I really didn't see much else. I expected, based on the way polls are normally taken on this issue, for the "except . . ." to be "the hard cases" (i.e. rape, hardship, etc.). I truthfully didn't see the 3rd option as ONLY the life of the mother when I voted, primarily because polls are never worded that way so I didn't read it very carefully. My knee-jerk reaction was to vote #1 because of incorrect assumptions I made. Speaking as a long-time pro-lifer and activist, there is no pro-lifer that I have ever met that would agree that abortion should not be allowed to save the physical life of the mother (i.e. she would die if she carried the baby to term). So -- that being said -- how do I change my vote (or word the poll better)?

meat was rationed and huge petrol lines were everywhere," Grzebski told TVN24, describing his recollections of the communist system's economic collapse. "Now I see people on the streets with cell phones and there are so many goods in the shops it makes my head spin." Grzebski awoke to find his four children had all married and produced 11 grandchildren during his years in hospital. He said he vaguely recalled the family gatherings he was taken to while in a coma and his wife and children trying to communicate with him. So was he alive and did his life have value for the 19 years he was in a coma? What an amazing wife and family this man has. What an example they set, and would that we could all love those around us as profoundly.

I think it's a very appropriate punishment, especially since they were already in the remorse stage when you got back. That is the goal more than anything else -- that they understand the significance of what they did, how it affected the people around them, and how unacceptable it was. The removal of the privilege punctuates it well.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never denigrated your religion and I expect the same of you. When I considered myself a Catholic and a Christian, I did not place my trust in and lay my life before Jesus. I'm not saying you don't. I'm just saying I didn't. I'm quite surprised that you consider yourself to practice the same religion as I -- especially with your disparaging comments above. Everyone I know makes a distinction between Protestants and Catholics, considering them two different religions -- with some similarities, but not the same religion. I would never say I had the same religion as a Catholic, and when I was Catholic I would never have said I was the same religion as a Protestant. But be that as it may, it appears this is just a curious difference of opinion and perhaps definition.

I believe I have said earlier in this thread that there are "social Catholics" -- by that I mean people who identify themselves as Catholics, participate in Catholic rites and rituals, attend Catholic mass on a regular basis, and are not Christians in the sense that they do not fully follow and accept the teachings of Christ. I fit into that category for many, many years. I believed myself to be fully Catholic (and fully Christian) but I did not understand Christ as I do now, and therefore consider myself to have been steeped in the knowledge of Christianity but lacking a heart-belief. So just to be crystal clear, if someone asked you if you were the same religion as I, you would answer yes?

Having been both Catholic and Christian. For my part, when I was a Catholic I was not a Christian. I know that's not true of everybody, but it is true of me; when I became a Christian I left the Catholic church. I don't want to get into a theological debate here, but I should tell you that you don't need to do a history of religion with me. I do completely understand Catholicism, having attended a Jesuit University and having studied the religion intensely.

Carlene, if someone asked you if you were the same religion as I (I attend an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian church), would you answer yes or no?

JP Moreland spoke at our church today, discussing the theology and goal behind his new book, Kingdom Triangle, and what he is devoting the next 10 years of his life towards. What an amazing sermon and an amazing man. I would strongly recommend his new book.

The way I define religion, and I think the way most people define religion, and certainly the way the dictionary defines religion, evangelical Christians and Catholics are not the same religion. If you were to ask Carlene and me if we were the same religion, I know I would say "no" and I'm reasonably sure Carlene would, too. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. [*]The life or condition of a person in a religious order. According to 1b and 2, the Catholic religion is different from the evangelical Christian religion. I know a lot of Catholics (my whole family is Catholic -- although some only socially -- meaning some are not followers of Christ), and not a single one of them would say they have the same religion as I.