Right to Choose: Men Need Not Apply.

One of the central arguments in favor of abortion is that it relieves women from being forced to raise unwanted children—a burden that men would not face in the absence of legal abortion. We’re told that legally permitted abortion tilts the scales back in favor of true equality.

But is the new regime really equal?

A man , unlike a woman, has no legal right to influence whether a woman has an abortion, even if that women is his wife. And, in the case of a birth, men may be compelled to provide child support without any legal means to extinguish their parental obligations. Is this fair? Well, it is certainly fair that men must bear the consequences of having sex, including assisting in the support of those lives that result.

But the inequity of womens' and mens' rights in this scenario shows that "freedom of choice" has nothing to do with freedom or equality, as men labor under the older regime of having to bear responsibilities for their actions even when they would choose not to. It appears that "pro choice" is only a choice for women. Women are elevated by this arrangement above men, who may be forced by court order to provide support. The new legal regime, far from being about justice or equality, is about power. Like affirmative action, what is sold as a legal correction for inequality, instead undermines the power, prestige, and freedom of the group that is labeled as the oppressor.

The resuting combination of "reproductive freedom" and "parental support obligations" is not equality for women, but a new inequality that subordinates men. Unequal burdens are not necessarily unfair, particularly if they support some social purpose. Men, for instance, must served in the armed forces in the case of a draft, but women do not, and this is an appropriate burden for men because they're better equipped by nature to be soldiers. However, the system of unequal "reproductive freedom" does not serve a social purpose. The resulting inequality of the "pro choice" system is instead based on a socially destructive goal of reducing men and empowering women; that is, it aims to create a revolution of sorts that fundamentally changes the existing society so that it no longer resembles its former self. What is sold as a minor corrective to rebalance the scales is, like so much else on the liberal agenda, a trojan horse that aims to alter fundamentally that society's nature.

Here one group is given rights for its own sake, without any recogntion of how the rights of any group in society must be balanced with the interests of that society as a whole, and in particular the interests of that society's most vulnerable constituency, unborn children.

Mark at Southern Appeal has a useful discussion of this topic. As a true conservative, he recognizes that the rights-based language of pro-choice advocates is absurd in the realm of children and reproduction becaise a sensible society requires both men and women to shoulder the burden of their choices, particularly when those choices result in life.

The real question is whether pro-choice advocates would be willing to end their hypocricy and speak out on behalf of liberating "Deadbeat Dads." If they do not, their real motives of subordinating men and fomenting a social revolution that elevates women above them will have become plain.

Posted by at December 11, 2005 7:17 PM
Comments
Comment #101297

Hi Chris,

“A man , unlike a woman, has no legal right to influence whether a woman has an abortion, even if that women is his wife.”

As I understand it a woman has not legal right to influence whether a man has a vasectomy or wears a condom.

Are you going to include that in your “equality” crusade?

(I put equality in quotes because there are obvious biological reasons why reproductive equality can never occur).

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 7:33 PM
Comment #101298

There is equality in that instance, though, because a man can likewise not influence if a woman takes the pill or has a tubal ligation.

Here, women can decide by law to have a child or not. And men that are the biological fathers can be forced against their will to take care of that child economically, and even be denied any rights to be involved in that child’s upbringing. Women have choices. Men just have responsibilities when it comes to childbirth.

The whole concept behind this feminist approach is not of “society” and that society’s welfare. Instead, society is conceived in Marxist fashion as consisting of the oppressed and the oppressor. There is no individualized justice for the latter, but only class justice. To burden that group is no wrong becasue there is ultimately no concept of justice, of giving each its due. Rather, the concept is only one of struggle and power, and Marxism/Feminism takes the side of one group in that struggle without apology or justification. It’s worthwhile that those on the wrong end of this revolutionary account of things get wise to the fact that they’re being screwed, their society is being attacked, and that all of these aspects of the liberal agenda—feminism, affirmative action, wealth redistribution—have no logical end other than the complete subordination of those labeled as “oppressors” and the complete rearrangement of that society.

Posted by: Roach at December 11, 2005 7:39 PM
Comment #101309

Hi Roach,

“Instead, society is conceived in Marxist fashion as consisting of the oppressed and the oppressor.”

That’s just silly. Marxism has nothing to do with it.

I’m not a fan of feminism in general. I’ve read many ridiculous postions put forth by feminists.

Do you, like Rush Limbaugh, accuse everybody you disagree with of being a communist?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 8:25 PM
Comment #101310

Louis XIV I don’t know how much you keep up on academic trends at top universities, but most feminist theorists self-consciously describe their way of looking at things as an application of marxist principles to sex relations, with bourgeoisie and proletariat replaced by man and women respectively.

See here for more.

Why don’t you just stick to the issues and not insinuate stupid things or drag down a serious discussion with guilt by association. I didn’t say communist, I said marxist. And in this context, the marxist ideology of mainstream feminism explains why we’ve gone not from alleged inequality to equality, but from a complex system of sex-specific burdens and benefits to one of outright inequality.

Posted by: Roach at December 11, 2005 8:38 PM
Comment #101314

Louis

You asked me to point to the focus problem. Chris says that it is LIKE Marxism (referring to the categorization by category rather than as individual). You jump to communism and Rush Limbaugh.

Chris

This is a good article and I see your point, but I don’t see any solution.

BTW - a friend of mine who trained soldiers told me that most (not some most) female recruits cannot toss a hand grenade far enough that they are not killed or injured by the explosion, but he said that they don’t talk about those things openly for obvious EEO reasons. The battlefield is not an equal opportunity place.

Posted by: Jack at December 11, 2005 9:07 PM
Comment #101319

Chris, what are you suggesting be done about this? It seems to me that the man always has the “choice” in the matter. He can simply choose not to have sex unless he’s wearing a condom or his partner is using birth control. I think that yes, once you tango, you are responsible for your actions and should a man become a father of a child he should bear some responsibility for the support of the child. I’m not sure how you make grant decision making priveleges or rights to the man that has an jurisdiction over the woman on this. Until the child is born, it seems that the woman must have control over the decision. I would see a menagerie of regulations coming forward in the opposite case. State by state differences on how much control the man has over what the woman does with her body would most likely occur, or there would be some basis of federal regulation applied and in both cases, political tempermant would drive the policy.

Please elaborate what you have in mind to remedy the situation you described.

Posted by: Dennis at December 11, 2005 9:24 PM
Comment #101320

The problems of women in the military are all described in detail in Stephanie Gutman’s book, The Kinder, Gentler Military..

The problem there is really a variation on the theme, the problem of revolutionary leftism, as distinguished from a more innocuous liberalism. Conservatives and normal people generally look at the military and who it should allow to do particular things with some notion that we live in a society, that that society is worth defending from foreign attacks because that society is basically a good thing, and that the military serves that function. The question of who should and shouldn’t be in the military and what tasks they should be allowed to do flows from those premises. So the question of military effectiveness is paramount.

But for a radical feminist that society itself is the problem, and its powers structure the enemy. Weakening its military and exposing it to foreign influence is of little concern, so much as the concern is to use that society’s core institution’s as a way to transform that society and rearrange its value system. That is, military effectiveness takes a back seat to social change.

There is a combination here of mendacity and naivite. The more illiberal threat from foreigners is completely ignored; those that would weaken the miltiary in this respect simply think it’s not a big risk. Second the mendacity comes from the goal; it’s not to protect the society, but to destroy that society and replace it with something entirely different: a different culture, different values, different elites, different rights, a different language, different art, different books, a different government, differnt marriage, different education, different children, different sexes, etc.

A group that wants to conduct such revolutionary change should be understood for what it is: as real an enemy to the existing society as any foreigner. That their means happen to be subversion from within rather than outright attack are immaterial.

Posted by: Roach at December 11, 2005 9:27 PM
Comment #101321

Dennis, I have in mind banning almost all abortions, combined with forcing men to support children that they have participated in creating.

That said, one who believed in abortion because he believed in reproductive freedom should support allowing a man to take no responsibility over a child by abjuring his parental rights and obligatons altogther. Then the woman would be free to choose whether or not to have a kid (with the concomitant responsibility of supporting it) and the man would be free to choose whether or not to support it. No man could force any woman to do anything in this matter, and neither could any woman interfere with the freedom of any man. Wouldn’t that be great?

I don’t think so obviously, so see my first answer.

Posted by: Roach at December 11, 2005 9:30 PM
Comment #101323

It is unfair to completely deny the equality issue. Men do not have the same degeree of choice when choosing whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, but they can choose to be less affected by the birth of the child. The man can choose to limit his involvement in the life of the child to economic support. He does not have to commit time or emotional resources to raising the child. The woman in this case does not have that choice. Since she is the one disproportionately affeced by the birth of the child, she gets more power in deciding whether or not to give birth to it.

“A man , unlike a woman, has no legal right to influence whether a woman has an abortion, even if that women is his wife.”

Bringing up that a man has no legal right to influence whether or not his wife gets an abortion is something of a strawman, I feel. Legal rights are not the be all and end all. A woman who does not discuss abortion with her husband and weigh his opinions equally with her own is probably in a marriage that is in a bad state.

Posted by: Erika at December 11, 2005 9:32 PM
Comment #101325

Hi Roach,

“but most feminist theorists self-consciously describe their way of looking at things as an application of marxist principles to sex relations, with bourgeoisie and proletariat replaced by man and women respectively.”

I had no idea. That’s pretty stupid shit. I’ve read some stupid femnist doctrines but I don’t think I’ve seen anything that approaches this.

I incorrectly assumed that you were being a typical right wing red baiter. I’m sorry for the mistake.

I’ve been called a communist many times on the basis that I’ve disagreed with some stupid right wing postition. I assumed that this was more of the same.

How is a woman’s ability to choose whether to carry a fetus to term different than a man’s ability to choose whether to engage in sex that results in pregnancy?

You’re saying that men are subordinated just because of child support. The choice of whether to reproduce is similar with men and women according to your logic here.




Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 9:46 PM
Comment #101326

Hi Jack,

I’m guilty of not being up on the current femnist doctrine. I’m also guilty of not being interested in it I suppose.

I’m still waiting for you to support or retract what you’ve accused me of.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 9:48 PM
Comment #101328

Are you suggesting, Chris, that the father and the mother have a decision as to whether or not the pregnancy should continue? If either of them does not want it happen then it shouldn’t? Ok… but that’s gonna mean a lot less redneck babies.

Seriously, the pregrancy is all happening in the woman’s body. The guy opted out of any decision making power he had when he unzipped his pants and … gave control to the woman in question.

Posted by: Max at December 11, 2005 9:49 PM
Comment #101329

Louis, you say

“How is a woman’s ability to choose whether to carry a fetus to term different than a man’s ability to choose whether to engage in sex that results in pregnancy?”

They seem significantly different to me. The man’s choosing to engage in sex seems analagous to the woman’s choosing to engage in sex. Could you elaborate on why you think the man’s decision to engage in sex is analagous to the woman’s choice as to whether or not to have the baby?

Posted by: Erika at December 11, 2005 9:51 PM
Comment #101330

Chris,

Also, that’s the primary rationale behind the right to abortion, that it’s the woman’s body, not the governments, to do with as they please.

The undue burden thing is the rationale for why women should not be forced to get their parents or husbands position. For instance, when the woman has to get permission from her drunken wife-beating husband and the baby isn’t his, etc.

Those are the real rationales, so I guess you failed to catch us in some kind of uber-logic trap and can close this thread.

Posted by: Max at December 11, 2005 9:52 PM
Comment #101331

ummm. I meant permission, not position. :-)

Posted by: Max at December 11, 2005 9:53 PM
Comment #101333

Max, I think by bringing up broken marriages you are missing the point. Certainly, we can agree there are situations when a should not be given equal say in the matter. The child of an abusive husband or a child conceived during rape are two such situations. However, that does not address why the man should not have some say when he and the woman have equal stakes in the matter (e.g., they are in a caring relationship).

Posted by: Erika at December 11, 2005 9:55 PM
Comment #101334

Hi Erika,

“Could you elaborate on why you think the man’s decision to engage in sex is analagous to the woman’s choice as to whether or not to have the baby?”

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I meant to say that both have a choice with respect to whether to procreate or not. Men and women can choose to have sex without procreating is what I was trying to say.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 9:57 PM
Comment #101335

Louis,

That makes more sense, but it still seems to me that the decision to have sex is separate from the power balance and responsibilites with respect to a conceived child. If there were not means for women to limit their ability to reproduce, then I could see how the point would be more relevant. However, since both men and women can choose to limit their ability to reproduce, it seems like we still have to deal separately with the issue of what the balance of power over a conceived child should be.

Posted by: Erika at December 11, 2005 10:01 PM
Comment #101338

Hi Erika,

“it seems like we still have to deal separately with the issue of what the balance of power over a conceived child should be.”

That gets a bit tricky of course.

Should women be able to go in for “morning after pills” without the sex partner in question having a say?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 10:32 PM
Comment #101340

Erika:

As I understand it, contraceptives are only 90% effective.

Posted by: Aldous at December 11, 2005 10:42 PM
Comment #101341

Louis,

“Should women be able to go in for “morning after pills” without the sex partner in question having a say?”

Legally, yes. Morally, it depends. If the partner was a casual partner probably not (although I personally think aforementioned man and woman should not be having sex under those circumstances in the first place). However, if it was someone she was in a relationship with and she thinks that there is a good chance she could have become pregnant (she was both unprotected and fertile during the sex), than she ought to talk to her partner before taking the pill.

Posted by: Erika at December 11, 2005 10:44 PM
Comment #101342

Hi Erica,

“Legally, yes.”

So the big question is “how far along can a woman be and still have the right to decide?”

I assume we agree that the “rights” of a zygote don’t come into play here.

“Morally, it depends.”

I agree.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 10:47 PM
Comment #101343

Louis, I think that as long as there is any decision to be made, the choice legally should be only the woman’s. Not because I think the man should not be involved, but because I find the law to be an overly blunt tool when it comes to questions of morality.

Posted by: Erika at December 11, 2005 10:51 PM
Comment #101344

“As I understand it a woman has not legal right to influence whether a man has a vasectomy or wears a condom.”

You’re missing the point. If a man causes a pregnancy because he didn’t get a vasectomy or wear a condom, he has to live with the results, either by being a father or paying child support. The mother of the child STILL has the legal right to kill it.

No matter what a woman did or didn’t do to cause a pregnancy, she still has a legal right to opt out. No matter what a man does or doesn’t do to cause a pregnancy, he has NO LEGAL RIGHT to opt out. It’s that simple.

No matter how you twist and turn the scenarios around, women have more “reproductive rights” than men. That’s just a fact.

Posted by: Bryan W at December 11, 2005 11:20 PM
Comment #101345

Bryan, a woman may have more reproductive rights, but she still is disproportionately affected by the pregnancy, therefore justifying her more extensive rights in that case.

Posted by: Erika at December 11, 2005 11:25 PM
Comment #101346

Hi Erika,

“Not because I think the man should not be involved, but because I find the law to be an overly blunt tool when it comes to questions of morality.”

I agree. I don’t think it’s the government’s business to mandate whether a woman has to tell her husband she’s having an abortion.

I think she should tell him but I don’t think it’s up to the government to tell her to.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 11, 2005 11:32 PM
Comment #101348

There is no doubt that women have the power and current laws favor them. Female school teachers can have sex with underage male students and be placed on probation. Men will receive a twenty year sentence for having sex with an underage female. Being male in our society is now being treated as a pathology. Young boys are being given Ritalin in school to calm them down and make them more like females. If men look at pictures of nude women, “he is obsessed with porn.” If women read a book depicting graphic sex acts, “she is reading a romance novel.” Women may have the power in society regarding reproductive freedom. However, there are two things men can do to equalize their power. First, once you have your children and/or decide not to have children get a vasectomy. Second, if you get a divorce and get screwed, either marry a women with more assets or more income potential or stay single. I have chosen the latter. Women have options. Men have obligations

Posted by: Norm at December 11, 2005 11:57 PM
Comment #101349

The Bush administration has cut funding for deadbeat dad enforcement. That was ultimately going to be an ineffective law from the gitgo, since the costs of enforcement were inevitably going to rival the revenue recovered from deadbeat dads. Might as well have just handed out tax dollars directly to the women with children and saved all the red tape and bureaucracy.

When government tries to regulate and enforce morality and ethics, government wastes its time and tax payer dollars inevitably. Human nature being what it is, will not be altered in the big picture by government. Sure you can force some positive results from some individuals in one area, but, the opportunity costs are high in having to allow other inappropriate behaviors to go unbridled, like cutting education spending, which dollar for dollar produces more civilized behavior than all other enforcements of morality or ethics at tax payer expense.

A dollar going after smut peddlers is a dollar not going to education, the most civilizing experience a government can provide its citizens outside of the nuclear family influence which requires no government bureaucracy at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2005 11:57 PM
Comment #101350

A question for you WingNuts:

What is your position on the thousands of zygotes tossed in the garbage can from invetro-fertilization?

Posted by: Aldous at December 12, 2005 12:03 AM
Comment #101353

As I sit here shaking my head trying to wave the testosterone away, I am absolutely amazed.

When men carry the child, with all the inherent health risks, when men traditionally are the ones who have to stay home “barefoot and pregnant” and have to put thier careers on hold, when the men who father a child outside a marital relationship pay for all the health care for the mother and provide emotional support and provide at least half of the day to day care of the child as opposed to court-ordered monetary support, then I will buy this “inequality”.

Perhaps when men are no longer the primary cause of sexual and physical abuse, I will buy this “inequality”.

Jack:

a friend of mine who trained soldiers told me that most (not some most) female recruits cannot toss a hand grenade far enough that they are not killed or injured by the explosion, but he said that they don’t talk about those things openly for obvious EEO reasons. The battlefield is not an equal opportunity place.

I suppose your friend has all the statistics to prove that? I suppose your friend never saw men who were not able to do the same? Please.

Not everyone, male or female, is cut out for the military. And what does this have to do with the childbirth issue?

This column constantly amazes me.


One last thought. If your wife wants an abortion and you don’t, you have a MUCH bigger problem in your marriage than whether to have a child.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 12, 2005 12:21 AM
Comment #101354

A woman has no rights over her own body. None whatsoever until she’s over nine months old. Until that time, you can chop her into bits, suck out her brains with a vaccuum cleaner and toss her in a garbage can.

Keep that in mind whenever you talk about whose rights should take precedence.

Posted by: sanger at December 12, 2005 12:24 AM
Comment #101355

Sanger:

Say what??

Unbelievable.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 12, 2005 12:25 AM
Comment #101356

Jack:

FYI… Neither the Vietcong or the NVA could throw grenades too. They still kicked ass.

Posted by: Aldous at December 12, 2005 12:26 AM
Comment #101357

womanmarine:

Our poor sanger was talking about the 9 months an embryo takes to grow.

No response on my invetro comment though. No doubt the embryos created for artificial fertilization has less rights in Republican Eyes.

Posted by: Aldous at December 12, 2005 12:31 AM
Comment #101358

Aldous:

I knew full well what Sanger was talking about.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 12, 2005 12:32 AM
Comment #101359

What’s so unbelievable about it?

I thought this was a debate about whether it should be the adult male or the adult female who has the final say in whether or not to dismember, shred, and dispose of their progeny?

I’m not sure where the confusion lies, for I certainly haven’t voiced any opinion on whether a man should have the greater say, or any say at all, when it comes to the matter of subjecting his offspring to the Cuisinart.

When we talk about the “right to choose,” we sure do avoid at any cost talking about what we’re really talking about, now don’t we?

Reality= “Say what? Unbelievable.”

Don’t I know it.


Posted by: sanger at December 12, 2005 1:10 AM
Comment #101363

Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. However, in an attempt to show how a person could use a legal argument to ask for relief from the courts due to an unwanted pregnancy I present the following;

Chris,
While I am not sure if any person (male) has officially requested a court to be relieved of his parental rights prior to birth of a child, I do believe a strong case could be made in his defense.

Take for example the Common Knowledge among women and some men that all females can only become pregnant each month for a few days During this time, the female shows a normal natural change which allows her body to produce an egg. By tracking these changes, a man and/or woman can calculate the days that the female is Ripe for Conception Since this knowledge is as old as the hills themselves, but is only taught to women above the 5th grade, the average male is left out of the loop and must rely on the women being honest with him prior to the act of making love. Considering that having a child is a long term financial question for the male and has been widely known throughout society to be used as a weapon for a female to extract marriage, child support, and other favors not mutually agreed to by both parties. A male should be able to ask the court for relief if he can prove that the woman used unfair practices & tactics to convince the male to alter his actions which resulted in the woman becoming pregnant.

Therefore, if a male ask his partner if she is nearing or in her Ovulation period (the most likely time to conceive) and she says no has not a verbal contract been broken? For if the male knows that the female is ripe for conception would not his actions be different knowing that he is most likely to father a child by depositing his sperm inside her? Because it is only at this time that the male has a say on whether or not he wants to chance becoming a father. 20 some days out of the month it does not matter due to the extreme low opportunity for conception to take place. Nevertheless, because this knowledge is held only by the individual woman and maybe her OBGYN, the male is left subject to the honesty of the woman. Consequently, our society has laws that protect the consumer from dishonest salespersons who attempt to take advantage of the naïveté of the person in order to obtain “the sale.”

In offering the argument to the court in this manner, a Lawyer (for they are the only ones equipped to walk this tight line) would not be asking if the male is responsible for child support based on his actions, but call into question the honesty and motivation of the female prior and during the time of conception. While a harsh reality for some people based on their willingness to accept an ill-gotten ideology of society, in a society that prides itself on equal Rights and Treatment would the court have any problem in taking the case? For if a woman is allowed to use her body to extract payments from a male for actions and/or favor givens than were does society draw the line between “Legal Child Support” and those actions associated with that of a Scarlet of the Ancient and Old World?

Like I said Chris, I am not aware of any Case history like this; however, given the argument and having the pleasure of adding to the story the facts that could show that the male was “Hoodwinked” would you like to be the Judge and tell me who is right?

Note: While this is not my personal view on the matter, the argument is a ligitament one to make given the history throughout our society’s history. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 12, 2005 2:27 AM
Comment #101365

sanger:

Once again, you avoided the issue of the Embryos created during Artificial Insemination. Nearly all of these little baby zygotes will be thrown into the garbage!!! Think of the Children!!!

What does your GOP Talking Points tell you about the subject?

Posted by: Aldous at December 12, 2005 2:41 AM
Comment #101366

Henry:

Too bad the cyclical method is no more reliable than birth control pills or condoms. But I give you credit for imagination, LOL.

Sanger: how many abortions have you attended? Or do you just attend the propaganda meetings? Your post is disgusting.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 12, 2005 2:42 AM
Comment #101367

Chris, laws aren’t going to stop people from having abortions. Better education, family planning, and counseling are far more effective. If abortion is unnecessary, then you don’t need ineffective laws to ban it.

Seriously, if abortion is anything more than a cynical, politically-motivated wedge issue for Republicans, then you guys are shooting yourselves in the foot by wasting time trying to outlaw it rather than prevent it.

a friend of mine who trained soldiers told me that most (not some most) female recruits cannot toss a hand grenade far enough that they are not killed or injured by the explosion

But not ALL of them. Jack, if a soldier — man or woman — can’t throw a grenade, then they shouldn’t be in a job where they have to. That’s what equal opportunity is all about.

Posted by: American Pundit at December 12, 2005 2:42 AM
Comment #101369

this is a tough question, and the answer i give will indubitably be met with hostility all around, but anyway….

a woman’s body is her own, and in this regard, i agree with erika. she should be allowed to have an abortion if she wants one. it is sad that a man has no say in the matter - that the woman may decide to abort the pregnancy despite a man’s protestations; but that’s life - a man can’t expect a woman to be a sperm incubator for nine (actually ten) months and endure potentially atrocious pain against her will.

on the other hand, it is equally iniquitous for a *consenting* woman to have *consensual* sex with a man, decide to have a child *against* *his* will, and force him to pay for it for the remainder of his life. here i agree with chris, at least partially.

so how do we settle this quandary? you can’t please everyone…the woman gets her choice, and should she choose to go ahead, the man gets to forswear any responsibility, effectively opting out of fatherhood.

i know, ‘it’s not fair’. it never is. women don’t have a patent on pain. a man who has a child that he never gets to see (yet is constantly reminded of by his child support payments) is potentially every bit as emotionally scarred as a woman may be by her decision - yet he is financially burdened to boot.

it is not fair to say that a man ‘should have been more careful’, without acknowledging that the woman had some responsibility for the outcome; traditionally, (and instinctually), it is the man’s role to initiate, and it is the woman’s role to set the rules; in this case, she should have said no. now the man has to live knowing that he may have a child out there that he’ll never know - and the woman has to support herself, and whatever decision she made. that’s self-sufficiency. *that’s* equality.

…feminism is a good idea in theory, however, in practice, like any ‘empowerment’ movement, touting the equality and importance of one group all too often evolves into proclaiming the inferiority of another.

but that, of course, is just my opinion.

btw, do you know how to tell when you’ve reached a just and viable compromise? neither do i; but when no one is happy, you’re probably getting close.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 12, 2005 3:16 AM
Comment #101370

The Supreme court just passed a law that says that elderly and disabled people will be harrassed to the grave for making the mistake of going to college in their youth. In a landmark decision that repeals the laws made by Bill Clinton that allows people to be forgiven of debts that exceed 15 years, the Republican Supreme Court denied the relief of an elderly gentleman of age 67 from debt relief.

Now, even the elderly and disabled have to pay for Mr. Bush’s war. I think that the war should continue. That way America will soon be destroyed from within. how much more debt can the poor handle? There are NO jobs regardless of the propoganda fed to us by the White House.

Before I even knew that This President was running for President, I had prophesied that the next president would be the Anti-Christ. He would be the man who would usher in the End of the World, Armegeddon as the Bible calls it. He came in claiming to be all for Peace. Yet, he and his regime have done nothintg but kill, steal, and destroy since their onset.

He is killing the people and replacing them with foreigners who are going to kill him and everything that looks like him before it is over with. No amount of money is going to save the country. Michael Jackson, George Clooney, Madonna, and others are right to leave this country. I would leave too, but I just don’t have the money.

Slavery is overtaking the people in America. Their country is being bought out from beneath them. American men are selling their bodies on the market like street whores. Women are choosing sterility to stay alive. 250,000 Black children have been removed from their homes and climbing. Children are killing children and their parents, while our president sucks up under the Wonderful Haitian, (Oh yes, didn’t I say this sounds like Haitian politics?)Condi. Bill was caught. That is the only reason we did not lose everything under him.

I remember in 1998, I told a White preacher, Thomas Mims, that the People whom I now know as terrorists, would place women next to all of the leaders that are like their wives but have more power than their wives. These women will even be in churches all across America. This is a sign of the rise of the anti-christ. They will have a mark on them that will identify them to all of the elect. That also means that the elect will be hated and hunted, oppressed and destroyed by these heartless murderers.

Our Country is getting rich and we the poor are dying because of their trying.

Posted by: pammy at December 12, 2005 3:57 AM
Comment #101372

Womanmarine,
Thanks, I thought that I would keep it PG. However, do you want to bet how many young men understand it let alone know how to recognize it?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 12, 2005 4:18 AM
Comment #101377

Roach said:

Here, women can decide by law to have a child or not. And men that are the biological fathers can be forced against their will to take care of that child economically, and even be denied any rights to be involved in that child’s upbringing. Women have choices. Men just have responsibilities when it comes to childbirth.

In France, since abortion law, the father (biological or not) or any kid *must* officially recognized its fatherhood before having both rights and duties relating to this child. Otherwise he get none. That means for example that when the biological father flied away (or died or whatever) it’s still possible for another man to take responsabilities and rights for a children.

If I understood you, in US the biological father can’t escape his duty, period? In such case, indeed, I find this unbalanced toward women choice.

Balancing this is easy: give more choice to fathers. One may want to balance by removing one (the main!) choice from the women plate. I disagree with such temptation.

For the anedocte, the only one(s) who don’t have any freedom of choice regarding family rights and duties are children. French, by laws, must provides assistance to their parents. They can’t escaped this duty. Most of the time, it’s not necessary, but in some rare occasion parents sues their children to enforce their assistance…

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 12, 2005 6:07 AM
Comment #101378

Thanks Roach, for this good laugh!! It cracked me up!!

Conservatives and normal people

ROFL

Posted by: womanmarine at December 12, 2005 6:29 AM
Comment #101387

Hi Norm,

“Women have options. Men have obligations”

I know a lot of married Moms who would take issue with that……If I tried that one on my wife I’d pay dearly for it.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 12, 2005 8:15 AM
Comment #101390

How about just giving men the same unequivocal right to abort?

Would that make it equal?

Posted by: DC at December 12, 2005 8:34 AM
Comment #101392

Giving the father veto over an abortion is giving a second party control over the womans body. Her body, her choice.

Life is not always fair. “If you play, be prepared to pay” “Do the crime, do the time” etc… etc… etc…

Posted by: Dave at December 12, 2005 8:43 AM
Comment #101396

Diogenes,

so how do we settle this quandary? you can’t please everyone…the woman gets her choice, and should she choose to go ahead, the man gets to forswear any responsibility, effectively opting out of fatherhood.

Hey, sounds like what we have actually here in France. I’m suprised that it’s not the case in US.
Who knows which countries have similar, balanced parenthood laws?

BTW, the woman could also chose to “give away” his child right after the birth. She then lost here rights and duties over the kid. Here such children are labelled “née sous X”, aka “born unknown” children. I think it exists also in UK. Is it allowed in US?

btw, do you know how to tell when you’ve reached a just and viable compromise? neither do i; but when no one is happy, you’re probably getting close.

Or when both are happy!

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 12, 2005 9:07 AM
Comment #101417

Philippe-

The reason the U.S. does not have good policy with regards to abortion is that the debate was removed from the legislative floor and relegated to T.V., campaign speeches, and now blogs. I don’t doubt that RvW was needed back in 1972, but much like the previous ban on capital punishment, there comes a time when it is best to allow the legislative system to do its job.

I am not a pro-choice person, but I see no logical reason to criminalize abortion for either the father or the mother. I would dare say that these two combined positions (pro choice and no criminalization) represent the majority view in America today. So why do we need a Supreme Court decision to protect a majority view? If RvW is finally removed then Chris’ delima here can be addressed within the political arena and not just outside of it.

Isn’t it time to quit arguing about abortion and start developing some policy?

Posted by: George in SC at December 12, 2005 10:14 AM
Comment #101421

Women should learn from their mistakes and some man will pay for them.

Posted by: pige at December 12, 2005 10:26 AM
Comment #101428

Pige,
You forgot one. While most women do learn from their mistakes and is probaly the reason for a 50% divorce rate, some men will always believe that they can buy their way out of anything; however, is it not strange that some children never grow up to accept responsibility for their actions even if they hurt that which they claim to protect?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 12, 2005 10:44 AM
Comment #101436

A lot of people have said something to the effect that if a man has sex he has to deal with the consequences, e.g., “”If you play, be prepared to pay,” “keep it zipped up.” But this argument is not employed in the context of women having sex. That is, a women can have consensual voluntary sex and abort, even though the same argument of dealing with the natural consequences of one’s actions could be employed in that case as well, i.e., if you have sex and a child results, you should be prepared to take the responsibility of bringing it to term and raising it or putting it up for adoption. So, in other words, an ethic of taking responsibility for one’s sex life is gleefully imposed upon men, but women get to opt out in the name of radical autonomy.

The supposed distinction is that pregnancy affects a women’s body and the impact of this is more pressing than a mere child support obligation.

Is this true? In a world with long adoption waiting lists, is the impact of nine months of discomfort and giving birth more severe than 18 years of financial obligation, an obligation that cannot be escaped from no matter what (because it’s not dischargeable in bankruptcy). They’re certainly different, I’ll concede, and it’s not easy to do an apples/oranges comparison. But it’s kind of a stretch to say that the one obligation is so obviously more serious than the other. And, even setting aside the character and intensity of these two obligtions, it’s definitely a selective use of the language of responsibility to say that men must “keep it zipped up” or incur child support obligations, while a women can “spread her legs” and run away from the resulting life (or not) at will. In the one case, we’re using the older language of responsibility, in the latter, the language of radical autonomy. When the logic of the older ethic is imposed selectively only towards men, something fundamentally unfair and unequal has come about.

It’s true as Erika and others have said that the legal regime and social reality are two different things. Men and women in healthy relationships will discuss these matters and compromise without invoking their legal trump cards. But the hoped-for world of autonomy behind the feminist ideology of “reproductive freedom,” as well as the laws in the service of that ideology, aim to change the contours of those relationships by creating unequal legal rights with the goal and effect, ultimately, of creating an unequal society of subordinate men.

We can look away from these facts or invoke incantations about “a women’s body,” but bodily integrity has very little to do with the abortion issue. It’s a chimera, a mere talking point. One’s rights over his or her body is not a genrally applicable principle. We may not use our bodies to hurt ourselves and society for instance. It’s illegal to “control our body” by taking heroin, either while pregnant or not. It’s illegal to use our body to commit acts of prostitution. It’s illegal to destroy our bodies through suicide.

So no one really believes we should have complete control over our bodies, or at least very few on the pro-choice side of the ledger are willing to make this a principle of general application. Their rhetoric on economic and other issues suggests that the apparent libertarianism behind the pro-choice rhetoric of feminism is highly selective.

The real uniting trend is “women’s liberation,” as in liberation from any duties imposed by law, custom, or nature to men, to fathers, to husbands, to their children, or to the broader society. The goal is the subversion of that society and a replacement of its historical balance of rights and responsibilities for men and women with a new society devoted to the radical autonomy of women.

By denying broader societal control of people and their decisions, particularly when those decisions affect third parties (such as unborn children and fathers in the case of abortion), it’s devoted to a radical concept that there is no such thing as “society” and “general welfare.” There are only competing groups, the erstwhile oppressed and their oppressors. The laws must be reconstructed to empower those erstwhile oppressed without regard for that society, because that society itself is declared to be oppressive and its supposed notions of the social good labeled an ideology of “false consciousness.” The radical autonomy of women and the radical subordination of men alone will allow the new feminist utopia to emerge; the law is a means of revolutionary change, a way to “smash the patriarchy.” (If you believe this is exagerrated look up phrases I’ve used like “false consciousness” or “radical autonomy” or “smash the patriarchy” in the context of feminism on Google. Obviously the real agenda is not always stated openly and publicly, as radicals know that their extreme intentions must be shrouded in the language of equity and fairness.)

This is not a misrepresentation of feminist ideology, the ideology that justifies abortion. This is its essence. And, aside from seeing it stated outright in feminist theory—Steinem, de Bouvior, Dworkin—that essence is illustrated by the uneven legal rights of men and women to avoid their parental responsibilities. Women have them, and they’re complete. Men have none at all, other than the same right men and women both had under the old regime to avoid sex altogether to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood.

While I’m concerned about the lives of the unborn, I’m also concerned about the kind of society we live in. Abortion laws are important because their contrast with other laws related to a father’s responsibilties illustrate that the effect in practice of our current legal order will be more radical than the mere mass murder of millions of unborn children. The emerging order will also include the destruction of that society’s soul and its replacement with an unknown system of androgeny, radical autonomy, male subordination, a decline of families in preference for the welfare state, and a general crudeness dressed up as “authenticity.”

Posted by: Roach at December 12, 2005 10:55 AM
Comment #101440

This thread made me think of a line I heard Bill Maher say during this last season of RealTime.

“If men got pregnant you could get an abortion at Supercuts”

Funny but true.

Why is it that even with above average health insurance my wife forks out 25 bucks a month for birth control pills, but If I needed Viagra it would cost me a 5 dollar co-pay? Just one more example of a double standard in America.

Posted by: Dr. Shopper at December 12, 2005 11:12 AM
Comment #101441

Roach, while what you say is certainly a fair representation of radical feminism, I think that worrying about radical feminism is just as much a waste of time as worrying about radical religious fundamentalism in the US or radical racism. Certainly there are people out there who believe these things, but unless our political system is extremely broken, these people may have a little influence, but no more. If the political system is broken, then it should be dealt with directly instead of inefficiently worrying over each threat individually.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 11:16 AM
Comment #101448

But Erika a lot of issues have been taken out of the political process through activist courts. There is little legislative control over abortion. There is little legislative control over the courts’ run-amuck application of equal protection principles, e.g., single-sex schools, affirmative action, father’s rights.

Radical feminism has a disproportionate influence within the legal academy and this expresses itself in the judge-made law that governs family courts, much of constitutional law, and the like. That a lot of people do not want these things to happen is immaterial. It is not for nothing that gay marriage has been imposed by courts in Massachusetts while it has been defeated by margins of 3:1 where it has been put to referenda. The problem with the judicial radicals is that their radical thinking can become entrenched and normalized by sheer dint of its existence.

Erika you seem very normal and very reasonable, even though I disagree with you here. That said, a lot of social change is made by radicals who are always moving the goal post. Would one have imagined in 1969 at the beginnings of the sexual revolution that we’d have gay marriage seriously contemplated by 2005. The results we’re seeing and the direction of these trends is being directed by goal-oriented activists, not the mere natural “working out” of certain concepts. We’ll go next where the radicals want us to go because their plans and their goals are clear. That is, we’ll go there so long as we assume naively that they’re just making reasonable demands for justice and equity and not working on a grander strategy of social revolution.

This, as I’ve said before, is why “conservatives have the sometimes-difficult task of resisting change: lying behind discrete demands for justice—that are often reasonable standing alone—are a series of ever-increasing demands for change that aim ultimately to destroy western civilization.”

Posted by: Roach at December 12, 2005 11:47 AM
Comment #101453

The very first post in response to this article exemplifies the ludicrous thoughts of liberals. The liberal asks in a typical stupid sarcasm, ” . . As I understand it a woman has no legal right to influence whether a man has a vasectomy or wears a condom. Are you going to include that in your “equality” crusade?”

What an idiotic question! Actually, as usual, the liberal is wrong. The woman does have that choice because having forced sex is against the law. Thus, having sex in a lawful manner, you get to choose your mate and by doing so choose how responsible he is (or is not) with sex.

But this leads us to the main liberal arguement which is “Why do men have a penis and get to penetrate the woman … IT’S JUST NOT FAIR!!!”

Instead of whining about anatomy to Republicans and judges, go to church and take it up with God … oh, that’s right, you can’t do that, Christianity is the demise of the world … excuse me, I forgot liberal mantra #538B.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at December 12, 2005 12:03 PM
Comment #101454

“……..murder of millions of unborn children.” With this statement, Roach brought up the primary issue here. No one has the right to murder another person. An unborn child is a person. Like it or not, it’s a fact. When that unborn child is aborted, it is killed. Abortion is nothing more than legal homicide. To me, there is absolutely, no justification for the taking of the life of an unborn child.

Posted by: Gene at December 12, 2005 12:03 PM
Comment #101455

Roach,

You can not legislate morality. I believe it’s a simple as “It’s her body.”

But, as an aside,
Control & Authority = Responsibility.
Should the woman decide to keep her child then the father should have only as much responsibility and involvement as he wishes to have.

Married couples, on the other hand, are a different topic. He’s made his commitment to the family and is fully responsible. If she wants to terminate the pregnancy, it’s her body, even if it means the end of the marriage.

Erika,

Radical feminists vs. Radical evangelicals? A WWF special!

Posted by: Dave at December 12, 2005 12:04 PM
Comment #101459

Gene, you say that the issue here is the murder of the unborn child. Does that mean that if abortion were made illegal you would want to prosecute all women who get an abortion as murders? Would it be agravated or unagravated murder? What if they get the abortion in a country where it is legal?

Do you bring up murder because it is a good emotional catch phrase, or are you really willing to take your accusations to their logical conclusion?

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 12:13 PM
Comment #101469

“Does that mean that if abortion were made illegal you would want to prosecute all women who get an abortion as murders?”
Erika,
Not only the women who get the abortions, but more importantly, those who perform the abortions. The same as anyone who commits a murder.

Posted by: Gene at December 12, 2005 12:30 PM
Comment #101471

Gene, does the method matter? What if the woman, independent of any other person, chemically induces a miscarriage? For example, what if she drinks heavily, greatly increasing her chance of miscarriage? What if she does this before knowing she is pregnant? Should she still be held responsible for murder? Could some women, in either of those cases, claim that they did not know the affects alcohol would have on the fetus?

I’m not trying to be antagonistic. These are the issues one would need to address if abortion or otherwise intentionally terminating a pregnancy were to be considered murder.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 12:38 PM
Comment #101474

Roach,

It’s illegal to destroy our bodies through suicide.

Huh?
You mean if I was an american and failed a suicide attempt, by law(s) I could face justice aftermath?

Anyway, even it’s illegal, you’re the only one to have pratically the widest control on your own body. If you really want to do something to your own body, nobody will successfully forever stopping you. Here I remember a Million Dollar Baby scene where the tetraplegic girl cut his own tongue in suicide attempt…
If a woman really have the will to do abortion, you can bet she’ll find a way. But it’s way more risky than one praticed under the knowledge of a doctor… Remember, women didn’t wait (legal or banning) abortion laws to do it. They used to pratice illegal ones long ago already, with the usual risks that come with such hidden act.

In the ends, since, well, ever! people always did whatever they wanted to their own bodies, even when illegal. Just because, pratically, they always *could*. That’s was and still is the ultimate freedom.

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 12, 2005 12:46 PM
Comment #101482

are you really that afraid of women having a little bit of power. since the first white European settlers showed up here in America a little over 500 years ago men have ruled supremely in a white male dominated culture. this may have been how our country began but america has grown since then and the “land of the free” is slowly actually becoming that land of the free. now we have these “conservatives” who don’t want equallity, they want to remain in charge as the white male masters. that is not america. I welcome women sharing power in this country, and look forward to our first female president.

Posted by: Jeff at December 12, 2005 12:59 PM
Comment #101483

Gene:
“An unborn child is a person. Like it or not, it’s a fact.”

Actually, it’s an opinion. Is a fetus a “person” the moment before delivery? Probably. Is the fertilized egg a “person” at the moment of conception? In my opinion, no. Is there a huge grey area in between which makes me increasingly confused and uncomfortable? Yes.

Fortunately or unfortunately, “personhood” is a legal, moral, and scientific concept where there are many opinions and few definitive facts. Your assertion quoted above is just your opinion, and a highly debatable one at that.

Posted by: Arr-squared at December 12, 2005 1:04 PM
Comment #101484

I’ve noticed that a women can chose to murder her unborn baby without the fathers concent, then make him pay for the murder.
One of my employees got his girlfriend pregant. They split up shortly before she found out she was pregant. She told him that she was going to murder the baby. He told her that he wanted custody sense she didn’t want it. She told him it was none of his business and that she wanted him to pay for the murder. He rightfully refused. He filed in court to stop her from murdering the child. She filed to make him pay for the murder. She won, he lost.
Here’s a father that wanted his child. Now insted of knowing the joy that comes with raising a child, he’s also being forced to pay to have it murdered.
If the father wants the child he SHOULD be able to have it. IT’S HIS CHILD TOO.
I know yaall Liberials thinK that he should pay for the murder sense he knocked her up. But she didn’t have to have sex with him. So she’s responsible too. If she wants to murder her unborn child then SHE SHOULD PAY THE WHOLE BILL HERSELF.
Before yaall start wuth the ‘It’s her body’ crap.
ONCE SHE BECOMES PREGANT SHE LOSES ALL CONTROL OVER THAT PART OF IT. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A HUMAN LIFE HERE. NOT A TUMOR.
That unborn child has more right to live than ALL the murderers that the left wants to save the worthless lives of.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 1:07 PM
Comment #101486

Gene,

“……..murder of millions of unborn children.” With this statement, Roach brought up the primary issue here. No one has the right to murder another person.

Oh, really?
Then US soldiers that have killed Iraquis are murderers too, right?
Let’s being provocative here: are you for death penalty? Do you want Saddam being killed? Rapists? Terrorists? Persons, persons, persons. Everywhere.

Or is double-standard that apply only to unborn people?

Abortion is nothing more than legal homicide.

You can saw it that way, yes. You choosed to emphasize on “homicide”, others will emphasize on the “legal” word. But it’s not only that. It’s probably one of the most difficult decision to take for a woman.

Your frenchly,

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 12, 2005 1:11 PM
Comment #101487

Ron, you certainly are correct that the woman should have paid the whole bill herself, and there certainly is an issue for discussion when the man wants the child but the woman does not. However, that a woman has no control over the fetus in her body is still an opinion, even if you do state it in all caps.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 1:12 PM
Comment #101489

Jeff,

I agree with your comment.

that is not america. I welcome women sharing power in this country, and look forward to our first female president.

Sounds that Chili could be quicker than USA ;-)
Wait and see…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at December 12, 2005 1:16 PM
Comment #101490

Philippe-

Please remember first that our laws are State based; each State has different laws.

In North Carolina attempted suicide is a misdemeanour. I think it is a still a felony in South Carolina, however, neither State enforces these laws. I don’t know about the rest.

In all States the forfeiture-of-goods punishments have been abolished, so suicide is a crime without a punishment. I think there are still a few States out there (I know SC) that have the laws against suicide on the books however.

Posted by: George in SC at December 12, 2005 1:20 PM
Comment #101494

Arr-squared,
your point of when life begins is an opinion sounded brilliant but the more I thought about it it began to sound absurb and stupid.
By your “definition”, a one-year old, a ten-year old or even yourself are are only debatably “persons”. If someone killed you, or a child, would they be killing someone who had “personhood”? If so, why?

Posted by: ThisBlogThing at December 12, 2005 1:26 PM
Comment #101496

I have to say that this has been an interesting thread. But no one has asked the question that I think is the most important.
Do most abortions occur in loving committed relationships, or are they more the result of casual, consensual sex? Herein lies the nub of the argument.
If it is casual sex, how many of those men are really thinking of having a baby (or for that matter the woman)? Are most of these people drunk? With the inhibitions removed, these people are having sex, unprotected and likely to culminate in a pregnancy. Does this mean we should outlaw the actions that lead up to abortions? i.e. no sex after drinking, no “meat market” kind of places for singles (or marrieds) to meet up and get it on?
I agree with whoever made the comment that we CANNOT legislate morality. It is non-sensical. Illogical.

Now I would like to address the idiot who made the comment that somehow he was at a disadvantage because fertility is only discussed with 5th grade girls and above…
Wow, are you a whiner! Listen, yes, we discussed our period and all that stuff in 5th grade and above. Men can check books out of the library (if you could call a 5th grade boy a “man”) and find out the same stuff that they taught us in school.
However, that “discussion” that we got from the school was not enough to teach us fertility. I listened to that lecture, and even took sex ed 405 at CSULB with a prominent lecturer of that major, and still did not learn what I needed to know in order to get pregnant from Toni Weschler’s book “Taking Charge of Your Fertility”. So stop whining and educate yourself.

I agree most with the post that said to effect the following: Men can walk away from a sexual encounter and never know (or care for that matter) if they have created a potential life or not. Women do not have this luxury.

We are the ones that have to decide if we are going to go through with a pregnancy. It is NOT an easy decision for most that have had to make it. So get off your high horses and stop acting as if it is a casual decision. Although, if you are so disrespecting your body by having casual sex, I could see why others might think that this is an easy decision to make. Then if we decide to go through with the pregnancy, we have to go through the awful process of trying to legally get the man to face up to his responsibilities.

And what is this crap of “men can zip up, but women can spread their legs”? Because in the end, men are congratulated for having multiple sex partners, while women are considered sluts if they have multiple partners. For the men this is positive re-inforcement. For the women it is negative.

Although I am no “christian” , that having casual sex, is what is wrong with the debate. We should be encouraging our young people to accept responsibility and be accountable for their actions. We should be teaching fertility more seriously, and to our young men as well as women (it takes 2 to tango, shouldn’t the guys be in on this part of education?).

And lastly- the definition of feminism (Funk & Wagnall’s) n.1 The doctrine which declares the equality of the sexes and advocates equal social, political, and economic rights for women.
There is a reason why feminism came about. Men, were for the most part the holders of all the rights up until recently. But biologically speaking, we have the pregnancy grow in us, so it will never be “equal” and you cannot legislate it so. If women could choose to let the man be the one who got accidentally pregnant, don’t you think some would choose that?

Respectfully(or almost so),
Antonia

Posted by: Antonia at December 12, 2005 1:32 PM
Comment #101497

BTW - a friend of mine who trained soldiers told me that most (not some most) female recruits cannot toss a hand grenade far enough that they are not killed or injured by the explosion, but he said that they don’t talk about those things openly for obvious EEO reasons. The battlefield is not an equal opportunity place.


Posted by: Jack at December 11, 2005 09:07 PM

Your right, the battlefield ISNOT an equal opportunity place. Except for the fact that it doesn’t care who gets killed on it.
I have a neice in the Navy. She didn’t join it to take the place of a man in combat. She wanted to serve her country. She is what the Navy calls a Yomen. I think that’s a clerk of some sort. Navy guys will know.
Some of the girls that were in her basic training unit wanted to be Seebees. With what I’ve seen and heard the Navy would have to lower the physcial requirements drasticly so that women could qualify. Most of them would be to small and not be able to pass the strength requirements otherwise.
This would mean that with smaller and weaker team members everyone would be in more danger on a mission than usuall.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 1:34 PM
Comment #101499

“Gene, does the method matter? What if the woman, independent of any other person, chemically induces a miscarriage? For example, what if she drinks heavily, greatly increasing her chance of miscarriage?”
Erika,
Thank you for your insight. If abortion were a crime it would have to be investigated, as any crime is, and if it was found that the woman was negligent, then she would be prosecuted accordingly.

Posted by: Gene at December 12, 2005 1:37 PM
Comment #101501

Antonia

We should be encouraging our young people to accept responsibility and be accountable for their actions. We should be teaching fertility more seriously, and to our young men as well as women (it takes 2 to tango, shouldn’t the guys be in on this part of education?).

HOW RIGHT YOU ARE!

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 1:44 PM
Comment #101503

Although I do not favor abortion, I would say that a woman’s choice in being a parent is not near as flexible as a man’s. A man can reject a pregnancy by walking away. A woman must contemplate abortion, once she’s pregnant.

However, both sides have alternatives before the fact. I think the big error in social treatment of sexuality over the last few years, is the notion that we can make it something casual. It isn’t. Biologically and socially, it remains, and probably will always be something with inherent risks and repercussions. That said, we are biologically inclined to get ourselves into this situation, to seek out this kind of trouble. That’s where the Conservatives get into trouble: their unforgiving attitudes about sexuality make it very difficult to deal with the mistakes and complications that come from being biologically compelled towards sex and reproduction.

In either case, the error is believing that we can have utter control over this aspect of ourselves, or believing that we need not keep some kind of control over this part of us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 12, 2005 1:47 PM
Comment #101504

When a living being is partially removed from the birth canal and doctor pushes a surgical instrument into the base of the skull and the brain of that living being is sucked out———THAT IS MURDER!!!!!
You cannot color it any other way. From that refrence point using any other method to kill the living being is equally murder!!
To color it with any color you want is just symantic rhetoric. There is an absolute here and the absolute is murder.
The argument of war or capital punishment does not enter in here. In the case of capital punishment it is being carried out for a crime against humanity. In the case of war you are defending a position. In the case of abortion a defenseless living being is killed. For those who say the baby is not living then why can you measure brain waves and a heart beat. If a person laying in the hospital has no brain waves or heart beat he is dead. The the opposite must be true that when brain waves and heart beat are present then life is present.

Posted by: tomh at December 12, 2005 1:48 PM
Comment #101507

“Then US soldiers that have killed Iraquis are murderers too, right?”
Frenchie,
Oh give me a break!!! Anyone with one eye and half-sense knows that there is a differnce in “murder” killing in a war or death penalty. Murder is the “unlawful” taking of another’s life. War and the death penalty does not fall into that category. Unfortunately, neither does abortion. That’s why it can be done on demand. There should be a law, however, outlawing the practice.

Posted by: Gene at December 12, 2005 1:51 PM
Comment #101510

Ron,

Your making me chase you around. I wondered what abortion had to do with the Iraq war. I have not been keeping up with this thread but here are my thoughts on your statements:

Not all liberals take the same stance on abortion. Personally, I believe strongly in choice. You make your choice on this issue when you have unprotected sex or don’t use birth control. I’ve always had to laugh when heterosexuals charge that gay men lead a destructive “lifestyle”. Yes HIV is highest amongst this group because most don’t use protection, but one thing that gays will never sexually transmit to their partner is an unwanted pregnancy, something I would argue is far more destructive.

Personally, I consider myself a liberal but I am against all abortions except in cases which threaten the life of the mother, or cases of rape. And yes, I realize that broken condoms happen, but that has got to account for such a small number of unwanted pregnancies that it doesn’t justify abortion as a method of birth control.

And yes, I absolutely agree that the father should have an equal say in whether his child is murdered or not. And it is sick that the courts don’t recognize the father’s rights. If the father doesn’t want to see his child murdered and is willing to pay for all the financial costs of childbearing, then that should be his right, as long as it doesn’t pose a reasonable risk to the life of the mother. Which is a different story, in which case the father should have to pay for the abortion.

I don’t like what I have seen from Judge Allito so far, but one thing I do agree with is that a wife should have to notify her husband if she is going to murder their child. When you get married you enter into a contract. A contract to share the most intimate parts of your life. IMO, It is not unreasonable to require the consent of the father before an abortion can be preformed outside the risk of death of the mother.

That said, I don’t think roe v wade will be overturned anytime soon. I think we are doing a disservice to the unborn when we bicker back and forth about pro-choice and pro-life. I maybe the only liberal who doesn’t care for Hillary Clinton, but she got it right when she said ” We should all be able to agree that we want every child born in this country and around the world to be wanted, cherished, and loved. The best way to get there is do more to educate the public about reproductive health, about how to prevent unsafe and unwanted pregnancies.”

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 12, 2005 1:56 PM
Comment #101511

,blockquote>The Bush administration has cut funding for deadbeat dad enforcement. That was ultimately going to be an ineffective law from the gitgo, since the costs of enforcement were inevitably going to rival the revenue recovered from deadbeat dads. Might as well have just handed out tax dollars directly to the women with children and saved all the red tape and bureaucracy.

While I agree with you on the cost and all, There does need to be a way to force these idiots to take care of their children financially. BOTH parents are financially responsible for their kids even if they don’t want to have anything else to do with them.
BTW, there are also deadbeat Moms out ther too. They also need to be forced to financially support there children.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 1:57 PM
Comment #101519

I find that this discussion is interensting in that it has just finally been mentioned about the child. the question that needs to be answered first is when does the child become human? If it is at conception then of course it is murder and yes we need to take it to its fullest conclusion. If it is some other time within the pregnancy or after then what is the criteria for being human?

I have heard that since it is getting its substance from the mother it is part of her body. thus the my body my choice argument. The truth is, any scientist in this field will tell you that this is medically true, even if they agree with abortion, the baby has its own blood after 8 days an soon there after has brain waves and organs and so forth. I assume this part is common knowledge so I wont go into all the details of the babies development. (I do not like the term zygote or fetus they cleanse the humanity from all this)
Some say that it is when it becomes viable. We do not have a definitive answer on this one. Some babies are born on schedule but dont make it so they are not viable. some babies are born very early and make so they are viable even when others of the same age are not. My wife’s mother aborted my wife when she was 7 months along. My wife came out alive they put her in the corner and the doctor told her to walk out. She did but heard the baby cry so she went back and took her home. The solution used did not kill her just burned her badly.
The main purpose for the mother is to protect the baby and feed it. The baby is largely self sufficient within the womb out side of protection and food. The baby does not use the blood of the mother or immune system or what have you just he food.

If it is okay to abort the baby with that in mind then what stops us from doing it while the baby is still breast feeding. The mothers main purpose at this point is to protect and feed. though I admit that it is in a different setting. Though I could not imagine setting the issue. I realize that people do not like to equate these two concepts but they are only equal if the baby is a baby at conception if not then they are not equatible.

I know that some people say that the passing through the canal is when the baby becomes real. Then that makes it okay to abort a baby right before birth. Even if it could have been born 10 minutes early and been fine.


When it comes right down to it I think the innocent ones right should be protected over the rights of the guilty. What i mean by this is that the baby is innocent why punish her/him the parents whether married or not are the guilty ones they are the ones who had sex (not that sex is bad they are guilty because they did something that has natural consequences and babies are the consequence) not the baby. I think that the guilty parties should set aside what rights they think they have for the sake of the innocent.

The women is not stuck for life if she has the child there are millions of people who will adopt. I do believe that the father should help flip the bill for the birth. At least the part not covered by insurance if that is there. I also think that if they mother wants to keep the baby the father should support it and have partial legal custody or they should not be forced to support. You cant have your cake and eat it to.

In the end I believe the first part of this discusion should be on when does the baby become human?

Oh ya and by the way I use the term baby because it is generic. We us it for animals and plants and so forth. I believe the baby is human at conception (but I am sure you figured that out already).

I ahve enjoyed reading this topic thanks for the op to participate.

Posted by: Randall at December 12, 2005 2:09 PM
Comment #101524

When life starts is primarily a religious quesiton. In some religions it’s not until the first breath is taken. In the FREC world is it at conception. Fortunately, so far, we live in a country of a constitution, not a misogynist’s version of a bible.

I, personally, am in the middle. If the baby can live out of the womb without “heroic efforts,” then (s)he has a choice now.

So, Ron, any man is stronger than any women? Any man is a smarter and better fighter than any woman? Grow up bro’. Ever hear of the Amazons? Ever faced a woman pissed off? I mean really pissed? Women at there worst are worse than any guy I know. I don’t mind having one cover my sorry ass and you don’t have to be big to pull a trigger…

Posted by: Dave at December 12, 2005 2:18 PM
Comment #101525

Randall, I actually think that whether or not abortion is murder is something of an orthogonal issue to whether or not the rhetoric used to justify abortion is valid, but I will pose one question to you. Suppose that abortion is murder and suppose that we can agree that in any case where the child could have a good life and the mother’s life is not endangered an abortion should not be commited. Now suppose that we could somehow know that some child, if it were born would live a life with abbuse, addition, and no economic opportunities. Would the murder still be a bad thing?

Of course, we cannot know any of this, so it is just a hypothetical, but hypotheticals are useful for probing whether people hold knee-jerk opinions or reasoned ones.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 2:19 PM
Comment #101535

Blogthing, can I direct you to this site’s philosophy statement at the top of every column, “Critique the Message, Not the Messenger.”

I should also say your writing is at times unclear. You talk about “these people” without a clear antecedent.

Posted by: Roach at December 12, 2005 2:34 PM
Comment #101536

Dave, I am nto sure what a FREC is but oh well. I am not a misogynist’s and nor is the Bible. Obviously this is not a religouse question and I do nto believe i said when does life begin but when does the baby become human. Different because it is obviously alive at the moment of conception. I know you know this since you are able to use they word misogynist.

Now Dave I would agree with you about women and there anger and I woul trust my wife to have my back in a fight any day of the week over many many men i know.

Erica, I find that people are free to make any choice they want. I do believe that environment influences that choice but does not make that choice. I have spent over 15 years working the inner cities of this country and have seen kids make it. (though in small numbers) Each one I have seen make it out are ones that many would have easily justified aborting due to concieved circumstances that child would have to go through and many children who make it do go through them. So yes I think i would still let them live even though I would fight strongly for adoption for many. I also believe there is quality of life for the handicap and so forth.

I would say yes under what you said it would still be murder.

Posted by: Randall at December 12, 2005 2:35 PM
Comment #101539

I am a gen X’er by the way not a baby boomer. Though I am near the beggining of that generation.

Posted by: Randally at December 12, 2005 2:37 PM
Comment #101541

Randall, my hypothetical was that we know that the child will never have a good life, not that we guess it. It will still be murder, but can it be justified.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 2:39 PM
Comment #101544

When sperm goes into a woman and the woman becomes pregnant, a human life has begun. No getting around that. You can kill it, but you have taken the life of an unborn baby. You kill the life that is growing inside of you. If my child had been killed, I would have died also. The person being killed has the right to grow up and live the’re life just like us. You kill the fetas, you take a person’s life away from them. If you don’t want the life you have created, let someone else, the father, or an adoption parent raise the child. Murder, killing, freedom of choice, anyway you look at it, abortion is the termination of precious human life. Let the person live it’s life. Does the unborn person have no rights to choose life for themselves? How would you have liked to have been aborted without any say so? Life is the only moral choice.

Posted by: rick at December 12, 2005 2:40 PM
Comment #101547

Rick, life may be the only moral choice, but should it be the only legal choice? People are forced every day to make decisions that are not moral. If the birth of one life will destroy another life, is that life necessarily worth it? I would probably say yes for myself, but I believe people can only make that decision for themselves, not for others.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 2:44 PM
Comment #101549

The right to choose what to do with one’s body is an entirely diferant arguement than the responsability of child rearing. The supreme courts decision (right or wrong) says the fetus is not a human thus it’s up to the woman to do with as she sees fit with her body. It’s the legal equivelant of having a wart removed. Once the child is born it is the responsability of both man and woman to support that shild. Two very differant arguements. Each person has a chance to choose to have a child or not. It’s called birth control. Everyone regardless of sex has the opportunity to use it. It’s really a hollow arguement to say men are being screwed (pardon the pun)since they do have the ultimate choice of having sex or not. If someone wishes to argue that in the case of husband and wife having an equal say in an abortion issue is appropriate fine. I really doubt the wife wishing an abortion and the husband not is a real major problem. If they are married they must have enough of a relationship as to be able to work it out together. If not an abortion is probably the least of their marital strife.

Posted by: zakquiet at December 12, 2005 2:50 PM
Comment #101552

erika, I would say in your hypothetical that murder would still be wrong because it would require someone to judge what consists of a “good life” which is VERY subjective. I also believe that Hitler was of the view that some lives are not worth living and he was doing them and the rest of humanity a service by terminating them.

Randall, since we are talking about the value of life, do you realize the boomer generation is huge and aging and very expensive. I find it so ironic that the generation most in favor of abortion is going to be the most costly ever for gen X and gen Y and euthenasia sounds better all the time.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 2:54 PM
Comment #101557

It’s not euthanasia…it’s post-birth abortion

Posted by: DC at December 12, 2005 3:02 PM
Comment #101558

blogthing, I am not talking about right and wrong, I am talking about justified or not justified. Furthermore, I am not talking about judging whether or not a life is good, but having a perfect oracle which can predict whether or not a life will be good.

The point of the thought problem is to determine whether preserving life no matter what it may be is what Randall wants or whether he wants to save life because there is always some potential for it to be a good life.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 3:06 PM
Comment #101559

Some of you are operating on the mistaken assumption that if we could reach some kind of consensus about when life begins, that we will also reach a consensus about when (if at all) to prohibit abortions. Radical feminism would not permit this. It has even begun to expand its reach into permitting infanticide. Why? Because its goal is not justice but power, specifically power for women. Notions of moral truth constrain any individual’s power. They are dismissed as a bunch of fairy-tales by true blue Marxists, the ideology that reflects the real engine of social order, the material and power relations underlying any given culture.

Do you think I’m exagerrating?

Read about Naomi Wolf’s discussions of legalizing infanticide and recognizing that grief somehow makes it OK, because women grieve too about abortion. She accept abortion destroys life and thinks we should accept it with a clear mind and honesty about what’s happening.

Here and here.

Posted by: Roach at December 12, 2005 3:06 PM
Comment #101561

interesting perspective DC.
Also, while we can talk hypotheticals about the quality of life of an unborn, we can know virtually for certain what the future quality of life holds for an 80 year old.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 3:08 PM
Comment #101563

Randall,
“Dave, I am nto sure what a FREC is but oh well. I am not a misogynist’s and nor is the Bible. Obviously this is not a religouse question and I do nto believe i said when does life begin but when does the baby become human. Different because it is obviously alive at the moment of conception. I know you know this since you are able to use they word misogynist.”
===============================================
(a) FREC = Fundamentalist Rightwing Evangelical Christian (or some similar acronym)
(b) In my opinion both main religious texts from the last 2k years are misogynistic. Obviously, I don’t know you so I can have no opinion on that.
(c) Murder is intentionally taking a human life. There is a difference between an ova, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, and an infant. When does it become murder absolutely depends on the answer to the question “when is it human”?. Most religious people define that point based on their religion. Therefore, it is a religious question.


Radical feminism(’s) … goal is not justice but power, specifically power for women.
Posted by Roach at December 12, 2005 03:06 PM
==========================
Are you afraid of women?

Posted by: Dave at December 12, 2005 3:11 PM
Comment #101564

erika,
I am not sure the value of discussing what a perfect oracle would say. also, the perfect oracle would have to determine what is good which is impossible therefore there could never be a perfect oracle in that regard. So the hypothetical doesn’t make sense to me.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 3:16 PM
Comment #101567

Post-birth abortion has its merits….a woman who carries her fetus to term may be ignorant of the difficulties a born fetus will bring into her life.

If we extend the abortion legislation out to say two years after birth, a woman should indeed be able to make a much more informed decision about aborting.

Remember Susan Smith, she realized that her two born fetuses were inhibitting her life and she made the informed decision to abort after birth. It’s about her choice, and I for one should not legislate my morality to stop her from making this informed decision.

Posted by: DC at December 12, 2005 3:18 PM
Comment #101568

Erica
Just a thought for you to ponder.
I have two boys that are adopted. They are half brothers. The mother became pregnant eight times with eight different men. She had a drug/alcohol problem. The state took the children from her. That is how we came into the picture. Had the two boys stayed with birth mother who knows what their lives would have been like. We got the boys when they were 3 and 5 years old. They are now 12 and 15 years old. They will have baggage for most of their life. They also have come to grips with some of that baggage are are thriving. The both do very well in school and theri lives are as “normal” as can be. I say all of that to get to this point.
Had birth mother aborted these two boys, the potential that they are reaching absolutely would not have been accomplished.

Posted by: tomh at December 12, 2005 3:20 PM
Comment #101569

blogthing, the purpose is, as I stated, to determine whether people put value on life itself or on the potential of a life. I am not saying a perfect oracle is possible. This is a common approach to take in mathematics and computer science to increase one’s ability to reason about a specific aspect of a problem without being hindered by other aspects.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 3:24 PM
Comment #101570

tomh, please understand that I am not saying that the decision as to whether or not a baby should be aborted should be based on one’s assessment of the potential value of its life. I am trying to get at a particular aspect of the abortion problem “why do people value the baby’s lie in the first place?” through a hypothetical situation where we assume perfect knowledge of possible futures as well as perfect ability to judge those futures.

Next time I post a hypothetical here, remind me how futile it is.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 3:27 PM
Comment #101571

erica,
I wouldnt compare mathematical hypotheticals to the hypothetical of a perfect oracle.
as for purpose, it seems any reasonable person would have to put the value on the life. If someone put the value on the “potential” of a life, they would have to be the judge of what is good potential or bad potential and i think we would all agree that is not the way to go.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 3:27 PM
Comment #101574

blogthing, I am not referring to mathematical hypotheticals in the sense of “assume X and prove Y” but in the sense of an oracle in complexity theory (Turing machines and what not). Furthermore, by valuing the potential of a life I do not mean valuing the judged potential, I mean acknowledging the fact that, to our knowledge, every life has potential, therefore we should value it. If you can not see the difference between this and saying that life, i.e., the idea of beating heart and coursing blood is valuable in and of itself, then I have nothing more to say to you.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 3:31 PM
Comment #101575

ok, then you say every life has “potential”
what the heck does that mean? potential for what?

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 3:33 PM
Comment #101576

Potential to be a worthile life for some reasonable definition of worthwhile (and only you can define what worthwhile means to you).

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 3:34 PM
Comment #101577

Dave, I am not afraid of women. Power as used in that sentence has a broader meaning than mere equality that I explained in my longer posts above. I am, however, not inclined to give up power and subordinate myself in a gesture of suicidal solidarity with the so-called oppressed because some men have done bad things to some women in the past. On balance, I think the traditional western balance of womens’ rights and obligations was fundamentally sound and may have called for some fine tuning. The feminist ideal of androgyny, the destruction of notions of chivalry, and its “smash the patriarchy” attack on traditional families genuinely does scare me because I think it means the destruction of our world as we’ve inherited it. I don’t want that to come to pass, which is why I describe myself as a conservative.

Posted by: Roach at December 12, 2005 3:35 PM
Comment #101579

ok. so it is the potential to be worthwhle….although we can’t define worthwhile becasue its totally subjective to each person so therefore its not particularly useful to talk about the potential to be worthwhile because it still has no meaning. So what is the broader point here?

Posted by: bolgthing at December 12, 2005 3:38 PM
Comment #101580

Erika sorry I need to read closer. (my excuse I am working while doing this) (lame excuse :))

I think that all life is part of the sacred. Even that life that we would not want to live. Though I have no problem with folks requesting (in writing)that no extra-ordinary efforts are taken for saving life under certain circumstances. I would find that there is no way to make moral the taking of innocent life at any age. I do find it moral to take life when someone is not innocent.

Dave:
thanks I would guess many would consider FREC though with many of my views some would call me a turn coat so I guess that in this discussion it would fit me.

As for the misogynist concept I would love to have a discussion on this but that would detract from this topic. Needless to say I disagree.

As for when is it human I am looking for that answer or at least a direction towards that answer outside the religous context. There must be a scientific standard by which we are able to determine this. What is the criteria for humanness?

I forget who said this but some are saying the argument needs to be handled first in the words we use. I agree with this. If we are saying many of the same words but tend to define this different then we are not saying the same thing. Even if we use different words but have a common meeting we are able to understand each other but now days I have noticed a chaning of definitions and that is scary because unless you are in the know you think someone is saying one thing when they are really saying something else altogether. This I believe is how those who are against abortion are losing. We have given in to the changing of definitions.

Posted by: Randall at December 12, 2005 3:42 PM
Comment #101584

The broader point here is determining whether people value unborn babies because it is some flesh and blood that happens to be human shaped or because the life has potential to be worthwhile?

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 3:46 PM
Comment #101585

erica, actually, i would say neither of the above.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 3:48 PM
Comment #101587

What would you say instead? I really am trying to get at what people think here because why people think life is valuabe is at the core of this whole abortion debate (though I still claim it’s orthogonal to the original point, dagnabit!). While I do have my own opinion, I do not presume to think that it is undeniably right. I want to know what other people think (by the way, thanks Randall for giving your opinion).

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 3:51 PM
Comment #101588

I understand I find that both must have value. all life has purpose. Value for what good may be accomplished but also value just for who they are.

Posted by: Randall at December 12, 2005 3:53 PM
Comment #101589

now we are getting somewhere. the abortion debate goes hither and thither but rarely do the arguments ever get to the meat of anything.
the answer is God. whether people believe in god or not, he either exists or he doesnt. its funny becuase the only option that is nto possible is that both sides are right. only one side could be right or else both wrong. anyway, if he does exist and lets say for this argument that he is the christian god, the life is sacred becasue he said so and he is god. period. if he does not really exist, then life is not sacred and all morality, law, etc, is a house of cards.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 3:58 PM
Comment #101590

Erika

I would not say that this thread of the discussion is irrelevant to the main point but maybe a derivative of it.

Posted by: Randall at December 12, 2005 3:58 PM
Comment #101591

blogthing,

Then under that interpretation of why life is valuable, is making abortion illegal an imposition of the values of a particular relgion on a public that may or may not agree with premises of that religion?

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 4:00 PM
Comment #101592

Blogthing

that was coherent and well stated. I agree. That would be the underlying reasoning for my belief stated earlier. I believe that God exist and since he put value on humans they then have value.

I also agree that if I am wrong then morals can change when ever society finds it convienent and I do not like that.

Posted by: Randall at December 12, 2005 4:01 PM
Comment #101593

Randall, I meant my ‘dagnabit’ mostly in jest. Although I would like to point out that orthogonal is not the same as irrelevant. The former implies independent aspects of the same issue while the later implies completely unrelated issues.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 4:02 PM
Comment #101595

good question. i guess I would say that all law of any kind is an imposition on values. whether that law is based in a religion a drunk judge or by even by throwing darts at a dartboard…all law is an imposition of the values of one group onto anohter.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 4:04 PM
Comment #101596

Would you agree then, that if a significant portion of the population does not accept the source of those values, they are justified in questioning the laws that are based upon those values? Because if the core of the argument against abortion is an argument for Christian values, (which I do not really think it has to be), it seems that making abortion illegal would be questionable at best.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 4:08 PM
Comment #101598

Yes, I think I would generally agree with you. if there is no God, then there is nothing wrong with abortion. in fact, there is nothing wrong with anything if there is no God.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 4:10 PM
Comment #101599

oh, also i forgot to say that is has nothing to do with the population. god either exists or he doesnt. if the whole population thought he existed but he didnt really exist then he wouldnt exist. it doesnt matter what people thing. it either is or it isnt.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 4:14 PM
Comment #101601

Whether or not it is wrong does not depend on the population. However, whether or not we make it illegal most certainly depends on the population since there is significant doubt as to God’s existence. Given that we are discussing the legality of abortion, I would say it is God’s existence which is irrelevant.

I also do not agree that without God there can be no morals, but that is not a discussion for today.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 4:17 PM
Comment #101602

i would love to hear about morals without god because without god there are no absolutes. how would you make an argument that anything is “wrong”?

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 4:20 PM
Comment #101603

by the way, i also agree with you that the legality of things does depend/is influenced by the population.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 4:29 PM
Comment #101604

So, Ron, any man is stronger than any women? Any man is a smarter and better fighter than any woman? Grow up bro’. Ever hear of the Amazons? Ever faced a woman pissed off? I mean really pissed? Women at there worst are worse than any guy I know. I don’t mind having one cover my sorry ass and you don’t have to be big to pull a trigger…

Posted by: Dave at December 12, 2005 02:18 PM

I’m not saying any of that. I’m saying that most women don’t qualify to be SEALS (I used Seebee earlier, but I meant SEALS). They aren’t tall enough. And NO, most aren’t strong enough to meet the requirements of the SEALS.
Lowering these requirments would be detrimental to the SEALS because of the type work they do.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 4:32 PM
Comment #101605

Like I said, now is not the time for that discussion. However, I would suggest sincerely trying to come up with a moral system that does not depend on God. I believe that if you really try, you be able to find a perfectly consistent moral system. Otherwise it would be possible to prove the necessity of God’s existence, which would make faith irrelevant.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 4:38 PM
Comment #101606

BTW Dave, I would a lot rather meet up with a pisses off father than I would a pissed off Mother.
The most vicious thing on this earth is a female protecting her young.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 4:40 PM
Comment #101608

The statements that “men have obligations and women have choices” is totally misinformed. Raising a child IS an obligation.
I am an educated ( not rednecked ) single mother whose child’s father did not believe in abortion. Alas, he doesn’t believe in paying child support either. My “options” are to raise my child responsibly or to go on welfare and become a ward of the public.My “choice” is to sacrifice everything , be in lifelong financial ruin and likely die in poverty so that my child can eat and be clothed.
The government has a right to be involved in these issues. There are over 16 million families (35 -50 million people) that need child support. Without child support enforcement, fathers can easily retain all their financial power, which translates to a life of ‘freedom’. You can argue over these definitions all you want, however..the truth is that humans with less access to resources do not succeed. Taxpayers should demand that deadbeats pay for collection and legal costs, not the taxpayers themselves!
Abortion itself is a cultural issue. It has been practiced for centuries in many different countries. Morals are merely a reflection of the groups attempt at self preservation.I can see that men would like to participate in this decision, but the practicalities prohibit that from being feasible.
If women were so innundated by options, why do you think they abort in the first place? I don’t know why I chose to have my son, but I wouldn’t decide any differently. However, I am the first to admit that it has trapped me. We , and most importantly he, suffer the affects of poverty from not being supported. His father travels, has a boat, switches job at a whim (to avoid payment). Who has the obligation?
It takes TWO people to make a CHILD. Quit your damn sniveling about ‘Father’s Rights’ or ‘Woman’s Rights’. When you make some choices, you give up rights. What about a child’s rights?
Again, remember that abortion is a moral issue, based on a system of beliefs created by HUMAN BEINGS. We don’t know for certain if it is any more immoral than picking flowers. We have made that part of our system of beliefs for our own self preservation.
What we do know for certain is that when a child is here…it needs to be raised..by both parties who made the CHOICE that resulted in it’s life.

Posted by: kathleen at December 12, 2005 4:44 PM
Comment #101609

very well, we will not discuss it now. but sooner or later you will have to address it because we are going deeper and deeper into the heart of the issue.
it is impossible to construct a moral system that does not depend on god….at least one in which the “morals” do not ring hollow. I have tried to think of one. if you like, I can tell you why such a system is impossible.
I dont think anyone will ever be able to prove that there is a god or isnt. I can see your point that there is a necessity for a god in a society and i agree. However, i do not see your connection to that making faith irrelevant. if you can’t prove there is or isn’t a God, then you still have to believe it or not believe it on faith to some extent.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #101610

man, you guys must be sloooowwwwww typers. you are the “hunt and peck” types on those keyboards, eh?

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 02:11
PM

You guessed it. Mostly for me it’s trying to make sure I’ve spelled everything right. The system I have doesn’t have spell check so I have to use the Websters quite a bit. Even then I misspell words. If there was a reward for the worlds worst speller I get it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 4:50 PM
Comment #101611

I would like to state that I never claimed God is necessary for society. My claim that a proof of the necessity of God would make faith irrelevant is a claim that one does not need to have faith in something that is provably true. Faith in the proof system, perhaps, but not faith in the thing proven.

Finally, I would claim that whether or not a moral system based on God rings hollow is irrelevant if there is no God. “Life has no meaning without God” is not a proof of God’s existence, and if there is not God, there is no gaurantee of meaning.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 4:53 PM
Comment #101613

OH BTW…Ron….

You are mistaken. My brother is a career SEAL. Most SEALS are of average height. Those that are taller don’t always swim and run as quickly as is needed by the group.
As a matter of fact, he told me that his buddies that trained Demi Moore for ‘GI Jane’ were impressed at how tough she really was.
The fact that women aren’t yet considered for SEAL training has alot less to do with physical ability and more to do with the psychological interdependance of the group.

Posted by: kathleen at December 12, 2005 4:55 PM
Comment #101614

Randall

I am nto sure what a FREC is but oh well.

Far Right Evangelical Christian

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 4:57 PM
Comment #101619

I really lost you on your whole proof statement. it feels like the “potential to be worthwhile” statement. what is the relevance of whether people need faith or not anyway?

I completely agree with your second paragraph. Like I said, no one can prove that God exists.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 5:03 PM
Comment #101623

kathleen

Adverage hight for a man is tall for a women. And a whole heap of women aren’t tall enough.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 5:09 PM
Comment #101624

Faith is irrelevant, it was just something I threw in for fun. The “proof statement” is really quite simple. Faith is belief without proof (in the repeatable, verifiable observation sense). If you could prove the existence of God, there would be no basis for faith in God because it would be belief with proof.

Posted by: Erika at December 12, 2005 5:11 PM
Comment #101627

Roach,

I read your Naomi Wolf link and and was surprised to find that Naomi Wolf did not advocate nor equate abortion with infanticide; rather the writer of the essay (not Wolf) suggested that Wolf’s rationals were consistent with Roman era themes and could be used to justify infanticide. I think your link was quite off.

Nevertheless, I thought it was a very good link. Here are two quotes that are worthwhile:

Wolf tells the story of arguing, while she was pregnant, against an opponent of abortion and snapping at last in frustration, “Of course it’s a baby… . And if I found myself in circumstances in which I had to make the terrible decision to end this life, then that would be between myself and God.”

Feminists need to admit, she asserts, many of the perfectly true points they are foolishly committed to disputing: that the fetus is a child, that the current abortion rate is a terrible social evil, that “pregnancy confounds Western philosophy’s idea of the autonomous self, [for] the pregnant woman is in fact both a person in her body and a vessel.”

Abortion is a terrible thing. And it is a life decision. And that decision is between a woman and her maker.

We are faced with impossible decisions everyday. It is a cliche to say that we have the wealth in our country alone to end hunger and diseases and death caused by hunger. But we don’t. Why not? “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Isn’t having the ability to stop starvation but not doing it tantamount to murder?

Why is it more important to prevent a woman from taking an unborn life than taking care of the lives that are already here?

Posted by: CPAdams at December 12, 2005 5:14 PM
Comment #101629

Kathleen

It takes TWO people to make a CHILD. Quit your damn sniveling about ‘Father’s Rights’ or ‘Woman’s Rights’. When you make some choices, you give up rights. What about a child’s rights?

I sure does take two to make a child. And once that child is made BOTH parents giveup rights and freedoms for the child. If they don’t then they’re amoung the most worthless scum that ever walked the face of this earth.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 5:16 PM
Comment #101631

by the way, you said something interesting way back when when you said “it must be possible to make a consistent moral system without god” (paraphrase).
however, consistency would not be any where near the biggest problem with such a system. the biggest problems would be things like legitimacy and motivation.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 5:21 PM
Comment #101632

Dr. Shopper, Comparing the reimbursement by insurance companies for O.C’s and Viagara is ludicrous. A more accurate comparison would be oc’s and condoms, in which case insurance companies pay for neither. Viagara is used to treat a medical condition (impotence)it is not used for birth control. A more accurate comparison would be Viagara and DES. DES is used to treat atrophic vaginitis. If a woman suffers from this condition the vaginal wall is very thin and fragile. Intercourse is very painfull. Insurance will pay for DES so the woman can once again have a normal sex life.

Posted by: Norm at December 12, 2005 5:25 PM
Comment #101637

blogthing,

You’ve been commenting on the importance of morality and laws having a basis in God. Well, while much of our law is based on Mosaic law (the law of Moses), much more of it is based upon the Code of Hammurabi, from the Babylonian King of the 18th Century BC.

It’s interesting that a side issue of this discussion, child support, comes directly from Hammurabi.

Hammurabi’s code was created by a king for his people. he did not claim it was inspired by God or required to make one morally correct.

It was written to make society run smoothly, predictable (ignorance of the law was not a defense - a concept all modern societies accept), and to allow everyone to understand their rights -from the nobility to the slaves.

Much of what we consider legally correct today actually comes from a Babylonian king, not from the NIV bible. I think many of our day to day “moral choices” are simple secular choices that make living as a group easier, not decisions that we defer to a “higher authority”.

I’m not questioning God or faith, I am saying that nihilism is not the only other recourse. There are many people who do not believe as you do but still make the same decisions that they consider moraly correct.

Posted by: CPAdams at December 12, 2005 5:45 PM
Comment #101643

Norm,

there are two problems with your comparisons -

first, only woman can get pregnant, so for women, birth control devices and medication are much more important for the normal enjoyment of sex than they are for men;

secondly, Viagra, despite attempts to the contrary, is just a drug for men; I know many Viagra users but very few who “need” it, mostly just a bunch of guys who want remember what it was like when they were 18.

As a man, it is still amazing to me that my enhanced enjoyment is medically covered if I so choose, but a woman having relatively worry free sex is not.

And you wonder why “radical feminism” continues to have traction…

Posted by: CPAdams at December 12, 2005 5:56 PM
Comment #101644

Hi Kathleen, I thought you might be interested in some stats. It is actually mothers that are more of a deadbeat. Men have almost twice the compliance compared to womenin paying child support. This paper is quite old. (1991) However, I doubt it the stats have really changed much.


Technical Analysis Paper No. 42 - U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services
-
Office
of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991 - Meyer and Garansky


Custodial mothers who receive a support award:
79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award:
29.9%

Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support:
46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support:
26.9%

Non-custodial mothers who pay support at any level:
20.0%
Non-custodial fathers who pay support at any level:
61.0%

Single custodial mothers who work less than full time:
66.2%
Single custodial fathers who work less than full time:
66.2%

Single custodial mothers who work more than 44 hours per week:
7.0%
Single custodial fathers who work more than 44 hours per week:
24.5%

Single custodial mothers who receive public assistance:
46.2%
Single custodial fathers who receive public assistance:
20.8%

Posted by: Norm at December 12, 2005 5:57 PM
Comment #101645

CP, you are correct that a god or higher authority makes society run smoother.
but I dont think we need to get carried away into ancient history to make the point. it is really self evident if you play it out in a logical fashion. sometimes i think we look to history more than just believing what we can experience right in front of ourselves.
i agree that many of our day to day choices are secular choices to make day to day living easier. however, if the foundation of those choices (as I guess the babylonians thought also) is not a higher power then the system is a house of cards. otherwise we are no different than, say, squirrels. we all do what is in our best interest. sometimes helping others can be in our best interest.
also, i do not believe i have stated my beliefs at any point so i think the beliefs you attribute to me are assumptions.

Posted by: blogthing at December 12, 2005 5:58 PM
Comment #101649

blogthing,

I apologize. I assumed that since the majority of people consider themselves to be moral and since you said that morality comes from a belief in God, I put A and B together.

There is a problem with your squirrel argument - aside from the tyopical way of looking at things, the opposites hold up as well: we have generations of people making moral choices who don’t believe in God just as we have generations of people making immoral choices who do believe in God.

The choices were just that - choices with no basis whatsoever. I live in the Bible Belt and I verify that so called “God fearing” people make choices I find morally reprehensible, in direct contradiction to their moral compasses.

I think people choose whatever they want and then justify it to themselves - either within some self-created exception to their moral code or as something that “God will understand” or “I’ll ask forgiveness later”.

I think your house of cards is just as vaid as a moral compass. Choosing what’s right, not because of post life consequences, but because in your heart of hearts, you know it to be right.

Posted by: CPAdams at December 12, 2005 6:16 PM
Comment #101653

Abortion = the termination of a living human life.

No other way you can put it. Call it the murder of an innocent, precious un born life. Call it the killing of an innocent precious un born life. Or the freedom of choice. It’s all the same. The termination of an innocent, precious unborn life. A life that will not be able to cast it’s own opinion about wheather or not it should have it’s own life. The life is created, and then stolen because of someone elses selfishness. Let the person live it’s life. Is it a crime to be conceived? Should this crime be punishable by death? The crime is the mother deciding not to live up to her responsibility to the unborn person that is growing inside of her. Yes, an unborn person is living inside of you. Let the unborn person have a chance to live IT’S OWN LIFE. How could a woman live with herself after terminating the innocent, precious life that grows inside of her. Many women live their life with serious emotional, and psychological problems after aborting their child. Why take that risk? Do the right thing for the LIVING CHILD INSIDE OF YOU. LET IT HAVE IT’S LIFE TO LIVE.

Posted by: rick at December 12, 2005 6:36 PM
Comment #101662

Norm
Those are intresting stats. I wish I had them a couple of weeks ago when I was discussing child support and deadbeat parents with a Liberial friend of mine.
I made the statement that there were deadbeat moms just as there were deadbeat dads. Of course she totaly disagreed.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 6:55 PM
Comment #101667

The current movement to end reproductive choice is the result of a new generation that is ignorant of past events that led to the
historic and bipartisan agreement for Roe V. Wade to become law.

Before Roe V. Wade, the affluent had their abortions anyway. If you had enough money, there was always a doctor or two in town that was more than willing to do the procedure. Women that were not affluent had theirs in such places as in the back seat of cars or in seedy hotels. Dogs got better treatment.

When the poor cried out foul and unfair, they were told such things as, tough, to bad, that’s the way it is, and would sometimes coldly be
told, we don’t care. There was a good reason why they said they didn’t care because they didn’t! There was a popular saying back then, it went: “the rich get richer and the poor have kids”. Ask anybody over 60 about it and how it pertains to reproductive rights.

Now let’s fast forward up to today. The affluent (also called republicans) are well aware of what I wrote above. They don’t care if abortion is legal or illegal. They will have their morning after pills at the ready and a connection to get a safe medical abortion if they desire.

They use this topic to stir emotions so they can sucker people for their vote. This is what is driving the movement to overturn Roe V. Wade. Again I must remind you that they don’t care if it’s legal or illegal. This is akin to wanting to play with the rich kids down the street. They’ll let you as long as they can use you. Use your vote that is. In the end your the one that will get hurt. Not them.

What you’re ultimately asking for by over turning Row V. Wade is to be controlled by the affluent. On a good day they’ll tell you to your
face that they run the world. They run the businesses. They do the hiring and firing and they also buy the politicians that they want in
office. Then they’ll tell you, “don’t do as we do, do as we tell you”

Having children that are willingly wanted with meaning, purpose and direction is of great benefit to a child, society and to God. I’m sure you agree with me that, Pro choice is Pro life.


Posted by: Dan at December 12, 2005 7:16 PM
Comment #101669

To All,
ANY deadbeat parent should be in the work house, no exceptions. To all you libs and women, try having your child aborted, with no say in the matter, and get back to me on how you think that would make you feel. It’s easy dealing in self-rightious speculation, but try looking into the eyes of your other two children and tell me that it doesn’t tear your heart out. How do you tell your young children why you are so adamently against “a woman’s right” when they ask you, without alienating them from their mother whom they love? It may make you feel better to say, but what good would come from that? So, let me know of your personal experience on the topic.

Posted by: scolex at December 12, 2005 7:22 PM
Comment #101670

One thing I find interesting is that the pro choisers like to use the arguement that the child an inviable tissue mass or some crap like that. Not a human life.
However if I were to shoot and kill a pregant woman and her baby they would be screaming to have me charged with two counts of murder.
Here’s the problem with their way of thinking. In order for me to be charged with two counts of murder, I would have to kill two people. If the baby is an inviable tissue mass, and not a human life, how in the hell could I have murdered it?

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 7:23 PM
Comment #101674

Norm,
Thanks for the info. A deadbeat is a deadbeat is a deadbeat. I never said that women weren’t guilty of the same. It’s too bad they didn’t take include stats on income levels for each sex and outside familial support for each sex. There are alot of other influencing factors.
When I made reference to self pitying “Father’s Rights” proclaimers I meant that they also are singling themselves out as being more important than the PRIMARY caregiver or the CHILD. A whiner is a whiner is a whiner. We need to change laws to promote ” Children’s Rights”.
I am fairly certain there are no gender specifications in legislation pertaining to support enforcement. So what (besides the involvement in abortion decisions) are the proclaimed ‘Rights” specific to fathers?

Posted by: kathleen at December 12, 2005 7:34 PM
Comment #101675

scolex

ANY deadbeat parent should be in the work house, no exceptions.

I agree. And if they earn ANY money from the work they do, it should go to their children.

What I find tears my heart out is looking at my 1 1/2 mounth old twin granddaughters and knowing that there’s folks out there that thinks they should have been murdered because my daughter already had 4 kids.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 12, 2005 7:35 PM
Comment #101677

Blogthing,
Being right and doing right does not rest on one’s belief in a so called “God.” Pegan’s have long believed in false gods and while I do not quote the Bible, it evem makes references to the fact that many will call themselve followers of righteousness, but will not be found to be following the Teachings of Jesus. No, the level of one being found to be right in their words and actions can be “Discovered” by the pre or prior thinking of the options one faces at the moment their thought and freewill is made into actions and words.

Since this Wisdom is timeless and can be used on any argument, tell me is it wrong that we teach all Humans not to pick up a Red Hot Coal. Right, wrong, or indifferent a person will learn in one form or another that touching things that are hot and glow red is a bad thing for one’s bare hand. Thus, should it not be the role of our Leaders and Parents to pass laws that show how one can pick up the Red Hot Coal in a manner that is found to be right. Did you know that a hotpad, a leaf, or grass can be used to allow one to pick up that Red Hot Coal thus not causing one from harming themselves? So is it wrong to pick up a Red Hot Coal or is it wrong to pick it up with your bare hand?

However, in order to be fair and equal I must mention that there still exists those who believe that they should have the right to pick up that Red Hot Coal with their bare hand because it is their body and only they should have a say on that which can/can not harm them.

Now, as a society that honors freewill of the individual above all other rights how do we handle the conondrum presented the natural course of Human Events? As far as I know, America or any other Civilized Nation has never outlawed this action. Yet, as an Individual and Society we are taught this action is wrong at a very young age. Why if there is no such thing as right and wrong?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 12, 2005 7:43 PM
Comment #101683

Bottom Line

If you do not want to take care of the Babies, whose parents’ income is below the poverty level, vote yes for abortion. Every woman with a child is not an illegitimate mother.

If you are against Abortion, then shut up about government entitlements.

Posted by: Gwendolyn Boyer at December 12, 2005 8:07 PM
Comment #101701

Hi blogthing,

“lets say for this argument that he is the christian god, the life is sacred becasue he said so and he is god. period.”

Nowhere does the Bible outlaw abortion. In Numbers 5:26-28 abortion is mandated by God under certain circumstances.

“if he does not really exist, then life is not sacred and all morality, law, etc, is a house of cards.”

Some of “God’s laws” (as appear in the Bible) are extremely imoral by modern standards. I’m talking about laws that mandate death for blasphemy, idolatry, adultery, and whatnot.

I assume you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you consider to be moral?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 12, 2005 9:48 PM
Comment #101712

Abortion was never mandated by The Living God in Heaven.

Posted by: tomh at December 12, 2005 10:23 PM
Comment #101714

A huge problem with deadbeat parent’s is that some judges will not enforce the laws. Deadbeats can beat the rap untill the child is over 18. The judges let them do it, regardless of their lame excuses for not paying for their child. I have seen it happen more than once.

Every abortion has destroyed a human life. Often more than one life.

Let the innocent live it’s life.

Posted by: rick at December 12, 2005 10:29 PM
Comment #101715

Hi tomh,

I don’t know if the God in Heaven mandated abortion.

According to Numbers 5:26-28 God mandated abortion under certain circumstances.

Nowhere does the Bible prohibit abortion.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 12, 2005 10:29 PM
Comment #101733

LouisXIV
The scripture you reference has nothing to do with abortion. In the whole chapter of Numbers 5 there is no mention of a baby, child, pregnancy, etc. It does mention of a woman being with a man who is not her husband. The chapter has to do with a test of jealousy. The reference is from KJV.

Posted by: tomh at December 12, 2005 11:25 PM
Comment #101737

A man is responsible for support as soon as the fetus sucks oxygen into it’s lungs and is considered a child,yet has no way of opting out of such support,unless the woman agrees to ending his parental rights.A man has no way of stopping a woman from killing such fetus even with a legal marriage between them.What about MENS rights and also the so called “tissue-mass”that has a heartbeat and all the makings of life from conception.Takes two to tango!

Posted by: Jason at December 12, 2005 11:48 PM
Comment #101766
If you are against Abortion, then shut up about government entitlements.

Gwendolyn Boyer,

I am against abortion but I am also for government entitlements but to a limited degree. We all make mistakes. If someone gets pregnant knowing full well she cannot support it, and decides to have it, then by all means we as a society should be compassionate enough to say we will help you. The problem I have is with people who know full well they cannot afford children, but continue having 2,3,4,5 kids, then expect the taxpayers to support them. We should have limited welfare. Not just for kids, but for unemployment as well. Welfare should be there as a safety net only, not as a way of life.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 1:07 AM
Comment #101769

Gwendolyn,

Let me clarify my position on abortion. I am personally against abortion, but I believe we all have to make choices for ourselves. Each of us knows what is best for ourselves, we do not need the government to tell us what is best. Therefore while I am against abortion personally I am not against Roe v Wade. I think their is an important distinction between the two. Abortion is the act, roe v wade is the choice. I know I have taken the position that unprotected sex is when you make your choice, But, I still feel that roe v wade should be available, because I believe we need to take personal responsibility for ourselves, and that the government should not intervene in such a personal decision.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 1:17 AM
Comment #101770

Jason,
The right over an Individuals reproductive system is equal and fair argument given the fact that America was one of the first nations to undertake compulsory sterilization programs However, these laws were found to be unconstitutional by the 1942 Supreme Court declaring that reproduction is a fundamental Human Right

Therefore, the question of who has the right to say what happens inside their body belongs to the fundamental civil and constitutional rights of the Individual. And the male population might want to giove thanks for that ruling otherwise the majority of our society being made up of females just may want to pass laws that require all males over the age of 10 to be sterilzed. It would solve the argument of abortion, but something tells me that most males would object to the process. What do you think?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 13, 2005 1:18 AM
Comment #101774

With that said, while I really hope the Democrats are able to find a way to stop the Alito nomination (I’m not holding my breath) I do agree with him about requiring notification of the father about the abortion. Boy, am I sounding like a politican or what? I take all sides, vote for me! Just kidding. I just believe you can have your own personal beliefs on an issue and still support the right of choice for others.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 1:23 AM
Comment #101777

JayJay,
No, that is called being an American. Like you, I do not believe that abortion should be used as a “Fix All” tool which some on both sides of the argument want to present nor can I establish that Nature, itself, does not allow for it.

However, like Nature, Humans must realize that there is a reason Nature gives parents this domain over the unborn and newborn. Since Self-Survival is the first law of living and the conditions still exist in society were survival of the fittest is paramount than an individual parent(s) must be allowed to do what is necessary to do what they see as Self-Suvival. Anythingless would be seen as surrendering and thus placing the freewill of the Human Spirit at risk which is socially unacceptable. Therefore, America has no other choice but to allow this act of mercy or be found wrong in the way we govern ourselve.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 13, 2005 1:36 AM
Comment #101863

Hi tomh,

“The scripture you reference has nothing to do with abortion.”

If a woman is guilty of adultery and is pregnant then the “water of condemnation” she drinks will cause her to not “retain seed”.

If you consider that a pregnant woman after drinking a bitter liquid no longer retaining “seed” involves something happening to the “seed” you’ll quickly understand what Numbers 5:26-28 is about.

After a guilty woman drinks the water her “belly will swell and her thigh will sag”. This refers to uterine and vaginal prolapse. If a pregnant woman undergoes uterine prolapse the embryo does not survive.

If you consider that OT justice demands that a woman pregnant as a result of adultery can’t be allowed to carry the embryo to term you’ll quickly understand what Numbers 5 is about.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 9:04 AM
Comment #101882

LouisXIV
That is your interpretation. I see it in a different light and teaching. Your key word is “if”.

Posted by: tomh at December 13, 2005 10:00 AM
Comment #101889

Hi tomh,

“If” is indeed the operative word.

If it’s assumed that intercourse frequently results in pregnancy then one can assume that many women who committed adultery were pregnant.

Given the way God is potrtayed in the OT it’s safe to assume that He knew intercourse resulted in pregnancy.

It’s not my interpretation by the way. I read it in “Numbers 1-20, A new translation with introduction and commentary” by Baruch Levine.

If one assumes that adultery sometimes results in pregnancy then God mandates abortion under certain circumstances according to Numbers 5.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 10:12 AM
Comment #101903

tomh, there are translations of this passage where miscarry is used instead. it is talking about abortion.

Posted by: CPAdams at December 13, 2005 10:51 AM
Comment #101911

I don’t recall who was talking about this before, but…

For what it’s worth, there have been quite a few attempts to construct moral systems that don’t rely on a conception of deity as their basis. Utilitarianism, socialism, and a lot of contemporary political philosophy fall into these realms. One can go back and read Bentham and Mill, Rousseau, Marx, Nietzsche, to name just a few, and see examples.

I really like a pretty recent book (1997?) by Melissa Orlie called “Living Ethically, Acting Politically,” wherein she grapples with questions revolving around how we can construct an ethic that is fundamentally democratic, but doesn’t ultimately rest on an appeal to some absolute.

Moral philosphy. Good times.

Posted by: Arr-squared at December 13, 2005 11:01 AM
Comment #101924

Your entire premise…”socially destructive goal of reducing men and empowering women”… is false. The empowerment of women has been a boon to society. Compare societies who keep their women under wraps to those who empower the weaker sex. Jewish culture has always been perpetuated by its women. As for your comment about child support, let your conscience be your guide.

Posted by: chuck kaufman at December 13, 2005 11:39 AM
Comment #101933

CP,
i dont have time i did yesterday but to finish where we were going:
it is true that everybody feels they are moral so in that sense you could say it is subjective. However, some moral is better than other moral because it is more logical, consistent, grounded, and time-tested.
for example, I once had a co-worker who said he believed in god. i asked him to tell me about god. he said do unto others as you would have done unto you. that’s all. that’s all? yes, that’s all. i resisted the urge to call him an idiot on the spot and took a more diplomatic approach (unusual for me. haha). anyway his concept of god was poorly constructed. he couldnt explain anything about it other than he could just sense god and that’s all god wanted. hey, i feel hungry. so maybe god just wants me to eat. anyway, let’s just say his thought process was very “light”.
As far as developing a system without a diety (which have been done plenty of times before), they are always second rate and fall apart in the long run. Why? Because at the end of the day all those systems are just men ruling over men. So there is no legitimacy. There is no higher being making the rules. its just men making rules for other men.
Let’s say for example that our government is and always has been 100% secular. so our laws are made by men (congress and president) and enforced by men (courts). the supreme court is the highest court in the US. it is composed of nine humans. the population of the US is somewhere over $200,000,000. what are the mathematical odds first of all that those 9 are truely the best 9 humans for that job? statistically, its zero percent. now, people can agree to abide by what those 9 say regardless (which will also never happen in reality…and also in reality it is never 9. its more like “five or six of us nine decided X for the rest of you hundreds of millions to abide by”. so even if the rest of the humans follow what those 9 say….it still has no legitimacy in the sense of right or wrong. its just a judgement within a system. a diety on the other hand, is superior to all the humans. therefore no reasonable person can question the diety becasue every reasonable person is still only a human no matter how smart they think they are. this is the main reason for the failure of systems without diety’s. because at the end of the day, no matter how much you make it sound pretty or above it all, its still just men ruling over men.
that got a little long but hopefully you get my overall point.

Posted by: blogthing at December 13, 2005 12:08 PM
Comment #101957

Hi blogthing,

“Because at the end of the day all those systems are just men ruling over men. So there is no legitimacy.”

You don’t believe in our system of government.

According to what you said a theocracy is the only legitimate government.

The problem is that anytime a human says “I know this is what God wants you to do” the only honest response is “you might be right”.

At least with men just ruling over men there is accountability. With theocracy any tyrant can claim God told him to do stuff and he’s off the hook.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 12:39 PM
Comment #101964

louis.
no.
just because someone says they heard a voice from god, it doesnt mean they are legit. they may be or they may not. but you are totally wrong that there is accountability of men ruling over men. every president since nixon there have been calls for impeachment but no one ever has been thrown out of office. corruption runs rampant in our system. our system is seriously seriously flawed. most of the people who run our goverment are fools and true representation of the people is dead. you have got to be kidding me that we have accountability in our system.

Posted by: blogthing at December 13, 2005 12:46 PM
Comment #101966

Hi blogthing,

“but you are totally wrong that there is accountability of men ruling over men.”

Clearly you don’t like our system of government.

What sort of system do you have in mind for God ruling over men?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 12:50 PM
Comment #101969

Hi blogthing,

“you have got to be kidding me that we have accountability in our system.”

I’m not kidding. People get voted out all the time in this country.

I’m not saying our system is perfect but there is accountability.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #101974

LouisXIV

Nowhere does the Bible outlaw abortion. In Numbers 5:26-28 abortion is mandated by God under certain circumstances.

Louis, you need to make sure that there aint anyone who will read the referances you give before you give them. Also making sure that no one is around that knows anything about the Bible will help.
Numbers 5:26-28 DOESNOT mandate the murder of an unborn child. If you’d go back to verse 12 of the same chapter an read on down through verse 28 you’ll find that this is only talking about is if a husband suspects his wife of adultry. The woman doesn’t even have to be pregant. NOWHERE in the whole chapter dealing with this topic does it say that the woman has to be pregant.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 13, 2005 12:58 PM
Comment #101975

Hi Ron,

“this is only talking about is if a husband suspects his wife of adultry.”

I know that and I said as much.

I clearly said “God mandates abortion under certain circumstances”.

Those circumstances are: A pregnant woman who is accused of adultery by her husband and is guilty.

“Louis, you need to make sure that there aint anyone who will read the referances you give before you give them.”

I need to do no such thing. You’re being quite silly.

The case comes down to “what happens when a pregnant woman is accused by her husband of adultery and is guilty…..the answer is that God mandates abortion according to Numbers 5.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 1:04 PM
Comment #101976

king louis,

i would probably like a system that moves in the direction of anarchy.

Posted by: blogthing at December 13, 2005 1:04 PM
Comment #101977

king louis,
are you a bible thumper or just a poser?

Posted by: blogthing at December 13, 2005 1:05 PM
Comment #101978

Hi blogthing,

Do you think that anarchy and rule by God are the same thing? If so I’m curious about how you know that.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 1:06 PM
Comment #101981

king louis,
you have a lot of questions. but you have yet to answer one. are you a genunine bible thumper or a dime-store preacher?

Posted by: blogthing at December 13, 2005 1:09 PM
Comment #101983

Hi blogthing,

“are you a bible thumper or just a poser?”

I am niether.

I’ve studied theology, with a concentration on the OT, from a scholarly point of view.

I am uncertain of the nature of the divine but I consider the Bible to be a really good read…full of profound truths and all that.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 1:10 PM
Comment #101986

then you are a dime-store preacher.

by the way, your view of the bible is the only one that can’t be right. its either the word of God or its one of the most destructive documents in human history. i dont think its “full of profound truths and all that….”

Posted by: blogthing at December 13, 2005 1:12 PM
Comment #101989

Hi blogthing,

“then you are a dime-store preacher.”

I’m not one of those. I don’t think it would be bad to be one but I’m not.

“your view of the bible is the only one that can’t be right.”

I very much encourage you to support that statement.

“its either the word of God or its one of the most destructive documents in human history.”

Logically it could be a bit of both or neither of those things.

“i dont think its “full of profound truths and all that….”

It’s never occured to me to argue about whether something is profound or not.

“Zeal without knowledge is not a good thing, for it makes a man slip.”-Proverbs 19:2

I think the Proverbs quote is profound but I’m not going to argue it.



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 1:19 PM
Comment #101991

king louis,

you quote the Bible a lot I notice. Why? do you believe the document has some authority? you said earlier its nothing more than a good read yet its your favorite reference tool. why not use quotes from “A brave new world” instead?
I suspect you are a great hypocrite.
by the way, Proverbs 19:2 back atcha.

Posted by: blogthing at December 13, 2005 1:23 PM
Comment #101998

Hi blogthing,

“you quote the Bible a lot I notice.”

When discussing the Bible I quote it. I go days and weeks without quoting it.

“do you believe the document has some authority?”

It has had a profound effect on civilization as we know it so I’d say it has some authority. I don’t recomend taking every word of it literaly or anything silly like that.

“you said earlier its nothing more than a good read”

I didn’t say it’s “nothing more than a good read.” I said it’s a good read. I also said it’s full of profound truths.

“why not use quotes from “A brave new world” instead?”

If we were discussing that book I probably would use quotes from it. Since we’re discussing another book is it OK with you if I quote that one?

“I suspect you are a great hypocrite.”

Please support or retract that statement.



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 1:31 PM
Comment #102004

louis,

i didnt know the topic we have been discussing was the bible but i guess you thought it was.

“i suspect you are a great hypocrite”
I dont have to support or retract because its not an absolute statement, only a suspicion. please read more closely next time. I hope your interpretation of your bible is better than that.

knowledge without wisdom is not a good thing. For it makes a man slip.

well, i am officially bored with this discussion. have a nice day.

Posted by: blogthing at December 13, 2005 1:38 PM
Comment #102012

Hi Blogthing,

“i didnt know the topic we have been discussing was the bible”

You brought it up. I was asking you about what you said about God ruling government and you brought up the Bible.

“I dont have to support or retract because its not an absolute statement”

Do you have a basis for suspecting I’m a hypocrite?

If I said “I suspect you are a pig sexer” would you say I didn’t need to support it because it’s not an absolute statement?

You said that my view of the Bible “is the only one that can’t be right”.

I don’t suppose you’ll support that statement either.

Unsupported accusations are quite sleazy blogthing. You have a lot to learn about civilized discourse.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 1:47 PM
Comment #102022

Louis
Proverb 19:2
Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good; and he that hasteth with his feet sinnith.
I don’t knoe where you got you Bible learning from, but if I were you I’d ask for my money back.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 13, 2005 2:07 PM
Comment #102025

Hi blogthing,

“lets say for this argument that he is the christian god, the life is sacred becasue he said so and he is god. period.”

Nowhere does the Bible outlaw abortion. In Numbers 5:26-28 abortion is mandated by God under certain circumstances.

“if he does not really exist, then life is not sacred and all morality, law, etc, is a house of cards.”

Some of “God’s laws” (as appear in the Bible) are extremely imoral by modern standards. I’m talking about laws that mandate death for blasphemy, idolatry, adultery, and whatnot.

I assume you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you consider to be moral?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 12, 2005 09:48 PM


Funny I don’t see you saying anything about these verses talking about adultry here.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 13, 2005 2:11 PM
Comment #102031

Let the unborn person have a chance to live IT’S OWN LIFE. How could a woman live with herself after terminating the innocent, precious life that grows inside of her. Many women live their life with serious emotional, and psychological problems after aborting their child.

OK, had to make a comment on the above. If you were a woman that was raped, the fetus is still “innocent”, but to have to be reminded daily of being raped for 40 wks is crazy-making.
If you were a woman that was told that to continue with your pregnancy would KILL you, well it is up to you, your doctor and your conscouis if you were going to continue or not.

So most reasonable folks would say, “oh but we do not expect women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest or that their lives are threatened to continue with their pregnancies”.
But according to this definition as related in the copied portion from someone’s post, it is still an innocent life, it did not choose the circumstances of its coming about.

We cannot force women to have babies against their will. We cannot force a woman who has been raped to continue with its pregnancy. We cannot force a child of 12 who had incestual sex with her father/brother/uncle/grandfather to continue with a pregnancy. We cannot force a woman who got pregnant on purpose (or accident for that matter) who had intended to have a child and then finds out she will DIE if she continues the pregnancy, to tell her that Oh well, we insist you try to have this baby against your will.( for that matter we also cannot force a woman to have an abortion against her will)

That is why roe v. wade is a law. Too many women would have had an abortion and died as a result of it, no matter the law. Too many women would want to commit suicide if forced to continue a pregnancy. Don’t we want all babies brought into the world to be wanted? Don’t we appreciate the women who agree to have a baby and give it up for adoption? Do we really want more unwanted children to be born, than already is?

As for the people who say, all abortions should be illegal and there are millions of people willing to adopt….then why do we have children in the foster care system? There are plenty of children that went into the system that do not have parents or have parents willing to give up custody. What about these children? They are unwanted. Either due to the circumstances of their births (i.e. born to drug moms,and/or bi-racial, and/or were abused as babies) or due to the failings of our society.

And someone made an important comment way back when, what about the eggs from fertilization? Why can we throw these away, but abortions are “killing babies”?

Incidentally, I looked up Numbers 5:26-28 and my Ryrie Study Bible (admittedly not the most accurate bible translation in the world, but adequate for me) said that it was the waters of Jealousy, not condemnation. And it would cause the woman’s abdomen to swell and her thigh to wither, not cause a baby to die.

And whoever wrote that there is no mention of abortions in the bible, either pro or con, THANK YOU!

During biblical times, a pregnant woman was the property of either her husband or her father. If they should cause the pregnancy to end, this was not considered a Killing.

Having said the above, I do agree with the man who wrote that if we consider a fetus to be just a clump of cells, then why does one get charged with 2 counts of murder when one kills a pregnant woman? I agree, it should only be one murder charge. Sorry, but the woman could have been a saint for all I care, she is the only one alive at that point and living on her own. A fetus cannot live outside the mother….yet.

People who are calling each other names….puh-leeze! Could you just put more thought into your posts? None of us want to read you calling FREC liars, or stupid. None of us want to read you calling liberals, murderers. If you cannot have intelligent discourse with the rest of us, consider not posting.

JMO
Antonia

Posted by: Antonia at December 13, 2005 2:31 PM
Comment #102032

If the Bible is not literally correct, then who determines which parts are correct and which are wrong. And if the Bible is not literally correct then God is a liar. I prefer to believe that God is not a liar and that the Bible is the Word of God and is literally and totally correct. The Bible I refer to is the KJV.

Posted by: tomh at December 13, 2005 2:32 PM
Comment #102033

Ron,

the reason is that Louis is a hypocrite. He openly says the bible is not the word of god. yet he constantly quotes it and refers to it and expects other to take it very seriously. in fact, he uses the bible as the basis for most of his arguments even though he considers it nothing more than a good read. why does he try to hold others to this book that is just a good read. so he says it is only just a good read and yet it is the basis and rebuttal for most of his arguments. what special sort of fool would base most of his arguments on nothing more than a good book? he also says it has truths. why are they truths? they are just ideas in a good book.
he is a textbook hypocrite: holding others to standards he does not hold himself to.

Posted by: blogthing at December 13, 2005 2:34 PM
Comment #102034

Why the King James version? What about the ones before and the ones since? Did God get those wrong?

Posted by: Dave at December 13, 2005 2:35 PM
Comment #102038

Why the King James version? What about the ones before and the ones since? Did God get those wrong?

Posted by: Dave at December 13, 2005 02:35 PM

No Dave, man got them wrong.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 13, 2005 2:40 PM
Comment #102039

If the Bible is not literally correct, then who determines which parts are correct and which are wrong. And if the Bible is not literally correct then God is a liar. I prefer to believe that God is not a liar and that the Bible is the Word of God and is literally and totally correct. The Bible I refer to is the KJV.

Posted by: tomh at December 13, 2005 02:32 PM


I’M WITH YOU 100%!

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 13, 2005 2:43 PM
Comment #102042

Hi Ron,

“I don’t knoe where you got you Bible learning from, but if I were you I’d ask for my money back.”

Would you please indicate what I’ve said that is incorrect about the Bible? If you can’t do that perhaps you’ll retract that statement?

I don’t think you have the integrity to support or retract that statement. Here’s your chance to prove me wrong Ron!


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 2:50 PM
Comment #102044

Hi tomh,

“And if the Bible is not literally correct then God is a liar.”

Uh…Tom? If you stop and think about it what you said is quite silly.

Men wrote the Bible. If the men who wrote the Bible wrote something that isn’t literaly true then it’s THE MEN WHO SAID IT RATHER THAN GOD.

Do you believe that God wants us to kill people for blasphemy and idolatry?

Do you think that there were Human-headed, eagle-winged, bull-lions guarding the gates to Eden as Genesis would have it?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 2:56 PM
Comment #102047

Hi blogthing,

“the reason is that Louis is a hypocrite. He openly says the bible is not the word of god.”

Would you please stop lying about me? Do you realize that God hates liars? (Proverbs 6:17)

“he is a textbook hypocrite: holding others to standards he does not hold himself to.”

Why don’t you back that up or admit that you’re lying?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 3:02 PM
Comment #102048

tomh,
Congratulations! You are the ONLY person I have ever hear of that has adopted children older than a year. At least you act as you believe.

George:

In North Carolina attempted suicide is a misdemeanour. I think it is a still a felony in South Carolina, however, neither State enforces these laws. I don’t know about the rest.

Actually in N.C. it is not any type of crime to attempt to commit suicide. On the other hand, it is a automatic Death Penatly if one is found to have ACTUALLY commited suicide. I’ve often wondered how the state would enforce the law.

Antonia,
I noticed that other than Ron (no offense intended), no one actually replied regarding your post. I totally agree with you. You outlined the situation very well.

As far as women’s rights verses men’s rights regarding abortion. I doubt any man can (and it’s not their fault) understand what happens to a woman while she is pregnant. The emotional turmoil a woman goes though, the possible loss of financial support, if as I was, told to quit my job by my doctor. (I didn’t, I thought eating was important, and consequently I lost one of the twins I was carrying. My husband, the father of our/my children didn’t care about working,and did little to nothing to support either he or me, let alone a baby.) I won’t even get into what it was like to raise our 3 girls, with their father around. He finally left. There is no way this man should have had any say about whether I should keep these children. Outside of donating the sperm, he did nothing to help out.

An Abuser has no business being envolved with this type of decision. Unfortunately many abused women are afraid to tell anyone they are pregnant,and all H@#l breaks loose when the pregnancy

Several of you mentioned that women have options and men have obligations. Surely you are being funny! If all men truly faced their “obligations” there might be less single parent mothers running around. I don’t simply mean financially, but the role of father-hood, which is extremely important. Unfortunately they can also leave. That is considered an OPTION.

Women have only three options to keep ( financially try to raise the baby), be accused of murder, or adoption. If more couples were like thom, that would be a very variable option. However most parents want a baby,a healthy baby, and most of them want a white baby. I am not trying to be racist here, but those tend to be the statistics. Anyone have any suggestions for the other children?

Men do not experience the sleepless nights, heart-burn, morning sickness…, etc, let alone the pain of childbirth… They do not know what it is like to carry another person inside one’s body, and how difficult it is to give it away.

People speak and write as if having an abortion is some kind of easy decision, It’s not.

And then the OTHER issue. The one no one ever discusses, the child’s life once it is born. It appears to me that most anti-abortionists never think further than the birth. What kind of life will a baby grow up in if born to a drug addict? What about the probable drug addiction of the baby? Or even worse a child/teenage mom? A child of rape or incest? A family that simply can not afford to feed their own, let alone finically support the costs of a new mouth. (I have talked to women who already had 6 or 7 children, but due to their beliefs did not use medical birth control, and now don’t know where to turn because both parents have been laid off….)

Were any of you raised by drug addicts, and alcoholics? Used by boyfriends of one’s mother? Starved for food, let alone affection? Beaten regularly simply because one was there? KNEW YOU ARE UNWANTED? Lost your mother to a backroom abortion? Spent your teenage years hated,made fun of, and black & blue because your step-mother also hated your existence.

I was. Believe me it’s not a bowl of cherries. And I was one of the lucky ones. My teachers cared about me, my neighbors cared about me. And most importantly I survived. There have been and are many times in my life I honestly wished my mother had aborted me. Still do. It’s called low self-esteem.

I currently work with these children, I see the abuse that they receive, the loveless lives they live, deal with those born with birth defects; I attend the funerals of the little one’s born addicted to crack, heroin, or worse, killed by their mothers, live in boyfriends, or other care givers.

Convince me that all of these children will live in safe,healthy, happy, loving homes, and I will change my mind. Until then, I will support abortion. As for who makes the decision, it is only logical that it be the Mother…

Posted by: Linda H. at December 13, 2005 3:02 PM
Comment #102050

Hi Ron,

“Funny I don’t see you saying anything about these verses talking about adultry here.”

Are you accusing me of something Ron?

You are aware that, according to the Bible, God hates liars? (Proverbs 6:17)

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 3:05 PM
Comment #102051

louis, I did back it up with two paragraphs. and any readers can view the entire exchange if they dont believe it. you just cant handle it and now you squirm like a stuck pig.

Posted by: blogthing at December 13, 2005 3:10 PM
Comment #102053

Antonia,
Make that both posts. You have made some excellent points.
Linda H.

Posted by: Linda H. at December 13, 2005 3:13 PM
Comment #102062

Hi Blogthing,

“he is a textbook hypocrite: holding others to standards he does not hold himself to.”

You have provided no examples of that. You are lying and I’m requesting that you stop.

You do realize that, according to the Bible, God hates liars?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 3:19 PM
Comment #102063

louis and ron,

“you are aware that, according to the bible, god hates liars - proverbs 6:17

louis, to what god are you referring to? it sounds like you are referring to the god of the bible. but surely that cannot be. after all, the bible is an interesting book with some truths but not the word of god, right? surely we must have misunderstood you here. surely, you are not saying that god speak through the bible. or does your hypocrisy know no bounds?
well, ron, the stuck pig is ready for sausages. bring on my next debate victim…… :P

Posted by: blogthing at December 13, 2005 3:22 PM
Comment #102070

Hi blogthing,

“louis, to what god are you referring to?”

When I’m quoting the Bible I’m refering to the God that is mentioned in the Bible.

“not the word of god, right?”

I don’t know. There is a considerable amount of evidence that men wrote the Book but I don’t know if God was dictating or not.

“or does your hypocrisy know no bounds?”

I’ve asked you several times not to lie about me. Why are you still lying about me?

What is it with you that you need to lie in order to discuss the Bible?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 3:29 PM
Comment #102076

Are you accusing me of something Ron?

You are aware that, according to the Bible, God hates liars? (Proverbs 6:17)

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 03:05 PM

Sorry Louis, I meant murdering babies. My bad.

Would you please indicate what I’ve said that is incorrect about the Bible? If you can’t do that perhaps you’ll retract that statement?

How about your reference to Numbers 5:26-28 being a mandate from God for murdering unborn babies.
Numbers 5:26-28 KJV
26.And the priest shall take an handfull of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the alter, and afterward shall cause the women to drink the water.
27.And when he hath made her ro drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husbsnd, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and shall become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse amoung her people.
28. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conseive seed.

There is nothing there that calls for murdering an unborn baby. It doesn’t even talk about the women being pregant.


Posted by: Ron Brown at December 13, 2005 3:41 PM
Comment #102079

Hi Ron,

The Bible doesn’t prohibit abortion.

“It doesn’t even talk about the women being pregant.”

I know that. If the woman was pregnant, guilty, and drank the liquid she would abort……cease to “retain seed”.

“and the water has entered her body, she will suffer a miscarriage or untimely birth, and…”-Numbers 5:27 The New English Bible

The translation I provided earlier was a more literal one. In a guilty woman the bitter liquid causes a woman’s uterus and vagina to prolapse (Belly to swell and thigh to drop) which would certainly result in abortion in a pregnant woman.

I like the KJV but it’s not the most accurate translation.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 13, 2005 3:50 PM
Comment #102189

For anyone to think that one version of the Bible is some how more right than another version must of not learned the first lesson that the book trys to teach. For if God is The Word and The Word is God than what is Right and True must come from how the Word is Spoken. Thus, for a Human to read and understand the meanings of the Words than they have to be spoken.

However, be warned for Man and his Nature wrote these words to serve his own needs and wants not that which is known by all to be right. Look at the history of the Bible and the reasons that it has so many versions in print than ask yourself which Leader of Man told the unbridged Truth and included that which can prove him wrong by Nature. No, history has proven that even the first bible left out many Human Teachings that were part of the Divine Teachings of the Word, yet not even the prerachers of today are willing to admit that every Human has the natural ability to tell the difference between what they Know to be Right and that of which by the teachings of other Humans are believed to be Right. Sort of like a Man telling a Woman that he understands what it is like to be pregnant.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 13, 2005 8:49 PM
Comment #102217

Antonia,

One of my post’s is one of the posts that you made reference to. I started to mention some of the things that you spoke about. I wanted someone like yourself, a woman to bring out the topics. I am against abortion, But, I do agree that some abortions are necessary, or should be allowed without any guilt, if there can be an abortion without guilt, or disgrace. Incest, rape, or an obvious pregnancy that the baby is not going to live a productive, serious problem free life, The mother should be able to abort. These are serious situations that could bring more harm than good in the long run. These baby’s can go to heaven without being forced to live in these sircumstances. Where to draw the line on defective babies is difficult to address, so I can understand the stance on no abortions at all. However, a life in total misery without any chance of ever living without total misery is not a good, or happy life to live. Provided the person has the understanding of happiness.
I do think that a person can live an unhappy life and find happiness later in life.


Linda H.

You also mentioned things that I wanted a woman or someone in your shoes to bring to the table. I applaud you for being a survivor. I am a different kind of survivor. You responded to one of my posts in the democratic blog. You said that I chose a sensitive subject today. I said that all topics in these blogs are sensitive. And that the more sensitive , the more reason to talk about it. I have been trying to bring out responces on abortion. Finally, there is a blog on it.
Yes, I too am a survivor. My survival is from depression from the world being so screwed up. People don’t have to be so stupid as to create problems. Still, they choose to do so. Welcome to the real world. I was raised to believe that everything is good. But it is not. Too many problems sent me on a downhill spiral. I survived. So I believe that those unwanted kids can learn to make a difference. Most of the people in helping professions are survevors of abuse, or something. Someone like yourself shouldn’t feel guilty after all those kids that you have helped. You are their inspiration, and guiding light. Bless you for what you do. Linda, you are a real hero. Only survivos like yourself can truely understand the situations that you mentioned. Being a survivor of my past, I can understand alot also. Keep your head up, for you are far to important to feel so down about your past. Your past is your past. My past still bothers me at times. I just get stronger from it. Those kids need you, so allways be strong for them. More importantly, be strong for yourself, and thanks for speaking out about this topic. People don’t know about what you live every day. Now more people do.

Posted by: rick at December 13, 2005 10:44 PM
Comment #102264
If the Bible is not literally correct, then who determines which parts are correct and which are wrong. And if the Bible is not literally correct then God is a liar. I prefer to believe that God is not a liar and that the Bible is the Word of God and is literally and totally correct. The Bible I refer to is the KJV.

The Bible is not literally correct, I have done some research on the history of the Bible. No modern day english version of the bible is a translation of the original autographs. All modern day versions (over 100) are based on the 19th century Revised Bible (except the KJV). Many are translations of translations. The Revised Bible came about because at the time, they believe that much of Scripture was in need of update to put them in plain English. However, they do not simply use modern language, they also say things entirely different from the early English and foreign language versions of the Scriptures.

The only one not based on the Revised Bible of 1881 is the Authorized KJV. The KJV 1611 Edition contains a 9 statement disclaimer titled “the translators to the readers”, in which the translators admit that a perfect translation is not possible. The 1611 version also contained in the side margin, notes citing when they did not know the proper or best way to translate this or that. Additionally the translators often changed the wording or omitted words to make verses flow more smoothly.

And if the Bible is not literally correct then God is a liar.

Not so. God knew that the bible would be altered, and he tells us as much. The Bible contains four warnings about adding or taking away from the word. Why would God warn against altering the bible and prescribe a punishment for doing so, unless he knew it would happen? And we know that it has happened many times over.

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” (II Thess. 2:11)

Jesus warns us about possible deceptions as well. In Matthew 23, Jesus called the Religious Scholars and Theologians of the time(Scribes and Pharisees) fools, hypocrites (7 times), blind guides, whited sepulchers, a generation of snakes. He tells them: “for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men and woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites”

“which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. … Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity..”

“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”

Jesus said these things about the people responsible for preserving and teaching the scriptures.

who determines which parts are correct and which are wrong

God does. He tells us that “every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him.” Does that mean that he protects the actual written words contained in the Bible? Personally, I don’t think so. The real understanding is in the SPIRIT and not in the LETTER. Certainly God uses both, but the spirit will lead us to the truth if we trust in him. God wants us to seek the truth, thereby seek him, not just read the words in Bible or attend a Church and never reach Sanctification.

Jer. 31:33, But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Ezek. 36:27, And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

“Those who seek and don’t stop seeking, shall find. Those that find, shall be disgusted. Those that are disgusted, shall rejoice.” -Jesus Christ, from the Gospel of Thomas, found in 1947 in Nag Hammdi, Egypt.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 14, 2005 2:45 AM
Comment #102281

Hi JayJay,

“The Bible is not literally correct”

That is true.

In Exodus 6:3 God says that Abraham et. al. didn’t know that His name was YHWH. Genesis is full of examples of Abraham et. al. refering to God as “YHWH”.

The KJV is an extremely beautiful translation. It was written by aristocrats/intellectuals of the time which means it was written by brilliant fornicators and King James was homosexual.

There is certainly no Biblical evidence that the KJV is the one true word of God.

Bible archaeology has advanced enough so that there is, in many cases, a solid basis for “literal translation” from Masoretic, Septuagint, and other ancient versions.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 14, 2005 7:49 AM
Comment #102289

JayJay,
I’m glad someone can remember all that off the top of their head. Although most Human Teachings have been altered to suit the need of our Civil, Political, and Religous Leaders of Society over the eons, the very fact that Humans still have faith in The Word of God by Human Nature does makes one wonder; however, as a Society is it not the Duty and Responsibility of our Civil, Political, and Religous Leaders to win the war with the Devil of Civilization? Hopefully someday the Right will figure out “I the Rapitalist” is just a consumer out of control. What do you think?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 14, 2005 8:45 AM
Comment #102353
I’m glad someone can remember all that off the top of their head.

Hey Henry,
I was put in a position of either seek the truth, or give up my faith. God tells us he will lead us to truth if we trust in him. So, that is what I did. As God as my guide I set out to find the truth. So, far I have only scratched the surface, but my faith has only been strengthened by what he has lead me to so far.

Although most Human Teachings have been altered to suit the need of our Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders of Society over the eons

This statement is very true. Man has been tampering with the written words of the God from the very beginning (look at what a Canon is). Let us not forget politics were alive and well at the time. Today we have a better understanding of biblical history. It is quite amazing that in 1947 there was not just one, but two major and important Biblical discoveries; The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Library. Both these discoveries contained the Gnostic scriptures (although the DSS copies were not well preserved). This was an important discovery because it was thought that these scriptures had been destroyed by the original Church in a violent campaign, to rid the world of these scriptures. Why would the church do this? Because the Gnostic scriptures, and the Gnostic Christians of the time, downplay the importance of the Church. Let’s not forget the Church is a multi billion dollar a year business.

Hopefully someday the Right will figure out “I the Rapitalist” is just a consumer out of control. What do you think?

I do not think that will ever happen, nor do I think it is in God’s plan. I believe that God often puts us all in situations that cause us to question what is being taught. What is important is how we react to those situations. Some will not react at all and continue in blind faith, others will react by seeking the truth, and others will react by giving up their faith. God was quite straightforward about warning us that there would be many deceptions, and gave us ways to avoid them. Don’t get me wrong the Church serves an important purpose in spirituality and faith, but we must learn to think outside the box that is the Church.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 14, 2005 12:12 PM
Comment #102354

Rick,
I appreciate your kind words, but frankly I didn’t mean to evoke sympathy for myself. Or any type of
Heroic praise about what I do.

I simply want people to realize there is another side to the abortion issue. That of the children. I honestly don’t see how forcing a woman or a couple to have an unwanted child helps the child.

Do they really believe that these children are going to live happily ever after? Many of these babied end up in trash cans, abandoned on the steps of strangers, murdered, etc. A great number live in total turmoil all of their lives. Many grow to become abusers themselves. Domestic Violence is already at an all time high. Do you really want our children to grow up in this type of environment?

Come on folks, put on your thinking caps.

Posted by: Linda H. at December 14, 2005 12:20 PM
Comment #102373
The KJV is an extremely beautiful translation. It was written by aristocrats/intellectuals of the time which means it was written by brilliant fornicators and King James was homosexual.

Hi Louis,

The KJV was commissioned by King James in a time that the common man did not posses copies of the Bible, only the Churches possessed copies in English. The KJV was to be his gift to his people. Thus in 1603, King James called upon 54 learned men to interpret the bible. I say interpret because an English translation was already available to the Churches. The mission of King James was to to put a version of the bible in the hands of the people in words that they understood, much like the reasons for the Revised Bible of 1881.

This idea created many enemies of King James, and assassination attempts on his life. One of his biggest critics was Anthony Weldon who swore vengeance against the King. 25 years after the King’s death Weldon released a paper that claimed the King was homosexual. Since the King was dead he could not confirm nor deny these accusations. However, there were still many people alive that knew the King and knew the claim was not true. The claim was mostly dismissed, until recently when it was discovered by “Christians” who hoped to use it to tarnish the KJV. It has mostly not worked.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 14, 2005 1:01 PM
Comment #102509

JayJay,
As long as Freewill exists in the Human Race, I do believe that we are safe from that happening. However, I do believe the “God” did believe that over time we would learn the secert to governing ourselve as Consumers. For it is in this realm of thinking that Religion and Society are so interwoven in our Nature that one can only wonder why all Humans have never been allowed to earn the money to pay for what they consume if our Laws are based on that fact.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 14, 2005 7:53 PM
Comment #102512

Linda H.

The information about the childrens lives is what I wanted to bring out. I have learned some info myself. I hoped someone would come forth with an inside view, and teach us all about their situations. My life has probably been too easy to truely understand what these kids live through. Just how difficult it is to bring themselves out of their situation and become a productive person. I survived a bad situation, and probably had it easy compared to these kids.

The praise I gave you is justified.

What persentage of kids are survivors like yourself? I would like to know. I don’t know how to do research.

Posted by: rick at December 14, 2005 8:05 PM
Comment #102527

Rick,
I wish I could answer your question, because then I might feel more hopeful about the plight of these children. Problem is, just like many rapes, many of these crimes go unrepported. After all, we’ve taught most of our children very well, ‘rock the boat and life just gets worse’. Besides, many of the abused children are much as I was, they think their lives are normal, many until it’s too late to help.

It constantly amazes me to realize that there ARE NO NUMBERS to actually be able to see what the statistics are. I guess they have to die to be counted.

For anyone truly interested in more information about this topic, please check with your local Guardian Ad Litem Programs, Big Brother/Big Sister Programs, or call your local DSS or Juvenile Justice Departments for more areas in which to volunteer. I am involved in all of these, and can tell you, while one of the most difficult jobs one can every have, the rewards are without equal.
Linda H

Posted by: Linda H. at December 14, 2005 8:55 PM
Comment #102533

Hi JayJay,

“The claim was mostly dismissed,”

I think there was some correspondance that made a pretty strong case for him being at least a bit “light in the loafers”.

According to Will Durant King James engaged in homosexuality and Durant was unbiased. I think “God’s Secretaries” indicates that King James was homosexual as well.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 14, 2005 9:12 PM
Comment #102563
According to Will Durant King James engaged in homosexuality and Durant was unbiased. I think “God’s Secretaries” indicates that King James was homosexual as well.

Louis,

I have no idea if King James was gay or not. All I can tell you for sure is that I have never run into him at a gay bar. I’m really not sure what point you are trying to make. What differance does it make if he waas gay or not?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 14, 2005 11:58 PM
Comment #102630

Can you give me your moral & legal point of view on euthenasia ? How could it be both moral & legal act ? thanks. I just want to know ASAP so I may know where to stand.

God Bless

Posted by: Aldrei N. MArtinez at December 15, 2005 4:55 AM
Comment #102654

Hi JayJay,

“What differance does it make if he waas gay or not?”

Very little as far as I’m concerned.

Those who are fanatical about the KJV being the only true translation tend to attack other translations for having homsexuals on the staff of translators and whatnot.

It’s not a big point except to those who are obsessed with the KJV being the true words of God.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 7:53 AM
Comment #102759

Can you give me your moral & legal point of view on euthenasia ? How could it be both moral & legal act ? thanks. I just want to know ASAP so I may know where to stand.

God Bless

Posted by: Aldrei N. MArtinez at December 15,
2005 04:55 AM

It is immoral and so far illegal. Even of it does become legal, and some want it to be, it would still be immoral.
Just beacuse something is legal doesn’t mean it’s moral. And just because it’s moral doesn’t mean it’s legal.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 15, 2005 10:52 AM
Comment #102773

WOW!
Lets see how many other burning issues we can talk about in this one Blog! Abortion, the Bible, now euthenasia! Frankly my head hurts! ;-)

Linda H.

Posted by: Linda H. at December 15, 2005 11:49 AM
Comment #102785

Euthanasia is the ultimate expression of love. That you are willing to forever let go of a person in your life to save them the pain and degredation of a terminal and debilitating disease is admirable.
It should remain illegal so that only those driven as above will risk the consequence.

Posted by: Dave at December 15, 2005 12:24 PM
Comment #102902

Here we go again.
Liberials want to kill everyone but murderers.
They want to murder babies before they’re born.
They want to murder people because they’re sick.
Read the comments here then read the comments to ‘Tookie to be Terminated’ on the same side of this blog. You’ll get the drift.
Is there ANYONE other than murderers that they don’t wnat to kill?

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 15, 2005 5:48 PM
Comment #102905

Aldrei N. MArtinez,

In my own opinion, The moral issues of euthanasia or even suicide, can only be determined by the person wishing to die and God. I personally don’t have a problem with physician assisted suicide. I am a strong believer, though that we should be able to take responsibility for ourselves, esp. when it comes to something so intimate. I do not believe that our government should have any say in when we die. (except the death penalty which is a punishment)

I believe that it should be legal but regulated. There should be compelling reasons, a physiological evaluation, a competency hearing, medical evaluations, and only after all alternatives for relieving suffering have been exhausted, and should only be legal under the supervision of a physician certified in such matters and in a clinical setting.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 15, 2005 6:04 PM
Comment #102907
Liberials want to kill everyone but murderers…Is there ANYONE other than murderers that they don’t want to kill?

Ron,

I have been called a leftist liberal by some here more than once. Personally, I do not want to kill anybody, except murderers. I just think each of us needs to be responsible for ourselves. I personally would never consider abortion as an option, I cannot say what I would do if someone I loved was suffering and in pain and was begging to die. I think that is really something you cannot answer until you are faced with it. As far as the death penalty is concerned as long as all appeals are exhausted, then I don’t really see anything wrong with it.

The point is that I don’t think any of us know exactly how we would react to certain situations, until we are actually faced with them.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 15, 2005 6:17 PM
Comment #102912

Hi Ron,

“Liberials want to kill everyone but murderers.”

Why are you still repeating this sort of lie? We’re you raised to lie a lot or is it something you picked up on our own?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 6:38 PM
Comment #102924

When you can’t argue with what is posted start calling people liars.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 15, 2005 7:35 PM
Comment #102925

Hi Ron,

When you repeat those lies of yours it’s not arguing….it’s just lying.

“Liberials want to kill everyone but murderers.”

There is nothing to argue about. That’s a filthy lie.

Why do you frequently lie about those you disagree with? Is it because you’re out of ideas or do you just like to lie all the time?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 15, 2005 7:43 PM
Comment #102929
When you can’t argue with what is posted start calling people liars. Posted by: Ron Brown at December 15, 2005 07:35 PM

Ron,

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…it’s a duck. Nobody wants to murder anybody, unless your a Psychopath.

“They want to murder babies before they’re born.” -No we don’t. Nothing would make us happier than if the abortion rate were 0%. The sad fact is, that will never happen. Never. Again, I guess I have to keep repeating, most liberals are not for the act of abortion, we are for the choice of roe vs. wade. Roe vs.. Wade has been the law of the land for over 33 years and it really doesn’t look like it is going anywhere any time soon. It is time we stop wasting so much time and energy debating whether it is murder or not, and time to start working to prevent the incidences of unwanted pregnancy in the first place. For a group that charges with words like “murderer” you seem pretty unconcerned about preventing the necessity to begin with. Most people look at this issue as pro-choice or pro-life, very few look at as pro-prevention. I think it’s time we start.

“They want to murder people because they’re sick.” -No we do not. Dave did a very nice job of expressing the feeling on this. Allowing someone you love die to save them from suffering and indignity is done with extreme compassion. To characterize it any differently is cruel and insensitive.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 15, 2005 8:28 PM
Comment #102936

If yaall don’t like someone saying yaall support murdering unborn babies and the sick, but don’t want murderers to be executed. QUIT DOING IT!
When yaall say that murdering unborn babies is ok. Your for doing it.
When you say it’s ok to murder someone that’s sick. Your for doing it.
When you say that murders shouldn’t be executed. Your against it.
Your right JayJay, If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck. IT’S A DUCK!

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 15, 2005 9:03 PM
Comment #102945

Ron,

Ok if you say so. But you really don’t help your position by calling people murderers. Unless you’re going to offer a reasonable solution then you are just perpetuating the problem.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 15, 2005 9:25 PM
Comment #102947

Ron,
You state that you are against euthanasia so lets find out just where you draw the line. Say you and a best friend are in the back country (8-10 hours from the nearest help) hiking through the woods when all of a sudden your best friend falls and is mortally wounded. With only hours to live and unable to travel what would you do if your best friend asked you to end his life? Set and watch him die a long drawn out death, leave him alone to die while you say that you are going for help, or grant him his wish so that he does not have to take his own life and thus create the ultimate sin. Not an easy choice to make, but one that has to be made due to the conditions. So how do you come to terms with your actions morally?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 15, 2005 9:33 PM
Comment #103034

All of you have made wonderful arguments both ways. I have been sterile for 10 years. My preacher got this other preacher to give me a drink of water that was supposed to be the water of condemnation. My stomach, which my preacher knew already had a tumor, was supposed to swell and my thighs sag. They always sagged since I was 13. I was pronounced an adulterer. I wasn’t pregnant though and the only man I knew was my husband. Of course, he was committing adultery. Maybe it had something to do with him. Americans are some of the dumbest people at times. I think this means that America is seriously lacking in human intelligence.

Posted by: chiqagolil at December 16, 2005 4:44 AM
Comment #103038

There is no Numbers 5:26-28. The verses stop at verse 19.

Posted by: Maria at December 16, 2005 4:53 AM
Comment #103091

Maria
What version of the Bible are you using?
Numbers 5 has 31 verses in it. Get yourself a King James and look at it.
It sounds like you might have a version that leaves out things. Some do this in order to try to make the Bible say what they want it too.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 16, 2005 8:46 AM
Comment #103095

JayJay
Murder is murder. And someone that committs it is a murderer. The solution in this case is to outlaw the murder of innocent unborn babies.

Henry
I hope I never have to face something like that. While none of us know exactly what we’d do until we’re faced with the situation, I really believe that I wouldn’t kill him.
As a part of my job in the Air Force I was trained as a paramedic. While I didn’t go into that feild when I retired and didn’t keep my license up I know extensive first aid. I very seldom go anywhere without a first aid kit. Specially wayout in the woods.
What I’d be doing is to try to make him as comfortible as possible. Then I would work on a way to take him out of there. Hopefully I could get him to help before its to late, and I might not be able to do it, But I sure as hell would try.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 16, 2005 9:02 AM
Comment #103096

chiqagolil
Sounds like you need to find another preacher.
The one you have sounds like a scondral to me.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 16, 2005 9:05 AM
Comment #103117

Ron,
I hope that you do not have to be faced with that problem; however, I can not see an Indivudual freely giving up that right as a Human. Yes, it would be hard to do, but self-survival and self-pride are two of the most important principles of a righteous man. Thus reverse the roles and ask yourself if you would want to put your best friends life at risk waiting for you to die?

IMO I think that the American Indians had the right idea when it came to this situation. As a man mortally hurt, I can not allow the lives of others be harmed. Therefore, go my friend and if the Spirits see fit we will meet again.

No, life is honored more when Humans are willing to give it freely so that others may live. Thus the taking of life for whatever reason should only be done for survival, never for revenge. Because who are you punishing in reality? The Human you claim is going from this realm of life and thus can not care.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 16, 2005 10:40 AM
Comment #103164

Henry
I would say that most people without the kind of training I’ve had would be better off to leave their friend behind. They’d most likey second guess themselves for the rest of their lives.
I was in the Search and Rescue Service while I was in the Air Force. Our motto was ‘That Others Might Live.’ The training and job involved being able to carry injured persons long distances. As well a treating their wounds. So you can see where I would attempt things like this, whereas someone wouldn’t.
As to weather I would ask someone to leave me in the same situation. Yes I would. I wouldn’t risk their lives. And if they did attempt to get me out and were killed in the process, I’d have a hard time dealing with it if I survived.
Risk my life, Yes. Risk their lives, NO.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 16, 2005 12:08 PM
Comment #103778

I have always thought that choice is a misnomer. Clearly the choice has already been made and what is at issue is changing one’s mind in the face of undesired consequences of the original choice. In order to achieve equality there should be the option of a male abortion. This could probably be handled at the local abortion clinic where men could go and get a certificate of abortion absolving them of all responsibility for the “unviable tissue mass.”

Posted by: Alan Olsen at December 18, 2005 11:24 AM
Comment #103997

Ron,
I agree that one’s knowledge and ability does hold them accountable to a higher rule of law; however, given the fact that you understand that sometimes a life or death situation exist, how can you justify forcing a person to bring life if this world when they and society can/will not address ensuring that Every Human’s Basic Needs (i.e. Breath, Drink, & Food) is met?

At over 6.5 Million deaths a year caused directly from the unavailbility of Basic Needs and the unwillingness for the Pro-Life side of the debate to join the Pro-Choice politically in solving this problem over 40 yeaers ago and to date, as a man, I have to question what I would do if faced bringing a child into this world knowing that 1) I could not afford to care for the child porperly and 2) Society for al its’ talk about charity and doing the right thing does not and will not provide me the means to live righteously and provide my family with “A Simple Productive Life.” For is that not one of our Unalienable Rights guranteed to use by our “Creator?” If Man is ever to govern himself and others that Divine Law must be met by our freewill or IMHO “We” are not building a ERighteous World therefore, all bets are off.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at December 18, 2005 11:22 PM
Comment #207270

The Christian Community in Desperate need

As every one knows the situation of Christian Community in Pakistan : like living amongst the fundamental Muslims who have rigged ideas about the Christian Community. They don’t want any one to make progresses.

Majority of Christian Community is living in the slam and remote areas. They are suffering from austere poverty. It is difficult for them to fulfill their basic needs. Most of the children are deprived of education. They just roam around and are getting wild and inhuman. This situation makes us said.

We being young, feel, that God has a plan for every one’s future. We have opened a small school for the adults. We are trying to fulfill all the needs from our pockets but it is difficult to manage from our little salaries. We had some seminars for to give awareness how can we become strong and good Christians.

Please we request you to assist us to carry on our work, as we all need to lift up our community. Please keep us in your prayers. We hope that you will reply us and will ponder on our request.

Please of you are interested we can send you all information about this good work.

Thank you for readies this request.

Yours in Christ,

Robin Samsoon Gill


Posted by: Robin Samsoon Gill at February 9, 2007 1:39 AM
Post a comment