gadgetlady

Abortion is not a religious issue. Yes, there are a lot of religious people that take a stand on the issue, but just because Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Baptist minister didn't make civil rights a religious issue. Just because in the 1920's religious people took a stand against eugenics laws that were on the books in 30 states (laws that, btw, Hitler studied and borrowed from when he came up with his "bright" ideas) doesn't make forced sterilization a religious issue. If you want hate, bigotry, social injustice, name-calling and hatefulness to stop, then why don't you start with the least among us? I have no problem with religious freedom. What I have a problem with is people killing other people for their own convenience.

I do want to add one thing. While I fully believe abortion takes the life of a human being and is therefore murder, I also believe that many women are deluded at their time of intense emotion and crisis by the pro-abortion movement. I know there are women who specifically ask whether if what they're carrying is a baby, and they're told it is not -- that it's a clump of cells, a blob of tissue, a product of conception -- and they're never informed about the reality of what's going on in the womb. Since an unplanned pregnancy is very often a very scary thing for a lot of women, being given what is presented as an "easy out", like having a tooth pulled, is something the grasp at very quicky. Human beings often make very bad decisions at times of crisis in their lives. That is why I don't condemn these women, the other victims of abortion; they need to heal and they need to be loved.

You know what's incredible? In the US it's illegal to destroy the egg of a bald eagle. Pretty much everyone understands this -- even those in favor of abortion. Destroying the developing little bald eagle means taking the life of something we as a country, for whatever reason, value. How screwed up are our values when we can't destroy a developing bald eagle but we can destroy a developing human being?

I never expected to convince you. I do believe, however, that people with open minds willing to explore the evidence and who don't have an emotional attachment to abortion can change their minds.

The pro-abortion response to this will be, "but it's OBVIOUS that THOSE things are wrong!" -- which is, of course, missing the point entirely, because it's not always obvious to those who commit the crimes. Just as it wasn't obvious to Hitler and the SS troops and it wasn't obvious to the slave owners and it isn't obvious to the "distinguished" men below who support infanticide: “There is little evidence that termination of an infant’s life in the first few months following extraction from the womb could be looked upon as murder... It would seem to be more ‘inhumane’ to kill an adult chimpanzee than a newborn baby, since the chimpanzee has greater mental awareness. Murder cannot logically apply to a life form with less mental awareness than a primate.” Winston L. Duke Article: The New Biology Reason magazine, August 1972 “No newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and if it fails these tests, it forfeits the right to life.” Dr. Francis Crick Nobel Prize winner Pacific News Service, January, 1978 “In our book, Should the Baby Live, my colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggested that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.” Peter Singer Professor of Bio-Ethics Princeton University “It is reasonable to describe infanticide as post-natal abortion... Infanticide is actually a very humane thing when you are dealing with misbegotten infants. We might have to encourage it under certain conditionalities of excess population especially when you’re dealing with defective children.” Joseph Fletcher Professor of Ethics Harvard Divinity School Infanticide and the Value of Life, Prometheus Books, 1978 “Infanticide has a logical continuity with abortion and even with contraception.” Edward Pohlman, Researcher Planned Parenthood Psychology of Birth Planning Shankman Publishing Cambridge MA, 1967 “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice that only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering.” Dr. James D. Watson Nobel Prize winner Time magazine, May 28, 1973 Moral relativism is, indeed, scary.

Watch the video, BJean, and tell me again it's a clump of cells. There is no such thing as a potential life. It's either life or it isn't. For that matter, what the heck is a COMPLETE life? A fully matured life? I don't think anyone is there yet! Is it a life with all organs fully developed? Then I guess no one is really alive until they reach puberty, because sex organs aren't fully matured until then. We are all in various stages of life. We are lives WITH POTENTIAL. But there is no such thing as a potential life. If it's a life, it's a life. If it isn't a life, there is the potential to create a life, but there is no potential life.

Wow. That's big of you. So you're saying it's either a life or it's not, so there is a possibility that in having an abortion, a woman is killing a human being. Doesn't it then make sense that we should make every effort possible to determine if she is or not? How snide. When have I NOT answered questions about this issue? You've asked this before and I've answered it before. I don't get to decide. I am not a judge. Judges get to decide. I support judges who will decide based on scientific facts about human life. I am not a politician, so I don't get to pass laws. I can certainly vote on laws, when appropriately presented to me, but I don't pass laws. It's not within my purvue. What, then, PROVES when something is a human life? Why is a black person not 3/5 of a person, but rather a full person. Why are Jews considered human life? Talk about not answering questions, why won't you answer those? How do you define human life? Who are you to disagree with the slave owners and the laws that were en force indicating that a black person was 3/5 of a person? If they wanted to own a slave, who are you to decide for them? Why was what Hitler did wrong? He considered the Jews (and others) to be sub-standard. With what criteria do you argue they were not? What is wrong with the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who believes infants should be killed if they don't meet certain standards within the first few weeks of life? I seriously doubt YOU will answer these questions. And don't try to answer with "it's obvious that THOSE people are human beings" because it was NOT obvious to the people who enslaved them, exterminated them, or believe they should be "euthanized". Your basic argument is that it should all be left up to interpretation. Look at history. Look what happened when people were allowed to decide for others whether the others' lives had value -- or whether they should even be defined as entities belonging to the human race. Right back at ya'.

I don't have a problem being called anti-abortion. I am anti-abortion. As to medical diagnoses, I am not going to split hairs. That's for doctors and judges to decide, whenever necessary.

What a great idea and great routine. I wish I had time to read more, especially the spiritual giants of our time. I was just thinking that when my kids are grown and leave home, I might want to go back to school and get my Masters in Theology. I doubt this book will be out on iTunes, though, as it was just released.

Amen -- isn't that the truth!!!! He is so, so, so good. All the time. I was just talking to my dh about this last night. Sometimes I just weep at the love He shows us.

Here's a more detailed story, found at Comatose man wakes to changed Poland - Wonderful World - MSNBC.com WARSAW, Poland - A railway worker who emerged from a 19-year coma woke to a radically altered Poland and thinks "the world is prettier now" than it was under communism, his wife said Sunday. Gertruda Grzebska, 63, said that for years she fed her husband Jan carefully with a spoon and moved his body to prevent bed sores. "For 19 years he did not move or say anything," Grzebska told The Associated Press by phone. "He tried to say things, but it couldn't be understood. Sometimes we pretended we understood." "Now he spends his days sitting in a wheelchair, and last weekend we took him out for a walk in his wheelchair," she said. "He was so amazed to see the colorful streets, the goods," she said. "He says the world is prettier now" than it was 19 years ago, when Poland was still under communist rule. "I could not talk or do anything, now it's much better," Jan Grzebski, 65, told TVN24 Television in a weak but clear voice, lying in bed at his home in the northern city of Dzialdowo. "I wake up at 7 a.m., and I watch TV," he said, smiling slightly. Wojciech Pstragowski, a rehabilitation specialist, said Grzebski was shocked at the changes in Poland — especially its stores: "He remembered shelves filled with mustard and vinegar only" under communism. Poland shed communism in 1989 and has developed democracy and a market economy. ‘This is my great reward’ Despite doctors' predictions that he would not live, his wife never gave up hope and took care of him at home. "I would fly into a rage every time someone would say that people like him should be euthanized, so they don't suffer," she told local daily Gazeta Dzialdowska. "I believed Janek would recover," she said, using an affectionate version of his name. "This is my great reward for all the care, faith and love," she told the AP, weeping. "He remembers everything that was going on around him," she said. "He talks about it and remembers the weddings of our children. He had fever around the time of the weddings, so he knew something big was taking place." Head injuries plus cancer In 1988, when Poland was still run by a communist government, Grzebski fell into a coma after sustaining head injuries as he was attaching two train carriages. Doctors also found cancer in his brain and said he would not live. Grzebski's wife took him home. Last October he fell sick with pneumonia and had to be hospitalized again, Grzebska said. Doctors' efforts led to the first signs of recovery. "He began to move and his speech was becoming clearer, although I was the only one to understand him," she said. Intensive rehabilitation brought more effects. "At the start, his speech was very unclear, now it is improving daily," said Pstragowski, who predicted his patient would soon walk. "I am sure that without the dedication of his wife, the patient would not have reached us in the (good) shape that he did." What an amazing and beautiful testament to the love these two people share for each other.

I'm not going to split hairs with the pro-abortion people (who call themselves "pro-choice"). If a woman will die if she carries the baby to term, then her life is threatened. If she is in danger of being ridiculed by her classmates or in danger of being sad because she didn't want a baby, then her life is not in danger. I guarantee you, if the law made abortion illegal again with that exception, I would stop trying to change the law. I would also stop fighting if the law made abortion illegal again with the exception of rape. Eliminating 99.5 to 99.99999%% of all abortions would make me quite happy. May I remind you, there was no such thing as a pro-life movement when abortion was illegal but with those exceptions.

Good for you. I'm glad you've made that clear to your loved ones and they're willing to give up on you.

You indicated previously that the question was human life. Specifically, you said "the question of human life is a matter of concience, not science." My response is that if whether or not it's a human life is a matter of personal choice, than one person's judgment is determining whether it is human life. Two mothers are pregnant. If one decides what she is carrying is human life and the other decides it isn't, are they both right? How is that possible? How can one's personal decision determine humanity. Isn't humanity an issue outside of personal feelings? Isn't it a matter of science? Just because people disagree doesn't mean they're all right. Some people agreed with Hitler --were they right?

Thank you for your clarification, 396power. I don't think you're an idiot. One has to be educated in poll-taking to set up a proper poll -- people get it wrong all the time -- even in the media. I assumed your third choice was rape, fetal deformity, etc., which is why I voted the way I did. I guess I assumed right. I think everyone else did, too -- as I'm confident people don't believe a mother should be required to die to save the life of her child (even though some would choose to). BTW, there are over 1.5 million abortions in the US alone every year, much more than 250,000. There were over 4,000 today alone.

It IS the issue. There are people who believe infanticide, that is the deliberate killing of newborns who are not "up to snuff", should be legal. Is their opinion of when human life begins a matter of conscience, not science? Because certainly THEIR conscience says the newborns are not full human beings. Why should the question of human life ever be left up to another's judgment? How about in the case of blacks, deemed legally to be 3/5 of a person? How about in the case of Jews and many others in Germany being deemed unfit to live?

I love this "dividing embryo" terminology you use. Why don't you go take a peek at the video at Abortion NO / The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and tell me how something with tiny hands, tiny feet, tiny developed fingers, fingerprints, a ribcage, a beating heart, two eyes, a nose, a mouth, etc. is something other than a human being. I dare you. Watch the video the whole way through.

This is a flawed poll. It was not well worded, and you know it. To extrapolate from a flawed poll that pro-lifers really don't care about mothers is not only equally flawed, it's ridiculous. I am a libertarian. I believe people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies whenever they want to. Where I draw the line is when another person's body is involved, which is why I'm pro-life. I have no interest in controlling people, invading people's homes or lives, or anything else. I simply believe that society needs to protect the most innocent and helpless of victims.

Let's be honest here. This whole argument is a red herring as well. Dr. C. Everett Koop, U.S. Surgeon General in the 1980s, wrote in his book The Right to Live, the Right to Die, "The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent."

Interesting article, Mark, but not representative of the movement. I think it's a bit similar to the information I posted about radical feminists advocating women who have never had an abortion get one so they can experience it. The mention of such a point of view caused you to create quite a ruckus, if I recall correctly, because you felt it was inappropriate of me to bring fringe elements like that into the argument. Discussions of it went on, and on, and on, and on, and on, as you beat me over the head saying the point of view didn't exist, and when I demonstrated that it did, you switched your tactic to beat me over the head saying I should never bring up a thing. I have no intentions of doing the same to you. I have never heard such a position and I don't believe it is representative of pro-lifers as a whole.

I guess we'll only know if we hear from the others, but I wouldn't doubt that many, if not all, made the same assumptions I did. I'm not confident that 396 understands the nuances of abortion polling. I think he meant the poll to have the options of pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion should be limited except for some cases -- as he had heard it worded in many national polls -- and he added a clarification of ONE of the "extreme" cases. His clarification may not have been exclusive in his mind and in the minds of others. The poll should actually have had some other options as well, and I think you would see many mor subtle nuances: "I believe abortion should be legal through all 9 months of pregnancy", "I believe abortion should only be allowed in the first trimester", etc. Anyway, it would make sense to hear from the others before you judge. After all, you made a judgment about my vote and that judgment was incorrect.

Hi guys. I don't have time to respond to the prolific posts right now, but I would like to respond on behalf of one who voted for option #1 in the poll. The poll wasn't worded very well. My first skim of the poll was to see the choices of "pro-life", "pro-choice", and "pro-life except . . ." I really didn't see much else. I expected, based on the way polls are normally taken on this issue, for the "except . . ." to be "the hard cases" (i.e. rape, hardship, etc.). I truthfully didn't see the 3rd option as ONLY the life of the mother when I voted, primarily because polls are never worded that way so I didn't read it very carefully. My knee-jerk reaction was to vote #1 because of incorrect assumptions I made. Speaking as a long-time pro-lifer and activist, there is no pro-lifer that I have ever met that would agree that abortion should not be allowed to save the physical life of the mother (i.e. she would die if she carried the baby to term). So -- that being said -- how do I change my vote (or word the poll better)?

I think it's a very appropriate punishment, especially since they were already in the remorse stage when you got back. That is the goal more than anything else -- that they understand the significance of what they did, how it affected the people around them, and how unacceptable it was. The removal of the privilege punctuates it well.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never denigrated your religion and I expect the same of you. When I considered myself a Catholic and a Christian, I did not place my trust in and lay my life before Jesus. I'm not saying you don't. I'm just saying I didn't. I'm quite surprised that you consider yourself to practice the same religion as I -- especially with your disparaging comments above. Everyone I know makes a distinction between Protestants and Catholics, considering them two different religions -- with some similarities, but not the same religion. I would never say I had the same religion as a Catholic, and when I was Catholic I would never have said I was the same religion as a Protestant. But be that as it may, it appears this is just a curious difference of opinion and perhaps definition.

I believe I have said earlier in this thread that there are "social Catholics" -- by that I mean people who identify themselves as Catholics, participate in Catholic rites and rituals, attend Catholic mass on a regular basis, and are not Christians in the sense that they do not fully follow and accept the teachings of Christ. I fit into that category for many, many years. I believed myself to be fully Catholic (and fully Christian) but I did not understand Christ as I do now, and therefore consider myself to have been steeped in the knowledge of Christianity but lacking a heart-belief. So just to be crystal clear, if someone asked you if you were the same religion as I, you would answer yes?