The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion  

TTigerAtty 62M
3769 posts
6/13/2006 8:12 am

Last Read:
7/1/2006 10:11 am

The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion

I can't put this book down! It's a real page-turner! Chapter 4 of Ann Coulter's new book "Godless - The Church of Liberalism" begins as follows:

No liberal cause is defended with more dishonesty than abortion. No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time - undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals - the single most important item of the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over - except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, because going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives. To a liberal, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate.

The Orwellian dishonesty about 'abortion' begins with the Left's utter refusal to use the word abortion. It would be as if members of the National Rifle Association refused to use the word 'gun'. These 'pro-choicers' treat abortion the way Muslims treat Mohammed: It's sacred, it must not be mentioned. Instead we get a slew of liberal euphemisms for baby-killing: 'reproductive freedom', 'a woman's right to control her own body', 'terminating a pregnancy', 'freedom of choice', 'a woman's own private medical decision', 'a procedure',
'access to health care', 'family planning', 'our bodies, our selves', 'choice'. Choice is important when it comes to killing babies, but not so much when it comes to whom you hire, whom you associate with, what you think about evolution, how much gas your car consumes, how much water comes our of your bathroom showerhead .... The only other practice that was both defended and unspeakable in America like this was slavery. There are three indirect references to slavery in the Constitution, but the words 'slave' and 'slavery' never appear.

The 'New York Times' and the rest of the mainstream meida will only refer to partial birth abortion as "what its opponents refer to as partial birth abortion". What do its supporters call it? Casual Fridays? Bean-with-bacon potato chip dip? Uh ... Steve? "Partial birth abortion" isn't some meaningless, poll-tested name, like "assault weapon". It's a straightforward legal description of the procedure that is to be prohibited by law. If there were a better name for it, you can be sure the 'New York Times' would use it.

The 2003 partial birth abortion ban enacted by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Bush defines a "partial birth abortion" as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion

deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

As one can see, actual descriptions of partial birth abortion do not tend to help the pro-abortion side. "Partial birth abortion" is the euphemism.



TTigerAtty
TIGERS, LLC
non illigitimae carborundum
~^~^~
~0_0~
>""""<
`^^^^`


micahbiguns 51M

6/13/2006 11:21 am

Good stuff Tige. Although you have me wondering are you going to finish your book?


TTigerAtty 62M

6/13/2006 12:09 pm

    Quoting micahbiguns:
    Good stuff Tige. Although you have me wondering are you going to finish your book?
Me too! I have been temporarily diverted to politics. Ann Coulter mouths off and really lights a fire under liberals. I'm sure she intends that. But then, when you read what she writes, you come see that very much of it is right on.

I will get back to the book very soon! I hope you and 'C' are figuring out your wedding trip plan! All the best! Not long now!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/20/2006 3:28 pm

    Quoting sweetbabydee07:
    Hi Tiger. Do you really think that the unpleasant facts of partial birth abortion are a good argument against ALL abortion?

    The statistics I'm going to quote here refer only to the UK, as I don't know much about the US statistics on abortion. Taken from a Department of Health (UK Government) website: Abortion Statistics for England and Wales 2004. The 2005 ones haven't been published yet.

    Number of abortions carried out in 2004 - 185,400.

    88% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation; 60% were at under 10 weeks

    1,900 abortions (1 were carried out because of extreme risk that the child would be born handicapped.

    The abortion debate has been in the news a lot over here lately too. Since some premature babies have survived after being born at 22 and 23 weeks there is a good argument for lowering the 24 week limit for abortions that is currently in place here in the UK. I think that is entirely reasonable. But as you can see from the figures above, nearly 90% of all abortions take place in the first trimester, when the foetus is only about an inch long.

    The government site doesn't give a complete breakdown of the figures, but I remember reading elsewhere that of the remaining 12%, almost all of them were carried out before 18 weeks.

    Late term abortions (19-24 weeks) in the UK are usually carried out because of severe handicap. There are only a hundred or so a year out of the total number of abortions carried out, and each one is looked at as an individual case. You might not like the idea of late term abortions, or partial birth abortions, neither do I, but I would say here that we do not know the facts surrounding each one. Nobody does except the people concerned. I would assume it is not a decision that is taken lightly by anyone.

    Not entirely sure what point I am trying to get across here, maybe just that we should try to judge less and understand more, especially when we are not privy to all the facts.
When I made this post, I was a "Christian, Right-Wing, Neo-Nazi", but I have been hammered so much by my loveable liberal friends for stating my views, and I have, in fact, lost so many friends over my political views, that I have decided to convert completely to the far left. As far to the left as I can possibly go, since that seems to be the more popular political view to espouse free of criticism and condemnation on this site.

In keeping with that decision, I have to support baby-killing abortion. Excuse me I've had a relapse! I mean "a woman's right to choose", "freedom of choice" or simply "choice". As a liberal, I am no longer permitted to call it what it really is. I must use the euphemisms that sound a bit more acceptable to most people of conscience. I must turn my head and agree that a woman's right to choose (granted by legal decision of a handful of liberal judges in our country, decision written by Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, and not voted upon by the electorate) supercedes all other laws, rights, moral teachings and traditional values of the society.

That being the case, I say to you, go right ahead and exercise
"choice" whenever you decide it is advantageous, convenient or otherwise popular to extinguish the life of a human being whether that be inside or outside of the mother's womb. Perhaps the infant is born healthy and later is diagnosed with some God-awful condition that we can intellectually rationalize or reasonably say will limit that child's options and quality of life in the future or perhaps limit or inconvenience the parents in some way or manner. Should the parents not have the same "right" to "choose" to do the infant in, even after the little bugger has escaped the womb, and just try their luck again?

After all, when the Ten Commandments were handed down to Moses a long time ago in the wilderness on top of Mount Sinai, God could not have possibly envisioned the complexities of modern-day living. I'm sure when he commanded "Thou shalt not kill", he just failed to consider future problems with this commandment. There was not enough "flexibility" written into this commandment to allow for the exercise of superior judgment by man. It would obviously mean difficulties for people inconvenienced by childbirth. It would mean that man and woman would not be able to exercise their greater wisdom and intellect to make "choices" appropriate to modern-day circumstances.

Yes, as a liberal, I say keep on killing them. Ooops, I mean making "choices". And if a little bit of "choice" is a good thing, by all means, let's extend the right of "choice" to take in even more possible inconveniences to mankind. Let's tell the rest of society where we're really headed with this concept! By so doing, we could probably rally more support! After all, it is the rare individual who wants to be inconvenienced!

Well, that is, of course, except for those uneducated, dangerous religious fanatics of the "Christian Right"!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/21/2006 1:57 pm

    Quoting sweetbabydee07:
    Oh, where to start here? The Ten Commandments? Well, I take it that as a non Christian I'm exempt from following them? I do not believe in the literal truth of any religion. Religion IMO is a matter of faith and therefore exists outside of the whole truth/untruth type of argument. You either believe in it or you don't. There are no facts which will sway either side's opinion. Any argument based on the tenets of a religion is IMO illogical, as it immediately has no relevance for anyone who doesn't adhere to that religion.

    As for all the talk of 'baby killing' and 'doing infants in', well a baby is way different from a foetus, a collection of cells that cannot live outside the womb. Not sure about the US statistics but here in the UK one third of all women have an abortion at some time in their lives. That's much more than just a few stray baby killers, that is one third of all of us. And I don't really see the problem with it. It's not a nice fact sure, but would you rather have all these babies born to mothers (and fathers) who don't want them, won't love them, can't afford them, whatever... The world is overpopulated enough as it is for Pete's sake. Do we really want more people around, when even their own parents don't?

    And I think the idea of putting it to the electorate by way of a referendum or whatever is faintly ridiculous. If abortion were banned all that would happen is that it would go underground. Or take place in other countries, as is currently the case with the Republic of Ireland.

    To be honest, and I intend no rudeness here, the thought of someone with your political and religious views having the right to vote on what I can do with my body makes me feel extremely nauseous. The thought of ANYONE voting on it makes me feel ill actually. I wouldn't run around trying to ban circumcision, or enforce it, so please stay the hell away from my womb!
By all means, kill as many infants as you see fit! I'm now a full-fledged liberal, and as I have said before, I think it is a great thing that people are free to "choose to terminate life"! I'd hate to impose morality upon anyone and suggest that they might want to exercise their precious right of "choice" before they decide to have sex out of marriage, without birth control protection, etc. No, by all means, people should be allowed to copulate whenever and wherever they please with absolutely no restriction or limitation and then deal with the consequences later without any objection from anyone else in society. Should they decide to terminate the pregnancy within the first 13 weeks, they should be free to do so. If before the 24th week, that is fine too! And if the poor lady just cannot decide to kill off the baby prior to that, she should not be criticized for late term abortions right on up until whenever she may decide to do the poor little infant in! Hey, as you said, it's her womb, and who should be permitted to judge her actions.

Now, come to think of it, I don't like my drunken neighbor, and I think it should be my right to do the bastard in, after all he's one of those damned "Christian-Right, Neo-Nazis" that we have far to many of! It would help "rid the world of the surplus population" to quote Ebenezer Scrooge, one of Dickens' great characters.

Oh, I so agree with the liberal position on over-population. I have been training with liberals for the past several years, and I have learned that I need to bemoan the genocide in Darfur, Uganda, the hunger and starvation in Niger, the killing of innocents in the Iraq war and other deaths elsewhere around the world, yet I need to enthusiastically support baby-killing abortions. Oh, yes, I think I understand the liberal positions very well, and as I say, I have converted 100% to the left-wing ideology.

You people on the left are so intellectually and morally superior, how could I have ever supported conservative thinking and ideology? I was lost, but alas I am found!

By the way, what is the liberal position with regard to circumcision? I haven't learned that one yet. Is it permitted? What about castration? Do the libs favor castration of all males born to "Christian-Right, Neo-Nazis"? Please help me out! I haven't read anything in Al Franken's book regarding the liberal viewpoint regarding these issues!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/22/2006 7:59 am

Oh, as I say sweetbabydee07, I am now a full-fledged liberal and so I agree whole-heartedly with the point of your first paragraph. There should be absolutely NO moral absolutes. People should be allowed to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong ... as long as they agree with us liberals that baby-killing abortions are OK, right and even much to be promoted with the evil "Christian-Right" which is just too stupid and intolerant to see the "bigger picture".

In your second paragraph, you make the very accurate observation that your society there in the U.K. is a secular society and the astute follow-up point that "religion is of no great importance to most of [you in the U.K.] any more". I couldn't agree with you more. So it is! This would be a better world were we to throw off the shackles and restrictive moral limitations of religion. We could all then be free to determine our own individual moral codes. You see, I am learning to think as a liberal. I mean, afterall, those Ten Commandments that the "Christian-Right" always talks about are very restrictive and limiting to us liberals. They have probably outlived there usefulness in our more advanced, intellectual modern-day society!

With regard to your third paragraph, please forgive me if I have in any way suggested that you follow the liberal ideology. You have just, heretofore, supported points of view which I have been studying and have been represented to me as being beliefs and values of liberalism. I am new to all of this, and so perhaps I have just misunderstood. It takes a long time to make the conversion from conservatism to liberalism, so I may have misspoke or misunderstood something in your positions. Yes, I agree, I have learned that we should all think for ouselves. Here in American, those darned Republicans just blindly follow George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Very dangerous to blindly follow any man or any ideology! We are in complete agreement!

In your fourth paragraph, you invoke the liberal "doctrine of infallibility" which in the case of this abortion issue states that neither you nor any other woman who has experienced abortion shall ever be subject to question, challenge or disagreement, because you have personally experienced the procedure, are a woman, and are part of a much larger group of society there in the U.K. that adheres to the acceptability of abortion. Having learned all about liberalism and their accepted belief re. abortion, I agree with you. The fact that I am a man without the ability to personally experience abortion should automatically disqualify me from speaking out against killing babies, oops excuse me, I mean "choice". The fact that one third of all U.K. women will at some point in their lives have an abortion should also signal to me that I am in the wrong to ever suggest that abortion is in any way morally wrong. If one third are doing it, it must be a good thing! These are all reasons I am switching over to the liberal point of view. After all, "abortion" is never once mentioned in the Bible and therefore, we really shouldn't worry about it from a religious standpoint. The little thing about "Thou shalt not kill" was, after all, pobably just a typo or just not intended to apply to baby-killing. Far be it from me to be cruel to anyone. I was once a "cruel Christian-Right, Neo-Nazi" conservative, but now I have seen the light and moved over to support the positions that you and your friends espouse. Hey, I just wanna "go along to get along"!

In your P.S., you mention the death penalty as a part of your argument to confuse conservatives who oppose abortion but favor capitol punishment. I have heard the saying over here from my loveable liberal friends that "Republicans save babies but kill adults, while Democrats favor the right of a woman to choose and rehabilitation of violent killers. Now, this really does represent a dilemna for the "Christian-Right" and it often does give them pause to think. I know that it was always a difficult issue for me when I was a conservative. And here is what the Christian conservatives would likely say to you ... God is clear about not killing and taking innocent life. He commanded us (Jews and Christians) not to kill. The "Christian-Right" interprets that to mean that life inside the woman is also sacred and that we should not terminate life for our own convenience or for reasons we judge to be legitimate. When Bible-believing Jews and Christians consider the morality of the death penalty for the most violent criminals who commit murder, I believe we see them split with two different views. Some think "Thou shalt not kill" means that we should not kill even guilty, evil murderers, while others believe that God condemns such sin and gives us the right to punish such murderers by taking their life. God certainly allows us to defend ourselves against someone who would attempt to take our own life. The debate in our society is: Should the state be allowed to defend its citizenry by executing those who murder other innocent people, thereby removing a proven killer from society and potentially deterring others who might consider it? Now, being a recently converted liberal, I take the position that it is OK for anyone to kill an innocent baby in the womb, but that the state should not be allowed to deter wanton killing by exectuing murderers. After all, we are a civil society and we should try to understand our worst criminals. We should rehabilitate these poor murderers because they have been treated poorly somewhere along their lives by the society we live in.

I am not a theologian, so I am ill-prepared to speak for God. I am just a simple Missouri hillbilly who has been taught a few things from the Bible along the way. Many of the things I have learned as a kid seem to be inconsistent with the teachings of the Church of Liberalism, and so I am struggling to learn the new ideology. With your patience, help and support, I am sure I can learn what is require to be a good Liberal.

Thanks for stopping by to visit and to educate me!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/22/2006 9:58 am

    Quoting rm_fotogod:
    Hey Atty,
    You find a place for that baby when it's born, someplace nice, warm, cuddly, and NOT an orphanage, a foster home, or the like.
    Put your life where your mouth is, Ann Coulter is a fool,or the anti-christ I don't know which. But hey, Ann is rich now, with all the money from those books, why don't we ask her to adopt a few babies and save them. I'm sure she would rush right out and get some babies to care for as her own. Oh, no, wait a second, doesn't she have some sort of career? Could she really care for a baby at this point in her life? Gosh, on second thought, maybe some other god fearing christian family could take my precious, new saved baby for me. SSSHHH!! wait for the cameras to go away!
    You find those good christian families to take in every "saved" baby, and raise them as their own, support them and send them to college.
    And maybe, just maybe, I might agree wit........ no wait, nope can't agree with her at all, on anything, sorry.
    But hey! you should still think of that christian adoption thing, there are allot of kids that need love out there now.
    So maybe alll the christian Reich, oops, sorry right, people could get all this started, and get all the kids out of the orphanages make them absolete, raise them, and then maybe we can talk about the million "new" babies,that are coming soon.

    Remember, Christians don't throw the first stone. So what does that make Ann.

    Sorry to be such a blog hog, but you really got me going here.
    And remember
    Annlinessis is next to split-toeliness.

    foto
Thanks for dropping by to offer your thoughts on this serious subject!

Now, as a newbie liberal, I will agree with you that we should not incovenience the mothers (or fathers) of these aborted children to: (1) consider the consequences of sex without birth control and make their "choice" at that stage vs. later after the female has become pregnant, (2) give birth to the child they had a hand in creating even though inconvenient and raise the infant through childhood, or (3) give birth to the child and put him/her up for adoption if must be. No, as a new liberal, I agree with all of you fellow Libs that we should in no way hold the mother and father who have produced the inconvenient pregnancy responsible and accountable for preserving the life of an unborn child. Let them just abort! There should be no moral absolutes to stand in their way!

Rather, we should hold Ann Coulter and any other person, Christian or not, who opposes the practice of abortion, responsible to stand by to assume the duties and obligations of the natural parents who produced the child but who cannot be inconvenienced to give birth and raise the child. Yes, I agree! Blame those who had absolutely no part in the "choice" of the natural parents of the unborn child to have sex without birth control, produce a child and then desire to eliminate the inconvenience of childbirth.

I think I am really learning this liberalism! It is preferrable to lay off the blame and the attendant guilt upon those who suggest that "choice" is "abortion" which is "taking life of an unborn child in the womb of the mother". Yes, I can understand the guilt that those who practice and espouse abortion must feel. This guilt should be spread around equally so that the whole society may feel the guilt and be made to agree with the righteousness and necessity of abortion, The Holy Sacrament of Liberalism.

I get it now! I am a quick study! Thanks for illuminating me! That evil ol' Ann Coulter! She is the devil incarnate, isn't she?!


rm_scorpiosaga 44M

6/22/2006 11:53 am

Mind if I join in? After all, I’m a son of a preacher man, so its my birthright, I guess, to talk about ethical and religious issues.
God dislikes people who don’t take a stand, they’re like lukewarm water to Him, and he’ll just spit it out. So Tiger for your own sake, please stay a conservative right-winged redneck and stop playing the cynic…your not. Really, God respects you for that even more.
But you like to talk…don’t you?
I’m sure, one day He will show you what really happened with the poor souls you thought would be lost. Why don’t you let his children come to Him? Do you really think God doesn’t anticipated on abortion? For all we know He only said his Creation was Good, not perfect.
Why is it so hard for you to believe He also has plans with aborted children? God cries WITH us, not because of us. You should remember that every time you try to interpret His Word.
The word GOOD is a very strange word. When you’re capable of shooting your mother from 50,00 meters with a p*stol, you’re a good rifleman, but does it make you a better person? Does it really make you feel good?
Please leave this judgement to God and only talk legalese at work.
I read your profile and couldn’t believe such a righteous man as you claim to be, in fact is divorced. And you have CHILDREN!!! Don’t you watch Dr. Phill?
And how about your threesomes? Poor man. I can imagine the conflicts in your head. Pray my friend, every our for yourself and the world.
He who is without sin, throws the first stone!


TTigerAtty 62M

6/23/2006 9:45 am

    Quoting rm_scorpiosaga:
    Mind if I join in? After all, I’m a son of a preacher man, so its my birthright, I guess, to talk about ethical and religious issues.
    God dislikes people who don’t take a stand, they’re like lukewarm water to Him, and he’ll just spit it out. So Tiger for your own sake, please stay a conservative right-winged redneck and stop playing the cynic…your not. Really, God respects you for that even more.
    But you like to talk…don’t you?
    I’m sure, one day He will show you what really happened with the poor souls you thought would be lost. Why don’t you let his children come to Him? Do you really think God doesn’t anticipated on abortion? For all we know He only said his Creation was Good, not perfect.
    Why is it so hard for you to believe He also has plans with aborted children? God cries WITH us, not because of us. You should remember that every time you try to interpret His Word.
    The word GOOD is a very strange word. When you’re capable of shooting your mother from 50,00 meters with a p*stol, you’re a good rifleman, but does it make you a better person? Does it really make you feel good?
    Please leave this judgement to God and only talk legalese at work.
    I read your profile and couldn’t believe such a righteous man as you claim to be, in fact is divorced. And you have CHILDREN!!! Don’t you watch Dr. Phill?
    And how about your threesomes? Poor man. I can imagine the conflicts in your head. Pray my friend, every our for yourself and the world.
    He who is without sin, throws the first stone!
Welcome aboard! I'm so sorry you don't take my attempted conversion to liberalism as sincere. I know I am struggling with it, and I know that I am not a Perfect Liberal yet. But, if the rest of you Libs will just be patient with me, I'll eventually be as enlightened as you all!

Speaking of throwing stones, my friend, was that a stone that just whizzed by my head? ... "conservative right-winged redneck"?

Now, let's deal with my profile, shall we? First, you assume I am an attorney. Maybe I am, and maybe I'm not. You assume that everything I have in my profile accurately defines me. Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. What does that have to do with being a good Liberal anyway? I thought you Libs had a very large tent and were sympathetic toward people of every human condition?

I never said I am without sin. You inferred that I claimed that I am. I have sinned as have all persons. I have one child from a 19 year marriage. I never participated in aborting an unborn child. I have been divorced since 1993, and have not remarried. I abhorred the divorce I went through and I did not seek it. But, I am learning that all these things are OK with liberals anyway, so I should fit right in with you Libs. Oh, the threesome thing? Is that in there? I guess I just threw that in to appeal to you Libs. Libs like threesomes, don't they? That has been my impression at least!

Now, what is your point, my friend? Or have you just joined in to throw your stones at me?

This posting is about Liberalism and how liberals view abortion. Do you have anything of substance to offer in the way of your position on that issue and how you view "the right of a woman to choose to terminate the life of an unborn child within her womb"? If you do, by all means speak up! Do not obfuscate the issue that is on the table by getting into some analysis of who I am, because you have no idea. Put up or shut up! What is your position on "abortion"? If you are in favor of "the right of a woman to choose to terminate the life of an unborn child within her womb", then come on out and say so, man! It's a well-established liberal position and you will be in good company with many others!

Stop by as often as you like! I'd love to learn more about your thoughts on this subject!


rm_scorpiosaga 44M

6/23/2006 11:20 am

To be honest, It kinda turns me on when you talk like that to heat up the conversation...


rm_scorpiosaga 44M

6/24/2006 7:32 am

My reaction on your writing was my spiritual answer. I’m very troubled with religion in my past. When people use it in order to claim certain standards for the whole society, I get messed up.
I like Church and State to be separated, I like Christians to be modest as I do for the Islam, Buddha and Satan’s Church.
But when you felt like I was throwing stones at you, I m really sorry. That's the problem with written stuff. You never know hear or see the non-verbal signals. I thought I was just quoting one of the names you got in the passed months, like you quoted them yourself. My note was not aimed at you as a person but at your words I’ve read. I just made it more personal when I wrote that I read your profile that’s been visible for just the whole world, right?

You want to know my position on abortion, the right of a woman to choose.
Well, first of all, I don’t think it’s a woman’s choice. I think it’s a woman’s decision. In this case it doesn’t matter if its her right or not. Women’s motives can be very various, but always very personal. My believes and if I feel right about that, don’t matter at all.
But when she decides for an abortion, she sure got the right of proper healthcare! And that’s society’s responsibility and a common civil right, just like we help and treat fat people with heart attacks or diabetes and smokers with cancer….and in America, again when they’re insured.
Decent medical help is decent taken care of because it’s a matter of evident suffering that, in case of do-it-yourself methods, leads to inhumane situations while safe medical help is at hand. The medical domain is wide and not just about treatment but prevention as well.
And the number one rule in this sort of cases: Mother goes first!

Please tell me why you want to take that decision, what’s in it for you?


TTigerAtty 62M

6/26/2006 3:15 pm

    Quoting rm_scorpiosaga:
    My reaction on your writing was my spiritual answer. I’m very troubled with religion in my past. When people use it in order to claim certain standards for the whole society, I get messed up.
    I like Church and State to be separated, I like Christians to be modest as I do for the Islam, Buddha and Satan’s Church.
    But when you felt like I was throwing stones at you, I m really sorry. That's the problem with written stuff. You never know hear or see the non-verbal signals. I thought I was just quoting one of the names you got in the passed months, like you quoted them yourself. My note was not aimed at you as a person but at your words I’ve read. I just made it more personal when I wrote that I read your profile that’s been visible for just the whole world, right?

    You want to know my position on abortion, the right of a woman to choose.
    Well, first of all, I don’t think it’s a woman’s choice. I think it’s a woman’s decision. In this case it doesn’t matter if its her right or not. Women’s motives can be very various, but always very personal. My believes and if I feel right about that, don’t matter at all.
    But when she decides for an abortion, she sure got the right of proper healthcare! And that’s society’s responsibility and a common civil right, just like we help and treat fat people with heart attacks or diabetes and smokers with cancer….and in America, again when they’re insured.
    Decent medical help is decent taken care of because it’s a matter of evident suffering that, in case of do-it-yourself methods, leads to inhumane situations while safe medical help is at hand. The medical domain is wide and not just about treatment but prevention as well.
    And the number one rule in this sort of cases: Mother goes first!

    Please tell me why you want to take that decision, what’s in it for you?
Apology accepted! If I have said something personally offensive and personalized this debate, I apologize also. This is a very important issue and good people on both sides of the issue get worked up about it as they should! Killing unborn babies in a mother's womb gets to be an emotional issue for me. Not that I claim to be a really moral person, not that I claim to be personally without sin myself, but more out of a sense for what is right and what is wrong.

I have thought about this issue for many years since prior to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision here in the USA. I can go down the line and tell you all of the exceptions whereby it would seem that abortion is the only answer or where it may seem to be a reasonable answer, e.g. in the cases of , incest, prior to the second trimester, etc. I have thought about what I would do if I were ever faced with the situation personally or if my daughter, now age 22 and single, were ever faced with the situation.

I still have to come down on the side of morality, ethics and religious values, and I currently believe that we are a better society if we restrict and limit abortions to only those very rare instances where the life of the mother is in great jeopardy. I would understand terminating the pregnancy (and killing an unborn baby) in order to save another life. In the case of incest or , I really, really have a difficult time. I believe that we have to error on side of life. I can understand that the mother of such a child may not want to raise the child, and I would therefore want to provide taxpayer funding to raise the children from such pregnancies in decent foster homes and place them with adoptive parents. The other pregnancies resulting from unplanned sex, sex without birth control precautions, sex out of wedlock, etc. are regrettable, but I and other people with moral beliefs about abortion should not be made to subjugate our beliefs to the desires of those who would wish to terminate pregnancies and kill unborn babies in the womb for their own personal convenience. I also believe that for the sake of the mental, emotional, spiriitual health of a young woman with an unwanted pregnancy, it is not good for her to choose to terminate a preganancy. I believe that although the young woman may have made a mistake, that she is a child of God with a soul and good human being. Aborting a child, I am afraid, would cause such a woman tremendous guilt and emotional turmoil that she may live with forever. I do not believe the choice of abortion is a good choice for the woman who is carrying the unwanted pregancy.

Thanks for stopping by! If we still disagree, I respect your right to have your own opinion. I'd just ask you to do some soul searching. It is a hard thing to stand up for life of the unborn children these days. Many will sharply criticize what I have said here. My soul is at peace, however, because I know that I am on the side of innocent life, and that can never be wrong.


rm_scorpiosaga 44M

6/27/2006 3:30 am

Apology accepted.
Correct me if I´m wrong…. the reason why you want to take that decision for her, is because you feel like you’re actually doing her a favour? ( My spiritual question could be something like: So you are the good Samaritan only in a new timeframe? )
I know there are lots of women who make that decision and later on regret it, often just when its too late and they want to cancel it. Very tragic stories and ruined lives.

Still be careful what you wish for, because the next thing to do is to forbid all knitting needle factories and knitting shops. The next ethical step is to say that humans throw away their right of proper healthcare when they don’t change their behaviour, stop smoking or keep eating too much or drink too much alcohol. People know when they’re driving a car, they could have an accident.
Because they know it can make them sick or wounded, they can do something about it, if not they must suffer the consequences likewise. You have to draw the line here because if not, the next logical step for a woman to do in case of her decision to abort the foetus is to stick a needle in her womb right in front of the emergency room. The doctor will finish it then. Then soon there will be all sorts of painless do-it-yourself methods for sell on the internet. They could easily sell it with words like: Refresh Your Womb; No more periods with this and still get your womb clean The all in one kit: total cleansing of the womb, painless, functional and quick! Buy know and the first 2500 buyers get a handy crumb-sweeper as well, for free!!!
Like a mothers decision, to abort the foetus, has big consequences, so has a law to forbid it.
That’s what I meant with the word Good. Good don’t always work out the way you want it.
That’s why I focus on my own live, ways and means. Of course, sometimes I try to persuade someone in following my advise, but I always remember; Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works.

I understand you still hope to change people’s view. Please change them because of your works and not of your meanings. I say let there be 100% freedom in decent help in case of a wanted abortion. The law, that allows woman to have an abortion, is a product of serious extensive jurisprudence for generations. To put the clock back will do more harm then it will prevent I’m afraid. I still believe, my task isn’t about changing the whole country or world, but make it a better place just a few yards around me with my friends and family. That’s difficult enough for me I guess. Of course that doesn’t mean we have to close our eyes for the world, for murderers, or robbers, war and starvation. For me that’s like to compares apples and pears.

Feel free to visit my blog too. Curious about your position on euthanasia.
Bye
Scorpiosaga.


TTigerAtty 62M

6/29/2006 11:27 am

    Quoting rm_scorpiosaga:
    Apology accepted.
    Correct me if I´m wrong…. the reason why you want to take that decision for her, is because you feel like you’re actually doing her a favour? ( My spiritual question could be something like: So you are the good Samaritan only in a new timeframe? )
    I know there are lots of women who make that decision and later on regret it, often just when its too late and they want to cancel it. Very tragic stories and ruined lives.

    Still be careful what you wish for, because the next thing to do is to forbid all knitting needle factories and knitting shops. The next ethical step is to say that humans throw away their right of proper healthcare when they don’t change their behaviour, stop smoking or keep eating too much or drink too much alcohol. People know when they’re driving a car, they could have an accident.
    Because they know it can make them sick or wounded, they can do something about it, if not they must suffer the consequences likewise. You have to draw the line here because if not, the next logical step for a woman to do in case of her decision to abort the foetus is to stick a needle in her womb right in front of the emergency room. The doctor will finish it then. Then soon there will be all sorts of painless do-it-yourself methods for sell on the internet. They could easily sell it with words like: Refresh Your Womb; No more periods with this and still get your womb clean The all in one kit: total cleansing of the womb, painless, functional and quick! Buy know and the first 2500 buyers get a handy crumb-sweeper as well, for free!!!
    Like a mothers decision, to abort the foetus, has big consequences, so has a law to forbid it.
    That’s what I meant with the word Good. Good don’t always work out the way you want it.
    That’s why I focus on my own live, ways and means. Of course, sometimes I try to persuade someone in following my advise, but I always remember; Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works.

    I understand you still hope to change people’s view. Please change them because of your works and not of your meanings. I say let there be 100% freedom in decent help in case of a wanted abortion. The law, that allows woman to have an abortion, is a product of serious extensive jurisprudence for generations. To put the clock back will do more harm then it will prevent I’m afraid. I still believe, my task isn’t about changing the whole country or world, but make it a better place just a few yards around me with my friends and family. That’s difficult enough for me I guess. Of course that doesn’t mean we have to close our eyes for the world, for murderers, or robbers, war and starvation. For me that’s like to compares apples and pears.

    Feel free to visit my blog too. Curious about your position on euthanasia.
    Bye
    Scorpiosaga.
I understand and appreciate what you have said here. And I do not take your well-expressed points lightly.

Yes, the Roe v. Wade decision in the USA has been around for
decades. The Ten Commandments have been around a bit longer, however. As I recall, there is one of those commandments that exhorts and instructs us 'Thou shalt not kill.' When I think of "choice", "a woman's right to choose" or any of the various euphemisms for "abortion", I come back to this commandment.

I quote the words of an abortion opponent, because I can not say it much better ...

"Abortion is the sacrament of the Religion of Liberalism and Roe v. Wade is the Holy Writ. This is why we have to have World War III every time there's an opening on the Supreme Court. Al long as Roe is the law of the land, elected Democrats in the USA can hide behind the Supreme Court's ruling. They rarely have to cast votes on abortion bills, because the High Court has removed abortion from the democratic process. All the Democrats have to do is smear any Supreme Court nominee who might possibly overturn Roe and finally allow Americans to vote on abortion.

Consequently, the single most important job in the universe for the Democrats is a seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee - to protect made-up "constitutional rights" to things like abortion and the right never to have to see Christians praying. No Democrat from a swing state is allowed to sit on that committee. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee from the most liberal states in the nation are utterly safe seats - Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA), Senator Richard Durbin (D-I, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Senator Herb Cole (D-W and Senator Russ Feingold (D-W.

The opinion in Roe, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, has gone from being a joke to being the centerpiece of American jurisprudence. Liberals pretend to be shocked that then-judge Clarence Thomas told the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings that he had never debated Roe. This is ridiculous - no one debates Harry Blackmun's opinion in Roe. It would be humiliating, like discussing the plot of a 'Will and Grace' episode.

Roe was so preposterous that Supreme Court clerks referred to it as 'Harry's abortion'. Harvard law professor - and Watergate special prosecutor - Archibald Cox said of the opinion in Roe, 'Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.' Stanford Law School Dean, John Hart Ely, said Roe is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of obligation to try to be.' Harvard law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that 'the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.' Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has called Roe and act of 'heavy-handed judicial intervention' and ridiculed the opinion during her confirmation hearings. A lot of people who favor abortion criticize the opinion in Roe. But no one who opposes abortion says, 'I'm against abortion, but Roe certainly is a well-argued opinion.'"


I included the above quote to refute what you said in your comment about Roe v. Wade representing such a serious and extensive example of jurispudence: "The law, that allows woman to have an abortion, is a product of serious extensive jurisprudence for generations. To put the clock back will do more harm then it will prevent I’m afraid."

Many other serious legal minds beg to differ with your assessment of the law which has upheld abortion in the USA for only a few decades (not generations). Besides, we need to be vigilant that lawyers and judges do not twist and misinterpret our constitution so as to grant rights where there are none specifically guaranteed and where such construed rights interfere with, violate or oppose other rights.

With respect to your slippery slope argument, I would merely turn that back around to you and ask the following questions:

1. If we can take the life of an inconvenient unborn child in a mother's womb for various seemingly valid reasons and man-made rights which we construe, can we not also take the life of an elderly person who has become an inconvenience upon a family or the society as a whole?

2. If we can take the life of an inconvenient unborn child in a mother's womb for various seemingly valid reasons and man-made rights which we construe, can we not also take the life of a seriously-ill or crippled child who likewise had become an inconvenience upon his family or society as a whole?

3. I can go on and on and construct many scenarios. For the sake of brevity, I will presume you get my point that legalized abortion may also lead to a "slippery slope".

Now, then, if I ask myself which "slippery slope" would I personally rather be on, I personally choose the "slippery slope" of standing up for the preservation of life. I will let the decisions relative to the taking of INNOCENT life up to the Almighty.

Now, the Libs will come back and say, "Well, but you support the death penalty and you support military actions which kill people!" To them, I say this involves a different discussion, different moral principles, because these kind of decisions to take life should always be the exceptions, not the "law of the land".

A heinous, serial killer who has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt to have committed murder (and I wanna have the DNA evidence and eye witnesses, etc. in order to know for absolutely sure) should face the ultimate penalty for his terrible crimes against other human beings. But, if society doesn't want to give the state this deterrent, then I say the penalty should be life in prison without ANY possibility of parole or pardon.

In the case of war, the Bible says there are just wars and there are unjust wars. I believe that Jews, Christians and Muslims will all agree on this point. The question is when is it just and when is it unjust and who determines this? I don't have a glib answer. I don't have a serious answer on this. I do believe that sovereign nations have a right to defend themselves from aggession. To do so is just in my opinion. To invade or attack nations where no link to self-defense can be established is unjust. We are having that debate regarding Iraq at this time. Honestly, I can appreciate both sides of the argument with respect to our involvement in Iraq. I don't have all the inside intelligence now nor when decisions were made, so I cannot really say. I do believe that history will judge our actions in Iraq. I pray that we were morally right in doing what we have done. And if we were not right, I pray that we will learn a lot about how to better make such important decisions in the future. In either case, I believe that we now have a moral obligation to the people of Iraq to end the violence which we have been a party to, to participate in a peaceful reconciliation between the various parties and religious sects within Iraq and to help Iraq rebuild its infrastructure and economy so that people who have survived this awful killing and violence can have a better life and more hopeful future.

Lord, I went on way too long! Thanks for dropping by and debating these important issues. I appreciate you views, especially inasmuch as you are the son of a pastor.

Why don't you post something regarding euthanasia at your site? I'll come over and comment there! That's another tough subject! People are living longer, but in situations where they have very little quality of life. Doctor assisted suicide, living wills and health care directives are much in the news!


rm_scorpiosaga 44M

6/30/2006 6:47 am

So the law: ’Thou shall not kill’, isn’t a dogma after all? Cause there’s just and unjust, sometimes its just to kill, sometimes its unjust to kill?
Still you keep referring to this biblical essence to be a strict and make-no-mistake-about-it law when it concerns an abortion , alas!
I’m not that familiar with American law. I also would have believed when Roe v. Wade was a stand up comedian! So I really don’t know if this is just a trick to undermine his authority, if not, I think it’s a joke to American law. If jurisprudence is that poor, it deserves a second chance.
I live in the Netherlands, maybe that explains a lot of my point of view. In Europe, especially the Netherlands, there’s a lot said and done about this subject. I believe there’s been serious jurisprudence here in Holland. Also a part of it sometimes becomes very laughable because of all the wise men, coming along, claiming to be expert on the matter. Different judges basing their judgement on different experts, many times dusty professors, sometimes real people.

Our discussion will end stalemate when you keep on viewing it from a religious perspective.
Because in the end we have to ask the question: when’s the moment it gets a soul?
We both don’t know. How about masturbating? Sperm is life too, little promises ending up dead without honour.

Check my blog, I published a note about euthanasia. I’m sure you already have an answer to that.

Bye


TTigerAtty 62M

7/1/2006 10:11 am

    Quoting rm_scorpiosaga:
    So the law: ’Thou shall not kill’, isn’t a dogma after all? Cause there’s just and unjust, sometimes its just to kill, sometimes its unjust to kill?
    Still you keep referring to this biblical essence to be a strict and make-no-mistake-about-it law when it concerns an abortion , alas!
    I’m not that familiar with American law. I also would have believed when Roe v. Wade was a stand up comedian! So I really don’t know if this is just a trick to undermine his authority, if not, I think it’s a joke to American law. If jurisprudence is that poor, it deserves a second chance.
    I live in the Netherlands, maybe that explains a lot of my point of view. In Europe, especially the Netherlands, there’s a lot said and done about this subject. I believe there’s been serious jurisprudence here in Holland. Also a part of it sometimes becomes very laughable because of all the wise men, coming along, claiming to be expert on the matter. Different judges basing their judgement on different experts, many times dusty professors, sometimes real people.

    Our discussion will end stalemate when you keep on viewing it from a religious perspective.
    Because in the end we have to ask the question: when’s the moment it gets a soul?
    We both don’t know. How about masturbating? Sperm is life too, little promises ending up dead without honour.

    Check my blog, I published a note about euthanasia. I’m sure you already have an answer to that.

    Bye
Some good debate back and forth! Let's agree to disagree. I'll visit your blog and read the post re. euthanasia. I'm pro-life, so I'm not in favor of euthanasia, doctor assisted suicide, suicide, murder, abortion or genocide.

From my admittedly limited understanding of Christian teaching, I believe that the only time a man is "justified" in taking another man's life is when it is a clear matter of self-defense. If someone is trying to murder me or my family, I have a God-given right to defend myself and my family. Extending that same self-protection principle to war is where things get a bit less clear for me. Whether this is Christian teaching or not, I believe that a war may be fought in the following circumstances:

1. to defend against military invasion, occupation, etc. in defense of the nation, and
2. to aid another nation or people throw off the bonds of slavery, oppression or tyranny.

And each instance above, every conceivable and reasonable means of avoiding conflict must first be attempted. Life is life. Loss of life is loss of life. We must seek to preserve life in every way possible, but we do have a right to defend ourselves and other people against oppression and tyranny.


Become a member to create a blog