posted October 18, 2004 01:40 PM              

The subsequent emotional rollercoster I embarked upon was one of the most tragic of my life. Some young women coudln't handle it. Period.

I got pregnant, USING B/C. I had no business being a mother. I would have turned out to be just as abusive and neglectful as my own mother.

posted October 18, 2004 06:06 PM            

I got pregnant when I was kinda young but just mostly immature and financially unable to take care of a child.. I was terrified and frankly at times I still am. The thought of abortion crossed my mind only briefly. Knew I could not bring death into my womb where life emerges without regretting it the rest of my life.. I also thought that I would be psychologically unable to cope with giving my child up for adoption.. just like you pointed out, LS.. I agree that some women just can't handle it..

Strange as it might seem to some it just seemed 'easier' to have the child and accept the responsiblity that went along with it. Consequently I have discovered that being a mom forces me to face all of my darkest emotional/archetypal shadows of S-ELF. I am fortunate that not all of them are as fearsome as other peoples'. Still, I have sacrificed alot and at times I lose my temper with the child and regret it later.

For other people, shadows are all consuming and they really *shouldn't* be parents. Period. Take my aunt for instance. She's had something like 5 abortions. Certainly she is an example of exactly what jwhop is talking about.. these abortions of "convenience"` Yet, if you were to meet her jw, no doubt you would agree that she should NOT be a parent. She's been a cokehead and alcoholic for 20+ years. Any child she would have given birth to would have, at worst, been severely malformed or mentally disabled and at best, born to a mother with severe anger and addiction problems.. I find it ironic that some people have such strong convictions against abortion but have never adopted a child, since inevitably that is always their answer to a situation like that of my aunt.

I take your silence to my question, jw, to put you into that category.

But please, jwhop.. correct me if I'm wrong and you do have an adopted child with fetal alcohol syndrome or drug related birth defects.

posted October 18, 2004 06:53 PM            

To answer your question, no I have no adopted children. I do have 3 children of my own who were not necessarily planned but nevertheless we didn't kill them for being inconvenient.

We did raise them, providing what ever they needed and later gave them the best education we could...including at home intervention when the damned school system was falling down on the job.

In any event, there are a lot of childless couples waiting to adopt..so many in fact that children from other countries are being adopted by American couples.

So you can attempt to raise that as an issue but it won't fly.

My position remains that most abortions are for convenience sake caused by irresponsible women and men.

posted October 18, 2004 07:51 PM            

"E-2.01 Abortion.
The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the law. (III, IV) Issued prior to April 1977." http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8385.html

"How do you scientifically and factually prove consciousness in a fetus?

"There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins, a point made by such institutions as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Medical Association. These scientists say that the point at which a new person comes into existence cannot be scientifically discovered; it is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief, not scientific fact. It requires a judgment of what we consider a human being to be. For instance, does a human being consist of genetic information, or a disembodied soul, or a consciousness in a body? Or is it a separate, social being who has been born?" http://www.geocities.com/evolvedthinking/Abortion.htm

"As for abortion, the fact remains that you cannot scientifically verify when Life actually begins. It's a matter of religious/spiritual/philosophic consideration for each individual. "

And, of course, Roe vs. Wade which is still legally upheld.

jwhop
I've said it before and I'll say it again ... you cannot ascertain, factually and scientifically, when life begins. Period. So unless you have irrefutable factual scientific proof, not theories, conjectures, opinions, convictions, beliefs, inferences, or any other form of subjective reasoning ... unless you alone posses the objective scientific proof, in contrast to the many doctors and scientists who are expertly qualified to study the issue and have come to the aforementioned conclusion that it cannot be ascertained when Life begins .... unless you can prove with verifiable facts when Life begins, Life itself and complete and not merely signs of life or a semblance of life or a potential for life ... then you are simply making unfounded accusations of murder based on an emotional argument.
You may be perfectly content with the idea that Life is nothing more than genetic information or the division of cells, but not everyone agrees with you, nor should they.
However, since you insist on levelling unfounded accusations of murder (and reminding us unnecessarily what our laws in regards to murder are while still ignoring that first and second trimester abortions are still legal) without first irrefutably establishing what Life is and when it begins ... please, by all means, reveal to us this proof that you alone are privy to.

posted October 18, 2004 10:41 PM              

Jwhop there is an inconsistency in your argument for the morning after pill and your argument against abortion. The morning after pill does the same thing that abortion does.

How Does the Morning After Pill Work?
by Pregnancy Resource Ministry

The first two pills must be taken within 72 hours after intercourse, followed by two more pills 12 hours later.

There are four possible mechanisms by which Preven can influence a pregnancy:

Ovulation may be prevented (in which case the egg will not be released).

The menstrual cycle may be altered, which will delay ovulation.

Sperm penetration or migration may be affected.

Additionally,

Alterations may occur to the uterine wall, interfering with the ability of the fertilized egg to implant within the uterus.

This last mechinism is not truly contraceptive because conception has already occurred; rather it represents a very early abortion.
http://www.family.org/pregnancy/articles/a0030244.cfm

My point is that it is inconsistent to be opposed to abortion and in favor of the use of the morning after pill when they are both the same.

posted October 18, 2004 10:43 PM            

There are and have been in the past, people charged with double homicide, multiple 1st degree murder when they murdered a pregnant woman. Seems the courts have already decided that an unborn baby is a baby with the rights of full protection under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Convicted too.

Not only that but there are civil cases on wrongful death using the same logic that an unborn baby is a baby and when both the mother and the unborn baby were killed by negligence actions of another, juries have found for the plaintiff and against the person or persons responsible for their deaths.

Ummm, I'm not at all willing to let the AMA or any group of doctors decide when, how or why a life may be terminated. Never, ever would I trust people who have a financial stake in abortion to make any of those decisions or even give their input to the decision making process...except to provide expert advice as to whether or not a mother's physical health is in jeopardy by carrying a pregnancy to term...or medical reports showing the baby is dead, brain dead or has very serious physical or mental disabilities and probably could not survive on it's own.

posted October 18, 2004 10:46 PM              

Understand that those who believe that abortion is akin to murder and is therefore wrong will not be convinced that it is alright to make it legal. It is much the same thing to say that killing your retarded child is wrong but it's a choice and therefore let's not take away that choice. Of course it is a choice. Most things in life are choices. But that does not mean that all of us agree that people should have the freedom to choose such things with the proetection of the law and with no consequences. This is why people who are against abortion are so vehement in their views. Would you allow for murder if that's what you really thought was happening?

There is really no arguing with someone who believes that abortion is wrong so let's just leave it be and refrain from the attacks and name calling, such as antifeminist, sexist, etc.

posted October 18, 2004 10:59 PM              

Let's refrain from name calling and making attacks (i.e. murderer).

posted October 19, 2004 01:40 AM            

quote:

---

Sorry but it is indisputable that cells, no matter what their arrangement happens to be are life.

---

Indisputable by whom? As for cells, I certainly don't expect that you believe a person who causes another to lose, say a finger that cannot be reattached, to be accused of murder ... even though those cells were alive, as well.

people charged with double homicide, multiple 1st degree murder when they murdered a pregnant woman.

both the mother and the unborn baby were killed by negligence actions of another, juries have found for the plaintiff and against the person or persons responsible for their deaths.

There has yet to be a woman to be charged with murder for choosing an abortion. Entirely different issue. The women who were murdered and had their unborn fetus' unable to survive the trauma did not choose of their own volition to terminate their pregnancies.

An argument against the doctors who are truly educated on the matter, regardless of whether or not they are paid for it is tantamount to an argument against the doctors who do what they can to keep someone alive while their body is choosing death simply because they will be making money off of the efforts to keep that person alive. Doctors get paid for performing procedures that have been deemed perfectly legal, not by the doctors themselves, but by our courts.

But, seriously, jwhop, I'm not trying to change your mind or your feelings about abortion. I just wish you had the same courtesy for those of us that don't believe as you do.

posted October 22, 2004 01:58 AM            

"MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.
It also differs from murder in this, that there can be no accessaries before the fact, there having been no time for premeditation. Manslaugbter is voluntary, when it happens upon a sudden heat; or involuntary, when it takes place in the commission of some unlawful act.
When death ensues from the performance of a lawful act, it may, in consequence of the negligence of the offender, amount to manslaughter. For instance, if the death has been occasioned by negligent driving. Again, when death ensues, from the gross negligence of a medical or surgical practitioner, it is manslaughter." http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m013.htm

Why am I boring us with definitions of murder and manslaughter? Because ... if you want to argue that an abortion is murder it could just as easily be argued that a miscarriage is manslaughter. In fact, it's already being argued. Let's take a ridiculous trip through the city of supposition ...
If an abortion is equal to the intentional premeditated killing of an individual human life, ie, murder, then a miscarriage is arguably equal to an unintentional and unpremeditated killing of an individual human life, ie, manslaughter. Before 12 weeks, the majority of miscarriages are due to chromosomal abnormalities ... is it manslaughter of a handicapped or mentally retarded person? Likewise with abortions performed before 12 weeks. Further, if the fetus is granted full rights as an individual human being ... why choose the mother's life over the fetus' life if the mother's life is in peril due to her pregnancy? How can you justify killing one innocent life in favor of another if they're both equal? But if the mother aborts the child she is a murderer ... or is it self-defense or manslaughter? And what if the fetus' life were chosen over the mothers? Upon being born, if the mother died, would that child be accused of manslaughter since he is certainly, although unintentionally, responsible for her death? The whole issue becomes so ridiculous that it would be funny if it weren't so serious.

Here are a couple of links in regards to fetal life:

http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
http://www.caral.ca/facts/responses.php

I strongly suggest you look them over if you are actually interested in the pro-abortion side of the argument.

And just as a side note ... why is it that a natal chart is cast for the time of birth, rectified for the time of the first breath? Why do holy scriptures around the world refer to the breath of Life?

There is a big difference to me between a living human cell, be it an ovum, a sperm, an embryo, or a skin cell and an individualized, living, breathing human being.

Oh, yes, here is information on HR 1997, otherwise known as the UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2004
``Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

``(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the
provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death
of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in
utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate
offense under this section.
``(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the
punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment
provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death
occurred to the unborn child's mother.
``(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
``(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
``(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or
bodily injury to, the unborn child.

``(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally
kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of
being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under
sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or
attempting to kill a human being.
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty
shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the
prosecution--
``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized
by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such
consent is implied by law;
``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

[URL=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f]http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f[/ URL] ubl212.108

Edit
Erm, not sure why the little raspberry smiley is showing up ... Here's another link to the same page: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.1997:
Just go to where it says: Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 108-212 [Text, PDF]
and click either text or pdf.

posted October 22, 2004 02:38 AM              

Would you argue that head is still alive?

posted October 24, 2004 08:21 PM              

Jwhop, I must step in here because it breaks my heart when you get all silly like this. "inconvenience, inconvenience, inconvenience" blah blah blah. Ok, so what if it is? People make stupid, immoral, irresponsible decisions all the time. I understand the pain you feel, jwhop - believe me, I'm offended by immoral decisions too. But we can't regulate that sort of thing, we can't make irresponsibility illegal as much as we holier-than-thou types would like too. After all, we're not communists. I will go head to toe with anyone, including you sir, on matters of morality. I'm a goody-goody to the extreme it would probably make even you ill. But that does not give me authority to claim rights over another woman's body. And do you really expect the 13 year old next door, who was just raped by her father, to "immediatly go the police" or risk carrying that fetus to term? This may very well account for a small percentage of abortions but it is a very important part, wouldn't you agree?

In addition, I have done a marvelous job of "keeping my knees firmly together". Of course, this virtue would have been considerably easier to master had the other half of the species been better at keeping a certain part of their anatomy in their pants.

posted October 24, 2004 11:55 PM            

TINK, when rights of competing parties collide, the most serious rights and the most serious consequences to one of the parties must take precedence. The right to life trumps inconvenience every time.

Astrology charts are calculated from the time of birth...as I'm sure you know That does not in any way mean life begins at birth.

posted October 25, 2004 07:52 AM              

Of course, had my uncle killed someone in a car accident while drunk driving, admittedly , that would be an entirely different story. Which leads us to the next step and your last remaining arguement - the fetus is as much a living, breathing, fully incorporated human as am I. Thereby making an abortion tantemount to murder. If that be the case, I will agree with you wholeheartedly and abortion should be made illegal pronto - no exceptions and that includes the rape and incest victims. (After all, being raped, as horrible as it is, should not give one the right to commit murder, right?) However, this is where we part ways. This is where we get into maybe the more, dare I say it, metaphysical side of things. Are you ready to go there? Got your hiking boots on, big guy? All strapped in? 'Cause this terrain can get a bit bumpy.

Please explain why the chart is based on the moment of birth rather than the moment of conception.

posted October 25, 2004 11:12 AM              

How can you justify the death penalty?

If you believe abortion is murder, how can you deny that putting a person to death for a crime (he may or may NOT have commited) is murder?

I happen to be a rather large TINK fan .