gadgetlady

No problem. The baby has it's own circulatory system (with a blood type often different from the mother's), it's own beating heart, it's own brain, two arms, two legs, all major organs including early sex organs, etc. I don't know any women that have four arms and four legs, two brains, two hearts, and, in the case of a male baby, male genitalia. A skin cell doesn't have the features described above. If I believe illegal immigrants are not valuable human life, do I get to kill them because, after all, that's my belief and who are you to say what I believe is wrong? When another human life is involved, the state has the right to get involved. Life is not contingent on how other people define it. Life just IS. We can't depend on whether others believe us to be alive to determine whether we have the right to live or not. It's arbitrary and discriminatory.

I am against the death penalty. I didn't used to be. It was the pro-life movement that brought me there. I didn't know for sure. My first reaction in reading your description of pregnancy and childbirth was either 1) this woman doesn't have kids, or 2) this woman is really bitter that she does. I knew those weren't necessarily true, but those were my first reactions. I believe placing a child for adoption is an incredible and loving sacrifice. I've been with women who have gone through it. And I know adoptees can have feelings of abandonment, etc. when they learn they were adopted. It's a visceral reaction and completely understood. But it would seem faced with the option of "adopted" or "dead", the former is better, wouldn't you think? I never said adoption is a perfect answer to an unplanned pregnancy. I don't think there is ANY perfect answer to an unplanned pregnancy. It's a difficult, unfortunate, heart-wrenching situation for all involved. Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post. I have friends and I have counseled women who have been at every end of this decision: abortion, adoption, and delivery of the baby without adoption. I KNOW the problems and I KNOW the heartaches. It's not an easy situation and there is not an easy answer. But the taking of a human life doesn't solve the problem; it only creates a new one. Have you ever wondered how a child feels when he learns his mother has had an abortion? "What makes me different from my brother or sister?" (because, as you know, the gender of the baby is sure when the abortion is performed) "Why did mom give me life and not my sibling?" "If circumstances were different when my mom got pregnant with me, would I be alive right now, either?" "Why did mom want ME and not my brother/sister? Why am I different?"

Please define human life. Is it human? Is it alive? Please show me how it is not.

Logically, though, there is no such thing as a potential human life. Either it's life or it's not. You can't have a potential thought. Either you have a thought or you don't. The life has potential, but it is not a potential life. There is no such thing.

Here's the issue at hand. In surveys of the American public, when the question "Do you believe abortion takes the life of a human being" (or similar wording) is asked, the results are usually between 70% and 80% that it does. Then, in the follow up question "Do you believe women should have the right to choose abortion?" (or similar wording), the results usually come in around 50%. So where's the disconnect? What's going on with the 20-30% of the public who believe abortion takes a human life AND simultaneously believe it should still be legal? How does a society come to the conclusion that the taking of an innocent human life is acceptable? The reason I ask the question is to make people think. It is not uncommon for people to knee-jerk say "of course" to the question of "choice" -- because, as pointed out earlier, "choice" is an American virtue. However, minds can be changed when one begins to point out the dichotomy in the reasoning. Not all minds, but some. That being said, I have never called women "baby-killers" or "murderers". I recognize that women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy are in a tremendously difficult and emotional situation and often make decisions out of desperation. I have friends who have had abortions and have cried on my shoulders for days, weeks, and years afterwards; I have never, ever called them murderers or baby-killers and I never would. I also have a friend who was pregnant in college and called me to drive her to the abortion clinic (!). The end result is she placed her baby for adoption. Both decisions are fraught with difficulty. I am not immune to the issues involved and I am not looking from atop an ivory tower handing down opinions. When there is an innocent life involved and the decision is whether or not someone has the "right" to take that innocent life, I believe the state HAS to get involved. The critical question here is "Is what the mother is carrying a human life?" If it is a human life, there is no reason whatsoever, except sacrificing that life to preserve the imminent health of the mother (e.g. if the mother would be physically endangered if she carried the baby to term), that the taking of that human life should be allowed. I am aware of all of the subtle nuances involved. And while I am not lacking in compassion for mothers in these circumstances, that's the only question that we should be asking. If what the mother is carrying isn't a human life, abortion should be legal for any reason whatsoever. If it is a human life, there's no excuse. I just read a news story tonight about how unborn babies react to the mother's stress: New research conducted by doctors in England shows that unborn children can face emotional stress during a pregnancy as the baby's mother faces stress herself. Pro-life advocates say the study has implications for abortion as society learns more about the amazing development of children before birth.The British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists released the results of the study on Thursday and says that unborn babies as early as 17 weeks into pregnancy suffer from stress. The stress results when hormones transferred from anxious mothers reach the baby through the placenta. Researchers measure the levels of cortisol, a stress hormone in 267 pregnant women and took blood tests and amniotic Fluid samples from the babies. The fluid is a good indicator of what's happening because it's mostly produced by the baby during the pregnancy. The doctors found that when the cortisol levels rose in women a corresponding increase the in the levels in the amniotic fluid were found. The link grew stronger as the pregnancy advanced, the physicians said. (from Unborn Babies Face Emotional Stress During Pregnancy Research Shows) How can we talk about an entity that has a beating heart, brain waves, a circulatory system, and reacts to stress as something other than a living being? Most women don't understand or know what the development of the unborn baby is and at what stages. That knowledge alone changes minds. When the entity in the womb has details as minute as fingerprints by the 8th week, you have to start asking some hard questions. My goal is not to harass, intimidate, condemn, or point fingers. My goal is to educate and to get people to think -- and to help, whenever possible.

Are you a mother, BJean? I can't remember.

I resent the hijacking of the word choice. How about pro-abortion or anti-abortion? After all, "choice" is a very charged word -- you're not an American if you don't believe people should have a "choice" (of course, when that "choice" is the taking of a human life, is it really a "choice" we have the right to make?).

I'm not feigning surprise. I'm asking a question. Why does she think abortion is a bad thing? Why does "no one" favor abortion? I'm sorry you don't like the question but I still have a right to ask it.

This is an interesting statement. Why not?

Hey ladies, The offer for a single female was because someone needed a roomie. We can still add on to this group. If you're interested in the cruise, PM me with your contact information as it has to be done soon!

Yeah, honey, don't be so "quite sure" about it. I have a degree in Political Science and was in the Poly Sci PhD program at USC so I *think* I understand politics. I know athiest does not equal liberal.

LOL! Loved the movie "Gidget"! But I'm Gadget Well, I couldn't define it in between your question, "Can you define liberal?" and your immediate response, "Yeah, I didn't think so." Why do you assume I can't define it? Are you saying you aren't one? Or that TommyO isn't one? I can certainly point you to a few definitions on the internet if you'd like. Do you know how to do an internet search? Yeah, I didn't think so. Liberal is relatively easy to define, unless of course you subscribe to the belief that there should be four political designations, liberal, conservative, populist, and libertarian. This analysis better takes into consideration the economic and social dimensions of liberalism and conservatism, which can, of course, contradict each other. One can be a social liberal and an economic conservative, or vice-versa. If you need some internet links to direct you to the definition of liberal, please let me know. If you don't believe yourself or TommyO to be liberals, my apologies. I know it's a bad word and I certainly wouldn't want to be called liberal.

It's a new show! "When Liberals Attack . . . Each Other!"

The whole story makes me want to vomit. Both parents are clearly whacked out and should never be allowed to see that child again. Hopefully the baby will go to a good, loving family who won't share any of this with her. As to the issue of whether this child should have been aborted, the parents could have legally chosen to abort but didn't . . . further demonstrating the fallacy of the argument that abortion prevents child abuse.

Romans is the New Testament, not Old. And Romans 13:1-5 is about submitting to authority. In other words, there is no way to prove you wrong. You will always believe that Christians are on the front lines of loving bloodshed and violence, no matter how many tell you they hate it.

I seem to remember something on another thread where you expressed "venom" for me and my beliefs. You were very clear in your categorization of me and it wasn't pretty.

How would one prove you wrong. I am not in favor of the death penalty. Did I just prove you wrong?

Why am I not surprised -- and why am I not surprised that no one but Christians are calling him on this? Imagine: "I'm against the death penalty except in the case of Jews." "I'm against the death penalty except in the case of blacks." I can practically hear the gasping in the room. But "I'm against the death penalty except in the case of fundamentalist Christians"? Pin drop.

I like Splenda and hated stevia. I bought a huge box of it and ended up giving it away because I couldn't handle the taste in anything (although I should say I never tried it in coffee because I don't drink coffee). Anyway, if you like Splenda I would recommend trying stevia before you buy a large quantity of it.

China's policy has had particularly disturbing implications, including forced abortions, forced sterilization and infanticide. NOT a pretty solution.

Reesh, you are in my prayers. My husband and I do marriage mentoring at our church. Please try to get yourself into a good Christian counselor who can help you out.

Can I just say one more time that I HATE the edit function these days??? GRRRRR!

<br /> <br /> I didn't ask because I thought she had regrets. I asked because it has been proposed that abortion is an exceedingly difficult decision for women and to say all women don't agonize over the decision is an inappropriate, ignorant , and unacceptable characterization of an intense life-changing decision. <br /> <br /> I asked green precisely because I thought she did NOT agonize over her decision but rather, when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, deliberately and without emotional upheaval made the decision to abort and then did it. I sense Alexandra would classify her experience the same was green did.

I completely understand your not feeling compassion for these babies. I would propose that that's partly because society doesn't generally present them as worthy of our compassion. When we view someone as less than a person, we are less likely to empathize with them.

Better stated: "I'm sorry, but I disagree with your position." As they do me. I have incredible compassion for the people in this world who suffer in unspeakable ways. I've said it before, in other threads, and I'll say it again. The brutality that some people suffer (and I'm using the word "some" here to qualify that not "all" people suffer these offenses, not in an attempt to minimize their situation) is horrible, and I weep for those people -- regularly. I am especially pained by the injustices suffered by innocent children, whether those injustices are hunger in 3rd world countries, abuse at the hands of selfish affluent parents, forced prostitution of teens and pre-teens, or the brutal dismemberment of the unborn.