Obama is a nice guy, a good American, smart, intelligent. But when someone can;t tell when life is born or represents, then everything MUST be off kilter and I don't know it.

And someone said somewhere on these postings, if you give a farmer a handful of seeds, he knows what he's holding. He's holding a field of corn and his families financial survival and the food on the table for others.

If you can't understand that at conception there is a human being, something is dramatically wrong with understanding of life and values.

Obama isn't pro-abortion, he's pro-choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
Obama is a nice guy, a good American, smart, intelligent. But when someone can;t tell when life is born or represents, then everything MUST be off kilter and I don't know it.

And someone said somewhere on these postings, if you give a farmer a handful of seeds, he knows what he's holding. He's holding a field of corn and his families financial survival and the food on the table for others.

If you can't understand that at conception there is a human being, something is dramatically wrong with understanding of life and values.

Ok, one last time: The issue is not are we FOR killing a baby, the issue is who is to control the life of the woman, who has been raped, against her will, or gotten into a pregnancy because she did not know or could not get birth control, and is now carrying an UNWANTED child, who will not be raised in a loving home. Put your name on a list of adoptees, and take the next UNWANTED child, sight unseen, no choice in the matter, just the very next one that comes up for adoption, and you will have my blessing. If not ready for such a situation, then please, go away and realize that you are not perfect either, you can make mistakes too, and if you haven't walked in the moccasins of another, then you really don't know what they are feeling. This ABORTION issue is so phony. It allows one to feel superior to the poor woman, who is a second class citizen by definition of the Bible, the source of all SIN, who is therefore too ignorant to control her own life and the choices she is presented with. Look in the mirror. You, who want to control her, cannot even make the correct decisions for youself most of the time, and need support of others to cope with the reality of living in this chaotic world. I say, cut us all some slack, go find another issue to rant about, and take care of your own house, set an example of how to live for others to admire and they will then emulate your fine choices. In the meanwhile, stop judging others that you may not be so judged, and stop creating more chaos were there is enough hate in the world without all of this ranting about CONTROL.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
If you can't understand that at conception there is a human being, something is dramatically wrong with understanding of life and values.

Well said, Mr Knox!

By the way, patrask's argument is also well-said and makes many valid points, but I (although a left-winger) must part ways with most liberals and agree that life begins at conception. Some things are just too clear to argue against!

Only a fool steps into this one, but I am with Doug that life begins at conception. At that moment--not before or after--the fully constructed DNA of a human being is created. The question is, what do we do with that? I wonder how many have actually read Roe v. Wade. The ruling is based on a conditional argument. IF the fetus is a human being with a right to life, then the privacy right of the woman is trumped by the right to life of the child. Roe says we can't seem to agree on when life begins (from the standpoint of having a full legal status), so we go to the privacy rights of the woman. But privacy is only part of the issue, with the other part being the question of choice--a liberty interest. We have decided, in the absence of our ability to define the legal status of a fetus, that the privacy right of the woman takes priority and that the liberty interest lies in the woman, not the child. But why should the liberty interest reside in the woman as opposed to the child? What actual legal principle or reason or moral code is it that allows us to arbitrarily assign the liberty interest to the woman and deny it to the child? Who speaks for the child's interests?

To the question of rape; most opponents of abortion recognize the painful decision involved in issues arising from rape and incest, and concede that there should be a choice provided there.

Walking in the mocassins of another is very important, but are we saying we want to base the question of life and death on personal feelings rather than on a principle that can be made universally applicable? Shouldn't we make the effort to come to a determination as to the status of the fetus before we make a decision to kill millions of them in a state where, as Blackman admits, we can't seem to make up our minds on this? If we aren't certain, shouldn't the holding position be that we abstain from killing them until we know it is right, rather than killing millions when we haven't done the heavy lifting as a society to determine the legal and moral status of the unborn?

No one is arguing that there should be a choice to carry the baby to term. That choice has been around for centuries and centuries. The choice being argued for is the choice to kill "something".

Justice Black (the author of Roe v. Wade) said the ruling would not satisfy anyone. He was mostly right on that.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mr. Dark,

I really do not think that Men should be allowed to decide this issue. Men are the vehicle of impregnation; their job is done upon ejacualtion. Then they seem to defer to the woman to hold the responsibility for all that comes next, pregnancy, child rearing, and hold them so responsibile, regards of whether they were willing participants in the original decision to copulate. If only Women decided this issue, I think they might come to a different conclusion. On the other hand, they might be petty and force the unwanted pregnancy on the unwilling woman just to teach her a lesson? If the information to prevent pregnancy is provided to the female, and she is actually in control of the outcome, then I would not argue so hard against blaming her for the act of abortion. My primary feeling is one of disappointment that this should be an issue at all. The unwanted pregnancy becomes a problem for all of society. We will all bear the consequences of a chld raised not with love, but in a less then loving environment, that can scar the child for life. Do we really want more unwanted children in this world? Look what happens in the third world to overpopulated familiies; they sometimes sell their female children, and males occasionally, into white slavery, prostitution, because they cannot afford to support them. I do not want to kill unborn babies. I want to prevent their conception in the first place. But, having said that, a truly unwanted child is not going to get the full benefit of a loving familiy environment. The cost to society will be great having to cope with the social probelms that result from angry children growing into adulthood from unhappy childhoods.

I believe that the answer should rest with the woman, who must bare and raise the unwanted child. Abortion is not the issue. Unwanted pregnancy is the issue. It baffles my mind as to why those who say they are anti-abortion are almost always also anti-birth control. Why not publish birth control widely so that the issue is changed into one of prevention rather than a criminalization of the elimination of the unwanted? Maybe the answer is the use of the pill that prevents conception, used on the day after, if need be, to keep society free from the cost and circumstances of the unwanted. I like what Obama had to say in the last debate: to the effect that, we all view abortion as a bad thing. Some of us just think that forcing the woman to bear the stess of an unwanted child alone is not the correct thing to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
Only a fool steps into this one, but I am with Doug that life begins at conception.

Then fools for life we shall be!

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for unborn Americans!

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
I really do not think that Men should be allowed to decide this issue.

Friend Phil! Once again I must say that your reasoning is thoughtful and well-spoken. Here's where I veer hard right: if we were only talking about a woman and her rights, then I'm right there with you, but I place the rights of the unborn child on the same level as that of the woman. Who is standing up for their rights?

Truth be said, the unborn's rights may be slightly more so simply because they are otherwise helpless, and as such, it's our moral responsibility to look after the helpless ones.

One other point: if we see a mother abusing her child, do we stand down and say that because she bore the child it's hers to do with as she wishes, and we don't interfere, or do we step in to protect the child? I think the answer is obvious, and whether it's a born child or an unborn child makes no difference.

I suppose the decision as to when life begins would be an important one at this point. My opinion: life begins at conception.

quote:

I really do not think that Men should be allowed to decide this issue. Men are the vehicle of impregnation; their job is done upon ejacualtion.

We disagree on this one. A man's BIOLOGICAL job might be done upon ejaculation, but not his moral job. Interestingly, many men favor abortion as it means free sex with no consequences (to him). For the woman, she has to deal with consequences--either a baby or an abortion.

I have a friend who is pro-choice. She had an abortion (privacy precludes details), but she did say that (years later) she still knows that she "killed something alive" that day. And it haunts her.

Abortion is not an "easy" answer with no consequences for women. I think that is a fantasy propogated largely by men. While many women who have had abortions are glad they had that right, very few seem to just callously toss the decision away as anything less than heartbreaking.

Also, I disagree that a man should have no say on the disposition of a child that is also his. He certainly shouldn't have sole responsibility for such a decision; but he is not a disinteresed party. And when he is a disinterested party, he will be happy to run away and let the woman deal with the painful choices and consequences open to her.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
And it haunts her.

It absolutely does!

No one (except maybe someone like Anton Chigurh) can walk away from a murder and not be profoundly affected.

Good for you.
No matter how the mother gets pregnant, it's never the child's fault.

And I don't think we really want to go down the path toward deciding who should live (almost born, newly-born or very old) based on 'quality of life' or 'burden on society' determined on some scale by a supercilious elite.

Well said, Mr B!

And you're right about the society thing - it almost sounds like something which could come from a Bradbury story: a futuristic society performs pre-natal tests on unborn citizens, determining their potential contribution to society. Those not measuring up are aborted.

I wonder if I just gave away a really good idea for a story? Or has it already been written?

Now, to stir up more trouble, meet me in the Orange Crop - I've got a new "Ask the Bishop" column!

Check out the movie "Gattaca" where people's place in life is determined by their genetic composition and origins. Fascinating film. May just watch it again myself. Good point on the determing whose value of life is worth preserving and whose is not. It's a slippery slope to Hitler's eugenics at that point. See Gattaca. Good film and good story.

And I agree with all of you.

I was there before, during, and after my daughter's conception, the most wonderful event in our lives. But what if I wasn't? What if I was a rapist who forced himself on a woman and then left her to deal with the situation on her own? What if I had been incestual, and some are you know, after all, it is game the whole family can play, together; and now my chld has to carry the result?

I heard John Stossel on 20/20 talking about letting the individual who has the most interest in the problem at hand, be the one to solve it, speaking of the mess in New Orleans. I think that is what I am trying to say here. Government should not be in the business of deciding for another what the outcome is to be of a situation that is not entirely of one's making, no choice.

As I said, no one is FOR abortion, not the woman, not the state and not those who are bystanders. There has to be a better solution. Leaving the decision to the person most involved in the situation seems to me to be the best solution.

I have seen Gattaca many times. What is the different between the State deciding when conception results in a new life and genetic ranking for purpose of furthering the intellegence of the population, putting the best soul forward, so to speak? I don't like any of it. I especially don't like when those who presume to know all about a topic decide for me what I should or should not be allowed to do.

The Golden Rule is my guide. I will not - fill in the blank here - because I do not want you to do the same to me. What more do we all need to get along? The primary role of Government is do for the citizens what they cannot do for themselves, on a large scale, wars, treaties between countries and providing for the common good. Central planning does not work, just ask the old Soviet Union. I guess the answer really is to be found in educating the individual to make better choices, given that they have a choice, and then in technology, which can be a double-edged blade. It can give us better solutions to our little problems and can also create new ones for us to solve.

Final statement:

Of course it is not the fault of the fetus that he/she has been conceived, and we should all take care of the fetuses of this world. Now, let us rank them in priority: Those who are already here and have a claim on the existing necessities of life, food, shelter, love, should they not be given a higher priority to provide for their welfare, then one who is just now arriving? Fight for the ones who are starving, are unwanted NOW, and can only face an early death on this Earth because no one can or will take care of them. It is too painful or too hard to face the facts that we are, as I type this, are killing many little children due to complete denial of their plight. But, I should worry to death about the defintion of when life begins, and then fight to make sure that any accidental conceptions are protected by law to ensure their survival?

How about we fix the problems that we have already allowed to exist? Why should that fetus, now judged to be a living being by law, if so passed, have more rights and concerns for its well being than the millions of children who cannot take care of themsleves and continue to have additional children and die of starvation, desease, and loneliness. You, who want to be your sister's keeper, why not DO SOMETHING to help what is now an embarrassing worldwide situation - overpopulation and its sorry adjuncts, misery, hunger, desease and early death, rather than pontificate what a woman who likely did not want her present situation, must do by law? Prioritize, by all means, and let's solve the problems we already have created in this world without condeming others for actions that can be prevented, though techology and information, education and compassion. End of sermon.

Again, it is incontrovertible that Christians do more for the unborn, adopting, caring for the poor and hungry, and giving more of their time and money in many other ways in one year than all other non secular or other religious or quasi-religious organisations combined since the beginning of recorded time.
I wonder why that is?
You know, Mother Teresa gave very few interviews, her attitude being, "I can't talk right now. Can't you see this person here needs help?!"