<p align="center"><img border="0" src="http://somd.com/news/kingscorner/images/king-head.GIF" alt="King's Corner" width="336" height="143"></p>

You guys can thank Pat Robertson and Meet the Press for this topic as it was a major portion of the discussion this morning when the show aired. They were discussing the latest Presidential nominee for the Supreme Court and Pat was honed in on one point and one point only, that being the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how this nominee wasn't "right" enough for him.

Why should Roe v. Wade be overturned? I fail to see the reasoning and the importance that is placed upon judicial nominees and their beliefs as to this matter. I further suspect that very few even know what the ruling decision is comprised of other then their belief that it allows abortions unrestrictive of any law. This is not the case and if anyone cares to read the entire majority opinion I suspect that they will see what I have seen. You can by viewing it here - http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

For those not desiring to delve through the lengthy decision allow me to provide a synopsis of the ruling. And just so everyone knows this wasn’t one of those tight split decisions as the court voted 7-2 on this ruling.

At issue were the Texas statutes that were ruled unconstitutional. The following are those sections of Texas law when the case went to court:
Article 1191. Abortion

If any person shall designedly administer to a pregnant woman or knowingly procure to be administered with her consent any drug or medicine, or shall use towards her any violence or means whatever externally or internally applied, and thereby procure an abortion, he shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years; if it be done without her consent, the punishment shall be doubled. By "abortion" is meant that the life of the fetus or embryo shall be destroyed in the woman's womb or that a premature birth thereof be caused.

Art. 1192. Furnishing the means

Whoever furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended is guilty as an accomplice.

Art. 1193. Attempt at abortion

If the means used shall fail to produce an abortion, the offender is nevertheless guilty of an attempt to produce abortion, provided it be shown that such means were calculated to produce that result, and shall be fined not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.

Art. 1194. Murder in producing abortion

If the death of the mother is occasioned by an abortion so produced or by an attempt to effect the same it is murder.

Art. 1195. Destroying unborn child

Whoever shall during parturition of the mother destroy the vitality or life in a child in a state of being born and before actual birth, which child would otherwise have been born alive, shall be confined in the penitentiary for life or for not less than five years.

Art. 1196. By medical advice

Nothing in this chapter applies to an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.

Now for the the summary of the Supreme Court decision:

A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

So I ask, what is so wrong with what was decided in this case and why should it be overturned? Other then determining or establishing when and at what point a life begins I think the court ruled appropriately with its decision. And from what I have read the question as to when life starts was not placed before the court.

And just so everyone knows I find the idea of an abortion, to be blunt, reprehensible. But who am I to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their body and unborn child/mass of tissues. I find the stepped approach reached in this case of when personal rights become outweighed by the state interest to be a proper balance of state and individual rights necessary to assure our basic freedoms.

That would be like saying " I find slavery rephensible, but who am I to say what someone else should do with their property", Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton must be overturned just like Dred Scott was. Anything less is unacceptable. The unborn baby is just that, an unborn baby, he/she is not a blob of tissue. Now that abortion can not be stopped, people like Terri Schiviao could be starved to death. Ten years from now, euthanasia will be commonplace. People whoi are disabled will be killed to save insurance money or to keep their estate healthy.
Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger as a way to wipe out the non-white races, ethnic cleasning at its infancy. What a legacy.

I do not think Miers will be the one to overturn Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton, the latter being much worse. She is a stealth candidate who lost her faith.

That would be like saying " I find slavery rephensible, but who am I to say what someone else should do with their property
This is a good point - I never thought about it like that before. I suppose you could make the argument that there's a world of difference between a living breathing human (slavery) and a mass of tissue that will one day be a living breathing human. But the concept is pretty much the same.

Now that abortion can not be stopped, people like Terri Schiviao could be starved to death. Ten years from now, euthanasia will be commonplace. People whoi are disabled will be killed to save insurance money or to keep their estate healthy.
I disagree with this point because Terri Schiavo was dead, for all intents and purposes, and being kept alive artificially. She wasn't "starved to death", she was removed from life support so nature could take its course.

And I don't believe it will become commonplace to euthanize healthy relatives for their money or for convenience sake. People are too touchy-feely about death and are more likely to want to keep some veggie alive forever, cryogenically frozen if need be, than they are to kill them off. Yes, there will be some instances of it - people do that right now - but it won't become an accepted norm.

Ten years from now, euthanasia will be commonplace. People whoi[SIC] are disabled will be killed to save insurance money or to keep their estate healthy.

Euthanasia is someone deciding to off themself. It has nothing to do with the Schiavo case or someone else deciding to off you. :dead:

That would be like saying " I find slavery rephensible, but who am I to say what someone else should do with their property", Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton must be overturned just like Dred Scott was. Anything less is unacceptable. The unborn baby is just that, an unborn baby, he/she is not a blob of tissue. Now that abortion can not be stopped, people like Terri Schiviao could be starved to death. Ten years from now, euthanasia will be commonplace. People whoi are disabled will be killed to save insurance money or to keep their estate healthy.
Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger as a way to wipe out the non-white races, ethnic cleasning at its infancy. What a legacy.

I do not think Miers will be the one to overturn Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton, the latter being much worse. She is a stealth candidate who lost her faith.
Thanks for the gray karma, but calling someone a murderer for voicing an opinion is uncalled for. It must be nice to be so high and mighty that you can determine whether or not they would actually off an unborn child or not. Too bad your parents weren't a little more liberal and decided to flush you like the crap you are.

I disagree with this point because Terri Schiavo was dead, for all intents and purposes, and being kept alive artificially. She wasn't "starved to death", she was removed from life support so nature could take its course.

And I don't believe it will become commonplace to euthanize healthy relatives for their money or for convenience sake. People are too touchy-feely about death and are more likely to want to keep some veggie alive forever, cryogenically frozen if need be, than they are to kill them off. Yes, there will be some instances of it - people do that right now - but it won't become an accepted norm.
Terri Schavio was not on a ventilator, only a feedinig tube. Is that artificial? Her parents wanted to try feeding her by mouth her so-called husband refused, even posted police. (I say "so-called husband" because he was living with another women and had fathered two children by her, such a person is not a loving husband.)
Look what is happening in Holland, infants are being euthanized, they didn't decide it themselves. So, don't be so sure that families won't want to kill disabled and/or elederly family members. And if we ever get socialized medicine ala Hillary, euthansia may be required by the socialized medicine since it would "cost too much" to keep the person alive.

Thanks for the gray karma, but calling someone a murderer for voicing an opinion is uncalled for. It must be nice to be so high and mighty that you can determine whether or not they would actually off an unborn child or not. Too bad your parents weren't a little more liberal and decided to flush you like the crap you are.
If you dare, look at www.priestsforlife.org/images and you will see what is the result of what you advocate.
You should stick to your recording studio.

Now that abortion can not be stopped, people like Terri Schiviao could be starved to death..And for good reason.

Terri Schavio was not on a ventilator, only a feedinig tube. Is that artificial? Her parents wanted to try feeding her by mouth her so-called husband refused, even posted police. (I say "so-called husband" because he was living with another women and had fathered two children by her, such a person is not a loving husband.)
And yet all this havok was brought upon by...HERSELF! She starved herself to almost complete death in the first place.

If you dare, look at www.priestsforlife.org/images and you will see what is the result of what you advocate.
You should stick to your recording studio.
What recording studio?

I've seen the site and as I said earlier abortions are reprehensible just as any site that would post those disgusting images, but unlike you I don't feel the need to be anyone's God, project my beliefs upon them, or prevent them for doing what they think is best for them. That is why we have laws and why those laws fall under Constitutional scrutiny.

As to the linked site in your post, those images are disturbing but they won’t change my mind. Life choices such as abortion and euthanasia are decisions that those involved need to deal with and if the states have no compelling interest then the right under our form of government makes it an individual election.

I guess you would prefer that a woman that suffered a rape or an incestuous pregnancy carry that unwanted child to full term knowing that every time she thought of, looked at or held the child the pain of the attack that led to the child would be replayed in her thoughts. Even if she gave the child up for adoption you have subjected her to the ordeal of motherhood and the carrying of the child that will surely leave an emotional mark upon her. I also surmise that you believe that a terminally ill person should continue suffering without hope of humanly ending that pain. I guess you are one of those non-compassionate types that only believes that what you believe is right and nothing short of cow-toeing in lock-step with you is acceptable. I bet you like goose-stepping too.

It is a fact that the only people in favor of abortion are already born. The only way for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
Why is it OK for the pro-death people to push their ideas on others, but us pro-life people are considered radical when we try to defend the innocent from conception to natural death.

Why is it OK for the pro-death people to push their ideas on others, but us pro-life people are considered radical when we try to defend the innocent from conception to natural death.Is it that way or is it from your vantage point?

I guess you would prefer that a woman that suffered a rape or an incestuous pregnancy carry that unwanted child to full term knowing that every time she thought of, looked at or held the child the pain of the attack that led to the child would be replayed in her thoughts.

I thought you were a better thinker..that's the best you can do...the above reason for those types of abortions is like less that 5% of all abortions.! Such a liberal thought...I will bet that most of those women would look at that child and think..Your Going to be better than your father.

Terri Schavio was not on a ventilator, only a feedinig tube. Is that artificial?
Well...yeah. :confused: Do you eat from a feeding tube?

Anyway, that's beside the point. I'm anti-abortion for nice people who will have nice children. I'm pro-abortion for crappy people whose spawn will be crappy people as well. And since only a crappy person would abort their baby, I'm all for it. :yay:

Somehow, though, when I tell liberals why I'm pro-abortion, it pisses them off worse than when Larry tells them he's anti-abortion. :ohwell:

Well...yeah. :confused: Do you eat from a feeding tube?

Anyway, that's beside the point. I'm anti-abortion for nice people who will have nice children. I'm pro-abortion for crappy people whose spawn will be crappy people as well. And since only a crappy person would abort their baby, I'm all for it. :yay:

Somehow, though, when I tell liberals why I'm pro-abortion, it pisses them off worse than when Larry tells them he's anti-abortion. :ohwell:

WOW...who are you to choose that. I can't beleive I just read that. Lets just select are next society!

My father lost the ability to swallow after 18 years of home care by my family suffering from a slow deterioration of the inner brain. Doctors are not sure what caused it. We chose not to put the feeding tube in. He had suffered enough. Sure, he could have remained in a semi-vegetative state for several more years, but sometimes you have to let them go. That is the humane thing to do. We didn't "kill" him for insurance or just to be done with him. We didn't put the tube in so he could be at peace. Because we loved him. Unless you have been in the situation, you shouldn't judge.

My father lost the ability to swallow after 18 years of home care by my family suffering from a slow deterioration of the inner brain. Doctors are not sure what caused it. We chose not to put the feeding tube in. He had suffered enough. Sure, he could have remained in a semi-vegetative state for several more years, but sometimes you have to let them go. That is the humane thing to do. We didn't kill him for insurance or just to be done with him. We did it so he could be at peace. Because we loved him. Unless you have been in the situation, you shouldn't judge.After watching my great grandmother in the nursing home the older folks in my family told everyone that they wouldn't want that to happen to them. They said they'd rather be shot in an open field, literally.

WOW...who are you to choose that. I can't beleive I just read that. Lets just select are next society!If you want to go that route, who is anyone to choose anything? Let's start society all over since nobody can obviously have any 'good' judgement...because...well...who can possibly choose what is 'good' judgement according to this logic.

It is a fact that the only people in favor of abortion are already born. The only way for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
Why is it OK for the pro-death people to push their ideas on others, but us pro-life people are considered radical when we try to defend the innocent from conception to natural death.
It is equally a fact that those opposed to abortion are already born too. :dur: And the only ideas routinely pushed are by those trying to overturn a ruling that found the Texas laws outside the acceptance of the Constitution.

What this means to me is that the states must craft laws that will pass the muster of constitutionality that are not vague or oversweeping.

And since you have stated that you are trying to protect the innocent from conception what are you doing to stem the tide of miscarriages where some of them are due to neglegent behavior of the host or act by others? And to obtain this protection are you going to require that every woman that becomes pregnant register so that those like you can track them? Or is it only a problem for you when someone seeks to medically terminate a pregnancy?

Why is it OK for the pro-death people to push their ideas on others, but us pro-life people are considered radical when we try to defend the innocent from conception to natural death.
That's got to be the most asinine comment that I've read on here thus far.
Pro-choice people aren't pushing anyone to abort. They want to have a choice. You on the other hand want to take away choice, and therefore FORCE your beliefs on others.

I thought you were a better thinker..that's the best you can do...the above reason for those types of abortions is like less that 5% of all abortions.! Such a liberal thought...I will bet that most of those women would look at that child and think..Your Going to be better than your father.
And shy from those reasons and some medical necessity I think that abortions shouldn't take place, but I don't think we should ban them where those seeking them will return to back alleys to get them. And just so I'm clear are you saying that if it's only 5% then they all should be outlawed without regard to the reason or need?

And I'll take your bet, though I don't know how we can verify it as the one woman I know that became pregnent from a rape had the abortion and she is still traumatized from it (the rape) even though it took place many years ago and I wouldn't dare broach the question to her.

After watching my great grandmother in the nursing home the older folks in my family told everyone that they wouldn't want that to happen to them. They said they'd rather be shot in an open field, literally.
Be careful what you say in haste. In the Terri Schavio case, her wishes were not in writing, were not known by all her family. Her parents and siblings wanted to care for her, her "husband", (who had another women) wanted to stop feeding her. They never tried to see if she could eat and drink on her own, if they did and she couldn't, maybe her parents would have gone along with removing the feeding tube. But... their desires to save their own flesh and blood were ignored.
My wife and I had thought of retireing to Florida, but not sure if we would want to live in a state that allows the disabled to be killed without their wishes not really known. There were too many irregularites in this case.
The video showed her tracking a baloon. If she was really comatose, why was her "husband" so reluctant to allow other, independent, doctors to see her. Might have settled argument. As for the idea that she was bad off because she her brain was half the size, well many people have half their brains removed surgically due to brain damage and to control seizures. The other half of the brain takes over.
And before you people speculate, I have not had any such surgery.

She tracked a balloon? There was hours and hours of video and that was the only minute they could use to say she was still in there. The rest of the time she never looked at the balloon. And yes, she had a husband, and he is not to blame for finding someone to love again. We urged my mother to find a companion, she did not. We would have completely understood her trying to find a little happiness. My father would have understood. My father had nothing in writing regarding his wishes either. We just knew. Also, when we decided not to put the feeding tube in and the waiting began, the doctors and nurses told us it is detramental to try to feed someone who's body has already bagan to shut down. It is painful for the dying person to have food reintroduced at that point. It is practically gauranteed she would have choked to death and aspirated. You have to continue the process once the descision has been made. Terri had been through that hell once already. Thanks God they didn't resart the feeding with her. That's right, THANK GOD!!! Remember, truely, only God can end lives ultimately. Had He wanted her to live, she would have.

Be careful what you say in haste. In the Terri Schavio case, her wishes were not in writing, were not known by all her family. Her parents and siblings wanted to care for her, her "husband", (who had another women) wanted to stop feeding her. They never tried to see if she could eat and drink on her own, if they did and she couldn't, maybe her parents would have gone along with removing the feeding tube. But... their desires to save their own flesh and blood were ignored.
My wife and I had thought of retireing to Florida, but not sure if we would want to live in a state that allows the disabled to be killed without their wishes not really known. There were too many irregularites in this case.
The video showed her tracking a baloon. If she was really comatose, why was her "husband" so reluctant to allow other, independent, doctors to see her. Might have settled argument. As for the idea that she was bad off because she her brain was half the size, well many people have half their brains removed surgically due to brain damage and to control seizures. The other half of the brain takes over.
And before you people speculate, I have not had any such surgery.
You and your narrow thinking radical types are the big reason this problem will never be resolved. Were you in a vegetative state when the Schiavo case was going on? Your arguments are as ignorant and deceptive as those protesters in front of her Hospice. Look at the autopsy.

To me, this has little to do with the abortion issue being discussed but you radical pro lifers will grab at any straw. I did say RADICAL as I can sympathize with a pro lifer that can come to a conclusion without hysteria.

You have to continue the process once the descision has been made.
Notice how the pro-death people are always in favor of death. It is a process. They are cold and calculating. The people who want to save lives, pre-born, disabled, and elderly, are protrayed as kooky.
Why don't the pro-death people have the guts to admit that they are pro-death, "pro-Choice" is misnommer when the only choice they are for is abortion. Ask them, are they pro-choice on vouchers for private schools, smoking, guns, etc.

Notice how the pro-death people are always in favor of death. It is a process. They are cold and calculating. The people who want to save lives, pre-born, disabled, and elderly, are protrayed as kooky.
Why don't the pro-death people have the guts to admit that they are pro-death, "pro-Choice" is misnommer when the only choice they are for is abortion. Ask them, are they pro-choice on vouchers for private schools, smoking, guns, etc.
I admit it freely. In the case of my father, I was pro death. Or maybe I was pro-life, because he is now alive and healthy again in Heaven. I loved him dearly, but he had NO quality of life here on earth. He was ready, more than ready. Had he been able to speak, he would have agreed with the descision and had voiced it in the past before we knew what the furure held. I think it would have been cold and calculating to make him continue to suffer. That would have been selfish.

Notice how the pro-death people are always in favor of death. It is a process. They are cold and calculating. The people who want to save lives, pre-born, disabled, and elderly, are protrayed as kooky.
Why don't the pro-death people have the guts to admit that they are pro-death, "pro-Choice" is misnommer when the only choice they are for is abortion. Ask them, are they pro-choice on vouchers for private schools, smoking, guns, etc.
Are you for or against the death penalty for extremely heinous crimes? I am.

And pro-choice isn't a misnomer. I think those in the position should have the ability to choose without being dictated to until such point as there is a viable life that needs protecting. For me the choice would be to protect the life of the unborn, for others it is their choice and their business. And just so you know I say vouchers should be an option, smoking is fine just as non-smoking areas, guns and the right to own them needs protection unless you have sacrificed your right by commintting a crime or are too unstable to be trusted with one - anything else?

Are you for or against the death penalty for extremely heinous crimes? I am.

And pro-choice isn't a misnomer. I think those in the position should have the ability to choose without being dictated to until such point as there is a viable life that needs protecting. For me the choice would be to protect the life of the unborn, for others it is their choice and their business. And just so you know I say vouchers should be an option, smoking is fine just as non-smoking areas, guns and the right to own them needs protection unless you have sacrificed your right by commintting a crime or are too unstable to be trusted with one - anything else?

:clap:

WOW...who are you to choose that. I can't beleive I just read that. Lets just select are next society!
Okay, possibly I did not make my point clear.

Would you agree that a woman who would chop her baby up and throw it in the garbage probably wouldn't make a good mother?

And would you agree that there then is a higher probability of abuse and neglect?

And that abused and neglected children typically grow up to be dysfunctional adults?

Who then become all of our problem?

There are enough crappy people in this world. If some woman wants to spare us her future crappy person, I say let her.

I don't think we should ban them where those seeking them will return to back alleys to get them.
I have no problem with that, either.

Back in the day we didn't have laws to protect stupid people from themselves - we let the stupid people kill themselves and said, "Yay - more food for me!"

I have no problem with that, either.

Back in the day we didn't have laws to protect stupid people from themselves - we let the stupid people kill themselves and said, "Yay - more food for me!"
And I don't have a problem that you don't have a problem with it. :biggrin:

Why don't the pro-death people have the guts to admit that they are pro-death,
I frankly admit it. :shrug:

And I don't think you're kooky for wanting to protect the unborn, disabled, elderly, etc. But if no one wants to care for these people, then what happens to them? Some ancient whatever says that if you save a man's life, you're now responsible for that life. Are you prepared to pay for these unwanted people to live in their nursing homes or jails or shelters for years and years on end?

And pro-choice isn't a misnomer. I think those in the position should have the ability to choose without being dictated to until such point as there is a viable life that needs protecting. For me the choice would be to protect the life of the unborn, for others it is their choice and their business. And just so you know I say vouchers should be an option, smoking is fine just as non-smoking areas, guns and the right to own them needs protection unless you have sacrificed your right by commintting a crime or are too unstable to be trusted with one - anything else?
Good reply, Ken. If I understand you correctly, you view abortion as a matter of individual conscience. I tend to agree.

I find it frustrating that many feminist leaders describe the abortion issue as a matter of a woman's reproductive freedom. There are plenty of feminist pro-lifers who don't get as much airtime as their leaders, and who don't regard abortion as another form of birth control. I think it's ridiculous to claim, as some feminist leaders do, that the pro-life movement has a secret anti-woman agenda to restrict access to birth control.

unwanted people
Clarification:

I don't consider the elderly "unwanted" - they are merely at the end of their lives and I am for letting nature take its course rather than keep them going by artificial means. Like Camily said, it's selfish to do that to them rather than letting them go.

I think it's ridiculous to claim, as some feminist leaders do, that the pro-life movement has a secret anti-woman agenda to restrict access to birth control.
I believe it's the exact opposite - that abortion is an anti-woman conspiracy to get women to kill their offspring and not experience motherhood, which is the single most important thing a woman will ever do.

But if women are that easily led that they would buy into that crap, I'm tickled pink for them to not contribute to the next generation.

Clarification:

I don't consider the elderly "unwanted" - they are merely at the end of their lives and I am for letting nature take its course rather than keep them going by artificial means. Like Camily said, it's selfish to do that to them rather than letting them go.

Thanks Vrai.

I believe it's the exact opposite - that abortion is an anti-woman conspiracy to get women to kill their offspring and not experience motherhood, which is the single most important thing a woman will ever do.
Interesting theory. I wonder what such a conspiracy would have to gain by denying women the opportunity to become mothers. For that matter, in Middle Eastern countries where birth control is outlawed, I wonder what the men who enact those laws have to gain by forcing women to become mothers.

Interesting theory. I wonder what such a conspiracy would have to gain by denying women the opportunity to become mothers. For that matter, in Middle Eastern countries where birth control is outlawed, I wonder what the men who enact those laws have to gain by forcing women to become mothers.
It's two different things. In America, motherhood is power. You are shaping a young life to take their place in society and further your values and create a legacy. In the Middle East, women have no power - the men take over the children to further their values. We're getting ready to see that change, but for now that's what it is.

It's like "feminists" who try and say that America is a male-dominated country. This could not be further from the truth - WOMEN rule the US. Men may have the fancy jobs but women are the ones who taught them perseverance, bravery, sacrifice and how to hit their face with a fork so they could nourish themselves.

Now the supposedly "pro-woman" people are trying to take that away from us. They want us to kill our children and file harrassment lawsuits so men will find us silly and frivolous.

There's a common American saying - "If Mama ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy". They don't say that in Iran.

"Feminists" ...evil, just evil. I blame them for a lot gone wrong in this country. :burning:

They're the ones who took away the importance and value of motherhood.

It's two different things. In America, motherhood is power. You are shaping a young life to take their place in society and further your values and create a legacy.
Good point. As a father, I've never felt like parenthood was power. Parents sacrifice time and money for the well-being of their children. I'm not saying that children are a burden, because the emotional rewards of being a parent are priceless. Still, there are a few ways that parents actually lose power. You become much more watchful of TV and radio so you don't expose them to certain things. If you have little kids, you try to avoid shopping after dark, because some creep might be lurking in the parking lot looking to grab one of your kids.

"Feminists" ...evil, just evil. I blame them for a lot gone wrong in this country. :burning:

They're the ones who took away the importance and value of motherhood.
I won't go that far. Feminists did some good. They fought the practice of paying women less then men for the same job simply because they were women. And they promoted the idea that women should be able to control their own lives.

But you're right about the devaluing of motherhood--many feminists falsely equated motherhood with lack of freedom. I'm disappointed in them. They could have served as an viable alternative to the Promise Keepers, which insists that God intended husbands to rule their wives. Vrai might say that the Promise Keepers have it backward.

Okay, possibly I did not make my point clear.

Would you agree that a woman who would chop her baby up and throw it in the garbage probably wouldn't make a good mother?

And would you agree that there then is a higher probability of abuse and neglect?

And that abused and neglected children typically grow up to be dysfunctional adults?

Who then become all of our problem?

There are enough crappy people in this world. If some woman wants to spare us her future crappy person, I say let her.

THE Key idea here selfishness, not of the murderer mother but of anyone willing to allow killing of innocent human beings for mercenary reasons.
Why is the focus not on the individual who's life is most affected, the heart that is beating more than 160 beats every minute from the time they're 4 weeks old. Euthanasia or "mercy Killing" is always wrong everyone will die someday that is no reason for us to introduce a new cause of death, because WE don't want to see or understand the value of human life.

All laws are forcing someone's idea of morality on everyone. If anyone believes "they" shouldn't force their morality on us. they are doing what they are saying the other "shouldn't" do. The only thing left for that person is a society void of all laws.

Good reply, Ken. If I understand you correctly, you view abortion as a matter of individual conscience. I tend to agree.

I find it frustrating that many feminist leaders describe the abortion issue as a matter of a woman's reproductive freedom. There are plenty of feminist pro-lifers who don't get as much airtime as their leaders, and who don't regard abortion as another form of birth control. I think it's ridiculous to claim, as some feminist leaders do, that the pro-life movement has a secret anti-woman agenda to restrict access to birth control.
Obviously everyone has a choice. However some choices hurt others. All choices have consequences. We Pro-lifer's say some choices should result in serving prison sentences in order to protect society from a violent act. That is why laws are written because society is saying "this is wrong" this is the penalty for breaking this law.

That is why laws are written because society is saying "this is wrong" this is the penalty for breaking this law.
Obviously pro-choice is in the majority in our society. :popcorn:

THE Key idea here selfishness, not of the murderer mother but of anyone willing to allow killing of innocent human beings for mercenary reasons.
Why is the focus not on the individual who's life is most affected, the heart that is beating more than 160 beats every minute from the time they're 4 weeks old. Euthanasia or "mercy Killing" is always wrong everyone will die someday that is no reason for us to introduce a new cause of death, because WE don't want to see or understand the value of human life.

All laws are forcing someone's idea of morality on everyone. If anyone believes "they" shouldn't force their morality on us. they are doing what they are saying the other "shouldn't" do. The only thing left for that person is a society void of all laws.
Where do I begin. Are you saying I didn't value my fathers life? I most certainly did!!! And do. Over the course of 18 years when he lost complete control of his body and in the end was getting pnemonia (spelling?) repeatedly because everything we put in his mouth went into his lungs, and he cried continuously to go with out using words because speech was one of the first things to go, we knew he would not want to live like this. When it came time to make the call, tube or no tube, we chose no tube. We stayed with him 24hrs. a day and each had our alone time with him telling him how much we loved him and that it was ok for him to let go. We were holding him when he died. His brain was a practically one big white blob in the end. The cause of death was Leukoencephalopathy, caused by MS. Look it up! That is the best diagnosis the doctors could give because they aren't eben sure what happened to him. Would you really want to be kept alive like that! Not me, and I am saying that here and now for everyone to see. I have made sure my family knows my wishes.

Euthanasia or "mercy Killing" is always wrong
Welcome to the forums :howdy:

A lot of what is termed "euthanasia" is simply removing life support and letting nature take it's course. It's rare that someone actually gets a shot or whatever to end their life - most of the time they're just being removed from artificial respirators and heart machines.

Here's something else for the mix: Most of the people who are against taking someone off life support (like this Schiavo business) are Christians. But you'd think they, of all people, would be the ones who would say it's God's will that these people die, rather than have man thwart His will by keeping them alive artificially.

I could never figure that out.

Obviously everyone has a choice. However some choices hurt others. All choices have consequences. We Pro-lifer's say some choices should result in serving prison sentences in order to protect society from a violent act. That is why laws are written because society is saying "this is wrong" this is the penalty for breaking this law.
We pro-lifers? I think we all say some choices should result in serving prison sentences to protect society. What does that have to do with being pro-life? By the way, tell that to the child molester that got probation instead of prison time. Let's worry about the people who are committing crimes instead of the mother that has an abortion because she knows what is best for her and her situation.

Here's something else for the mix: Most of the people who are against taking someone off life support (like this Schiavo business) are Christians. But you'd think they, of all people, would be the ones who would say it's God's will that these people die, rather than have man thwart His will by keeping them alive artificially.
I would agree and go a step further. Why aren't christians dying to get to heaven.

Most of the people who are against taking someone off life support (like this Schiavo business) are Christians. But you'd think they, of all people, would be the ones who would say it's God's will that these people die, rather than have man thwart His will by keeping them alive artificially.

I could never figure that out.

Exactly.

I won't go that far. Feminists did some good. They fought the practice of paying women less then men for the same job simply because they were women. And they promoted the idea that women should be able to control their own lives.
But the harm they visited on society was much worse.

Women get paid as much as men - great. But now men aren't the providers for their families and it's devalued them in society, which encourages them to be deadbeat dads who abandon their children. It also encourages women to work outside the home instead of raise their children - they pay someone else to raise their children.

And it's terrific that women can control their own lives. But now that's ALL they control - and they don't get anything out of it other than STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

It's a myth that women were subjugated prior to the feminist movement.

Harriet Larson - Harvard Business professor in the early 1960's

Belva Lockwood - admitted to the Bar Association in the late 1800's

Emma Hart Willard - started the first female academy specializing in science, math and social studies for women in 1821

Sarah Breedlove Walker - started a cosmetics and hair company in 1905, making her the first black female millionaire <-- note that she's not only a woman, but a black woman at that!

Elizabeth Blackwell - first female doctor, graduated med school in 1849

So what have women gotten out of feminism besides aborted babies and single-parent households?

I would agree and go a step further. Why aren't christians dying to get to heaven.
That's easy - God gives life, God will take it away when He's darn good and ready. Christians don't kill themselves because it's not their job and it's either in the Bible or at least widely accepted that suicides don't go to Heaven.

Christians don't kill themselves because it's not their job and it's either in the Bible or at least widely accepted that suicides don't go to Heaven.


Self murder........

It's a myth that women were subjugated prior to the feminist movement.
Also, women got to vote in elections prior to Betty Friedan rearing her ugly head.

vrai :yay:

:popcorn:

But the harm they visited on society was much worse.

Women get paid as much as men - great. But now men aren't the providers for their families and it's devalued them in society, which encourages them to be deadbeat dads who abandon their children. It also encourages women to work outside the home instead of raise their children - they pay someone else to raise their children.
Valid points. I believe that it's an excellent idea for one parent to be home, especially when the children are very little. I just don't believe that it necessarily has to be the mother. Some families have the father stay home and the mother be the provider, which is fine. It's also fine if a woman decides she doesn't want to be a mother. You have a point about subjugation--some people believe that a woman's only proper destiny is to be a mother, but that's not subjugation, that's just an unfortunate attitude.

I believe that it's an excellent idea for one parent to be home, especially when the children are very little. I just don't believe that it necessarily has to be the mother. Some families have the father stay home and the mother be the provider, which is fine. It's also fine if a woman decides she doesn't want to be a mother.
I agree with all of that and have seen successful families where Dad stays home with the squabs while Mom brings home the bacon. But it's kind of ingrained, whether by society or genetics, that women are the primary caretakers of the children. After you've gone through all that birth crap, it's kind of hard to just hand them over to someone else - at least it was for me.

As far as Mommy-destiny goes, women were happy to be mothers and homemakers until feminists came along and made fun of them, making them feel inferior. In "The Feminine Mystique" Friedan talks about how women were so miserable as homemakers that they took drugs to kill the pain. In fact, women today are more likely to abuse drugs than they were in the 50's.

The first chapter in Friedan's book says:

Then American girls began getting married in high school. And the women's magazines, deploring the unhappy statistics about these young marriages, urged that courses on marriage, and marriage counselors, be installed in the high schools. Girls started going steady at twelve and thirteen, in junior high. Manufacturers put out brassieres with false bosoms of foam rubber for little girls of ten. And on advertisement for a child's dress, sizes 3-6x, in the New York Times in the fall of 1960, said: "She Too Can Join the Man-Trap Set."

So despite what the feminists tell you, not much has changed, if anything at all. But now it's these exact same "feminists" that are pushing for women to be sex objects, saying they are now "free" to be as hoochy as they want. At least girls back then were thinking about marriage and families, not just anonymous gratuitous sex resulting in unwanted pregnancy.

But now it's these exact same "feminists" that are pushing for women to be sex objects, saying they are now "free" to be as hoochy as they want.
That sounds so weird to me. During my college years, feminists were stereotyped as anti-sex, not pro-sex. I think people were reacting to Andrea Dworkin's gender hatemongering.

Welcome to the forums :howdy:

Most of the people who are against taking someone off life support (like this Schiavo business) are Christians. .
For the umpteenth time, Terri Schiavo was not on life support!, she had a feeding tube, not a ventilator. Is a straw artificial?

Here's a hardcore liberal who acknowledges some truths about fatherless families and welfare, although I don't agree with the entire column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100900551_pf.html

America's black inner cities have been denuded of their adult men. It started, in my memory, in the 1960s with the enforcement of the man-in-the-house rule, whereby welfare payments were cut off if investigators could establish that an adult able-bodied male (whether or not he was employed) lived in the household...

Social scientists across the political spectrum tell us that father absence is a stronger predictor of criminal behavior than family income, education -- or (Bill Bennett, take note) race.

For the umpteenth time, Terri Schiavo was not on life support!, she had a feeding tube, not a ventilator. Is a straw artificial?
Her LIFE was being SUPPORTED by being on a FEEDING TUBE. :elaine:

Is a straw artificial?
Do you eat with a straw?

During my college years, feminists were stereotyped as anti-sex, not pro-sex.
But, if you remember, it was the feminists that were all for birth control. That's not anti-sex.

Be careful what you say in haste. In the Terri Schavio case, her wishes were not in writing, were not known by all her family. Her parents and siblings wanted to care for her, her "husband", (who had another women) wanted to stop feeding her. They never tried to see if she could eat and drink on her own, if they did and she couldn't, maybe her parents would have gone along with removing the feeding tube. But... their desires to save their own flesh and blood were ignored.
My wife and I had thought of retireing to Florida, but not sure if we would want to live in a state that allows the disabled to be killed without their wishes not really known. There were too many irregularites in this case.
The video showed her tracking a baloon. If she was really comatose, why was her "husband" so reluctant to allow other, independent, doctors to see her. Might have settled argument. As for the idea that she was bad off because she her brain was half the size, well many people have half their brains removed surgically due to brain damage and to control seizures. The other half of the brain takes over.
And before you people speculate, I have not had any such surgery.Hey Bud, stop reading what appeals to you and do a little search on Terry Schavio on these very forums. I think you'll find a very interesting debate.

I just have to say to Vrai, that I thought I was the only woman left in the world today that tells it the way it is about feminists. Thanks for those post, I no longer feel alone.

Curious, Fred, respectfully I have to ask, would you have wanted to live as Terri? Do you know of anyone who would? I have yet to find anyone that would..have you?

I thought you were a better thinker..that's the best you can do...the above reason for those types of abortions is like less that 5% of all abortions.! Such a liberal thought...I will bet that most of those women would look at that child and think..Your Going to be better than your father.
Next time you're raped let us know how you felt about it, and all the repurcussions. Until then, don't presume to know what a rape victim would or would not feel.

They want to have a choice.
:yeahthat: I'd never have an abortion, but I'll be damned if some retard tries to tell me what my reproductive rights are or aren't.

THE Key idea here selfishness, not of the murderer mother but of anyone willing to allow killing of innocent human beings for mercenary reasons.
Why is the focus not on the individual who's life is most affected, the heart that is beating more than 160 beats every minute from the time they're 4 weeks old. Euthanasia or "mercy Killing" is always wrong everyone will die someday that is no reason for us to introduce a new cause of death, because WE don't want to see or understand the value of human life.

All laws are forcing someone's idea of morality on everyone. If anyone believes "they" shouldn't force their morality on us. they are doing what they are saying the other "shouldn't" do. The only thing left for that person is a society void of all laws.You just fell into a philosophical trap! Everyone is selfish, selfishness will always thrive as long as the human race is in existence. Your opinon of this matter is selfish, it is what you want, it is to your greater good to do this.

But... their desires to save their own flesh and blood were ignored.
Maybe if they'd tried to stop her from throwing up her meals she'd still be alive today. :rolleyes:

I just have to say to Vrai, that I thought I was the only woman left in the world today that tells it the way it is about feminists.
You, me and Tammy Bruce - we rock! :dude:

I thought you were a guy for some reason - don't know why I thought that. Maybe because you post a lot in Religion and Politics and not many women do?

For the umpteenth time, Terri Schiavo was not on life support!, she had a feeding tube, not a ventilator. Is a straw artificial?I don't know, I was born without a straw.

But, if you remember, it was the feminists that were all for birth control. That's not anti-sex.

The real hardcore feminists at my college must have had a different playbook. They didn't even talk about birth control. In their minds, all men were potential rapists. They felt that heterosexual sex explicitly placed women in an inferior role, that it was all about domination and power. Even the less extreme feminists on campus seemed to have an deep-seated distrust of men and our motives, which I found to be infuriating.

You, me and Tammy Bruce - we rock! :dude:

I thought you were a guy for some reason - don't know why I thought that. Maybe because you post a lot in Religion and Politics and not many women do?

Tammy Bruce? Never heard of her. I'll look her up.

You're not alone in thinking I was a guy. Someone labled me as a dude and MPD when joining this forum, I didn't bother to argue. :lol: Had a lot of laughs though.

Tammy Bruce? Never heard of her. I'll look her up.
http://tammybruce.com/biography.php

What her bio doesn't tell you, that her first book does, is that she was driven out of NOW after speaking out against President Clinton when the Paula Jones thing was going on. So she's a real feminist - one who is in support women - not some compromising, blind political hack spewing nonsense. She's been in the belly of the beast and speaks knowledgeably about it.

Euthanasia is someone deciding to off themself. It has nothing to do with the Schiavo case or someone else deciding to off you. :dead:Maybe in your dictionary.

To euthanize is what we used to term "mercy killing" - to kill someone (or an animal) to mercifully end a painful but unavoidable death (the word means, literally, easy or pleasant death). We already use the term for humanely disposing of animals who would otherwise linger near death or starve from neglect. We also use it to describe simply putting down animals who've become inconvenient or who have become more trouble than they're worth.

People do not euthanize themselves, but they might authorize others to do it.

Since death awaits us all, the controversy of euthanasia is determining when death is "inevitable" - because it ALWAYS is - and how dire is the "suffering" - as in lingering listlessly in a nursing home, for example. People may end up being "euthanized" to avoid to horrible "suffering" of languishing away in solitude - to line someone's else's pockets.

Thanks for the info S.S.
I stand corrected.

every law forces someones beliefs on everyone. Do you propose a lawless society where the innocent ar not protected?

every law forces someones beliefs on everyone. Do you propose a lawless society where the innocent ar not protected?
Help me understand what you mean by this?

how is my greater good advanced?

Help me understand what you mean by this?
every law says "such and such a behavior" is illegal and ascribes a penalty to it. That law is based on what is best for society, on what should happen

how is my greater good advanced?
By...what? Getting rid of all laws? :confused:

You'd think I'd be better at this, since my husband speaks in nonsequiters.

every law says "such and such a behavior" is illegal and ascribes a penalty to it. That law is based on what is best for society, on what should happen
Right. :yay:

every law says "such and such a behavior" is illegal and ascribes a penalty to it. That law is based on what is best for society, on what should happen
AKA Objective Morality

AKA Objective Morality
Do you recognize objective reality or choose to remain oblivious of it necessarily existing?

Right. :yay:
So are you saying we as a society should have laws (impose morality on everyone)?

Do you recognize objective reality or choose to remain oblivious of it necessarily existing?
Strawman!

http://tammybruce.com/biography.php

What her bio doesn't tell you, that her first book does, is that she was driven out of NOW after speaking out against President Clinton when the Paula Jones thing was going on. So she's a real feminist - one who is in support women - not some compromising, blind political hack spewing nonsense. She's been in the belly of the beast and speaks knowledgeably about it.

Thanks!

Strawman!
interesting that you choose to not answer the question

Good reply, Ken. If I understand you correctly, you view abortion as a matter of individual conscience. I tend to agree.

I find it frustrating that many feminist leaders describe the abortion issue as a matter of a woman's reproductive freedom. There are plenty of feminist pro-lifers who don't get as much airtime as their leaders, and who don't regard abortion as another form of birth control. I think it's ridiculous to claim, as some feminist leaders do, that the pro-life movement has a secret anti-woman agenda to restrict access to birth control.
Are you guys against the choice of one adult to kill another innocent adult?

Are you guys against the choice of one adult to kill another innocent adult?
Nope, not against it at all, but we do have consequences for anyone choosing to do that now don't we.

Obviously pro-choice is in the majority in our society. :popcorn:
incorrect, not only statistics but the legislatures as well, almost all (actually 46 states) had laws against abortion. It was the federal judiciary which in an exercise of raw judicial power overturned the will of the people as defined through their respecive legislatures.

Nope, not against it at all, but we do have consequences for anyone choosing to do that now don't we.
exactly... their should be consequences shouldn't there be because an innocent person has been killed? Correct?

exactly... their should be consequences shouldn't there be because an innocent person has been killed? Correct?
And as stated by the Roe v. Wade decision the state's interest kicks in after the first trimester and become greater as viablity becomes more likely.

It's all about the unanswered question of when is it a life.

So are you saying we as a society should have laws (impose morality on everyone)?
Not all laws are based on morality. Traffic laws, for example.

Are you guys against the choice of one adult to kill another innocent adult?
Of course.

What is "objective reality"?

And as stated by the Roe v. Wade decision the state's interest kicks in after the first trimester and become greater as viablity becomes more likely.

It's all about the unanswered question of when is it a life.
There is no question of when "it" is a human life. Every embryology text book confirms this fact. If it's not alive, there is no choice to surgically or chemically end it's life. The Roe V. Wade opinion depends on the constitutional personhood of the fetus(which is latin for "little one). The only differences between a human embryo and you or I, are ones of size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency. None of these things make anyone any more or any less human. Shaquille Oniel is not more human than you because he is bigger than you. A Fully developed grown woman is no more human than a girl of 4 whose reproductive system is not developed. You are no more human outside then when you are inside. A diabetic is no less human because they are dependent on insulin. We are human beings not human doings. The reason one is human is because of the number of chromosomes we have otherwise we would be a tree or some other type life. Nothing non-human ever becomes human anything human cannot change into anything other than human

Analagously, if slaves are not "given" status as persons others can do whatever they want to them. Since a fetus is not "given" status others can do whatever they want to them.

interesting that you choose to not answer the question
We are getting off the topic, but... Yes I uphold objective reality.

Your comparing slavery to fetus' now?

Your comparing slavery to fetus' now?
The slaves was considered nonhuman and then not fully human by this country. Today the fetus is considered nonhuman and then not fully human by this country.

Nevermind, I don't even want to go there.

The slaves was considered nonhuman and then not fully human by this country. Today the fetus is considered nonhuman and then not fully human by this country.
I don't think a fetus is ever considered "non-human", the issue is really centered around when that fetus can be considered developly mature enough to be a viable, separate entity from it's mother. I am not convinced that the majority of abortions are done as a form of "after the fact" birth-control. There are many circumstances and reasons that could lead a woman to chose to terminate her pregnancy.

I don't think a fetus is ever considered "non-human", the issue is really centered around when that fetus can be considered developly mature enough to be a viable, separate entity from it's mother. I am not convinced that the majority of abortions are done as a form of "after the fact" birth-control. There are many circumstances and reasons that could lead a woman to chose to terminate her pregnancy.
not according to the US supreme court only "personhood" matters not whether that human life is dependent on any medications or other individual for their life..

Nevermind, I don't even want to go there.
Is that because you have no logical defense for your view.
please response

Yeah, that's exactly it. Can't get anything past you.

I don't think a fetus is ever considered "non-human", the issue is really centered around when that fetus can be considered developly mature enough to be a viable, separate entity from it's mother. I am not convinced that the majority of abortions are done as a form of "after the fact" birth-control. There are many circumstances and reasons that could lead a woman to chose to terminate her pregnancy.
every single one of those reasons stops the beating heart of another individual.

Yeah, that's exactly it. Can't get anything past you.
Why not change your view to match facts /reality?

Look, I'm done. This is going nowhere and I've really lost interest.

not according to the US supreme court only "personhood" matters not whether that human life is dependent on any medications or other individual for their life.. I see it as the supreme court prioritizing the realized human life, the mother, over the potential human life, the fetus. There are many laws in place that give recognition to the fetus once it has reached viable human life status... for example, performing an autopsy on that infant found in the storm drain to determine whether or not it had ever taken it's first breath. Exact charges against the mother will be based on whether or not the infant had been delivered stillborn.

every single one of those reasons stops the beating heart of another individual.... a potential individual.

every single one of those reasons stops the beating heart of another individual.
Not if the abortion takes place before the heart has developed. If it isn't there it isn't beating.

What are your feelings on "test tube babies"? The process usually involves implanting a half-dozen or so embryonic clusters with usually only one becoming viable. In your mind is this the murdering of the others?

Not if the abortion takes place before the heart has developed. If it isn't there it isn't beating.

What are your feelings on "test tube babies"? The process usually involves implanting a half-dozen or so embryonic clusters with usually only one becoming viable. In your mind is this the murdering of the others?
My mind is not what makes the destruction of those lives murder. The fact that they are living innocent and someone else decides to end their life is what makes it murder.

In all surgical abortions the doctor is required to verify the life is still there before he ends it. They do not always do the verification, indeed studies have shown clinics to perform an "abortion" on women who are not pregnant.

I see it as the supreme court prioritizing the realized human life, the mother, over the potential human life, the fetus. There are many laws in place that give recognition to the fetus once it has reached viable human life status... for example, performing an autopsy on that infant found in the storm drain to determine whether or not it had ever taken it's first breath. Exact charges against the mother will be based on whether or not the infant had been delivered stillborn.
I just read the opinion of the US Supreme Court, and listened to audio files of the argument, and reargument of the case. The case was hinged on the "personhood" of the fetus. Indeed the US SC said it would have to rule that all abortion is always illegal in all circumstances if the fetus is a person according to the US constitution.

For 46 states the citizens and their representatives in the legislature were overruled, by what the US SC ruled.

The court even talked about what would later be called partial birth abortion calling it homicide.... which the courts today rule is unconstitutional to ban. crazy
Again nothing is ever human which is not already human...legally speaking noone (blacks for instance) is a person unless the constitution or it's amendments explicitly say so ...obviously this is perposterous.

I just have to say to Vrai, that I thought I was the only woman left in the world today that tells it the way it is about feminists. Thanks for those post, I no longer feel alone.

Curious, Fred, respectfully I have to ask, would you have wanted to live as Terri? Do you know of anyone who would? I have yet to find anyone that would..have you?
where there is life...
there is hope...

I just read the opinion of the US Supreme Court, and listened to audio files of the argument, and reargument of the case. The case was hinged on the "personhood" of the fetus. Indeed the US SC said it would have to rule that all abortion is always illegal in all circumstances if the fetus is a person according to the US constitution.

For 46 states the citizens and their representatives in the legislature were overruled, by what the US SC ruled.

The court even talked about what would later be called partial birth abortion calling it homicide.... which the courts today rule is unconstitutional to ban. crazy
Again nothing is ever human which is not already human...legally speaking noone (blacks for instance) is a person unless the constitution or it's amendments explicitly say so ...obviously this is perposterous.

The only obvious thing is that a time frame needed to be established. When is a human a human? Is it at birth, viability, or conception? Where do you draw the line? Fertilization? The sex act? Is using a rubber murder? It kills the sperm! Ban nonoxynol-9!

As long as we have freedom of religion in this country, there will never be a consensus. You will continue to form your opinions, and I will continue to form mine. The supreme court made an arbitrary determination with their trimester method, but something had to be done.

By the way, making abortion illegal won't end abortion. Murder and handguns are illegal in DC. I dare you to stroll through SE tonight.

The only obvious thing is that a time frame needed to be established. When is a human a human? Is it at birth, viability, or conception? Where do you draw the line? Fertilization? The sex act? Is using a rubber murder? It kills the sperm! Ban nonoxynol-9!

As long as we have freedom of religion in this country, there will never be a consensus. You will continue to form your opinions, and I will continue to form mine. The supreme court made an arbitrary determination with their trimester method, but something had to be done.

By the way, making abortion illegal won't end abortion. Murder and handguns are illegal in DC. I dare you to stroll through SE tonight.
The supreme court made no restriction as to when an abortion can occur. NONE!Scientifically speaking at conception a new life begins. There is no intelligent debate on this. The question is, does that life have any personhood status under the constitution and 14th amendment. The only differences are ones of size, level of development, environment or degree of dependency. None of these things determine human-ness

The only obvious thing is that a time frame needed to be established. When is a human a human? Is it at birth, viability, or conception? Where do you draw the line? Fertilization? The sex act? Is using a rubber murder? It kills the sperm! Ban nonoxynol-9!

As long as we have freedom of religion in this country, there will never be a consensus. You will continue to form your opinions, and I will continue to form mine. The supreme court made an arbitrary determination with their trimester method, but something had to be done.

By the way, making abortion illegal won't end abortion. Murder and handguns are illegal in DC. I dare you to stroll through SE tonight.
Agreed that making abortion illegal will not stop it. We should still have a law against it though, to protect the women and the child. I listened to woman after woman including well know actress Jennifer Oniel speak about their experiences at the steps of the Supreme Court for each of the last two years on the anniversary of Roe V. Wade... I dare you to do he same next Jan 22...

Scientifically speaking at conception a new life begins. There is no intelligent debate on this.
There isn't intellegent debate on this? If that were so then why are there several differing scientific views such as the metabolic view, the genetic view, the embryological view, the neurological view, or the ecological/technological views espoused by varying scientists?

I guess if they don't match your particular view then it isn't intellegent.

Agreed that making abortion illegal will not stop it. We should still have a law against it though, to protect the women and the child. I listened to woman after woman including well know actress Jennifer Oniel speak about their experiences at the steps of the Supreme Court for each of the last two years on the anniversary of Roe V. Wade... I dare you to do he same next Jan 22...

Why would I want to stand there and listen to people who are slanted to a one-sided, stubborn opinion, without a willingness to consider anything else?

If I want to listen to an abortion "victim" I would talk to women I know who've been there. Every one of them has only one regret - being dumb enough to get into a situation where she felt she needed an abortion. They are also thankful that there was a safe place to have it done.

I find it hypocritical that most "right to lifers" are also opposed to meaningful sex education beyond abstinence. If there were no demand for abortions, there wouldn't be any. If lifers used their energy to prevent unwanted pregnancies, abortion wouldn't be a factor. You are trying to solve a symptom - abortion - rather than the problem.

There isn't intellegent debate on this? If that were so then why are there several differing scientific views such as the metabolic view, the genetic view, the embryological view, the neurological view, or the ecological/technological views espoused by varying scientists?

I guess if they don't match your particular view then it isn't intellegent.
:yeahthat:

The supreme court made no restriction as to when an abortion can occur. NONE!Scientifically speaking at conception a new life begins. There is no intelligent debate on this. The question is, does that life have any personhood status under the constitution and 14th amendment. The only differences are ones of size, level of development, environment or degree of dependency. None of these things determine human-ness

Read Roe v. Wade:

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

It's not up to the court to restrict abortion after viability, but it does allow states the right. This decision belongs at the state level as the court states.

Read Roe v. Wade:

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

It's not up to the court to restrict abortion after viability, but it does allow states the right. This decision belongs at the state level as the court states.
Yes, the US SC leaves it up to the states... but people's often held belief is that Roe V. Wade made abortion illegal after the first trimester - which is not true.. rather it made it not illegal for any reason during anytime of the pregnancy.

listen to the 1st oral argument
http://www.oyez.org/audio/cases/334/argument.mp3

also then listen to the reargument ...there you will learn that personhood of the fetus is the key question as it relates to the US constitution

Yes, the US SC leaves it up to the states... but people's often held belief is that Roe V. Wade made abortion illegal after the first trimester - which is not true.. rather it made it not illegal for any reason during anytime of the pregnancy.

listen to the 1st oral argument
http://www.oyez.org/audio/cases/334/argument.mp3

also then listen to the reargument ...there you will learn that personhood of the fetus is the key question as it relates to the US constitution

By the SC saying that the state has the right to make late term abortion illegal, how did they make it legal?

Why would I want to stand there and listen to people who are slanted to a one-sided, stubborn opinion, without a willingness to consider anything else?

If I want to listen to an abortion "victim" I would talk to women I know who've been there. Every one of them has only one regret - being dumb enough to get into a situation where she felt she needed an abortion. They are also thankful that there was a safe place to have it done.

I find it hypocritical that most "right to lifers" are also opposed to meaningful sex education beyond abstinence. If there were no demand for abortions, there wouldn't be any. If lifers used their energy to prevent unwanted pregnancies, abortion wouldn't be a factor. You are trying to solve a symptom - abortion - rather than the problem.
Exactly all of the women speaking are speaking about how they regret their abortion every single one of them... Will you hear them...Silent No More is what they refer to themselves as.. yes making it illegal will not help everyone but it will help those who believe the hype that it's just a mass of cells.... I can only speak for myself regarding where my energies are expended, I do work at prevention and education that's why I'm talking to you now .. to educate you.. The women I know who have been there and done that don't want anyone to know what the did and don't want to talk about it to most people, but both told me it haunts them all the time..... You are correct abortion happens because man (humankind) is willing to kill to satisfy his lusts. If people can be taught the beauty of human sexuality and that it is meant for within the framework of a loving marriage many problems will go away...Mother Teresa said it is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.

Curious, Fred, respectfully I have to ask, would you have wanted to live as Terri? Do you know of anyone who would? I have yet to find anyone that would..have you?
I would want to live like Terri Schavio. There have been many cases where comotose patients have recovered. God will take a person when He wants regardless of the feeding tube, so why hasten it. The "sufferring" of people like Terri Schaivo may serve a greater purpose. It may bring family members together.

By the SC saying that the state has the right to make late term abortion illegal, how did they make it legal?
they made it legal by ruling the law against it was unconstitutional

:yeahthat:
What differing metabolic, genetic, neurological, or the ecological/technological views espoused by varying scientists contradict medical textbooks on embryology?

I would want to live like Terri Schavio. There have been many cases where comotose patients have recovered. God will take a person when He wants regardless of the feeding tube, so why hasten it. The "sufferring" of people like Terri Schaivo may serve a greater purpose. It may bring family members together.
Terri wasn't "comatose". Her brain was a degenerated, liquified mass.

The only obvious thing is that a time frame needed to be established. When is a human a human? Is it at birth, viability, or conception? Where do you draw the line? Fertilization? The sex act? Is using a rubber murder? It kills the sperm! Ban nonoxynol-9!

As long as we have freedom of religion in this country, there will never be a consensus. You will continue to form your opinions, and I will continue to form mine. The supreme court made an arbitrary determination with their trimester method, but something had to be done.

By the way, making abortion illegal won't end abortion. Murder and handguns are illegal in DC. I dare you to stroll through SE tonight.
Don't forget the companion decion, "Doe Vs. Bolton" This decision wiped out all restrictions on abortion. That is why some judges are saying partial birth abortion is unconstitutional. This procedure is performed on a viable little one, the dr. kills it just before it is completly out of the birth canal.

I would want to live like Terri Schavio. There have been many cases where comotose patients have recovered. God will take a person when He wants regardless of the feeding tube, so why hasten it. The "sufferring" of people like Terri Schaivo may serve a greater purpose. It may bring family members together.
I just heard of a man in Itlay that was comatose ...the doctors said he was uncouscious however he came out of the coma after 2 years and told them he heard everything and that they were wrong!!

Terri wasn't "comatose". Her brain was a degenerated, liquified mass.
:clap: :clap: :clap: Thank you Kwillia

I just heard of a man in Itlay that was comatose ...the doctors said he was uncouscious however he came out of the coma after 2 years and told them he heard everything and that they were wrong!!
Hello!!! Unconscious is sooooo different than a liquified brain.
example 1: drinking to much= unconscious
example 2: reading this thread=liquid brain
:lol:

example 2: reading this thread=liquid brain
:lol:
You're in my siggy. :yay:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Try=No&Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200510/FOR20051005b.html
Here is a post detailing the leagalizating of euthanasia in Holland of babies. Parents could have their babies killed if they wanted to. Supposedly if they are in pain or handicapped. The babies have no say in this.
This is based on Hitler's idea that there was life not worth living.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Try=No&Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200510/FOR20051005b.html
Here is a post detailing the leagalizating of euthanasia in Holland of babies. Parents could have their babies killed if they wanted to. Supposedly if they are in pain or handicapped. The babies have no say in this.
This is based on Hitler's idea that there was life not worth living.



"Under these guidelines, parents can give consent for children to be killed, if they are suffering from severe pain and are terminally ill."

The Groningen Protocol lists several criteria for making a decision on ending a child's life. There should be severe pain and suffering and no hope for a cure or relief through medical treatment, and an independent doctor must provide a second opinion. Parents must also give consent.

God will take a person when He wants regardless of the feeding tube, so why hasten it.
And why prolong it?

You never answered my question:

Do you think keeping someone alive artificially is thwarting God's will?

And why prolong it?

You never answered my question:

Do you think keeping someone alive artificially is thwarting God's will?
Or organ transplants. Did God envision swapping good parts from dead people to enhance/extend other's lives?

And why prolong it?

You never answered my question:

Do you think keeping someone alive artificially is thwarting God's will?
As I said, God will take a person when He wants to. Regardless of wheter the person is on a feeding tube or ventilator. Therefore, their use does not prolong life longer than God wills it.

"Under these guidelines, parents can give consent for children to be killed, if they are suffering from severe pain and are terminally ill."

The Groningen Protocol lists several criteria for making a decision on ending a child's life. There should be severe pain and suffering and no hope for a cure or relief through medical treatment, and an independent doctor must provide a second opinion. Parents must also give consent.
Precisely the problem. The babie whose is to be killed has no say. The criteria are so broad one could drive a Mack truck through them. It would be no problem for parents to find doctors to certify their wishes. Doctors would indpendently certify each other. Holland does not have a good record on these issues. How many people did the Dutch willingly ship to concentration camps when given a chance during the German Occupation?

As I said, God will take a person when He wants to. Regardless of wheter the person is on a feeding tube or ventilator. Therefore, their use does not prolong life longer than God wills it.

But dontcha think if we have faith in God, to do his Will He wouldn't want us to use ventilators or tubes. Do you wonder too, that He may be testing us?

God showed me something recently. I've had a few medical issues, anyway, at different times different pains, every time I was seen by a different doctor, different pains, different test..doctors did nothing for me. So, I prayed, the pains and problems are now gone.

Or organ transplants. Did God envision swapping good parts from dead people to enhance/extend other's lives?

I don't think so.

I appreicate your opinion on this, along with everyone elses. Everyone brings good points to the table, which are man's views.

Me? I'll leave it in God's hands.
Leaving it to God must be explained. God gave us our natural faculties and wants us to use the in the service of life recognizing the dignity of every individual he created. God the author of life, wants us to use not abuse what the gifts he's given. We should not wait for ourselves to be nourished without seeking out food daily and His will. We should not wait for ourselves to be healed without seeking out healing and His will. However with much of what we have talked about on this forum many people (not you) think since a person will die anyway, we are allowed to kill them by introducing a new cause of death.

One is not required to accept medical treatment where a terminal illness will not be abated, food and water are not medical treatment and Terry Schaivo was not terminally ill if she was Michael Schaivo need not take any action what he wanted would have happened. The news reports only mmentioned the preliminary report not the complete final report that the cause of death was severe dehydration and that her heart was strong enough for at least another 14 years in the opinion of the autopsy examiner.

I don't think so.
God did more than envision self sacrifice he indeed modelled it via His only son. A distinction must be amplified here...self-sacrifice not other-sacrifice, not using other individuals who did not agree to it as parts farms, no matter what age of development that human being is in.

I don't think so.
So if my daughter with kidney disease requires a transplant I should just let her die? She is 20 months old now.

So if my daughter with kidney disease requires a transplant I should just let her die? She is 20 months old now.
Praise God! Yes you read it right praise Him and all will be well. Job said the Lord giveth and the Lord Taketh away..Pray for healing through all the best natural means available doctors transplants etc and then pray for healing through the only supernatural means as well - but in all things pray for His will to be done and for yourself to have the strength to love His will for the benefit of All...Suffering can be redemptive - if after all attempts to alleviate it suffering remains - use it by giving it to Him who can redeem it who can bring good things out of bad.

Do you think keeping someone alive artificially is thwarting God's will?
In my view, no human can or will ever know what God wants. I don't like it when some people claim that they have some exclusive scoop on God's intentions. It seems like they think it makes them better or more righteous than other people.

... a potential individual.
The individual or entity is there, that no-one denies, what is denied the person is status as a legally protected person with rights.

Of course we know breathing is happening in the womb, breathing in and out the amniotic fluid, not air- the fluid is pushed out of the lungs as the person with no right to life travels down the magic tunnel that once all parts of it's body are delivered outside the woman all of a sudden gives the same "mass of cells" legal protection.

In my view, no human can or will ever know what God wants. I don't like it when some people claim that they have some exclusive scoop on God's intentions. It seems like they think it makes them better or more righteous than other people.
another possibility for passing on what one understands to be God's will is to prevent people from hurting other people or even themselves. Have you ever formally studied any philosophy?

Praise God! Yes you read it right praise Him and all will be well. Job said the Lord giveth and the Lord Taketh away..Pray for healing through all the best natural means available doctors transplants etc and then pray for healing through the only supernatural means as well - but in all things pray for His will to be done and for yourself to have the strength to love His will for the benefit of All...Suffering can be redemptive - if after all attempts to alleviate it suffering remains - use it by giving it to Him who can redeem it who can bring good things out of bad.
Huh? I really don't understand that fully, or maybe I choose not to. You think there should be no transplants? I am an organ doner and would be pissed if it didn't happen when I die. I will no longer need my organs. This body is a shell and the spirit moves on. The body remains to rot in the ground. Why not use it for someone elses benefit? Please correct me if I misinterpreted your post.

Huh? I really don't understand that fully, or maybe I choose not to. You think there should be no transplants? I am an organ doner and would be pissed if it didn't happen when I die. I will no longer need my organs. This body is a shell and the spirit moves on. The body remains to rot in the ground. Why not use it for someone elses benefit? Please correct me if I misinterpreted your post.

He's saying transplants are cool.

He's saying transplants are cool.
Good deal. Finally, we agree on something!

But dontcha think if we have faith in God, to do his Will He wouldn't want us to use ventilators or tubes. Do you wonder too, that He may be testing us?

God showed me something recently. I've had a few medical issues, anyway, at different times different pains, every time I was seen by a different doctor, different pains, different test..doctors did nothing for me. So, I prayed, the pains and problems are now gone.

This is a circular argument. I say God takes you when He wants, even if you are being fed by a feeding tube. So, since He gave us these tools, we should use them as long as there is life.

This body is a shell and the spirit moves on.

Where do you believe the spirit moves onto?

This is a circular argument. I say God takes you when He wants, even if you are being fed by a feeding tube. So, since He gave us these tools, we should use them as long as there is life.
Couldn't that same circular argument be made in regard to abortion? If God didn't want that fetus he wouldn't have allowed it to be taken via abortion.

Huh? I really don't understand that fully, or maybe I choose not to. You think there should be no transplants? I am an organ doner and would be pissed if it didn't happen when I die. I will no longer need my organs. This body is a shell and the spirit moves on. The body remains to rot in the ground. Why not use it for someone elses benefit? Please correct me if I misinterpreted your post.
Yes, you have misinterpreted my post. I am all for organ transplants. I just want to be sure person "a" is not "volunteering" person "b" without person "b's" expressed consent. Organ donors are helping others, with what they have been given.
OBTW your body does not remain dust! On the last day you will be given a glorified version of your self-same body in the resurrection!!! Praise God!

Where do you believe the spirit moves onto?
ultimately Heaven or Hell... the spirit alone at first the body to follow on the last day

another possibility for passing on what one understands to be God's will is to prevent people from hurting other people or even themselves. Have you ever formally studied any philosophy?
No, I haven't. I don't think you intend it to sound this way, but "prevent purting other people or even themselves" sounds condescending to me. It implies that the believer knows what's best for other people, that other people don't know what's best for themselves. That sounds a LOT like the paternalistic attitudes that gave rise to welfare. It also sounds like Tom Cruise lecturing Brooke Shields about her meds. I believe that no one has a monopoly on truth, and I'm deeply skeptical when someone claims that his or her attempts to change others' religious beliefs are "for their own good."

ultimately Heaven or Hell... the spirit alone at first the body to follow on the last day

Heaven suppose to be a beautiful place, correct?

No, I haven't. I don't think you intend it to sound this way, but "prevent purting other people or even themselves" sounds condescending to me. It implies that the believer knows what's best for other people, that other people don't know what's best for themselves. That sounds a LOT like the paternalistic attitudes that gave rise to welfare. It also sounds like Tom Cruise lecturing Brooke Shields about her meds. I believe that no one has a monopoly on truth, and I'm deeply skeptical when someone claims that his or her attempts to change others' religious beliefs are "for their own good."
I'm trying to draw on hopefully common ground. It would be a good idea if people help rather, than hurt other people, right? One should advise an-other when one sees their brother A hurting brother B... even if brother A is hurting himself. I never said or meant anything about changing anyone's religious beliefs. I agree no-one owns the truth it is indeed the other way around we belong to Him who is truth.

Heaven suppose to be a beautiful place, correct?
correct.. better than eye has seen, ear has heard, and beyond our current capacity to fully understand

I'm trying to draw on hopefully common ground. It would be a good idea if people help rather, than hurt other people, right? One should advise an-other when one sees their brother A hurting brother B... even if brother A is hurting himself. I never said or meant anything about changing anyone's religious beliefs. I agree no-one owns the truth it is indeed the other way around we belong to Him who is truth.
Hurting himself how? My point about "Him who is truth" is that the existence of any kind of supernatural being or beings is a matter of personal faith, not objective truth. When anyone claims that their personal beliefs are objective truth, to me it feels like an attempt to define and control people, even when that isn't the believer's intention.

Hurting himself how? My point about "Him who is truth" is that the existence of any kind of supernatural being or beings is a matter of personal faith, not objective truth. When anyone claims that their personal beliefs are objective truth, to me it feels like an attempt to define and control people, even when that isn't the believer's intention.
I think you might enjoy studying philosophy, you have been given a thirst for knowlege which is great!
Nothing exists without a source. If truth exists as we have said it does, it has an ultimate source. That source is the supernatural being you speak of. Whether or not one believes in that source, the source must exist. You are the immediate source of the words you write and I read. You exist despite whether I believe in you or not it is not faith that makes one exist or not exist.

correct.. better than eye has seen, ear has heard, and beyond our current capacity to fully understand

I don't understand why we drag our feet....

I haven't the answers, just trying to figure it out myself. I just know I want to do as God would have me to do, and when it comes to accepting other people's body parts or life support, not clear.

Man's medical advancements is unclear to me as yet if a good thing and if comes from God. With each new advancement that comes along seems we set ourself up for more problems in the long run. Sure people are living longer, and healthier, but are their lives richer and fuller, are they being better human beings? I don't see it, people are getting more hateful and sinful with each passing day. The real pain is living in this life, seeing horrible things. When my time comes, I will be ever so grateful.

(I know, I know, Slotted you will be, too..so save it)

Where do you believe the spirit moves onto?
Heaven or Hell.

Yes, you have misinterpreted my post. I am all for organ transplants. I just want to be sure person "a" is not "volunteering" person "b" without person "b's" expressed consent. Organ donors are helping others, with what they have been given.
OBTW your body does not remain dust! On the last day you will be given a glorified version of your self-same body in the resurrection!!! Praise God!
I actually agree with this post as well. Scarey.

I don't understand why we drag our feet....

I haven't the answers, just trying to figure it out myself. I just know I want to do as God would have me to do, and when it comes to accepting other people's body parts or life support, not clear.

Man's medical advancements is unclear to me as yet if a good thing and if comes from God. With each new advancement that comes along seems we set ourself up for more problems in the long run. Sure people are living longer, and healthier, but are their lives richer and fuller, are they being better human beings? I don't see it, people are getting more hateful and sinful with each passing day. The real pain is living in this life, seeing horrible things. When my time comes, I will be ever so grateful.

(I know, I know, Slotted you will be, too..so save it)
You are not alone...Paul said the same thing. He said he would rather be with his love in heaven, but until he's called he'll remain here just spreading the good news that EVERYONE is loved ..so loved

other thought: medicine (and all other sciences arts and study) must be at the service of man (humankind) otherwise we are enslaved by it.
Maybe you are homesick for the same reason Augustine in the 4th centry said that we are all homesick: "Our hearts are restless oh Lord until they rest in you."
Yeah there's lot'f of people doing bad things but a great lover once said "Be not afraid!"

I actually agree with this post as well. Scarey.
Great! We should also then agree to oppose the newest threat to the dignity of human life. People now want to use human embryos for their stem cells in order to heal an-other human being. I am all for research continuing to provide cures using adult stem cells or umbilical cord cells, the donor can expressly give that consent. The embryo cannot give consent and is just used for research that has never led to any cure of any disease. Adult stem cell research has led to treatments for many (over 50) diseases. When they want to throw MD tax $ at embryonic stem cell research vote no!

Some things are just so gross that the Mengeles that came up with them should be thrown in a dungeon for eternity. Partial-birth abortion is one of them, and so is embryonic stem cell research.

:guh:

I tried to save my daughters umbilical cord blood but was told there was no one in the area doing such collection and that it costs a fortune anyway. I just wanted to donate it, but was told it was a no go. Strange I thought. I don't know enough about stem cell research to form an opinion as of yet. Partial birth abortion is beyond disgusting and anyone doing this is among the worst there is. JMO.

I haven't filtered through all the rest so this may be covered. I have personal issue with abortion, but I am not going to make someone follow my path. However, I believe it is a state issue and not a federal issue. I think RvW should be overturned and it returned to the realm of states.

I haven't filtered through all the rest so this may be covered. I have personal issue with abortion, but I am not going to make someone follow my path. However, I believe it is a state issue and not a federal issue. I think RvW should be overturned and it returned to the realm of states.

Read RvW. They allowed states to do far more than they currently do. If the states do the maximum allowed by Rowe, then it becomes a federal issue.

For example, RvW allows states to prohibit every third term abortion, as well as most second term. The states have not chosen to write their laws in a way that is constitutional.

Read RvW. They allowed states to do far more than they currently do. If the states do the maximum allowed by Rowe, then it becomes a federal issue.

For example, RvW allows states to prohibit every third term abortion, as well as most second term. The states have not chosen to write their laws in a way that is constitutional.
Then why is partial birth abortion not allowed to be made illeagal? There was a companion bill, Doe vs. Bolton which declared states can make no rules against abortion. Also, SCOTUS has used Roe to rule that anything that may be considered a hinderance to abortion is illeagal, such as informed consent, inspection of abortion facilities, parental notification, unborn baby pain awareness, etc. If these rulings were overturned the people would decide the matter, not 7 unelected lawyers.
And the people would vote to ban abortion.