You all know how I would vote. So lets see how many like me are out there.

Regardless of what you think of TommyO you should consider his point that your abrasive style is not going to win you any converts. If your goal is to "save babies," you might want to give that some thought. The more you, and people like you, continue to speak, the fewer people will join the pro-life movement. I'm not saying you are an evil person (notwithstanding that you think I am). I'm just saying your style needs some work. You are not doing your cause any favors by lashing out viciously toward all who deviate in the slightest from your "one true way." Even pro-life people are trying to tell you that.

Point taken.

Well...I don't really know what to say. I know it is a rhetorical question, and I am very glad to see you say you would be compassionate to someone if they had an abortion in a rape situation. I too agree that lack of compassion is in order for those who abuse this procedure as a means of birth control. However, I find it so difficult to believe that any woman could even fathom carrying the product of a brutal rape. I know it has happened before, but it just blows my mind...that is why I am so thankful that we have legalized abortions. I would hate to know that someone I loved, who had been impregnated by a rape (or worse, incest), would have to carry the infant to term and be reminded on a daily basis for the REST of her life, of the brutality. Makes me shudder to think about it...makes me awfully sad to know that there have been those who have endured this...makes me wonder what happened to the children. If the woman opted to keep the child, wouldn't she at some point have to tell? Gosh...what a horrible thought.

That being said, your answer seems a little "Polly-Annaish" if you will, to me. Yes, in a perfect world, there should not be abortion. But in our world, how many times have unwanted pregnancies resulted in sheer tragedy and heartache? I worked at Texas Children's Hospital years ago and I saw my fair share of horrific abuse to children. No, I'm not saying that all unwanted or unplanned children or abused, but some are.

It is the individual that sanctifies the idea of "life" ...cancer cells are "living", but you don't see anyone trying to "save the cancer". Look, all I am trying to say is IMO, abortion SHOULD be legal. IMO, NO ONE, has a right to tell a woman that she HAS to carry a pregnancy to term...NO ONE...(and fyi, I have never been raped or had an abortion)

Peace Out!

T~:hippie:

Very sad this part of your quote. I was raped and the thought of an abortion would have never been an option. The baby is not at fault so why take his/her life. No, instead the fault, anger and wrath should have been brought down on my attacker! I would have chosen life for my baby because I believe a life any life regardless of how he'/she was conceived is precious and worth something. I dont get to decide to take a life. That would make me worse than the man who raped me!

I'm sorry to astonish you, but there is a key difference between all your examples and the example of abortion. People disagree about whether a dividing embryo is human life. That's the whole issue.

Many intelligent, compassionate people do not agree that an embryo consisting of 4 cells equals "human life." So that is why your comparison to slavery is completely off the mark. Slavery involves fully formed human beings who are walking the earth. Abortion involves a clump of cells that many people do not consider to be "human life.".

Told ya' so. It's the "everybody agrees" answer -- and yet you still haven't addressed that "everybody agreed" (at least the ones who owned slaves) that slaves were 3/5 of a person, "everybody agreed" (at least in Hitler's SS) that Jews weren't full people, and "everybody agrees" (at least the renouned professors and Nobel Prize winners I quoted earlier) that an infant isn't a full life until somewhere around a month or so.

Why do you get to decide? Why do you get to make laws that force me to live by your rules?

That is a question I keep asking gadget and, of course, she keeps refusing to answer. And that is the only question that matters to me. I don't have any need to change your mind. I just have a need to stop you from forcing me to live by your rules.

So can you please give me an answer to this question? If you believe an abortion is the killing of a human life, and if I disagree with you, why do you get to be the one to decide, and set the rules, about how I live my life? (I wonder if anyone will answer this time. Probably not).

Oh, no, sir. I answered it. Quite clearly. More than once. Go back and read it. Stop accusing me of not answering when I did. And, yet, again, YOU DID NOT ANSWER WHAT I ASKED.

Typical.

And to answer your question, yes I am pretty happy that my mother did not abort me. But then again I was very much planned and prepared for. I am also a healthy and happy 27 year old. Maybe if you could ask this question to someone who is extremely mentally retarded, disfigured to the point of daily agony and pain, or beaten and raped daily by a family member and maybe you would get a different answer.

That's a non sequitur. The extreme majority of babies aren't aborted due to potential mental retardation or disfigurement, and abortion doesn't stop or cure child abuse or rape. If it did, we'd have no child abuse or rape any more, would we?

Told ya' so. It's the "everybody agrees" answer -- and yet you still haven't addressed that "everybody agreed" (at least the ones who owned slaves) that slaves were 3/5 of a person, "everybody agreed" (at least in Hitler's SS) that Jews weren't full people, and "everybody agrees" (at least the renouned professors and Nobel Prize winners I quoted earlier) that an infant isn't a full life until somewhere around a month or so.

Oh, no, sir. I answered it. Quite clearly. More than once. Go back and read it. Stop accusing me of not answering when I did. And, yet, again, YOU DID NOT ANSWER WHAT I ASKED.

Typical.

I really have no recollection of you answering that question. And I don't have time to go back and do research. Can you just put aside the hostility and be kind enought to answer again? I am really curious. You believe that abortion is killing a human being. I do not agree. Why do you get to be the one to decide? (And please, the answer cannot be "because abortion is killing a human being." That's can't be the answer since that is exactly the issue in dispute)

And, if there is something I have not answered, please ask again. I'll be happy to answer you. If there is a particular question you have asked I really don't know what it is.

Desperate people do desperate things. Often those are not things they want to do...they just don't see any viable option.

Agreed, but that does not make the desperate things right. And it doesn't mean the desperate things should be legal. After all, the woman who hanged her children and herself, despite being desperate (and dead) is a criminal.

I really have no recollection of you answering that question. And I don't have time to go back and do research.

You have time to accuse, and you have time to denigrate, but you don't have time to READ a very detailed answer to your question?

Here you go. Have fun. http://www.lapbandtalk.com/486168-post167.html

And while you're at it, read http://www.lapbandtalk.com/486176-post171.html

Can you just put aside the hostility and be kind enought to answer again? I am really curious.

That's really funny, because you asked me before, in another thread, I answered in detail, and then you thanked me for my honest answer. How quickly we forget.

And, if there is something I have not answered, please ask again. I'll be happy to answer you. If there is a particular question you have asked I really don't know what it is.

It's all in those posts above.

We MUST judge and condemn criminal, illegal, immoral behavior. Can we love the sinner? Yes. But we must also condemn her for her immoral actions. Those are two different ideas. Otherise we would judge no one, there would be no laws, no prosecutions, no punishment for wrongdoing and lawlessless would be the law of the land.

Again, big differences. As much as you don't like it, abortion is NOT illegal therefore there is no cause for punishment. Murder and rape are and we do prosecute those who have broken the law.

I am the chairman of the board of our local crisis pregnancy center and I encounter many women who have found themselves pregnant and considering abortion. How helpful would the pregnancy center be if we went around condemning these women who in a lot of cases, have been turned out by their family and friends? Our mission is to help these women.

We educate them on what abortion is because the majority of them, don't know what it really entails and the risks involved for them. If they still choose to have an abortion, we don't turn our backs on them. While we don't encourage anyone to have an abortion, we love them and stay by them during the often times, difficult occurrences after the abortion. That is if they allow us to help them. Many have felt the repercussions of other pro lifers who have condemned them for their decision and don't want to be around any.

Most women who come into our center choose to continue with their pregnancy and have usually decided before the baby is born whether or not they will keep the baby or give it up for adoption. If they choose to give the child up for adoption, we assist them in the process. We work with an adoption agency to place the child with a loving family. If they decide that they want to keep the child, we educate them on how to be a parent. I live in a town with two large universities and therefore we see a lot of pregnant college students who don't have a clue on how to be a parent. Along with educating them, we help them with basic needs such as a place to live, food, clothing, diapers, etc.

It's not easy to tell someone just have the baby and life will be perfect when you see firsthand the turmoil that these women are going through. I have yet to meet someone who was contemplating abortion that didn't have great struggles in reaching a decision. While I am pro life, I don't feel that gives me a right to condemn someone because they have decided was is best for their life. I am called to educate them and support them whatever their decision may be. That doesn't mean that I don't try to change their opinion. :heh: I just don't go about it harshly and treat them like an idiot because they choose to view things differently than me.

You have time to accuse, and you have time to denigrate, but you don't have time to READ a very detailed answer to your question?

Here you go. Have fun. http://www.lapbandtalk.com/486168-post167.html

And while you're at it, read http://www.lapbandtalk.com/486176-post171.html

That's really funny, because you asked me before, in another thread, I answered in detail, and then you thanked me for my honest answer. How quickly we forget.

It's all in those posts above.

I did miss those posts from 1:00 am this morning. There were too many things to read this morning and I missed them. I think you did provide an answer, that judges, voters and politicians will decide the question. We are in complete agreement on that.

As for the questions you claim I have not answered, what I see in these posts is:

Why is a black person not 3/5 of a person, but rather a full person. Why are Jews considered human life?

I can't agree that I have not answered those, several times. But I don't have time to research the various threads so I will do so again here.

The answer is that the judges and politicians and voters have spoken on these issues for many years now. Whatever mistakes in the law and in society that existed in the past on those issues have been fixed now through the political and social processes of our society. Whatever mistakes may have existed in the past on these questions, they do not exist now. There really is no longer a rational basis for disputing that a Jew is a human being, or that an African American is a human being.

The same is not true with abortion. Rational people of intelligence, compassion and good will do disagree on exactly the question of whether or not a dividing embryo is a human being. I know you believe that the book is closed on that subject, but it clearly is not and, as you acknowledged in the posts above, you are not the one who gets to decide.

The only way a comparison could exist between Hitler and abortion is if you start from the premise that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is a "human being." Your comparison falls apart immediately without that presumption. But that is exactly the issue that is in dispute in society today. A person who holds the view that a dividing embryo is not a human being is absolutely not the same as a person having the view that a Jew is not a human being. That is because many - in fact a majority of Americans - do not agree that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is a "human being."

So, as I have stated on numerous occassions before, this Hitler/abortion comparison misses the mark completely.

The only way a comparison could exist between Hitler and abortion is if you start from the premise that a dividing embryo with 4 cells is a "human being."

Abortions aren't performed when the unborn baby is only 4 cells. Abortions are performed after the baby has a beating heart -- because most women don't know they're pregnant until after that time. The majority of abortions are performed between 8 and 12 weeks. At 8 weeks, the baby has unique fingerprints, just like you and I. Clearly, not a "dividing embryo" with only 4 cells.

As I suspected, you would answer with the "everybody knows" answer. You have stated earlier, I believe, that you are in favor of limiting or outlawing (I'm not sure which) late-term abortions. Why is that OK? Who are you to decide that a late-term abortion is unacceptable for a woman who thinks that her late-term baby (oops, sorry, "dividing embryo of 4 . . . or slightly more . . . cells") isn't a human life?

For that matter, who are you to tell Nobel Prize winning men, professors at major universities, and that ilk (all modern figures, not from decades or centuries ago), that newborns aren't worthy of the right to live until they're 28 days old?

That's a non sequitur. The extreme majority of babies aren't aborted due to potential mental retardation or disfigurement, and abortion doesn't stop or cure child abuse or rape. If it did, we'd have no child abuse or rape any more, would we?

Daffodil asked the question of "Aren't you glad your mother decided not to abort you?" I was just stating that there could be some cases where some may not be happy about that decision. I never said it stopped child abuse or that the majority of abortions are due to mental retardation. In some cases abortion may be the best option for the people involved, but pro-lifers don't want that option to be available to those who might need it.

So, as I have stated on numerous occassions before, this Hitler/abortion comparison misses the mark completely.

But it doesn't miss the mark at all. What you're forgetting is history. What you're forgetting is that Hitler and the people around him DID BELIEVE that Jews were less than human. And probably some people still believe that. Slave owners DID BELIEVE that slaves were 3/5 of a person. And probably some people still believe that. Certain modern professors and Nobel Prize winners DO BELIEVE that newborns are less than human. You can say it's been corrected and "nobody" believes that anymore, but that doesn't erase the fact that it once existed and was fully believed. And the reasons people gave were perfectly logical to them.

Just because "the majority" doesn't agree NOW doesn't mean that when "the majority" agreed THEN that they were right. "The majority" is right NOW (about Jews and blacks), and "the majority" WAS WRONG then (about Jews and blacks). "The majority" IS WRONG now about abortion.

We can look at history with 20/20 hindsight. We can't look as clearly at the history we are making now. If/when "the majority" (or the politicians or the judges) recognize the humanity of the unborn and we look back at when abortion used to be legal, perhaps we will see 20/20 then, too.

OK. If I believe that taking someone's life, say a 35 year old man, is justified...who are you, and society, to tell me I am wrong? It is my choice to do this, right? And if I consume illegal drugs, why should there be laws which allow my arrest? Hey, if I purchase child pornography on the net---who are you, or any law enforcement personnel, to tell me I am breaking a law. SEE-IN ALL THOSE CASES THERE IS SOMEONE WHO IS HURT...THE 35 YEAR OLD MAN, THE PERSON KILLED BY ME WHEN I AM HIGH AND RAM MY CAR INTO THEM, THE CHILDREN WHO ARE EXPLOITED IN MAKING THE DISGUSTING PORN AND IN ABORTION, THE LIFE WHICH IS SNUFFED OUT, THE LIFE WHICH HAS NO PROTECTION AGAINST DESTRUCTION. ABORTION IS MURDER. ABORTION IS MURDER. CALL IT WHATEVER SOUNDS LESS ONEROUS--PRO-CHOICE--HAH. PRO-MURDER. BLOOD-CHILLING, BUT TRUE.

Reviewing your posts, Daffodil, leaves me feeling quite queasy. You see I believe that both human laws and, yes, New Testament teachings do acknowledge this business of moral relativism. Let me put this simply for you. The law says that you must not kill and the individual who does so will be tried and convicted according to that law. It is at this point that the judge steps in and examines all the factors which may have had an impact on this case. Was this person mentally ill or under stress at the time? Was it an accident? Is he likely to do it again? Does he enjoy murdering folks or is he remorseful? Has he financially profitted by his crime? Was his childhood so tormented that he has grown up to be a dysfunctional adult? Was he being consistently brutalised by the individual whom he killed?

Down here on earth we recognise that though certain activities may be wrong we still must attempt to understand the reasons behind these actions. We do this because we want to be fair and because we want to understand and by understanding change the forces which create these evils. We do not simply announce that an entire group of individuals have "stained souls." That is really very bluddy arrogant on your part and such a judgement is better left to your Creator.

Now, it seems to me that Jesus was an individual who made a point of spending time with sinners while He was alive. He did not kick that hooker, Mary Magdalen, to the curb. He became friends with her. And He did grant amnesty to those two sinners who were hanging on their crosses along side of Him. It seems to me that part of what he was teaching was to embrace simplicity, good works, and a generosity of spirit towards others, even those whom you might judge as being sinners.

In your posts you have shown an utter lack of respect or concern towards those women who have had abortions or to those who are protective of their sisters. Indeed, you have cursed them all with having "a stain on their souls." (Whatever happened to the notion of loving the sinner and hating the sin?) You have merely proven yourself to be a moral bully, not a kind and loving individual, nor one who is capable of subtlety. You are not the best spokesperson for your group.

Daffodil asked the question of "Aren't you glad your mother decided not to abort you?" I was just stating that there could be some cases where some may not be happy about that decision. I never said it stopped child abuse or that the majority of abortions are due to mental retardation. In some cases abortion may be the best option for the people involved, but pro-lifers don't want that option to be available to those who might need it.

Why don't we, then, just kill people who are abused or raped or mentally retarded? It would stop their suffering, after all. Because, of course, it is not our purvue to decide for other human beings whether their lives are worthy of living.

Abortions aren't performed when the unborn baby is only 4 cells. Abortions are performed after the baby has a beating heart -- because most women don't know they're pregnant until after that time. The majority of abortions are performed between 8 and 12 weeks. At 8 weeks, the baby has unique fingerprints, just like you and I. Clearly, not a "dividing embryo" with only 4 cells.

As I suspected, you would answer with the "everybody knows" answer. You have stated earlier, I believe, that you are in favor of limiting or outlawing (I'm not sure which) late-term abortions. Why is that OK? Who are you to decide that a late-term abortion is unacceptable for a woman who thinks that her late-term baby (oops, sorry, "dividing embryo of 4 . . . or slightly more . . . cells") isn't a human life?

For that matter, who are you to tell Nobel Prize winning men, professors at major universities, and that ilk (all modern figures, not from decades or centuries ago), that newborns aren't worthy of the right to live until they're 28 days old?

Obviously abortions are not performed when an embryo consists of 4 cells, but if you will agree that an embryo with 4 cells is not a human being, then where do we draw the line? And who gets to decide?

I don't know exactly what you mean by the "everybody knows" answer. If you are talking about my statement that "everybody knows" that Jews and African Americans are human beings, then yes, that is how I answer. I am not opposed to taking wisdom and insight from centuries of human experience. I am willing to be guided by the rule of law to the greatest extent my conscience will allow. I don't really understand why you consider that to be improper.

But the "everybody knows" argument does not work with abortions. That's the whole point. Everybody does not know at what point a dividing embryo becomes a human being. There are differences of opinion. And as long as you agree that society, voters, politicians, judges, etc. will be the ones to decide, and not you, then we will have no problems between us at all.

And I make no claim to telling anyone else what to believe or what they must do or think. Remember, that is your game, not mine. If Nobel Prize winners and professors and other distinguished individuals want to believe whatever they want to believe, I have no problems with that at all. My problem comes in where Nobel Prize winners and others want to make laws and use the police power of the state to control my life and force me to live by their rules. I totally reject their right to do that.

To be clear, I totally accept the right of voters, judges, politicians, and society in general to make laws that control my life. And I will abide by such laws except in the most rare circumstances where I am unable to do so for moral reasons.

But I do not accept the right of any particular group, in this case pro lifers, to determine on their own that they have the right to make the rules. Apparently you agree with that, so really, I have no problems left on this issue. I have no need to try and change your views, or tell you that you are wrong, or do that with anyone else either. All I ask is that pro life individuals understand that they are not the one who gets to make the rules. That voters, judges, politicians, and society in general make the rules. Apparently, you do agree with that. So there really are no more problems here as far as I'm concerned.