In defense of myself, I feel compelled to post this.

Actually FH I am not callous at all. I love babies, more than you can ever know. And I have a 10 yo daughter, so of course I have seen a sonogram.

In fact I am being reviewed for approval as a foster care mother for babies in-between. In-between being placed for adoption or reuinited with their often addicted or abusive birth mother. A dream of mine for years.

Abortion is a sore subject for me. When I worked as a bartender in Reno, I accompanied a few young raped, battered and abused women to the abortion clinic, where at the risk of my life, theirs and of course the doctors, abortions were performed.

I love God and babies as much, maybe more than some others. I also love women.

If a child of mine found herself pregnant at 11 or 12, I hope that abortion is still an option. And yes a girl this young's life would be threatened even with the best of circumstances and medical care. Not to mention her emotional state and development.

I am not about to argue abortion on this board, I am simply stating my beliefs. And if any on this board thinks me callous (or immoral), then they know nothing of me.

I stand by my beliefs.

weaver,

I just wanted to jump in here,if I may,and say that I have been following that "other" thread all along,prefer not to touch it,but the day that ANYONE tries to tell me what I should do with my own body and enforce their own laws on me about what I do and don't do with my body is a day all rights go out the window from then on.It would set a very dangerous precedent.

I cannot believe there are people who still believe that if I ws raped,I should be made to carry to term this evil man's child and give birth.It makes me positively sick and infuriated.We could debate abortion issues for all eternity but I for one saw nothing in your post that purports you to be callous or uncaring.You are merely stating what you believe about this issue and I happen to agree with you.

O

You mean so much to me O. I can't even say.

I need a break from here. I wish March would hurry up so my daughter's four months with me would begin.

The day started out so good, but now I am remembering past horrors too much, I guess.

weaver, like you I do not come to this board to debate montrous evils like abortion, but rather the subject of marriage. I also very much stand behind every word I said on that thread but prefer to leave that very sad thread locked. <img border="0" alt="[Teary]" title="" src="graemlins/teary.gif" />

{{{{{{{weaver}}}}}}}

To Weaver:

I better clarify something:

I introduced the issue of abortion in the other closed thread to simply illustrate how morality is relative.

I do not believe in abortion and I would not get rid of my offspring unless there is an extraordinary circumstance. As for my wife she would be free to do whatever she wants, I do not control her.

However, despite my belief system I am pro-choice because as middle of the road person with libertarian tendencies I will not interfere with those who wish to abort their offspring.


To Faithful Follower:

My comments regarding the high risk pregnancy were meant to imply that the fetus had a malformation incompatible with life outside the womb such as anencephaly. I was simply trying to make a case for abortion. I apologize if I offended anyone.

I simply use the theme of abortion to illustrate how a rigid absolute system can be dangerous.

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Stan-ley ]</small>

Melody:

Regarding the other thread. I never said that moral relativity is great. In fact, both of us have cited many atrocities related to that system. However, at this point we have no other system in place. Through history all we ever had is moral relativity. The perfect society with impeccable morality has not been created yet.

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Stan-ley ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong> Melody:

Regarding the other thread. I never said that moral relativity is great. In fact, both of us have cited many atrocities related to that system. However, at this point we have no other system in place. Though history all we ever had is moral relativity. The perfect society with impeccable morality has not been created yet. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, Stan, you already said that and I already responded. I see no point in saying the same things over and over yet again. If you want to see my response to your above remarks go look up the thread and save me some typing. I am done with the subject.

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: MelodyLane ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Actually FH I am not callous at all. I love babies, more than you can ever know. And I have a 10 yo daughter, so of course I have seen a sonogram.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Weaver, I think you might want to reread what I said. I said I didn't think you were callous, or as "callous" as your post sounded. As I said, it was obvious that the subject touched a "live wire" in you and I was curious as to that reason was.

However, having said that, you still haven't responded to the idea of limiting abortion to those "terrible" causes or "terribly malformed fetuses. Understand what I am "offering" is a "compromise." It may not be what I'd like, but I'm willing to bet that millions of babies would be saved if abortion were limited to just those few "terrible" "what if" cases that always get cited by proponents to abortion.

I have no desire to "debate" the issue of abortion either. My question is very simple, would you support the elimination of abortion for all but the most "terrible" or "life threatening" of reasons?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">the day that ANYONE tries to tell me what I should do with my own body and enforce their own laws on me about what I do and don't do with my body is a day all rights go out the window from then on.It would set a very dangerous precedent.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Octobergirl - I see. So what you "do and don't do with your body" is solely up to you and any position in opposition to your choices is the day that you abandon all rights for anyone.

I'm not sure you really believe that. I'm guessing that you are reacting to the sensitive issue of abortion. However, there are many things that you don't have "sole control" of regarding the use of your body. Prostitution is illegal. Adultery is immoral (and still illegal in some places). Suicide is illegal. Etc. There ARE things we are all restricted from doing. So does that mean that "all rights" should be abandoned?

I will gladly grant you the abortion you want, as a result of a rape, if you will grant me a cessation to all abortions of pregnancies resulting from willing and consentual sex.

I suspect the issue IS related more to "moral choices" and "situational ethics" than it is to the enormity of numbers of rapes, and rapes that result in pregnancies.

FH,

To me,there is a difference between having laws that govern our society and laws that govern what I do with my own body.In the case of prostitution,yes it is illegal,but like murder or any other act that is against the law,the person makes a *choice to do that even though it is illegal.Prostitution,in many/most cases,is not forced upon them and they make the choice to do this.Of course I am not talking about those horrible people that traffic women,they of course ARE forced into this with the fear of losing their own lives or their fmailies.

But,if a law is passed that says that abortion is illegal,that to me will lead us down the road to the Government having more rights to tell us what we do with our own bodies.We are talking pregnancy here.As of now,only women have this ability and therein lies the concern that there would be a law that has control over this issue of whether or not *I* carry a pregnancy.If a law is passed that makes abortion illegal then they better well make it illegal for men to have sex at all outside of marriage because no one is going to control me and my body when it comes to pregnancy and not have men accountable too.Birth control is not 100% in most cases(vasectomy and tubal ligation being the best options next to abstinence).

And just for the record,I do not agree with suicide being illegal(it's very sad but should not be against the law IMO),these people need serious help,not to be arrested and "thrown in jail" if they survive an attempt.I think this plays into assisted suicide too,where a person should have the right to end his or her own life if they so choose(i.e. severe bone pain from cancer Mets,etc).Adultery I think she be more punishable for sure,with all the tremendous costs: marriages destroyed,families broken,the financial destruction,etc.This affects many people from one act.We all have differing opinions of many subjects though,that is clear including if/when a soul is present in a fetus.

I agree with you FH that *some women,and I have seen this time and again in the hospital I worked at,do have repeated abortions as their "birth control" and it is sickening to me.But,we have to be very careful here about writing any laws that don't allow abortion in certain circusmtances and the big question becomes,well WHO decides what is the appropriate reasons? If I am raped,I will not carry this horrible rapists "child",that is my choice over a situation that I had no control over.If my 13 year old daughter is raped,you can bet that I will NOT make her carry any child either.In cases of incest and other horrible acts against a woman's will or in cases of life threatening matters,I believe that abortion has it's place.But unless someone comes up with specific laws that do not encroach upon a womans' right to chose,we should not alter the laws as is,not now.Perhaps not ever.

O

Two hundred years from now our morality will evolve as well as our technology and point of view.

It is quite possible that what we feel is morally acceptable today will not be acceptable in the future. The analysis of history has shown this over and over.

Perhaps the citizens of the future will look back and described our acts as barbaric. I foresee a future with no abortions or capital punishment. Perhaps in the future we will think it is immoral to use animals for food or for other purposes. In fact, many in the planet already have that point of view.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
I have no desire to "debate" the issue of abortion either.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This should have been your final sentence if you really meant what you said.

Pep

Pepperband - Okay, have it your way, I'll "debate" the issue. Does that make you feel better?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree with you FH that *some women,and I have seen this time and again in the hospital I worked at,do have repeated abortions as their "birth control" and it is sickening to me.But,we have to be very careful here about writing any laws that don't allow abortion in certain circusmtances and the big question becomes,well WHO decides what is the appropriate reasons? If I am raped,I will not carry this horrible rapists "child",that is my choice over a situation that I had no control over.If my 13 year old daughter is raped,you can bet that I will NOT make her carry any child either.In cases of incest and other horrible acts against a woman's will or in cases of life threatening matters,I believe that abortion has it's place.But unless someone comes up with specific laws that do not encroach upon a womans' right to chose,we should not alter the laws as is,not now.Perhaps not ever. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Octobergirl - Look, I understand all about "exceptions" and I understand that not all people believe in God, much less that a genetically separate entity growing inside of them is NOT merely "their" tissue, or that it has an eternal soul. That is NOT the point I am inquiring about.

IF the issue is "Woman's right to choose," doesn't that choice begin with "when" and "with whom" she will engage in sex? Her choice is to have sex and her choice is to protect against pregnacy and/or accept that pregnancy IS a possible result of sex, protected or unprotected. But when her right to "choice" (sex or no sex) infringes upon someone else's right to life, there would seem to be legitimate question as to "superiority of rights" here.

Once a new, genetically unique, individual has been created, the right should devolve upon the distinctly unique, innocent, and dependent person as to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If we want to have some situations where the "plug can be pulled" then let's list those conditions. If not then removing the "life support system" from the baby, until it is able to function and breathe on it's own is essentially the same as "pulling the plug" in hospital ICU.

I really do suspect that the VAST majority of all abortions are, and have been, for convenience, not for "cause." With over 45 MILLION babies aborted so far, I'll "take" the reduction to just those cases that are "warranted."

Ugh.FH,I knew this conversation would go this way which is why I debated discussing it.But I will say again,I am talking about NO CHOICE,a woman has no choice when she is raped,as an example,and this results in a pregnancy.I am talking about the RIGHT to have an abortion.

Until the day we have clearly defined conditions for this procedure and decide WHO or WHAT is included in these measures and who decides,a woman's right to choose to have an abortion MUST be protected,regardless of the WHY right now.I honestly don't see this being resolved anytime soon.This is too hot an issue that can't possibly be agreed upon with the "polarized" society we live in today.

And,from the stats I have read,the abortion rate is declining over the recent years,which may be due to the advent of the emergency contraceptive pill(aka: RU-486,the "morning after pill",Plan B,etc).Another topic for debate that has many people up in arms.

O

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My comments regarding the high risk pregnancy were meant to imply that the fetus had a malformation incompatible with life outside the womb such as anencephaly. I was simply trying to make a case for abortion. I apologize if I offended anyone.

Stanley, apology accepted. I do want you and anyone else to consider what a slippery slope we are on when we profess to know what a child with little to no chance of survival outside the womb means to a parent or society at large. I personally know someone who chose continue with her pregnancy knowing full well the child would not survive more than a few hours. She was able to hold her child after giving birth and take photos to be treasure forever. Tell me what her experience would have been should she had chosen to abort her beloved child? What about children in the below article? I know several children with trisonomy 18 that have far outlive their so-called life span and brought bounty of joy to their parents lives. God is the only one that can judge the "usefulness" of a life and when that life should end.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Terminally ill baby Luke dies in hospital
A terminally ill baby whose doctors were given permission by the courts to withhold "aggressive" life-saving treatment has died today, a family member
Luke Winston-Jones, aged nine months, was given only days to live when he was diagnosed shortly after birth with the devastating genetic disorder Edwards

Last month medical staff caring for Luke were granted permission to withhold life-saving treatment by "aggressive" mechanical ventilation if his condition deteriorated. The ruling was made by Dame Elizabeth Butler- Sloss, president of the High Court's Family Division.
A relative of the Winston-Jones family said: "Luke passed away at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool at 3am this morning with his mother and family members at his bedside."

But the manner of Luke's death has already renewed the controversy that surrounded his life. Luke's aunt, Jacqui Kirkwood, demanded an inquiry into his treatment by doctors in his final hours. She claimed he did not receive the life-saving treatment which the court had ordered must be carried out.

She said: "The whole family is grieving but we are also angry as well because of the actions of the medical staff. This is exactly what we did not want to happen.

"Ruth had left Luke at 12.20 last night and he was fine. She was called back an hour later after he developed a slight temperature ."

Mrs Kirkwood said doctors refused to carry out procedures that would have saved
Luke's life and he passed away. She added: "We want a full inquiry into what happened, we will not let this rest."
This morning Luke's mother Ruth said she was "severely traumatised" by the
events. She said: "It is the end of my world, I have lost my precious little boy."

Despite the severity of his medical condition, baby Luke, whose family live in North Wales, defied medical predictions and in his short life was able to recognise his mother, enjoy music and the company of his siblings .

Luke, who also suffered from heart and breathing problems, never left hospital. His mother, Ruth Winston-Jones, 35, said that nonethless he was a "real person with personality" who responded to her.
She had fought against an application by Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust and North West Wales NHS that Luke should not receive treatment and said that leaving it to doctors "would constitute an abrogation of her maternal duty".

The case came to the High Court only two weeks after a judge ruled that another seriously ill baby, Charlotte Wyatt, should not be given aggressive treatment but should be allowed to die peacefully.
Sufferers with Edwards syndrome, which is also known as Trisomy 18, usually have an average life span of under two months with less than 10 per cent surviving more than a year.

Babies with the syndrome appear thin and frail, they fail to grow properly and have difficulty feeding.An appeal fund, supported by the Duchess of York, was set up to fund Luke's

One last thought and I am done with this as it does not apply to marriage building and could potentially hurt people. What about the children that are born too early or born with brain damage? Who should decide if they should live? If it is ok to abort a child that won't have a useful life will we then euthanise others after birth? Read on, there are situations that humans are making these decisions in the name of "mercy"

"The slippery slope in the Netherlands has descended already into avertical cliff," said Wesley J. Smith, a prominent California-based
Child euthanasia remains illegal everywhere. Experts say doctors outsideHolland do not report cases for fear of prosecution.
"As things are, people are doing this secretly and that's wrong," said Eduard Verhagen, head of Groningen's children's clinic. "In the Netherlands we want to expose everything, to let everything be subjected
According to the Justice Ministry, four cases of child euthanasia were reported to prosecutors in 2003. Two were reported in 2002, seven in 2001 and five in 2000. All the cases in 2003 were reported by Groningen,but some of the cases in other years were from other hospitals.
Groningen estimated the protocol would be applicable in about 10 cases per year in the Netherlands, a country of 16 million people .

Since the introduction of the Dutch law, Belgium has also legalized euthanasia, while in France, legislation to allow doctor-assisted suicide is currently under debate. In the United States, the state of Oregon is alone in allowing physician-assisted suicide, but this is under constant legal challenge.
However, experts acknowledge that doctors euthanize routinely in the United States and elsewhere, but that the practice is hidden.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ugh.FH,I knew this conversation would go this way which is why I debated discussing it.But I will say again,I am talking about NO CHOICE,a woman has no choice when she is raped,as an example,and this results in a pregnancy.I am talking about the RIGHT to have an abortion.

Until the day we have clearly defined conditions for this procedure and decide WHO or WHAT is included in these measures and who decides,a woman's right to choose to have an abortion MUST be protected,regardless of the WHY right now.I honestly don't see this being resolved anytime soon.This is too hot an issue that can't possibly be agreed upon with the "polarized" society we live in today. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Octobergirl - I agree that the likelihood of a "complete agreement" by all people is an impossibility. It always has been and it likely always will be.

What I don't get is the attitude of allowing all abortions to proceed under the misapplication of "right to choose." I, for example, "granted" that in cases of "no choice"(i.e., rape) and even in some cases where there is "choice" (i.e., threat to the mother's life, etc.).

This seems be the "shoot first and ask questions later" sort of reasoning that is decried in all areas except the abortion issue.

Do you have the "right" to kill someone who has forceably entered your home and who you believe is a threat to your life? Yes. Do you have the right to kill anyone we want even if our life is NOT in danger? No. Yet that is essentially the argument you are making. Allow the abortions to continue for ALL causes simply because we can't get unanimous agreement as to just what "threat of imminent danger to your life" means in YOUR mind, even when someone breaks into your home.

We as a society "elevate" "WOMAN'S CHOICE" above all other reasons that might be relevant. My point is simple, "choice" does play a part, as it does in many things, but just because WE want to do something because we "want to," "it's convenient," "I'm too lazy to take precautions," "I don't care if I 'get burned' because I can make someone else pay the price," there ARE legitimate limits on our "freedom to choose" in many areas.

The "Choice" argument would seem better addressed in those areas that you would put outside of the "no choice" factor. It would seem that the "Choice" to engage in sex or not to engage in sex is the "right" of every woman (and man for that matter). IF one "chooses" to be sexually active, then one is by definition accepting the potential "consequences" that go with that choice.

The same sort of "choice" and "consequences" goes with many things, like adultery for example. The argument can be made that the Betrayed Spouse has been raped against their will by the OP and the Unfaithful Spouse. Would that give the BS the "right" to kill the OP while keeping the WS? Not likely.

Does the WS have to "live with the consequences" of their choice? Most certainly. With an "unknown future," many of those consequences are not clearly seen "today," but they all result from the choice to cheat and "give in to" selfish desires and faulty reasoning that is used to "justify" the "bad behavior."

Octobergirl, abortion is one of those topics that can get "get ugly" easily when discussing it. I hope that you understand I am NOT doing anything other than discussing the "validity of choices" and the "motivations for choices" as "reasons" for any action by people.

The point that I am making also touches on the idea that "only women have a right to an opinion regarding abortion because only women can get pregnant." This is the same sort of false logic that is used in many areas. Personal experience with something is NOT the sole determining factor that anyone's opinion is "valid or invalid." Many many things we "opine" about are legitimate because we can look at the data, read the stories from those who HAVE had the personal experience, etc. Were this NOT true, even places like MB and the books written by Dr. Harley would have NO merit, nor should they be considered, because he has not personally experienced infidelity.

Whether a discussion of abortion, or any topic for the matter, continues is up to the participants and whether or not they wish to continue commenting. For myself, I've said about all that I care to say on the subject for now. It is my hope that readers of the thread will at least begin to think about all the ramifications of that blanket "do whatever YOU want to do" endorsement means, not just in the abortion arena, but in all "choices" that are made.