A 13-year-old girl from the Italian town of Torino has been forced to have an abortion due to her angry parents' opposition. The law states that minors must defer the decision to their parents.
After the abortion, she threatened suicide after going into a frenzy, requiring treatment. Torino Archbishop Severino Poletto said "The unborn baby is still a life and I defend life whatever the situation." The father is her 15-year-old boyfriend.
"Society must take of this child. I certainly oppose abortions but this case allows us to reflect on the situation. We have to take a step back and ask ourselves how this could have happened to a 13 year old girl," he said.
It's interesting that Dook and the rest of the abortion crowd are laughing, smiling and happy over this story. It's fine when an abortion is forced on a 13-yr-old girl, they like that. But what about her right to choose? Abortion advocates say they are pro-CHOICE but that's really a lie, isn't it? They are pro-ABORTION. They celebrate this forced abortion instead of rallying to support her right to choose. Revealing.
No, i dont believe this girl should have the decision forced upon her. However i do feel even as a parent that if the parents dont support her decision they should simply disown her and let her take care of the baby on her own. The problem here is not a matter her decision effecting only her, she expects her parents to assist her in raising this child. Why dont YOU offer to take her and her child in and take care of them both? Since you seem to be so in favor of preserving the life of the fetus.
Are you serious? That's honestly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. I've never even heard the word pro-abortion... except when used by "conservative" christians to influence their sheeple. I guess that would make you Pro-taking-a-fetus-to-term-even-if-it- means-killing-the-mother-and-the-fetus.
Someone who is Pro-Life supports the protection of / right to human life. This means never intentionally taking a human life. Unfortunately, there are instances (very rarely), where a mother may die during pregnancy. This does not however, mean that the mother is killed, she simply, though sadly, dies...The mother's life is in no way more important than the babies. Moral culpability lies in intention.
Your ridiculous comments would have made me laugh if they weren't so disturbing. Because you are under the ASSUMPTION that this baby would not be "cared for" by some member of this young girl's family, it is your belief that that child is better off dead. Even if they weren't able to care for the child, adoption is always an option. However, for the pro-abortion crowd, it is always "better" to just "do away" with the "problem" altogether, and kill the unborn child.
I agree 100%. Since the parents will end up with a financial obligation if this baby is born, then they should have a say so in the decision. Just as ALL fathers should have a say so in the decision!
Saddened is correct. Rather than expressing concern over the loss of a woman's right to choose, some here are celebrating the death of an innocent life. Your true color is showing, and it is black.
So the way I understand it from the pro-abortion sheeple...if a baby may be born to someone who is poor or not considered to be "economically viable" they deserve to be killed?? We have now come to equate life with economics. No one has a right to take someone else's life simply because of economics. Call me crazy, but if that child could talked, I'm sure she would rather have been born, and had a chance to escape poverty or whatever family situation she was born into, rather than having no life at all.
Saddened: "It's interesting that Dook and the rest of the abortion crowd are laughing, smiling and happy over this story...Abortion advocates say they are pro-CHOICE but that's really a lie, isn't it? They are pro-ABORTION...Revealing."
Since 95% of the people (plural?) on this topic were just born yesterday, here's a clue: commentary on this site is pretty irreverant. If a guy falls into a chipper shredder, there are going to be jokes about hamburger. Does that mean people here are pro-chipper-shredder death? No, that's ridiculous, about as ridiculous as the idea of anyone being "pro-abortion." Can any of you explain the motivation for such a stance as such a silly talking point implies?
LadyJ: "Even if they weren't able to care for the child, adoption is always an option."
And how many babies have you adopted?
"Call me crazy, but if that child could talked, I'm sure she would rather have been born, and had a chance to escape poverty or whatever family situation she was born into, rather than having no life at all."
And if the Pope had mammaries, he'd be a nun. Since he doesn't he isn't, and since the "child" isn't it doesn't. The fetus knows no different one way or another, and is no different than any other non-sentient mass of cells. Cite potential if you like, but potential means nothing if it will not be.
Since I've had a good laugh at the title now (oh, the horror), I'll note that this is a pretty terrible thing. Parents should not have this kind of sway, if only because of the severe negative impact of the abortion procedure. We see the consequences here, consequences which are even visited upon grown women. A 13 year-old may not be of age to make adult decisions, but she needs to be party to them, because those consequences will be hers to bear alone.
A case like this only shows how sick and twisted the "morality" of the pro-abortion group is. The word pro-choice just doesn't fit. The rights of the BABY aside, what about the very basic right this poor girl has to carry her baby to term?? This is disturbing on every level.
last time I checked,men did not go through the pregnancy and they did not go through the labor of having a child. If a woman wants to have a baby, it is her right not the man's!! If the man does not want a baby, he doesn't have to be there for it, it is called giving up parental rights. No man, would ever tell me to have an abortion!!!!
Has anyone read about the baby born after only 22 weeks in the womb. This proves that life begins at the moment of conception. Though the fetus is not fully developed, no baby is fully developed. Its called stages of life, from the moment when the sperm meets the egg through adulthood and ultimately death. Our soceity has disfigured the true purpose of having sex. Though it is pleasurable, the main reason for intercourse is to procreate. Its a proven fact as we see babies being born everyday and families being formed. And to say a baby in the womb does not know or feel anuthing is ridiculous. Watch an ultrasound as an abortion is being performed and you can clearly see the baby despertley attempting to move away from the murder utensils.
"The fetus knows no different one way or another, and is no different than any other non-sentient mass of cells."
Tell that to the parents of the 22 week old 'mass of cells' born in Florida who just came home from the hospital. With an excellent prognosis, BTW.
Basically, society says you are a life if a) your parents want you and b) if you are going to grow up and not be a burden to society. This is a slipperly slope of biblical proportions we do not want to do down.
@soar: I have, but only to the extent that she formed Planned Parenthood.
@Accounts created today: If you're not just the same person making himself feel supported, you must all be from some middle-of-Kansas cult. No one here is pro-abortion. I don't see how wanting to give a woman the right to choose could be made to seem equal to wanting to abort all fetuses. If you came here wanting to profess your ignorance for the world to see, you've succeeded.
When I was a kid and first heard about abortion, it shocked me. Then as I grew older, I heard, and believed the reasons for it. I live on a farm, and had a cat that lived in my barn. She had kittens and abandoned them. When I found them, I had such pity for them that I spent a couple days trying to save them, they eventually died. Later, I thought of abortion and the monster that would actually pull an infant from a woman's womb so it will die.
I figured people would sieze on this. Thatchild is being hailed as a "miracle baby," and miracles are rare things indeed. What'd be even more of a miracle is if the baby escapes without severe disabilities, expert speculation on which has been conspicuously absent in the news. We may just need to see how this baby turns out before anyone chalks up a point for their side. We'll talk about viability if the poor thing doesn't end up being on a ventilator and various other means of life support for its whole life.
She has no rights she's only 13 yrs. old. Wheather you are pro-choice or pro-life, the choice doesn't lay in the hands of the child. It's her parents decision. Granted they should have kept a better eye on their daughter, but can you really watch your kids 24/7??
You new accounts aren't saying anything that hasn't already been said by some other brainwashed idiot. We get it: Abortion is evil. Anyone who doesn't want "pro-abortion" people stoned to death is evil. You can stop making new accounts now.
I think that everyone here is focusing on the wrong thing. Maybe for the right reasons, I'm not sure. I am Pro-Life. Now that that is out of the way. Whether you are Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. The story is not about a 13 year old girl having an abortion. The Story is that a GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL HAS MANDATED THAT A PERSON MUST HAVE AN ABORTION!!!! I know that COMMIE China has this rule. But how many other western DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES are dong this. And how long before it's here in the DEMOCRATIC CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. ie AMERICA???
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." -George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950
As far as Sanger goes, she called for women to have absolute choice. Take your revisionism elsewhere, unless you can show that she was in favor of taking choice AWAY from women so as to facilitate more abortions. No? Thought not.
I remember that in the story. But if thats true how did a judge get involved? And that it's in their LAWS is the POINT I am refering to. The goverment has so much control on there lives that they can tell you anything!!!
It's too bad that a judge didn't force the parents to have an abortion, then they wouldn't have this mess. Those two teenagers arrived as infants, a lot of what they know and learn is the responsibility of their parents. So, now these teenagers know and learned that abortion is the solution when you have sex and "oops" a pregnancy happens. How silly.
No revisionism. Her own words. Eugenicist. Whoremonger. Etc. She wasn't concerned about women choosing anything except to have sex whenever they please, with whomever they pleased. Just as bad as any male whore.
Shaw's quote is irrelevant because he was, is irrelevant. Laughter is medicine when it's a salve to pain, not an anesthesia.
A judge would come into play when the law is contested, probably in this case by the girl, the boy or his family, or even a third party opposing the law/procedure. That kind of review is a good thing, even if in this case the law was upheld. Unfortunately, this kind of thing could happen in any Western nation. Our system of specific laws invites unintended consequences. When they are found, it's up to the legislature to correct then regardless of how the judge rules - they need to fix it for the next 13 year-old.
"Margaret Sanger started PPL because she was a Racist, in support of eugenics!"
That's opinion, falsehood, and truth, respectively. You're not Margaret Sanger, so you cannot comment on her motivation out of your emotional bias. She did promote eugenics (and acknowledged BC's value to it), but it was in the human race, not an ethnic race. Here's your research: http://en.wikipedia.org/ "Sanger promoted the idea of 'race hygiene' – meaning the human race, not the idea of race as ethnicity – through 'negative eugenics,' though her writings do not indicate that she believed that any particular (ethnic) race as a whole was more eugenic or dysgenic than any other, and she condemned the anti-Semitic Nazi program as 'sad & horrible.'"
And wonder, a quote is merely insight, so allow me to offer mine in suggesting you remove that stick from its dark hiding spot. It won't do you any good here, and you ain't seen nothing yet. ;)
Your claim about potential, "Potential is nothing if it will not be", is ridiculous. You are missing the point about human potential. That is, it will be. The child will continue to "be" if someone doesn't step in and kill it. You will never be 60 yrs old if I step in and kill you at 50. That doesn't give me the right to kill you!!!
And to erased: I will stop making new accounts when you stop promoting the slaughter of innocent children.
Margaret Sanger was a racist who believed abortion could be used as a tool to keep the population of non-whites and the poor in check. And could you tell me please, how forcing an abortion on anyone is "pro-choice"? Oops, that's right, I'm a brainwashed idiot.
Sorry, but a human adult already is, so the potential is not equivalent because you cannot destroy what is not. A fetus is not sentient, nor even conscious, so it is no more a person than the individual sperm and egg. When you lobby to harvest all eggs to prevent the mass-murder by menstruation which every female commits, then you can talk about the sacred nature of potential life.
As I read further down I see you are off the mark once again. First, the baby was delivered after 22 WEEKS in the womb, not months. Anyway, the reason this event is important for pro-lifers isn't because they think this baby will live a life with out further medical attention, but rather that at 22 weeks and still in the womb, it was very much alive. You see it is babies like this one, which are often murdered. In sum, the miracle is not that the baby will be free of medical needs in the future, but rather that it is alive before it is "born". The miracle of life!
I'd say a peer-reviewed encyclopedia is more credible than an extremist pro-life website. Anyone can post propaganda, even Truth, who's a day late and as short a dollar as you. Unless you've got something unbiased, take your lies elsewhere.
People forget -- Juliet was 13 and Romeo was at least 15.... Angry parents. Judicial and clerical interference. Suicide (successful in Shakespeare's presentation). Plus ca meme.
"And could you tell me please, how forcing an abortion on anyone is 'pro-choice'?"
It's ok, you can take the discussion out of context and go back to the news summary. If I were only able to produce talking points, I'd likely do the same thing. For the record: I am Pro-choice, and would never condone forcing a woman either way.
22 WEEKS? Really? Gee, I thought she delivered it after almost two years. Or, was it a typo? /sarcasm
Typical rabid pro-lifer - all concerned about quantity over quality of life. Who cares if we can yank a mass of cells out of woman and keep it alive if the result will be a terribly deformed, albeit alive, child? The only point I've missed is the rather weak point you cling to, that it is merely life. That is hardly an end in and of itself. There's no doubt a fetus is alive at that point, but is it a person? Will it ever be? Of what value is life when people like you cheapen it to this degree? I'd ask how you'd feel if you had to listen to it scream in pain for years because of what deformities it may have, but since it may not even have nerves developed yet, I'll hold of on such speculation.
We just recently adopted a baby that was planned on being aborted and his name is Tyler. He is the most beautiful child in the world. When we see him laugh we truly know he had the right to live.We used to be pro choice until this adoption happened. I am not talking bad about mothers who have adopted their children. I just think they are or we confused like us. It's hard to explain, so you may not understand what i am talking about. I volunteer to adopt this Italian baby! I wish I could get ahold of the family. Robert
"last time I checked,men did not go through the pregnancy and they did not go through the labor of having a child. If a woman wants to have a baby, it is her right not the man's!! If the man does not want a baby, he doesn't have to be there for it, it is called giving up parental rights. No man, would ever tell me to have an abortion!!!!"
Just like the conservatives that call pro-choicers pro-abortion you get it all wrong. The point of someone suggesting a father have a say in what happens to his unborn child is not so he can say have an abortion. Anyone I have ever heard (myself included) does not want that right so they can force an abortion, but stay one. If by some twist of fate someone I was with became pregnant and decided to get an abortion I would want the ability to stop it. Now since I don't carry the child I lose that right.
For all you people calling pro-choice advocates pro-abortion, pull your head out of the republican parties butts. Stop listening to politicians and think for yourselves. Pro choice is exactly what it says. It means the GOVERNMENT doesn't have a say in whether or not you have a child. Nothing more nothing less. Better than 80% of the pro-choice women I know would not actually have an abortion. They do not consider it an option for birth control, nor do they like the idea. What they don't like is the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. It certainly doesn't belong anywhere near this subject. I am pro choice as you might have guessed, however, a former girlfriend of mine thought she might be pregnant and my advice was to deliver the child. She would have anyway as it turns out and she ended up not being pregnant. The simple truth, though is that it was a matter between her and I. Not me, her and the government.
Sorry!!! Your name was in my buffer. But my aren't we touchy' I guess when you are loseing an arguement, you always result to name calling. You shouldn't show your hand so easily.
I am pro choice. I get to decide that any other position is wrong and that i know the ultimate right of the situation. Any other point of view is a sign of ignorance and stupidity. Opposition of abortion is wrong because it is a position that denies a right to a woman to make her own choices. First of all, Men should not be allowed to speak about a topic that is none of their business. This is a woman's issue about a woman's body. Second of all a fetus is not a human being. It is a mass of cells much like a tumor and is just as unwelcomed in a female body if she does not want it there. Abortion is a medical cure for that cancer. You pro life people have good intentions but are deluded by a religious doctrine that is no more real than any other religion. Abortion and the eugenics it brings makes sure that only people who are most likely to be able to survive and have decent lives do survive. No one wants people born into poverty and unable to have a decent life. As a pro abortion person I realize it's importance to a vital society. If a woman chooses to give up the child for adoption then more power to her and you but once that child lives in a state run orphanage for a few years they will learn to regret their mothers damnation of them to that hell.
Due to the starkly opposing views in this thread, and the huge sensitivity of the subject matter, I would like to remind everyone involved in the current and future discussion to keep it as impersonal as possible, to respect each other's rights to their own opinion no matter how different it is to your own, and to keep the flames away.
Also, I would like to welcome the new members who have signed up to comment on this story. So far, you've debated with the best of our best. I hope, despite the differing of your opinion to those, that you're enjoying yourselves.
Also, I recommend reading our terms and conditions before blindly making your way through the site.
I think your moment of clarity has long since passed...
you were once but a mass of cells too my friend. Should we have killed you too to prevent any possible deformities you could have been born with?
personally I would not want to listen to a baby scream, but I may not want to listen to you speak either. The point is you are too subjective trying to decide who has the best "quality" of life. I am simply stating that the right to life is "objectively" good. Regardless of how much pain or suffering one may endure after birth.
a "deformed" person is still a person. yes some people feel pain in life, life can be full of pain. but pain has redemptive qualities, as I am sure you know.
Wow. This young girl was FORCED to have an abortion, and the pro-abortion crowd here is *exuberant* over it.
Putting aside the horror of the forced abortion itself, the reaction by the pro-abortion crowd here is downright sick. It's among the more disturbing displays of self-serving, immoral, godless indecency I have run across in recent memory. How does one go about denying one's very soul? How does it feel to be soulless? I am just curious.
Possibly it feels better than being filled with righteous conviction that you are in the right and everyone else in the world with a brain and logic thought is in the wrong.
As to the story, which is what we should be talking about rather the discussing the morals or immorals of ShortNews users, I think it's apalling that this girl is pregnant aged 13. Her parents are parenting her too late. The damage has been done.
To the person who brought up the 22 week-foetus in Miami, I'd like to see an embryo born and live. That's the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy, which is when an abortion generally takes place, not in most cases as you falsely stated.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves why a Catholic Archbishop is so up in arms about the abortion, but not about the sex before marriage. And I wonder if he'd be so up in arms if the 13-year-old said "my boyfriend used a condom and killed my unborn baby".
So typical! I don't know that I've ever argued with a person of ....left politcal leanings, with out seeing that person reduce themselves to calling names and throwing insults. Only makes me more sure of my own position. Abortion on more than the "right to choose". It's giving another person the "right" to end another's life. It's a slipperly slope. There are "doctors" who believe a parent has the "right" to terminate the life of their toddler. Where does it end?
Well, hopefully I get a second wind of my clarity before yours begins...ah, there it is.
"you were once but a mass of cells too my friend. Should we have killed you too to prevent any possible deformities you could have been born with?"
Perhaps. But, we're not talking about a crooked spine, stunted growth, or even autism. We're talking about the potential for gross deformities of the mind and body. I wouldn't be surprised if this child never achieved a higher level of consciousness than it has now. Is that "life?" Is that the kind of gift you'd bestow upon the world if you got you way? No, I would not want to be that fleshy mockery of a human.
"The point is you are too subjective trying to decide who has the best "quality" of life."
And who are you to decide the opposite? At least I have no intention of forcing my opinion on a sentient human being just because I've projected my human emotions onto an undeveloped cluster of cells.
"I am simply stating that the right to life is 'objectively' good. Regardless of how much pain or suffering one may endure after birth."
And extremism in anything is objectively bad. Assuming consciousness (and that's giving you a mile in this argument), if all one knows is pain, they may disagree with you. You say I'm too subjective, but have YOU experienced such a predicament? No, so your opinion is hardly objective. People in far better situaitons have declared life a curse, and your comfortable position in front of a computer tells me you've little experience in the more horrible aspects of life from which to declare all live "'objectively' good."
"a 'deformed' person is still a person. yes some people feel pain in life, life can be full of pain. but pain has redemptive qualities, as I am sure you know."
Pain has no redemptive qualities to a person who is only capable of the awareness of pain, if any awareness at all. If one cannot grow or learn, lessons are of no value, and lessons in pain are simply torture. Deformed persons are still persons, to a point. Once they lose consciousness forever, that is no longer the case. Aborting a fetus who has never awakened is no different than pulling the plug on a person who never will.
13 is pretty damn young to be pregnant. I knew everything when I was 13 but have long since forgotten it. While I am pro choice I don’t believe in “forcing” something like this on anyone. That is evil. The parents are the legal guardians of the girl and are responsible for her wellbeing. This is just ugly, a lose lose situation no matter how you look at it. I see no right answer. At least supply these kids with birth control. They are going to do “it” and there is no way anyone is going to stop them. At the very least prevent incidents like this from happening again. This is just sad. Everyone involved has my sympathy.
Enough is enough. I will not incite further. Let me make something clear. Life is life. All human life is precious be it born or not. My real point here was to illustrate the truth of something. It was a bit off topic but I noticed that once i posted real liberal beliefs they were agreed to through silence. Bless those who stand. As for the 13 year old girl forced to have an abortion. This child will always be the victim of this very debate. As for clarity. We will only end up with a dead baby and a promiscuous child in the end. It's bad, but focus on the issues that made it possible. That is lack of morality in the family structure.
Oh please, do present those words which actually SUPPORT your argument. Unlike some debate to which it seems you're accustomed, you cannot keep saying something and have it magically become true. I want to hear racism AND advocacy of choice being taken to facilitate more abortions, and I want direct citation. Quote Sanger (as I did) or be silent, unable to prove your accusations.
angry parents. there are alot of YOUNG ppl out there having babies. Its like saying Babies having Babies. Im pretty sure there are alot of parents out there wishing that their young 13-19 yrs old would want their child to wait to have babies. Abortion is scary. I would never do that to my unborn child ( althou im not expecting). But i wouldnt do such a thing. Yeah, their are alot of angry parents out there, that have kids but are having babies already. All they do is just Adopt.
"My real point here was to illustrate the truth of something. It was a bit off topic but I noticed that once i posted real liberal beliefs they were agreed to through silence."
For that to be true, you would have had to have posted convincing "liberal" beliefs, rather than what was obviously a parody. You have much to learn about controlled deception in experimentation. No one responded because no one was fooled, and in with so many sincere opinions here, insincerity is not worth the time.
if something is objectively true, I don't need to experience it. I don't need to cut off my foot to know that it would hurt.
the redemptive qualities for some may not be "understood" in this life. but their soul, which you may or may not believe in, will be rewarded in the next. Now if you don't believe in an after-life, all arguments you may have aside, what are you waiting for???
Killing an innocent baby is wrong. The unborn child clearly has no choice here, and the mother doesn't either. The government deciding who lives and dies is a gross injustice.
To those of you who have posted adamant views that promote the killing of this child for whatever reason, I have a question: how have you been hurt by abortion? This is not a confrontational question, I simply want to know. Did you have one? Did you drive your girlfriend to the clinic? Were you a parent who accompanied your child and grandchild to the procedure? Did your sister have one?
I am a sidewalk counselor, which means I stand out in front of the local abortion mill every Saturday and tell abortion-bound women about adoption, and offer them tangible chilcare assistance for if they decide to keep the baby. I am there out of love, not in judgment, and I offer help, not condemnation.
But here's the stark truth: 1 out of 2 people in this country has been hurt by abortion in some way, and it is as plain as the nose on your faces. I encourage you to find healing for that pain.
The blood of 45 million babies cannot be right. This world deserves better than abortion.
I mean. Common guys. Abortion means fewer people dependent on welfare, which means FEWER liberals in the future! Kill em now! Er-- Or like Moment of Clairity said, give the "non-sentient mass of cells" no potential to ever become a liberal! YAY ABORTION!
"if something is objectively true, I don't need to experience it. I don't need to cut off my foot to know that it would hurt."
Ah, but we're human and we don't know what is objectively true - to presume we do is grandiose arrogance (and the death of future thought). Perhaps the nerves in your foot are malformed and it would not hurt. Perhaps it would be done so fast that you would not notice the pain. So, you see that it's possible you're wrong even about yourself, to say nothing of other adults or foeti.
"the redemptive qualities for some may not be "understood" in this life. but their soul, which you may or may not believe in, will be rewarded in the next. Now if you don't believe in an after-life, all arguments you may have aside, what are you waiting for???"
Firstly, your theology is not admissable as evidence of any point unless we're talking about the laws of your church or theocracy, which we are not. Secondly, this is SUCH an ironic argument, because without human intervention, God would have taken that child Himself. Humans pulled it through a wound in the mother into a world of pain, not God. Thirdly, I don't know what my belief (or lack thereof) in the afterlife has to do with waiting for anything but you to prove the objectivity of any opinion you've produced here.
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
If you want more, all you have to do is seek. If you are truly a seeker of truth, and not just a dialectical addict, you'll find it.
The main argument in abortion is the definition of when life begins, and herein you will find a much larger spectrum of stances on the issue than the black and white stances of pro-choice or pro-life.
Even many pro-choice advocates do not advocate the late term abortions where a baby is usually pulled out of the womb and skull punctured to kill the baby.
On the other hand, not too many pro-life advocates will say that a condom is a type of destroyed life.
The real loss of debate on this issue is that people have gone so far into their own trenches that they refuse to debate the person in front of them but instead try to reduce the person in front of them to far outliers of the overarching issue.
Personally this article about a baby that is alive and predicted for long term health by doctors after 22 weeks gives reason to think if life may indeed start earlier than some may have thought.
So, if only to learn something, I'm not going to assume that now I believe that life starts at 22 weeks but I will think again before judging whether that mass of cells has become life or not.
"Secondly, this is SUCH an ironic argument, because without human intervention, God would have taken that child Himself. Humans pulled it through a wound in the mother into a world of pain, not God." Seriously, no sarcasm, what do you mean by this?
Hey, I agree! I bet the liberals would hate to hear that I am a conservative Catholic, oldest of 9 children, and I know 5 families of like mind who have eleven kids or MORE, that I intend to have at least that many, and they will all be raised to take down the Culture of Death and establish the CULTURE OF LIFE! So take a chill pill, liberals, your days are *so* numbered--and you can die (euthanasia may be your prefered method of exit) knowing that you have left the world to me and my kids!!
That doesn't even establish that she favored eugenics (which she did), just that she thought that larger families are a bad thing. Not only does that quote lack context, but it lacks the extremity which you ascribe to her, the very point of contention. Yes, she supported socially-applied population controls, but where is the racism in her words? Where is the call for large families to be REQUIRED to abort, in spite of the mother's choice? I know what I think of Sanger, but if you want to convince me of what you think of her, it's your task to do so and not mine to track down your "truth."
I am totally blown away by the posts. I sat and touch Tylers face and he giggles, again I am convinced that when I was "pro choice" i was uninformed. I have many a friend raised in poverty and they are all productive members of society now making at least 80,000 per year. The argument of them contributing to poverty is an outright lie I used to believe. Please before you use an uneducated argument "Look at the facts and research" to verify it. You people classify abortion as a political line and for that i am truly dissappointed. I am one that looks at every single issue seperately, because if I did not I would be truly a slave. I agree with certain parties on certain issues but not all issues only a robot would do that. I am not arguing against abortion as I was "pro choice" until this incident with Tyler, the baby we are adopting. We would certainly be willing to adopt more so if you know anyone in California please post and I will contact you asap. I just want to give you my first hand life experience. I am truly happy that this child lived and I am truly happy that My wife and I have the opportunity to raise him. I beat myself up for my past thinking but what it was it was and there is no changing that. There are alternatives to abortion and I am telling you many people cannot have kids that want to adopt! I know because of the process I went through. I will not argue the case of "pro life" I will just lead by example and hope that other people do also. Enough fighting lets find solutions together! Robert
RE: Sanger Check it out: http://www.blackgenocide.org/ And I quote: "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." If that's not racist, the Pope's not Catholic.
"blah blah...liberals, your days are *so* numbered...blah blah"
Of course, kids always adhere to their parents' beliefs, right? How foolish...how is it that the world has generally grown MORE progressive than less, despite coming from more socially conservative populations? I'm talking about the whole of human cultural development, not the last 50 years in the West that the partisan hacks like to talk about when they try to paint "Liberalism" as the next Red Scare. The world was in your hands in the Dark Ages, what happened?
@Truth: You cite God's judgement that a life be spent in misery, but you ignore that God's judgement was that this child would die in the womb, likely taking the mother with her. Only a human surgical procedure caused this child to live. Another surgical procedure causes a fetus to die. Both are denials of God's will, or both are fulfillments of it. Let's not talk about the plan of God when the hand of Man has already intervened, for better or worse.
It is really unfortunate that many of you can't tell the difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. No one is condoning forcing this young girl to get an abortion. In fact, I think most, like me, find this situation abhorrent.
Also, I didn't include my email address in my profile so you people could try to recruit me into your sick brand of religious fundamentalism. My eternal soul is fine and doesn't need your superstitions.
At least you've acknowledged that you're going to force your fundamentalism down your children's throats and brainwash them into believing that anyone who has a differing point of view is evil. I'm sure this serves your purpose much better than allowing them to make educated decisions for themselves. Most extremists have a hard time coming to terms with that.
Hey, why don't you educate yourself and read it in Sanger's own words in "The Negro Project"...? We're not making this stuff up; you just can't swallow it because it tastes bad, and because you would look bad defending a racist. The source is there, and unless you can disprove Sanger's own words, take your medicine like a man (or woman).
Why are you getting so upset, unless you are unable to prove your point without slanted information? I know Sanger had racist beliefs. My source also quotes her racist statements, but the key is that they were standard for her day. Prove an extremism uncharacteristic of her society, or that those beliefs were actually related to her position on abortion or the organization she founded. If you cannot correlate the beliefs (let alone prove causation), move on because you've made the best point you're able. One can objectively prove that Hitler started death camps out of his hatred of the Jews. Can you prove the same of Sanger, PPH, and non-whites with unbiased sources?
Not for your sake only, Moment, but for those also who are enthralled by choice:
In the early history of the race, so-called "natural law" [i.e., natural selection] reigned undisturbed. Under its pitiless and unsympathetic iron rule, only the strongest, most courageous could live and become progenitors of the race. The weak died early or were killed. Today, however, civilization has brought sympathy, pity, tenderness and other lofty and worthy sentiments, which interfere with the law of natural selection. We are now in a state where our charities, our compensation acts, our pensions, hospitals, and even our drainage and sanitary equipment all tend to keep alive the sickly and the weak, who are allowed to propagate and in turn produce a race of degenerates.
Sanger, "Birth Contron and Women's Health", Birth Control Review I no. 12 (Dec. 1917):7.
For a taste of her obession with perverse sexuality refer to Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (New York: Maxwell Reprint Company. 1969. p. 237. (orginally published by Sanger in 1922.
She is only one in a long line of "thinkers" that have made what happened to the Italian 13 year old and her child possible.
I highly doubt that Sangers beliefs were in line with everybody elses for that time, that is an extremely uneducated thing to say. That is like saying Stalins beliefs were in line for his day which makes it acceptable. Oh wait one better, Since the belief that women were subserviant in the 1700's means that is was acceptable to think that way. People inherently know when they are thinking the wrong way there is no denying that truth and many people accept it beacause they are not being condemned for their thought process. Basically, people go with the flow. I think it does our world a great injustice to have that way of thinking. You speak like you are educated, however your beliefs show a lack of education. Quit trying to sound smart, it's very manipulative. Robert
Plenty on Eugenics in theory, nothing on eugenics (or racism) in practice. We already know this, keep looking.
What IS your point, again? Are you operating under the notion that this person is some kind of saint or figurehead whose opinions are of any importance to pro-choice people today? If so, you're really wasting your time. Not everyone forms their beliefs in cults of personality.
If the forced this abortion on these TWO children Yes no one has mentioned the father in this, it was their parents duty to help them BOTH come to a decision on this and if THEY BOTH decided to keep the baby then parental guidance would have been the appropriate way forward, unless of course the young girls life was at risk.
The names are irrelevant; what their ideas foment is the issue. Sanger and her ilk (Freud, Kinsey, Darwin, Nietzsche, etc.) are the laborers who dug up the ground, laid the foundation, several cornerstones, beams and posts of the culture of death pervading us. It is in this culture that these two children in Italy suffered their fate.
They say that to understand is not to forgive, and you'd do well to educate yourself on the difference. I used Hitler as an example, because while people held negative opinions about the Jews in his time, his were extreme and motivated his actions (something no one has proven of Sanger). This does not excuse everyone else who held those beliefs, but rather to note them as characteristic of the period and contrast them with Hitler. If you think this is not true of Sanger and her time, please, prove otherwise. You're such a big man to tell me I'm uneducated, but let's see you prove it. My source backs up my knowledge, where's yours?
Do we need to look at the historical record to check to see if people in 1310 believed the color red to be red?
Can't we judge a notion based on the merits of the notion irrespective of the culture within which it was espoused?
Having said that, it is instructive to examine a person's personal writings and experiences to get a glimpse at how they thought. In practice, Sanger was promiscuous, avowedly. Apparently, anything that would curtail her appetite was "evil" to her. And it was this notion of sexuality that she espoused, in word and deed, that has encouraged its proliferation.
You guys are all ridiculious! I mean what exactly are you defending? after reading most of your bickering back and forth its seems that you are all just throwing arrows for the heck of it without really accomplishing anything.
Being a former fetus...I personally agree that the baby should have had a chance to live...I mean, there was a reason it was formed in the first place otherwise it wouldnt have been.
For the pro-choicers I can also see your point in the physical condition of the 13 year old possibly dying from the delivery, therefore I believe that since it is her body and life we are talking about she should have been the one to make the decision.
what ALL of you seem to be overlooking is her emotional state. If not having this baby creates long lasting emotional effects where she is a complete basket case and eventually kills herself, then all that worry about her dying from the delivery is now void.
Bottom line, it could go either way. the fault is really her parents for allowing their daughter to go buck wild at such a young age...and her own for not respecting herself enough to stay out of bed.
Hmm. my error clarity. You did reply. It was a personal attack. As for my arguments. I think they are the truth that liberals know they can't say. If i am inaccurate then I may be. But, My opinion is free to give. If the only reply i can get is a mosquito's sting of wit then I'll keep my opinions as valid. You are free to debate them. let's try real discourse. I can do that without attacking your character.
You say,"I used to be pro-choice." Makes us all believe that miraculously you saw the light. Republicans use the same trick, "I used to be a Democrat".
S: Um, no, a personal attack would be if I said you were an idiot for posting such drivel. I just called it drivel. Learn to differentiate.
W: "The names are irrelevant; what their ideas foment is the issue. Sanger and her ilk (Freud, Kinsey, Darwin, Nietzsche, etc.)...[gave us]...the culture of death pervading us."
You're right, let's just go back to the Church to provide us with our science. They did a bang-up job in the Dark Ages, didn't they? "Culture of death"...it would seem that the world is more populous now than ever. I see no mass human extinctions, can you evidence such exaggerated rhetoric? What countries have died out under the weight of their abortion and euthanasia practices?
"Do we need to look at the historical record to check to see if people in 1310 believed the color red to be red?"
We do if they thought it blue and you're singling one person out as an idiot for thinking so. No, people and ideas must be considered with their cultures. And who are you to complain about ideas not being discussed on their own merits, having spent all day trying to bash the pro-choice views of a person by associating them with unrelated racial views? More irony...and once again, what's your point? Sanger is no more at the forefront of modern pro-choice thought than Freud is for modern psychology.
Strip away the personal and get to the heart of the matter.
Who said anything about the Church and science?
Regards of the sound of the name, red is red. Regardless of what sound you ascribe to it, promiscuity foments destruction, of the soul, of the family, of society.
This particular response is a classical ad hominem attack. It is an attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.
MomentOfClarity, please logically explain why adoption is not an answer, if you are able.
W: Red may be red, but once again, we're human and objective knowledge is beyond us. If we didn't always know red to be red, that must be considered. Intellectually it is relevant, perhaps the confusion comes in that you're thinking of the morality of it, where that may not be so. Racism's always been wrong, but you cannot fault someone for not knowing it when most did not.
Church and science have clearly been at odds here. If you oppose those named thinkers on some other basis, please say what it is. Science and philosophy regard them highly as positive contributors. What was the alternatives, barring utter ignorance?
L: There was nothing against the person at all. I want to know who's practicing what they preach. It's all well and good for a pro-lifer to insist that people adopt, it's another matter if they've not done so themselves. They clearly have a problem with the state of things, but are they a part of the solution?
As for why it is not a viable solution, babies go unadopted WITH abortion today, how many more would there be if abortion were banned? Who is going to support such an influx of surrendered babies? It is certainly a solution, but not a substitution. Can you show me an overabundance of parents which indicates otherwise?
I agree with everyone who has said that much of what has been posted here so far is off-topic (I am also guilty of the offense). What is REALLY at stake here is not just whether abortion is moral, but whether the GOVERNMENT should be able to FORCE a mother to kill her child. That is an awful power! What do you all think about that side of the issue?
Good on topic point. The idea of any government having that power is just plain unnerving but several nations already do on a more than regular basis. Even India had to keep people from discovering the sex of their child before birth beacuse of all the female baby abortions. What happens in america if we ever find a way to determine sexual preference before birth? Will leberals support abortion then? That kind of tech is more than developing it is being used in cases of downs syndrome. If being gay is proven to be genetic then does a woman have the right to abort it and try for a straight one? I'll bet a fetus would have some rights pretty quick then. But it won't be human yet and won't have potential or destiny. just an unviable tissue mass till it fits an agenda. It's coming so get your marches ready Planned parenthood will see it's profits jump a bit more so we can count on them to fight for the right of a woman to choose (the sexual orientation of their child).
Anyway, it's stupid. How does that happen to a thirteen year old girl? SHE HAD SEX. I thought most people knew that =|
No matter - pro choice or pro life - I don't see how people could support this. She should definitely have the right to chose if she wants to keep it or not.
C: What complicates this issue is not that the government made her do it, but the parents. Really, the government was just an arbiter in the debate of whose rights to uphold. If they found for the child, they overrule parental rights. If they find for the parents, they overrule the child's rights. Their laws, and later their courts, did nothing but clarify who wins. Be upset with the parents, they forced this on their child. I don't know much about conscience clauses in Italy, but I can't imagine how they would have found a doctor willing to do this. If she was this upset at the time, there should obviously have been a conflict in the idea of doing no harm.
It's just appalling.
S: How about we worry about that slippery slope when we come to it? Quit trying to push hot-buttons; sexual preference is only one facet of the ethical dilemma of designer babies. So long as you try see everything through partisan prisms, the debate will always be fractured and incomplete.
I'm so sick of this argument, so I'll just bullet point:
- If she's fertile, then she's horney. Therefore, she will have sex, if she makes that decision. If she's fertile, and in a position to make that decision to have sex, then she's perfectly able to decide whether or not she wants to have an abortion.
- 22 weeks is just under 6 months, which is almost into the third trimester. You will find few people who are pro-choice who advocate abortions in the third trimester. We have known for a long time that babies can survive in rare cases out of the womb at 6 months. Organs begin to develop at 3 months. Before that, it is simply an embryo with no consciousness. For all those who are pro-life out there who have seen the abortion where the baby is trying to get away from the abortion utensils, that was a late stage abortion, particularly if you can make out that it's a baby. I would be willing to bet that was around the 4 1/2 to 5th month of pregnancy, which is relatively late. It's a simple line of reasoning - if it can't poop, it's not a baby.
- People who are pro-life should personally fund the distribution of free contraception.
- People will have sex. But not everyone wants to have a baby. The world is over-populated as it is. And please, dear god, please don't say "well then don't have sex." You don't want to get me started on that one...
Also, if you're pro-life, and believe killing an embryo is killing a baby then you should also be protesting against in vitro fertilisation, as there are hundreds of thousands of embryos destroyed each year as a result of its process. And if you don't, you should reconsider your values system.
Anyone who has actually been in a situation of having to choose either an abortion or adoption will agree that it is unfortunate, and a tragedy. That being said, it is still a choice that a woman has a right to make. You can support whatever your view is on when life begins by citing a one-in-a-million survival story, but you cant ignore the fact that the definition of when life begins is completely subjective. I personally cannot support the pro-life movement because I am not a believer in life beginning at conception. and again to those citing the one-in-a-million surviver, I will agree with whoever (sorry i don't feel like re-reading all those comments) said that quality of life should definitely be considered over quantity.
Which brings me to another point - there are SO many children abandoned at birth because women either cannot afford or cannot access a clinic to have an abortion performed. So many children dead in dumpsters and left in group homes. Why should a Drug addict carry a baby to term when its obvious that the baby is going to have SEVERE health issue?
Before Roe vs Wade victory, women who wanted abortions had to find unsafe and illegal means to get one. Many women suffered and died at the hands of back ally abortion doctors, and many that did survive were left infertile. Roe vs. Wade did not argue whether or not abortions where moral, but that a woman has a choice to have complete privacy and control over her reproductive health and her life. Who is ANYONE to tell me that my choices are immoral? I'm sorry that we cannot share the same definition of morality, and that we cannot share the same belief that life begins at conception.
And about Planned Parenthood being a conspiracy to commit racial genocide, why on earth would you trust a website that is so OBVIOUSLY biased?! I don't think i can take it anymore, the same people who scoff at the idea that the 9/11 attacks MIGHT have been a conspiracy would believe this ridiculous conspiracy theory. Just because the Christian coalition, the 700 club, or your pastor agrees doesn't make it true.
That being said, it is a tragedy that this poor pre-teen had to go through this. I don't think she should have been forced into this, but i do think that her parents have every right to suggest whatever means of handling this that they seem fit, whether they push for an abortion or not. Morality is completely subjective.
I apologize for not citing any websites for facts. All the reasearch I have done on the subject were from books and various articles over the years. I am not "pro-abortion", I am Pro-Choice. There is a huge difference. In a perfect world, all women would be educated in forms of birth control, and have access to it. Unfortunately, the same administration that is against abortion is ALSO against USEFUL sexual education. rather then teach young adults to be responsible about sex, they just tell them to NOT HAVE SEX or you will automatically get pregnant or get an STD. Unfortunately, my school participated in "abstitence only" education, which led to much misinformation and alot of heartache.
1) Again, pro-choice, or pro-life, forcing anyone to abort a baby is immoral.
2) To those who say that adoption is better, let me say this. Where is the "miracle" in giving birth to a baby addicted to cocaine? Before you say there is always miracles in life, ask that person if he had a choice, would he want to live in suffering.
3) Anyone in here who isn't a woman who has had to grapple with the decision of abortion has no right to tell such a woman what to do and not to do.
4) To all the pro-life people out there. Please divet your attention to all the thousands of people who are dying everyday because of sheer neglect. Only then can you say you are for life. The argument that you didn't do anything to cause those deaths is false. Remember, in international law, letting a death or genocide occur when you had the ability to do something about it is a crime against humanity. That's why so many nations aren't willing to declare a genocide in Darfur; they know they can't do anything about it, so they don't declare a genocide. If you know you can't do anything, or if you're not willing to do anything, about the thousands of people who die everyday, then don't call yourselves pro-life.
5) To all the pro-choice people out there. Get off the pro-life people's backs. They've been brought up with their own beliefs, as long as they hold it to themselves, they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights.
6) Last time I checked, 22 weeks isn't conception. 22 weeks is, gasp, 22 weeks after conception.
3) EVERYONE has a major assumption wrong. What we are trying to define isn't life. Its human life. We kill hundreds of animals everyday, for better or worse. Not one of you is shedding a tear for them. The question is when does human life start? What makes humans different from chimps? Its purely human thought. And when does that begin? NO ONE knows. Don't pretend you do; you don't. To drive that point in, NO ONE KNOWS WHEN PURELY HUMAN LIFE BEGINS.
But the issue of the story s not the good or bad of abortion in general but the government taking away the option to CHOOSE whether or not to carry the baby to term. Anyone who is pro-choice will support the girl’s decision to have the baby.
It's pro-choice. See the word choice is right in there.
Many of you do not want goverment deciding if a person should have an abortion or not, correct. Then help me clarify the need for goverment in my state to make me and my taxes pay for abortions. Part of my tax dollars go to support abortion. Many of you want me not to ask the government to stop the legalization of abortion but they can make me pay for them. So will the pro-choice people work harder then to change the interference of goverment on that level please...
The choice is not to have sex or to have sex. That is the woman's choice. If she chooses to have sex she knows there are possibilities of disease or pregnancy.
And before you say "what if a woman is raped" or "the life of the mother is in danger"
Okay fine, then be balanced. Make laws for those 2 stipulations, but everyone else acting the fluzzy then your choice was to have sex or not have sex.
Make adoptions easier and match them up more quickly for folks who want them.
There are medical conditions where the baby will not live such as a tubal pregnancy. There is no chance for the baby to live, develop and grow, and the woman has a high chance of death as well. That is one reason to have an abortion.
Balance is needed and good judgement.
So a man has pro-choice as well. If he doesn't want to take care of the baby the girl descides to have he is scott free? Free from garnished wages and paying child support?
Or is he responsible for his choice to have sex and the girl got pregnant? Should he have to pay child support if he chooses not to? Should the court force him to care for the baby? It's his money. Should he have the choice to do what he wants?
You'd call him a dead beat dad.
Same with the woman's choice. To have sex or not to have sex? It would be nice if aids, syphiliss and herpes gave folks a choice.
Pregancy is a consequence of HER choice. It is her responsibility. If she does not want that responsibility at all, then choose not to have sex.
What the government did to this girl, pro life or pro choice was equivalent to rape.
She was distraught with this descision. She wanted to kill herself and she will carry that till her dying day.
They took her choice away, despite her age. And for those who think otherwise Do you think her parents would have the right to molest her because they are her parents?
Either way this was wrong on both ends, if you are pro choice or pro life.
In this case I'm suprised there are so many arguements. In the eyes of both this should be wrong.
This should be the one time you agree.
For pro-lifers they aborted the child which was wrong
For pro-choice folks they took her right to choose away.
This case should be the common ground for you both.
And for those of those who don't agree..you are pro abortion period, not choice or life.
They took life and they took choice away in this instance.
Either way you look at it from either side it was wrong and should be wrong.
I think you have found the middle ground. No more sense in arguing.
I think there are few people arguing that what the parents did was right. And I think that most of the people here that are either pro-choice or pro-life are both saying that this was wrong, and that the girl should have been able to make her own decision.
But in response to your comment about not having sex... I have to ask you: have you ever had sex? And on top of that, have you ever been horney?
Now, before we go any further, I ask you this: have you ever been hungry (and I mean properly hungry, not just the "I feel like something to eat" hungry), and had food in front of you, and tried not to eat it? I tell you what, it's hard. And on top of that, it's bad for your health.
Having sex is good for the mind and the body. It gives you endorphins which calm you and make you feel euphoric and happy, and on top of that it's a completely natural event that most people in their lives experience. Suggesting to people that if they don't want to have a child then they shouldn't have sex points to a flaw in either your experience, or your analysis of the human condition.
Do I think people should take responsibility for any children they have? Most emphatically. Which is exactly which I advocate for abortions - because I don't want to see any child being neglected by a mother who didn't want them in the first place.
Some risk factors of being sexually active: pregnancy, STI's, being emotionally abadoned and confusing love with sex. These are risks(positive or negative) you take when you have a sexual relationship. I will not deny the benefits as well, as you have also pointed out. But why is it that we conclude that when the benefits are there it is great and beneficial but when we deal with the risks we try to find fixes for them. Why not as a society accept the consequences of our actions. In doing so we take the good with the bad when it comes to sexual activity. Why don't we work harder at telling our youth as they become sexually active, that here is the consequences of your actions and if you proceed to become sexually active you may become pregnant and get a sexually transmitted infection and other emotional baggage. Now deal with the consequences as much as you enjoy dealing with the benefits of sex. You may not want to have a child, you may not want the disease, or heartache but guess what there is your choice of being sexually active. You made it. We have given way to a procedure that is unnatural to the body, if you know anything about abortion procedures you will understand that, because of natural occurances in our nature. Here we are sexual beings by how we are designed but because we believe that our own flawed human reasoning is superior to that of natural cause and effect of life we tamper and destroy at will because being responsible for our actions is way to difficult. Just remember children that come out of seemingly normal and finacially secure families that were wanted still murder and do senseless acts. Because a pregnancy is unwanted does not necessarily determine the outcome of the life. Privilege and over-indulgence has hurt many children as does poverty and neglect.
I agree with much of what you're saying, but, do we really want babies raised as "consequences?" I'm not citing this as a great reason for abortion, but rather a great problem with that logic. Let's face it, you're not just punishing the parents, because that child will have to grow up with that, too.
@ETT "Now, before we go any further, I ask you this: have you ever been hungry (and I mean properly hungry, not just the "I feel like something to eat" hungry), and had food in front of you, and tried not to eat it? I tell you what, it's hard. And on top of that, it's bad for your health.
Having sex is good for the mind and the body. It gives you endorphins which calm you and make you feel euphoric and happy, and on top of that it's a completely natural event that most people in their lives experience. Suggesting to people that if they don't want to have a child then they shouldn't have sex points to a flaw in either your experience, or your analysis of the human condition.
Do I think people should take responsibility for any children they have? Most emphatically. Which is exactly which I advocate for abortions - because I don't want to see any child being neglected by a mother who didn't want them in the first place."
So if you view sex as hunger, then it is morally okay for a Pedophile to have sex with a 5 year old?
It's okay for a man to rape a woman because he has the need for sex?
back to my post....
If you can't take care of your child, deal with your actions then don't get pregnant or go ahead and have an adoption. There are 1000s of unwanted children and 1000s of parents who want to adopt. Change the adoption system.
My mother in law was 15 when she got pregnant with my wife. Her family tried to get her to abort but she would not have it, and she gave birth to a beautiful baby girl who is now a beautiful woman.
Too many people use that get out of jail free pass instead of dealing with their actions. They do not even attempt to take responsibility. It's simple if you don't want a kid, don't have sex, period. That is the choice.
If we are going to apply those principals to society, then if the man wants and abortion and the woman does not then the man has the right to not support the child since he wanted the abortion despite he got her pregnant. He is stripped of all financial responsibility and there is no garnishing of wages or consequence for his action.
Let's apply that principal of responsibility to the man as well. He has the right to choose a legal abortion but it would be financial even if the woman has the baby. He signs a paper stating he opted for abortion as 1/2 the genetic party but the woman descided to have the child, but due to his Abortion plea on paper he is legally withdrawn from any responsibility concerning hte child even if the woman requests child support. That would be a great new law, but one that should be applied to pro-choice. Man has a right to choose to not have his wages garnished or pay child support if he did not support the birth.
We can't have duel standards. Principals have to apply to the man as well,he needs a get out of responsibility free card if the woman chooses to keep her responsibility.
The thing is these thoughts on life snow ball, life becomes expendable, and hte more expendable the worse society gets.
Look at China and places where baby girls are thrown out like trash to die because they wanted a boy.
Imagine as life gets more expendable and planned retarded babies, autistic children and handicapped kids are burneded in furnaces.
"Oh ma'm your child will be blind, would you like to discard"
"Yes his quality of life will not be good enough, discard"
Dr: Your child will be dark black Mom: I wanted a lighter skinned baby, please discard.
Dr: Your child will have brown hair. Mom: I wanted a blond cause they have more fun and I wanted her to look like me, discard.
It may sound extreme, but things start small and then they snowball. You train peoples consciences to be more tolerant and hardened.
It's not far fetched, you had Nazis killing mentally ill people, Jews, Gypsys, Handicapped people and had them doing it with no hurt feelings. Life was expendable to the 3rd Reich. It starts out small and snowballs. And they were not a backwoods nation, they were technologically advanced at their time, but look what happened.
Right now it's a bunch of cells, no biggie. Then it's whole babies, then it's overpopulation and then people over 60 are furnaced. They ain't really alive they are old, then to quell overpopulation it's the handicapped and mentally disabled folks. Before you know it, anyone over 30 is put to death.
It sounds far fetched but is not, because you see people's attitudes are geared that way.
But at the same time I think balance is needed. It is not my responsibility to dictate anyones morals.
However if the government says it is legal or illegal it is up to the government in that country. I think they have a right to it and if you live under their rule you have the right to obey or else protest or revolution. It's your right and it's their right to make laws.
I think it is disgusting for someone to go to an abortion clinic and blow people away. It is hypocritical.
I'm not into all that pro-life protesting. It's useless. Eventually society will catch up and abortion will be over the counter medication and casual view.
But despite those changes in society my principles will be my own and I will not impose them on others or judge them.
I believe in God. I see so many Christians "judging". It's not your job to do so. If you read your Bible it is not our job to judge. We were not given that title as Judge. We can teach but not judge others and deny them their free will. If you believe in God leave it be, teach folks what the Bible says but don't force those beliefs down peoples throats.
Let them descide what is right and wrong.
I think abortion is wrong, don't try to convince me otherwise, but at the same time if you are okay with it that is your descision and I cannot judge or impose it upon you.
You take ETT out of context and cite an outlandish example. A pedophilic molestation is far different than two teenagers having consensual sex. ETT was merely pointing out that abstinence is not a simple matter of, "just don't do it." S/he's right, because sex is one of our primary biological drives. Understanding that does not mean one must condone it in all forms.
"Right now it's a bunch of cells, no biggie. Then it's whole babies, then ...It sounds far fetched but is not, because you see people's attitudes are geared that way."
It is farfetched. That slippery slope involves jumping a chasm between a fetus and a baby, and the methods you describe are in such violation of the principles behind euthanasia that no proponent of it would ever suggest them. Citing the Nazis is pointless, because if society advances to that point, we'll have bigger things to worry about. They weren't an average democratic society who just happened to kill their own, nor were their methods socially accepted norms. The Final Solution was phased in gradually even to the higher Party levels.
You can oppose abortion, but such alarmism is baseless. We're decades past the legalization of the procedure, and since then we've only seen its application narrowed. In short, the opposite of the scenario you posit is happening.
Nah ETT had a good point, but my point is they are right, it's hard to say no to sexual desires. It's easy to say don't do it, but it's a much harder thing to not do it.
But the principle is there. It's easy for a molester to know it's wrong to do what he does, but it's hard for him to say no. It's a sexual desire.
A rapist same thing. It's not ETTs word, I'm just applying the principle to the rest of the situations where someone should say no to sex but doesn't.
Should they be free from responsibility? No jail time because their carnal nature is to have devious sex?
The opposite of the scenario is not happening, just changing forms. It takes nothing more than a fear to throw the masses in a loop and go witch hunting and do things out of what society deems normal.
The perverse turns normal and can do it almost over night. Look around the world even now children being used as soldiers to kill and rape.
It is only getting worse, there is no pinacle of mankind ascending to goodness. It is becoming more and more of a slump in society.
I don't know what news you are watching but man as a whole is getting worse and more violent than before, only differance now is they have the power to wipe themselves out.
It's very easy for man's ideas to slope in the wrong direction. Ideas of Genocide can happen almost over night.
All it takes in society is for someone to become and inconvenience or scape goat.
Mark my words in the next 20 years and see if I'm correct or not.
Time will tell. Then we'll have that physical proof that my idea was not farfetched.
You certainly seem to be one of the more reasonable people posting on this comment. In light of this, please don't take it personally when I pick apart your comment.
"So if you view sex as hunger, then it is morally okay for a Pedophile to have sex with a 5 year old? It's okay for a man to rape a woman because he has the need for sex?"
The difference is consent. A 5 year old cannot consent; a rape victim does not consent. This is nothing like consensual sex between two people.
Well, I can't do much picking apart the rest of your comment is a "slippery slope" argument. This slippery slope is entirely speculation. One could also speculate that abortions would somehow cause everyone to live long, disease-free, happy lives. It's unlikely, yes, but it's just speculation.
"I think abortion is wrong, don't try to convince me otherwise, but at the same time if you are okay with it that is your descision and I cannot judge or impose it upon you."
I'm relieved to read that. Most who oppose abortion certainly don't see things like that. Personally, abortion isn't an option for my wife and I (outside of certain extreme circumstances), it just isn't something I think I could be comfortable with. However, my decision isn't that of everyone. That's where being pro-choice comes into it.
"that here is the consequences of your actions and if you proceed to become sexually active you may become pregnant and get a sexually transmitted infection and other emotional baggage. Now deal with the consequences as much as you enjoy dealing with the benefits of sex. noun (plural con·se·quen·ces)
Definition:
1. result: something that follows as a result
2. relation between cause and effect: the relation between a result and its cause Not picking on you just clarifying because you seem to latch on to wording not meaning.
No offense taken, feel free to tear apart any comments I make and rexamine.
At the end of the day it's just a post. LOL.
My slippery slope arguement is speculative, but just from my point of view I think we will soon see if that is a possible reality or not. It will be interesting to see. Like Einstein said "The 4th World War will be fought with rocks and sticks" It's speculative, but possible.
Look at Roman society when it hit it's pinnacle it was okay for a man to have a little boy as his "companion".
Rome hit a pinnacle and then crashed. I think the way the world is so connected the crash of the great power today will be a lot bigger than the Roman crash. Not Bush bashing but we have definately seen a change in the US in the last 6 years that are so differant than the ideas of the forefathers of this country.
How quickly people are to throw out ideas of freedom for safety! The forefathers of this country (US) fought and died to be free, they did not coward in fear. Yet fear today, of terrorism, has folks ready to give up freedom. Sticking folks in camps without due process and a lawyer, to wire tapping.
The crash of society is possible or maybe I watched Mad Max and Logan's Run one to many times.
What I'm trying to point out is people's ideas and ways of life are changing worldwide. The gap between the rich and the poor is only getting larger.
And it's little things that get folks more hard hearted and numb to the next change.
How quickly even in this country Japanese were thrown into camps, just because folks were scared, or how many people were communists. That was not too long ago.
I hope I do come off reasonable. There are too many "Christians" and "Muslims" making those that believe in God look stupid and unreasonable.
No wonder many folks become Atheists.
I was always enforced with balance, and each person has to descide for themselves. Even my parents told me "We can't worship God for you, if you want to it's up to you, we can only tell you what we know and believe, the rest is for you to descide whether to believe or not"
So forcing and imposing beliefs on people is wrong. That's what the Nazis did. I believe what I believe and think everyone has that right as well.
I do think opening discussion is good though. I'm always interested in various points of view. Makes me a better rounded person to know what hte neighbor thinks.
While your open-mindedness is refreshing, your assertion that modern religiousness is the cause of people looking stupid and unreasonable, it entirely wrong. Religious people have always looked stupid and unreasonable. And I think the reason atheism is coming to a rise is because suddenly we're beginning to come up with answers to these previously "magical" or "miraculous" events and realising that, perhaps, all this isn't because of god. And so we are suddenly realising there's an alternative - which I have to tell you, is incredibly relieving.
On top of that, though you seem to welcome honest, open discussion (don't get me wrong, I applaud you for that) I also notice that you said that your mind isn't going to be changed. How, then, do you ever assume to be able to know anything? If you've already made your mind up, and think you know these things, and that they are truths, how do you expect to ever know the truth if you don't continue questioning and accepting that perhaps it's another way? On top of that, just by the fact that you're a christian, I can see that you obviously haven't studied the bible in depth, nor have you looked at third-party evidence; historically, scientifically, or philosophically. And if you have, you're an incredibly educated dolt.
Aside from that, because that's not really why I'm here, nor what the discussion at hand is really about, rape has nothing to do with sexual desire. Anyone who wants sex, can get it from somewhere, even if it's a prostitute, or just some skank in a bar, you will find it somehow. Rape is about power and violence, and is akin, if libido is akin to hunger, to killing your mother to eat her.
Your extremist comments do not go unnoticed. Your assertion that condoning abortions will lead society down a slippery slope I can only disagree with. I think it's quite easy to avoid that kind of situation with the right reasoning, which, granted, is hazy at the moment in regards to abortions, but we are slowly working it out.
Those pictures you showed me certainly did look like human babies. However, looks are often deceiving. Those fetuses, after being taken out of the womb, would not continue to grow. Their organs are not fully formed, thus their heart would not be able to beat (if, in deed, it is even there), their digestive system does not work, thus they would not be able to gather nutrients, and their lungs would not absorb the oxygen needed to live. Biologically, their brain is akin to a mouse's, though vastly less trained. They cannot talk. They cannot think. They cannot learn. They can barely move. The only way they would ever survive to full term would be inside the womb, or through extensive, advanced medical care.
Are they potentially human? Yes. Do I think they are at the moment, a live human? No. Therefore it's not murder.
Abortion is not murder, it's contraception, provided it is done in the early stages.
Should you be against abortion, you should also be against the ECP, and in vitro fertilisation.
I'm sorry, but life does not start at the moment of conception, the potential for life starts.
Like I said, I'm sick of this discussion, there are far worse evils in the world....
My mind is set on abortion as being wrong, but that is my descision.
Alot if based off of family experience including my wife who was supposed to be an aborted child, and my father whose girlfriend was forced by her parents to get an abortion despite the fact he wanted the child. I would have had an older brother or sister.
That is simply my personal belief and no other arguement about abortion will change my simple opinion on the matter, that is my personal feeling on the matter. I don't condone it, but at the same time, everyone is entitled to their belief and are responsible for their own actions. What don't I know? I know how I feel about things. No one is going to change my mind on that. Just like I like the color blue. I just like it. How can you convince me not to like the color blue? It is not even potentially a religious belief as it is a personal belief.
Just because I have a belief does not mean I don't know about the subject, bible, science or otherwise. Feel free to test me at anytime. :) You'll definately see other posts by me. LOL.
I'm not saying abortions will take folks down a slippery slope, there are so many other things. I'm just indicating the attitudes of people is changing about all subjects.
In happens in small steps across the board.
In the old day when you worked for someone you were more than an employer, but making more and more money became the focus, attitude changed to being a valued member to being a number to fill the seat. Customer support sucks across the board because they don't want to pay people a descent wage to do it and find the cheapest way. Money is now more important than anything in this society. It starts somewhere.
Approving abortion and stem cell research is not going to destroy civilization. But even in science think how people will become more of an experiment than a person. There are alot of unethical scientists out there. Think of how they'd rather treat a disease as opposed to curing diseases. You know that "jungle diseases" are on the rise, but since there is no money in curing those diseases most scientists and companies ignore them. Attitudes despite progress are getting worse. Life in general is becoming cheaper and on a grander scale.
It all starts somewhere, attitudes develop from one generation to another. Sometimes good and sometimes bad. Time will only tell whose theory is correct. So I'll sit back and watch. But seriously talk to older folks about how things were in their day and compare.
Sorry to be the definition police again but... con·tra·cep·tive adj. Capable of preventing conception.
n. A device, drug, or chemical agent that prevents conception.
Abortion is after the fact..no longer contraception. I am a picky because misuse of this creates misunderstanding about what the procedure really entails early on in the pregnancy or not.
W: I think you completely missed the point. That "consequence" you're talking about is a child. What kind of upbringing do you suppose a "consequence" receives? No, a child should never be a consequence, and that has to be one of the worst reasons I can imagine for bringing life into the world. As for this:
"But why is it that we conclude that when the benefits are there it is great and beneficial but when we deal with the risks we try to find fixes for them."
That's problem solving, and it's what has advanced our species. If we stuck to the mantra of "just deal with the consequences," we'd still be working out how to gather enough food in our caves to avoid the consequence of starvation.
S: Firstly, regarding the molester, it's already been pointed out that rape is not about carnal desires, but power. Next, I've already answered that no, to understand urges and appetites is not to excuse all varieties of them. Normal urges which harm no one are obviously on a different level than those which are predatory. The difference is harm, and as this is a key detail in establishing law, it is not so minor as to be reversed overnight. People are talking about treating pedophiles rather than jailing them, but no one is talking about normalizing their activities (except, of course, other pedophiles).
So...how is the opposite of your projected future not happening? You deny it, then waffle to, "Well, society could turn at any moment, so it could still happen." Let's be clear - decades later, we've not approached the edge of the slippery slope abortion opponents were sure was to follow then, and as you are now. Abortions and murder are not widely accepted, casual practices. Instead, laws regulating abortion have tightened, thusly the exact opposite. You cite various troublespots in the world without considering their history at all. Children are involved in conflicts in societies that have involved children in conflicts for millenia. Show me one society which was a stable, peace-loving democratic society which turned overnight into one in which the populace began practicing wanton sex and murder. Even Nazi Germany, as extreme an abberation of mass-human psychology as it was, is not an example of this.
What I hear is a lot of doom-and-gloom apocalyptic rhetoric (no offense). You look at the horrors of today and think things must be the worst they've ever been, but how many eons of human development have you observed, by which you can make that comparison? The kind of reasoning you employ is why so many people have died waiting for the rapture. They were told Christ was coming back when society descended to its worst, and people of many ages then looked around and said, "Yeah, this is pretty bad, He must be coming soon." That's just confirmation bias, choosing the evidence to fit the conclusion.
Of course, abortion is terrible. Some people certianly don't exist for it. I could have had older siblings, too, but that's not an objective good. My mother was previously married, and made a deliberate decision not to have children (hence, potential siblings aborted in thought rather than deed) in that relationship. Of course, had she had children, she never would have gotten away from her abusive first husband and probably would have died long before my younger brother or I were conceived. In short, the world is a place too complicated for simply declaring things, even life and death and their facilitating procedures, good or bad.
I can appreciate your 101 philosophy/sociology course mentality but again you missed the point. Consequence is the act of which having sex can be a cause and effect relationship with becoming pregnant. Now you made a point about the fact that and I quote "My mother was previously married, and made a deliberate decision not to have children (hence, potential siblings aborted in thought rather than deed)" a consquence of her decision is thus she didn't have children. Is it a consequence or cause and effect that she used birth control or abstained which prevented a pregnancy? Yes. What I am trying to bring to your understanding is that your use of caveman to now evolved thinking has no bearing on the fact that we as humans must deal with our actions. But we instead invent stratagies that are potentially harmful physically or emotionally and call it advancement in our ability to problem solve. A child is not a consequence but having sex is a cause and effect or a consequence which may become a pregnancy. What if your mom did have an abortion of your older siblings and suffered either a physical difficulty or emotional pain because of that choice? Would you have been okay with her having the consequence of that action? That could of very well been consquences of her action. A botched abortion could possibly cause infertility which means you may not have existed. Which brings me to this point: If the loss of your existence in this world is acceptable then having a discussion with you about the validity of any life is pretty useless. I do agree with you in that societies have been damaging themselves through out history and our present circumstances are no worst. But in the case of life inside the womb never has there been more evidence that it is not just a mass of cells up to birth. Because another living creature needs another to survive for a period of time should not negate its existence because we as such evolved thinkers believe that if the child is wanted it is viable if it is not it is disposable. Good grief look in nature and you will find all sorts of creatures and plants that are existing because there is a host or carrier. Because that is what it comes down to. If a child is wanted everything in ones power to save it is acceptable and heroic. If it is not it is a clump of cells up to the point of birth to be disposed of. Of course we can not determine the potentiality of what kind of parents the child will be brought into the world to but we can once and for all determine if you want the child or not it still continues to have the same characteristics associated with being human. I also agree that embryonic stem cells and in vitro fertilization is very much a cautious area to tread. Technology has been advancing much faster than ethics can keep up with. And re-reading some of your past comments I would like to share that my very good friend who gave birth to her daughter at 23 weeks suffered only later in life, asthma. That is the worst condition that this mass of cells taken out of the womb suffered. Remember full term babies given birth to can have as many abnormalites and challenges as a pre-term baby. Unless you are of the Demark philosophy on life which allows parents to end the life of a child after birth up to a year if they think downs syndrome or spina bifida negates a quality of life then I suppose you and Peter Singer can hang out with one another as long as you like. I do appreciate your wanting to discuss this topic and contributing your thoughts. I presume as you dish out cut throat remarks handily you accept them just as well.
I'd like to see where I've made a single "cut throat remark" to you. Had I, it would be tit for tat (and so shall it be); since I think I've not, it's simply disrespectful. Frankly, I think your time would better be spent honing your thoughts into a coherent point.
That said, I have no idea what more I can say to you, because I've made my point twice over and yours has only become more unclear. From what I gather you seem to think a person should have to deal with a pregnancy as a consequence, whether they want it or not. Do you actually want a child raised in such a relationship? NOTE: I am thinking beyond punishing the mother here - follow along. That mother will always spite that child as a consequence and treat it as such. That sounds pretty lose-lose to me, which is why I think the "She had sex, she deserves it!" argument to be very poorly thought out.
Furthermore, your critique of an abortion as a poor strategy is purely subjective. If you don't like it, don't get one. If your disorganized positing about what my mother could have done was supposed to drive the horror of abortion home by presenting me with nonexistence, it didn't work. Had I been aborted, or my potential been erased any other way, I would have known no different, just like thousands of her other unfertilized eggs (where are your tears for these “lives?”). So, if my inability to be emotionally manipulated as such makes further discussion impossible for you, so be it.
Never have I said that dependence on another creature makes something not yet living. That alone is a simplistic reason no more valid than saying a fetus looks like a baby or noting that a heart starts beating at X months. The fact, though, is that it does factor in. Those other organisms in nature are fully developed as they live in a symbiotic relationship with another. A fetus is not, and when we remove it from its “host,” we change its cycle of development. I don’t think we have a right to do this, yet supposedly pro-life people will argue that this unnatural intervention, no matter the negative consequences, is somehow a miracle while abortion is a horror. That the 22-week baby has already had more problems than this friend of yours (how remarkably convenient that you know one of the record-setting babies) just goes to show that the further back we “save” them, the worse fate we could be giving them. You say, “If a child is wanted everything in ones power to save it is acceptable and heroic. If it is not it is a clump of cells up to the point of birth to be disposed of,” but that just shows how little you understand the debate. It’s heroic to YOU (who has not considered the negative consequences), and there’s pretty much no one who supports abortion after the second trimester, let alone to the point of birth.
Let's not write a book here, people. You are a complete idiot if you think for one moment that the choice to have an abortion belongs to anyone other than the female who is pregnant. Seriously, you should be executed. The whole point of this news article was to inform that the government has controlled a personal issue, which is completely wrong. Nobody gives a damn if you are pro life or pro choice. So... shut up.
