What do you think?
-
I really have to disagree here, Paul. My ex-girlfriend got pregnant. She was 18 and I was 23. We were completely broke, our relationship wasn't strong, primarily physical, and we both had dreams of a better life than we could provide for the child and ourselves. We decided on an abortion. It is the only decision I have made that I wish I could take back. Who knows what that child would have been like? How could play God and give some doctor $300 to suck that fetus up and throw it on the trash heap with the rest of them? I've since firmly preached to anyone in the situation who will listen, to make any other decision than murder. Life is amazing, and you can't predict the opportunies that might knock on your door to help you cope with a child. I know people get put into crappy situations, and some can't seem to raise above cardboard box, no matter what they try do to, but life isn't easy. Sorry. Some have it easy some have it rough, its just the way. This still doesn't give someone the right to kill. BW "I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit." - Mel Brooks.
First off it is the woman's decision, nobody elses. I or you may think we have a say but ultimately we don't because we are not the ones with the hard responsibility, we can walk and many of us do. And I don't think every girl who gets into the situation your girlfriend was in has a boyfriend who would stick by them, even if just for fatherly and financial support. As you illustrate it is a tough decision, probably about the toughest I can think of. Also once you make it, whichever way, there will always be "what ifs." "What if we had the abortion? Would I not be in this hole, hardly surviving and providing such a terrible life for my child?" and the "What if we had not aborted? Would everything be wonderful and ok?" Nobody can answer those what ifs. Even with my pro-choice attitude I would feel immense regret if my girlfriend had an abortion. I would ask myself what ifs and things would never be 100%. But I think I would feel worse if I could not provide for my child. And that is a relatively good situation compared to what a lot of pregnant teenagers are faced with (that of having a man to support them at least a little bit.) Also to keep positive and survive a decision like that I would think that abort now, become self supporting and then have a child and provide it with the life you would want. Anyway, all of this is very, very personal and not something any law can really rule on IMO. It is different from case to case.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote: Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson
-
I have been through an abortion with an ex-girlfriend of mine. We were young, stupid, and made a decision that has until now been the single largest regret in my life. The first Father's Day after the abortion was the first day all the realization of the murder I paid for came up. I was devestated. I have since come to grips with it, but I can't help thinking about it when see my friends children, and it kills me. My life views have changed greatly since I made this decision. I now see the argument of "not capable of human thought until x weeks" as utter bullshit! So what, the capacity of what is being created is unimaginable!! What right do you have to kill off another human being? There is no justification for this. ever. I don't care if a child is conceived in rape or incest, it's not the childs fault. It should not be killed for the sins of the parents. If parents don't have the money to raise a child, are afraid they can't handle the responsibility, or maybe they don't love the other parent. None of this matters, you can give the child up for adoption. Or maybe society frowns on a woman pregnancy out of wedlock. Tough Shit! BW "I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit." - Mel Brooks.
brianwelsch wrote: you can give the child up for adoption Adoption is not always as peachy as in America or other first world countries.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote: Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson
-
First off it is the woman's decision, nobody elses. I or you may think we have a say but ultimately we don't because we are not the ones with the hard responsibility, we can walk and many of us do. And I don't think every girl who gets into the situation your girlfriend was in has a boyfriend who would stick by them, even if just for fatherly and financial support. As you illustrate it is a tough decision, probably about the toughest I can think of. Also once you make it, whichever way, there will always be "what ifs." "What if we had the abortion? Would I not be in this hole, hardly surviving and providing such a terrible life for my child?" and the "What if we had not aborted? Would everything be wonderful and ok?" Nobody can answer those what ifs. Even with my pro-choice attitude I would feel immense regret if my girlfriend had an abortion. I would ask myself what ifs and things would never be 100%. But I think I would feel worse if I could not provide for my child. And that is a relatively good situation compared to what a lot of pregnant teenagers are faced with (that of having a man to support them at least a little bit.) Also to keep positive and survive a decision like that I would think that abort now, become self supporting and then have a child and provide it with the life you would want. Anyway, all of this is very, very personal and not something any law can really rule on IMO. It is different from case to case.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRay Cassick wrote: Well I am not female, not gay and I am not Paul Watson
My whole problem with abortion is really that noone has the right to take that life. Period. Just because it was legel for me to do so, doesn't change anything. The law contradicts itself. I agree, that people do make mistakes, but they should then live with their mistakes. Maybe if people didn't have the decision to make, and therefore were forced to contend with the baby, they would take a bit more care in not getting pregnant in the first place. Anyway, it's apparent we have strongly opposed views here. :cool: BW "I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit." - Mel Brooks.
-
My whole problem with abortion is really that noone has the right to take that life. Period. Just because it was legel for me to do so, doesn't change anything. The law contradicts itself. I agree, that people do make mistakes, but they should then live with their mistakes. Maybe if people didn't have the decision to make, and therefore were forced to contend with the baby, they would take a bit more care in not getting pregnant in the first place. Anyway, it's apparent we have strongly opposed views here. :cool: BW "I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit." - Mel Brooks.
brianwelsch wrote: Maybe if people didn't have the decision to make, and therefore were forced to contend with the baby, they would take a bit more care in not getting pregnant in the first place Very true. It is a shame that the subject is not faced with more gravity, instead of being seen as a frivolous route to a good time.
I've always heard that there was an idea behind Win ME... I still can't figure out what that was... anyboy know??? I;ve herad the idea was that it was supposed to be n operating system but I doubt this. - Brian Delahunty
-
Megan Forbes wrote: the harsh side of me says that people should take responsibility for their actions Yes, in most cases, I agree. But what if the woman has been raped and got pregnant ? In this situation, she didn't ask for anything, her life is devastated and I guess in this situation, having to take care of a baby she didn't want is even worse. Jerome
Should could always turn the baby over for adoption. She doesn't have to take care of it. Jason Gerard "This almost never matters, except quite often."
-
Roe Versus Wade The basic criticism of it is that the Court "made law". That is, they invented a law where none previously existed regarding abortion. As making law is supposed to be the power of the Legislative (democratically elected) branch of our government, many people, including myself, think it was a very bad direction to take the federal court system. The court's decision was made on purely political and personal, not constitutional or legal, grounds. The Left continues to make criticism of Roe-V-Wade sound like criticism of abortion itself. It's not. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Okay, I'm going to let my ignorance shine through here. I'm not particularily interested in the topic of the post that started this thread but I would like to ask you: Isn't the decision rendered in "Roe vs. Wade" (or any other decision rendered by that body) an extension of the duly elected (that is democratically elected) persons that appointed them? I mean, when an offical is elected, and has the power to appoint, isn't that person elected based on the idea that his/her appointments are going to be consistant with the very basis for which they were voted in on to begin with? I have always been under the impression the purpose of the supreme court is to do thier best to interperet the 'meaning' of the laws established by local, state, federal bodies with respect to the constitution. In light of that I have been under the assumtion (there I go again assuming things) that what I was taught about the constition, skipping all the legalese is that its to protect the rights of the individual (providing that the individual in question is not threating the great whole) - hence 'e pluribis unum' (many out of one). I'm not looking to engage in a political debate or anything even close but I was just wondering what your thoughts would be on the idea that the judical body you refered to as not being democratically elected is, in my understanding, elected in that those serving are an extension of those elected into other offices by the people. --------------------------------------------- Be good! But if you can't be good, at least be good at it and try not to get any on ya! -mjf
-
Megan Forbes wrote: the harsh side of me says that people should take responsibility for their actions Yes, in most cases, I agree. But what if the woman has been raped and got pregnant ? In this situation, she didn't ask for anything, her life is devastated and I guess in this situation, having to take care of a baby she didn't want is even worse. Jerome
Jerome Conus wrote: she didn't ask for anything, her life is devastated The baby certainly didn't do anything wrong either. Mom's life may be harder, but at least she won't be dead out of convenience. Jerome Conus wrote: having to take care of a baby she didn't want is even worse. <plays violins>:(( Ooops. I mean TOO BAD! Sometimes life sucks! :mad: BW "I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit." - Mel Brooks.
-
Should could always turn the baby over for adoption. She doesn't have to take care of it. Jason Gerard "This almost never matters, except quite often."
Jason Gerard wrote: Should could always turn the baby over for adoption. She doesn't have to take care of it. It's not that simple though is it? I detest abortion myself, but sometimes I really think the mother must have the choice. For one thing, how many of us could handle giving birth knowing that the baby was the result of a rape? I shudder to think how I'd feel to look at a child I'd love dearly (it would be mine, after all) and yet know that it was conceived by rape. A constant reminder of something I'd rather forget. I can also imagine the child's trauma if they eventually learn the truth about their conception. :(( Sorry if I'm a little incoherant, but this is rather too close to my heart for comfort. Anna :rose: "Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia Graesch -
Okay, I'm going to let my ignorance shine through here. I'm not particularily interested in the topic of the post that started this thread but I would like to ask you: Isn't the decision rendered in "Roe vs. Wade" (or any other decision rendered by that body) an extension of the duly elected (that is democratically elected) persons that appointed them? I mean, when an offical is elected, and has the power to appoint, isn't that person elected based on the idea that his/her appointments are going to be consistant with the very basis for which they were voted in on to begin with? I have always been under the impression the purpose of the supreme court is to do thier best to interperet the 'meaning' of the laws established by local, state, federal bodies with respect to the constitution. In light of that I have been under the assumtion (there I go again assuming things) that what I was taught about the constition, skipping all the legalese is that its to protect the rights of the individual (providing that the individual in question is not threating the great whole) - hence 'e pluribis unum' (many out of one). I'm not looking to engage in a political debate or anything even close but I was just wondering what your thoughts would be on the idea that the judical body you refered to as not being democratically elected is, in my understanding, elected in that those serving are an extension of those elected into other offices by the people. --------------------------------------------- Be good! But if you can't be good, at least be good at it and try not to get any on ya! -mjf
Mel Feik wrote: isn't that person elected based on the idea that his/her appointments are going to be consistant with the very basis for which they were voted in on to begin with? It is my understanding that the Supreme Court is non-elected (appointed) precisely for the purpose that they would be above politics. Mel Feik wrote: I have always been under the impression the purpose of the supreme court is to do thier best to interperet the 'meaning' of the laws established by local, state, federal bodies with respect to the constitution That is my understanding also. But clearly the court is becoming increasingly willing to take sides politically and to "interpret" the constitution along very partisan lines. Obviously, I am a "strict constructionist" in regards to the constitution - Scalia and Thomas are my heros. The Bill of Rights was written to limit the power of the federal government, not to expand or enhance that power. The federal government, via the supreme court, now has essentially omnipotent power by makeing the constitution mean whatever they want it to mean with no regard at all for what it actually says. Our modern constitution is little more than a white board upon which they magically conjure up or erase laws as they please. That's the problem. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Mel Feik wrote: isn't that person elected based on the idea that his/her appointments are going to be consistant with the very basis for which they were voted in on to begin with? It is my understanding that the Supreme Court is non-elected (appointed) precisely for the purpose that they would be above politics. Mel Feik wrote: I have always been under the impression the purpose of the supreme court is to do thier best to interperet the 'meaning' of the laws established by local, state, federal bodies with respect to the constitution That is my understanding also. But clearly the court is becoming increasingly willing to take sides politically and to "interpret" the constitution along very partisan lines. Obviously, I am a "strict constructionist" in regards to the constitution - Scalia and Thomas are my heros. The Bill of Rights was written to limit the power of the federal government, not to expand or enhance that power. The federal government, via the supreme court, now has essentially omnipotent power by makeing the constitution mean whatever they want it to mean with no regard at all for what it actually says. Our modern constitution is little more than a white board upon which they magically conjure up or erase laws as they please. That's the problem. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: It is my understanding that the Supreme Court is non-elected (appointed) precisely for the purpose that they would be above politics. I was trying to put the emphasis that the Justicies ARE elected, albeit by proxy as the appoints are done by the bedfellows of those that the citizenry has elected (therefore an extension of the elected - IMO) Stan Shannon wrote: makeing the constitution mean whatever they want it to mean with no regard at all for what it actually says I'm always a tad leary of anything that appears like an absolute (unless its in code :) ) there are too few in the 'real' world (the one that deals with people, to claim you've found one. Other than that, I'm in over my head in this topic and it would require far to much effort on my part to elevate myself to a truly knowledgable postion;) -Mel --------------------------------------------- The greenest grass is NOT on the other side of the fence, its the grass you take care of. Have you watered your lawn lately?