BJean

Nope, I never said that sperm and eggs, joined or unjoined, are not human. I suggested that they are not human beings. There is a distinction.

SSDiva: All of the people who are anti-choice that I've come in close contact with are not concerned with adult human beings and their lives, they are only concerned with the "unborn". They presume to "speak" for unborn babies who according to them all wish to be brought into the world no matter what circumstances they may be subjected to, once born. Most of the loudest of these anti-choice people seem to think their idea of bringing all fertilized eggs to fruition is what is right and good for the entire world. Many of those same people are totally against welfare and for capital punishment. I mean really! Go figure. It's hard to believe that they genuinely care about humankind, isn't it? Sometimes I wonder if these people have some kind of adoption scam going on whereby they stand to make more money if they have more available babies they can sell. Yeah that may sound harsh, but then I think what is really harsh is using slavery and grisly photos of bloody babies to make their point.

P.S. I posted mine before I read your last post. Your last entry is an attempt to insult my education and my intelligence. I think it is a ploy you've stooped to because I disagree with you about your definitions as well as whether you should be able to make choices for me when it comes to my womb. You're usually less personal and hateful. I am sorry you felt it was necessary to take that direction in this discussion.

What? I think you misunderstood me gadget. I just asked a couple of questions. How does what you said "...put ridiculous words in my mouth" make any sense? I was in absolutely no way putting words in your mouth. I do find it interesting that you say that a sperm and an egg aren't human beings themselves but that the minute they are joined they instantly become human beings. Then you go on to say that before that they are just a sperm and an egg that when left alone they will die. In fact if you have a joined sperm and egg and you say they are now a human being, how do you account for the fact that left alone, even if joined, they will die? They don't automatically grow into a fetus or a baby or an adult. They must have a womb and all of the nourishment and continued growth required, for them to ever become actual beings. If a medical professional gleans a sperm from a male doner and they glean an egg from a female doner and takes them to the lab and with certain scientific procedures, joins them in a petri dish, by your statement you seem to be saying that at that point in time, it is a human being. But let's face it, if the joined egg and sperm aren't implanted into a ready, willing and able womb (i.e., "left alone"), that little bit of brand new DNA will die. How do you plan to go about saving all those fertilized eggs that are attempts at life by in vitro fertilization? Your statements about caring about and speaking for all of the unborn human beings in this world would make it incumbent upon you to do something about all these in vitro procedures that are causing the deaths of "human beings" every day. Yes, I'm being a little sarcastic here. But honestly, I don't see how you rationalize your argument that once an egg is fertilized with a sperm it becomes a human being. It seems perfectly rational to me that a sperm is a promise of a human being just as an egg is the promise of a human being just as a tiny fertilized egg is the promise of a human being. Yes, in all cases they are human in nature, but they are not actual beings until they are able to survive by not relying on their hosts' wombs. In other words, in your terms, "which, left alone they will die", then they are not actual human beings. Just human, with the promise of being. And if we can't agree on when a sperm and an egg become a human being, and the religious and scientific communities don't agree either, why do you expect me to live by your definition of when a sperm and egg become a human being? Unfortunately it appears to have a bearing on my rights as a woman to control my reproductive organs, according to you. I believe that you should not be able to control my life and beliefs in this way. I believe that you should be responsible for your reproductive organs and I should be responsible for mine.

So a sperm and an egg are human beings as far as you're concerned? Not just human parts? We should show deference to every sperm and egg that humans create because they are actual human beings? Not the promise of human beings, but actual human beings?

Anti-abortionists want you to be shocked. That's the whole point. Too bad we don't keep photos of women who have died from botched abortions or grisly suicides. We could play that game too if we wanted to.

What makes you think that? Ya know, if I was being sarcastic, I've learned from the best here at Rs & Rs.

gadget also got it wrong - I do not equate spanking with abortion. I just believe very strongly that people who spank do it out of frustration and/or an inability to parent using ones intellect rather than brute force.

Speaking for me gadget? gadget believes that the government should take away the rights of women to choose whether or not to have an abortion - and she also believes that the government should kill some convicted criminals.

My only thoughts are for the preservation of children. Anyone who believes that children should be spanked/beaten are wrong and should be forced to have cameras installed in their homes, cars, etc., for 24/7 so that they will not spank their poor defenseless children. All I care about is all the poor defenseless children who cannot speak for themselves. Some people believe that spanking in extreme cases, such as rape or incest, is all right. But I do not. There are no exceptions. No reason ever for anyone to harm a child. The government in Mass. and elsewhere should bar any spanking for any reason. It's all about the babies.

Doctors make mistakes and tubes have not been tied properly and a pregnancy happened.

According to my church and my beliefs, spanking is abuse. There are no exceptions. I believe it is my duty to save all the little children who are being abused and who cannot speak for themselves against the tyranny of the adults in their lives. Therefore, all states should be regulated by the government regarding spanking and there should be a law that prohibits parents abusing, by spanking, their children. No parent should have the right to make this decision on their own. The government should enter homes and observe any spanking or proposed spanking (by threat) and legally bar parents physically from hitting their children for any reason. No parents are capable of deciding for themselves how they should raise their children. No exceptions. I have only the best interests of the children at heart. I don't care if parents hit each other. I don't care if adults beat other adults to death, but they should be legally barred from hitting innocent children who cannot speak for themselves. Think about all the abused children who have no one to be their safety advocates. Oh wait a minute, maybe I'm getting two debates intertwined here. Well, my argument above makes just as much sense as some of the arguments on the other thread.

marjon9: You have totally hit the core of the issue for me. I believe that your post eloquently states exactly how I feel about the issue. I can't tell you how much it means to me for you to have written this. Thank you so much. I also agree that green is a terrific debater and I value her friendship and intellect very much.

"...use it against Republicans"??? Just statin' the facts as I see 'em. As I said, nothing seems to point to the fact that Democrats don't resent taxes and welfare fraud, except for the fact that they don't adopt it as part of their platform and they aren't vocal about it, like Republicans. I'm not the one who seems defensive here.

I just jumped in here and haven't read all the previous posts, but the people who have children who are out of control, have children who are out of control because they do not pay enough attention to them. It is not, NOT, because they don't spank them. There is absolutely no reason to hit children. None. There are miriad ways to correct and discipline children without hitting them. If a person can't think of a way to gain control and discipline a child without using corporal punishment, it is not because of the child - it is because of the parent's lack of good parenting skills. And I pity the children of those parents. I laud Massacheusetts for considering passage of a bill to outlaw hitting children. At the same time though, the citizens of Mass should insist that classes on parenting be required for every expectant parent. Btw, I had Dr. Spock's book at the ready when my children were little. I never found a good reason to hit either of my children. Both of my children grew up to be solid citizens who would never dream of harming their children by spanking them or using other corporal punishment. Those people who think it is fine to hit their out of control children believe it's acceptable because that's the way they were disciplined. The concept that corporal punishment is a sign of love and caring by parents, runs deep in our society. I was spanked and hit when my parents thought I needed it. I grew up knowing it was a frustration that was living within my parents. Children need to be taught lessons about EVERYTHING. If my parents were too busy to make sure I didn't run out into the street before I knew about the dangers, I SURE DIDN'T DESERVE TO BE SPANKED FOR DOING IT - BECAUSE I WAS IGNORANT OF THE DANGERS!

That's a good point L8Bloom, we do tend to read into a post whatever pushes our buttons, don't we? :ranger: I for one tend to get a bit carried away when I start typing and sometimes I become impassioned in a way that I didn't necessarily feel when I began. I was actually responding to several posts at once that time, not just yours. So it may have seemed like I was being harsh to you, but I had several posts in mind when I wrote. Let's face it, this is a volatile topic. It isn't surprising that those of us who care so much about the issue can sound pretty extreme when we post, especially by those who disagree with us. Mostly we've been pretty good about saying what we think and not holding opposing views against the person stating them. I hope we can get back to that, if it is at all possible. Granted, that's asking a lot, but we can try.

I for one have never said that Republicans are "cold hearted people who don't want to help others". I do observe that they are very vocal about this particular subject. That distinction about Republicans would also hold true with political commentary within the news media as well as when I watch political debates, and even at the Republican party conventions welfare fraud and the abolition of taxes is a hot topic. Am I wrong about this, people? I'm not one who likes mass generalizations, but the different parties and the people who support them do have particular platforms that they adopt. That's one good reason why people choose one party over the other for themselves. This president ran on a platform that promised less government. That means less taxes. That includes less welfare. I haven't heard the Democrats promising that. But then, I haven't listened to your co-workers.

The reason I mentioned that he was a Republican is because most Republicans I know are very unhappy with having to pay taxes, in any form, and they are quite vocal about it. I have many, many more Republican friends, family and acquaintences than Democrats. Plus Elena, if you will read all of the posts by people at LBT who state that they are either Republican or Democrat, you will quickly see that the ones who tend to carp about welfare cheats and the taxes that are used for them, are mostly declared Republicans. That is not to say that LB Democrats are any less irritated by welfare cheats or having to pay for goverment programs, it just tells us that the Republicans seem to be more vocal about it here at LBT. (Oh and in my little corner of the world too.)

Totally and completely agree with your last post, Elena.

If you don't care, then why use all the capital letters and exclamation marks? I think you really do care. I think you are just as passionate about your beliefs as Robin is about hers. That's not a bad thing. I believe it is a good thing to have strong feelings about important subjects. It's a free country, you're allowed to express your feelings without fear of censure. Go for it!

When I worked for the Attorney General, I was making just enough money to feed, clothe and house my son and me. Part of my paycheck went to taxes to feed, clothe and house families who were on welfare. A Republican assistant attorney general asked me one day why I didn't resent that (like he did). I told him that I was proud to do my part for a woman who was unable to eke out a living for her family. Go figure, eh?

I know there's a lot more to it than the kind of shoes a welfare recipient wears - that's, in fact, MY whole point. My mother worked for the Health Department. I could cite hundreds of stories about all the mothers and children that she came in contact with everyday; story after story of mothers getting pregnant every year until they weren't allowed additional money in their welfare check for more children. Once they were capped, they stopped having children. Does that make the welfare program bad? Should we have done away with it? I honestly do not think so. I don't have the time to list all of the reasons why, but I'm pretty sure you could figure it out, if you chose to.

Robin I would love to count you as a friend of mine. You are thoughtful, intelligent and I know that to sit across from you over coffee, I would learn something. I am sorry, L8Bloom that you decided that I was getting personal with you several pages past. I wasn't getting personal at all. I was trying to make my own point and I did not mention your name in the process at all. I was shocked by your accusation that I was being harsh. Unless of course that harsh is anyone who disagrees with you. I can understand that - DEFINITELY - because the many times here, the harshest people are the ones who claim to have the best interests of unborn babies at heart. I have been surprised at the level of venom that has flown toward a young lady who has given us much to debate here. The bottom line here is that if you don't believe in abortion, then don't have them. Do all you can to convince others that they shouldn't have abortions, if you choose. I believe differently than you and I believe that the government and you have no business telling me what to believe and how to conduct my own private medical decisions. I do not insist that anyone of you embrace my beliefs and I would never dream of insisting that one of you have an abortion, even if I knew for a fact that your child would be a burden on me personally. If you want to bring trot out heartstring-tugging stories, believe me I could add some of my own about my DD and the unfortunate deaths of her two babies in utero. Those deaths in no way cause me to change my beliefs about women's right to choose.

To tell you the truth, the reason the reference to $150 shoes grates on my nerves is because of an experience I had in Orlando several years ago. I was one of the founders of a wonderful group for women whereby we worked in many areas of our community to help those in need. One of our members is an extremely wealthy woman who has been very fortunate in business. She also has a heart of gold. Another member worked, totally hands-on, with indigent children in an after school program, 5 days a week at her Presbyterian church downtown. Most of those children in that program were African American. When the first woman, Mrs. Steinfeld, asked the second woman, Mrs. Brown, what she thought would be a nice Christmas present for those kids, Mrs. Brown said that a great pair of althletic shoes would make them very, very happy. Well, Mrs. Steinfeld threw a huge party for those 30 kids. She did a lot of beautiful and thoughtful things for those kids. One of the things she did was to buy a pair of $200 Michael Jordan shoes for each and every one of them. So to hear stories about how kids show up at school in expensive shoes, but that they are on welfare and resented by people, it makes me nuts. You can't be sure, unless you do the research, exactly how they came to be owners of expensive athletic shoes. I will defer in the argument about general welfare abuse to the person whose in-laws are welfare abusers. She obviously knows first hand of their sources for every bit of food and clothing (and smokes) that they have acquired.

Btw, I do not believe that citing statistics that reveal that convicted murderers claim to be of one religion or another is necessarily incorrect. It makes total sense. I mean think about the big picture. How many people in the U.S., for instance, claim to be of one religion or other as opposed to having no religious affiliation? I don't have the numbers, but I would imagine that there are many, many more people with religious affiliation than those with no religious affiliation. Think about under what conditions and by whom the question was asked. If it is taken on just its' own merit, it doesn't however, make a convincing argument that religious people are more violent or murderous. It only points to a need for more in-depth study, doesn't it?