Why Compromise? Simply put, the controversy over this issue is tearing at the fabric of civil society in this nation. Unless common ground is sought, this is not going to change. This issue, to a large extent, dominates all of the others in the two major parties. Dealing with it intelligently and reaching a solution allows the nation to move on to other pressing problems. Finally, it will deprive those who subsist on this controversy of their fundraising base, which is good for the flock that they fleece with regularity.
THE MAIN REASON WE SHOULD SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS IS THAT THE DEMS AND GOP ARE INTERESTED IN KEEPING THE ISSUE ALIVE FOR THEIR FUNDRAISING AND GOTV.
Who Compromises Where? The proper venue for this compromise is the United States Congress. The goal currently embraced by the Right to Life movement is unreachable and ill advised. Overturning Roe v. Wade and sending the matter to the states would further divide this nation into abortion states and police states and would prevent few abortions, as women form police states would travel to abortion states to obtain the procedure or return to self-induced and clandestine procedures. Overturning Roe, as a policy proposal, then fails on both effectiveness and equality grounds. The legal theory which holds that state legislatures should decide this issue also holds that federal supremacy in civil rights for racial and sexual minorities should be ended. To overturn Roe in this way would chip away at that supremacy, which flies in the face of the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The right of sexual privacy and even the undue burden test rely on the finding by the Supreme Court in Roe that the unborn are property. To reverse this finding, they must be granted citizenship rights at some stage prior to birth. Only the United States Congress, which is sovereign, has the authority under the Constitution to do this, particularly the Fourteenth Amendment. Compromise over
What? They key to compromise is to define the question over which the compromise will take place. For the Right to Life side the question is “When does life begin?” This question does not get us very far toward compromise. It is essentially a moral question which can inform the law, but cannot dictate it. Further, if the moral teaching in question relies on moral authority rather than reason alone, it must be relegated to a religious teaching which may not be controlling in American policy.
For the Pro-Choice side, the question is “How do we protect women’s health?” This is also the wrong question (we are assuming that if a woman’s life in danger, the child’s life can be forfeited), because once you determine that the child has legal rights and is not property, a balance must be struck between the rights of the child and the rights of the mother.
Therefore, the question is, and always has been about when the child is an object of law. One can ask, “When shall the child be granted citizenship?” but that does not really help defuse the issue. There is a better way to state the question to get the needed answer, specifically “At what point in the pregnancy should the parents be able to file a wrongful death suit if the child dies?” As we shall see, this question puts the entire issue into focus, because obviously if the obstetrician can be sued over the wrongful death of the child he should not be allowed to kill it. The converse is also true. If he is not required to save the child, it cannot be the object of law. This question is inherently better, because it lays bare one of the motivations of the right wing in this issue, its desire to preserve the traditional family and the role of women within it as chattel for child bearing. Most don't actually say this, but some do, which confirms the pro-choice sides deepest suspicions. This is why the debate must shift from morality to legality.
Compromise over When? The Right to Life movement believes that life begins at conception, echoing papal encyclical Humanae Vitae for what can only be described as political reasons. Of late, in the stem cell research funding controversy, the President’s bioethicist has echoed this stance, even though this does not agree with what standard embryology text books state. Those texts referenced by the Encyclopedia Britannica clearly show that gastrulation is far more important. Prior to gastrulation, the development of the blastocyst is governed entirely by the mother’s DNA in what is called generative development. Twinning can occur prior to gastrulation. Most importantly, non-viable hybrids between species divide until gastrulation, at which point they die.
Returning to our central question, there could be no cause for action against an obstetrician for the death of a blastocyst, as it is more common for them to die than to survive. To allow such a cause would lead to either decimation in the profession or attempts to save blastocysts which can never be viable. The next conceivable marker is the commencement of the fetal heartbeat. This point is attractive, because it mirrors the marker for the end of life, the cessation of cardiac function. The difficulty here is that a large number of embryos naturally miscarry after this point due to fatal mutations or chromosomal abnormalities. In essence, these embryos are better dead and offering the parents a legal remedy would again be counter-productive. It is interesting to note that at least half of the embryos that achieve gastrulation do not survive due to natural causes. Presumably, the same mortality rate could be applied to first trimester abortions, meaning that half of them would have died anyway.
A final marker, before birth, is the development of the lungs. Infants born before this point require prolonged extraordinary and heroic measures to develop. While these measures are often taken with great effect, they should not be considered a requirement. In other words, the failure to provide these measures should not be actionable. This is essentially a standard of viability, although viability as a concept is becoming quite meaningless as technology pushes back what is possible in neonatal care. However, what is possible need not be mandated. The development of lung function is the kind of bright line for in utero development as well. If a child dies prior to this line, it is surely a tragedy, but should not be actionable. If the child dies after this point, the obstetrician should be liable if there were any way to prevent its death.
Compromise over How? This is the other key question. If we depart from the legalistic model, we can go farther. Now, if a child is aborted after its lungs have developed, this would be considered manslaughter or murder. Before this point, after the first trimester the safest method of abortion would likely be induction of birth with the withholding of respiratory therapy, unless someone wishes to come forward to adopt the child, since the so-called partial birth procedure is now outlawed and the other remaining method for second trimesters is medically riskier for the mother.
The more important How is how to prevent abortion in the first place. This is where we depart from criminal sanctions and propose methods to incentivize childbirth. Three proposals come to mind. The first is a broad based refundable tax credit for each child and dependent spouse, with both state and federal credits of $500 per month and a minimum wage of $10 per hour to be paid over and above any credit (this is to prevent the use of the credit as the sole wage).
The second is the funding of students with children by the government rather than their parents, so that no teens career is ruined because they choose to have a child. This funding would be provided to the father as well, provided marriage or domestic partnership is entered into.
The third is the payment of tuition for all students up to grade fourteen or tech school, with a stipend to be paid to each student as an incentive to finish. After this point, academic students would find an employer who would pay the remainder of the bachelor’s degree plus any graduate education. All of these items take the incentive from abortion, especially the cash payment for children, which will also go a long way toward saving Social Security by encouraging childrearing. This payment is even high enough that a man whose wife has a child conceived outside the marriage, he likely won’t care (and if this amount is too low for this purpose, the rate should be increased). These provisions force the pro-life movement to conform to the Catholic social justice agenda as it wishes to buy into the Church’s reproductive agenda. Any party which adopts it will likely attract those pro-life Catholics who have, of late, joined with the Republicans (although many have returned to the Democratic Party over the mishandling of Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)). Leadership on this issue is only possible from the Center.
A KEY REASON TO HAVE A CENTRIST CAMPAIGN IS TO BREAK LOGJAMS LIKE THE ABORTION ISSUE, WHICH IS USED MORE FOR FUNDRAISING THAN ACTION BY THE MAJOR PARITIES.
[Unity Moderator Team: 2024-10-208: Pruned and Grafted: This is off topic; moved to Civil Liberties Forum. Note: Had to reformat after graft. My apology.]
This is about theee most intelligent argument I've ever read/seen/heard regarding abortion. No democrat or republican has ever put this so eloquently (or cared enough to).
While your statement is well-written and the compromise is apparently acceptable it dimisses serious areas of controversy that are not of a political origin. Abortion to mmany, especially Catholics(including myself), is a matter of faith. If the GOP decides that they are going to manipulate the Catholic church tog et votes that is their decision but it is entirely separate from the origin of the belief. The Pope did not write Humanae Vitae in order that he might furhter anyone's political agenda: he did it to save souls and to save lvies. If this party intends to broker a compromise between what many Catholics(myself again included) see as God's ruling and the Supreme Court's, it will fail. We can attempt to change the alw in favor of further restrictions on abortion, but tackling the issue, which involves dealing with the largest faith on hte planet and more importantly in this country, is not something this party should do.
shadismount@hotmail.com
g
The whole issue of abortion conflict goes back to the Supreme Court decision- Roe vs. Wade. In my opinion this was a wrong decision, Abortion should be a states right issue, abortion will never be made illegal in this country, I think if the Roe decision were reversed and abortion rights became a states issue that would solve this never ending ugly battle that was started because of a flawed court decision. Again abortion in this country will never, never, be outlawed. So lets get the fly out of the oinment and cure this mess.
Leave it up to each state. In truth I feel alot of issues should be left to the state to decide, Drug laws being one of the most important with abortion
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Roe is about federal supremacy in civil rights issues, which is the proper function of the federal government under the 14th Amendment, just as it will eventually overturn laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals. In the Texas sodomy case, even Scalia, in his dissent, conceded that without the criminalization of sodomy there is no reason not to have gay marriage if the equal protection doctrine were followed.
More importantly, the right of medical privacy in Roe is contingent on the lack of rights of the fetus. The proper venue for extending citizenship rights is not the states, but rather with the FEDERAL government as sovereign. Congress, not the states, can extend rights to fetuses - and should do so to when the lungs are developed.
This will settle the abortion question in the minds of many, since what the really object to is the thought of a last trimester abortion. Of course, this easily accomplished step will never be taken by the GOP because of this as it would ruin their fundraising.
THAT is why this is an issue for us. Our goal is to form a centrist coalition and cut them off at the knees. If you don't share this goal you should not be here.
Michael Bindner
Presidential Candidate
HUH??? "The Right to Life movement believes that life begins at conception, echoing papal encyclical Humanae Vitae for what can only be described as political reasons."<\strong)
I'm not Catholic, but I do believe the Bible. Regardless of that, you should leave the O'Reilly factors out of your posts. You can state your reasons effectively enough without twisting the other side into something ugly and repugnant. That comment was designed to force people with fragile egos to side with you.
Please just state the facts, and leave the name calling to Bill O'Reilly and his ilk. We're here for the truth, not distortions, not little white lies, not big black lies ... just state the facts.
Humanae Vitae was written to be doctrinally consistent and to carve out a unique position. Some would also argue that it was also about preserving a "traditional family" model with women in their place. As for saving lives, Humanae Vitae is about birth control, not abortion. It operated under the mistaken assumption that ensoulment takes place at conception. It cannot for a variety of reasons. Until Gastrulation (or cleavage) which comes after implantation, the mothers genes control the entire growth process. Further, until that point non-human hybrids will continue to grow. Finally, twinning can occur, which is a sign that the soul has not yet been imparted because one aspect of a soul is its individuality. You can't be an individual until you can't be cut in half and become two people.
Ignore the entry entitled "g" I screwed up
The Church and even The Pope have a long history of interest in political agendas; it is one of the things that lead to the rise of the Church. Constantine converted the Roman Empire into the Holy Roman Empire for his own political agenda. Most of his subjects were followers of this "new faith", so he did the only thing he could to unite the empire and gain the support he wanted. To pretend that the Church (or any belief structure for that matter) is not interested in politically gaining more power is somewhat close minded (no offence to anyone).
However, that does not mean people can just take a life just because they so choose (I am PRO-LIFE). But then there is the gray matter of the issue. What if an abortion can save a mother's life, if she carries the child she dies, thus killing the child as well. Wouldn't it be better to save one life instead of loosing two? Or even the rape victim that is truly not ready to have a child, because of their age or even form the depression of being raped.
I wish every issue was as simple as black and white, right and wrong, but most are not. This is one issue that I think both sides have to concede to a loss, other words, you do what you think is right and I do what I think is right. Sadly there is no middle road here we can all agree on.
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Making abortions illegal will not stop abortions. It will only stop safe and legal abortions. With a stroke of a pen we will turn our wives, daughters, sisters and friends into felons.
I do know that
------MYSPACE URL myspace.com/sketical_believer OR E-MAIL zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
There is an easy way to solve the abortion problem.
I repeat...
There is an easy way to solve the abortion problem.
It's called "RISUG".
It is a cheap, easy, reversible, zero-side-effect, 100% effective, male birth control available in India.
One shot, lasts 10 years. Reversible at any time, and can be done over and over again...
We can simply establish a new "rite of passage" for our boys. Turn 16, get a shot, and it's
"go get 'em Tiger!".
It's not available here, in the USA, because the drug companies are fighting to keep it out. Duh. Too cheap. Too easy. Too effective. They can't make any money on it!
While I refuse to take away a woman's right to make a decision to have an abortion, I also believe that it is very close to murder. I'm not fond of the idea, but believe that it is for the woman to decide, not me.
The solution... Free RISUG for all boys. Perhaps even a small tatoo, so the girls can check that they're not lying. By taking away the CAUSE of the problem, the problem itself goes away.
Cheap, simple, effective. I like those kinds of solutions.
Richard H. Clark
Independent Presidential Candidate
www.MiddleClass2008.com
It's an interesting idea, which I could go along with.
What do you think of the original post, since obviously if RISUG ever is available everyone is not going to do it?
First of all. There is nobody business except those who wants to have an abortion. There are many situations in the life when it’s necessary for the better results or long run.
There is a way to debut radical pro-life organizations based on religion, especially Christianity.
None of those radicals will ever admit that they are pro-life in their own sect or a small group. They all will claim that they are against abortions worldwide. At the same time if they look at the issue from their own religion perspective they are working for “devil”.
Pretty much most of the ppl this days understand that child born of Muslim will be a Muslim. Child born of a Hindu person will be a Hindu; child born in communist country will be an atheist. For this same reason from about 6.5 billion people on this planet most of them are not Christians. According to their own Christian religion any infidel or non Christian will go to hell forever and ever. Besides this, all those newborns who are not Christians are actually multiplying Devil’s army and it goes against Christianity doctrines. In other words those radicals who based all their strategies based on bible and solely on religion have no choice to step down or try to come up with a better argument than bible.
At the same time most Christians are basing their ideas from New Testament, simply forgetting that there is the first part of the book which is OT. In OT the same god (if we consider that Jesus is the part of the trinity) personally gets involved in killing children’s (sending plaques to Egyptians), mass genocide of this planet during the great flood. There too many examples in the bible where god personally been involved in destructions of life, and claiming that God is pro-life is false claim.
From the same perspective but slightly different angle we can see how hypercritic they are.
First they scream against abortions and then they support the war against the same people that they were protecting at the first place. This happens in Iraq today.
I am 100% for abortion except some issues keeps bothering me. Partial birth abortions.
Another day I saw on TV (discovery) how the death penalty being conducted in US.
For the worst ppl in our society they are trying to minimize the physical pain (by using lethal injections)
When it comes to partial birth abortions (I guess it’s 3 month and later) the little physical body is not taken into consideration. From what I read about partial birth abortions the procedure is ridicules.
I am suggesting that anyone who wants to have a partial birth abortion after 3 month should have a c-section procedure, pull out the little body first the normal way and then proceed. We are worry too much about worst criminals in this country but when it comes to innocent once we just step away.
This is my personal opinion. Since English is not my first language sometimes it’s hard to express the proper way. I tried.
A few grammer erors and such, but on the whole fully thought out and fully explained. By the way what other Language do you speak.
As I said before, I consider myself Pro-Life, but also see that at times abortions do have a use.
Since I am stuck in the gray matter of the issue I can not tell some one that they are not alound to have an abortion. Personaly I would not make that choice, and hope that my future wife (if I ever find her) wouldn't make that choice. So I guess I'm really Pro-choice, even though I hate the concept of abortions
I'm friends with many Pro-choice surrporters, when we are togather we avoid the issue altogather because we realize that we'll never see eye to eye. I believe that's what we need to do as a country. If you think it's wrong fine, if you don't fine. If you want to believe that GOD thinks it's wrong, and those who question HIM will be punished, fine. But do not make it you duty to spread HIS will and save lost souls. IF there is a GOD, he will take care of them himself.
In the end, I believe that this is an issue that will never go away. It will alway be lurking around until the end of time driving everyone crazy.
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Hi
i speak russian fluently, french ( used to be fluently)
I am 200% pro-choice but when it came for my wife i was pro-life. But i do support woman's choice period.
I do understand you view, I truely do. But as a Buddhist I believe everything has a right to live, and once live starts no matter how small it is, it's life. Hell, I stop people from killing bugs for that reason. But on the other hand I do eat meat, but only in order to susatain my own life. I'll stop here before I get way off track and start to explain Buhhdism. Trust me you don't want that, I won't stop.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Hey, i got plenty of friends who is into buddhism and other spritual things . I have plenty of indians friends at work from india practicing same thing. While i do respect buddhism for being a peacefull teaching i still far away from it central point. Everything is a state of mind. But i still stick to simplicity of bio-chemical reactions inside our bodies to produce everything we hear, see or feel :)
I agree that all life is bio-chemical reactions producing everything we hear, see, feel, even think, and do.
In tuth that all connects to Buddhism, everything happens for a reason etc.
(wath the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know", it's all about Meta - Physics)
But that does not mean that distroying an inocent life is right. We are talking about life that can not defend itself in any form. It's as if we are the school bully picking on the small kid with glasses
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
First…if the government (which is not required to procure, provide or pay for abortions for any of its citizens), forces other citizens who find the act morally reprehensible to fund it, by using federal tax funds, directly or indirectly...YES IT IS THEIR BUSINESS TOO.
To people such as me, there is only one morally justified reason to EVER get an abortion, and that is when the life of the mother is threatened, that's it, no other situation can be morally justified to protect, defend and support the right to free for all, unlimited access to abortion.
It’s NOT the woman’s body, alone, it’s the helpless infants body too, that gets drawn and quartered with clamps, meat hooks and vacuumed.
As far as your anti-Semitic hate tirade against Jews and Christian (and or their God), your a ridiculous ignoramus Mr. 100%’r Death monger...you have a racist and biased understanding (calling it an understanding is being to nice to you) of the God of Judaism and Christianity that is a self perpetuating justification for your hatred, bias, and anti-theistic delusion. Plus you make no sense (big surprise) since Christians are against abortion for everyone, not just themselves…idiot.
According to you they should support it generally (except for themselves of course) because it would lessen the armies of Satan!? What a Moroon…LMAO
Jane you ignorant slut!
Hatred destroys the reasoning faculties of the mind...dumb-ass.
Before you go on about talking about someone else’s religion, I would suggest you go learn something about the religion your trying to insult from someone who knows what they’re talking about and doesn’t have an agenda, but I doubt you even did that.
Most if not all faiths (or really their adherents…duh) believe their faith is the only true faith (including those of the “faith” of Atheism), so what the hell are you talking about, idiot.
If Christians suck so bad, then why did their civilization create the most civil and free nation on earth, where everyone who is free at heart wants to be?
*cough…USA…cough*
(And that's right we had to work at it, that's what makes the taste of our Freedom even sweeter, if your people and or culture of origin had the balls, there would be a USA where your from originally too, well there's only one USA baby, and it's a product of Anglo-Judeo-Christian culture, love it or leave it).
Most Societies (especially Commy-Atheist) are completely intolerant of other faiths, Western societies being the most tolerant societies to have ever been created, ever in history, who go out of their way to protect the civil liberties of "The Other," and even to their own detriment protect the rights of hostile residence trying to destroy them, something no other civilization has ever done in history.
And as far as “The War,” the war against terrorists (and other morally reprehensible people who believe violence is a justifiable means of political expression) IS JUST and Righteous – regardless of the faith (Theist, Pantheist, Henotheist, Atheist and even Maltheist – like yourself), end of story.
All you loony Jihadi funded leftist extremists continue to lie louder and harder than Michael Moore.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Go to it, you might learn something.
Iraq: Go back and read the archives…Sodomy Insane brought the invasion and occupation on his country and people, and now the animals continue to get what they deserve (not talking about the children, but mothers, fathers and older siblings are responsible for the fate of the children in their care), while the noble Kurdish people have created a vital, democratic economic power house in the North if Iraq – they’ve even established a National Kurdish Bank!
The mistake was not invasion, but Rummy’s complete and total mismanagement.
That said you still can be a tolerant person and recognize the complete and utter moral and social reprehensibility of infanticide.
No matter how you look at it, no sane rational moral human being can justify the murder of a helpless innocent unborn child, except when the mother’s life is directly threatened, whether you’re a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or a Buddhist (well since in Buddhism no one really exists or has a soul it’s probly ok with them), Etc.
Only narcissistic ego-mastabtory-centrist nihilist can do so.
Oh and by the way, just so you know, I am not using my religion to justify my position on abortion, I used to be cool-aid drinking Pro-Deather until I finally saw what an abortion actually is, and my concern is as much for the woman as it is for the child, IMHO everyone should watch an abortion film and see how they really feel, otherwise it’s a decision made out of ignorance, in fact they should show it in high School Phys. Ed., it might do wonder for abstinence too.
I am a strict Buddhist and find you statement very offensive. Not only that I'm Pro-Life
We do believe that everyone exists, and we might not use the term soul (we tend to use life force / energy / conscious / mind etc.) but we do realize that there is something else to us (the physical body) beside "us"
Buddhism is a religion without a god; Buddha was simply and man, nothing more. True he was / is the only man to reach full enlightenment. Does that mean he has magic powers? NO! But he did have unlimited wisdom he choose to share with the rest of humanity before he died. Part of that wisdom says to preserve all walks of life, no matter what it is. Unless it's death will directly benefit you by keeping you alive (killing for food, or self defense), even than it's not totaly right to kill. Ending a life simply because you do not want to deal with it is wrong. True, if you’re weeding your garden, you are ending a plants life, the trick is to build up enough GOOD KARMA to counter act those little mistakes made in life. But there is nothing worse than ending a Human life before it even gets a chance to see the world. Although as I have stated before, it is possible that an abortion can save a mother's life, if she carries the child she dies, thus killing the child as well. It would then be better to save one life instead of loosing two. I also believe a rape victim has the right to an abortion, because of their age or even possibly form the depression of being raped (this one is a tuff call). Beside two exclusions, it is simply a choice of convenience. Aborting just because you don't want the child is just plain wrong. That can not be good for you Karma in any way, shape, or form.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
This is not a forum about religion and so I think we have drifted a tad off-topic but, being human, I cannot help but to respond.
This is a websit for unity: calling all Christians hypocrites, regardless of what you believe, is an excellent way to drive Christians off. Whether or not you believe in Christianity, or resent it for whatever reasons, you(PicassoInActions) must also realize that in order for this party to suceed it will require Christian support.
Additionally, if you understand how God thinks, why He changed His policy after the death of Jesus Christ, please call the Pope because everyone else would like to know. Regardless of what faith you participate in(if any), I can't imagine that you will find anyone who can understand or even comprehend an omnipotent being. As far as the Catholic interpretation, it is explained as follows: God does not want people to kill people. If God wants to kill people, He is able to do so and not only able, but blessed because He has done it. His choice exceeds my comprehension but God cannot sin(because sinning is an act against God). Therefore, if God kills people but wants people to be pro-life, then so be it and it is so. A last note on ym religion: God forgives, first and foremost, God is a loving God. My personal belief is that if Satan, at the lest second on judgment day, askedfor forgiveness, God would accept that. PLease don't categorize all Christians as you just have and I hope my clarification has helped you understand what you consider to be a hostile("radical") group.
Zappafan, always wonderful to hear your opinion and yes the chruch has done things for political reasons in the past, it ahs lead wars, boycotts and even the genocide of other Christians(Innocent III). But As you can see from my response the Vatican also takes action as a matter of faith, regardless of its intent, through other Catholics. I believe Humanae Vitae is a doctrine of faith with its political aspect only existing because that is one field in which the CHruch can help to save lives.
But some issues to fall into the gray matter and I now remember I agree with you on one issue: if both mother and child are going to die, but the mother can survive if the baby is aborted, then I support abortion.
shadismount@hotmail.com
I think what we both believe is that abortions should not be done out of convenience, just because you don't want the child. If you didn't want the child to begin with, you should have used a condom, or the pill, or even decided not to have sex at all (not the choice I would make). Ending a life just because you don't want to deal with is wrong. By that logic I should be aloud to kill my neighbor because he drives me nuts.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Except you make an exception for rape-victims and I cannot justify even that. As to my solution, my national remedy for this situation, I do not have one...yet.
shadismount@hotmail.com
The rape victim sitution, I can see why you can't justify that. Some how in my mind I can, don't know why. Probally because I'm a guy, and if I am raped (I pray to God, Buddha or who ever that won't happen), that's a issue that I really don't have to think about. Kind of out like out of sight out of mind, but really out of mind, out of mind
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
“I think what we both believe is that abortions should not be done out of convenience”
Yes and No, Since I am agnostic and not buying into God’s ting ,I do realize that many moments in our live droved by chemical reaction in our body. We not going to argue here what is soul and what is body, simply because it makes no sense. There are many times our society unintentionally causes young people to make mistakes. Let’s put illusions down and look at the reality. Sex is advertised anywhere and everywhere. When it happens there are consequences.
Now can you tell me what to do in situation like this? Let’s say young female had a sex and she is nowhere near to be a mother. She is healthy but mentally she is not ready to be a mom. B/F probably was one night stand and nowhere to find him tomorrow. It’s not an isolated event after all. It’s the most common scenario these days. So what will be the steps? Prohibit her from abortion and let her fall even more on society level or let her have an abortion (disregarding her irresponsible behavior at the first place)? Again it’s easy to talk and hard when it comes to reality. Who is going to help her? Those who scream the most do the less (our democratic friends). Let her have a child, be poor, have no education and her child with time will become (in most cases) a problem to the same society that defended that life. Counseling and all those services are cool but how much help does really come from them? Reality is not what we want, reality is what we have.
I respect you courage to speak you mind, and even respect your views. But the way I see it is this, in a world of condoms and birth control pills it just seems somewhat "barbaric" (for a lack of better terms). If she made the irresponsible choice of not using the birth control opions available, Karmatically (did I just make-up a word) she has to pay the price. I know it sounds unfair, but life is unfair.
I've slept with women, I've never had a child, because of the simple fact we took proper the precautions.
I also konw that condoms can fail, but the pill can't (well only if you don't take it)
In the end, I believe that this is an issue that will never go away. It will alway be lurking around until the end of time driving everyone crazy.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
“she has to pay the price. I know it sounds unfair, but life is unfair.”
Well you are missing one point, the price is going to be paid not only by her, it will be paid by child and society.
Abortion should be treated the same way we treat capital punishment. Used very sparingly, and as a last resort. An abortion should create as much angst among people as a dead pit bull.
I am agnostic and agaisnt all religions. Just lately i hear pro-life mostly from religious ppl since they seems to have luck of common cense and justifying thier non-educated agenda's based on religion's. I don't want to go into religious subject ( i did study many religions and history )but lately Christian groups in US think Religion own this country. ANd according to Bush atheist should be not be even allowed in US. Besides that state of texas has the law that if you don't belive in higher power you are not allowed in texas goverment. Funny. And mr Bush comments that he takes family value from the bible is the most amusing thing.
It doesn't matter which one you choose, they are all really the same. The basic message in all of them is to treat you fellow man with kindness, and to be the best person you can etc.
Buddhism is a religion without a god; Buddha was simply and man, nothing more. True he was/is the only man to reach full enlightenment. Does that mean he has magic powers? NO! But he did have unlimited wisdom he choose to share with the rest of humanity before he died. Part of that wisdom says to preserve all walks of life, no matter what it is. Unless it's death will directly benefit you by keeping you alive (killing for food, or self defense), even than it's not totaly right to kill. Ending a life simply because you do not want to deal with it is wrong. True, if you’re weeding your garden, you are ending a plants life, the trick is to build up enough GOOD KARMA to counter act those little mistakes made in life. But there is nothing worse than ending a Human life before it even gets a chance to see the world. Although as I have stated before, it is possible that an abortion can save a mother's life, if she carries the child she dies, thus killing the child as well. It would then be better to save one life instead of loosing two. I also believe a rape victim has the right to an abortion, because of their age or even form the depression of being raped. Beside two exclusions, it is simply a choice of convenience. Aborting just because you don't want the child is just plain wrong. That can not be good for you Karma in any way, shape, or form.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
"But there is nothing worse than ending a Human life before it even gets a chance to see the world"
Well first of all you are talking about happy life to begin with. How about ending the nightmare for the person or soroundings? You assuming by default that what ever life starts is the happy life and it's far away from reality. Second of all the reason we do live - our parents decide to have a family and had a sex. I don't think your parents asked for your permission to bring you to life, did they?
So we are product ( sounds horrible, i know) of what others decide for us. And now we are in the same path , deciding for others. When before hand you know that child will be with "down syndrome" ( extreme example) no matter how hard you trying to justify that life on the back of your mind you do understand it's not the life, it's existence. Yes we can dance around the issue, we can pretend that child will be happy, we even spent the time for that child to be happy but is the child happy? Again it's our own perspective and not the child.
Peace.
Zappafan, I'm not sure if you think otherwise, but I too am a man. Not a woman. Just making that clear.
Picasso, I hope your comments are in jest or spoken in anger and that you do not truly mean them. This si the second time that you have called faithful people,e specially Christians, confused and puerile(at best) or stupid and insensate(at the opposite end of the scale). Calling my faith and all faiths "illusions" is preposterous and justifying it by saying that Christians are not the majority of the populace is completely hypocritcal. While Christians may be a minority, we are the largest minority by far and we are also not a stagnant minority: we are growing. Aetheists are a tiny minority relative to the 6.5 billion people currently alive and the most prominent examples of scientific innovations ahve been teh result of Christian efforts. Your attacks are unnecessary. If you are unable to promote your opinions without denouncing others than I simply do not beleive you understand the spirit of this site.
If a woman is unable to deal with rearing a child, she can drop it off at a fire station and our government will take care of it. No names. No bills. If you think event aht is unacceptable(perhaps because the mother of that child might feel guilty) then I think you may need to re-examine your thinking. How can a mother's guilt have more outweigh the life of a child?
shadismount@hotmail.com
"Picasso, I hope your comments are in jest or spoken in anger and that you do not truly mean them"
Yes i do mean it.
Christians are the majority for the world religion but so far all Christian together can't come even close to the chine’s population. Regardless of that, it's cute how you guys making up your numbers? When you need to show the majority you saying it's 2 billion Christians. When it comes to reality, according to Christian encyclopedia there are 35000 denominations that pretty much can't stand each other.
As of few days ago Pope clearly said , if not Catholics they are not true Christian. SO how many out there are real true Christians, and their number is very unclear thing.
I don't know ( personally) a single protestant who can stand catholic, i don't know a single Mormon who can stand any other cult in the same line.
"Christians are not the majority of the populace is completely hypocritical"
So i understand that you trying to represent masses with huge number that can't hold a single argument or have no back up data.
As for Christianity, it's amazing how ppl manage to forget what Christianity did. If you can go back to history you would see that millions upon millions ppl were killed and persecuted during last 2024 years. * crusades, 5th one are children crusade was authorized personally by Pope of Rome.
Just because in the last century when church got partially separated from religion the path of Christianity did get changed. Yes they are some positive lines on that path but the damage that was done over the last few thousand years are not that small. If you want me to back up my argument with data i can provide it to you.
"the most prominent examples of scientific innovations have been the result of Christian efforts"
No questions. Absolutely. The only thing is if you guys did not prosecute innovative ppl during the last 2k we probably would not be discussing this issue today and we could be far more advance. I did not invent dark ages, or inquisition , or crusades, or WWII under the religious agenda ( tough i know it was only cover up)
I am not promoting my opinion to religious ppl. It's very rear when person was raised as religious will abandon his views that easily.
Atheists are a tiny minority relative to the 6.5 billion..."
And how did you figure that out? USSR ( 20 years ago) + North Korea, + China and bunch of eastern Europe countries are making a slightly bigger number than any denominations of the Christianity or even Catholics. Get your numbers strait.
I am not an atheist, i am agnostic and open mind, if you have real proof of what your faith is i am for it. But do you? 87% Christians never read the bible ( they do get an idea what's in there in Sunday’s schools). They do know few things from here and there ( i hope you are not one of them). Over 90% according to research could not named more than 6 commandments. SO who is hypocrite is a big question.
"she can drop it off at a fire station and our government will take care of it."
How cute, are you by any chance a democrat who like the cliché and big words? What do you do to help that woman during her pregnancy? Oh wait, let her bear an unwanted child in poor conditions and than just drop at the station and than government will spent a little or nothing on that child.
May be next time you would like to give more examples or real numbers how government helps or what has been done. Every1 can promise and say whatever they want but how much of that is real?
Here are the link for you if you will have time to look at that:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Isaiah 45
45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
And please don’t tell me god is love and peace. God himself in the bible says he creates evil.
If I willing to believe I would choose god over any priest that claiming he knows the truth.
Peace.
Truthfully, I don't think PicassoInActions means to be hurtfull or rude. I've known many Russians and they do come off that way (no offence PicassoInActions). He has said that English is his second language, so maybe he having a problem chooseing the correct words.
I do feel that he is trying to express his views the best he can without being mean.
Hopefully I'm right.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
First of all, I find it interesting that a Russian is commenting on what is supposed to be a site to Unify us disgruntled Americans.
Secondly, PicassoInActions, Christianity is far from the majority in the world and I don't know anyone that claims that. Muslims have us severely outnumbered. That being said, it IS the majority religion in the US and (like it or not) is the foundation of our society.
Thirdly (:-)), I am a Christian (Lutheran) and I do not "hate" a single other religion, Christian denomination, Muslim, Hinu, Buddhist, nor any other. With the exception of maybe radical fundamentalists in any of the above. I take issue with some denominations doctrines but they are free to worship (or not) as they choose, hence the beauty of this great country of mine.
Finally, to the point of this topic. Abortion is a no-win situation for politics and both parties know it, hence why both banty it about but never actually do anything about it. As a Christian (or a persion with a heart for that matter) how do you condone the taking of an innocent life? However, as a logical human being, how do you condone bringing another life in this world that may be unwanted, unloved, etc, etc. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it has no place in the political spectrum.
As I see it, leave abortion legal. The woman (or couple) making that decision has to live with it for the rest of their lives. That being said, don't expect me as a taxpayer to pay for your abortions as a means of birth control. And absolutely ban partial birth abortions. You frickin' lefties want to hang people for kicking a dog but you don't mind scrambling a baby's brains???
It just dawned on me that maybe you are a "Russian/American"??
BTW, WTF ever happened to just being an American? I'm not an "Anglo/American", "African/American", "Mexican/American", ad nauseum, I am an AMERICAN!
You got this one right
I truely hope I did not offend you when I said Russians tend to come off rude. I was trying to defend you and your views, even though we don't see eye to eye. It's just from my experience they do tend to appear rude at times, even when they do not mean it.
One of my closest friend is Russian, and I do defend him when people get the wrong impression, because I know what kind of person he is.
Once again I have nothing but respect for you and well all American. Really Everyone in the world.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
I do agree with that, Honestly I don't care if it's leagal, and have said so a number of time. But I still think it's wrong, but thats just me.
My wording was "In the end, I believe that this is an issue that will never go away. It will alway be lurking around until the end of time driving everyone crazy."
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Muslims are not the majority in the world, they come in second.
There are about 150 million aetheists. That is small relative to 6,000 million people.
Christians(About 2 billion people with about 1 billion people being Catholics) are 32% of the world(and falling)
Muslims are 19%(and rising)
There are some numbers, perhaps now you will listen. The innovators I am talking about, Einstein adn Darwin for example, were not closet aetheists. They believed(Darwin was in training to become a priest).
Most of my friends are either Protestant, agnostic or aetheistic. We allg et along very well. There, now you have met a tolerant Catholic who knows tolerant protestants. As soon as I meet a Mormon, I will venture to disprove your other claim.
Next, Christianity did not instigate those persecutions. people did. People who waved the nails of Christ's cross and lead crusades because birds told them to. Much as Stalin beguiled his own people with communist ideals and Hitler with his golden race. It was not communism that resulted in 21 millions deaths, or facism that killed 6 million Jews, but people. People who wanted power.
I do not pretend to know what God is. If God is love than at times he sure is tough love. But if, for the sake of clarification, God calls soemthing He does evil, so that he does not have to explain his omnipotent understanding of the dichotomy between good and evil, than that's fine by me. In fact, I find it to be praiseworthy. You can take your problem with it up with God when you see Him. I think He'd be willing to clarify.
Picasso I respect your opinions, though I disagree wiht them, but your labeling and categorization is disrespectful. I cannot say how many people out there that have been baptized actually know their faith. I can name the 10 commandments, the apostles, the 2 commandments, the 3 commandments and I do read the Bible. I know what I believe and can back up my beliefs. But though I ahve me many who do nto often explore their faith, I ahve also met many aetheists who want to be faithful, some as faithful Christians some as faithful Muslims etc.
Unless you have anymore questions I doubt I will respond to any more generalizations. If you must, ahve the last word Picasso but I don't see why you take all of that evil that you see to heart but none of the good.
shadismount@hotmail.com
I'm traling of base here, but feel I must.
I don't believe in a GOD, more of a collective conscious, once you body dies your conscious become part of it sharing with it the things you've learned in life, until your conscious / energy / soul is re-incarnated (sadly once the physical you dies, your memories die too).
Although if there is a GOD, like you said before, who are we to judge HIM.
Violent Acts carried out in the name of religion (any one), isn't his fault, it is humanities
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Hi again
I am not trying to be rude or offend anyone in here. I am simply stating my opinion and i am sure many people don't like it.
"There are about 150 million atheists. That is small relative to 6,000 million people.
Christians (About 2 billion people with about 1 billion people being Catholics) are 32% of the world (and falling)
Muslims are 19%(and rising)"
Please can you provide me with the link where you got this numbers. Just Russian population alone is 280 million and for 70 years people did not even had an idea what is religion is.
I did not label that every Christian hate another Christian from a different sect. Tough it is true that most of them are doing it. I glad that you read the bible and can name the 10 commandments, and i am interesting if you can answer which 10 commandments? There are 3 sets in the bible to being with.
And i am sure you know the full commandments and not just abbreviation like " I am the Lord God" ( this is not a commandments).
Most of my friends are religious people and specially Christians. I do like to argue with them because it's amusing but it has nothing to do with relationship or offence. We all entitle to our own opinions. I don't get upset or offended when some1 fires back at me. Emotions is a chemical reaction that usually takes a short time to cool off.
"Christianity did not instigate those persecutions. People did. People who waved the nails of Christ's cross and lead crusades because birds told them to. Much as Stalin beguiled his own people with communist ideals and Hitler with his golden race. It was not communism that resulted in 21 millions deaths, or facism that killed 6 million Jews, but people. People who wanted power."
Absolutely. I 100% agree with you, tough you forgot that it's the same people who push their views onto others. It's the same ppl who was covered by religion. And it's the same people who preserved the religion for generations. Bible was written by ppl. Some will say those ppl were inspired. The question is who were more inspired? Those bishops who select which scriptures will go into the bible at 324 in Nicaea Council, or those who wrote them. There were over a 1000 official scriptures submitted to be included in the bible and as you know only few of them made it. Again, that was the ppl who wanted the power and was at the power of that moment.
Anyway let's not argue about the religion in this forum ( it was not my intention).
Thank you for understanding. Abortions are personal choice not a public one. ANd since we are talking about the power let's make that those who will get into the pwoer on nexct election won't start pushing thier own agendas on ppl privacy and choices.
Yan
PS> my mS word fail this mroing so if there is a many of grammair or spelling mistakes, blame Microsoft:)
Religion has been a source of violence forever. You say you have read the Bible. Then you should know that God has even told "his people" to commit genocide. "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him" (Num 31). The Catholic Church sent the crusaders to kill Jews and Muslims. The Catholic Church is responsible for the massacre of Cathars in southern France. The Catholic Church murdered many who they labeled heretics. The Catholic Church murder women who they said were witches. Potestants did the same. Please don't give me this BS about the birds telling them to do these things. It is right there in your Bible. Remember, the god of Israel is a jealous god, but isn't jealousy a sin? Hmm... Interesting contradiction. Marx was correct; religion is the opium of the masses. I refuse to be sedated by myths. Read your Bible more critically.
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
I knew you were not trying to rude.
And even though I think abortions are wrong, and they are ending a life, I also realize that this issue will be around forever. I’ll say it again,
“In the end, I believe that this is an issue that will never go away. It will always be lurking around until the end of time driving everyone crazy."
Abortion has no place in the Nation political spectrum The decision should be left to each individual state. I saying because it wont go away, atleast this way everyone can be somewhat happy.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
While it is tempting to write that because a compromise seems out of reach, one should not be attempted, it is not something my conscience will allow nor, more importantly, my faith will allow. I have to act. Picasso it releaves to learn that you were not trying to offend anyone. Your opinions never bothered me, and I only reget that you thought that I was that close-minded.
As you requested, here is a link, though not the one I originally used, verifying what I have already stated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Demographics .
I must make a full apology for a misquoted statement. Though I am sure that I read that there were only 150 million aetheists worldwide, I can no longer back that up. The links that I have found most recently place the non-religious at about 1.1 billion. This is not the aetheist population however, as it contains agnostics and secular individuals as well.
My apologies Picasso.
shadismount@hotmail.com
I do hope that at some point a "compromise" or sorts on the issue can be reached.
Even though at this point I see no hope, I basically said each state should make their decision out of frustration.
For people who are Pro-Choice, I will state I am Por-Life and that I do believe it is wrong to end a human life. The issue we are really debating here is when does that Human life begin. In my eyes the moment the sperm meets the egg. Even though it is not fully developed it is still a living Human. Singular cell or multi-celled life is life, that can not be argued.
In my mind Two exception, but that's just me --- If an abortion can save a mother's life, If she carries the child she dies, thus killing the child as well. It would be better to save one life instead of loosing two? Or even the rape victim that is truly not ready to have a child, because of their age or even form the depression of being raped.
This is where the "compromise" needs to be made, on the exception
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
First off, I believe the debate is skewed and illogical. While I understand faith has nothing to do with logic, I also understand that faith (as of right now and the entire past history) holds no place in US legislation. My last understanding here is that abortion will continue for as long as the process (or lack thereof) exists.
Pro-choice= those who wish to leave decisions on abortion matters to the individuals involved.
Pro-Life= those who plan to choose life for themselves in every instance, and wish to force their own choice upon others through the doctrine of law.
You can be pro-choice and anti-abortion. You cannot be pro-life and pro-abortion, meaning you MUST be anti-abortion if you choose pro-life. The first position is flexible. The second position is autocratic.
If you classify yourself under the current "pro-life" agenda, then you are necessarily against the freedom of individuals to make their own choices for their own bodies without the interference of government. The argument that attempts to supersede this by defending the "rights" of the unborn child to the same treatment listed above ignores the fact that this entity has no reason with which to comprehend rights or choice. Children are considered dependents of their parents until age 18 in this country. This is law because the government feels that a child cannot properly make decisions for itself until this age. Logic would then dictate that a child still in the womb lacks the ability to make decisions for itself, and ALL DECISIONS CONCERNING THIS CHILD MUST BE LEFT TO THE PARENT.
I am not arguing that a parent has a right to murder its child. Society has rightfully constructed laws against this, although in the Bible it was fairly common. What I am arguing is that until the government assumes stewardship over all children at birth, any governmental decision about pre-birth matters is necessarily an intrusion upon the individual rights of the parent. If we are still a society which values individual's rights over governmental planning for individuals (if we are still FREE), then the "pro-life" argument borders on the absurd.
Thus far I have consciously avoided religion, because it really has no place in a debate between individuals. However, I can break it down that way too. I will try to keep it generalized to monotheists, that being the overwhelming majority in this country.
God gave human beings free will. As a result, human beings were left to do "good" or "evil." Those who do good "go to heaven". Good is defined, of course, as what God commands. Those who do "evil", or act contrary to what God commands, "go to hell." Those who do "evil" are known as sinners, and the "evil" acts they commit known as sins. Thus, the concept of free will is inherent in the concept of sin. Without the concept of sin, absolutely nothing that is done by human beings could be categorized as "wrong" or "right", at least under traditional monotheism. "Going to hell", of course, is the punishment that God mandates for acting in sin, ie doing wrong, ie acting contrary to God. Thus, God has provided a punishment for sinners.
Human beings also have endured punishment from other human beings for "sins", always under the guise of religion. The examples are too numerous to list. Take the Inquisition, if you need an example. In centuries past, to break the law was to sin, because there was no law but God's law. Non-belief in the King's concept of God (his religion) was also a sin, because the King was the earthly representative of God. I'll skip a lot here to the colonization of the New World, specifically America. Many of the original settlers were considered "sinners" in their ancestral lands because they worshiped a different conception of God than the King's. With that in mind, and skipping ahead again, we get the 1st amendment and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." These are the very first words of the bill of rights. Perhaps they are relevant.
There are plenty of reasons to feel that abortion is (insert your favorite negative here). Murder, I'll choose, as it's the most polarizing. I might even agree with you, believe it or not. You may base this on your personal morals, your religion, or the flip of a coin. It does not matter. You may make your own decisions regarding the topic, thanks to the Constitution. I make my decision and you make yours. Your religion may influence you, and mine may influence me. But neither religion may COMMAND me or you to do as it says. Why? Because of the 1st Amendment. If you lived in, say, Saudi Arabia, you wouldn't be so lucky.
The "pro-life" movement is religiously driven, quite openly so. While there is a broad spectrum of individuals who are anti-abortion personally, only this movement seeks to cease and desist the medical process as a whole. It attempts to legislate against sin, in direct contradiction to the First Amendment. This amendment was written so that the Pope, King/Queen of England, or even Cotton Mather could not "legislate" the United States through their control of the morals of their worshipers. Here, religious toleration has been enshrined in law since 1789. As a side note, that same first amendment also protects the "pro-life" movement from, say, infiltration by the FBI to root out the element it harbors within it which breaks the current laws of the land by using terrorism against women freely exercising their legal rights.
The problem with debating "pro-lifers" is that they assume a moral high ground which they have no right to. God says abortion is murder/sin. Irrelevant. The Pope stated that abortion is murder/sin. Irrelevant. Pat Robertson stated...etc, etc. ALL irrelevant in any debate in this country over the legality of abortion. Now, add, "and I agree" to the end of the above statements, and you've got an debate. At which point, you have left your faith based influences behind, and you are debating against the REAL founding fathers of this country- Logic and Reason. Those two will say- what's best for the greater good? Now go back to the beginning, and read the logic argument. Faith is a wonderful thing for many people, but it only has a place in legislation in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Namely, Theocracies.
To be thorough, I'd like to make a quick observation on the concept that abortion is murder. This is probably the only remotely moving argument the "pro-life" movement has. Say this concept passes into law through the Supreme Court-(No time like the present)- what is the statute of limitations? Do we simply give a pass for murder(!) to all the women who have had abortions? What about the fathers? Do they get charged under manslaughter, accomplices to murder, or conspiracy to commit murder? And, don't you think it might muddy the definition of murder, since only women could be held directly responsible for such a "murder"? Wouldn't such a charge be inherently discriminatory?
To conclude:
Roe v Wade IS a compromise- one that allows the individuals involved to make their choice free from the manipulation of demagogues in the government and elsewhere. It also provides for quality medical care in the event that abortion must be chosen. It is also a stunningly simple example of the exercise of the concept of Free Will. If zealots cannot accept the law of the United States or God's own doctrine of Free Will, they may take comfort in the fact that the "sinners" who choose abortion will all burn in hell. They may not, however, seek to destroy the separation of church and state under the guise of "compromise". Compromise in this case involves violating the civil rights of the majority of women in favor of pandering to the vote of a narrow and regressive form of authoritarianism. A centrist position should favor the current law in this case.
FRIRST OF ALL I AM NOT CATHOLIC, TRUE I AM A BUDDHIST SO I AM RELIGIOUS TO AN EXTENT (buddhism is more or less a state of mind or a way of life, no GOD telling anyone to to anything, you are totally free)
Some say that this is America and they have the freedom to make that choice.
I say you do not simply because you are ending a innocent Human life that can not defend itself because you chose not to deal with it. How is that any different than Murder. If people are aloud to get abortions then I should be aloud to walk down the street with a gun killing anyone I want. I do not see difference between the two (because there isn't one). There are other options for birth control that DO work, I will admit that condoms are not 100%, but the birth control pill is. Once the sperm meets the egg Human life begins, it is wrong to end it (Murder it). Some say if it is outlawed then back alley abortion will begin to rise in numbers. If that happens (probally will) put those people on trail for Murder, because that is the crime they just commited. HOW can anyone in anyway SUPPORT the DEATH of an INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE?
Although as I have stated before there are two exclusions. It is possible that an abortion can save a mother's life, if she carries the child she dies, thus killing the child as well. It would then be better to save one life instead of loosing two. I also believe a rape victim has the right to an abortion, because of their age or even possibly form the depression of being raped (this one is a tuff call). Beside two exclusions, it is simply a choice of convenience. Aborting just because you don't want the child is just plain wrong. That can not be good for you Karma in any way, shape, or form.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------
Before anyone tries to say, "Well, don't you have to follow what The Dala Lamma or Buddha says?"
NO, The Dala Lamma in not perfect, Buddha wasn't perfect but wise. I will also point out that in Buddhism there is no "sin", but there is right and wrong / positive and negative. It's kind of hard to explain, but easy to understand.
According to Buddhias we must live life with compassion and wisdom/logic
Useing compassion, we must respect all walks of life
Using wisdom/logic, how can you support someones right to Murder.
True we do KILL life in order to eat and defend our own lives, that isn't even totally right to do. But it must be done in order to preserve your own life. In the end, hopefully you've built up enough GOOD KARMA to counter act any little mistakes you've made in life.
There is no compassion or wisdom in the act of taking a life simply because you do not want to deal with the inncovince it might bring into your own life.
LIFE IS LIFE, AND MURDER IS MURDER. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO MURDER LIFE. WELL YOU KIND OF DO, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT'S JUST PLAIN WRONG.
------http://www.myspace.com/sketical_believer OR zappafication@hotmail.com------
------PROPS 4 BUDDHA------