In the example you gave in the first paragraph perhaps writing a letter and getting it all out (whether you send it or burn it) could be theraputic.
And talking about the event (past abortion) has been very theraputic for many, many women. Getting all those emotions, thoughts, feelings, wishes and regrets verbalized helps you to heal and move past the event whatever it may be. Denying it can really do more harm. You have to get things off your conscience, so to speak to help yourself move on.
Post partum depression when properly diagnosed and treated can go into regression so the person could have a normal time with it.
But, you do have a point, the lady who drowned her five children should have been better tended to.
Mental illness is a tricky thing and still a mystery for much of it. A lot of progress has been made, but they have far to go.
A neighbor down the street from me was manic depressive. He was a teen. He was on medicine for years and they changed his meds and played around and thought he was getting better. He put on a good front but his new meds started not to work and he ended up shooting and killing himself. So sad, but the neighbors (me included) have been a tremendous support.
i sit here and read arguments that abortion is murder, etc. and that's why it should be outlawed. and here's what i see as being the problem overall with this whole issue. no one will argue that killing a living, *breathing* human being is murder, it is wrong, and should thus be illegal. this is why since the beginning of time, we've had laws against killing your fellow man. when it comes to abortion, there's no overwhelming consensus one way or the other as to whether or not its murder. at least not in this country. and as long as there's no overwhelming consensus on that matter, there will not be a change to the status quo.
and yeah, paula, i did write that letter. and sent it. and ironically got a reponse. that response was quite therapeutic, and when i read it, i literally said to myself "thank god its finally over"
you hit the nail pefectly, jt. the fact of the matter is, when it comes to abortion, there can be no compromise, aside from what already exists, which is far from acceptable to the anti-abortion movement.
I have no idea why I'm doing this. I should know better than to go back into this debate but here goes.
Middle ground. I do believe there is some. I haven't seen anyone here that was in favor of late term or partial birth abortions or that at does not find them horrid or at the very least, troubling. (except of course in cases where the mothers life is in danger) Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that everyone here at least agrees on that.
Here's a thought I had. It seems to me that we always come back to is it human or not. O.K First can we all agree that at some point it's a human being eventually and obviously? Some may feel right away and some may feel that it's not until they are born and out of the womb. Fine, so be it. Let's not argue that for a moment.
So if we step back and look, most would say it's either always a human or human when it's able to survive outside the womb. Alrighty let's build on that. So many pro-choice people feel that a baby is not really a person until it's out or can survive on it's own o.k fine.
Here's my idea. Let's limit abortions to the point at which we know the baby can survive outside the womb. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that babies have survived being out of vitro as young as 4/1/2 months. (*editorial, I do believe there's a big difference between a 2 week old and 6 month old fetus) That way babies that can survive outside of the mother are not killed and people who want to have abortions may still do so. I would think a person should be able to decide in 4/1/2 months time. Again unless of course the woman's life was at stake ? What do you think ?
sounds good to me. i'd even be willing to go so far as only allowing them in the first trimester. that gives you enough time to at least know you're late (yeah i've heard of exceptions to that as well), and plenty enough time to decide.
LUV2FLY, I'm not entirely happy with it but I could go along with it.
I'm not either, my views are no secret. But we've been having this conversation as a nation for many many years. Now there will be absolutists on both sides who don't like it and I understand there posistion. But if we talked about an actual majority being able to vote on it, it wold stand a heck of a better chance than a complete ban on abortions or abortions up until the final trimester. Here's the way I look at it. I see it as a positive. I see it as people who are adamant about choice still having choice and the many who oppose abortion especially abortion of a baby that can live outside the womb having that horrid procedure stopped. (again unless the mother's life is in danger) In short. I see it as maybe the only way to save some kids. If there were 10 kids drowning in a pool and you knew you could only save half of them or even one, wouldn't you at least do that ?
Rick, you're correct that people on the extreme sides wouldn't be happy as I'm sure some will opine to. However it seems to me just from the small reaction so far, is that the people on both sides that aren't the absolutists can agree on and seem to be willing to consider it. I look at is as lives being saved, which to me is a good thing. But I think it's evidence that there IS middle ground. It will be interesting to see what others think of the idea.
Who cares what a bunch of religious fundies think? The important thing is that this year, abortion was legalized in a copuple more countries and more women have access to safe and legal abortions!
This is what is impottant... The ad hominem? YAWWN!
Well I think that someone's religious beliefs are good for their own actions... It doesn't give them any right to meddle in somebody's else private life... This goes for abortion, homosexuality etc. etc.
But you know: the big difference today is that women have the vote... There is an almost perfect correlation with women's empowerment and legalization of abortion... This is why I give 10 years for it to be legalized even in places like Portugal and Ireland...
I guess the fundies are right to speak of uppity women... Since they became equal they took their reproductive choices out of politicians, priests and other rulers' hands... and decide on their own.
Well at least you're a friendly pro-choicer...Hey..do you think that you could teach Pitiricus how to be as charming as you...she's really crotchety...hahaha
"Christians are no more likely to murder their bretheren than Jews are or than Muslims are or than Bhuddists are or as Shintoists are, as we have seen in multiple wars over multiple centuries and in multiple cultures, all around the globe, since humankind stood upright(well, most humans). All religion-led "political" arguments are doomed to fail in an alledgedly "Free" society."
Today's New York Times has a lengthy story on the two-month spree of violence earlier this year between Hindus and Muslims in Guajarat state in India. About 1,000 people died in violence that could only be described as medieval.
The "fundies" as Pitiricus says can be annoyingly smug, self-righteous and condescending. But they're not burning people by the trainload, or rioting by the tens of thousands in the adopted home town of Mohandas Ghandi.
So, no religion has a corner on peace loving. Maybe we should not criticize with Wicca too much. At least they haven't blown up a restaurant lately.
If Bob Barr had his way, they couldn't wear the uniform these days. He wanted to ban the practice of witchcraft in the military. Maybe Wicca make poor fighters.
For the rest, I would suggest a course in Western history: Christians have murdered millions of Jews... but not millions of Bhuddists.,.. If you are so ignborant first study!
Or maybe you have no clue of the murderrous history of Christianity vis-àcis theJews?
Well study ignorant!
As to the rest, it isn't a right or left problem, it is religious fanatics against women!
"France's highest court of appeal has ruled that disabled children are entitled to compensation if their mothers were not given the chance of an abortion. The ruling follows a case brought by three families with physically deformed children, who argued that if doctors had detected the foetuses' disabilities they would have had the pregnancies terminated."
A right not to be born... Good thing that the French judges aren't addled by the fundies!
You missed the point completely, jethro.
What I'm talking about can make a differnce. And that's something your views can never claim
ares 7/26/02 11:06am
In the example you gave in the first paragraph perhaps writing a letter and getting it all out (whether you send it or burn it) could be theraputic.
And talking about the event (past abortion) has been very theraputic for many, many women. Getting all those emotions, thoughts, feelings, wishes and regrets verbalized helps you to heal and move past the event whatever it may be. Denying it can really do more harm. You have to get things off your conscience, so to speak to help yourself move on.
Post partum depression when properly diagnosed and treated can go into regression so the person could have a normal time with it.
But, you do have a point, the lady who drowned her five children should have been better tended to.
Mental illness is a tricky thing and still a mystery for much of it. A lot of progress has been made, but they have far to go.
A neighbor down the street from me was manic depressive. He was a teen. He was on medicine for years and they changed his meds and played around and thought he was getting better. He put on a good front but his new meds started not to work and he ended up shooting and killing himself. So sad, but the neighbors (me included) have been a tremendous support.
I gotta go quick. Hope to be back later!!
Paula
Your views may reduce the immorality but it leaves the remaining immorality state sanctioned.
i sit here and read arguments that abortion is murder, etc. and that's why it should be outlawed. and here's what i see as being the problem overall with this whole issue. no one will argue that killing a living, *breathing* human being is murder, it is wrong, and should thus be illegal. this is why since the beginning of time, we've had laws against killing your fellow man. when it comes to abortion, there's no overwhelming consensus one way or the other as to whether or not its murder. at least not in this country. and as long as there's no overwhelming consensus on that matter, there will not be a change to the status quo.
and yeah, paula, i did write that letter. and sent it. and ironically got a reponse. that response was quite therapeutic, and when i read it, i literally said to myself "thank god its finally over"
Morality and murder are to be based on popular consensus? What a croc!
when it comes to making legislation around it, yes it does.
You're not interested in progress, jethro.
You're more like Pitiricus than you know.
Rick, how can you ask them to compromise when they see it (abortion) as murder?
What middle ground is there for that?
you hit the nail pefectly, jt. the fact of the matter is, when it comes to abortion, there can be no compromise, aside from what already exists, which is far from acceptable to the anti-abortion movement.
I have no idea why I'm doing this. I should know better than to go back into this debate but here goes.
Middle ground. I do believe there is some. I haven't seen anyone here that was in favor of late term or partial birth abortions or that at does not find them horrid or at the very least, troubling. (except of course in cases where the mothers life is in danger) Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that everyone here at least agrees on that.
Here's a thought I had. It seems to me that we always come back to is it human or not. O.K First can we all agree that at some point it's a human being eventually and obviously? Some may feel right away and some may feel that it's not until they are born and out of the womb. Fine, so be it. Let's not argue that for a moment.
So if we step back and look, most would say it's either always a human or human when it's able to survive outside the womb. Alrighty let's build on that. So many pro-choice people feel that a baby is not really a person until it's out or can survive on it's own o.k fine.
Here's my idea. Let's limit abortions to the point at which we know the baby can survive outside the womb. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that babies have survived being out of vitro as young as 4/1/2 months. (*editorial, I do believe there's a big difference between a 2 week old and 6 month old fetus) That way babies that can survive outside of the mother are not killed and people who want to have abortions may still do so. I would think a person should be able to decide in 4/1/2 months time. Again unless of course the woman's life was at stake ? What do you think ?
LUV2FLY, I'm not entirely happy with it but I could go along with it.
Now, that's getting somewhere.
And you did it without me. :-)
But the fact is, people at the two ends would see your solutions as worse than the present situation.,
sounds good to me. i'd even be willing to go so far as only allowing them in the first trimester. that gives you enough time to at least know you're late (yeah i've heard of exceptions to that as well), and plenty enough time to decide.
You're not interested in progress, jethro.
It depends on what progress means.
I'm not either, my views are no secret. But we've been having this conversation as a nation for many many years. Now there will be absolutists on both sides who don't like it and I understand there posistion. But if we talked about an actual majority being able to vote on it, it wold stand a heck of a better chance than a complete ban on abortions or abortions up until the final trimester. Here's the way I look at it. I see it as a positive. I see it as people who are adamant about choice still having choice and the many who oppose abortion especially abortion of a baby that can live outside the womb having that horrid procedure stopped. (again unless the mother's life is in danger) In short. I see it as maybe the only way to save some kids. If there were 10 kids drowning in a pool and you knew you could only save half of them or even one, wouldn't you at least do that ?
i'd even be willing to go so far as only allowing them in the first trimester.
Oh yes great giver of life YOU should be the one to decide whether if and when to ALLOW abortion.
Rick, you're correct that people on the extreme sides wouldn't be happy as I'm sure some will opine to. However it seems to me just from the small reaction so far, is that the people on both sides that aren't the absolutists can agree on and seem to be willing to consider it. I look at is as lives being saved, which to me is a good thing. But I think it's evidence that there IS middle ground. It will be interesting to see what others think of the idea.
Oh yes greater giver of life YOU should be the one to decide whether if and when to ALLOW abortion.
does the attitude sound familiar? it ought to, only you say it should never be allowed.
"It depends on what progress means.'
To you, jethro, progress proabably means "agreeing with me."
jethro is one of those people where if you're not with him 110%, you're 110% against him.
reminds me of my mother in that sense.
Not at all ares. God creates life I simply say don't destroy it. You say: destroy it if you want to (with limitations) it is none of my business.
mmmmhhh....so two people having sex would be G-D?
Paula I 7/26/02 6:39am
Thanks for the warm welcome, Paula. I will post here often.
Janet Meehan 7/26/02 4:14pm
Uh-oh (now all we maybe gotta do is get Piti back, and whoa Nellie, watch them sparks fly :)
Rick 7/26/02 10:45am
Who cares what a bunch of religious fundies think? The important thing is that this year, abortion was legalized in a copuple more countries and more women have access to safe and legal abortions!
This is what is impottant... The ad hominem? YAWWN!
Paula I 7/26/02 10:47am
What a stupid argument... Unwanted pregnancies have so much more casulaties than abortion!
kath f. 7/26/02 3:16pm
?????
Pitiricus. 7/26/02 7:04pm
I see you're making friends again...hahahaha
Pitiricus. 7/26/02 7:33pm
Good
Pitiricus. 7/26/02 7:04pm
well, jethro stated that g-d created life. Im not attacking that argument from a theological standpoint, but from a physical one...so to say:)
was typed as a sort of reaction, to what he said, actually...
kath f. 7/26/02 7:43pm
Well this is the problem of the Bible inerrantist... They are quoting and don't understand...
I was one in a debate on abortion where one of the posters said that she believed in the KJV, the inerrant word of God... And this wasn't a joke!
Pitiricus. 7/26/02 7:46pm
mmmh....somehow, I dont think that religious concepts are helping very much here:)
obviously;)
somehow Id just LOVE to know how many of the posters here have an XX- disposition, and who of them has a XY- disposition.
with the XX, OK, Id discuss. but the XYs? where is the use in that?:)
kath f. 7/26/02 7:55pm
:-)
Well I think that someone's religious beliefs are good for their own actions... It doesn't give them any right to meddle in somebody's else private life... This goes for abortion, homosexuality etc. etc.
Pitiricus. 7/26/02 7:59pm
yes, but here, everyone seems to be after making his personal beliefs law.
somehow...
kath f. 7/26/02 8:01pm
Are you pro-choice Kath?
.
kath f. 7/26/02 8:01pm
Yes, sickening isn't it?
But you know: the big difference today is that women have the vote... There is an almost perfect correlation with women's empowerment and legalization of abortion... This is why I give 10 years for it to be legalized even in places like Portugal and Ireland...
I guess the fundies are right to speak of uppity women... Since they became equal they took their reproductive choices out of politicians, priests and other rulers' hands... and decide on their own.
Pitiricus. 7/26/02 8:07pm
Hahahaha..you don't have me on ignore...hahaha..you couldn't stand to have me say something that you couldn't respond to....hahaha.
Lance Bong 7/26/02 8:03pm
I am pro choice. :)
hi.
Pitiricus. 7/26/02 8:06pm
well, Id suppose womens rights are correlated there.
kath f. 7/26/02 8:22pm
Yes, they are... Women know what is the reality of unwanted pregnancies...
kath f. 7/26/02 8:18pm
Well at least you're a friendly pro-choicer...Hey..do you think that you could teach Pitiricus how to be as charming as you...she's really crotchety...hahaha
Lance Bong 7/26/02 8:24pm
well, why would I want to make others change their behaviour? :)
kath f. 7/26/02 8:31pm
well, why would I want to make others change their behaviour? :)
Do you want to make pro-lifers stop their rude and sometimes illegal behavior outside of abortion clinics?
Kath:
I also remember that Swiss women only got the vote in the 70s!!!! (at the federal level)
And guess what: abortion was legalized this year :-)
Lance Bong 7/26/02 8:35pm
well, illegal is something else, though.
however, Ive never sdeen a rude "pro-lifer" in my life, thank G-d.
seems we dont have THAT kind here:) and havent heard about abortion clinics either. would be done at the docs, or in a hospital. :)
Im not even sure if I could be qualified as a "pro-choicer". seems that debate is quite lively and heated in the US.
Pitiricus. 7/26/02 8:48pm
uff....that was pretty fast then.
Bill:
"Christians are no more likely to murder their bretheren than Jews are or than Muslims are or than Bhuddists are or as Shintoists are, as we have seen in multiple wars over multiple centuries and in multiple cultures, all around the globe, since humankind stood upright(well, most humans). All religion-led "political" arguments are doomed to fail in an alledgedly "Free" society."
Today's New York Times has a lengthy story on the two-month spree of violence earlier this year between Hindus and Muslims in Guajarat state in India. About 1,000 people died in violence that could only be described as medieval.
The "fundies" as Pitiricus says can be annoyingly smug, self-righteous and condescending. But they're not burning people by the trainload, or rioting by the tens of thousands in the adopted home town of Mohandas Ghandi.
So, no religion has a corner on peace loving. Maybe we should not criticize with Wicca too much. At least they haven't blown up a restaurant lately.
If Bob Barr had his way, they couldn't wear the uniform these days. He wanted to ban the practice of witchcraft in the military. Maybe Wicca make poor fighters.
kath f. 7/26/02 8:54pm
This is why I expect it to be legalized soon in Ireland and Portugal... It is already legal in Spain and Italy!
'Bill - Fold' 7/27/02 6:19am
Somebody asked I answered... That's about it...
For the rest, I would suggest a course in Western history: Christians have murdered millions of Jews... but not millions of Bhuddists.,.. If you are so ignborant first study!
Or maybe you have no clue of the murderrous history of Christianity vis-àcis theJews?
Well study ignorant!
As to the rest, it isn't a right or left problem, it is religious fanatics against women!
Interesting case...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1437335.stm
"France's highest court of appeal has ruled that disabled children are entitled to compensation if their mothers were not given the chance of an abortion.
The ruling follows a case brought by three families with physically deformed children, who argued that if doctors had detected the foetuses' disabilities they would have had the pregnancies terminated."
A right not to be born... Good thing that the French judges aren't addled by the fundies!
Pitiricus. 7/27/02 3:11pm
and that compensation would be given in case someone sued, I guess. not automatically(as some dont even consider abortion, like many here).
?