'Praying to end abortion' return address stickers

What a thread.

"It's life Jim. But not as we know it." ~Mister Spock to Captain Kirk.

What is life? Is life when you breathe eat sleep fart poop throw up have sex argue question everything do nothing lie around walk around go to work don't go to work...?

Or is life something else? We, most of us, define life as living. And for some, living is breathing, have conscious thought, being an active human being.

But a baby, not yet born, not yet breathing, is not under that umbrella of thought, is it?

I'm not a woman, nor do I play one on TV. And I would not want to have a baby, at all, much less abort one. TOO much pain, in either case.
Unless you are sitting there, about to have an abortion, or deliver a baby, none of us can know what it's like, to be in that situation. Men especially.

As to that sticker, and having read what the OP had to say about it, I have no doubt the sticker was meant as a smug comment. More to the pity.

I sometimes get free Ziggy return stickers. Sometimes I get free return stickers with flowers. Sometimes with causes on them.

I use them all. I don't think the person at FPL is going to care (or think that I am some sort of Ziggy Flower Loving Cause driven person), at all, as that person rips open the envelope, and takes my check and applies it to the bill.

But if I was writing some person that hated Ziggy, I would not affix that return sticker, because I would try to be nice that person's feelings. And, if the person who wrote this letter, knew the person she was sending it to had a different POV, then that is just rude, mean spirited, and quite non Christ like.

Christ said, 'If they want to hear, great. Tell them. Otherwise, leave town. Don't look back. Not all who have ears will listen, and that is cool. Just don't force your POV on anyone.'

(TJ translation)

Be more like Christ, and less like a Christian, I say.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Nov 17 2006, 06:28 PM) [snapback]351192[/snapback]</div>

I'm pleased that you responded Vince. I doubt that many were too feeble to read the whole thing, if the topic was important to them. I am grateful that you obviously read and analzyed all of my words. Your comments were expected. It's interesting, when a person disagrees with someone who uses any religious reasoning about a subject the first predictable response is " here is another religious fanatic judging someone." I know that response very well, because years ago I used the same strategy in ridiculing those who differed with my opinions too. However, based on the comments of others, some who have chosen to respond enjoyed your response. You have quite the following..Congratulations. Now lets get to your response...

If believing in God is religious fanaticism , then I plead guilty.

You are 100% accurate in stating that aborting a baby is not a desireable way of dealing with a baby, especially considering that the number of parents who are desperate to adopt a baby is close to the same number of babies who are aborted.

Women who have abortions are baby killers... The way you reworded my words sounds very crude doesn't it? What would you call them, Vince, fetus exterminators? Look I get it..There are many reasons why women don't want a baby. They become sexually active very early, and don't really understand what the potential ramifications of their actions are. Pressure from parents, ridicule from classmates, financial stress, inconvience of more responsibility, not being married, etc, etc..) I just don't understand how so many people can be desensitized to something that is so cruel. Forget religion and God for a minute...What do you call an abortion..Is it not murder? Killing? Vince, you have all the answers.. What would you call it? You would know that statement to be true if you ever had the horrible experience of talking to some women years after having an abortion. And when you hear them say, " I killed my baby", you would know what you were flippantly saying on this forum is reality for many, unfortunately.

Belief in God is the basis for having morals Vince, the handbook for knowing how to act (Bible) comes from God. Whether you have ever read the Bible or not, I am sure your parents or someone gave you an idea of how to act, talk, etc. My belief is that moral teachings come from somewhere, and I choose to believe it comes from God (of course one must first believe that there is a God, and believe the good of this world comes from God). We can agree to disagree on this if you like.

Regarding knowing right from wrong, and if you are pro abortion than you are wrong... I believe that everyone intuitively knows right from wrong..Let's get to the point...whether you are a religious fanatic, simply believe in God, or feel that you are cousin to Pete the paramecium I believe killing a baby is wrong. Simply by using reason, killing a baby is wrong.

Pro abortionists have decreased morals..but I am not being judgemental, just factual. It would seem to me that having no concern for life would indicate decreased morals. That is not a judgement it IS a fact. Vince, if someone came to your neighborhood and killed even your dog or cat, would you consider that person to be a moral person? Are you trying to kid yourself into believing that killing a baby is a sound moral decision.

Please don't argue that abortion is ok bec it allows someone to continue living a lifestyle that is contrary to the Word of God...another accurate interpretation of my words made by Vince. Last time I looked...thou shalt not kill is still included. Also, there are statements about avoiding sex outside of marriage (fornication) and adultery in the Bible as well. It is your choice to lead the life you choose, however, IF you believe in what the Bible teaches there is a price to pay if one continues on that path. That is not my judgement, Vince, that is the Bible's. Let's look at an example...let's say there is a person who enjoys having sex and is not married. Ok, in today's world society says no problem...contraception fails.. The two people don't love each other and certainly don't want to marry so they figure lets get rid of the evidence.. Abortion time. By having the abortion they can continue on the lifestyle that they want. Now, no one wants to look at themselves and say I'm wrong. And they certainly don't want to give up the fun of having sex...so in order to rationalize that all is well they HAVE to believe that abortion is fine because if they didn't they would be judge and jury against themselves. If the person decides that abortion is wrong, then it follows that they wouldn't count on contraception to work and would stop having sex outside of marriage to avoid everhaving to make such a serious decision of having an abortion.

Anyone who has an abortion doesn't know about abortion, and should learn about it. Vince, I have yet to find anyone who learns what really happens in an abortion continue to stay an abortion advocate. It is horrifying to say the least... You can make a joke out of all of this.. That's ok, I understand you enjoy the feedback you get from others on this site. It's just that this is NOT a joke.

People who don't believe in God are lazy and immoral. NO, you got this one totally wrong.. Actually the first statement I made that you didn't interpret correctly. Because simply the use of reason would lead most to understanding what is considered right or wrong.

Anti abortionists care about people, its not because of any religious reason.. Wrong on second point. I am sure you care about someone even though you think abortion is just fine. People who are seriously anti abortion not only have religious reasons as their basis for their feelings but in my experience have undergone some significant event in their life that woke them up to things that they took too casually before. This is not a holier than though attitude or judgementalness, it simply a deep concern for others including the defenseless unborn.

Pro abortionist feel guilty because they know they are wrong...Not quite what I said. Vince, but close...those who have had abortions tend to understand as their life goes on that what they did was not right. And that does foster guilt in many people.

Vince, thank you for your response to my initial post...I truly thank you because this conversation has allowed many, based on the number of views this post has gotten, to at least consider their position on the topic. I don't have all the answers...I know this is a very complicated topic. For those who are pro abortion think hard and long about your position. Learn more and more about it. Determine if your lifestyle is appropriate and in line with your beliefs. For those who are anti abortion keep talking. Don't be intimidated by those who ridicule you. I was once in the camp of "I would never have an abortion, but what you do is your decision". I was lucky, through my specific life experiences and those who took the time to talk to me and give me a different perspective, I came to the realization that I was wrong in my initial response to this topic. You have to continue to sound off because in the big picture of the world this topic is important. Vince, I'm sure you will have some response that AJS is some holier than thou character...Not true my friend...far from it...I just identified very closely with a cynic. I used to be one myself.. Best of good fortune to you in the future.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov, 10:41 AM) [snapback]351382[/snapback]</div>

The problem with this is the word "baby". Speaking for myself, I enthusiastically agree with the current law making it illegal to perform partial birth abortions except when the mother's life is at risk. And I am appalled a the President's refusal fund embryonic stem cell research. Abortion is an issue that I've had a lot of trouble with ethically. I'm pretty big on individual rights. But not when they interfere with someone else's rights. That's why it's important to be able to distinguish when the fetus is a "someone" with "rights". I lean towards the first 6 weeks or so being the only acceptable period to allow abortions as a general rule, excepting the health or life of the mother. I think that's the point at which the vital organs begin to develop. I would not consider a 4-week old fetus to be the same as a "baby". But it's a tough one, and who am I to decide? I personally don't think I could have one under any condition, but then I've never been pregnant. Maybe I'd feel different if I were, depending on the circumstance.

This is where I have a real problem with what you're saying. You imply that the only moral people are the religious. Do you get how pious that sounds? And do you see how the "religious" look to us non-believers - we constantly hear stories of child molestation, greed, homosexuality (which I think is perfectly ok but you guys apparently don't), support of an unjustified war, ..... from the supposed "religious" community. From the outside, it doesn't look all that much like a moral group to us.

Baby killing == infanticide. Definitely wrong. But that's not what we're talking about.

Again "killing a baby" - poor choice of words. But to the point: we "liberals" don't get it when you "religious" people jump up and down about "concern for life" when so many of you support invading a country that did nothing to us, and killing tens of thousands (or more) of innocents; when you are "morally" against embryonic stem cell research, which has the potential to save so many lives. You care about a fetus' life, but how do you feel about lives of Iraqi citizens? How do you feel about the thousands of Americans with Parkinson's, M.S., and so many other fatal diseases that could be cured if we funded the research?

ajs: Where do you stand on these issues?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 18 2006, 12:04 PM) [snapback]351468[/snapback]</div>

The anti choice advocates win the public relations battle when you use that politically charged non-medical term to describe the procedure which is medically known as Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or Intact D&X).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 18 2006, 03:04 PM) [snapback]351468[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for responding.. I understand your concerns. As an aside, I have a feeling that the ending of this thread will be soon since I know the moderators would like us to stick to fun stuff like EV buttons on our Prius and what gas mileage we are getting. But, in the spirit of your response I will answer you. If this becomes a meaningful conversation I would have no problem continuing it by email instead.

The one group I consider myself a member of, and proudly of it, is a Prius owner. Concerned about our environment and wanting to save our fuel . I don't consider myself a member of some moral, religous group that is brainwashed to think one way on everything. I would also doubt that you came to your conclusions because of a being part of a liberal group either.

There are a few issues that I think are causing the divide between your opinion and mine (that includes others with your opinion and others with my opinion as well). First of all, I think you will agree that I have the right to base my opinions on the religious beliefs that I have just as you have the right to base your opinions on whatever premise you use. The Bible (and my religion) teach me that at the time of conception an eternal soul is infused in the embryo. Making that embryo literally a child of God. Whether you believe that or not is immaterial to me because this is the basis of my beliefs. When I read the Bible I truly believe it is the Word of God, giving us instructions on how to act in this life. Teaching us morals, if you will. And, the Bible is explicit in its treatment of the various issues you cited. So, for a moment place yourself in my mindset...The Bible teaches that sex is a gift for married couples which may at times give new life.. It is not, according to the Bible, for having relations with your girlfriend before she becomes your wife. So, here we have two people having sex outside of marriage (against the Bible), then a pregnancy ensues and they decide to kill the baby, who has an eternal soul. (against the Bible). Based on this information, if you truly believe that these actions are wrong, how can you possibly have any other opinion other than what I have attempted to accurately post the last few days? When you say you ethically have a problem with abortion, you should because it is simply not right.

Perhaps you can help me with something..I don't understand the word liberal. With no disrespect meant, does liberal mean anything and everything goes? There are no consequences to anything. If it feels good, do it? Where does the opinion come from. Is there a basis to it? Is it just if it fits my life right now it is ok to do? That might help me understand some of the posts I have read.

Regarding your war question, as a general public I don't think we have a clue as to what is going on over seas. We are told what they want to tell us. You and I, unfortunately are out of the loop in that regard. However that being said, I don't like the killing of Americans, Iraqi's, Canadians, or anybody for that matter. It is wrong.


Regarding stem cell research. Be very careful with this one..There are two problems (maybe more) with embryonic stem cell research from what I have read...The first is that in all the years of embryonic stem cell research there have been a multitude of aborted babies and yet NOT ONE cure for anything. So here is the dilemna...how many babies are you willing to sacrifice before we get just one cure, if any? I am not against ADULT stem cell research because there is no taking of life with this method. The people who are suffering with these nasty diseases need help. But I think we have to be very careful with these procedures based on years of NO RESULTS. Is this a ploy by researchers to give us hope as long as our tax dollars( in the past) funded their jobs? I, too, at times, can be cynical as well.


One final thought. Something I resent a bit. Maybe it is because it is difficult at times to express one's feelings accurately in writing. Why is there typically an argument from your side of the debate, that when someone uses a religious argument it comes across as the person is above or better than someone else. I re read my posts and I don't see it. Maybe it is because it is not my intent, or that I simply don't have the writing skills. Sometimes I think it is simply a ploy to try to get under someone's skin? I don't know, but I will dismiss that thought for this conversation.

To end this topic of conversation for me, here is a bottom line question for you and others who have the same position as you on these topics...Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, that is something that is precious, that teaches us what God expects from us? The reason I ask that question is because the Bible is very clear on what it teaches on many of the subjects we have mentioned. So it comes down to what you believe. If you don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that it is a bunch of malarchy, or if you simply choose not to follow its guideline, then the best we would ever do together is agree to disagree .

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov, 11:52 PM) [snapback]351587[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for your reply. The mods are ok with us talking about this because we are in FHOP, where everything's allowed.

Out of curiosity, where does it say this in the Bible?

There are a couple of things here. I don't doubt that you believe these things to be wrong, but I don't believe that sex before marriage is wrong, I don't believe in the Bible, and I don't believe in God.

Another thing. You are talking about sex between consenting unmarried people. Many pregnancies are a result of rape. Some pregnancies happen between married people who cannot afford to raise another child. Either way, I think RU486 is a great solution to the issue all around, since it can be taken after the sex and before the pregnancy.

Finally, what you consider to be moral behavior is fine for you. Why do you care how others choose to live their lives, if it does not affect you?

I want to be clear with my sentiment here. I don't have a problem with abortion, certainly not within the first few weeks; I have a problem with defining the point at which the fetus should be considered a "being" with "rights".

I don't know where the origin of the word comes from, but it seems to be used erroneously by some in the way you describe it, I think to try to make us look bad. I think it may be derived from "liberty" meaning "freedom". We are concerned with individual rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. Many people prefer the word "progressive". Maybe someone else can address this better. But no, it certainly does not mean "anything goes"!

Actually, we do know what is going on. If you don't you should really make an effort to find out; it is a very important issue. We were lied to about the reasons for going to war, and as a result we have killed many thousands of people who had not a second thought about us.

I think you're getting some bad information here.

The embryos are not a result of abortion. Again, please don't use the word "baby".. They are not babies.

Also, the embryos that would be used are only the ones that are discarded anyway, from fertility procedures. They fertilize more eggs than they need, and discard the ones they don't use. That's all that is being asked for.

Chicken-and-egg. How can we find a cure if we don't do the research? And embryonic stem cells have been used successfully to cure illness in animals, which gives us great hope that the methods will work for people.

Well reading this quote again:
"You know, I hear and read about a whole bunch of people who don't believe in God and religion. I can understand why...When someone believes in God or follows religious tenets, it requires the constant struggle to act in a certain way. It's called morality."

Still sounds to me like you are implying that if you don't believe in God you're not moral. Just so you know, the reason we don't believe in God has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with reason. We are still moral, upstanding citizens. Well, most of us!

Agree. That is, to disagree.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 18 2006, 07:41 AM) [snapback]351382[/snapback]</div>

What makes you a religious fanatic isn't that you believe in God, ajs, it's that you want everyone else to believe in your God and the beliefs that you think your God wants us to have, and that you are making the erroneous assumption that your views are so correct that anyone not believing the same way must be ignorant or too lazy to achieve your 'high morals'. At the same time, you attempted to make the argument that it isn't really about religion, but plain common sense, then you proceeded to go on a what amounted to a religion-laced rant. That's not the way to build credibility. And people responding to me aren't fans...they are individuals who just happened to agree with my assessment of your post...way to be condescending to them, though, I'm sure that made you some friends.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 18 2006, 07:41 AM) [snapback]351382[/snapback]</div>

Source?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 18 2006, 07:41 AM) [snapback]351382[/snapback]</div>

I have two responses to you, one of which you'd already know if you had read this entire thread:

1. I don't consider a fetus to be a viable human life until the third trimester, then the woman better have a damn good reason for wanting to kill the now-viable baby. Even then, it is her baby, so the argument can be made that she still has the right to take the kid out of the world she brought him/her into. Biologically speaking, this is not an unusual practice. In this society, I'm less likely to make that argument, but some societies have no problems with killing unwanted babies. You are the one attaching a particular moral quality to killing fetuses or babies. There are many educated, intelligent, and moral people in the world who don't share your particular feelings.

2. I don't value humans as much as you do, so killing them isn't as dramatic to me as it is to you. This is an important distinction between us, and the reason why an effort on your part to make me feel guilty or value fetuses or babies in some fashion is likely to be unsuccessful.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 18 2006, 07:41 AM) [snapback]351382[/snapback]</div>

This is the kind of statement that really makes you appear to be a narrow minded and extremist religious zealot. "Belief in God is the basis for having morals"??? ugh, gag me with a spoon! Obviously, we'll have to just disagree on this, but I could easily show you to be wrong about where morals come from, even by your own rules. In other words, perhaps you should learn more about your Bible before discussing the issue of morals as related to that book.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 18 2006, 07:41 AM) [snapback]351382[/snapback]</div>

No, killing a fetus, or even a baby isn't necessarily wrong. It's wrong according to you. Obviously, many people feel differently than you. You've once again made the assumption that your moral judgments are the only ones that should matter to everyone else, and are so oblivious to other viewpoints that anyone not agreeing with you is either ignorant or morally lazy.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 18 2006, 07:41 AM) [snapback]351382[/snapback]</div>

Using the term "decreased morals", then calling that a FACT is enough to discredit your assertion of it's own accord. Any statement of a qualitative nature is automatically an opinion, not a fact. And what does someone killing my cat or dog have to do with this discussion?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 18 2006, 07:41 AM) [snapback]351382[/snapback]</div>

bleh...in this paragraph you're just regurgitating the same argument: God said abortion is bad, so it's bad. Whatever. My god doesn't give a crap, so then what?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 18 2006, 07:41 AM) [snapback]351382[/snapback]</div>

I know what happens in abortions, and I'm still in favor of them. So now you do know someone who remains an advocate. And I won't allow you and your religious kind to politically force me to do what you want just because you are under the delusion that you have a "moral imperative". You don't. And I didn't make a joke out of the subject of abortion...I made light of your ability to reason, because clearly your decision-making is guided by your belief in God and the Bible...not a very solid philosophical foundation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 18 2006, 07:41 AM) [snapback]351382[/snapback]</div>

No, I didn't get that one wrong at all. Here's what you said that I paraphrased from:

Notice that I bolded those words that you used that had to do with the effort it takes to be moral. It sure appears to me that you're saying that believing in God and being moral isn't easy, correct? And if that's true, then the converse of that must also be true; that being immoral and giving in to the "sins of the flesh", or doing things that you "know" are wrong is the easy way out. Since it takes discipline and effort to believe in God and practice high moral standards, those who don't must not be as disciplined as you. Hence, they're lazy and the end result of that laziness is that they're immoral. Therefore, according to your reasoning, "people who don't believe in God are immoral and lazy."

ajs, basically any time you start to drag God or the Bible into this discussion, you're going to lose. I don't believe in your god or your bible, so using them in an argument means nothing to me. In addition, your ability to believe that your morals are superior to those of us who are pro-abortion are quaint, at best, and quite archaic. You speak as though it is obvious that you're right and the rest of us must just not know anything about abortion, or are immoral. You seem to lack the ability to understand that some of us know exactly what abortion entails, have probably endured it, and continue to advocate for it...and through it all...we've still managed to be 'moral' people.

Finally, here were your thoughts out of your last paragraph:

"For those who are pro abortion think hard and long about your position. Learn more and more about it. Determine if your lifestyle is appropriate and in line with your beliefs."

"For those who are anti abortion keep talking. Don't be intimidated by those who ridicule you."

Notice how you are talking down to the pro abortion people, as though it's so clear that these foolish little children are wrong that they need to learn or re-examine their beliefs? And then you cheer on the anti abortion people as though they are the heroes in this discussion and need to keep 'fighting on' against the ignorant heathens? That's what makes you a religious fanatic, and that's why you are a dangerous person to a free society. You are the kind of person who would legislate laws that make it illegal for others to do anything that you (or your god or your narrow interpretation of the Bible) deem immoral.

You and I would rarely agree on issues, because you are a religious follower, rather than a reasoned intellectual. I don't claim to have all the answers, but it's obvious to me that you certainly don't, so why are you preaching to the rest of us?

Vince

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 19 2006, 12:52 AM) [snapback]351587[/snapback]</div>

It matters because if your beliefs are made up, be it in your head, or in a book without any basis in reality, you shouldn't expect people to agree with you or behave in a way acceptable to you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 19 2006, 12:52 AM) [snapback]351587[/snapback]</div>

Oh boy. And where exactly is morality in the bible? Abraham mock killing his own son for god? Job losing his wife and then unwittingly having sex with his daughters? There is very little morality in the bible. You may cherrypick something to follow, but only after ignoring truly atrocious stuff.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 19 2006, 12:52 AM) [snapback]351587[/snapback]</div>

Not a single baby has ever been aborted because of stem cell research! Embryos may be frozen or discarded most frequently for in vitro fertilization. Aborted embryos are not useful for stem cell research because most cells in an older embryo have undergone some type of differentiation. Only single or few-celled embryos are useful for stem cell research.

You ask what liberal is? I think of it as the "reality-based community". There was a time when the bible ruled society. It was called the dark ages...

 

ajs--You said that if anyone knew how abortions worked, they would turn anti-abortion. Sorry, that's not true, and certainly a narrow-minded approach. I know how they work, and will never change my opinion. I suspect the same is true about you--that you will never change your opinion.

In the Bible, btw, it says nowhere that conception begins life. Sorry--it just doesn't. That's your spin. And any quote you can provide can be contoverted or rationalized, as can most biblical quotes. In fact, the bible says several time that life begins at first breath. I'm sure you think those quotes are fallacious.

If you think an embryo is "viable," why not eggs/sperm? They both need lots of development to turn into a viable fetus. Just curious... (I always remember "The Meaning of Life" here..."every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate.")

On a side note...you know what we need? Birth control for men. It is incredibly jacked up that we have none. I think the pro-life movement would lose a bunch of folks if men were saddled with carrying a child for nine months with no alternative. Funny how the most vociferous pro-lifers are men.

Oh--and "liberal" means (to me):
1 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
2 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
3 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism; of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ajs @ Nov 18 2006, 11:52 PM) [snapback]351587[/snapback]</div>

i suppose then that the searches for cures to cancer and diabetes are also ploys since we've had decades of research on these areas with no cure yet, but they're still receiving plenty of funding from government entities. yep, we're offering fake hope to all of those folks too.

but you may defend them, saying "but those diseases are so complex!" and if you are medically knowledgeable, you might cite some of the complexities of each condition.

okay. we're talking about stem cells as a possible cure particularly in the field of neurological disorders. given that we barely understand the NORMAL function of the brain, how on earth are we expected to provide immediate results for restoration of such vastly complex neuronal signaling pathways? talk about complexity. and then how to differentiate such cells into the desired cell type (and the correct type of neuron on top of that, in the case of neurological disorders), and how to get them into the correct place, and how to get them to form the right connections and follow the correct pathways, all without significant side effects... yeah that's a two year project. tops.

you're right on one end. we researchers do want to get paid for our work, no matter what we study. we spent tens of thousands of dollars on our own educations and have families of our own to provide for.

trust me, your villified "researchers" have very little to do with where the funding is allocated anyway.

 

The Bible never says that life begins at the moment of conception, because the writers of the Bible didn't even know that there was such a thing as conception! Nothing was known of meiosis or sperm and egg cells. It was believed that the man "planted" a "seed" in a woman, and that that seed grew in the woman but came solely from the man, analogous to planting a grain of wheat in the ground.

Therefore anyone who asserts that the Bible says life begins at conception is strongly delusional.

A wonderful example of the Bible's ignorance of the process of procreation is its belief that if you allow a cow to look at something with spots on it, she'll have a spotted calf. This is especially eggregious because at the time the Bible was written, farmers were breeding plants and animals by artificial selection, and though they knew nothing of Mendelian genetics or Darwinian natural selection, they did know that traits could be selected for and were inherited from both parents. But the writers of the Bible were totally ignorant even of the knowledge of the day! To use the Bible as an authority for anything is preposterous.

The question of when life "begins" is a religious one. Therefore all arguments against early-term abortion are strictly religious arguments. And in the U.S. (at least for the time being) we have the right to believe whatever religion we please, or to believe none at all.

The opposition to abortion actually goes back to ancient times, and probably to pre-history, when survival rates were low and a large population improved a tribe's ability to survive. It was a practical issue, not one of morality. But now that the human population is increasing at a geometric rate, there is no longer any need for this "morality."

As for the Bible as a moral authority, let's see some of what the Bible requires or permits:

If a man dies childless, his brother is required to impregnate the dead man's wife, to provide him a posthumous heir.

A woman has no rights whatsoever: she cannot own property or choose her own mate. A man can divorce his wife but she cannot divorce him. A man may beat his wife if she disobeys him.

A man is permitted to have as many wives as he can afford to purchase from their father or brother.

What say ye now of the "moral authority" of the Bible??? I say the Bible is a book, nothing more. It's actually a pretty good book. It has adventure, magic, poetry, pornography, mythology; it has good guys and bad guys, monsters and heros. But it was written thousands of years ago by people who didn't know beans about the physical processes of life, weather, or plate tectonics, so "god" was the best catch-all they could come up with to explain it all. But today the god myth is no longer needed, and only serves to foment wars and intolerance.

The best joke of all is that if they didn't believe it was the "word of god," these same Bible-thumpers would have it banned and burned for obscenity! Ha ha ha!

 

Anyone know where I can get a "Nuke gay baby whales for Christ" bumper sticker?

thanks

 

As has been stated before (and perhaps in another thread) even the church does not recognize fertilized cells as a 'baby'. But the Anti-Abortion crowd chooses to ignore that just as they select certain passages in the bible to support their position and ignore others.

The same kind of push-button semantics can be found in the justification of the "War on Terror".

I side with Daniel. There is no reverence for life with this crowd. As soon as the 'baby' is born, they're on their own until they can be cannon fodder.

(BTW I think there is a "Nuke Baby Seals for Christ" bumper sticker.)

 

"For those who are pro abortion"

Speaking of terminology, this is another one that is often misused. We are not pro abortion. We are pro choice. Big difference!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 19 2006, 04:39 PM) [snapback]351755[/snapback]</div>

This goes back to the earlier post about calling it "partial birth" abortion rather than the medical name. If you believe abortion is OK, you are pro-abortion. Pro-choice is trying to have it both ways AND make it sound more palatable. Now, I WILL agree with Daniel somewhat when he says (paraphrasing) "how can you be Pro-life and support a war which kills people".

So, let's just agree that the terms are used to put you in a particular "camp" and should not be taken absolutely literally.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Davey Bob @ Nov 19 2006, 09:04 AM) [snapback]351710[/snapback]</div>

I once had a t-shirt that said, "NUKE A GODLESS COMMUNIST GAY BABY SEAL FOR CHRIST." I wore it in public once. An old couple came tottering by, arm in arm, and they stopped and stared at my t-shirt for a long minute, and then finally the woman said, in a sweet old-lady voice, "Oh! You love the lord. That's nice." And they walked away. I never wore it again. I gave it to my mother, who took it with her to Nicaragua as part of a donation of clothing and medicine.

People simply could not take it in. They thought the facetious joke was meant as some sort of pro-religion statement, which they knew they didn't quite understand, but pro-Jesus.

For that and similar progressive paraphernalia, try Northern Sun.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 19 2006, 12:31 PM) [snapback]351773[/snapback]</div>

This is out and out bull, and is disingenuous to boot. I will venture to guess that nobody on this board is pro-abortion. We all agree that abortion is a bad thing which should be avoided whenever possible. HOWEVER, I feel, as do many others, that the final decision must be made by the pregnant woman. Not by her husband, or her father, or her brother. Not by the government. But by the woman. Pro-choice means that a woman can choose what happens with her own body.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 17 2006, 10:06 PM) [snapback]351252[/snapback]</div>

I could not BELIEVE how tough it was finding a website about Partial Birth abortion statistics without a "slant". In fact, I don't think I even found one. Anyway, I found these three sites w/ the following portions just to wet your whistle. I don't think ANY rational person can believe that PB abortions are ONLY when the woman's life and or baby's life is at risk.

Oh, pardon any cut and paste errors and the website I found this at FOLLOWS each cut and paste.

Are there 3rd trimester abortions?
A more recently developed method here is the partial birth abortion, also called "brain suction" or "D&X" methods.
- These are done after 4 or 5 months.
- 80% of babies are normal.
- Most babies are viable.
This is like a breech delivery. The entire infant is delivered except the head. A scissors is jammed into the base of the skull. A tube is inserted into the skull, and the brain is sucked out. The now-dead infant is pulled out. The drawings illustrate this.
"There are no medical circumstances in which a partial-birth abortion is the only safe alternative. We take care of pregnant women who are very sick, and babies who are very sick, and we never perform partial-birth abortions. . . . There are plenty of alternatives. . . . This is clearly a procedure no obstetrician needs to do." F. Boehm, Dr. OB, Vanderbilt U. Med. The Washington Times, May 6, 1966, p. A1

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/...hem_both_18.asp


But in reality, as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other eminent medical authorities told Congress: "Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both." Also, Jay Sekulow of the Center for Law and Justice said the "so-called health exception" is a false argument aimed at undermining a "law designed to end (a) horrific procedure."

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/parti...tistics-faq.htm



Partial Birth Abortion FAQ's

ARE THE BABIES ALIVE DURING THE ABORTION?

Yes! On July 11, 1995, American Medical News (AMA’s official journal) submitted the transcript of a tape-recorded interview with abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted: “...the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.â€

IS THIS TYPE OF ABORTION RARE?

When this type of procedure first became public knowledge, those defending it said it was only done a few hundred times a year. Then Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted on ABC’s “Nightline†(11/95) that he had lied when he asserted the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger. The reality is, this gruesome method of killing partially born babies is done many thousands of times a year. Abortionist, Dr. McMahon, admitted in 1995 to performing over 2000 partial birth abortions.

ARE THEY PERFORMED ONLY ON SEVERELY DEFORMED BABIES?

That is what the abortion industry would like you to believe. But Dr. Haskell said in a tape recorded interview with the AMA’s American Medical News: “...and I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective (not medically necessary) in that 20-24 week range ... In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.†An article in the L.A. Times (8/28/96) listed some of the medical reasons for this type of abortion. They included cleft palates, cystic hygroma, (both easily corrected problems) and cystic fibrosis. The medical conditions present in the mother that warranted this type of abortion were, “depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting ...†In other words, even those partial birth abortions that are done for the “health of the mother†or because of a “defective fetus†are often performed for minor, easily correctable conditions. Dr. C. Everett Coop, former U.S. Surgeon General, stated, “... in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can’t be a necessity for the baby.â€

IS THIS TYPE OF ABORTION EVER DONE ON THIRD TRIMESTER BABIES?

Yes. While most babies are in their 20th to 24th week when aborted in this manner, babies are aborted as late as the ninth month! This was admitted to by abortionist Dr. McMahon who, in 1995, submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a graph and explanation that showed he aborted healthy babies even in the third trimester!

http://www.abortionfacts.com/partial_birth/faq.asp


Partial-Birth Abortion Statistics
With Congress and the nation debating partial-birth abortions, Guttmacher added some questions to their usual survey to collect some statistics on this abortion method.
"Partial-birth abortion" was a term that was invented by Congress for the purposes of legislation. The only method of abortion in common use which meets Congress's definition is what abortionists term "Dilation and Extraction (D&X)", "Intact Dilation and Evacuation (Intact D&E)", and various other terms that describe essentially the same method. (Congress invented a new term rather than using the terms already in use so that they could define it generally, and an abortionist could not circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the technique and giving it a new name.)
In their survey, Guttmacher found only 8 abortionists who admitted using this method, for a total of 363 abortions in 1996 and 201 in the first half of 1997. As their surveys do not include all abortionists in the country, they estimate from this that a total of about 14 abortionists comitted about 640 D&X's in 1996.
On the other hand, an abortionist in California has admitted that he did 65 third-trimester abortions per year, and most of these appeared to be D&X's. The inventor of D&X says that he himself has committed 1000 of them. And a reporter for The Record in Hackensack, NJ, found one cinic there that performed 1,500 D&X's in one year. There may be quibbles over the exact definition of what a D&X is, or perhaps abortionists are understating the numbers to avoid bad publicity.
Guttmacher also asked how far into pregnancy abortionists did D&X's. They found that most were between 20 and 24 weeks. Only two abortionists reported using this method before 20 weeks, and four after 24 weeks. The latest was 33 weeks.

Source: Henshaw, Stanley K. "Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States, 1995-1996". Family Planning Perspectives, 30:6, Nov/Dec 1998.
Counts of abortions are based on the Guttmacher Institute's survey of abortionists. Guttmacher is a strongly pro-abortion organization. Their counts are typically about 10% higher than government figures, because they are based on direct reporting by friendly organizations, while the government numbers come indirectly through state health departments, with varying degress of vigor in pursuit of complete numbers.
Number of women of child-bearing age comes from US Census figures. Numbers of births come from the National Center for Health Statistics (a US government agency).


http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/us1996.htm

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov, 05:39 PM) [snapback]351804[/snapback]</div>

Schmika, all this stuff is really old. You are aware of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed in 2003, aren't you?

 

I know I'm saying the obvious here, but all of your references are over ten years old.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Nov 19 2006, 02:39 PM) [snapback]351804[/snapback]</div>

What do you expect when you use the politically charged name that the opponents of this procedure have coined in order to vilify it?

You'd have better luck finding more neutral facts and unslanted statistics by using the proper medical term for this procedure, "Intact D&X."

Here is a start: House Report 108-058 - PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN ACT OF 2003