Presents data on the growing number of persons in the United States under some form of correctional supervision for 1996: 3.2 million on probation, 510,400 in jail, 1,127,528 in prison, and 704,709 on parole.
If the above number is correct and 99% of the people in prison are guilty and 1% is not, that means there were about 11,275 innocent people in prison in 1996. If my math is right.
guess that means that 1) jethro concedes that he doens't want to hear from me because i attempt to make him do something vaguely akin to removing his head from his rear end, which he is incapable of, and 2) say what i just said and not have to worry about it being construed as a personal attack.
guess that means that 1) jethro concedes that he doens't want to hear from me because i attempt to make him do something vaguely akin to removing his head from his rear end, which he is incapable of, You have to get your head out of yours before you can even contemplate helping someone else.and 2) say what i just said and not have to worry about it being construed as a personal attack. I was just seeing if the tool worked. I took it off. Personal attack noted.
well jethro I think instead of making abortion completly illegal, they should come up with a way to make it available for people whom have been raped or their lives are in danger, I firmly believe that if you have sex willingly and end up pregnant that you should deal with that responsibility, I was pregnant at 16 of my own free will and did what I had to do, he is now 14 and lives with his dad and I see him whenever I or he wants. I think you are putting all women in one group and calling them wrong for what they do. there are many situations and none of them are exactly the same. I have never heard anyone that is against abortion say that there should be exceptions to the rule and that is the problem, if abortion becomes illigal, here is what will happen....you will find many more dead babies in trash cans and toilets because these teenagers cant fathom taking care of a baby, you will find dead women in ally's because they tried to have someone other than a doctor perform the abortion with a coat hanger and you will have ten times more children without homes because someone gave them up for adoption, and then of course like here in minnesota no one wants a facility for these homeless kids near their home so where do they go?
Right on about Mary Jo Copeland, that woman is a saint. I wish I had half the energy and drive she seems to have. We could all, including me, learn some lessons from that woman. She to me is a true hero. I don't know much about the orphanage debate I realize some of the suburbs, turned her down I haven't heard if Eagan was going to let it go through, seems like they were the only ones in favor of it. But I was wondering after Chaska and somewhere else I think said no, I thought why not St.Paul or Minneapolis ? Heck downtown St.Paul has plenty of space availble as do many other urban areas so why not there ? just a thought but more power to Mary Jo!
but you have skipped blithely over the point. Abortion is between a woman and her maker - no one else. Busting into that conversation is arrogant and an example of hubris.
It is also noted, from historical records, that the Church -are you listening?- did not have a problem with abortion or even infanticide when it was the man who determined who lived and who died. It only became a problem when the woman took over the decision-making role.
Final point, no one grabs pregnant women off the street and forces them to have an abortion HOWEVER antiabortionists see nothing wrong with locking a woman up to force her to bear the child NOR do they see anything wrong with bombing clinics, harassing women who may or may not be entering the clinic for abortion services NOR do they see anything wrong with sending letters of hate to doctors and threatening their families. All of which is hardly righteous behavior.
I normally stay out of this debate and or thread since wrestling with a rabid puma would probably be easier and less painless and more brief.
It is also noted, from historical records, that the Church -are you listening?- did not have a problem with abortion or even infanticide when it was the man who determined who lived and who died. It only became a problem when the woman took over the decision-making role.
What church are you referring too ? could you point to a source showing that the church didn't have a problem with abortion or infantcide wehn it was men making the decisons ? Please provide a source if you can. Pesonally I find it extremly hard to believe that most or even all churches haven't always declared infantcide or abortion to be wrong and suddenly changed their mind because the woman was making the decision. But if you can show a source that wou be greatly appreciated. I'll await your response.
but you have skipped blithely over the point. Abortion is between a woman and her maker - no one else. Busting into that conversation is arrogant and an example of hubris. no it is the moral and just thing to do.
It is also noted, from historical records, that the Church -are you listening?- did not have a problem with abortion or even infanticide when it was the man who determined who lived and who died. It only became a problem when the woman took over the decision-making role.
And many people didn't have a problem with beating slaves or wives. They were jsut property remember? That still didn't make it right.
Final point, no one grabs pregnant women off the street and forces them to have an abortion HOWEVER antiabortionists see nothing wrong with locking a woman up to force her to bear the child NOR do they see anything wrong with bombing clinics, harassing women who may or may not be entering the clinic for abortion services NOR do they see anything wrong with sending letters of hate to doctors and threatening their families. All of which is hardly righteous behavior.
Typical extremist language. Most women had a choice to have sex. Reasonable people simply believe they should have done so responsibly, Furthermore, reasonable people think that women should be responsible after they become pregnant instead of allowing them to dismemeber their child out of convenience. Only a very few support bombings of clinics and the other behavior you state. It is only proabortion extremists that say otherwise.
Ready to get down and dirty, jethro? Seems you are already there waiting for me.
Read "Eve's Seed" and "when God was a Woman" just to name two.
The point for Jethro, is that you cannot use the Church or the Bible to back up any claim to morality. Consider how the Bible itself says the early Christians got their wives. They kidnapped and raped them. If the families of these women complained, then the Christians all gathered togather and wiped them out wholesale men, women and children - but it was okay since they were not 'of the Lord'. HARDLY MORAL BEHAVIOR.
Paul's and Augustine's views on women, whole heartedly accepted by the Church - witness the present problems with women being pope - does not lead one to believe that the Church gives a damn about them. At one time they use to argu abot whether women had souls! Ye Gods, peeps! All we women ask is for our brethern to get their foot off the back of our necks.
The decision to have sex is NOT made to have kids, but rather for intimate companionship with a male of the species who has wooed his way into her bed. Jethro seems to feel that there is a need for punishment here. If she bears the child out of wedlock, her future and that of the child, who gets to grow up hearing his beloved mother called a whore - how nice for him/her, is at the bottom of the food-chain. and the guy? Scot free of course! After all she's such a slut that it may not even be his. Child support - ROTFL, yeah, right.
If you are not going to support, in all ways, that child for the rest of your life, then you have NO right to interfere. How many children have you adopted? Esp. those that are older, challenged, disabled, or tormented or not blond and blue-eyed? Children do not see adoption as a chance but as having being rejected by their mothers. As long as they remain 'unselected', they view it as being rejected all over again by others. They think of themselves as unwanted, unloved, and worthless.
And those who set up this world as it is - moralists like Jethro, have only themselves to blame. They created a world where sex is bad unless in wedlock and to have kids. Where the options for women are less than those for men. Where doing what you were built for becomes a sin that damns you to hell on earth by having the child or damns you to hell eternally for aborting it.
We have had enough. We have decided to make our own decisions and to have both the control and the consequences.
I read an interesting, albiet fictional account, of the way women were treated in early history in Edward Rutherford's book about the history of London. Though fictional I'm sure it was based on historical accuracy.
One event took place in the 11th Century. A man was accused of poking another man with a pin. At that time pin-pricking was evidence of witchcraft.
Well, the man's wife was sentenced by the church to be stripped naked, stuffed in a sack with poisionous adder snakes and thrown in the Thames. History shows the Brits have the most creative ways to kill and torture people.
The husband, or pricker, would get a jail sentence, because most of the people felt he was just misled.
The decision to have sex is NOT made to have kids, but rather for intimate companionship with a male of the species who has wooed his way into her bed. Jethro seems to feel that there is a need for punishment here. If she bears the child out of wedlock, her future and that of the child, who gets to grow up hearing his beloved mother called a whore - how nice for him/her, is at the bottom of the food-chain. and the guy? Scot free of course! After all she's such a slut that it may not even be his. Child support - ROTFL, yeah, right.
It may well keep many others out of the same predicament.
If you are not going to support, in all ways, that child for the rest of your life, then you have NO right to interfere. This is simply an idiotic argument. Commenting on morality is not limited to those that take actions. If that were the case there would be total anarchy.
How many children have you adopted? Esp. those that are older, challenged, disabled, or tormented or not blond and blue-eyed? Children do not see adoption as a chance but as having being rejected by their mothers. As long as they remain 'unselected', they view it as being rejected all over again by others. They think of themselves as unwanted, unloved, and worthless. The argument that killing them is better. How ridiculous.
And those who set up this world as it is - moralists like Jethro, have only themselves to blame. They created a world where sex is bad unless in wedlock and to have kids. Where the options for women are less than those for men. Where doing what you were built for becomes a sin that damns you to hell on earth by having the child or damns you to hell eternally for aborting it. Life is just about sex? Again ridiculous. Feminazi's:who needs them!
We have had enough. We have decided to make our own decisions and to have both the control and the consequences. You have made a decision to allow yourself mostly out of convenience to kill unborn babies. There is not a shred of decency, morality or responsibility in it.
then we can on to witch hunts, wars and so on which are sancitified by the Bible. Joan of Arc? Have a slice, brother.
Jethro talks about Feminazi's INTERESTING when in fact it has been MEN who have ruled for the past 5000 years.
Notice how Jethro's 'morality' supercedes all other persons' morality. HUBRIS is something YOU should beware of Jethro. You are afflicted with it in abundance.
It is also noted, from historical records, that the Church -are you listening?- did not have a problem with abortion or even infanticide when it was the man who determined who lived and who died. It only became a problem when the woman took over the decision-making role.
I looked at the links you provided. They do not source anything but merely seem to opine on the matter. If we are talking modern times It is pure fiction that churches didn't care about abortion when men were making the decisions. Their conclusion seems to be based on an entierly different agenda. Abortion wasn't legal until 73' They have always decried abortion as being wrong. Now we are talking modern times here, the modern churches etc. Have always found it wrong no matter whom was making that decision. Perhaps there were some churches back in time that were in favor or nuetral on the matter. But they also did such great things as the inquisition, the crusades as well. In fact there are probably some churches here or there today that are nuetral or pro choice. But they would be in the minority. I am not going to split hairs or claim that the churches have always been a beacon for what is right. they haven't. But to say that any modern day church didn't care about abortion until the woman was making the decision is ludicrous and disingenuious. On that I have to disagree. I think I'll go wrestle that puma now.
I will admit that it was a very long time ago, Roman Empire in fact where Christianity combined with Roman law made for a hell on earth for women who were not fatherless widows, but you will also have to agree that the Church today is not terribly advanced in its thinking even now. When they go on about how precious life is, and the high worth of each human being and then deny equality in their own heirarchy, who can take them seriously?
Tis ok, Bill. After Ormond, et al calling me everything they can think of - and they do - jethro's little failures of courtesy only show his paucity of deep thought. It was inevitable since those who use the Bible as their argument's support have to expect others to point out the very real horrors contained therein to their discomfort. The Bible slices both ways.
And now we see more inditements for sexual abuse within the Church! One simply cannot respect such a group of people and must take everything they pronounce with more than a barrel of salt.
What I find interesting is jethro's denial of the common code - put your money where your mouth is. He sees no reason to support kids even those his rules force women to bear them. And if he thinks that 'better off dead' hasn't had it effects upon those kids in orphanages then he's not in the real world even now.
And now we see more inditements for sexual abuse within the Church! One simply cannot respect such a group of people and must take everything they pronounce with more than a barrel of salt.
You're going to judge a whole group of people based on the actions of a few within that group?
Hate to be the one to tell you this but there are sexual predators in every corner of this world.
Notice how Jethro's 'morality' supercedes all other persons' morality. HUBRIS is something YOU should beware of Jethro. You are afflicted with it in abundance.
You wouldn't know morality if it knocked on your door.
I am finding this a most useful debate, thanks to Kit. Sorry Kit, that Jethro found it neccessary to call you an Idiot, and a "Feminazi", attacks which he has been warned by our sysop NOT to make on others...But that is his modus-operandi.
I said the Argument was IDIOTIC, fold. Get the facts straight. I know it is a lot to ask of you.
Tis ok, Bill. After Ormond, et al calling me everything they can think of - and they do - jethro's little failures of courtesy only show his paucity of deep thought.
Wrong a gain. Your point of view is the shallow one based on selfishness.
It was inevitable since those who use the Bible as their argument's support have to expect others to point out the very real horrors contained therein to their discomfort. The Bible slices both ways.
Again wrong. My opposition to abortion is based on LOGIC.
And now we see more inditements for sexual abuse within the Church! One simply cannot respect such a group of people and must take everything they pronounce with more than a barrel of salt.
I can't respect anyone that thinks it is okay to kiill an innocent child on a whim.
What I find interesting is jethro's denial of the common code - put your money where your mouth is. He sees no reason to support kids even those his rules force women to bear them.
Baseless assumptions by people that can't defnd their own support for butchery.
Springfield, IL -- When it was first published 15 years ago, "Aborted Women, Silent No More," quickly became a best-seller in pro-life circles. The Conservative Book Club said it "may be the most powerful book ever written on abortion." Now the book has just been reissued by pro-life publisher Acorn Books.
Written by leading post-abortion researcher Dr. David Reardon, "Aborted Women, Silent No More," chronicles the physical and emotional impact of abortion on women and includes personal testimonies from more than 20 women about their struggles after abortion. More than 252 women participated in a survey about their abortion experiences for the book, with many reporting a host of personal problems like increased depression, substance abuse, dysfunctional relationships and suicide attempts after abortion.
"As I began researching the effects of abortion on women's lives, I saw more and more that this was a story that needed to be told," said Reardon, who directs the Elliot Institute, a national post- abortion research and education organization located in Springfield, Ill. "People need to be educated on this issue so that the millions of women and men who've been involved in abortions can find resolution and healing, and so that millions more will be prevented from taking that same terrible road."
Reardon pointed out that the message of "Aborted Women, Silent No More," is as timely today as it was when the book was first published. He said that surveys have shown that often months or even years may pass before a woman realizes that her abortion had any negative consequences on her life.
"Often women may realize they are hurting but will either not recognize the source of the problem or will not know that there is any help available to them after abortion," he said. "Many women have reported that when they tried to share their struggles with others, they were told that the abortion was 'for the best' and that they needed to get on with their lives. Often women have the impression that they are the only ones having these 'crazy' reactions after abortion, and they feel very confused and alone."
Asked what he felt was the greatest impact of the book, Reardon said he believed it has helped the pro-life movement to focus the abortion debate on helping women in need.
"There was, and sometimes still is today, a notion among some pro-lifers that talking about the impact of abortion on women weakens the moral argument against abortion," Reardon explained. "But I've always believed that the average person that tolerates abortion does so only because he or she believes abortion actually helps women. To open the hearts of these people to the unborn child, we must first help them to see that abortion doesn't help women, it makes their lives worse. Many simply need to hear the truth from the mouths of women who have been there. Focusing on the effects of abortion on women, then, is simply a necessary step in converting hearts. In addition, it is through hearing the stories of women that grieve that many people learn about the humanity of the children they have lost. The testimony of a woman who says 'My baby died in that abortion' is often more powerful than the scientific facts about fetal development."
I will admit that it was a very long time ago, Roman Empire in fact where Christianity combined with Roman law made for a hell on earth for women who were not fatherless widows, but you will also have to agree that the Church today is not terribly advanced in its thinking even now. When they go on about how precious life is, and the high worth of each human being and then deny equality in their own heirarchy, who can take them seriously?
When you say church I assume you mean the Catholic church. I would probably agree with you there, that's part of the reason that I am no longer Catholic. But if someone chooses to be Catholic, fine with me it doesn't bother me. But your first attempt to say that the church didn't care about abortion when the man was making the choice is telling. Obviously you dislike or have a disdain for those church policies or churches and or faiths, so be it. But there are many faiths that abhore abortion as being wrong. Most of the Muslim, Buddist, Jewish, Hindu And Christian faith denounce it as wrong and are opposed to it as are their members. There are also atheists who feel it's wrong as well. Just as Bin Laden is not representative of Islam, neither is Falwell, Robertson or bad priests representative of billions of people of the Christian faith. Your attempt to lump them all together is misguided. There are also bad pro abortion people who do bad things as well. so would that make your point any less valid ? There are many "churches" of the christian faith that are open to equality and to social change that we would probably agree on they also just happen to find abortion very wrong as do some atheists. You agree or support it I don't. America is great and we can both debate and work to change or to keep laws as we see as a society. As long as we keep the debate honest on BOTH sides of the aisle.
People are good, bad, and indifferent regardless of their politics, religion, or even their position on this topic. And yes, many people are against abortion for many reasons most of them sentimental/emotional. They believe that life is precious regardless of the price.
Now, jethro brought up this guilt thing. When did I ever say that the decision was an easy one? When did I ever say that were no consequences for the lady involved? Never. When did I ever give you the impression that one comes skipping out of the clinic and off for a vacation in Rio? Again, never! But none of the pain and/or guilt is a basis for denying that decision to others.
If you want LOGIC then 'She who bears the freight makes the decision'. Period.
I see you mentioned the Hindu and Buddist faiths. yet the slaughter of girl babies, girls and of brides who do not bring enough of a dowry and of widows - all of them are still practiced. In Bangledesh, for an example, hydrochloric acid is available in the shops, guys buy some and try to take a girl from her family (no marriage mind you), with the dad's consent, if dad refuses the guy then goes and splashes the acid in the girl's face thus guaranteeing no marriage for her and since that is the only respectable role open to her - well you can fill in the rest as to her fate. Arrets? Don't be silly.
Any wonder why women are willing to take on all comers when it comes to being permitted to do with their bodies what they would? There are examples from all religions and from all the world. Jethro is not alone.
Therefore, since she is the one who bears the consequences of her decision, and she alone, then it is her decision to make - regardless of what that decision may be.
If you want LOGIC then 'She who bears the freight makes the decision'. Period.
That is not logic. Period. The logic is real simple but for you I will spell it out. Everyone that has ever lived was at one time conceived. It is an essential to everyone's life. Once consception occurs that person will live for who knows how long. When some selfish woman aborts on a whim it stops that process and it stops the life. Therefore, it is just as morally wrong to have an abortion as it was for Andrea Yates to drown her children. It is jsut a question of timing.
No I wouldn't hang them all just for the illegal behavior of a few, but I would make damn sure that the root cause of the abusive priests' behavior was fixed! Imagine the total destruction of trust and respect such behavior causes!
Jethro, when are you going to stop hurting your cause by lashing out instead of using reasonable arguments?
Your post about how women feel was helpful, because no matter what the law says, the only way to eliminate abortion successfully is to change people's minds about it, person by person. Education, Jethro, not passing laws.
I know you believe it is murder and you are frantic to stop it. But the law is in place, and you won't win converts by bad-mouthing people. Nor will you do so by sliding past questions put to you point-blank -- e.g. whether or not people who kill abortion providers should be prosecuted for murder.
If you believe something, stand up and be counted. You'll be respected for that.
ok maybe comparing it to abortion the way i did was a bad metaphor, especially since i've not heard of any such assisted suicides where the doctor actually pushed the button. what i'm trying to get out of him is where he stands on someone making the decision to take their own life, regardless of whether its assisted with a carbon monoxide mask or gravity.
This may surprise you, but I am against it, BUT, I am FOR patient's rights concerning suicide, if they want to have it as an option when their time is near and intolerable suffering is to be expected,.....
People already have the ability to commit suicide. Why does anyone need a doctor to assist them?
In my mind, assisted suicide is simply to soothe the conscience of the person that is too cowardly to just do it themselves.
99.999% of those in prison are guilty.
How do you know? Spend a lot of time in prison? Anyway, that isn't really the now is it?
so are 99.999% of those not in prison. they just haven't been caught yet.
More proof of the ridiculous.
ok, so maybe 99.999% is a bit high, but you get my point.
Presents data on the growing number of persons in the United States under some form of correctional supervision for 1996: 3.2 million on probation, 510,400 in jail, 1,127,528 in prison, and 704,709 on parole.
If the above number is correct and 99% of the people in prison are guilty and 1% is not, that means there were about 11,275 innocent people in prison in 1996. If my math is right.
your math is correct.
(This message not displayed because ares is on your Ignore Posts list. To change your Ignore Posts list go to Preferences.)
Isn't this a wonderful tool!!!!!!!!!!!
wow i'm a celebrity.
guess that means that 1) jethro concedes that he doens't want to hear from me because i attempt to make him do something vaguely akin to removing his head from his rear end, which he is incapable of, and 2) say what i just said and not have to worry about it being construed as a personal attack.
you're right jethro, it is a wonderful tool!
If your sitting in the police car and you're not a cop, you're pretty much guilty as well, right jethro?
Pretty much but the percentage isn't as high.
guess that means that 1) jethro concedes that he doens't want to hear from me because i attempt to make him do something vaguely akin to removing his head from his rear end, which he is incapable of, You have to get your head out of yours before you can even contemplate helping someone else.and 2) say what i just said and not have to worry about it being construed as a personal attack. I was just seeing if the tool worked. I took it off. Personal attack noted.
well, i'm glad to see you took it off. i really would miss debating you.
well jethro I think instead of making abortion completly illegal, they should come up with a way to make it available for people whom have been raped or their lives are in danger, I firmly believe that if you have sex willingly and end up pregnant that you should deal with that responsibility, I was pregnant at 16 of my own free will and did what I had to do, he is now 14 and lives with his dad and I see him whenever I or he wants. I think you are putting all women in one group and calling them wrong for what they do. there are many situations and none of them are exactly the same. I have never heard anyone that is against abortion say that there should be exceptions to the rule and that is the problem, if abortion becomes illigal, here is what will happen....you will find many more dead babies in trash cans and toilets because these teenagers cant fathom taking care of a baby, you will find dead women in ally's because they tried to have someone other than a doctor perform the abortion with a coat hanger and you will have ten times more children without homes because someone gave them up for adoption, and then of course like here in minnesota no one wants a facility for these homeless kids near their home so where do they go?
Bill Fold,
Right on about Mary Jo Copeland, that woman is a saint. I wish I had half the energy and drive she seems to have. We could all, including me, learn some lessons from that woman. She to me is a true hero. I don't know much about the orphanage debate I realize some of the suburbs, turned her down I haven't heard if Eagan was going to let it go through, seems like they were the only ones in favor of it. But I was wondering after Chaska and somewhere else I think said no, I thought why not St.Paul or Minneapolis ? Heck downtown St.Paul has plenty of space availble as do many other urban areas so why not there ? just a thought but more power to Mary Jo!
Sorry didn't mean to get off track.
but you have skipped blithely over the point.
Abortion is between a woman and her maker - no one else. Busting into that conversation is arrogant and an example of hubris.
It is also noted, from historical records, that the Church -are you listening?- did not have a problem with abortion or even infanticide when it was the man who determined who lived and who died. It only became a problem when the woman took over the decision-making role.
Final point, no one grabs pregnant women off the street and forces them to have an abortion HOWEVER antiabortionists see nothing wrong with locking a woman up to force her to bear the child NOR do they see anything wrong with bombing clinics, harassing women who may or may not be entering the clinic for abortion services NOR do they see anything wrong with sending letters of hate to doctors and threatening their families.
All of which is hardly righteous behavior.
Ready to get down and dirty, jethro?
Kit,
I normally stay out of this debate and or thread since wrestling with a rabid puma would probably be easier and less painless and more brief.
What church are you referring too ?
could you point to a source showing that the church didn't have a problem with abortion or infantcide wehn it was men making the decisons ?
Please provide a source if you can. Pesonally I find it extremly hard to believe that most or even all churches haven't always declared infantcide or abortion to be wrong and suddenly changed their mind because the woman was making the decision. But if you can show a source that wou be greatly appreciated. I'll await your response.
but you have skipped blithely over the point.
Abortion is between a woman and her maker - no one else. Busting into that conversation is arrogant and an example of hubris. no it is the moral and just thing to do.
It is also noted, from historical records, that the Church -are you listening?- did not have a problem with abortion or even infanticide when it was the man who determined who lived and who died. It only became a problem when the woman took over the decision-making role.
And many people didn't have a problem with beating slaves or wives. They were jsut property remember? That still didn't make it right.
Final point, no one grabs pregnant women off the street and forces them to have an abortion HOWEVER antiabortionists see nothing wrong with locking a woman up to force her to bear the child NOR do they see anything wrong with bombing clinics, harassing women who may or may not be entering the clinic for abortion services NOR do they see anything wrong with sending letters of hate to doctors and threatening their families.
All of which is hardly righteous behavior.
Typical extremist language. Most women had a choice to have sex. Reasonable people simply believe they should have done so responsibly, Furthermore, reasonable people think that women should be responsible after they become pregnant instead of allowing them to dismemeber their child out of convenience. Only a very few support bombings of clinics and the other behavior you state. It is only proabortion extremists that say otherwise.
Ready to get down and dirty, jethro? Seems you are already there waiting for me.
Read "Eve's Seed" and "when God was a Woman" just to name two.
The point for Jethro, is that you cannot use the Church or the Bible to back up any claim to morality. Consider how the Bible itself says the early Christians got their wives. They kidnapped and raped them. If the families of these women complained, then the Christians all gathered togather and wiped them out wholesale men, women and children - but it was okay since they were not 'of the Lord'. HARDLY MORAL BEHAVIOR.
Paul's and Augustine's views on women, whole heartedly accepted by the Church - witness the present problems with women being pope - does not lead one to believe that the Church gives a damn about them. At one time they use to argu abot whether women had souls! Ye Gods, peeps! All we women ask is for our brethern to get their foot off the back of our necks.
The decision to have sex is NOT made to have kids, but rather for intimate companionship with a male of the species who has wooed his way into her bed. Jethro seems to feel that there is a need for punishment here. If she bears the child out of wedlock, her future and that of the child, who gets to grow up hearing his beloved mother called a whore - how nice for him/her, is at the bottom of the food-chain. and the guy? Scot free of course! After all she's such a slut that it may not even be his. Child support - ROTFL, yeah, right.
If you are not going to support, in all ways, that child for the rest of your life, then you have NO right to interfere. How many children have you adopted? Esp. those that are older, challenged, disabled, or tormented or not blond and blue-eyed? Children do not see adoption as a chance but as having being rejected by their mothers. As long as they remain 'unselected', they view it as being rejected all over again by others. They think of themselves as unwanted, unloved, and worthless.
And those who set up this world as it is - moralists like Jethro, have only themselves to blame. They created a world where sex is bad unless in wedlock and to have kids. Where the options for women are less than those for men.
Where doing what you were built for becomes a sin that damns you to hell on earth by having the child or damns you to hell eternally for aborting it.
We have had enough. We have decided to make our own decisions and to have both the control and the consequences.
I read an interesting, albiet fictional account, of the way women were treated in early history in Edward Rutherford's book about the history of London. Though fictional I'm sure it was based on historical accuracy.
One event took place in the 11th Century. A man was accused of poking another man with a pin. At that time pin-pricking was evidence of witchcraft.
Well, the man's wife was sentenced by the church to be stripped naked, stuffed in a sack with poisionous adder snakes and thrown in the Thames. History shows the Brits have the most creative ways to kill and torture people.
The husband, or pricker, would get a jail sentence, because most of the people felt he was just misled.
The decision to have sex is NOT made to have kids, but rather for intimate companionship with a male of the species who has wooed his way into her bed. Jethro seems to feel that there is a need for punishment here. If she bears the child out of wedlock, her future and that of the child, who gets to grow up hearing his beloved mother called a whore - how nice for him/her, is at the bottom of the food-chain. and the guy? Scot free of course! After all she's such a slut that it may not even be his. Child support - ROTFL, yeah, right.
It may well keep many others out of the same predicament.
If you are not going to support, in all ways, that child for the rest of your life, then you have NO right to interfere. This is simply an idiotic argument. Commenting on morality is not limited to those that take actions. If that were the case there would be total anarchy.
How many children have you adopted? Esp. those that are older, challenged, disabled, or tormented or not blond and blue-eyed? Children do not see adoption as a chance but as having being rejected by their mothers. As long as they remain 'unselected', they view it as being rejected all over again by others. They think of themselves as unwanted, unloved, and worthless. The argument that killing them is better. How ridiculous.
And those who set up this world as it is - moralists like Jethro, have only themselves to blame. They created a world where sex is bad unless in wedlock and to have kids. Where the options for women are less than those for men.
Where doing what you were built for becomes a sin that damns you to hell on earth by having the child or damns you to hell eternally for aborting it. Life is just about sex? Again ridiculous. Feminazi's:who needs them!
We have had enough. We have decided to make our own decisions and to have both the control and the consequences. You have made a decision to allow yourself mostly out of convenience to kill unborn babies. There is not a shred of decency, morality or responsibility in it.
Jethro, I don't remember if you've addressed this before, but what do you think of contraception?
If a life is not started I have no position on contraceptve devices.
Good, thanks. Because the people who really frost me are the ones who are against both abortion and contraception.
If a life is not started I have no position on contraceptve devices.
So it's ok to play God before conception, just not afterwards?
The issue is taking a life. If conception hasn't occured life has not started.
The issue is taking a life. If conception hasn't occured life has not started.
That's interesting.
What's your view on it, JT?
then we can on to witch hunts, wars and so on which are sancitified by the Bible. Joan of Arc? Have a slice, brother.
Jethro talks about Feminazi's INTERESTING when in fact it has been MEN who have ruled for the past 5000 years.
Notice how Jethro's 'morality' supercedes all other persons' morality. HUBRIS is something YOU should beware of Jethro. You are afflicted with it in abundance.
Kit,
I looked at the links you provided. They do not source anything but merely seem to opine on the matter. If we are talking modern times It is pure fiction that churches didn't care about abortion when men were making the decisions. Their conclusion seems to be based on an entierly different agenda. Abortion wasn't legal until 73' They have always decried abortion as being wrong. Now we are talking modern times here, the modern churches etc. Have always found it wrong no matter whom was making that decision. Perhaps there were some churches back in time that were in favor or nuetral on the matter. But they also did such great things as the inquisition, the crusades as well. In fact there are probably some churches here or there today that are nuetral or pro choice. But they would be in the minority. I am not going to split hairs or claim that the churches have always been a beacon for what is right. they haven't. But to say that any modern day church didn't care about abortion until the woman was making the decision is ludicrous and disingenuious. On that I have to disagree. I think I'll go wrestle that puma now.
I will admit that it was a very long time ago, Roman Empire in fact where Christianity combined with Roman law made for a hell on earth for women who were not fatherless widows, but you will also have to agree that the Church today is not terribly advanced in its thinking even now. When they go on about how precious life is, and the high worth of each human being and then deny equality in their own heirarchy, who can take them seriously?
Tis ok, Bill. After Ormond, et al calling me everything they can think of - and they do -
jethro's little failures of courtesy only show his paucity of deep thought. It was inevitable since those who use the Bible as their argument's support have to expect others to point out the very real horrors contained therein to their discomfort. The Bible slices both ways.
And now we see more inditements for sexual abuse within the Church! One simply cannot respect such a group of people and must take everything they pronounce with more than a barrel of salt.
What I find interesting is jethro's denial of the common code - put your money where your mouth is.
He sees no reason to support kids even those his rules force women to bear them. And if he thinks that 'better off dead' hasn't had it effects upon those kids in orphanages then he's not in the real world even now.
And now we see more inditements for sexual abuse within the Church! One simply cannot respect such a group of people and must take everything they pronounce with more than a barrel of salt.
You're going to judge a whole group of people based on the actions of a few within that group?
Hate to be the one to tell you this but there are sexual predators in every corner of this world.
Notice how Jethro's 'morality' supercedes all other persons' morality. HUBRIS is something YOU should beware of Jethro. You are afflicted with it in abundance.
You wouldn't know morality if it knocked on your door.
I am finding this a most useful debate, thanks to Kit. Sorry Kit, that Jethro found it neccessary to call you an Idiot, and a "Feminazi", attacks which he has been warned by our sysop NOT to make on others...But that is his modus-operandi.
I said the Argument was IDIOTIC, fold. Get the facts straight. I know it is a lot to ask of you.
Nice Job. I enjoy your posts.
Only because you agree with them.
Tis ok, Bill. After Ormond, et al calling me everything they can think of - and they do -
jethro's little failures of courtesy only show his paucity of deep thought.
Wrong a gain. Your point of view is the shallow one based on selfishness.
It was inevitable since those who use the Bible as their argument's support have to expect others to point out the very real horrors contained therein to their discomfort. The Bible slices both ways.
Again wrong. My opposition to abortion is based on LOGIC.
And now we see more inditements for sexual abuse within the Church! One simply cannot respect such a group of people and must take everything they pronounce with more than a barrel of salt.
I can't respect anyone that thinks it is okay to kiill an innocent child on a whim.
What I find interesting is jethro's denial of the common code - put your money where your mouth is.
He sees no reason to support kids even those his rules force women to bear them.
Baseless assumptions by people that can't defnd their own support for butchery.
Springfield, IL -- When it was first published 15 years ago, "Aborted
Women, Silent No More," quickly became a best-seller in pro-life circles.
The Conservative Book Club said it "may be the most powerful book ever
written on abortion." Now the book has just been reissued by pro-life
publisher Acorn Books.
Written by leading post-abortion researcher Dr. David Reardon, "Aborted
Women, Silent No More," chronicles the physical and emotional impact of
abortion on women and includes personal testimonies from more than 20
women about their struggles after abortion. More than 252 women
participated in a survey about their abortion experiences for the book,
with many reporting a host of personal problems like increased depression,
substance abuse, dysfunctional relationships and suicide attempts after
abortion.
"As I began researching the effects of abortion on women's lives, I saw
more and more that this was a story that needed to be told," said Reardon,
who directs the Elliot Institute, a national post- abortion research and
education organization located in Springfield, Ill. "People need to be
educated on this issue so that the millions of women and men who've been
involved in abortions can find resolution and healing, and so that
millions more will be prevented from taking that same terrible road."
Reardon pointed out that the message of "Aborted Women, Silent No More,"
is as timely today as it was when the book was first published. He said
that surveys have shown that often months or even years may pass before a
woman realizes that her abortion had any negative consequences on her
life.
"Often women may realize they are hurting but will either not recognize
the source of the problem or will not know that there is any help
available to them after abortion," he said. "Many women have reported
that when they tried to share their struggles with others, they were told
that the abortion was 'for the best' and that they needed to get on with
their lives. Often women have the impression that they are the only ones
having these 'crazy' reactions after abortion, and they feel very confused
and alone."
Asked what he felt was the greatest impact of the book, Reardon said he
believed it has helped the pro-life movement to focus the abortion debate
on helping women in need.
"There was, and sometimes still is today, a notion among some pro-lifers
that talking about the impact of abortion on women weakens the moral
argument against abortion," Reardon explained. "But I've always believed
that the average person that tolerates abortion does so only because he or
she believes abortion actually helps women. To open the hearts of these
people to the unborn child, we must first help them to see that abortion
doesn't help women, it makes their lives worse. Many simply need to hear
the truth from the mouths of women who have been there. Focusing on the
effects of abortion on women, then, is simply a necessary step in
converting hearts. In addition, it is through hearing the stories of
women that grieve that many people learn about the humanity of the
children they have lost. The testimony of a woman who says 'My baby died
in that abortion' is often more powerful than the scientific facts about
fetal development."
Kit,
When you say church I assume you mean the Catholic church. I would probably agree with you there, that's part of the reason that I am no longer Catholic. But if someone chooses to be Catholic, fine with me it doesn't bother me. But your first attempt to say that the church didn't care about abortion when the man was making the choice is telling. Obviously you dislike or have a disdain for those church policies or churches and or faiths, so be it.
But there are many faiths that abhore abortion as being wrong. Most of the Muslim, Buddist, Jewish, Hindu And Christian faith denounce it as wrong and are opposed to it as are their members. There are also atheists who feel it's wrong as well. Just as Bin Laden is not representative of Islam, neither is Falwell, Robertson or bad priests representative of billions of people of the Christian faith. Your attempt to lump them all together is misguided. There are also bad pro abortion people who do bad things as well. so would that make your point any less valid ? There are many "churches" of the christian faith that are open to equality and to social change that we would probably agree on they also just happen to find abortion very wrong as do some atheists. You agree or support it I don't. America is great and we can both debate and work to change or to keep laws as we see as a society. As long as we keep the debate honest on BOTH sides of the aisle.
People are good, bad, and indifferent regardless of their politics, religion, or even their position on this topic. And yes, many people are against abortion for many reasons most of them sentimental/emotional. They believe that life is precious regardless of the price.
Now, jethro brought up this guilt thing. When did I ever say that the decision was an easy one? When did I ever say that were no consequences for the lady involved? Never. When did I ever give you the impression that one comes skipping out of the clinic and off for a vacation in Rio? Again, never! But none of the pain and/or guilt is a basis for denying that decision to others.
If you want LOGIC then 'She who bears the freight makes the decision'. Period.
No need for puma wrestling.
I see you mentioned the Hindu and Buddist faiths.
yet the slaughter of girl babies, girls and of brides who do not bring enough of a dowry and of widows - all of them are still practiced. In Bangledesh, for an example, hydrochloric acid is available in the shops, guys buy some and try to take a girl from her family (no marriage mind you), with the dad's consent, if dad refuses the guy then goes and splashes the acid in the girl's face thus guaranteeing no marriage for her and since that is the only respectable role open to her - well you can fill in the rest as to her fate. Arrets? Don't be silly.
Any wonder why women are willing to take on all comers when it comes to being permitted to do with their bodies what they would? There are examples from all religions and from all the world. Jethro is not alone.
Therefore, since she is the one who bears the consequences of her decision, and she alone, then it is her decision to make - regardless of what that decision may be.
Kit, I think you are fold in drag.
If you want LOGIC then 'She who bears the freight makes the decision'. Period.
That is not logic. Period. The logic is real simple but for you I will spell it out. Everyone that has ever lived was at one time conceived. It is an essential to everyone's life. Once consception occurs that person will live for who knows how long. When some selfish woman aborts on a whim it stops that process and it stops the life. Therefore, it is just as morally wrong to have an abortion as it was for Andrea Yates to drown her children. It is jsut a question of timing.
How juvenile of you.
No I wouldn't hang them all just for the illegal behavior of a few, but I would make damn sure that the root cause of the abusive priests' behavior was fixed! Imagine the total destruction of trust and respect such behavior causes!
Juevenile? No just an observation. Do you like this one better: Kit and fold-two peas in a pod.
Jethro, when are you going to stop hurting your cause by lashing out instead of using reasonable arguments?
Your post about how women feel was helpful, because no matter what the law says, the only way to eliminate abortion successfully is to change people's minds about it, person by person. Education, Jethro, not passing laws.
I know you believe it is murder and you are frantic to stop it. But the law is in place, and you won't win converts by bad-mouthing people. Nor will you do so by sliding past questions put to you point-blank -- e.g. whether or not people who kill abortion providers should be prosecuted for murder.
If you believe something, stand up and be counted. You'll be respected for that.
Thanks, but I really don't care if I get any respect.
If you don't get any respect, neither will your arguments.
No one is listening anyway.
maybe its your tactics.
i'd really like to see jethro's position on doctor-assisted suicide. abortion, per se, at the other end of the life-cycle.
ok maybe comparing it to abortion the way i did was a bad metaphor, especially since i've not heard of any such assisted suicides where the doctor actually pushed the button. what i'm trying to get out of him is where he stands on someone making the decision to take their own life, regardless of whether its assisted with a carbon monoxide mask or gravity.
This may surprise you, but I am against it, BUT, I am FOR patient's rights concerning suicide, if they want to have it as an option when their time is near and intolerable suffering is to be expected,.....
People already have the ability to commit suicide. Why does anyone need a doctor to assist them?
In my mind, assisted suicide is simply to soothe the conscience of the person that is too cowardly to just do it themselves.
Why does anyone need a doctor to assist them?
mostly to ensure that its not botched.