[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats Texas Flood Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ? Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia 329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive Which Countries Invest In The US The Most? The History of Barbecue ‘Pathetic’: Joe Biden tells another ‘tall tale’ during rare public appearance Lawsuit Reveals CDC Has ZERO Evidence Proving Vaccines Don't Cause Autism Trumps DOJ Reportedly Quietly Looking Into Criminal Charges Against Election Officials Volcanic Risk and Phreatic (Groundwater) eruptions at Campi Flegrei in Italy Russia Upgrades AGS-17 Automatic Grenade Launcher! They told us the chickenpox vaccine was no big deal—just a routine jab to “protect” kids from a mild childhood illness Pentagon creates new military border zone in Arizona For over 200 years neurological damage from vaccines has been noted and documented The killing of cardiologist in Gaza must be Indonesia's wake-up call Marandi: Israel Prepares Proxies for Next War with Iran? "Hitler Survived WW2 And I Brought Proof" Norman Ohler STUNS Joe Rogan CIA Finally Admits a Pyschological Warfare Agent from the Agency “Came into Contact” with Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK’s Assassination

Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Liz Michael on Abortion
Source: http://www.lizmichael.com/
URL Source: http://www.lizmichael.com/abortion.htm
Published: Aug 15, 2006
Author: Liz Michael
Post Date: 2006-08-15 16:42:59 by wakeup
Keywords: None
Views: 866
Comments: 40

I fully recognize two sets of conflicting rights on the abortion issue. I believe strenuously in the right of a woman to control her own body. And I also believe strenuously in an unborn child's right to life.

I fully reject the concept that a fetus is not a human being. A fetus is scientifically a human being because it carries the human genome, it is alive, and it possesses all necessary cells needed to mature to adulthood under natural conditions. It is not a part of the woman's body: it resides inside a woman's body. These things are made quite evident via ultrasound and photography. From the moment of conception, an embryo is scientifically a being of the human specie, and therefore a human being. To willfully engage in an act which destroys that human being, regardless of what the law is or should be, is morally, murder unless there are compelling reasons. It is the same as killing a grown person or a child in cold blood...

Click for Full Text!

Poster Comment:

I am not looking for debate but, from time to time, certain positions on issues need to be re-stated, especially when that life or death issue involves those who have no voice. I offer Liz Michael's argument because she has great credibility and respect among many I respect.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: wakeup (#0) (Edited)

I am not looking for debate

i humbly beg to differ...Liz Michael offers a trite, simplistic and utterly naive argument.

shall i post pictures of women who died attempting back street abortions? or perhaps of women who killed themselves because they were pregnant? or shall we debate the righteous fascism of some lawmakers who see the pregnant female as a sub-human who loses her rights while she hosts the growth of another person? and shall we argue the finer points of the legal nonsense where the active termination of an unborn child is equated with the murder of a human who has lived to term?

why does she stop at the point of conception with her definition of viable life comprising the human genome (sperm and ova don't???) and "all necessary cells needed to mature to adulthood under natural conditions" well, gosh i thought it was only ONE fertilised egg cell or is she saying there has to be more differential cells before it is "alive"?

if a man ejaculates into a condom instead of impregnating his semen into a womb, has he not just destroyed a chance for the creation of a new human being? if a woman uses contraception, hasn't she just denied a chance for life? if she is anorexic or bulemic or smokes or drinks or uses drugs or goes horse riding or jogs or dances or anything else that might risk abortion or limit conception, is she guilty of murder? will she end up in Death Row?

i'm taking her arguments to their logical extreme - no contraception, no masturbation, only insemination and no intervention prior to term...abstinence or unprotected sex - and even abstinence itself may be a willful act of non- conception, i.e. the denial of potential life. of course i am being silly now but i wanted to demonstrate how stupid an absolutist argument can become!

ah yes, but we have to be sensible, pragmatic, and she did mention "compelling reasons", didn't she?

hmm..."compelling reasons" - who decides what these reasons should be - incest? rape? underage sex? cancer? genetic defects? or what about intelligence, sex of the baby, attractiveness, economic constraints, colour of skin, or the moral/ social suitability of the parent(s)?

and WHO exactly gets to decide whether and when a child should be aborted anyway? a judge? a jury? how quickly will they decide? or is it going to be a list of reasons embodied in law?

who is going to do this compelling anyway - are the police going to arrest and detain pregnant women? even if there was a "compelling reason" to abort, her use of the term "compelling" has a sinister side as it allows for the situation where a woman could be made to have an abortion EVEN IF SHE WANTS TO KEEP THE BABY. am i being silly again? i think not. look at societies where girl foetuses are aborted as undersirable. it depends on what people mean by a reason and how it is compelled.

so i reject her stupid, rash attempt to impose her illogical, unreasoned views on others. she might have some smart ideas in other areas but in this area she is dangerously wrong.

i firmly believe that the decision to keep or abort a foetus resides solely with the mother and that it is not the business of government or anyone else to interfere in a woman's right to carry or reject her pregnancy at any stage before birth.

ohh i know this is going to enrage the righteous, the control freaks and those who clamour for the rights of the father. tough - its MY womb and all the man contributes at that first stage is his sperm. after he withdraws his penis, he has no further say in what happens...unless and until the child is born. harsh, perhaps but that's the way nature works. deal with it.

for what its worth, i've just given birth to a lovely, beautiful baby and share the joy and wonder of his creation with his father, my husband :) i do not regret for ONE MOMENT carrying him and helping him become a viable human infant.

it doesn't, however, mean that i've lost my brain and my ability to spot a false argument when i see one.

(bet this one gets people shouting)

love

ruthie
XXXXXX
http://www.myspace.com/ruthiesb69

ruthie  posted on  2006-08-15   19:47:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

so very well articulated and i agree with you. i can guarantee that almost everyone would make an exception at some point. i've often asked those absolutists what decision they would make if their wife or daughter chose to abort the product of a violent rape by some subhuman diseased, mentally ill beast. would they force her to carry this thing to term at the risk of her physical and mental well being? some have said no and agreed that there would be exceptions when presented with that. the more insensitive bullheaded ones refuse to answer. it's easy for these authoritarians to be judgmental about others.

christine  posted on  2006-08-15   20:16:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"shall i post pictures of women who died attempting back street abortions?"

And what point would that make?

Which is the greater good, saving 4,000 children a day or saving a much smaller number of women each day?

Logically: Fewer dead is better than many dead.

Emotionally: Some women value their life more than their childs.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   22:18:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

(bet this one gets people shouting)

I think so ruthie :)

How's the babe?

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-08-15   22:25:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

shall i post pictures of women who died attempting back street abortions? or perhaps of women who killed themselves because they were pregnant?

Shall I post pictures of women who committed suicide after having an abortion out of guilt??????

Don't worry..I won't.

I hope your little angel is cuddly. It seems like just yesterday my little ones were the same age :0) Congatulations!

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

"Freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in ...into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
-OBL
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes at the very principles upon which our govt was founded."
- Lincoln
All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land.
--William Kingdon Clifford

IndieTX  posted on  2006-08-15   22:27:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"...or perhaps of women who killed themselves because they were pregnant?"

Now we are talking relatively a much smaller number than the backstreet argument.

Same counter argument though.

What about killing yourself because you didn't want your one year old?

I do not make a distinction between an unborn child and a one year old. Both are children with the right to life. "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, among them is the right to life...." At what moment was that life created? Clearly at conception. We have inalienable rights from the moment we were created.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   22:33:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

... if their wife or daughter chose to abort the product of a violent rape by some subhuman diseased, mentally ill beast ...

Orwell was right (as usual). Can't type "baby" when we want to kill the baby. "Product" ... "thing" ... if somebody screws up and the "thing" gets born, are you OK with killing him/her then (at five days, or six months, or a year)? Why not? What's the difference?

Enderby  posted on  2006-08-15   22:40:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"... or shall we debate the righteous fascism of some lawmakers who see the pregnant female as a sub-human who loses her rights while she hosts the growth of another person."

Or shall we debate the righteous fascism of some lawmakers who see the mother of a one year old as a sub-human who loses her rights while she raises her child.

Whether a fascist or a democratic government inacts laws to protect one year olds or the unborn, logically, it's a honorable thing to do.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   22:41:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"...and shall we argue the finer points of the legal nonsense where the active termination of an unborn child is equated with the murder of a human who has lived to term?"

Why not argue the finer points?

I believe I covered this with the unalienable rights argument. Are you suggesting that Jefferson's argument about endowed rights at creation is legal nonsense?

"Active termination" sounds like stopping phone service. We are talking about the death of a child.

Did you even notice your own words: "murder of a human who has lived to term?" Don't you see that your inner voice caused you to use the phrase "human who has lived." And, you are talking about the unborn. How can killing a "human who has lived" be acceptable to you?

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   22:50:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

" why does she stop at the point of conception with her definition of viable life comprising the human genome (sperm and ova don't???) and "all necessary cells needed to mature to adulthood under natural conditions" well, gosh i thought it was only ONE fertilised egg cell or is she saying there has to be more differential cells before it is "alive"?"

A sperm is not human life any more than a blood cell is or an eye ball. Same for the egg.

We are endowed, by our Creator, with the right to life, at the moment we are created. We are not created until the two come together.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   22:58:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

" if a man ejaculates into a condom instead of impregnating his semen into a womb, has he not just destroyed a chance for the creation of a new human being?"

Yes but, this fact has no bearing on your argument.

If a man choses to watch the ball game instead of impregnating his wife, has he not just destroyed a chance for the creation of a new human being?

Yep.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   23:03:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"if a woman uses contraception, hasn't she just denied a chance for life?"

Yes, of course, but, that does not address your argument either. We are not talking about denying a chance for life, we are talking about the "murder of a human who has lived" short of full term.

Yes, of course, but, that does not address your argument either. We are not talking about denying a chance for life, we are talking about the "murder of a human who has lived" short of full term.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   23:07:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"...if she is anorexic or bulemic or smokes or drinks or uses drugs or goes horse riding or jogs or dances or anything else that might risk abortion or limit conception, is she guilty of murder? will she end up in Death Row?"

Nope.

Again, this is not related to the issue as to whether a women should be allowed to kill her baby.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   23:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"...'m taking her arguments to their logical extreme - no contraception, no masturbation, only insemination and no intervention prior to term...abstinence or unprotected sex - and even abstinence itself may be a willful act of non- conception, i.e. the denial of potential life. of course i am being silly now but i wanted to demonstrate how stupid an absolutist argument can become!"

No demonstration here at all.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   23:13:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"... and WHO exactly gets to decide whether and when a child should be aborted anyway? a judge? a jury? how quickly will they decide? or is it going to be a list of reasons embodied in law?"

Please note that you used the phrase "when a child should be aborted." It's a child we are talking about and aborted is a clever way to say killed.

Well, who decides whether a one year old may be killed? Judges and juries and such. Seems like a good plan to me. Yes the Law should decide through its elected representatives, the legality of killing a child. I don't think this is helping your argument.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   23:23:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"... i firmly believe that the decision to keep or abort a foetus resides solely with the mother and that it is not the business of government or anyone else to interfere in a woman's right to carry or reject her pregnancy at any stage before birth."

To illustrate a point allow me to switch a few words in your statement: I firmly believe that the decision to keep or kill a one year old resides solely with the mother and that it is not the business of government or anyone else to interfere in a woman's right to raise or kill her children at any age.

Why do you make a distinction between born and unborn? This has been the basis of your argument all along... that the child is unborn therefore it may be killed yet, you have not clarified why and how you can make the distinction.

What is the difference between the day or week or month before delivery and the day after delivery?

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   23:35:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"... ohh i know this is going to enrage the righteous, the control freaks and those who clamour for the rights of the father. tough - its MY womb and all the man contributes at that first stage is his sperm. after he withdraws his penis, he has no further say in what happens...unless and until the child is born. harsh, perhaps but that's the way nature works. deal with it."

Gee, what exactly is wrong with the father having a problem with you killing his child? My womb, my child, doesn't quite cover it. He has a "further say" as to what happens to his one year old, why not his child that you carry. You are cold.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   23:40:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"...or what its worth, i've just given birth to a lovely, beautiful baby and share the joy and wonder of his creation with his father, my husband..."

Congratulations. By the way, you speak of "his creation," exactly when was that lovely, beautiful baby created? Was it that day at the hospital or that evening when you made love to your husband?

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   23:48:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"...i do not regret for ONE MOMENT carrying him and helping him become a viable human infant."

Allow a little coldness from me, please.

Would you be regretful had you aborted this child?

Would you consider it your right to kill this child a few months ago?

Does that child have the right to live and did that child have the right to live the day before you went into delivery?

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-15   23:54:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"...so very well articulated and i agree with you. i can guarantee that almost everyone would make an exception at some point. i've often asked those "absolutists what decision they would make if their wife or daughter chose to abort the product of a violent rape by some subhuman diseased, mentally ill beast. would they force her to carry this thing to term at the risk of her physical and mental well being? some have said no and agreed that there would be exceptions when presented with that. the more insensitive bullheaded ones refuse to answer. it's easy for these authoritarians to be judgmental about others."

Most abortions are performed for birth control reasons.

Why use the phrase,"carry this thing to term." This "thing" is a human child. Why not give "the product" or "thing" the benefit of the doubt and wait until it is delivered then, kill the "thing."

How can you rationalize the murder of a baby to overcome "the risk of her physical and mental well being?"

To save the life of the mother is the only, morally acceptable reason to abort. That should not be extended to cover simple "risk."

We are "judgemental" when we decide not to kill a one year old.

Sorry, Christine, no cigar.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-16   0:28:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

"I am not looking for debate but, from time to time, certain positions on issues need to be re-stated..."

I changed my mind. I'm lookin' for debate. Persuade me.

http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=32558&Disp=0#C0

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-16   0:55:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I changed my mind. I'm lookin' for debate. Persuade me

hihi wakeup

sorry i didn't reply to your posts earlier but i had to deal with a hungry little one then i fell asleep.

i read through your replies and its obvious i have touched a raw nerve as you have touched one of mine! this isn't just an intellectual argument for you is it? it isn't for me either, having lost 2 pregnancies due to miscarriage (no i did not do anything to cause them) and i am an incest/abuse survivor who luckily did not get impregnated by my abusers. you made several references to a 1-year old child and i'm not asking you to explain why. i just get a feeling of immense pain and sadness in your posts.

oh it would be a wonderful world if all sex was consensual, all pregnancies went well, all children were wanted and loved...but it isn't all like that. i wish it could be but i have to be grown up and embrace the goodness where i find it but not let the bad things overwhelm me.

i stand by my ground - emotive images of aborted babies are a crass way of illustrating an argument. the loss of a woman to blood poisoning who has gone for a back street abortion because she already has too many mouths to feed is not a pretty sight either. i am in no way discounting the sadness of a little life lost before he or she is born and allowed to thrive. but i would be crushed by sadness and despair if i allowed myself to be dictated to by emotive images. it is a cheap shot.

i'm sorry but i cannot accept any position other than my right to choose whether i should carry an unborn baby to term. once that baby is born, i sincerely believe it is a different situation - the baby is out of my womb and deserves the best chance to live i can give it. am i cold? perhaps i am but when i breast feed my little one at night i don't feel particularly cold.

as to the extreme arguments i put forward, it was to demonstrate how partial it is to try to define when a foetus is "living" - is it when the ovum is fertilised by the sperm? is it when cells start differentiating? is it when nerve tissue has begun to form? and i argued that you can't be arbitrary and say "well, its obviously when..." - the concept of a human genome is so new, it is just another marker on this absolutist scale.

i don't think i'm being silly about the issues of when it might be treated as murder. i can imagine some of the psychopathic bible thumpers in Texas praising the righteous "justice" of a woman being poisoned to death in the execution room for "murdering" her unborn child by an illegal abortion, while the doctor and nurse who assisted wait their turn on Death Row. am i really being silly?

and the dreadfully difficult issue of what merits an abortion - deformity, risk to the mother's life, product of rape...all these sound good or "compelling" reasons. but then there are the other uncomfortable issues - race, colour, sex of the infant, and the future issues of designer babies too. look at the Indian villages where there are NO girl children because the women were pressurised into only giving birth to boys - they are facing a human crisis because of male dominancy. look at the women in some of the states in America who have to travel in secret to clinics in other states because if they were discovered to have had an abortion they would be criminals!

so please don't try to tell me what i should or shouldn't do with my own womb - once a baby is born, it HAS the same right to life as you or me. until that time, i firmly believe it is the sole right of the mother to decide whether it shall reach that stage. i'm not arguing about whether the foetus is "alive" or when that happens (my faith teaches me that it is at the moment of conception). nor am i saying that i would agree with a woman's choice to keep or abort a particular baby. what i AM saying is that it is HER decision to make (and live with) and when others interfere, no matter how well-meaning they believe themselves to be, they are meddling in dangerous territory that can have disastrous effects for all humanity.

(p.s. who is this "Jefferson person" - is he a member of the forum too???) - just kidding, honest ;)

love

ruthie
XXXXXX
http://www.myspace.com/ruthiesb69

ruthie  posted on  2006-08-16   7:43:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Let me ask you these questions. Let's be realistic and not idealistic. Here's a hypothetical scenario but one that elicits relevant questions.

If I were violently raped by a disease-ridden, genetically-defective "man" with a 70-IQ, would you unconditionally commit to paying for all of the medical bills up to and including delivery? Would you unconditionally commit to driving me back and forth to the obstetrician's and therapist's offices? Would you commit to adopting, then expending your time and money to rear this child ("product" of rape--yes, in my mind, under this circumstance, that is an apropos noun) to adulthood, no matter how defective?

If you answer no to one or all of these questions, how then can you ask someone else, particularly the victim of a rape, to do that which you are not willing to do? How can you expect her to have her entire life changed, re-arranged and likely ruined due to an act in which she had no voluntary participation? Further, how can you ask or expect an unwilling taxpayer to fund that which you are unwilling to fund? How can you ask a taxpayer to fund a welfare system to do that which you would not do?

Unless all of you who hold the no abortion without exception point of view are willing to commit to all of this for every single unplanned unwanted baby, then I think this absolutist ideology is unreasonable, judgmental, and unrealistically idealistic.

christine  posted on  2006-08-16   13:56:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I am not emotional and the issue does not strike a raw nerve any harder than when the murder of a one year old is rationalized. The "immense pain and sadness" that you think you see in my posts may be associated with overcoming the consistently illogical arguments I hear in the abortion debate and not some burden I carry.

"Emotive images" of aborted babies are not "cheap shots." They simply shed light on the issue in an effort to change the "out of mind, out of sight" mindset.

A better example of a cheap shot would be constantly associating abortion with rape. Most are not done because of rape, most are done as birth control.

Now here is a cheap shot: "psychopathic bible thumpers in Texas praising the righteous "justice" of a woman being poisoned to death in the execution room for "murdering" her unborn child by an illegal abortion, while the doctor and nurse who assisted wait their turn on Death Row. am i really being silly?" Bible thumpers (and I am not one) have their place in this issue because of the moral aspect. It is clearly appropriate for the religious in a society to remind others from time to time that Thou Shall Not Murder.

You read me wrong and I am not so emotionally involved that my arguments are weak. My arguments are intellectual, logical, consistent and morally sound.

You make a distinction between before delivery and after delivery without any explanation other than the child is part of your body. That really is not logical, at all but, the emotional aspect seems to reign in some.

Let us say, for arguments sake, that human children are not carried inside the womb but, outside, in a pouch with umbilical cord attached, of course. Now, let us make a few more changes, while we hold to your rule that the child is part of the women's body therefore, it's life may be taken at any time.

In this case, children develop faster, learn to talk, read and walk while awkwardly dealing with the umbilical cord. Will you still argue that you may kill this child anytime you choose simply because it is still part of your body. I think not. Therefore, your reasons are not as you say. This "part of my body" argument really is not sufficient to justify the death of that walking, talking, one or two year old appearing child.

May I suggest that the "out of sight, out of mind" argument may be real distinction for you and many others. Clearly no sane person would argue that the walking, talking child with cord, may be killed. Yet, that child is still part of the woman.

If you haven't interacted with a visible child, as would be necessary in my walking and talking example, it is easier to consider the death of the out of sight child. Furthermore, there is no way a sane person would allow a walking and talking, still connected by umbilical cord child to be dismembered and sucked into a vacuum machine for disposal. Why, because the grossness of the procedure and the sound of the child asking you to stop while it tries to run away, would be too much for society to bare. Yet, if this is done in the darkness of a womb then, it's a woman's right.

So, it is not really the "part of my body" argument, after all. It's the visual disconnect associated with carrying within the womb.

By the way, you never answered my questions:

Does your newborn have the right to live and did that child have the right to live the day before you went into delivery?

A simple yes or no, will do.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-16   14:03:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sorry if this sounds harsh (not really) but I’d sterilize the illegal breeders that are changing the culture of America. It’s an invasion by any other name, and truly the death of the West.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-08-16   14:19:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

hihi wakeup

when you said "I am not emotional" did you misconstrue me? i do not mean that you are irrational. if you are truly unemotional, then why are you interested in this issue at all??? i'm afraid i don't believe you are not emotional. and it is nothing to be ashamed about, surely?

did i constantly associate abortion with rape? i can't see where i did but feel free to tell me. personally, i'm not saying a child conceived of rape should automatically be aborted. what i AM saying is that the decision rests with the victim of the rape. if she decides to keep the child, that too should be her choice.

i really beg to differ regarding the Bible Thumpers - they have NO moral imperative to force their delusional belief systems down the throats of others who do not share their views. in my experience the loudest proclaimers of righteousness are the biggest hypocrites and some of the wickedest people on earth. of course they are entitled to express their views as i am to express mine and you are to express yours. but imho they are NOT entitled to enforce their rigid definitions of morality on women. do you accept the reverse of your argument hold true, that It is clearly appropriate for the non-religious in a society to remind the religious from time to time that Thou Shall Butt Out Of Other People's Affairs?

you referred to murder - do you have degrees of murder? minor murder, not really quite murder, sort of murder but we let it go, ghastly murder, etc? is assisted suicide murder? is execution by lethal injection murder? is contraception murder? yet again, you hide behind an absolutist term that you hope will silence dissent - now THAT is a cheap shot!

when you said "You read me wrong and I am not so emotionally involved that my arguments are weak. My arguments are intellectual, logical, consistent and morally sound" i really beg to differ. you obviously believe the presence of emotion weakens the validity of an argument. i don't doubt but that you are intellectual, logical or consistent. but your logic is based upon false premises and you are constructing a tower on quicksand. your definition of what is morally sound is personal and you are welcome to it. i do not necessarily share it and you should not try to force me to your will, just as a society should not bully women into abiding by men's moral codes. you see, i equate the Evangelical Christians with the other phallocentric religious cults of Islam and Judaism. they are all bankrupt visions of humanity as chattels who must obey their interpretations of God's word to achieve purity and salvation. but that's not MY God of love, forgiveness, compassion and grace. my God put out His hand to the weak, the suffering, the unwanted, the despised. their God puts out His hand to punish, hurt, frighten and oppress those who do not follow His path - you take your pick, wakeup. i've taken mine.

i loved your bit about the pouch and the umbilical cord - it would be interesting indeed if humans had evolved from marsupials. i think we would be a much kinder, socially integrated species :) but i'm afraid you lost me there - my progesterone levels are still high (i keep staring at shoes, wondering what on earth they are for!) i'm struggling with your part of the body argument and wonder if you can simplify it to a level i can follow better?

and here's the answer to your questions:

yes, Michael James has the right to live and God help ANYONE who threatens him!

but no, he didn't have the right to live before my c-section. i wanted him to live, i prayed that he would survive a difficult birth even if i didn't but a right? no, he did not have that in my view.

go on, say it - "what a cold b*tch"

love

ruthie
XXXXXX
http://www.myspace.com/ruthiesb69

ruthie  posted on  2006-08-16   14:48:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

what a cold b*tch

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-16   15:00:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

what a cold b*tch

i forgive you :)

love

ruthie
XXXXXX
http://www.myspace.com/ruthiesb69

ruthie  posted on  2006-08-16   15:08:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Let me ask you these questions.

Well, I don't see why I should respond to your questions -- I asked you several questions, up there in #7, which you've ignored. After you catch up, I'll answer your batch. This should be a conversation -- I'm not a hostile witness that you're cross-examining. Fair enough?

Enderby  posted on  2006-08-16   20:15:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Can't type "baby" when we want to kill the baby. "Product" ... "thing" ... if somebody screws up and the "thing" gets born, are you OK with killing him/her then (at five days, or six months, or a year)? Why not? What's the difference?

First, in my mind, there is a huge difference between a pregnancy resulting from an act that was forced upon me and an accidental one in which I was a willing participant. To me, the result of the forced one would be a thing- -certainly I could not view IT as a baby. I would be crazed knowing the seed of a demon was inside of me and I'd have no guilt or compunction ridding my body of it as soon as possible.

Now to answer your second question, no, I am not ok with anyone killing a child after birth. Once a fetus is viable and can live on its own outside of a woman's womb, in my opinion, it's its own life.

christine  posted on  2006-08-16   21:31:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If I were violently raped by a disease-ridden, genetically-defective "man" with a 70-IQ, would you unconditionally commit to paying for all of the medical bills up to and including delivery?

Maybe, maybe not. I'd need to know what the bills are, what your ability to pay them is, and whether you have family who should be helping you. In any case, I can't "unconditionally commit" to paying more than I have.

Would you unconditionally commit to driving me back and forth to the obstetrician's and therapist's offices?

Maybe, maybe not. Can you drive yourself? Do you have family who should be doing it for you? Not enough information given.

Would you commit to adopting, then expending your time and money to rear this child ("product" of rape--yes, in my mind, under this circumstance, that is an apropos noun) to adulthood, no matter how defective?

If it's the only alternative to your killing (all right, hiring the killing) of someone whose only crime is choosing his or her parents unwisely, sure.

If you answer no to one or all of these questions, how then can you ask someone else, particularly the victim of a rape, to do that which you are not willing to do?

This question assumes answers that I did not give, so I can't answer it.

How can you expect her to have her entire life changed, re-arranged and likely ruined due to an act in which she had no voluntary participation?

It seems to me that this question implies that the rape victim is made all better by having a baby killed. After leaving the abortion mill, I doubt that her life magically becomes un-changed, un-rearranged, and un-ruined.

Further, how can you ask or expect an unwilling taxpayer to fund that which you are unwilling to fund? How can you ask a taxpayer to fund a welfare system to do that which you would not do?

I have not asked any unwilling taxpayers to do either of those things.

Unless all of you who hold the no abortion without exception point of view are willing to commit to all of this for every single unplanned unwanted baby, then I think this absolutist ideology is unreasonable, judgmental, and unrealistically idealistic.

I have not said that I hold a "no abortion without exception point of view." I doubt that anyone posting here does, as far as that goes, so I'm not sure who "all of you" is. My exception, in case there is interest (and I certainly don't blame you if you're not interested) is the preservation of the mother's life when there is prohibitive danger to it.

Now, let me ask you another question, if I may: are there any circumstances in which you would support abortion being illegal?

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. --- H. L. Mencken

Enderby  posted on  2006-08-16   22:11:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sorry, Christine, no cigar.

no problem, Ron, i don't smoke. ;)

christine  posted on  2006-08-16   22:46:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The most pro life person I ever met was a somewhat troubled young man, the product of a raped, crack addicted mother, who carried him to term and put him up for adoption.

Troubled as he was, he preferred being alive to being aborted.

I learned a lot from him.

The rest of what I had to say I had to delete. Suffice it to say I won't be around here again anytime soon.

Do I hear a fat lady singing?

Critter  posted on  2006-08-17   1:41:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I can not engage this thread because I'll say something I'll regret. Let is suffice to say I believe ABORTION/INFANTICIDE is MURDER and one of the most violent and obscene forms of death and genocide on the planet. Women supporting such violence and death, makes me want to puke, as do women who say the father has no rights. You gave a legal and moral say when you spread your legs baby.

It's pretty obvious where I stand. I no longer engage in a logical argument on this topic because the believers in infanticide can not be reasoned with. They're possessed.

It's not just a moral issue. It's a Constitutional issue..the RIGHT TO LIFE..LIBERTY..etc. Those who give their concern to the oppressed people's of the world, the innocents dying in wars, the painful deaths of animals at slaughter, etc...show extreme hypocrisy supporting infanticide.
Now, away from here before I read any more pro baby murder comments and have to puke my guts out.

So much for my first sentence. /rant

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

"Freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in ...into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
-OBL
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes at the very principles upon which our govt was founded."
- Lincoln
All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land.
--William Kingdon Clifford

IndieTX  posted on  2006-08-17   1:54:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

" The rest of what I had to say I had to delete. Suffice it to say I won't be around here again anytime soon."

I hear ya.

I started this thread and have learned that all do not see the light. I was sure we would all be on the proper side of this one. Yes, I mean proper. This is a right and wrong, correct or incorrect issue. This is one of those issues that should be a given. You don't kill babies, period, unless you have no other way to save the mother's life. And come on, is that even a statistic?

Debates are won with persuasion and logical argument. That system doesn't seem to work in this context. It appears logical persuasion is not even understood. The point is not even taken. The perspective is not even considered. "It's my body and that's all that needs to be said."

We bitch about the wartime slaughter of innocent civilians and gag at the pictures of mutilated children yet, listen as mature women argue they have the right to do such atrocities because, it is their body and men are not qualified to judge. Bullshit. I judge the practice as horribly wrong, disgustingly offensive and it should be obvious to all.

It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of life or death. I might be persuaded that a horribly deformed child could cause me to ponder the issue but, coldly suggesting that an abortion the day before delivery of an otherwise healthy child is not beyond consideration well, that is disgusting and morally corrupt.

I have always thought that given the choice between the mother and child's life, society has historically made the right call. How often does that actually happen? Rarely, for sure. But, to add risk, mental health, rape and the like just sends us down the slope to openly killing one year olds, the retarded and the unwanted. Society has not gone there until recently.

Today, I heard that a baby was born in the waiting room of an abortion clinic and the staff took it to the back and killed it. Just another drop in the bucket. "No charge for that one, we really didn't do much. Have a nice day. Have any daughters."

Some things are so obvious yet, not to all. Certainly, the right to life, should require no debate, as it is a given, even inalienable.

Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do to the smallest of us all.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-17   3:39:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

What about killing yourself because you didn't want your one year old?

I do not make a distinction between an unborn child and a one year old.

Or shall we debate the righteous fascism of some lawmakers who see the mother of a one year old as a sub-human who loses her rights while she raises her child.

Whether a fascist or a democratic government inacts laws to protect one year olds or the unborn, logically, it's a honorable thing to do.

Well, who decides whether a one year old may be killed?

To illustrate a point allow me to switch a few words in your statement: I firmly believe that the decision to keep or kill a one year old resides solely with the mother70;

He has a "further say" as to what happens to his one year old, why not his child that you carry. You are cold.

We are "judgemental" when we decide not to kill a one year old.

I am not emotional and the issue does not strike a raw nerve any harder than when the murder of a one year old is rationalized.

This "part of my body" argument really is not sufficient to justify the death of that walking, talking, one or two year old appearing child

But, to add risk, mental health, rape and the like just sends us down the slope to openly killing one year olds, the retarded and the unwanted.

umm wakeup, i've cut and pasted some of your posts in this debate...i think something has happened to hurt you regarding a one-year old child. if you want to talk about it, pm me. if you are grieving, i'm very sorry and hope my strong words haven't hurt you more :(

love

ruthie
XXXXXX
http://www.myspace.com/ruthiesb69

ruthie  posted on  2006-08-17   4:47:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Wrong again. I use the one year old to help illustrate my point that there is no difference between an unborn child and a one year old. I do that because unlike the unborn example, everyone agrees that killing a one year old is murder. You know, A is equal to B and B is equal to C therefore, A is equal to C.

So, you are trying to read between my lines. Maybe reading my lines is what you really need to be doing. You think I'm the one that needs counsel? That's a riot. I bring the God honest truth to the "debate" but, I need the help. I need help alright... persuading you that killing your unborn is murder.

One thing about sharing my lines with me does is run them through your processor again. Maybe repetition will help you see the light and help you see that you carry a human child that has the right to life, just as any child of any age.

I did a little cutting and pasting. As you can see, I just looked at this one line. The repetition of all your words, would be too painful.

"...but no, he didn't have the right to live before my c-section. i wanted him to live, i prayed that he would survive a difficult birth even if i didn't but a right? no, he did not have that in my view."

You "wanted him to live" and "prayed that he would survive" yet, knowing that you were within your rights to have him killed at any time.

Yet, you think I'm the one that needs counsel and you search my words to see what might cause my disorder. Look in the mirror, you advocate the right to murder a child, moments before it is born and do so proudly.

I pray that your next child survives your lack of understanding and misapplied application of the right to choose.

Furthermore, I pray you do not pass along your morbid, misguided sense of rights to that child in your arms. I would hate for you to watch your grown child go through a pregnancy only to have your grandchild murdered just before delivery.

.......
“Why should they, the Americans, have trusted us? We were a bunch of Russians, socialist Russians.” -- Isser Harel, former head of Mossad, speaking of the unlikely union between America and the Marxist state of Israel.
.......
“They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.” -- Excerpt of a police report concerning the arrest of 5 Israeli intelligence operatives after they were seen by witnesses filming the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and cheering.

wakeup  posted on  2006-08-17   13:06:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I have personal knowledge the author below left out male [and women] SUICIDE as a post-abortion result. I lost a woman friend very close to me for exactly this reason in college. [No she was not my girlfriend]
I have other personal knowledge knowledge about male suicide for having their baby aborted without their consent which I can not share on a public forum. Which is why my original post waws abrasive yes..but not personal.

Murdering a baby as a means of birth control for CONSENSUAL sex affects everyone it touches in grievous ways, from the grandparents, parents and siblings and should NEVER..ever..be legal..Let me repeat..Abortion as a means of birth control only for VOLUNTARY sex should NEVER be legal. Period. I leave other involuntary circumstances and health/normality issues to a woman, the father, the doctor and their God.

Men can be affected by abortion in similar ways to women and many have reported post-abortion problems such as:

* feelings of grief and helplessness * feelings of guilt and shame * depression * sexual dysfunction * substance abuse * self-hatred * self-esteem and confidence problems * fear of relationships * increased risk-taking and suicidal behaviour * greater tendencies to becoming angry or violent * a sense of lost manhood

Because of the culture of machismo prevalent in male society, speaking about the effects of abortion is an even greater taboo for men than for women. If a man wants to grieve, he had better do it privately. If he feels that the abortion has denied him his child, he had better work it through himself. Typical male grief includes remaining silent and grieving alone. In the silence, a man can harbour guilt and doubts about his ability to protect himself and those he loves. Some become depressed and-or anxious, others controlling, demanding and directing. Still others become enraged and failure in any relationship can trigger hostility from their disenfranchised grief. A guilt-ridden, tormented man does not easily love or accept love.

As a result of his 14 years of working with post-abortive men, Miller has reached out to other ministries, such as Rachel's Vineyard and pro-life organizations like League for Life, to bring the plight of post-abortive men into the light. It was League for Life that invited Miller to be a featured speaker at the upcoming Life 2004 annual pro-life conference taking place in Winnipeg Oct. 14-16.

At the conference, Miller will be conducting a workshop entitled, "A Healing Model for Post-Abortion Men Using the 12-Step Method" and presenting the therapeutic methodology of his new ministry, "House of Esau." This model of ministry believes that the most important part of recovery from post-abortion trauma is forgivness. Forgiveness both of self, and the one whom the man feels is most responsible for his plight - his partner, who actually went through with the abortion.

It seems that not only women and unborn children are victims of this act, but men too are victims - the forgotten victims.

Source [there are MANY others]: http://www.theinterim.com/2004/oct/14menand.html

This issue has more than the one side that gets all the attention. Hopefully this will serve as enlightenment for those who can not see this.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

"Freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in ...into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
-OBL
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes at the very principles upon which our govt was founded."
- Lincoln
All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land.
--William Kingdon Clifford

IndieTX  posted on  2006-08-17   16:45:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

gosh, you are bitter. i'm very sorry but i can't change that as you so clearly would not turn to me for help.

you may find this rather odd but i wish you no ill; i vehemently disagree with you but i appreciate your frankness even though it seemed at times to have become quite personal.

i obviously disgust you so all i can say is we are diametrically poles apart on this particular issue.

love

ruthie
XXXXXX
http://www.myspace.com/ruthiesb69

ruthie  posted on  2006-08-17   17:03:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I leave other involuntary circumstances and health/normality issues to a woman, the father, the doctor and their God.

I agree. That's the point I have been trying to make on this thread.

christine  posted on  2006-08-17   17:24:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]