# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  The Question of a Womans Right of Choice Shouldnt Be a Question at All!

## Ian MacLeod

The right of Choice, with the help of President Bush and his fellow keep-em-barefoot-and-pregnant  and-chained-to-the-bed fanatics, has become a hot-button issue again. At least people are finally noticing that all of these seemingly isolated attempts to put unreasonable limits on abortions and even contraception are not isolated at all, and have nothing to do with religion, though uneducated, superstitious, self-styled fundamentalists are being used to facilitate the propaganda and the disenfranchisement of women as citizens and as human beings.  These attacks are organized, orchestrated and often stealthed (with the help of the corporate MSM) attacks on the rights and health of women, the working poor and poor, minorities, and indeed, on _all_ women except those belonging to (in many cases literally) the wealthy "elites".

There are greater threats than ever against all of the civil rights that too many of us have taken for granted for far too long, but legislation regulating education and health care, especially that regarding reproduction, ties into so many things about the way we think of and treat each other, most do not see a connection.  That threat is not just coming from the Religious Right fanatics who are quite willing to have legions of young girls suffer agonies and horrors that make torture look downright benign, who are willing to have these  sinful, Godless whores bleed out in back alleys or alone in hospitals among strangers, needlessly, as object lessons, because of enforced ignorance and a lack of medical and even simple contraceptive alternatives. These self-righteous Super-Christians and the wealthy, (the latter of whose daughters will never suffer so)  ascribe all this evil concupiscence and the punishment for it by way of pregnancy and deadly back-alley abortions to their merciless, bloodthirsty God (Who is remarkably like His followers:cruel, judgmental and vengeful, as well as illogical).  It is also coming from lying, cynical opportunistic "elites" and other power-seekers who are fine with hijacking religion as a vehicle to power. And make no mistake: if it were truly about stopping the murder of unborn children", after all the incontrovertible studies done up to this point that show without doubt that accurate sex education and easily available contraception and abortion _reduces_ the unwanted pregnancies and abortions by up to 90%, they would be backing contraception and legalized abortion.  It has been shown beyond doubt that criminalizing abortion does nothing but criminalize sex outside of marriage or in poor marriages, criminalizes women (not men) for that sex, seeks to impose the punishment of a child  that they cannot afford and for whom they will receive no assistance, and raises the deaths from illegal abortions so much that in some countries where abortion is illegal it is a leading cause of deaths among women!  This is not about Christian love for children, unborn or not". That statement is so blatantly hypocritical it makes me want to puke.  It's about _power_, plain and simple, no matter the cost to others.  It's also about the utter, gut-wrenching, night-sweating night _terror_ these sorry excuses for men cannot admit to themselves, much less to anyone else: it's about women having the freedom to live as they choose, without needing a man to supply them with food, protection and everything else they need but air, proving to the world as well as to themselves that anything men can do, women can do save sire a child.  What would they do for someone do dominate and look down on if all women were _ever_ to realize that men and women really _are_ equals in every way that could possibly matter?  That is their greatest fear.  

For the elites who are Christian in name only in order to have access to religious organizations  and their votes - it's simply another way to divide people and thus control them.  Honestly religious people have always been sucked into this compassionless political issue that really cares only about control. Such people believe the lies they are fed about the "elites" own "Christianity", and never really examine either those beliefs, or what their leaders actually do versus what they say, and simply go along in the belief that theyre supporting a Christianity under attack. There is a special word in the English language for rights that no one uses or actively protects: the word is "GONE"! 

For anyone not operating strictly on religious zealotry, too little information, too much propaganda, or too much imagination together with the preceding, choice is a clear cut no-brainer. Here are my reasons:

A woman ALWAYS risks her life when she tries to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver. ALWAYS. The chances arent what they were before modern medicine, but the damage done to the American health care system by both the unchecked profit motive of the business end of unregulated private health care, and by the medieval attitudes of too many under-informed Americans and wannabe dictators in the government, has dropped the safety factor by an unconscionable amount.  Theres no excuse at all, and the reason, as opposed to excuse, is the sheer greed of people and corporations that are already obscenely wealthy. They are perfectly willing to spend a few poor or working poor peoples lives, including the infants they claim to be so concerned about - until the child is born. The Republicans and many churchs treatment of pregnant women and of infants and children gives the lie to that canard beyond argument.

It takes a womans body about five years to recover from a pregnancy. The results of surgery aside  and that is too often done so the doctor can make a golf game or something  pregnancy changes a woman's body, and never for the better. It may not be much, or it may be a lot, but her body will never be the same as it was after bearing a child. Even if the sire (a father is something else again) contributes monetary support, which is just a fraction of what he should be giving  emotional support is just as necessary  it isnt his body that ages, changes, and in general just no longer works or looks the way a healthy young body does. A lot of it can be helped with the right exercise and food, good medical care that includes preventive medicine, lots of help, especially in the first year of a childs life, and other things America neglects. Damage can be minimized, with some good luck and work, but her body WILL NEVER GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS.  Thats a price a man doesnt pay, never has paid, and never will.

The long and short here is that bearing children puts a lot of wear and tear on a womans body; she can only have so many children in her lifetime, paying a price in health and aging each time, and her time for bearing children is strictly limited. The older she is, the harder it is to get pregnant, the less likely it is she will carry it to term, and the more likely certain birth defects are. She has every reason to be careful about choosing whether, when, and with whom to have a child. A mans reasons for choosing are more financial (emotional reasons often seem not to apply in this sad and sick society), and women are forced to depend too often on honor that isnt there. Sorry guys, but until there are engineered exogenous or implantable wombs (for the one or two guys per century who would be willing to be pregnant themselves), we have no business forcing a woman to bear a child, ever.  We can try bribery; if were in love with the lady and she feels the same about us, its a wonderful thing, but force - legal, physical or economic, should _always_ be out of the question.

As for the "rights of the fetus", until its at least capable of survival outside the womb (and Im uncertain myself about this, so the choice should still be hers, as it aint my health and livelihood a stake), there shouldnt be any. Most abortions that take place late into a pregnancy are due to legal and financial delays caused deliberately by the RadRight in order to force a woman to have the child while being able to say, "We didnt force her  she had legal recourse", which is, of course, a lie. The fetus is literally a part of the womans body until delivery, and the cost for her, by every measurement there is, is always high even at best. Its always been too damned easy for a man to just walk away, and I dont see that changing any time soon.  

For the early part of a pregnancy, the so-called "child" is just a handful of cells that no more constitute a "person" than a pile of bricks constitutes a house. When the fetus becomes anything like conscious is a matter of debate even for experts; we cant even define consciousness yet, not really. Yes, nerves form, a neural center forms, and you can get proof of electrical activity on a graph  you can do the same thing with plants, too. For that matter, an organ donor's absolutely dead body releases stress hormones as organs are harvested, but I don't hear anyone screaming about pain meds and anxiolytics for the corpse.  These people simply pick and choose their interpretations of medical research as they do their scripture. A brain seems to program itself - with experience - and when it becomes self-conscious is way beyond anyones ability to pinpoint.  As for experience, theres very little inside the womb. If the God-hucksters would get out of the way with their lying, inaccurate "education" and draconian, delay-oriented legislation that reduces women to the level of slaves, things would almost never get to this point.  As for the so-called Pro-Lifers, I note that they continue to cut funding for food stamps, immunization and other medical programs, Head Start and every other program for children and poor families they can siphon money away from.  Pro-life, my ass.  Making abortion illegal just drives it underground and makes it more dangerous, more deadly, and anyone who claims anything else or supports criminalizing abortion wile claiming to be pro-life and pro-child is a lying hypocrite.

As for a soul, first youd have to prove the existence of souls, then youd have to prove when an embryo, fetus or child comes up with one, forms one, or whatever. Well, right now there is no such thing as a "soul detector". If there ever is, I want to see what one shows hooked up to people in this administration! Bringing souls into the argument is forcing your own religion on someone else, and thats against the law, as it should be. As for the fanatics like the Dominionists and Christian Revisionists, I could make an excellent case for designating them dangerous cults, as opposed to denominations, and a clear and present danger to national security and the Constitution. Someone should before they cause even more damage to this society than they already have.

Back before Roe v Wade, I worked ambulance.  I dont know how many times I was called to the scene of an intelligent, sweet young girl, just barely a woman, who had been lied to by her parents and her boyfriend, not told anything worth knowing in school, and had gotten pregnant. Understand too, that these were not all poor kids in poor neighborhoods  many were middle-class, with two cars in the garage and two frightened parents standing by.  Once I had to break down the bathroom door  the girl was bleeding to death (which she did), and was too ashamed to face her parents!  Too often, by the time I got there, she was well on her way to bleeding out and dying, or had already died. I had been Navy Hospital Corps during Vietnam; I had the training to deal with a lot of it, but couldnt get the blasted equipment or medicines!  I wasnt allowed, by law. Basically, I could put a band-aid on something, give oxygen, and run like mad for the nearest hospital, hoping and praying I got her there in time.  Often, ashamed, they had waited too long to call and were dead by the time we arrived.  Two more lives wasted, and a young girl was dead by torture. And youd better believe it was and remains death by torture.

One of the incidents that still plays in my mind as though it were yesterday was a fifteen year old girl. She'd been lied to by everyone: her parents, school, her boyfriend, her church. She had gotten pregnant and was afraid to tell her parents, and she had been mutilated by a back-alley abortionist. To keep it short, she finished bleeding out in the back of my ambulance; my boots were stuck to the floor so that it took some real effort for me to lift them, and they made a loud sucking sound when I had to move, there was so much blood. It amazed me that such a tiny little girl could have had so much blood in her. All I could tell her parents was that she had been ashamed, and afraid to tell them anything, and that there had been nothing I could do for her. Nothing at all.

She was dark-haired, a babyfaced girl just moments out of childhood and too young to be called a woman, save that she was, indeed, able to make a baby. She'd been a straight A student, very sweet, and always moving, doing something, usually helping others. Both she and a possible child had died because of a bunch of pitiless, narrow-minded busybodies who just had to force everyone around them to live by their interpretation of God's rules, and I flattened one jackass I worked with for commenting that it had been "God's judgment on the sinful", and was "... a sad, but righteous example to others". That's how the RadRight justifies it, too. The best I can say about that is that such an attitude is clearly a totally human one, because a God like that isn't even worth _pissing_ on, much less worshiping, and couldn't possibly have created such a universe as this. When I run across genuine horror, the author or conduit is almost always human.

I can't look at a young girl or a woman without seeing that time, and I wouldn't change that: it keeps my anger and my determination to do what I can fresh, painful and strong.

For what its worth, when I was single and in a relationship that included sex, even if it was only one time with a sweet stranger with the same interest as mine, I always made sure we used contraception. Ive declined sex entirely when the only thing available was condoms and she didnt want to try any alternatives, because I cant have an orgasm using the damned things. Im told there was some damage done by circumcision, and then more by six low back operations, but whatever the reason, Ive only used them since giving up on them as a favor to a dear friend. Ive gotten, and paid for, blood tests when I could, especially since AIDS; Ive always offered to pay for exams and the pill or a diaphragm, or for a contraceptive sponge, and once for an IUD  her choice. Being willing to pay for any necessary contraception is part of being responsible. Choosing your partners carefully is a help when it comes to avoiding disease, but its far from perfect. Ive been very lucky that way. Still, it does nothing around contraception.

Taking responsibility myself was always for practical reasons as well as being the gentlemanly thing to do  _children are simply too important for too many reasons to go around making them casually, and abortion should never be a routine method of birth control._ The one time I failed, it was after six back-to-back 24-hour shifts working ambulance, and we left the damned diaphragm in the dresser drawer, where it did no good at all. Wed been together for two years and were close to breaking up, but the kid was mine, no doubt, so I stayed another eight years before she got so abusive  especially after I became disabled  that I had no choice but to leave. I still made certain that she got child support, and he moved to be with me (and to get away from her) the day he turned eighteen. Were great friends, he's still near here, and Im very proud of him. As a matter of fact, I delivered him at home myself, and am on the birth certificate both as father and attending physician. That didn't make him the fine, caring, intelligent and talented young man he is, though - that's just him.

Ive heard a lot of doubt from women about girlfriends who stopped taking the pill in order to get pregnant. Well, ladies, it happens; it happened to me three times when I was younger. I learned to demand to see the pills, to check the date of the prescription and to count them. Ive declined sex because something wasnt right, too, as well as because the woman said just not to worry about it this time. I never did worry: sex is a lot more than just penetration, and a couple can do a lot if they really want to please each other when penetration isnt possible for any number of reasons. Both people wanting to please the other is a major part of the definition of good sex anyway  or it should be. Even though Ive always known that a woman is only fertile three days out of twenty-eight, I didnt take stupid chances.

Other good rules are:

Never get romantically involved with a woman whos already in a relationship, or even "just broke up yesterday". The reasons for this should be obvious; if not, either wait until you grow up, or grow a conscience  and a sense of self-preservation.

Expect people to lie where sex is concerned.

Never take (or follow, if you prefer) a woman to bed for the first time if shes drunk or possibly incapacitated, and youve only just met and dont really know each other. I have had more than one woman I would have sworn was just buzzed and completely competent on wine or very little to drink - I still think so in all three cases  come up with the "You took advantage of me!" bit, despite real enthusiasm at the time. A rape accusation is no joke, no matter what.

_A woman can always say "No". ALWAYS._ "Stop", "I dont want to", and any variations thereof are all valid, and the ladys right at any point short of afterglow, gentlemen. She may change her mind, and thats her right. In fact, if you arent sure if she said to stop, youd damned well better stop and find out! "No" NEVER "REALLY" MEANS YES! Violation of this can - or should - cost you one or both testicles, gentlemen, removed by the woman at her discretion by whatever means she chooses. Where rape is concerned, I will stand back and applaud, and award ears and a tail (or similar appendage) where warranted.

If theres ANY possibility of doubt, check her ID; it can be done discreetly, for instance by comparing drivers license pictures. A young woman I met in a bar back when I was in the military turned out to be fifteen, though she didnt look or act it at all. After I hit my late twenties-early thirties, that ceased being a problem, as I tend to be attracted to women my own age or a little older. My wife of fourteen years is nine years older than I; my sons mother was eight years older. I prefer an equal or better as a partner. Young women are nice to look at, but (for me at least) there needs to some other common ground than just a bed; there really should be possible conversation beyond "Thank you" afterwards. Besides, theres just something very special about an intelligent, full-grown and self-possessed woman thats exciting in a way a "girl" cannot match!

Never lie (but expect others to, because they will).  All it can do is cause problems in the long run, or often in the short run, and it can totally screw up something you may wind up wishing you hadnt.  Aside from being disrespectful, youll also get caught more often than you think. Its just a bad idea all around. If you cant be honest with a prospective partner, that person is either a bad choice, or you have some problems that may need some professional help, and thats unfair to her  or to him, ladies. There are plenty of members of the opposite sex who enjoy sex and would be interested  just not in a liar or a game player. Honesty and genuine humor can only help. If you aren't mature enough for frank and honest speech, you are probably not mature enough to be having sex. Not that it ever slowed anyone down a lot.

Never see someone else if youre already in a relationship, even if youre only dating, without both of you being clear about it and agreeing beforehand. For that matter, dont stare at other women while youre with someone, or pay more attention to another woman than you do the woman youre with. As it would be for you, its a blow to a persons ego  like a slap in the face. Exception: if a naked woman walks by, the woman with you should expect you to be distracted  that much is hardwired in.  So is looking (NOT staring).  Sorry, ladies, but were locked on and tracking before we realize it. It appears to be an automatic system; we can control it beyond that, though, and the guy youre with should. As an aside, Ive noticed that most women look too; theyre just better at being unobtrusive about it; possibly they're just generally more polite.

Again: A great many people think refusal to use a condom is BS, period. I doubt Ill be able to change their minds, and these days it _is_ taking a terrible chance. For myself, theyre so uncomfortable theyre a constant distraction; they NEVER fit, and sometimes they roll back up and slip off just when things are getting really interesting (while it can be fun getting it back, this is not safe); I have never managed to have an orgasm while wearing one. While granted, an orgasm is not the be-all and end-all of sex and needn't happen every time, now and then is nice.  (Use with a spermicide such as those used with a diaphragm is a good idea  CYA). If you CAN use a condom and enjoy it, by all means, they are absolutely the safest, most reliable form of combined contraception and prophylaxis (disease prevention) there is, as long as you use them correctly  WEAR ONE! In Europe they have sizes, and maybe that would help people in my situation a bit; the problem in America, I guess, is that no American male is going to stand at the checkout counter in front of a female clerk with a box labeled "small". Whatever you do, though, YOU are responsible for preventing a pregnancy you do not wish to take responsibility for  you and no one else, no matter what. And remember, theres a technical term for people who use the rhythm method or who choose to chance that she isnt fertile right now: "parents".  But no matter what anyone says, claims or promises, *YOU. ARE. RESPONSIBLE.*

If there is a pregnancy, there is at least one other person involved now, so what you do isnt just about you anymore.  Be an adult, try to put yourself in her place, and dont just abandon her or them, whichever it turns out to be  and yes, the choice still is and _should_ be hers alone! Abandonment is utter cowardice, and sometimes the harm done that way affects generations. Sex is NOT just recreation; it reaches as deeply into the core of who and what we are, right down to the genes, as anything can, and scars resulting from callousness go just as deep. Ideally, sex should be making love (and the difference is as great as that between, to paraphrase R.A. Heinlein, fun, sweaty, co-ed exercise, or a living sacrament); if it isnt, or if youre not even trying make it the best thing you can for both of you, then perhaps you need to reevaluate your criteria, because youre not just taking a chance on really hurting someone, youre missing out on something wonderful beyond words. Its as close to real magic as youre ever likely to run across short of being involved in childbirth. That, now, is a genuine miracle, no matter how often it happens. Ill take that over parting a measly sea any day!

Guys, women are people; theyre human beings no less than you are. Youve been hurt, humiliated, had people think and say things about you that really left scars that probably still bleed sometimes. Having experienced that yourself, though usually not with the same seriousness of consequences, you cannot justify doing it to someone else. Chances are the woman youre interested in likes sex at least as much as you do. Be careful of the others feelings, and with luck theyll do the same for you. Making love should be a mutual gift, not a "conquest" (what a ridiculous notion!), not part of a collection (Ive never counted  it never even occurred to me), not a "taking" of anything by either person involved, and not just "scratching an itch".  If thats all it is, masturbation is cheaper, easier, safer and more sanitary; its just lonely.

A woman has so much more invested, and so much more at stake when she becomes pregnant than a man does, that giving a man control over whether she carries it to term or not is ridiculous, if not insane. When the child is born, things change, and if a woman should be able to expect financial and other help, she should also expect to share child rearing pleasures as well as duties.  Otherwise, it really does become a lifetime sentence for a man for a single moment of carelessness  in which a woman is not uninvolved, unless it was rape (and a rapist should have no rights whatsoever, including the right to keep his testicles!)  with no benefits at all.  Its very easy to turn sex and its possible consequences into something destructively unfair for either, or both, or all. Be careful with other people, be practical when you should be; then, with a little luck you helped to create, both will more often than not end up with something sweet and special at the very least, instead of the nightmare it too often becomes.

The question of choice for a woman of whether to abort or not shouldnt even be a question at all. Remember that no matter how careful she is, _a woman's right to choose her partner or to have none at all can be taken away in an instant by a rapist._  I find it most revealing that fundamentalist Rightists make no distinction as to whether she deserves the standard punishments or not even in cases of rape: a baby, maybe a foul disease, huge hospital bills, and unsupported, soul-killing poverty for mother and child for _life_.  (Nothing in scripture says anything against abortion, in fact, and what little there is thats even close to it, in Leviticus, also considers a fetus to be part of the mother, and requires only a small fine from a man who causes a woman to lose a fetus she's carrying). 

Every smallest piece of evidence says its a matter of control, of establishing and keeping power over others, not concern for children of whatever age. It is part and parcel of the perversion of the groups - neocons, Dominionists and Reconstructionists, Catholics and all - that they require behavior diametrically opposed to normal, healthy, natural behavior, then set up those they require to act unnaturally with even _more_ twisted strictures such that they _must_ fail. They are then justified  they believe, and worse, too often their victims do as well  in telling people how evil and sinful they are for being what they are, and that they deserve punishment and suffering. Such people make of religion a _sickness_, a plague in society that kills far more slowly and agonizingly than the Black Plague ever did. Its no coincidence that when these pseudo-religious fanatics are closely watched, scandals erupt showing that they violate their own "Laws of God" more than most.  What they require of others is a genuine perversion, while they themselves are perverted even going by much looser standards. But then, rules are never supposed to apply to the Rule Makers and Enforcers, are they?

People need contact with other people, physical contact; touch. Were built that way. An infant needs to be touched  its a real, physical and mental need  thats how a new brain learns to connect itself up, function, differentiate between me/not me, learns to see and interpret what it sees. Touch tells us that we are connected to Life, and to each other. I dont know why so many people think we grow out of that, and that touch becomes superfluous, something extra but not necessary.  Theres such a thing as becoming what I call "body-hungry"  you need to touch and be touched by another human being. Guys will seldom admit to just needing to touch someone (that can be read as "to cuddle"), but that need is there, it's real , and people often mistake it for being horny, or use that as an excuse. It isnt the same thing at all, but people too often end up trading sex for touch, and I find that really sad.

As it is, there is too little love in the world, and too much to pay for small joys. Whatever anyones gender, or preferences, or beliefs, no one is or can be right in taking away or controlling what comfort others may find however they find that comfort, as long as the choice is mutual and no one is harmed. And "harm", short of physical, economic or other clear, provable and undeniable damage affecting bodily, emotional or economic health, must be defined by those harmed, not by some fanatic who decides these people are suffering harms they arent even aware of.  People who define out-of-wedlock sex as harm by definition are welcome to live their lives that way, but we are all given only one life and no more that we may shape and make decisions about that define us, and make us who we are: _our own lives_. If we want to own those choices ourselves, we _must_ protect the right to make them for others as well!  Either we look out for each other in that way, or we will all stand  and fall  alone, powerless against those who do band together and are willing take whatever they can from us, one right at a time, no matter what it costs us. 

Eventually, theyll do it at gunpoint if we let it happen.

Ian MacLeod 
Oregon 
August 3d, 2007
Updated December 21st, 2008

----------


## Truth Warrior

*What about a man's right of choice?  Should THAT be a question, AT ALL?*

----------


## klamath

I love how people write huge political opinion pieces and then post them around the web but don't stick around to engage in debate.

Waste of time.

----------


## FindLiberty

It's between the genetic material owners (and their maker).   

To government and all others: MYOB


OP, maybe you should have gotten your tubes tied while still pre-pubescent.

----------


## Danke

??

----------


## LibertyEagle

> *What about a man's right of choice?  Should THAT be a question, AT ALL?*


Yes.  He has the choice to keep his pecker in his pants.

----------


## Natalie

I didn't feel like reading that whole thing.  Sorry.  We've had countless debates on abortion here...

----------


## angelatc

Women always have a choice, and they always have had the choice.  The only discussion is should the choice be legal?

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> *What about a man's right of choice?  Should THAT be a question, AT ALL?*


I see you didn't finish reading the piece. No, it shouldn't. When a man can get pregnant and bear a childd, then HIS right of choice exists.  Otherwise, his right extends to sex or not in the first place.

Ian

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> I love how people write huge political opinion pieces and then post them around the web but don't stick around to engage in debate.
> 
> Waste of time.


You want a chat room, not a blog. I don't live here. I just stop in to read and this is only my second post.  I have a terminal wife and everything else, plus my own nerve damage to deal with. Have some patience.

Ian

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> Women always have a choice, and they always have had the choice.  The only discussion is should the choice be legal?


Yes it should.  It's her life, health, and everything else save a small effort on a man's part.  Sorry, but we don't have enough invested - not by comparison.

Ian

----------


## brandon

> I see you didn't finish reading the piece. No, it shouldn't. When a man can get pregnant and bear a childd, then HIS right of choice exists.  Otherwise, his right extends to sex or not in the first place.
> 
> Ian


"Right of choice" is a very vague and misleading phase. That phase itself is a beautiful example of propaganda in the style of orwellian euphemisms.

"Right of choice"
Of course men have the "right of choice" I can choose to wear a blue shirt or a green shirt.  I could chose to drink whiskey or scotch. I could choose boxers or breifs. This is my right.

Only the most depraved statist sociopath would seek to deprive an individual of their general "right of choice."

However when you get down to specific examples of choosing, that is where sometimes one's "right to choose" should be infringed.

For example, my "right to chose to rob a store" should be 'taken away' by the government imposing consequences to discourage me from chosing to rob the store. But it is important to specify what exactly is being chosen.

So next time you plan on writing an article about abortion, make sure to put the whole subject as the title. For example, this essay should be titled:"The Question of a Womans Right to chose to *intentionally destroy her living fetus while it is inside of her* Shouldnt Be a Question at All! "

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> It's between the genetic material owners (and their maker).   
> 
> To government and all others: MYOB
> 
> 
> OP, maybe you should have gotten your tubes tied while still pre-pubescent.


God only comes into it when both parties involved agree about that opinion. If you go by the bible, the only thing there is  is that part in Leviticus.  If this isn't to remain a patriarchy, it should be her choice whether ton bear the child or terminate, NOT the the man's. 

Ian

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> "Right of choice" is a very vague and misleading phase. That phase itself is a beautiful example of propaganda in the style of orwellian euphemisms.
> 
> "Right of choice"
> Of course men have the "right of choice" I can choose to wear a blue shirt or a green shirt.  I could chose to drink whiskey or scotch. I could choose boxers or breifs. This is my right.
> 
> Only the most depraved statist sociopath would seek to deprive an individual of their general "right of choice."
> 
> However when you get down to specific examples of choosing, that is where sometimes one's "right to choose" should be infringed.
> 
> ...


My title was shorter, and these days the phrase "a woman's right to choose" refers to her right to choose to terminate a pregnancy rather than be forced to bear it.  Wasn't the piece long enough?

Ian

----------


## klamath

Women kill the weaker human beings through abortion, men kill the weaker through war. It is the way of the world. 
You can rant about rights, wrongs,  laws and lawbreakers for thousands of years but in the end it boils down to who applies enough lethal force to end anothers life.

Who cares whether women kill millions of ther own offspring or the US blows the Iraqis to bloody hell. 

He or she who applies that final lethal force will be the winner and will write the history on what is right and wrong until someone comes along and applies that final lethal force against them and rewrites history.

This whole argument makes me want to puke just as much as arguing with a neocon about  going around the world and enforcing their ideas on the rest of the world.

The vacumn or the CBU-71 cluster bomb, your choice?

----------


## SeanEdwards

> Yes.  He has the choice to keep his pecker in his pants.


And the woman had a choice to keep her legs together.

----------


## angelatc

> And the woman had a choice to keep her legs together.



Can we agree that the baby isn't to blame?

----------


## brandon

> Can we agree that the baby isn't to blame?


If that damn baby would have just committed suicide we wouldn't have to even have this conversation.

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> Women kill the weaker human beings through abortion, men kill the weaker through war. It is the way of the world. 
> You can rant about rights, wrongs,  laws and lawbreakers for thousands of years but in the end it boils down to who applies enough lethal force to end anothers life.
> 
> Who cares whether women kill millions of ther own offspring or the US blows the Iraqis to bloody hell. 
> 
> He or she who applies that final lethal force will be the winner and will write the history on what is right and wrong until someone comes along and applies that final lethal force against them and rewrites history.
> 
> This whole argument makes me want to puke just as much as arguing with a neocon about  going around the world and enforcing their ideas on the rest of the world.
> 
> The vacumn or the CBU-71 cluster bomb, your choice?


With that attitude you may as well crawl into some hole and curl up while the rest of us get on with it.  Granted, evil - which is NOT relative - steals a march with sheer brutality, but it cannot build to last.  Which is why the US is so rickety right now. And it's such a triumph when people who DO believe in rights win! Personally I'd rather fight against chaos and its agents than give up nd just tend my own garden until the darkness falls.

If if you're so bored sick of all this, then what are you doing here - besides sneering, I mean?  Try something constructive.

Ian

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> And the woman had a choice to keep her legs together.


Not always.  That choice can be stolen, remember, but the Right would have the woman - and any children born as well - pay the price regardless.  And I believe that a choice made on falsified information should also see some mitigation as well.  Consider it a "Lemon Law" for people.  Although there was something like it in the shild support laws, though enforcement and punitive elements varied a ridiculous amount even at best.

In a "civilized society", a legitimate choice should be an informed one, and in that case, this government and its religious backers have done teir damnedest - and the word is deliberate - to see to it that as few choices as possible are well and truly informed.  I'd rather see penalties fall on the legal liars, myself, especially the wealthy ones who don't see working people as anything but a resource or impediment. Wouldn't that be lovely? Some millionaire senator hit with an entire  state's worth - or country's worth! - of supplementing child support payments! Want to bet that would alter a few votes?

Ian

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I see you didn't finish reading the piece. No, it shouldn't. When a man can get pregnant and bear a childd, then HIS right of choice exists. Otherwise, his right extends to sex or not in the first place.
> 
> Ian


 *Correct, I didn't.  I was speaking in general and in a larger sense, as my question clearly shows.<IMHO>  Would you care to answer THAT question? Or are only the women, individuals, with the right of choice, without question, IYO?*

*Thanks!*

----------


## klamath

> With that attitude you may as well crawl into some hole and curl up while the rest of us get on with it.  Granted, evil - which is NOT relative - steals a march with sheer brutality, but it cannot build to last.  Which is why the US is so rickety right now. And it's such a triumph when people who DO believe in rights win! Personally I'd rather fight against chaos and its agents than give up nd just tend my own garden until the darkness falls.
> 
> If if you're so bored sick of all this, then what are you doing here - besides sneering, I mean?  Try something constructive.
> 
> Ian


Abortion threads have been on the front page of the new posts results for months. 
"And it's such a triumph when people who DO believe in rights win!"- *the right to kill*. Sugar coat it any way you want.  *Both* parents should be responsible. I don't  even think laws against abortion can be enforced but I will never be convinced that the taking of life can be reduced to words like "Choice or Collateral Damage.
The height of evil is the cheapening of human life, for once human life is cheapened  any kind of sick horror can be done to any living human body without thought.
I will continue to do battle with neocons that believe democrasy can be spread with the GBU-71 or the libertarian  lays claim to the right to kill the unborn.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

Quiz time Ian:

Does a 'fetus' have the same general human DNA pattern as the rest of us? In otherwords, is it a member of the species/subspecies _**** Sapiens Sapiens_?

If the answer to that is 'Yes', then the Right to Life is pre-political. Its an 'Inalienable Right'. Furthermore, if the Right to Life is only extended to those fetuses that can survive outside the womb, then you can, through just application of the Law, murder your children up to the age which they can care, feed and clothe themselves. In the modern world, thats at least 14 years of age (lowest age they can legally get a job). 

If the answer to that question is 'No', then I suggest you bone up on your biology.

The Right of Choice does not give one permission to aggress against another who is utterly defenseless. As klamath stated, whether its in a Doctor's Office with a high saline content liquid or a rocket-propelled grenade is irrelevant. Dead is dead.

----------


## Original_Intent

> Quiz time Ian:
> 
> Does a 'fetus' have the same general human DNA pattern as the rest of us? In otherwords, is it a member of the species/subspecies _**** Sapiens Sapiens_?
> 
> If the answer to that is 'Yes', then the Right to Life is pre-political. Its an 'Inalienable Right'. Furthermore, if the Right to Life is only extended to those fetuses that can survive outside the womb, then you can, through just application of the Law, murder your children up to the age which they can care, feed and clothe themselves. In the modern world, thats at least 14 years of age (lowest age they can legally get a job). 
> 
> If the answer to that question is 'No', then I suggest you bone up on your biology.
> 
> The Right of Choice does not give one permission to aggress against another who is utterly defenseless. As klamath stated, whether its in a Doctor's Office with a high saline content liquid or a rocket-propelled grenade is irrelevant. Dead is dead.


I agree 100%.

I was reading an article last week about someone who was ranting about Obama's choice to give the invocation at his deification party - uh I mean cornonation - whatever. They were upset because this pastor opposes abortion, and the worst was he opposed it because "his Bible" told him that the fetus was a life.

Let's just take religion out of the picture so we aren't forcing our religious beliefs on anyone else. I want to ask the author of the article (Bill Press) what scientific study told him it is not a human life? Is there a biologist out there that has made the claim?

Roe v Wade wasn't a biblical finding or a scientific one. It was a political decision to deny ontological status - "personhood" to certain living members of humanity.
No more and no less. There is no serious discussion about whether a fetus is a living human or not - just that it had not achieved "personhood" yet and thus could not be protected under the law.

At the VERY least, they had no right to deny states the right to make their own laws regarding abortion. None. No legal precedent, no Constitutional authority.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And the woman had a choice to keep her legs together.


Indeed, but his question wasn't about women, it was about MEN.

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> *Correct, I didn't.  I was speaking in general and in a larger sense, as my question clearly shows.<IMHO>  Would you care to answer THAT question? Or are only the women, individuals, with the right of choice, without question, IYO?*
> 
> *Thanks!*


Sorry, but I saw and see no generalization unless you refer to choice in general about anything.  That wasn't the subject though, the question was on this piece so I took it as bein directed toward me and the subject at hand. " IYO"?  I;m afraid I don't do text messaging, and never did get a lot of these first-letter only sentences. Whassat?  If it's "in your opinion", of course; this IS an opinion piece, though I feel I defended it with good logic. 

If I've missed entire;y, again, my apologies.  I'm just now up from my second time asleep - 2 hours.  My wife is in end-stage COP and bed-ridden, and I'm the only one here to do any and everything.  I don't get a lot of rest. I'm disabled myself (chronic intractable pain, nerve damage), and am badly under-medicated, as the VA picked this moment after almost a decade of near-good treatment due to drug war politics. Still fighting as I'm able, and with some formidable help, but the art of politics is the art of delay.  Damn them.

Ian

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> *Correct, I didn't. ;) I was speaking in general and in a larger sense, as my question clearly shows.<IMHO> :) Would you care to answer THAT question? Or are only the women, individuals, with the right of choice, without question, IYO?*
> 
> *Thanks!*


Sorry, but I saw and see no generalization unless you refer to choice in general about anything.  That wasn't the subject though, the question was on this piece so I took it as being directed toward me and the subject at hand. " IYO"?  I;m afraid I don't do text messaging, and never did get a lot of these first-letter only sentences. Whassat?  If it's "in your opinion", of course; this IS an opinion piece, though I feel I defended it with good logic. 

If I've missed entirely, again, my apologies.  I'm just now up from my second time asleep - 2 hours.  My wife is in end-stage COP and bed-ridden, and I'm the only one here to do any and everything.  I don't get a lot of rest. I'm disabled myself (chronic intractable pain, nerve damage), and am badly under-medicated, as the VA picked this moment after almost a decade of near-good treatment due to drug war politics. Still fighting as I'm able, and with some formidable help, but the art of politics is the art of delay.  Damn them.

Ian

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> Abortion threads have been on the front page of the new posts results for months. 
> "And it's such a triumph when people who DO believe in rights win!"- *the right to kill*. Sugar coat it any way you want.  *Both* parents should be responsible. I don't  even think laws against abortion can be enforced but I will never be convinced that the taking of life can be reduced to words like "Choice or Collateral Damage.
> The height of evil is the cheapening of human life, for once human life is cheapened  any kind of sick horror can be done to any living human body without thought.
> I will continue to do battle with neocons that believe democrasy can be spread with the GBU-71 or the libertarian  lays claim to the right to kill the unborn.


I really wish someone would read the thing before commenting.  And "democracy" is spelled with a "c", not an "s".

As I said in the piece you didn't finish, a slime spot of a handful of cells is no more a "child" than a pile of boards and bricks is a house.  Natural abortion occurs a huge percentage of the time, (miscarriage, which is often a ejection so early the woman never has any idea she was pregnant), or is induced by accident - say horseback riding and a poor attachment.  Waiting until a child is viable, weighs eight pounds and is days from delivery - well, I know of no one who would do such a thing. Not and kill the child, and yes, THAT'S a child.  It;s the legal delays caused by laws proulgated by the Right trying to make it de facto illegal whatever the law actually says that causes too many abortions to happen far later than they should. 

And the damned neocons have been supporting making it ILLEGAL. Sheesh...  I'm sugar coating nothing.  You're killing a potential human in abortion however - that pile of boards and bricks.  Humans cannot live without killing, and sometimes, all throughout history, that has included abortion done in one fashion in another when nature itself doesn't take care of it.  Many, perhaps most, cultures have included exposure of a newborn for various reasons, and there are indications that at least some and likely most very early cultures used it because an older child was still at suck and the woman was unable to nurse two. This is aside from killing to live - for food, in defense or in taking someone else's land when yours is no longer viable or won't support your expanding population. Humans are the latest descendants of energy-stealer cell colonies, and we cannot live witout killing things that other organisms have already converted to organic material.  It's the degree now that we must choose, and choosing lifelong poverty and te damage it causes all around: to parents, children and society - is a bad choice IMO, and in the opinions of the women who choose abortion because they cannot afford a child at that time.  Better a good, well educated, happy and well fed life.  According to a great many people, at least, and I agree. So do most Rightists, else they'd support helping a child who already HAS been born instead of starving those help agencies and projects to punish the mother and the child they should hold blameless.

Ian

----------


## Truth Warrior

> Sorry, but I saw and see no generalization unless you refer to choice in general about anything. That wasn't the subject though, the question was on this piece so I took it as being directed toward me and the subject at hand. " IYO"? I;m afraid I don't do text messaging, and never did get a lot of these first-letter only sentences. Whassat? If it's "in your opinion", of course; this IS an opinion piece, though I feel I defended it with good logic. 
> 
> If I've missed entirely, again, my apologies. I'm just now up from my second time asleep - 2 hours. My wife is in end-stage COP and bed-ridden, and I'm the only one here to do any and everything. I don't get a lot of rest. I'm disabled myself (chronic intractable pain, nerve damage), and am badly under-medicated, as the VA picked this moment after almost a decade of near-good treatment due to drug war politics. Still fighting as I'm able, and with some formidable help, but the art of politics is the art of delay. Damn them.
> 
> Ian





> *What about a man's right of choice?  Should THAT be a question, AT ALL?*


*No problem.  That was my entire original post. I tend to be very literal, and individual oriented, gender not withstanding. If women have rights, without question, then so do men.<IMHO> Double standards suck. About half of the abortions performed, are of females. What about their right to choose?*

*IYO = In Your Opinion*

*BTW, my consistent position on abortion is, " PREVENT unwanted pregnancies. " No unwanted pregnancy, no abortion, no problem, by definition.*

*Hang in there. Good luck!*

*Thanks!*

----------


## mellamojuana

Original_Intent, I like your post very much.  TQ 4 it

Ian, you might like the book, Men, Women and Rape, by Susan Brownmiller.  (I think; I read it long ago.)  I respect your standing up for what you believe, and doing it rather eloquently.  I see two articles/issues (pun not intended) in your post.  With a bit of work, you could rewrite, expand, etc., & possibly sell 2 articles.  

I'm in your corner.  I was advised to have an abortion, but chose not to.  The point is that I had a choice.  It was my choice involving my God, my husband, and me.  Had I/we chosen abortion, it still would have been my God, my husband, and me--a good God, a decent husband, and a woman concerned about her health and extremely difficult circumstances. 

The troubling thing to me is that "we" are deeply worried about a fertilized human egg that might not later exist as a baby, but not at all worried about it/him/her after some years and  time in juvenile detention, prison, oh, and the old folks' home.  We really seem to despise those cute, cuddly babies after they've been around 85 years, and become dependent again.  I didn't read any protests here about Ian's being a soldier with the Navy Hospital Corps.  Please correct me gently if I'm wrong.  Those wee babies become worth less and less when they are "enemy" soldiers, or when they're "our heroes" sent to kill or be killed.  Forgive the sarcasm here, but our draftees weren't worth much.  They had a choice during the "war" in Vietnam--go to Vietnam and hope to live, or leave the USA to live in exile for not obeying the laws of the nation.  Why, hello, there's a male choice!

The way I experience and observe life, I see much hatred, disrespect, and lack of love and belief in the sanctity of human beings.   Period.  The way people bash each other on this website, beat each other down, call each other mean names, fail to respect other opinions, accuse, belittle, berate, one-up,  condemn, and generally act like good, liberty-loving, and baby-loving Americans, convinces me that we don't really love fetuses very much, either.

Shakespeare comes to mind:  "Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds."  We love those babies, and lose that love over time when they change!

Ian, the National Family Caregivers Association has a website with supportive forums, in case you haven't discovered it.  Godspeed.  I respect what you are doing.  You are not alone, although it certainly feels like it, sometimes, I'm sure.

----------


## klamath

> I really wish someone would read the thing before commenting.  And "democracy" is spelled with a "c", not an "s".
> 
> As I said in the piece you didn't finish, a slime spot of a handful of cells is no more a "child" than a pile of boards and bricks is a house.  Natural abortion occurs a huge percentage of the time, (miscarriage, which is often a ejection so early the woman never has any idea she was pregnant), or is induced by accident - say horseback riding and a poor attachment.  Waiting until a child is viable, weighs eight pounds and is days from delivery - well, I know of no one who would do such a thing. Not and kill the child, and yes, THAT'S a child.  It;s the legal delays caused by laws proulgated by the Right trying to make it de facto illegal whatever the law actually says that causes too many abortions to happen far later than they should. 
> 
> And the damned neocons have been supporting making it ILLEGAL. Sheesh...  I'm sugar coating nothing.  You're killing a potential human in abortion however - that pile of boards and bricks.  Humans cannot live without killing, and sometimes, all throughout history, that has included abortion done in one fashion in another when nature itself doesn't take care of it.  Many, perhaps most, cultures have included exposure of a newborn for various reasons, and there are indications that at least some and likely most very early cultures used it because an older child was still at suck and the woman was unable to nurse two. This is aside from killing to live - for food, in defense or in taking someone else's land when yours is no longer viable or won't support your expanding population. Humans are the latest descendants of energy-stealer cell colonies, and we cannot live witout killing things that other organisms have already converted to organic material.  It's the degree now that we must choose, and choosing lifelong poverty and te damage it causes all around: to parents, children and society - is a bad choice IMO, and in the opinions of the women who choose abortion because they cannot afford a child at that time.  Better a good, well educated, happy and well fed life.  According to a great many people, at least, and I agree. So do most Rightists, else they'd support helping a child who already HAS been born instead of starving those help agencies and projects to punish the mother and the child they should hold blameless.
> 
> Ian


Seems like you talked youself right around to my original argument. Might makes right. Throw them babies out in the cold. We can't feed them. Heck, better yet eat the little suckers. Kill the sick and invalid as well, as they are just a burden on society as well. We only want shining happy people. 

You told a truely sad story about the young women dying by being poorly served and educated by society.  I truely feel for that young women.  
Now I suggest you read Dr Paul's story about that "slime spot of a handful of cells" he listened to cry in the waste basket, until it died.
Those most be nano tools they use to crush the skull of that "slime spot of a handful of cells" so it can pass through the birth canal in a partial birth abortion.

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> I agree 100%.
> 
> I was reading an article last week about someone who was ranting about Obama's choice to give the invocation at his deification party - uh I mean cornonation - whatever. They were upset because this pastor opposes abortion, and the worst was he opposed it because "his Bible" told him that the fetus was a life.


Well of course it's a life!  As a human though, _it's only potential._ 




> Let's just take religion out of the picture so we aren't forcing our religious beliefs on anyone else. I want to ask the author of the article (Bill Press) what scientific study told him it is not a human life? Is there a biologist out there that has made the claim?


That's a shoal where a lot of people hang up: what constitutes a "human life"?  To some it's a single, fertilized human ovum with the full compliment of human genes, ready to begin dividing. To others, it isn't human until it's been born, separated from the umbilicus and shown itself capable of surviving as an independent entity.  And of course there's everything in between.  Ovum and spermatozoa are each alive in and of themselves, as well, though neither has a chance of becoming human without the other.  As far as I understand it, until an infant has had some experience and begun forming folds in the cerebral cortex, you have an infant variety of great ape (like the rest of us) with incredible potential. A child learns with unbelievable speed, but at that point you have a human being as far as I'm concerned. I agree with tossing religion; I have no idea about "ensoulment" or anything of the sort. It's simply my belief that until a potential person is separated from Mama, or at least is viable as a separate entity, it's still part of Mama. There are indications that tell when I/not I happens, but what does that matter? Killing an infant may not be killing a person, because a creature that has no self awareness can't called a person, but it also can't be called anything but human. 

Sorry - tired and rambling.  Abortion when there is not a human form, a fully developed brain, preferably with a little something in it, and the exogenous life-support system is no longer necessary, I don't see the argument as valid other than someone has the right to hold it.  




> Roe v Wade wasn't a biblical finding or a scientific one. It was a political decision to deny ontological status - "personhood" to certain living members of humanity.
> No more and no less. There is no serious discussion about whether a fetus is a living human or not - just that it had not achieved "personhood" yet and thus could not be protected under the law.
> 
> At the VERY least, they had no right to deny states the right to make their own laws regarding abortion. None. No legal precedent, no Constitutional authority.


Now _there_ I have to agree!  I should have and still should be a question answered by individual states.  This was supposed to be a republic, with the federal government carrying out customs and some other business, major infrastructure and national defense. It was to handle things that involved all of the states for and by the will _of_ those states.  It was _never_ meant to be not just the final but the _only_ authority and the source of _all_ authority, and that is the place it has usurped: _OURS!_ 

Ian

----------


## M House

Why can't we just let women kill their unborn children and be done with this argument? Seems to me if the mom is really dying for the right to do that, I'm kinda not looking forward to her having any offspring anyway.

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> Quiz time Ian:
> 
> Does a 'fetus' have the same general human DNA pattern as the rest of us? In other words, is it a member of the species/subspecies _**** Sapiens Sapiens_?
> 
> If the answer to that is 'Yes', then the Right to Life is pre-political. Its an 'Inalienable Right'. Furthermore, if the Right to Life is only extended to those fetuses that can survive outside the womb, then you can, through just application of the Law, murder your children up to the age which they can care, feed and clothe themselves. In the modern world, thats at least 14 years of age (lowest age they can legally get a job). 
> 
> If the answer to that question is 'No', then I suggest you bone up on your biology.


Well, as far as I know, yes, a fetus has a full complement of human DNA.  It will also have undifferentiated cells and others that are not yet mature, and immature systems, but the DNA that is the self-building blueprint is there in every cell that's multiplying with the exception of generative cells; that's how the organism ends up physiologically human.  I'd be interested to know what you're referring to. I'm certainly no doctor, but I'm not totally ignorant either. And I'm endlessly curious. If a chimp has more than 90% of the same DNA (covering things like liver, kidneys, general cellular structure and so on), surely a fetus would?  If I remember, there is some type of cell (nerve cell?) that doesn't have all the DNA, but other than something like that, I'd answer yes.




> The Right of Choice does not give one permission to aggress against another who is utterly defenseless. As klamath stated, whether its in a Doctor's Office with a high saline content liquid or a rocket-propelled grenade is irrelevant. Dead is dead.


And if your choice is between the life of a child already born and healthy but getting hungry in a serious depression where food is about to get scarce and that bunch of cells I mentioned, which do you choose?  Endangering a child you already have for a possible child that may or may not ever make it to adulthood or even beyond childhood is anti-survival.  No primitive would choose anything but the child already there, and most moderns as well.

Making sure our young are sexually ignorant regarding all means of protecting themselves in sex, encouraging a culture that glorifies violence, dominance over females and rape, it's ultimate expression short of murder, making not just abortion but simple contraception hard to get, humiliating especially to the young (somehow I was never vulnerable to that; had no trouble buying tampons for a girlfriend when I was in high school, rubbers or whatever) - this is a setup that reminds me of the way the Old Testament God set up Adam and Eve.  Make sure they fail, then punish them forever.

Starting to babble again.  Sorry folks; I'll try for a little more sleep after I get us both fed. 

Ian

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> Seems like you talked youself right around to my original argument. Might makes right. *SNIP*


No, might makes _possible_ - if you have no morals, flexible ethics and few scruples.  Recognizing a situation, however, is just that and no more.  The state has no authority, should have no authority over this issue.  Science says one thing, religion a couple of other things, politics says it's usual "what will get me votes?", and individuals say umpteen of each thing possible.  The fact is that this is such a personal choice that people feel so strongly about, it must be left to the only ones directly involved: the woman and her doctor.  




> Now I suggest you read Dr Paul's story about that "slime spot of a handful of cells" he listened to cry in the waste basket, until it died.
> *SNIP*


I'll hope sincerely that's a metaphor or hallucination - treatable etiology, hopefully. So does this story have a name?

Ian

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> Well, as far as I know, yes, a fetus has a full complement of human DNA.


So thats a yes and therefore it is entitled to the same pre-political inalienable right to life as the rest of us.  




> And if your choice is between the life of a child already born and healthy but getting hungry in a serious depression where food is about to get scarce and that bunch of cells I mentioned, which do you choose?  Endangering a child you already have for a possible child that may or may not ever make it to adulthood or even beyond childhood is anti-survival.  No primitive would choose anything but the child already there, and most moderns as well.


Sorry, but False Dilemma fallacies don't cut it. Try again.




> Making sure our young are sexually ignorant regarding all means of protecting themselves in sex, encouraging a culture that glorifies violence, dominance over females and rape, it's ultimate expression short of murder, making not just abortion but simple contraception hard to get, humiliating especially to the young (somehow I was never vulnerable to that; had no trouble buying tampons for a girlfriend when I was in high school, rubbers or whatever) - this is a setup that reminds me of the way the Old Testament God set up Adam and Eve.  Make sure they fail, then punish them forever.


No offense, but this has jack and $#@! to do with my position.

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> So thats a yes and therefore it is entitled to the same pre-political inalienable right to life as the rest of us.  
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but False Dilemma fallacies don't cut it. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> No offense, but this has jack and $#@! to do with my position.


Then my apologies. I'll have a look at it again when I've had some sleep. It' a habit I seem to be getting out of a lot lately.

Ian

----------


## klamath

> No, might makes _possible_ - if you have no morals, flexible ethics and few scruples.  Recognizing a situation, however, is just that and no more.  The state has no authority, should have no authority over this issue.  Science says one thing, religion a couple of other things, politics says it's usual "what will get me votes?", and individuals say umpteen of each thing possible.  The fact is that this is such a personal choice that people feel so strongly about, it must be left to the only ones directly involved: the woman and her doctor.  
> 
> 
> 
> I'll hope sincerely that's a metaphor or hallucination - treatable etiology, hopefully. So does this story have a name?
> 
> Ian


From the wiki article on Ron Paul.

*Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his residency, It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.[*

Yep just a smear of cells.

----------


## SeanEdwards

> And if your choice is between the life of a child already born and healthy but getting hungry in a serious depression where food is about to get scarce and that bunch of cells I mentioned, which do you choose?


Now that's perfectly logical. Of course it is logical to kill the unwanted people in order to make life a little easier for the survivors. It works in the middle east, and it works in the womb. Everybody is happy, except the deceased, but we don't have to listen to their cries. In the case of abortion, the victims can't even make a cry, and we don't even have to look at their little faces. They go directly into a bucket for disposal. As long as we delude ourselves that our victims are less than human, either a "lump of cells" or some "goat-$#@!ing jihadist", we're free to abuse them however we see fit.

What a wonderful world!

----------


## NYgs23

> a slime spot of a handful of cells is no more a "child" than a pile of boards and bricks is a house.



*"A slime spot of a handful of cells."*

The only question is whether the fetus is a person or not. If so, it too has rights, just as much as the mother. It's seems most logical too me that a fetus is a person. Biologically, it's certainly a seperate organism from the mother. And if it's a seperate organism, it's a seperate _human_ organism, for it is of no other kind. And if it's a human organism then it's a person, for what can a human organism be but a person. Also, I'm very leery of the idea of picking and choosing who to ascribe personhood to. That's a category that should be interpreted as broadly as possible. Once we start attempting to narrow it...

----------


## Ian MacLeod

When an embryo is aborted at the point it should be, it is literally an unorganized bit of slime formed not all that long after the first fertilized cell began dividing. Okay, it isn't entirely unorganized, but a first trimester, three week embryo is not a two pound baby.  It's the legal delays that cause what Dr. Paul witnessed much more often than not. 

And I see no possible meeting of the minds here. I also see it as essentially religious. And frankly, I have come to loathe religion.  99,9% of it is no more or less than another way for a group of people to grab or claim power over other people.  There are a tiny handful who actually read the source material, interpret with reason as well as heart, and try to live it without shoving it down the throat of others. The others are, as far as I can see, dupes and controllers. Who STILL don't have the right to control others; not by OUR Constitution, anyway.

Ian

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

> And I see no possible meeting of the minds here. I also see it as essentially religious.


Then you weren't paying attention. Myself and several others provided scientific, not religious-based, objections to abortion.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> *When an embryo is aborted at the point it should be, it is literally an unorganized bit of slime formed not all that long after the first fertilized cell began dividing*. Okay, it isn't entirely unorganized, but a first trimester, three week embryo is not a two pound baby.
> 
> Ian


Wow.  

I am speechless.

I had a whole post about statistics of miscarriages which were scientific-based that proved most miscarriages had genetic abnormalities (YO, XYY, XXXXY, XXY, trisomies [15, 18, 23])... then I realized anyone who says that about a human conception and has no respect even for *conception* is not worth my effort and time.  

Good day.

----------


## Grimnir Wotansvolk

$#@! that. It is not just the woman's choice; that's like saying I have the right to burn down my house with other people in it, since it's my property.

I shudder to think how many men have had their children taken away and murdered by selfish, insidious, slovenly women, all in the name of "choice".

----------


## mellamojuana

I wonder how many women have borne children because of the drunken, abusive, over-powering force of "slovenly" men.  Come on, now.  Both genders mess up.  

How many "fatherless" children are there because "Dad" vanished at the word "pregnant"?

Ian, I'm sorry that you hate religion.  I certainly didn't know that only one-tenth of a percent of people are sincere in their worship and their faith.  My experience is quite different; however, if you are thinking of support from faith communities in your circumstances, I concur that people can make themselves very scarce when there is a  need.  Many times, people/we don't know what/how to do, and worry more about getting outside their/our/a comfort zone than sacrificing for others.  I apologize, and I myself have quit praying for, requesting, seeking human help--I care for disabled family members around the clock.  I know.  

The story about the garden of Eden, Adam (meaning earth-creature) and Eve was handed down through oral tradition.  It was a way of explaining "beginnings" (Genesis).  I doubt that anyone actually knew Adam and Eve as depicted in Scripture.  The story was a way of teaching and coming to terms the best way the ancients could.

----------


## Ian MacLeod

and let me know how the conversation was.  I'm well aware of the stages of development, and again, this is more than a handful of cells.  Yes, it's in train to be a human person. And there's no reason development must go even this far - if busybodies stayed out of the way. and stopped putting legal delays in the way. I agree it's a difficult thing to pinpoint personhood (though a person has a mind, memories, a personality...), and abortion is always a hard choice and is seldom lightly made - it should never be. I like Clinton's phrase saying it should be safe, legal and infrequent or something like that. And I still say the choice must be between the doctor and patient. No one else should be involved,

Ian

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> I wonder how many women have borne children because of the drunken, abusive, over-powering force of "slovenly" men.  Come on, now.  Both genders mess up.  
> 
> How many "fatherless" children are there because "Dad" vanished at the word "pregnant"?
> 
> Ian, I'm sorry that you hate religion.  I certainly didn't know that only one-tenth of a percent of people are sincere in their worship and their faith.  My experience is quite different; however, if you are thinking of support from faith communities in your circumstances, I concur that people can make themselves very scarce when there is a  need.  Many times, people/we don't know what/how to do, and worry more about getting outside their/our/a comfort zone than sacrificing for others.  I apologize, and I myself have quit praying for, requesting, seeking human help--I care for disabled family members around the clock.  I know.  :p
> 
> The story about the garden of Eden, Adam (meaning earth-creature) and Eve was handed down through oral tradition.  It was a way of explaining "beginnings" (Genesis).  I doubt that anyone actually knew Adam and Eve as depicted in Scripture.  The story was a way of teaching and coming to terms the best way the ancients could.    ;)


I don't hate religion - I loathe the hypocrisy with which it's practiced, and the self-righteous types who think they have a right to force theirs on other people. Religion is mostly a business these days, a really big business and especially in America, that seems dedicated to separating old people from their Social Security checks and trying to get their religion into legislation, preferably excluding the religions of others.

Ian

----------


## klamath

Now go back to daily KOS. I think you  thought you would have found a huge pool of supporters on here because you saw how much most of us hate Bush. The reason a majority here hate Bush is because he has just as much disrespect for life and liberty as you and your buddy Clinton.
I am not a Christian.

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> From the wiki article on Ron Paul.
> 
> *Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his residency, It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.[*
> 
> Yep just a smear of cells.


Now I understand, and I've been there. I was, in fact, working paramedic neonatology when a dear friend needed her hand held during an abortion, which was done with a prostaglandin (a hormone that caused early delivery).  It was a strange and difficult thing to see the result, which was scarcely much younger than those we fought so hard to save.  And no, it wasn't viable, though without the abortion it almost certainly would have been. I hadn't thought of this in many years. The difference was that the others were wanted, and this girl could never have provided for or raised a child.  As I recall, her doctor didn't think she should be allowed the pill at her age (seventeen); he was the one who did the abortion.

And dammit, there _is_ a point where it _IS_ "just a smear of cells", not human (granted, YET). Waiting until it's clear it could be delivered at term as a healthy infant before allowing an abortion is dangerous and unnecessary.  And Dr. Paul is right; it's a hard thing to watch, though there was no bucket. They simply laid it on a soft surface and allowed it to die.  Even so, I would never have considered forcing her to carry it to term. And just for info, I was 18 and in the military at the time.

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> Now go back to daily KOS. I think you  thought you would have found a huge pool of supporters on here because you saw how much most of us hate Bush. The reason a majority here hate Bush is because he has just as much disrespect for life and liberty as you and your buddy Clinton.
> I am not a Christian.


To crooked eyes, truth may wear a wry face.  RR Tolkien  

Congratulations; Christian or not, you've managed to see the reverse of my beliefs in my statements.  I respect the life that's already here, to begin with, including the woman's.  Forcing people into poverty by teaching lies or simply not teaching useful information in sex ed classes and programs, restricting or outright refusing contraception, refusing abortion in the earliest stages to a woman or family that cannot afford another child even in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother (and I feel economic danger should count as such too), then refusing to fund social programs so that the single woman and child or family are forced into a life of poverty they cannot escape, including the formerly precious child that government can't be bothered with any more  sheer hypocrisy.  Cutting educational funding and passing unfunded mandates that require teaching to tests instead of actually teaching, and getting rid of many of the better teachers in favor of some who look good on paper (right qualifications; they have the knowledge  just not for teaching) nails it in place by making sure these children raised in poverty have no education worth the name.  Passing trade programs like NAFTA that drive desperate workers who will work for slave wages and no benefits to come here any way they can, and encouraging monopolies and offshoring jobs, making certain that there is little work and fifty applicants each for what jobs there are  - on the order of working in fast food places will mostly be what remains at this rate  cements it all well into place.  Yes indeed, we're well on the way to being a third world banana dictatorship.  

I'm not here looking for supporters. What would I do with them? I'm not running for anything. A friend suggested I check it out, and I liked a lot of what I read.  Dr. Paul has a lot to say that I like. There's a lot I don't care for, too. The country's supposed to work that way. Both Clintons are no buddies of mine. I just used that one quote. They're both lying opportunists, and I don't care for ether of them.  As for respect for life and liberty, how does forcing a woman to bear a child she doesn't want, can't afford to raise and won't find help with, or that could endanger her life, show a respect for anything?  Where's her liberty in that, or her right to a life not impoverished by a child she can't support, or to her own health choices? Even a normal, healthy delivery causes changes, and not for the better.  

Given my preferences, I'd rather see accurate, matter-of-fact sex education, a casual attitude toward bare skin and physical affection, and gratuitous, graphic violence considered obscene.  I'd like to see unwanted pregnancies and abortion rates drop as they do whenever abortion is legal, and especially when sex ed is accurate and contraception is readily available.  I'd like to see small, financially secure families with parents who have time to be involved with their kids, as opposed to increasing numbers of homeless, large families, or latchkey kids in families who barely ever see each other because the parents are working three or four jobs between them just to stay afloat.  I'd also love to see accurate histories taught, some practical subjects taught in school, no peer group passing.  I'd like to see cops who aren't happy to wear black uniforms so people fear them more,  who are anxious to SWAT up for the hot-looking weapons and a chance to kick down somebody's door because they might have an illegal plant in the house, and they may even get to blow somebody away.  I'd like to see cops who are proud of a twenty year career in which they never once had to draw a weapon.  There's a lot I'd like to see that I expect will remain just fantasy. 

And I'll post where I damned well please until a moderator chooses to kick me off, thank you. If you don't care for what I post, don't read it, unless you have a problem with low blood pressure and can't afford the meds. If it comforts you, I rarely post anywhere these days. I don't have the time or energy for the most part.  And if you really want to see the abortion rate drop (it doesn't change much whether they're legal or not; only the survival rate of the women does), then fight to legalize them, to make contraception and prophylaxis freely available, and to get rid of abstinence only 'education'.  

Ian

----------


## mellamojuana

Ian, how are people gonna know whether they like your posts or not until they read 'em?     

I have to agree that you have a deep respect for the quality of life, and understanding of the dilemma many pregnant women (some almost children themselves) find themselves in.  Because of the question of genuine liberty, I think that everyone closely involved with a woman, who is considering/confronted with the possibility of an abortion, ideally ought to be able to have input, but the choice is the woman's, ultimately.   

Televangelism and organized religion (Christianity) in this country aren't the same.  The former can play on the emotions and reach many people and take in much moolah.  The latter, particularly mainstream churches, etc., functions on a different level.  While it takes in money, it also spends much in missions, giving, ministries.  And yes, like the former, it can misspend.  It is certainly capable of speaking out in ignorance of all sides of an issue.  Imho, the biggest obstacles it faces are apathy and unawareness of the need for well-informed, well-grounded in faith voices in educating, protesting, debating.....   

Interesting that we speak of respect for life, and speak disrespectfully to each other, isn't it?     

I have never ever met anyone who has been in a war who does not have deep regard for human life.

----------


## Original_Intent

I just got thru reading Satan, Prince of this world. For those of you that have read it, I just note that so you you understand the context of what I am about to write.

I have been strongly pro-life my entire life, and still am.

However, as i was finishing the book, it struck me that Roe v. Wade did more than just legalize abortion. It created another battle line among the American people. The S.o.S. looks for every possible way to divde us and make us fight against one another - by race, by class warfare, old against young, even GoP and Democrat as we well know there is no substantive difference, and yet the country is bietterly divided against each other based on whether they vote (D) or (R), and I am convinced it is all by design.

Election after election, our leaders promise to "bring us together" and bring the parties together. And in Washington, I am pretty sure the parties are together just fine. But we the people get divided further and further apart.

I don't think that we will ever have Roe v Wade overturned, just based on the people who I believe are running things. They will not allow it to happen. The only way I think we can win the Pro-Life fight is to let every pregnant girl out there know that there are options, and to help fund those options that will save a life. I am not at all against trying to stop babies from being killed thru changing and challenging laws, but I will never feel the anger and hatred towards those that are Pro-Choice that I have in the past. To do so is to play into the enemies hands imho.

edit - might I add religious and agnostic/atheist to the list that we are programmed to feel enmity towards? Both sides making their little clever remarks trying to antagonize each other - if we are here to fight for liberty - REAL liberty where neither side is tryiing to force their beliefs on others but where hopefully we can RESPECT each others' beliefs - we need to quit helping those who are trying to take our liberty.

----------


## hypnagogue

*Yawn* This again? There is only one question to this issue. When in development does a fetus become a person? That's all there is to it. You may not kill another person, no matter how inconvenient they are. Surely we can all agree that is practically an axiom. 

Is a cluster of cells a person? Clearly not. Prevent it from becoming a person if you want. The moment of conception doctrine is a thinly veiled religious farce. It is an emotional reaction entirely. 

I've laid out this argument on these boards before, but I might as well put it out there again. I think it's honestly very sound and I can always continue to hope that it might somehow slither through the cracks in the armor of blindness and deafness that so many wear to protect themselves from the pain of doubt.

What makes a human being? Physiologically speaking, of course. When one resorts to arguing the supernatural position that it is a soul, the use of discussion is obliterated. Reconciliation becomes hopeless. If that's the crux of your position, you need read no further. Since reason did not bring you to it, it can not lead you from it. Enjoy your dogma.

If, however, you're interested in coming to a workable solution to this conundrum, founded in fact and reason, then I humbly submit, I may have something to offer. I suggest that it is the mind that makes a human being. To show this to be true, we must consider the gruesome history of human injury and disease. Men have lost limbs and still been considered by all to be a person and the same person that they were before the loss. This is elementary. We have heart transplants and liver transplants, neither of which obscure the identity of a person, nor do those without kidneys and who rely on dialysis lose any of the position of personhood. Taken further, we can theorize into the realm of science fiction. Would a person, whose whole body had been destroyed save their head, and whose life depended on medical intervention continually, lose any of their personhood? Could they not speak and think and act within their limited abilities? You can remove any part of a human being save their brain and they remain, to the senses of almost all people, a person. 

We can contrast this with real life experience in the case of brain injury. It is not at all uncommon for a person who, having suffered irreparable brain damage, and who has lost near to all if not complete mental function to be allowed to pass away with the consent of the family. Such cases are referred to as brain dead or less compassionately vegetables. The law fully allows for the brain dead to be allowed to become fully dead. This is done for the exact same reasons that abortions are; that the subject, not being truly a person, and causing a great burden, can be justly removed without the loss of a human being. I say again, it is, with great evidence, the mind that is the existence of a person.

Back to the original question. When during a pregnancy does a new person begin to exist? It is when the mind begins to function. This can be detected by the presence of electromagnetic brainwaves. These brainwaves first appear at about the 6th week of pregnancy. Therefore, I say, it is within the 6th week of pregnancy that a second person enters the situation, separate from the mother. 

Some of you who are familiar with pregnancies may be aware that it is actually not until the 4th or 5th week that the embryo causes the woman's menstruation to stop, and that this is most often the first indication to the woman that she is pregnant. A further complication is the fact that pregnancy tests, while sometimes working as early as the first day of a missed period, usually only work accurately after a full week. The result being that a woman can only conclusively determine that they are pregnant very near to the time at which a person with an active brain begins. The woman has a few precious days, a week at the most, to choose whether she will carry the child. This may be a very inconvenient situation, but it is not arbitrary. 

The difficulty is lessened for women who have reason to suspect that they may have become pregnant, as preventative action can be speedily applied. This helps to overcome one of the more powerful objections that many have against the prohibition of abortion; the case of rape victims. Though this was hardly a serious point of contention, it was very often used for it's emotional impact by those who supported the right to abort pregnancies. 

Unless someone believes that they have a superior threshold for personhood, feel free to make your case. If not, then I think it is more than evident that the 6th week, or approximately one week after discovering the pregnancy is the just boundary for abortion. An argument against the difficulty imposed by this position can not prevail. There are inconveniences attending the respect for the rights of all persons, but they are the duty of moral people to bear.

Note: This does not cover the issues of custody, child support, or even whose consent is required for the abortion, which is another issue entirely. If we could perhaps agree on at least this time window we could eventually move the discussion to other aspects.

----------


## SeanEdwards

> When an embryo is aborted at the point it should be, it is literally an unorganized bit of slime formed not all that long after the first fertilized cell began dividing. Okay, it isn't entirely unorganized, but a first trimester, three week embryo is not a two pound baby.  It's the legal delays that cause what Dr. Paul witnessed much more often than not. 
> 
> And I see no possible meeting of the minds here. I also see it as essentially religious. And frankly, I have come to loathe religion.  99,9% of it is no more or less than another way for a group of people to grab or claim power over other people.  There are a tiny handful who actually read the source material, interpret with reason as well as heart, and try to live it without shoving it down the throat of others. The others are, as far as I can see, dupes and controllers. Who STILL don't have the right to control others; not by OUR Constitution, anyway.
> 
> Ian


Well you're wrong about the religion thing. I don't need an invisible sky friend to lecture me on right and wrong. Once I became aware of the facts of human reproductive biology, the conclusion that life begins at conception was irrefutable. It's not a matter of debate. It's a measurable factual quantity. It's even recognized as life under the law, since you can be prosecuted for double murder for killing a pregnant woman, regardless of how small and slimy her inconsequential zygote may be. The fact that I can be charged with murder for killing that inconsequential smear of cells, but the mother of that same smear is free to abuse that smear however she likes is illogical. It's a person when I kill it, but it metamorphoses into something like snot when mom walks into an abortion clinic? That's stupid, and anybody who could support such an absurd worldview probably is a victim of fantastical religious thinking. Bible-thumpers claim the wine turns into blood, and you claim that the magic of the abortion clinic turns an underdevolped human into a toenail to be trimmed. What's the difference?

----------


## SeanEdwards

> We can contrast this with real life experience in the case of brain injury. It is not at all uncommon for a person who, having suffered irreparable brain damage, and who has lost near to all if not complete mental function to be allowed to pass away with the consent of the family.


The difference being that in the case of the brain damaged patient, nature is allowed to take its course. Doctors don't dismember the coma patient with chainsaws in order to speed up the process. An abortion is nothing at all like letting nature take its course.

----------


## M House

Natural abortion involves the mother hacking up the fetus with her immune system and flushing it piece by piece. It's far from gentle. I'm not exactly pro abortion though. Seems to me that the greatest concern to women shouldn't be how freely they can terminate their offspring.

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> Ian, how are people gonna know whether they like your posts or not until they read 'em?     ;)


I was addressing the individual who suggested I "...go back to Daily KOS" and who seemed to think I was here looking for followers or something of the sort. I _have_ published a number of articles/rants (and a couple honestly qualify as "rants"); I just haven't been back there for some time. I found another blog that is very active in fighting the illegal mistreatment of chronic intractable pain and in educating people who have it, have been badly abused by the medical community and need real information, not the propaganda that blames them for the disease and then abandons them.  That has taken most of my time on the internet lately, what there is of it.  Oviously that person has read at least some of what I wrote there.

I'll admit to having flat lost my temper there with one piece - I'll offer you the URL if you want to read it.  I'm living under killing stress here, much of it due to the actions of the far Right, and after, if I remember, the Military Commissions Act became law, or after the abrogation of Posse Comitatis and Habeas Corpus or something like that, you could say I went off on this administration.  For some people, the extremism of that post negated anything else I had to say in any other post. Perhaps they were justified, at least to some extent. I've learned since not to write, or at least not to publish, until my pain is somewhat under control, and I've had enough sleep to be coherent. I still think, however, that if the American public could ever be made to understand clearly what the Right has done to them and this country and why, and now with climate change on top of that and top-down globalism and its effects added in, the results would be bloody revolution with the neocons and their crony friends and corporations as targets. 




> I have to agree that you have a deep respect for the quality of life, and understanding of the dilemma many pregnant women (some almost children themselves) find themselves in.  Because of the question of genuine liberty, I think that everyone closely involved with a woman, who is considering/confronted with the possibility of an abortion, ideally ought to be able to have input, but the choice is the woman's, ultimately.   :eek:


Exactly what I've been saying.  Christianity doesn't justify making abortion illegal anywhere in its source material the Bible, and medical ethics do not either. They do recognize personal ethics or even simple preference, however, and provide for a referral to another doctor who is willing to perform the procedure. The main opposition to it, now openly including opposition to contraception and support of lying, misleading, damaging and dangerous "abstinence education" is the mislabeled "fundamentalist" religious Christian Right. Religion does not belong in our law. Every example on the planet or in history that I can find, with the possible and only very recent exception of Tibet, shows that when religion _is_ the law it begets horror and destruction.




> Televangelism and organized religion (Christianity) in this country aren't the same.  The former can play on the emotions and reach many people and take in much moolah.  The latter, particularly mainstream churches, etc., functions on a different level.  While it takes in money, it also spends much in missions, giving, ministries.  And yes, like the former, it can misspend.  It is certainly capable of speaking out in ignorance of all sides of an issue.  Imho, the biggest obstacles it faces are apathy and unawareness of the need for well-informed, well-grounded in faith voices in educating, protesting, debating.....   :(


IMO, churches get far too much of a break in this country, especially on taxes. They own huge swaths of land that we homeowners get to pay higher taxes for to make up  for the loss to the tax base, and too many do nothing to make up for it, even in community service. Even more, some are now directly funded by the government, and that should never be. Some have been recruited to help keep the population under control in case of martial law, and have been asked to, in essence, spy for the government, or to at least provide a more familiar and less threatening face for government control.  

I'll readily admit that there are many churches and congregations that try hard to live their beliefs, help out in the community, follow the instructions in the New Testament for spreading the church without trying to force anything on anyone, and some succeed fairly well. I have no objection to them at all and, when I was in better condition, I've helped at some of them when I could, with the above-board understanding going in that I'm not a Christian.  I wasn't talking about those.  I was talking about televangelism, _and_ I was talking about the two million dollar buildings with lots of silver and gold religious paraphenalia who meddle in politics and legislation and ignore the hungry homeless and poor. These are the ones who loaned their organizations to the Right in three elections in return for what they hoped, believed, would be "their own" being installed in power who would - and this is another paraphrase from, I believe, Pat Buchannan but I can't find it to verify - bring American law into line with Biblical law so that "Jesus rules here", not the law, and not Man or men (though of course men would provide the interpretations of the words of Jesus that would determine that law, putting their own words in the mouth of God, often adding things they feel that God forgot to mention, as always). Pat Robertson and others have set out rules for Christians to quietly take over the government, the courts, law enforcement, the military  and other government agencies and functions with that goal in mind. In my view, they need to immediately loose any and all official benefits of being religions or religious representatives and should be treated as either political organizations or conspiracies, depending on who and what their goals and methods are.   

[QUOTE=mellamojuana;1882384]Interesting that we speak of respect for life, and speak disrespectfully to each other, isn't it?    :D   [QUOTE]

Passion often comes out that way, though in general I try to keep better control. So do fear and anger (though to quote Spider Robinson, "Anger is always fear in drag"), frustration and other things.  I'll frankly admit that my life has far too much of all of these. My wife is dying slowly, and I am the only one here to do everything that must be done - to care for her and her needs, the house the demands of that, the bills we have to pay with disability checks along with the medications and other things - and I _cannot_.  The VA has also chosen this point in time to hand me over to a fanatic jerk of a doctor who has aligned himself with a set of medical guidelines not based on science that even when it was in draft form was jumped on by doctors all over the country as justification to remove working medical regimens from people like me, returning them to their wheelchairs, beds and couches when they had been working, or at least functioning at home. There are actions being taken now to fight legally in Washington where those guidelines came from, but legal actions always take time, and having my regimen destroyed and adding the cost of a poor substitute from a civilian physician who also doesn't really understand pain management - also thanks to the efforts of the Radical Right government - is taking resources that just don't exist.  It will cause her death sooner, and with more suffering, than should be, and it may well cause my own. Pain makes it hard to rest all by itself; add everything else I have on my shoulders and I get very, very little rest. 

This doesn't make for a great deal of patience, and for that I apologize.  Having my words or my clear intent deliberately twisted irks me, though.  

And I need to go. My wife is non-responsive, and since I can't lift her, the only way to get her to ER is by ambulance.

Merry Christmas.

Ian 




> I have never ever met anyone who has been in a war who does not have deep regard for human life.

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> Original_Intent, I like your post very much.  TQ 4 it
> 
> Ian, you might like the book, Men, Women and Rape, by Susan Brownmiller.  (I think; I read it long ago.)  I respect your standing up for what you believe, and doing it rather eloquently.  I see two articles/issues (pun not intended) in your post.  With a bit of work, you could rewrite, expand, etc., & possibly sell 2 articles.  
> 
> I'm in your corner.  I was advised to have an abortion, but chose not to.  The point is that I had a choice.  It was my choice involving my God, my husband, and me.  Had I/we chosen abortion, it still would have been my God, my husband, and me--a good God, a decent husband, and a woman concerned about her health and extremely difficult circumstances. 
> 
> The troubling thing to me is that "we" are deeply worried about a fertilized human egg that might not later exist as a baby, but not at all worried about it/him/her after some years and  time in juvenile detention, prison, oh, and the old folks' home.  We really seem to despise those cute, cuddly babies after they've been around 85 years, and become dependent again.  I didn't read any protests here about Ian's being a soldier with the Navy Hospital Corps.  Please correct me gently if I'm wrong.  Those wee babies become worth less and less when they are "enemy" soldiers, or when they're "our heroes" sent to kill or be killed.  Forgive the sarcasm here, but our draftees weren't worth much.  They had a choice during the "war" in Vietnam--go to Vietnam and hope to live, or leave the USA to live in exile for not obeying the laws of the nation.  Why, hello, there's a male choice!
> 
> The way I experience and observe life, I see much hatred, disrespect, and lack of love and belief in the sanctity of human beings.   Period.  The way people bash each other on this website, beat each other down, call each other mean names, fail to respect other opinions, accuse, belittle, berate, one-up,  condemn, and generally act like good, liberty-loving, and baby-loving Americans, convinces me that we don't really love fetuses very much, either.
> ...


Sorry I missed this post earlier. Thanks for the kind words and suggestions. Actually, I have no great desire to read more about rape and mistreatment of women - I've seen enough of it working ambulance and emergency medicine, as well as in the life I've lived.  I detest it, and I detest just as much the casual attitude of law enforcement, judges and others. 

As for publishing, I've no idea how to go about it. I've tried a few times and been asked for my agent, or my lawyer and so on.  I'd love to sell an article or two though.  I had been working on a couple of books - one on chronic pain, one science fiction based on nanotechnology, and one on a sort of "wild mushrooms for dummies" kind of thing. This has taken precedence, though, and takes everything, or almost. She's sleeping right now. 

Oh, and we never did go to the hospital, though nearly. It came to hair's breadth. I realized the trouble wasn't  CO poisoning, or not just that; she'd ended up with one too many benzodiazapines and was badly sedated. That's one of the problems with being the only one here, and as far as care goes, I AM alone.  With three hours sleep in more than two days and me with under-treated chronic pain myself, I screwed up. I realized it was benzo sedation, and waited up all night watching until she came out of it. She still has a CO2 problem and she still won't wear the mask that helps enough for her to start recovering, but the local hospital and her doctor won't do anything to really help. Their attitude seems to be that she's dying, and there's no reason to expend a lot of rescue effort on her. Also, she was admitted three times in one month, and Medicare won't pay beyond a certain point.  So really, I _am_ alone here.  For now, she's kept me up again, I'm trying to make what she wanted to eat (she's down to 76 pounds - as of three weeks or so ago - from a norm of 135), so now _she's_ asleep.  And yes, I'm certain it's normal sleep. I've never messed up like that before, but she's been in an absolute panic lately, constantly feeling suffocated and constantly desperate to get away from it, and keeping me awake, and often moving when I hurt a lot and really need to be still.  She begged the doctor in the ER last time to knock her out, her blood O2 Sats were 34 and dropping, and he just thought that was hilarious.  I don't.  

It isn't just that this country ignores those babies once they're old - they ignore them once they're _born_!  They're cutting funding for Head Start, medical programs, blocking day care for working mothers and on and on and on.  They're "infinitely precious" in the womb - and worthless once they're born.

Were you suggesting that I offer this to the "National Family Caregivers Association"?  Other than that, I can't think what I'd do there.  Yo had an idea?  I wrote this because it's something I care deeply about, and I saw women getting bashed when I wrote it; it ticked me off to see intelligent, adult human beings treated like congenital idiots. 

Also, I'd like to note that, first, I volunteered; I wasn't a draftee. Both of my parents were veterans, as well as every male member of my family as far back as I can trace.  I was sworn in by my father. I likely would have been drafted, though. Still, I did not want to be killing people in their own country for reasons I didn't understand, which is why I went Hospital Corps.  Not that I'm unable to fight. In a varied life, I was a vegetarian for 12 years, but I've also hunted (I never take a shot I can't make, and I'm never out of the kill zone.  I prefer head shots rather than taking a chance on a lung and death by suffocation, and could care less about a rack - I hunt for food only).  I'm a lifelong martial artist because I hate to fight, but I like bullies even less. The more skill you have, the less damage you have to cause in defending yourself or another. I've used it for physical theray, and I like the discipline and the spiritual aspects as well, though there I follow my native American heritage mostly.

I also never went to Vietnam. They sent me to another war zone: East Oakland. :<)  I would have gone had they sent me, however.  I don't want any confusion there.  I'm a Vietnam ERA vet, not a combat veteran or even one who was in-country.  

Anyhow, thanks again for the kind words. I hope we can keep the religious right and the busybodies out of legislation here.  What little I can do, I do. 

Ian

----------


## AgentOrange

> I also see it as essentially religious. And frankly, I have come to loathe religion. 99,9% of it is no more or less than another way for a group of people to grab or claim power over other people


This seems to contradict your OP, in which you said that the "elite" are co-opting religion for their own purposes.  The abortion issue is quite separate from religion. There are many atheists/agnostics/non-religious people who are against abortion. And there are many Christians and other religious people who support abortion. You can't gauge someone's position on abortion, by their position on religion.

Incidentally, I disagree with your conclusion on abortion, but I think you stated your point quite well. It's obvious you have thought carefully about the subject.

----------


## Ian MacLeod

I do see the question of whether to trash Roe v Wade and who chooses to abort or not as the Right presents its answer as essentially religious. I read earlier where someone insists that non-religious anti-abortion type are out there in great numbers, but I don't see 'em aside from a few very young idealists.  I do agree that many religious people support it, but they aren't Rightists, who seem to be mostly about control. Granted though, the only sure indicator of someone's position on the issue is their position on the issue.

Thank you for your courtesy in reading it and granting that I have given it much thought, as well as for not trying to attach more tired-assed labels.  Just what we don't need, here and everywhere else. People learn labels and confuse the label for the thing. Always.

Take care. I don't see us meeting on this issue, but I will hope that doesn't divide countrymen and women where it counts.  And at least I see no violence, verbal or otherwise coming from it. Mature disagreement in a form of democracy.

Ian

----------


## AgentOrange

> Thank you for your courtesy in reading it and granting that I have given it much thought, as well as for not trying to attach more tired-assed labels. Just what we don't need, here and everywhere else. People learn labels and confuse the label for the thing. Always.


I agree. Many people (on both sides of this issue, as well as others) have a position but don't really know why they have that position (other than their religion, or parents, or best friends, etc. have that position.) When people start thinking through issues and listening to the other side, then they are more able to see possible compromises (and yes, I think there are compromises with the abortion issue, ones that will not make either side totally happy, but would be better for society than disenfranchising half the population by ignoring their view on the issue.)

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> I agree. Many people (on both sides of this issue, as well as others) have a position but don't really know why they have that position (other than their religion, or parents, or best friends, etc. have that position.) When people start thinking through issues and listening to the other side, then they are more able to see possible compromises (and yes, I think there are compromises with the abortion issue, ones that will not make either side totally happy, but would be better for society than disenfranchising half the population by ignoring their view on the issue.)


I can't help thinking that at basis, the Christian Right is the foundation of this argument.  In their magical universe, they feel obligated to stop everyone else's "immorality", and punish those who refuse. They also believe - and I've heard this so many times I couldn't count them - that if "sex, drugs and Rock 'n Roll" so to spea weren't so obtrusive and available, their own kids would all grow up  to be saints and never have a "nasty" thought.  Hence the whole, "If you teach them about contraception and make it available, they'll think you're telling them to go right ahead, it's okay".  

You're absolutely right, though. If even these could be convinced that the world's morality isn't their responsibility and to let it go (and that would take understanding that human are creatures who, full of hormones at puberty especially, are going to think about sex no matter what, and a certain percentage will act on those thoughts - an admission many of them have trouble with, with their "blame SOMEbody, and preferably somebody else" attitude), then real sex education and available contraception would reduce the number of abortions down to a tiny percentage of what they are now, legal or illegal. That and a humanistic set of social programs that take care of single mothers and the poor would correct the problem as well as it can be corrected, I feel.  The Cristian Right can live as they choose; it's their insistence on "Christianizing" everyone else's behavior that irks me.  

The worst problem is that the most hard Rightists see it black or white: "we win or they win," and to them that's a God or the Devil issue, an either-or situation, so of course they can't back down and let the Devil win, admitting (and again, it's the only way they can see it) that their faith in God was so inadequate that He chose to allow them to lose.  It's an intolerable indictment. 

I will hope that a more humanistic attitude does eventually prevail, but I doubt I'll be alive to see it if it ever does.

Ian

----------


## budafied

> after all the incontrovertible studies done up to this point that show without doubt that accurate sex education and easily available contraception and abortion reduces the unwanted pregnancies and abortions by up to 90%



Not that I don't believe what ou state here, but could you perhaps give some sources for this claim?

It seems from general observation without statistics that since contraception has been widely available and abortion-on-demand the law of the land, that unwanted pregnancies, especially among teenages, has utterly skyrocketed.  Just look at high schools these days...

But I'll take that statement back if you can find _a few resource_ with evidence to the contrary...

----------


## budafied

Oh, and after reading half of this 'essay,' it seems the author makes Christians out to be the equivalent to women as Hitler was to the Jews, which is utterly ridiculous.

Also, if making an argumentative essay, its probably a good idea to avoid harsh language when possible, so as to be taken more seriously....

----------


## Rael

No one has a right to do this.

----------


## tribute_13

Everyone has a choice. I can choose to kill a man but its still illegal. I have violated that man's right to live. The same argument applies no matter how old the individual is. 50 years old or 50 days old.

However, I like most "Paultards" believe that my opinion is no better than anothers. So this decision is a state-issue and not a federal issue. 

I personally am against abortion because I believe killing babies is wrong but I also believe it makes me no better to force my opinion on someone else.

----------


## AgentOrange

> No one has a right to do this.


Agree, I find it repulsive that there is any debate on that (I am personally against first trimester abortion, but I can understand the issues that lead to differing points of view on that.) There is absolutely no defense, or excuse for a late-term abortion--even if cases of the mother's life or health being at risk, there is no reason not to deliver/caesarean the baby normally and unlow it to die naturally (or live naturally!)

----------


## PaulineDisciple

If God doesn't exist, anyone has the "right" to kill anyone at anytime, as long as they have the firepower to overcome any resistence to their actions.

If God does exist, well that's another story...

----------


## budafied

> If God doesn't exist, anyone has the "right" to kill anyone at anytime, as long as they have the firepower to overcome any resistence to their actions.
> 
> If God does exist, well that's another story...


Many an argument has been made to outlaw killing without any reference to a God...

----------


## mellamojuana

Please pardon my not speaking to the issue whether there be a God.  Likewise, you'll overlook my not debating sex education, won't you?

I wish that all women/girls who become pregnant were wise, informed, responsible, supported, financially stable.  I also wish Santa Claus were POTUS.  

Because we are now completely dependent on the goodwill of neighbors, the deep treasury of the Chinese and Japanese, and the burdensome taxes we ourselves pay, how are we going to support our burgeoning, aging population, and our newborns and their parents?  

How many of us give $100.00 ea month to support a new mom and her new baby who have no one but themselves to rely on, and county departments of social services?  How many of us volunteer two hours a month to help a neighbor who is taking care of an elderly family member, or a sick one, around the clock?  Who among us is going out and advocating for help for them?  

I confess that I don't.  I have no income.  I am an around the clock caregiver for two disabled family members who receive only Medicare after a total of 140 yrs of paying income, property, food, gasoline, telephone, and sales taxes.  I can't do any more, besides my daily activism and my duties.   

I strongly encourage each one who advocates that every fetus be brought into the world regardless of whether s/he has a home, or can live without life support or institutionalization, give until it hurts to take care of him/her and mama.  I can't.  I have no money to put where my mouth might otherwise be.  Do you?  Are you giving it?  How many of the babies you are saving are you saving from a life that has a greater than average chance of including poverty, prison, violence?

Let's save them from the discomfort of being aborted.  Let's condemn them to a form of hell once they get here.  That's the godly, humanitarian, holy way, it comes across to me, unless you can adopt a goodly number of them.  I can't.

----------


## Rael

> Please pardon my not speaking to the issue whether there be a God.  Likewise, you'll overlook my not debating sex education, won't you?
> 
> I wish that all women/girls who become pregnant were wise, informed, responsible, supported, financially stable.  I also wish Santa Claus were POTUS.  
> 
> Because we are now completely dependent on the goodwill of neighbors, the deep treasury of the Chinese and Japanese, and the burdensome taxes we ourselves pay, how are we going to support our burgeoning, aging population, and our newborns and their parents?  
> 
> How many of us give $100.00 ea month to support a new mom and her new baby who have no one but themselves to rely on, and county departments of social services?  How many of us volunteer two hours a month to help a neighbor who is taking care of an elderly family member, or a sick one, around the clock?  Who among us is going out and advocating for help for them?  
> 
> I confess that I don't.  I have no income.  I am an around the clock caregiver for two disabled family members who receive only Medicare after a total of 140 yrs of paying income, property, food, gasoline, telephone, and sales taxes.  I can't do any more, besides my daily activism and my duties.   
> ...


God is not the issue. The issue is the right of an individual to live, and this right is not affected by irrelevant matters such as who else in the world is or is not doing something to save babies.

It's not your place to decide that that a child's life might be "hell" and therefore it is better that the child be aborted, because a) you have no way of knowing what the child's life my be like, and b) even if you did, you have no legitimate authority over his life  one way or the other.

I know in my heart that what happened in those pictures was WRONG. The only thing I still can't decide for myself, is the exact moment in time when a fetus becomes an individual with rights. Certainly if the fetus is viable outside the womb, IMO it has rights. But before that it gets trickier.

----------


## Conservative Christian

> Are you giving it?  How many of the babies you are saving are you saving from a life that has a greater than average chance of including poverty, prison, violence? Let's save them from the discomfort of being aborted.  Let's condemn them to a form of hell once they get here.  That's the godly, humanitarian, holy way, it comes across to me, unless you can adopt a goodly number of them.  I can't.


Ah yes, the pro-infanticide crowd never fails to invoke the old Nazi "quality of life" argument.

Why don't you go to a dirt poor third world nation and walk around offering to kill every destitute person you come across, and explain to them that you're just doing it to "put them out of their misery". Tell them it's for their "own good". 

They'd kill YOU in a quick minute. VIRTUALLY NOBODY would willingly choose to be killed, no matter how bad their conditions. 

So run along with your self-righteous, phony "humanitarianism".


.

----------


## hadenough

> Ah yes, the pro-infanticide crowd never fails to invoke the old Nazi "quality of life" argument.
> 
> Why don't you go to a dirt poor third world nation and walk around offering to kill every destitute person you come across, and explain to them that you're just doing it to "put them out of their misery". Tell them it's for their "own good". 
> 
> They'd kill YOU in a quick minute. VIRTUALLY NOBODY would willingly choose to be killed, no matter how bad their conditions. 
> 
> So run along with your self-righteous, phony "humanitarianism".
> 
> 
> .



 +1

----------


## mellamojuana

Judge not, my holy friends who compartmentalize, label, judge, and project onto me.

Can you not "talk" without put-downs?  Well, Jesus spoke harshly and called people names sometimes, too, as you recall well, so it is appropriate for his followers to speak disrespectfully.  

A Dios'

----------


## Ian MacLeod

> Not that I don't believe what ou state here, but could you perhaps give some sources for this claim?
> 
> It seems from general observation without statistics that since contraception has been widely available and abortion-on-demand the law of the land, that unwanted pregnancies, especially among teenagers, has utterly skyrocketed.  Just look at high schools these days...
> 
> But I'll take that statement back if you can find _a few resource_ with evidence to the contrary...


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/1...ayout#comments

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...703682_2.html?

The article itself is a good summary. This isn't the only thing that confirms what I've said; just the only one I can remember how to find offhand.

Ian

----------

