Abortion is a tough subject to debate because of the emotionalism connected with it and the various scientific positions associated with it. When does life begin? When do we become people? No one seems to know, but when it comes to abortion there seems to be plenty of PRO and CON arguments to go around.

Is it simply a woman prerogative? As with everything-it depends upon the circumstances. Is it a violation of the father' rights? Again, it depends. The one thing that I am sure of is that when all is said and done, the decision still rests with the woman and it is that woman who carries the burden.

Once the realm of ethics is opened, the issue becomes a cacophony of useless noise where competing sides seek shrill value from misleading and sometimes vicious advertising. Once church groups become involved the waters surrounding the issue become so muddy that the real issues are lost in the swirl of mud clouding the ponds of debate.

The issues are very clear and simple. Is forcing a woman to bring an unwanted child into a world that will largely forget about them once that goal has been achieved moral or ethical? Alternatively, is terminating a fetus a method of improper birth control that takes away a human life?

Whatever, the answer may be, I am totally against abortion being a political issue. Should it be a social issue? I believe it to be so and for several reasons and among them are that too many people use abortion as a form of birth control, which in the age of contraception I believe to be inexcusable. Furthermore, it points out a failure of self-control and lack of acceptance of responsibility to ever reach that point, but before any pro-lifers start to cheer, I also find their position just as untenable.

As long as there are babies who don't have homes, who can't be adopted because of their ethnicity, who people refuse to pay for as part of the "anti-welfare" movement then they are no better than the "killers" they despise, except they hide behind Pro-life banners of goodness, while letting innocent babies die after the fact because they won't adopt them, pay for them or care for them in any way because now it is a "welfare" problem.

Pro-life proponents can't have it both ways. If they demand that women carry a fetus until term, then they must be ready to provide care in whatever form is necessary. If you just walk away satisfied that another life has been saved then they are even worse than their opponents are because they are capitalistic hypocrites. They want children to live as long as it puts no financial burden on them.

Both groups share an equal shortsightedness. For the pro-abortion forces, they spend far too much time advocating the acceptance of abortion and not enough time promoting contraception. I would not expect this camp to be into adoption or welfare, but I would expect them to be in for promoting responsibility.

The word abortion raises hackles in nearly every culture than hears the term, but it is hardly new. In fact, it is as old as time itself as human beings for a variety of reasons have used abortion to stop family growth, to avoid having another mouth to feed or even because it was inconvenient. Those abortions had no face in that they were fetuses.

However, children as young as one month old have been drowned, burned and smashed against rocks just as long. Even the Bible records such inhumanity as smashing babies against rocks. Today, in third world countries, girl children are expendable. They are routinely killed in other cultures.

What does this have to do with anything? Simple! It is called responsibility. Until both men and women take responsibility for contraception and sex safe, then abortion represents a failure of character in the American fabric and portends to moral ambivalence. Also, until our orphanages are cleared of all its children, when there are no starving children on the streets of the richest country in the world, when their are no abandoned children and when all children are entitled to equal treatment, then the protests of the anti-abortionists will be as hollow as their hearts.

We eliminate the need, we eliminate the problem.


Amun-Ra

:confused:

You nailed this one. Responsibility is key. As for male rights, you have touched a subject that few are willing to discuss. Many feel that a man has no say, but men are stepping forward and saying that isn't the case. Because it is the woman's body does that make the final decisin hers or just the final action? I'd like to hear some responses on how men and women view this issue.

Ra

:cool:

it is truly unfortunate, the society we live in. a land where children have sex just to prove they can accomplish something, then in turn want to run away from the responsibility of their actions which proves they are immature and irresponsible. i have thought about and been a friend to abortion throughout my youth. to that end i know that in some way my soul is marked for having beared witness to convenience killing. now i will say that in the cases of rape and incest abortion is a necessary evil, for who can say its proper to inflict further emotional damage to an already unwilling participant. however, after all i have seen i must say that abortion as a method of birth control due to irresponsiblity should be eliminated. to that same degree i feel that this country should take a more serious approach towards sex and sexual activity. we have to get it out of that dark, distant closet. build a perspective where children are responsible for their own sake. a society where they want to succeed more than plant seeds.

It is an escape from responsibility--however, failure to adopt children, pay welfare costs and support mothers is also another form of abortion as it aborts a childs chances once it has been born--for the pro-lifer the issue is over once the child is born, but it is just beginning for that child and the mother. To abandon either is cruel and sometimes fatal.

Ra

:)

a person should have a right to do what they want

cause these people who scream about abortion sure ain't taking care of none of the babies I see the hood and PJ's

so if you're against abortion

then be the first to adopt someone from a foster home

so either way it's an individual decision

cause the rest of society doesn't take care of the rest of society

UNLESS

it is an epidemic of a different color

I am cutting neither side any slack on this issue. Until all the babies in the orphanages and adoption sites are with families I will continue to berate the Pro-lifers. Until, we take care of these abandoned children, helpless mothers, and below poverty level families, I will continue to see Pro-lifers as weak-kneed, sunshine warriors who are unwilling to follow through on the problem they help to create. If life is that precious to them, then they should be willing to pay for its continuance--plain and simple. If you force a woman to have an unwanted child, then you must in part become responsible for that child or you become the despot who rules while their people starve and die.

But, I will not let abortion rights slide either. Abortion seems a last resort, but it appears that for many it is a first resort and this smacks of irresponsibility. Birth control methods are too readily available for such a number of abortions to be necessary. No, it is a lack of character and laziness that keeps the clinics going. I don't like either side because one is short-sighted and the other is irresponsible.

Ra

:uzi:

I'll start off first by attempting to answer your questions, from my perspective...

when does life begin, on a spiritual level - way before we know it.

physically, the one and only time i was pregnant, i could tell that my body was going through some changes. very early on, a heartbeat was detected. at about 6 weeks, i realized i was pregnant. so by the time a pregnancy is detected, i would say life has already begun. so my answer would have to be from the time of conception.

i am prochoice. however, i can not conceive me ever having an abortion, some circumstances withstanding.

i also believe that women do have the ultimate choice of to abort or not to abort. i also think that the man should have a say in the matter but it if goes against her beliefs then it is his responsibility also.

If a man doesn't want children, he too, should take precautions. not to look as an abortion as the answer to his "problem".

Now days, they have a abortion pill. I think this too, is too easy a convenience. we all need to take precautions to prevent, unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

We should also make sure that our sons (and keep in mind, i have one) should also know what's a stake when engaging in intercourse. it takes to "tangle".

No one seems to want to take on the other side--those who demand that abortion be stopped but are unwilling to step to the forefront other than to prevent an abortion--where are the thoughts on these people who demand that abortion be stopped but haven't adopted any children, who are against welfare, who deny aid to inner city mothers, who don't give a **** other than they stopped an abortion--to me they are hypocrites in that they espouse human life and fail to help those who are all ready here.

Ra

:mad:

The right to do what ever we want is no anarchy, and even in the event it were, would that not be the most democratic we ever were?

People should have the right to do with their bodies as the will. If abortions is birth control, so what business of that of your's, it is not your body or your baby.
The right to...
is constantly being taken away from us. You religious types can not answer to God for the sins of anyone, so you can really stop tripping.

There is an issue with men's prenatal choices when it comes to birth control, and men should have some rights, but nothing that could make a woman have a child she does not want.

How far anyone may go is largely determined by themselves and society. Society sets the limits as to what is and is not acceptable behavior. An anarchist is usually an anarchist of one any more than that and they are revolutionaries. Still, does a woman have the right to an abortion if that is what she wants? Does the father have any rights at all. And WHAT ABOUT THOSE who are prolife but against welfare, social help programs and who do not have adopted children?

Somebody address this issue. It it fairly easy to say that we are against abortion because it has some community acceptance behind it, but what about the CHILDREN? Who cares for these children. Somebody address that issue. Once they are here, they can't be sent back nor aborted. WHAT DO WE do with them? Who takes care of them. Who provides for the mothers and children? Is abortion wrong? Let's not ***** foot around this, let's stake out our territory.

No one want to touch this? Is this too hot?

Ra

:devil:

This past week, I saw a newsmagazine story about a man who is sueing the mother who is daughter. He says they had a oral agreement for her not to get pregnant. He solely expected her to prevent a pregnancy. Well, she got pregnant. He says on purpose.

There are some details, but in the end he is now trying to get full custody of their daughter.

First he didn't want her, had asked the mother to marry him, she decline because she didn't feel he was sincere and geniunely interested in marrying her. Now he wants full custody (so he doesnt have to pay child support) and also wants to FIND a woman to marry him so that he will have a "real" family. He noted that he had no woman, but would find one to marry him. :rolleyes:


I do have a problem is prolifers. They bomb abortion clinics, have killed doctors who perform them, but at the same time, they are opposed to birth control being taught and distributed to teens. "just say no" isn't working...

In addition to birth control, health issues, and sexual relationed diseases being discuss, people who rather blame, then to help prevent...

and yes, who will take care of the children that have force or intimidated women into having. Using religion and guilt and promises to again pressure the woman in her already delicate state. Mental and physical vulnerability.

Kemetstry, the man admitted to not wanting the child, not wanting to pay child support, and not having a wife or SO that will help him raise that child. the Child he didn't want.

and the stats for single fathers, that **** doesnt' amount to anything, because there are enough to even compare.

There are go again, putting the blame on the woman. For some reason, you think when the man wants to end the relationship, that relieves him of his parental duties and responsibilities.

and abortion ravages the body and can also affect a woman mental state. so to think that this is just an easy decision and way to not be a parent, is ignorance. I know people who still think about the babies that were aborted. I know the pain felt from men and women.

I am certainly biased, but I have never believed that women make better parents than men. Some women might make better parents and some men might make better parents, but I have never thought anyone had a lock on parenting. I have known some terrible mothers and fathers as you probably have also and they should never had been allowed to have kids. Unfortunately, anyone can have children. There is no license required, no training, no minimum standards and certainly no certification of parent ability. In a country that seems obsessed with credentials, it would seem we would require a little more.

However, since sex is usually a private thing, we only find out about it after the fact. That is unfortunate, but not insurmountable. I am for the best parent if the parents are separated and I am for equal visitation when they are comlimentary.

I believe it is a woman's right to control her body within the limitatins that it doesn't cross over a father's rights and even then, I think it is still her call. She must make the decision, she must live with that decision and she must be the final decision maker.

However, I still haven't gotten a reply on my comments on the pro-life group. I'd like to know where we stand on that issue.

Ra

:cool:

Ra,

I was gonna leave this one alone bacause you know me...I'm one of those "relgious types" as referred to earlier. What have read so far is offering some valid points but i must digress to the issue at hand. I unde4stand your frustration and that is that the real issue in question is about what to do with the children that are brought into this world after PRO-choice activist have legislatured for it. Well, i hope to address this for you...

The unfrotunate state of society is that it is a mixed bag of ethics, opinions and "fruitless" laws designed to keep everyone under the microscope. There are many groups, such as PRO choice, whose sole purpose is to give us the freedom to choose but they neglect to address the issue of consequences of such actions. While i believe that abstinance until marriage or 100% commitment to safe sex would surely reduce the numbers in the statistics i know that is a "religious folks" type thinking. The realtiy is that neither circumstance will occur today so we must find ways to prevent "prentless" children from coming into this world. We see the poster telling us how much of our lives is needed toraise a child and yet these indeal are ignored as easy as the posters for gun safety. It seems to me that more people are strapping on their seatbelts in cars and yet won't strap on a condom in bed. Both can result in tragedy so why not go through it the same way? just a thought...

Anyway, the PRO choice activist must first understand that children who are brought into this world by choice usually is the result of one person's decisions: the mothers. There are plenty of children who don't know their fathers simply because the fathers doesn't know they have a child. If we are to be prochoice we must find know what the parameters are for the decision. If you are in an economic situation that elminates your chances of survival than why bring a child into this world to face the same reality? Why have it and then leave it victim to the welfare system, the foster care system and the adoption system? I simply feel that PRO-choice should be Pro-protection or possibly PRO-abstiance in order avoid the battle between pro choice and life. Muredr is murder whether it is doen in the womb or on the streets. We have gone from the Pharasidic order of "kill the first born males to the democrastic rule of "kill em if you don't want em." I am not pro-choice or pro-life for that will categorize me. I simply feel that the decision should be made before it occurs. One word: Abstinance...

Now for those who think i'm coming from a religious viewpoint let me make this clear...When you lay donw with someone are you checking whether they are Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish? I do't think so, therefore, the decision to lay down with someone; to fill a desire should be done with the realization that this one night event will have consequences...

Ra, basically both sides should put more effort if finding ways of providing for the children instead of blowing up abortion clinics. What point does it prove to kill the mother and the child and your are proflie? That sounds like and oxymoron to me...

Absolutely! D There are consequences and that is the one thing both sides need to examine a little closer. Religion--you know where I stand there, but I don't think we even have to mention it simply because being responsible doesn't take religion--it takes character. You are so right about much of what you said. Both sides need to look a little deeper and instead of fighting in front of abortion clinics or blowing them up, perhaps, they could find a way that we wouldn't need them or orphanges. That is the sad thing. In the age of science and in one of the greatest civilizations man has yet produced we can't solve this problem that has been with us for centuries. Are we that unevolved or are just that selfish? I'm not sure I really want to know the answer to that. Thanks for jumping into the fray. I always believe there is "common ground" that will keep us off the "battle ground." (Jesse ain't the only one who can do it)

Ra

;)

thank you for the question...although i stand om my belief system i understand that when dealing with ethical, politcal and moral issues we cannot be blinded by the premise of scripture. i don't believe in "bible beating" on someone becuase they don't belive what i do. Knowledge comes from learing and learning comes from listening. My ears are open to all voices and i will always speak...

common ground is well founded here my friend. I honor you and Kemetstry for opening the flood gates to wisdom...

I have to go along with you there--I believe that a person's behavior is th ebest advertisement for their belief system. Just as you try not to Bible bang, I try not Bible bash. Common sense works well if a person realizes there is succh a thing.

Ra

You judge yourself too harshly. However, if anyone has the right to judge it is you. There are far too many people who throw stones and then hide their hand pretending they are without sin. I cannot judge you and I will not judge you not should anyone else. I don't the circumstances and neither does anyone esle except you and the father.

Life is difficult at times and if you don't believe it--just keep living.

Ra

sigh!

these topics sadden my heart. i understand Ra's question of "what about the children", and indeed it is a subject worth noting. i cannot come down on pro-lifers anymore than i can pro-choice, both sides bring disatrous consequences to the table. at best abortion is the by product of an arrogant necessity to control existence. in essence we have to look at what is accomplished by abortion and what is not. is it really in our best interest to end a life before it has the chance to make its mark in the world? or, is it better to bring that unwanted child into the world where its mentality gets shaped by the dysfunctional systems of society? or, is it in our minds to teach the principals of patience, self respect and responsibility, where abortion is not even a topic except in the cases of incest and rape? i often wonder if mankind is capable of that kind of responsiblilty, or are we too bust being distracted?

What to say...What to say?... These are very interesting views...data..info..experiences...life lesson...I'm listening.... Dnommo you made very valid points..I agree with you 100%...you are from a bias person...Amun-Ra...i would say the same goes for you also. These are some interesting notes here i really must say...

So...what about those Nicks...or shall I say the Kids. If we could stop feeding other countries kids are starting taking care of our own...Hmmm. You see...I look at things like this....Our government..Our democratic/Republican society is the start of this all this. I think personally we need to get our heads out of the gutter. We can do jack about our use to be's...those are only memories...Lets talk about now.

In our Government we spend millions of dollars in different parts of Africa and Saudia Aribia and other places taking care of those who are sick and dying and keeping and preventing those from diseases...where as here we have thousands of diseases that we die from everyday. Our society is not safe...At all..thier is not safe place. Most people with opinions and directions and lectures thrive off of their religious beliefs...the old days and the old ways. The fact remains that this is now...not yesterday.

It is a womans choice to abort her child..I totally agree with and unless other wise no man will change my mind. The only way you have a say so is if you are my husband or we sign a contract saying...Once the childs is born...I will take on all responsibilties for that child..and i seriously do been that. Otherwise...don't bother me with your opinion. Because i have to carry it for nine months...i have to deal with restless sleeps and back aches while i try to work to take care of that child...I have to make sure my child is guarded with care when I'm not their and pay the money to do so..I have to be the one to tell that child when it asks about his/her father why they chose not to be their. And so on and so on. For those who have kids man or woman knows the responsibilties entitled to it. And its not just a financial thing....

Prolifers...who cares...we have issues that will stand as long as the government stands... That's just those peoples opinion making it their business to take someone else life in their hands because they feel its the right thing to do. And well..ain't jack we can do about that. Let them voice their opinion. I don't care...because we all know they aren't the ones taking care of those kids that live or any kids that they have saved before then.

As for me..I stand neutral..in this whole thought process of things...When i was younger and was exposed to unwanted sex I dreaded the thought of child..the shame that i was place upon myself...And thank the Lord for blessing me..but i knew that if that occurred i was going straight to the clinic...No questions asked. When i moved away...I accepted responsibility for my own actions and i would not abort a child. I felt awful the day a friend of mine was short on money in getting her abortion and i gave her the money. I felt so bad knowing that I promoted to something that i didn't agree to...but also knew that it was her life and if that was she felt she needed to do then so be it. I just wish it wasn't me she had came to. And i still do whenever i think about it. But she must repent her sins in her own way.

Anyways...as my views...or society in plumeting towards destruction and everyone wants to know how to fix issues that have accumulated over years. When the truth is a reason why so much have not been resolved is because no one sticks together... no one truly has a good cause and well the government doesn't give a **** either way...obviously. I don't know...my opinion probably isn't all that crucial. Child bearing isn't really my cup-a-tea.

PS...and as for the man on the news...Thandiwe was talking about. Sounds like dude got personal issues to me. Cause first he don't want then he wants custody. That girl would not be a mother if she gives that child to him for with no love...She is subjected to anything that her father throws at her and gods knows what that would be.... She needs to keep her child right with her and let him find a woman to marry to bear him another child. Better safe than sorry. Because that story...just opened a book to a baby girls life stuck to a father who didn't want her now using her to his own advantage. If the courts rule in his favor...Their will just be another door opened to knew issues in another childs life...brought up in something they didn't ask for in the first place. Maybe people themselves need to start thinking about what they say and do. And how that affects other peoples lives...

And as for single fathers...More power to them...if they can handle their own and do like a man suppose to do in raising their kids i'm not knocking because if me and my husband or boyfriend had kid predominantly a boy when he gets a certain age...I would probably send him with his father to raise him. Cause i can't truly teach a man to be man....

Those are my views and I'm out!!!!
;)

You have most eloquently stated every side of this argument and I agree with each and every word. The woman should be allowed to make the final decision and for me I decided long ago that the only person that I could make the pro choice or anti choice decision for was me and if I am the responsible party I want my child born if conceived. I once worked with an extreme pro-life women and I explained to here that if she really believed the rhetoric she was spouting that she could and should save a life directly. As a member of the more privileged society here in America she was unfamiliar with the lack of hope that drives many of the less fortunate societies to choose abortion. I explained that I could guaranty a saved life for the small fee of two thousand dollars or less by becoming directly involved in the life of someone who needed a little assistance. As I expected she found her moral position a lot easier to maintain from a distance and was unwilling to consider any real efforts to save a life. She never said another word about subject.

And that should say a lot in itself....

while we are not bound by the sins of others we will have to account for sins of ommision and TO ME to not mention to someone that taking a life is wrong is an sin of ommission.....i find it interesting that for the longest time men ran this whole birth control thing, ie. the right to use a woman's body as they please...so now that women have a say and in most cases a final say there is hysteria. I have to say that it is a responsibility issue but as no one wants to be his brother's keeper, his brother's babysitter, or his brother's conscience there will continue to be a tug of war on this issue.

I certainly agree with you as far as the lack of responsibility is concerned. However, trying to paint this in pure black and white avoids the problem which is that it is happening at all and will continue happen. Cultures and thoughts on the issue are different and advising someone in any fashion other than as it relates to how it immediately affect their life is largely a superfluous exercise as few are concerned about their souls when they are carrying this type of burden.

The United States, as a self professed Christian country, has a strange ability to put soulful concerns on hold as most do not expect to die within the next second, minute, hour, day or even year and think there is plenty of time to "get right." This is just an observed behavior, but I feel there is much truth in the old saying that "everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die." and that people will putoff until tomorrow what they think can wait.

Pretty pessimistic, huh, but I have been a student of human behavior too long and have observed how we act as compared to what we say and the difference between the two is as stark as night and day.

Ra :)

I'm no psych major but I'm pretty good at reading people and my environments and you are definitely right about all that you just said....

I worry for all--it is a bad habit--Ra

:cool:

For the sake of brevity, I have only this to state: Thou shalt not kill [murder]. Anything else is an arrogant affront to divine will. We may massage our intellect and selfish desires with all sorts of lies and rationales. Life begins at the moment of conception. Life is a gift from God, not to be squandered or snuffed out simply because it inconveniences us.
Next - fornication [i.e. - sexual activity between unmarried man and woman is clearly something to be avoided. Paul says:"Flee fornication"
I am not quite ready to concede that we as thinking human beings are so weak and animalistic as not to be able to control our urges to reproduce. The enjoyment attached to sexual activity was designed, I think, as cement for a married relationship..a bonus for the task of child-rearing and all the woes it may bring.
The order of events have never changed as they were designed by our Creator. Marriage - living in the plain sight of God as a couple, then procreation. Because we are sinful by nature and prone to do wrong, does not make that wrong, right.

Unfortunately, welive in a random world which is suffers at the whims of nature and man alike. Were it so simple as black and white. Situational ethics demand that we investigate the realm of gray and understand that what is right in one situation may not be right in another situation, to wit, is what the United States is doing in Afghanistan murder or war? By the same token, is what happened at the WTC murder or war? God cannot play both sides of the fence.

Is it right for me to save my own life by taking anothers who is threatening mine? Is it right to take anothers life to save a loved one? Is war the same as murder?

As much as we would like to have an orderly world, the plain fact is there is nothing orderly about this world nor the people in it. As much as you may justify what you believe in the name of your God, there is another who justifies the opposite and perhaps is even a member of the same belief system. Which one of you is right and which is wrong? It's open to interpretation--man's interpretation and therein lies the rub.

It is all determined by what we are taught, who teaches us and how we understand it--from the in the final accounting it is all only opinion for as surely as I don't know the answer and I know that neither does anyone else.

Still it is tempting to see the wolrd as right and wrong without an in between, but few things are so cut and dried. There are always variations, permutations and the unexplained.

Ra

:x:

Of course this discussion is based on one's faith and convictions. When the intellect fails us, that is all we have left. Simply because some wish to jump off the Golden Gate bridge does not prompt me to follow such lead. When our existence becomes so complicated as to require tedious rationale and tortuous intellectual exercise, we are already on a dead end street. I prefer to turn to the original book of directions. Though not perfect, we can strive to approach perfection. It is a cop out to simply yield to the most expedient or succumb to that which feels good..i.e. epicurian philosophy.
To kill in self defense is, of course, permissible when the offending person is a stranger and you our your family are threatened. Vengence, however, is not a human option. To defend our country from any act of war..such as terrorism..is a just duty of our country in a secular sense. There are just laws and just punishments for infractions. Jesus , himself, was careful to live in accordance with the Roman laws of His day. There is no rational excuse for the horror of Sept 11 in Islam or Christianity. War is not the answer; reasonalbe men should sit together and reach a compromise. Of course, the history of the world shows that has been quite unsuccessful.
Some have suggested that US policy toward Arab states has been oppressive. I wonder. We pay a pretty penny for oil. We even trained Osama bin Laden.
At any rate, our responsibility as individual creations lies in aligning our own spirit and soul with the commands and teachings of our Creator. He is great enough to solve all these problems...in fact...this may be a warning shot to those who would take heed.

Intellect is the only thing we have to guide us. Killing is killing no matter how you paint it. The terrorists who attacked the United States were doing the absolutely right thing in their minds--attacking the enemy in self-defense of what they consider colonialism by the United States among other things. We in turn will retaliate--in self-defense--and there will be more killing and we are doing absolutely the right thing in our minds.

Is capital punishment murder, justice or revenge? Killing is killing and once we start putting specifications on it such as self-defense, then we are already begging the question. Either it is wrong always or right always. The Bible is unequivocal on that point as far as the commandments are concerned--Thou shalt not kill. It makes no mention of self-protection, war, capital punishment or a host of other things. Thou shalt not kill, period.

Life doesn't work that way. Situational ethics will always need to be applied in the pursuit of justice and even mercy and to try to escape that reality is irresponsible for in the end it is man who must solve the problems that man creates.

By indicating that God will eventually solve the problem, implies that God has the power to do so and by reverse implication it says that God also had the power to prevent such an occurrence in the first place, which didn’t happen and implies that perhaps, God isn’t all-powerful. It could imply that God didn’t know it was going to happen, but that would make God non-omniscient. So, if God did know, why did it happen? Punishment from an omni-benevolent God? Then this makes God seem to be mean and petty, punishing pregnant women, fathers, mothers, children and their grieving families to make a point seems very unloving. So, perhaps God is vengeful as it says in the Bible.

No, this is a problem that has it roots in being human and it is human beings that will solve the problem. Divine intervention would be a comforting thought, but one has seriously question if that is plausible. Does God choose sides? And, if God does choose sides, which side are we on? The terrorists believed they were acting in accordance with God’s will. Suppose they are right?

Humans got us into to this and it is humans who will get us out, in the here and now without waiting, hoping, wishing or sitting about doing nothing. As much as God has been invoked during these trying times, I truly believe that we need to look a little closer to home to solve these problems, pick up our hammers and make the world a better place to live in for all people.

Amun-Ra


;)

personally I don't believe it can be said categorically that abortion is right or that abortion is wrong...that is too clear cut...too black and white..

there are so many other factors that influence people to make the decision as to whether they have an abortion or not..

I, personally, would never do it, no matter what my circumstances..I have three children and was pregnant a fourth time, having a miscarraige at 14 weeks..this is a very painful, soul-searching time for a woman to go through..and I would imagine it would be no different than having an abortion and later wondering, as Cindy stated earlier, was what happened to her..

from the moment a woman is aware that she is pregnant, something changes, these are not just physical changes, they are mental and emotional as well...so the decision to abort a baby must be one that no woman can make lightly or for the wrong reasons..

among all the points discussed here as to whether the women has the final say, because it is her body, no-one has bought the issue of love into it...if two people love each other, or respect each other, but are not sure they are ready to be parents, then I think the desicion must be one that is discussed by both sides..I do feel that the man has the right, as well as the woman, to make a decision.. I guess ultimately, because the woman is carrying the child in her body, she will have the final say as it were..and may go against her partners wishes...

from my point of view, I think this is not a political, religious, or even social issue...it is purely a personal issue..although the unwanted babies that result from these pregnancies are a social issue...

I am not against abortion or for it...I stand on neutral ground, because I think it is a personal issue that can only be dealt with by those involved...if a woman does have an abortion, she does so for her own reasons and is under no obligation to justify her actions..if she chooses not to, again she has her own reasons and is not under obligation to justify her actions...

The mention of love complicates the matter even further. Making a choice to have an abortion has to be a Solomon like task for there are benefits and consequences that will follow no matter what decision is made. However, a loving partner surely complicates the matter for now the issue of a father's right becomes involved which could be either pro or con regarding abortion.

Can a man demand that a woman have a baby that she doesn't want? Similarly, can a man demand that a woman terminate a pregnancy simply because he doesn't want a child? These are not trivial questions and its difficulty is compounded when considering a woman's role in the matter as the final determinant.

Looking to religion for a black and whit answer does not provide guidance or wisdom for a real world problem, although the old testament doesn't back off when it comes to bashing babies against the rocks and cutting the unborn from their mothers wombs which was all approved by God. The Bible is filled with too many contradictions to be of much use in such a situation although it might provide some psychological comfort for those caught under this burden.

Saying that it is right or wrong begs the question. The birth of a child is a real event and has implications. As much as Americans like to blame teenagers for a variety of social ills, in reality we find that when we point a finger that at least three of them are pointing back at us and that’s because in reality—adults are the source of many of our problems. For instance, 80 percent of the children born out of wedlock are born to women over 20 years old, with almost half born to mothers between 20 and 29. The same statistics hold true for abortion with less than 20 percent going to females under 20 years old. Even the rate of sexually transmitted disease is significantly higher among adults.

Forcing a woman to have a child has major socio-economic impact to us all. For the rich, who have always had access to abortion, the burden is the same, but is alleviated somewhat by having financial stability. This is not the case with most abortion seekers.

I am going to take a shot at pro-lifers not because of their beliefs, but because of their other stances concerning welfare and other social programs, which a majority is strongly against. It is just as sinful to demand that a child be brought into this world and then refuse to pay for it. Having the baby is the just the beginning.

A child must be clothed, fed and nurtured. It must be educated and have medical care. It must have a chance to rise above adversity. It must access to some of the same things all Americans take for granted including quality of life.

To block abortions and complain of welfare, ignore orphanages with children seeking to be adopted, adopting children from overseas and falling back on religion as a crutch for protection of what they do is hypocritical and transparent. I will finally let this go when the American public decides that if it wants to build lives that there is a cost that comes with it.

Has this solved anything? No. Sides will be chosen and the fight will continue. Meanwhile, more children will be born to a portion of society that can least afford to have them and society will continue to say, "we don't want to pay for them."

Ra


:heart:

you raised two very good questions when you asked..
"Can a man demand that a woman have a baby that she doesn't want?"..."Similarly, can a man demand that a woman terminate a pregnancy simply because he doesn't want a child?"..

and I'm guessing the answer to both questions would be no..correct me if I'm wrong, but an abortion, is not recomended after 12 weeks unless there is a medical reason for having one..so, how does this give the men any rights in the final decision if the woman chooses to make a different decision...

to have any say he has to be able to prove that he is the father..if a woman chooses to get an abortion against her partners wishes, how is he supposed to prove, in that space of time that he is the father....and if the woman is single, does he have the right to have a say in what happens if she wants to have the baby?....even though he may have to support that baby when it is born...

I guess this is where the legalities of the situation come into play..
to me though, it does not seem fair for a man to try and force a woman into having an abortion...but I do think if the woman is armed with the knowledge that he does not want the child and she does, then I think the responsibility of raising the child should fall into her lap...and on the other hand, if a woman is not ready to have a child and accept the responsibilities that go with that, a man should not try and force her to go ahead with the pregnancy..because ultimately, it will be the child who will suffer..
because giving birth to a child is the easy part...being a parent is a lifelong commitment...not a part time position...

This, like so many other problems has become a burden on society, because society allows it to be...whatever happened to the idea of looking after your own house first...

even though I am a woman...I do not think it is fair for women to have children, knowing that their partner is against it and then expecting society, or honest, hardworking people to pay taxes to support them...this is why I say it is a decision that should never be made lightly or for the wrong reasons..it is not a simple case of yes or no..and there is no easy answer..

K

As usual this a well thought out and non emotional response and I couldn't agree more. There are so many things to consider legally, ethically, morally and humanly. It is not clear cut as many would have us believe and it is not an easy decision orat least it shouldn't be because the consequences of whichever action remains with us until we die.

I guess the big thing that really chaps my *** is when I think about all the children in this world who need homes, love and a family and go ignored, while another group who claims to care about life and tries to stop abortion doesn't seem to see the incongruity of not caring for the children who are here right now in the United States. Children who need homes, children who are abused, children who don't get enough to eat, children who will go on to become social problems, children who will become nonproductive adults and bleed the system and finally children who will never know the love of family. Where the hell are they for these children who are born and need help now?

They go home when the protest is over satisfied that they have prevented another abortion. They sleep comfortably with the famlies and don't hear the cry of the children who live in the streets, homeless shelters, orphangaes and adoption agencies. No, they go home happy not seeing the hypocrisy of their ways.

I will leave this by taking a shot at those who use abortion as a form of birth control. It should never reach this point. Once upon a time the only reliable protection against pregnancy was a condom. However, there are pills, implants sponges and more to avoid preganancy today. They can even be obtained for free! There is no excuse except laziness. Obviously, there can be extenuating circumstances, but barring those, there is no excuse.

Ra

:cuss:

In previous posts, there still appears a tendency to control our own destiny through intellectual efforts alone...as if we have such control. All through time, mankind has tried to fashion God in his own image...or go through man's conception of rational thought and attempt to presume that God's process must be similar.

We must remember that God doesn't need us;we need him. The Old Testament serves many purposes for the true believer and it is paradoxically confusing to the non-believer. The magical catalyst is faith. One must first believe. If there is no belief, there is no reconciliation of the concepts to our daily lives.

To discard any belief system on the grounds that it seems 'contradictory' or 'cruel' misses the mark. We all have the freedom of choice - freedom to believe or not to believe. But that does not make the resulting position a correct one in God's view.

If one were to sum up the entire purpose of the Old Testament, one might conclude that all the accounts and prophecies and tribulations point to the necessity of a Messiah in order to save all of mankind - believers or non-believers. It 'convicts' us of our sinfulness. It further shows our inability to live within the laws of Moses. Man is inherently sinful, in rebellion.

As you say, man tries to fashion God is his own image and that is because his own words say that man was fashioned in God's image, and it would appear that the reverse is also true. Early man relied on Gods to explain what science now makes easily known. Are we in control of our own destiny? Of course, it is only as much as any man or woman can be when outside forces may change our fates at any minute, as was the case when those at the WTC went to work that fateful Tuesday morning. They were in control of their fate. Unfortunately, some one else ended up taking control of that and changed everything. I don't think God had anything to do with such unspeakable carnage.

To claim that we have no understanding of God's way is to make a circle argument, for it is the same as trying to prove there is a god as trying to prove there isn't--No one and I repeat no one--can answer that question and without proof it is a moot point. The fact of the matter is that people created the disaster of September 11. It is common ploy to say that man doesn't understand God, that he works in mysterious ways, which is akin to saying that since you don't know me, that I would make the claim that my skin has purple polka dots. Without seeing me you have no way of knowing that this isn't true even though common experience says that it isn't without actually seeing me you cannot say that it is not so.

You say that God doesn't need us to need him and I say that it is just the contrary. Without man, there is no God. God needs us to exist or he disappears into nothingness, just as the Mighty Zeus, Isis, Osiris, and Odin disappeared when man no longer had use for them.

The magical catalyst may be faith for many people which amounts to nothing more than a fervent wish that what they believe is true. Having faith is what led the terrorists to Manhattan. They fervently believed or had faith that their cause was just and right. To reconcile for anything to our daily life only takes an understanding that we are alive for only a finite amount of time and that if we intend to enjoy any of this life, we must do it while we are here. As of yet, no one has come back to tell us of any other life and please don't tell me Jesus, because he is but one in along line of virgin births, crucifixions and resurrections. He comes in about 24th on the list of resurrected Messiahs.

There is no explaining away the cruelty, contradictions and incongruities in the Bible. They are there and they are real. Christian apologists have been trying to make them go away since the church was founded in Roman times, but they haven't had any luck.

Man is not inherently sinful. Man is inherently man. If God put this creation into fact, then it is also God that bears the responsibility for creating an imperfection which an all perfect God would be incapable of doing and therefore man is perfect, otherwise God is imperfect seeing that man is created in his image.

As to whether or not there is a God, I have no idea and I have no way of proving or disproving that statement and I am of the general opinion that it doesn't really matter as long as one lives well, does no harm to others and helps when able--to me that is the highest calling of man.

Amun-Ra


;)

I can understand the reasoning of Ra in the context of his belief system. We all crave some tangible, concrete evidence - the kind that holds up under rigid analytic scrutiny. There is still the possibility that his position might change. None of the benefits of Christianity an be achieved in the absence of faith. One must first believe. One has choice. I choose Christ.

You have to belive within in your own comfort zone and patterns or else it is for naught--you have made it clear where you stand and I applaud your faith and grace--this is not an easy subject to discuss even when we try especially when all aren't in agreement--but you've done it well and still maintained steadfast to the faith--Amun-Ra



;)

Think 1st

so now you're 4 months pregnant,
feeling all the pain?
tears stream down your face,
as if it were the rain.
you don't want the child,
and neither for anyone else to have.
so your going to have an abortion,
mother--i sure hope you're glad.
you're bringing a life into this world,
only to take it away.
why go thru all that pain,
don't you wanna hear what it has to say?
no--i guess you don't,
to live--you won't even give it a chance to try.
bcuz you'd much rather,
just see the poor thing die.
i hope you know the consequences,
and think about them for a while.
you're a proud holder of a certificate that says,
"yes--i murdered my child."
but while you're preparing for the abortion,
think about all the hurt--the baby will go thru.
you betta think twice about it,
bcuz your mother could have done the same to you..........(ALL PLZ REPLY) lilcherry76@hotmail.com:jawdrop:

. . .it is probably moot--the stone has been turned and what will be--will be--we can speculate and imagine, but that is the hbest we can do--however, we all live tomorrow with the decisions of today--I cannot foist my values onto another and neither can I make them su8ffer the same feeling I have, when they believe different things including what is right and what is wrong--Ra

:cool: