There was a huge pro life march on washington yesterday. I have to say I really resent some of the language the right is using in this debate
There was a rabbi who was comapring abortion with homosexuality
and people kept talking about what abortion did to them, as if abortion is an entity unto itself, like a monster
Other language I did't like was comparing abortion to the state actually killing people. It completely takes the responsibility away from people. I honestly couldn;t march either for or against legal abortion. I don't think that's the issue. No one WANTS people to have abortions. if people didn't want or need abortions legality would be irrelevent.
Oh and 'feminist pro-abortionists' they kept referring to feminism as this evil... feminism doens;t begin and end with abortion, and it's scary to think that because then the pro life movement can just disregard all of feminism>
People were also saying that the right to privacy was invented and is not guaranteed by the constitution
Thoughts?
Beth1210
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
the bottom line is that unless you are in this situaion it's very easy to sit in judgement and say I wouldn't do this and I wouldn't do that
I just don't like any of my rights getting taken away- I like having the right to choose- what ever I choose
Now that I am married my chances of having an abortion are about 0- I still think it's important to be able to choose
marymoon
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by SomethingBlu
EDUCATE!! That's it...just educate.
I agree 100%
The only way to reduce abortions, legal or illegal is to reduce unplanned pregnancy..the only way to do that is to educate people
MCDO15
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by marymoon
Posted by SomethingBlu
EDUCATE!! That's it...just educate.
I agree 100%
The only way to reduce abortions, legal or illegal is to reduce unplanned pregnancy..the only way to do that is to educate people
i truely hope to see this happen however...i doubt it will thus why this topic of abortion exsit in the first place
carlsbride
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
I have a question - Why do people think it is a 'right' to kill an unborn child?
But....people can be accused and Charged with double MURDER if they kill a pregnant woman? (like Scott what's his name in CA)
Why does the Federal government have Laws about Pregnant women not working around certain chemcials and in certain environments-because being exposed to those things can Harm their unborn child? It doesn't make sense to protect the unborn on one hand and then allow women to kill on the other hand-what is the difference?
carlsbride
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by Beth1210
it's the same people who want to over turn abortion - that don't want to educate childern about sex-
Uh? where did you get this statistic from?
marymoon
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by carlsbride
Posted by Beth1210
it's the same people who want to over turn abortion - that don't want to educate childern about sex-
Uh? where did you get this statistic from?
I believe that generally it's the christian right that is agaisnt abortion, and they are also generally inf avor of 'abstinence only' sex ed, or no sex ed at all
Beth1210
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by carlsbride
Posted by Beth1210
it's the same people who want to over turn abortion - that don't want to educate childern about sex-
Uh? where did you get this statistic from?
ok- I feel like you are on here to start a fight-
it's not a statistic- and IMO- most people who want to over turn abortion - want preach abstience to childern in school- it's not working
SomethingBlu
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by carlsbride
I have a question - Why do people think it is a 'right' to kill an unborn child?
But....people can be accused and Charged with double MURDER if they kill a pregnant woman? (like Scott what's his name in CA)
Why does the Federal government have Laws about Pregnant women not working around certain chemcials and in certain environments-because being exposed to those things can Harm their unborn child? It doesn't make sense to protect the unborn on one hand and then allow women to kill on the other hand-what is the difference?
The same way you put 'right' in quotes any of us could put 'kill' in quotes. What defines a human? At what stage? Is a 4 week fetus able to survive? The Scott Peterson logic doesn't apply because if delivered Conner could have survived. The same can't be said of a 4 or 6 week fetus.
PrincessRose
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by marymoon
There was a rabbi who was comapring abortion with homosexuality
I'm somewhat bothered by the fact that you felt the need to separate this from EVERYTHING ELSE in your post. Like Pat Robertson, the Roman Catholic Church and the Christian right don't talk about how Pro-choicers are going to H*ll on a DAILY BASIS. At least the Rabbi didn't condemn Pro-choicers to ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
In the eyes of Traditional Judaism, Homosexuality is listed as an abomination, along with being left handed and eating shellfish. So while yes, this one particular Rabbi is probably a bigot (every group's got them), there is also the possibilty that this guy has similar issues with Conservative and Reform Jews, just because they don't necessarily keep Kosher.
I say keep R v. W as is. It probably won't be overturned, because frankly, overturning it is political suicide.
Edited to fix HTML.
Beth1210
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Uh? where did you get this statistic from?
I believe that generally it's the christian right that is agaisnt abortion, and they are also generally inf avor of 'abstinence only' sex ed, or no sex ed at all
thank you- you said it better then me
carlsbride
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by SomethingBlu
Posted by carlsbride
I have a question - Why do people think it is a 'right' to kill an unborn child?
But....people can be accused and Charged with double MURDER if they kill a pregnant woman? (like Scott what's his name in CA)
Why does the Federal government have Laws about Pregnant women not working around certain chemcials and in certain environments-because being exposed to those things can Harm their unborn child? It doesn't make sense to protect the unborn on one hand and then allow women to kill on the other hand-what is the difference?
The same way you put 'right' in quotes any of us could put 'kill' in quotes. What defines a human? At what stage? Is a 4 week fetus able to survive? The Scott Peterson logic doesn't apply because if delivered Conner could have survived. The same can't be said of a 4 or 6 week fetus.
ok-then what about late term abortions-those babies could live if they didn't have their skulls crushed.
Beth1210
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by carlsbride
[
ok-then what about late term abortions-those babies could live if they didn't have their skulls crushed.
third trimester abortions are illegal and are not in question-
SomethingBlu
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by carlsbride
Posted by SomethingBlu
Posted by carlsbride
I have a question - Why do people think it is a 'right' to kill an unborn child?
But....people can be accused and Charged with double MURDER if they kill a pregnant woman? (like Scott what's his name in CA)
Why does the Federal government have Laws about Pregnant women not working around certain chemcials and in certain environments-because being exposed to those things can Harm their unborn child? It doesn't make sense to protect the unborn on one hand and then allow women to kill on the other hand-what is the difference?
The same way you put 'right' in quotes any of us could put 'kill' in quotes. What defines a human? At what stage? Is a 4 week fetus able to survive? The Scott Peterson logic doesn't apply because if delivered Conner could have survived. The same can't be said of a 4 or 6 week fetus.
ok-then what about late term abortions-those babies could live if they didn't have their skulls crushed.
I'm opposed to late term abortions. That makes my heart hurt and I cringe at the thought of someone aborting at 5 months...when there's a chance of survival and you choose to abort for whatever reason...that truly saddens me.
But unfortunately I'm not sure there's a way to end late term abortions permanently as long as there are doctors willing to do it.
ETA: Beth, unfortunately, not all doctors follow the law.
carlsbride
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by Beth1210
Posted by carlsbride
Posted by Beth1210
it's the same people who want to over turn abortion - that don't want to educate childern about sex-
Uh? where did you get this statistic from?
ok- I feel like you are on here to start a fight-
it's not a statistic- and IMO- most people who want to over turn abortion - want preach abstience to childern in school- it's not working
I am on here to express my opinion and find out what others think. You made a very general and ill-informed statement. Being agaisnt abortion has nothing to do with not educating your children about sex.
Beth1210
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
doctors breaking the law is another issue
but most docotors would not peform one unless the mother life is in danger or there is a horrible birth defect
and it has nothing to do with roe v wade
PrincessRose
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by carlsbride
I have a question - Why do people think it is a 'right' to kill an unborn child?
But....people can be accused and Charged with double MURDER if they kill a pregnant woman? (like Scott what's his name in CA)
Why does the Federal government have Laws about Pregnant women not working around certain chemcials and in certain environments-because being exposed to those things can Harm their unborn child? It doesn't make sense to protect the unborn on one hand and then allow women to kill on the other hand-what is the difference?
The difference is that the protections are in place for babies who are wanted, and to protect future mothers of these children.
The last thing any child needs is to be brought into a world where they are unloved, unwanted, and neglected. That, IMO, is more unfair for the child.
Also, I don't think it's right for the government to dictate morality based solely on Christianity. Different religions have different stances on when life begins. Jews don't even have baby showers until *after* the baby is born to make sure that everything goes according to expectation! Also, in cases where the mother's life is at stake, Judaism is in favor of protecting the mother, whereas Christianity is in favor of protecting the baby. Therefore, I don't see how the Government can justly legislate procedure for that.
Beth1210
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by carlsbride
Posted by Beth1210
[
I am on here to express my opinion and find out what others think. You made a very general and ill-informed statement. Being agaisnt abortion has nothing to do with not educating your children about sex.
you are picking and choosing about what to respond to- we were discussing abortion and sex ed- together- that better sex ed could stop abortions- if 14 year old understood more about sex- they wew could prevent abortions - by preventing pregancy
and I am not ill- informed- you are just basied to your side of the issue- I happen to know alot about this issue b/c it's something I feel passionatley about- even since I read an article about back alley abortions in 17 magazine when I was young
carlsbride
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by PrincessRose
Posted by carlsbride
I have a question - Why do people think it is a 'right' to kill an unborn child?
But....people can be accused and Charged with double MURDER if they kill a pregnant woman? (like Scott what's his name in CA)
Why does the Federal government have Laws about Pregnant women not working around certain chemcials and in certain environments-because being exposed to those things can Harm their unborn child? It doesn't make sense to protect the unborn on one hand and then allow women to kill on the other hand-what is the difference?
The difference is that the protections are in place for babies who are wanted, and to protect future mothers of these children.
The last thing any child needs is to be brought into a world where they are unloved, unwanted, and neglected. That, IMO, is more unfair for the child.
Also, I don't think it's right for the government to dictate morality based solely on Christianity. Different religions have different stances on when life begins. Jews don't even have baby showers until *after* the baby is born to make sure that everything goes according to expectation! Also, in cases where the mother's life is at stake, Judaism is in favor of protecting the mother, whereas Christianity is in favor of protecting the baby. Therefore, I don't see how the Government can justly legislate procedure for that.
Why was there a rabbi at a pro-life rally if Jews believe that life begins after birth?
JanuaryBride06
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by carlsbride
Why was there a rabbi at a pro-life rally if Jews believe that life begins after birth?
People have a right to go against the general opinion of their groups. He doesn't represent the opinion of all Jewish people, just like Bush doesn't represent the opinion of all Christians.
SomethingBlu
Posted:
Member since
Re: Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Posted by JanuaryBride06
Posted by carlsbride
Why was there a rabbi at a pro-life rally if Jews believe that life begins after birth?
People have a right to go against the general opinion of their groups. He doesn't represent the opinion of all Jewish people, just like Bush doesn't represent the opinion of all Christians.
