I don't care if you think abortion is wrong.

[Texas Lynn]

I meant alternatives, such as adoption.

Adoption is fine such as it is but it is not a panacea. Ultimately the choice to put a newborn for adoption is the woman's, together with the father's if he is known. It is not the government's nor any other person's.

Women with unwanted pregnancies are not obligated in any way to serve as farmsteads for those seeking to adopt.

 

[Texas Lynn]

you're under the misguided assumption that I think I can convince radical fundies to change their ways. No, they're probably lost. It'll take years of self relfection and introspection to fix what they're afflicted with.

Often those who are afflicted with harsh, cruel fundamentalist thinking face challenges in life which cause them to grow away from such destructive things.

 

[Westvleteren]

Here's a great quote from a speech by NARAL President Nancy Keenan yesterday (from this article in Slate magazine):

"We need to acknowledge this moral complexity: that you don't need to think abortion is the appropriate decision to believe that government shouldn't be the one making the decision," she observed.

The article makes a good read -- pointing out that both sides seem more willing to deal with the moral complexities of this issue than they used to be. I take it as hopeful, on balance.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

sorry? where is the definition of parasite that says it must come from another species? I missed that one!

IngentaConnect The foetus as a parasite[SIZE=-1]The foetus as a parasite. Author: Naismith, D. J.1. Source: Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Volume 28, Number 1, March 1969 , pp. 25-31(7) ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cabi/pns/1969/00000028/00000001/art00008 - [/SIZE]

PEP Web - Human Destructiveness: An Essay on Instinct, Foetal ...[SIZE=-1]The instinctual metamorphosis involved in the transition from foetal life as a 'placental parasite' to that of 'baby' in symbiotic relationship with the ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=IRP.014.0021A - Similar pages[/SIZE]

Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. http://www.answers.com/topic/parasite?cat=health

Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4769

Something that lives in, with, or on another organism and obtains benefits from the host, which it usually injures. http://www.everythingbio.com/glos/definition.php?word=parasite

All of whyich pretty accurately describe the relationship between a mother and a foetus in placental mammals

But hey, the word re-definition project must roll on, huh?

The fetus is not a parasite. Period.

every dictionary definition and several journal articles beg to differ

 

[Lisa0315]

The Soviet Union and The People's China are/were Communist countries, right?

Wrong! They were/are Socialistic Totalitarianisms.

There has never been a true Communist state.

Do you see how meanings of words can be skewed to mean something never intended?

Lisa

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The Soviet Union and The People's China are/were Communist countries, right?

Wrong! They were/are Socialistic Totalitarianisms.

There has never been a true Communist state.

Do you see how meanings of words can be skewed to mean something never intended?

Lisa

Whats your point?

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Often those who are afflicted with harsh, cruel fundamentalist thinking face challenges in life which cause them to grow away from such destructive things.

Excuse me, but I hope you aren't referring to me with this statement. :o

I'm not afflicted with any harsh or cruel fundamentalist thinking thank you. As I said before--I am pro choice--and I am also pro-life. One can be both. I would never impose my personal view on anyone else or try to make them do what I want or believe. Its not destructive to want to prevent abortions through birth control or sex education and to believe that abortion in general should be avoided if possible. That's not being a fundie.

It's unfortunate that the minute someone says they are "pro-life" that means they are some crazy Neo-Con fundie. That's far from the truth in my case. (as I'm a far left leaning liberal!)

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

The Soviet Union and The People's China are/were Communist countries, right?

Wrong! They were/are Socialistic Totalitarianisms.

There has never been a true Communist state.

Do you see how meanings of words can be skewed to mean something never intended?

Lisa

Um....I have to agree with Enemy PartyII....what's your point. Because I'm not seeing it with your example...

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Here's a great quote from a speech by NARAL President Nancy Keenan yesterday (from this article in Slate magazine):
The article makes a good read -- pointing out that both sides seem more willing to deal with the moral complexities of this issue than they used to be. I take it as hopeful, on balance.

Thank you for this quote. This describes my philosophy exactly and thanks for the website link. Good article.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Excuse me, but I hope you aren't referring to me with this statement. :o

I'm not afflicted with any harsh or cruel fundamentalist thinking thank you. As I said before--I am pro choice--and I am also pro-life. One can be both. I would never impose my personal view on anyone else or try to make them do what I want or believe. Its not destructive to want to prevent abortions through birth control or sex education and to believe that abortion in general should be avoided if possible. That's not being a fundie.

It's unfortunate that the minute someone says they are "pro-life" that means they are some crazy Neo-Con fundie. That's far from the truth in my case. (as I'm a far left leaning liberal!)

No, from my previous interactions with you and what you have posted on this thread, I never thought so. I apologize if I gave the impression otherwise.

I think you and I are both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" in the same way.

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

No, from my previous interactions with you and what you have posted on this thread, I never thought so. I apologize if I gave the impression otherwise.

I think you and I are both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" in the same way.

I'm sorry for assuming that you did. I think the reason that I thought you had where speaking to/about me was because the quote you quoted from your previous post was from levi--who I believe was making a comment towards me. (and assuming that I am a fanatical fundie--just because I'm "pro-life")

Mea Culpa.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

The fetus is not a parasite. Period.

I'm sorry, but repeated references to biological and science in general texts have shown that your statement is false. Biologically speaking, the fetus is a parasite. I know that word has nasty connotations to some, but it's a fact nonetheless. The rational thing to do is to accept the fact and dismiss the connotations. The fact that it's a parasite says absolutely zero about anything to do with the abortion debate. It says nothing about the fetus' worth or the woman's right to terminate.

Look at what you have written. "No human, born or unborn has the right to live inside of you, feeding off your biological resources without your consent."

Hate to tell you this, but consent was given when the method of procreation was accomplished. You act as if the fetus magically appears inside a woman against her will.

No, no such consent was given. The fetus, of course, does appear inside the woman, sometimes against her will.

A parasite seeks out the host. A fetus is brought to the womb by the action of the parents.

In which of the repeated medical definitions given does it say that a parasite is defined (in part) by the fact that it seeks out the host?

Take responsibility and stop acting as if the fetus is the problem. Unprotected sex and failure of birth control methods is the problem. The fetus does not OVERCOME the host and force itself upon the mother.

Correctly noting that the fetus is a parasite has nothing to do with not taking responsibility or the fetus being a problem. Certainly, unprotected sex and the failure of birth control methods is the problem, and correctly calling the fetus a parasite in no way changes that fact.

In which of the repeated medical definitions given does it say that a parasite is defined (in part) by the fact that it OVERCOMEs and forces itself upon the mother?

It is ridiculous and beyond dehumanizing. The very act of calling a fetus a parasite is immoral in of itself.

It's obviously not ridiculous, since several biological texts have been noted doing it, and it doesn't remotely dehumanize, so it can't be 'beyond' dehumanizing.

As for calling a fetus a parasite being immoral, that's a personal call since morality is subjective. However, I think it's ludicrous. The fetus is a parasite...how can stating that be immoral? And are you really claiming that the leadnig Ob/Gyn text in the US is immoral because it calls the fetus a parasite?

 

[suzybeezy]

I heard an interesting comment made yesterday, can't remember who made it though. But to paraphrase what it said was, isn't it hard to believe in the US that we allow such an important decision like abortion up to the supreme court? Why isn't this topic put as a referendum at the polls, where the voice of all Americans can be heard. I bet if it were put on the ballot, that there would be a huge turn out that year at the polls.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I heard an interesting comment made yesterday, can't remember who made it though. But to paraphrase what it said was, isn't it hard to believe in the US that we allow such an important decision like abortion up to the supreme court? Why isn't this topic put as a referendum at the polls, where the voice of all Americans can be heard. I bet if it were put on the ballot, that there would be a huge turn out that year at the polls.

The U.S. does not have national referenda, though to some degree our Presidential races serve that function kinda sorta, with the close margins and "single issue" voters on both sides of this issue having disporportionate influence. Then, Presidents do little to affect the issue on purpose other than symbolic actions like appointments of Surgeon Generals and the like.

If it is sought to amend the Constitution to permit national referenda, and once that is done, to make criminalizing abortion the first big question put thereto, I would certainly support it. I would expect the results to be similar to South Dakota's in 2006.

But don't expect this policy method to come into effect anytime soon. In a country where more people vote for the Hound Dog Elvis versus the Velvet Vegas Elvis stamp, or for American Idol, than for President, TPTB want to keep things as they are.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I'm sorry for assuming that you did. I think the reason that I thought you had where speaking to/about me was because the quote you quoted from your previous post was from levi--who I believe was making a comment towards me. (and assuming that I am a fanatical fundie--just because I'm "pro-life")

Mea Culpa.

No prob, unless you're a different Mrs. Sidhe from the one I know.

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

No prob, unless you're a different Mrs. Sidhe from the one I know.

Nope. Same one.

 

[Westvleteren]

I heard an interesting comment made yesterday, can't remember who made it though. But to paraphrase what it said was, isn't it hard to believe in the US that we allow such an important decision like abortion up to the supreme court? Why isn't this topic put as a referendum at the polls, where the voice of all Americans can be heard. I bet if it were put on the ballot, that there would be a huge turn out that year at the polls.

The Supreme Court did not really decide on abortion. They decided that laws prohibiting abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy. Same effect in the end; slightly different nuance.

But it does follow the reasoning that the whole issue, for many of us at least, is that abortion is a very personal medical decision, to be made between a woman, her loved ones, and her doctor.

Thus, putting the question to a ballot -- national or local -- is still an illogical and unjust insertion of everyone else's whim into a woman's decisions regarding her healthcare and her reproductive life.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I think you and I are both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" in the same way.

At this point in my life, I feel the same. I think that abortion needs to be a safe, legal option - for women who want it (and would otherwise get an unsafe, illegal abortion). But I, personally, would not abortion a healthy pregnancy - even if we couldn't afford to keep and raise the resulting child.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

At this point in my life, I feel the same. I think that abortion needs to be a safe, legal option - for women who want it (and would otherwise get an unsafe, illegal abortion). But I, personally, would not abortion a healthy pregnancy - even if we couldn't afford to keep and raise the resulting child.

Me too

 

[Texas Lynn]

BTW, any of you seen Juno? I was not prepared to love a movie with an antiabortion message but it was just so sweet I couldn't help it.

Unlike in real life, though, the sole antiabortion demonstrator was a sweet bespectacled Asian-American girl with braces instead of a gaggle of violent, threatening, racist overweight and unkempt white male religious extremists.