 |
|
|
|
 An anti-abortion protestor prays silently in front of the Supreme Court as an officer looks on.
January 24th, 2011
05:59 PM ET
Thousands rally against abortion on Capitol HillBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor Thousands of abortion opponents joined Monday afternoon in a cold march on Capitol Hill, beginning on the National Mall and ending at the Supreme Court building. Saturday marked the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal throughout the United States. Organizers planned the rally for Monday so marchers could visit with their congressional representatives to express their opposition to the law. As thousands of bundled-up marchers walked up Constitution Avenue, some prayed the rosary, feeding wooden rosary beads through gloved fingers. Others held signs calling for the government to "Defund Planned Parenthood." Barbara Murray, a real estate agent from Havertown, Pennsylvania, who is Catholic, came down by bus with a group of 80 others. She said she has high hopes for the new GOP majority in Congress. Last week Republicans introduced legislation to ban all federal funding for abortion. House Speaker John Boehner, during his weekly news conference, said, "A ban on taxpayer funding of abortions is the will of the people and it ought to be the will of the land." Murray and others at the rally were looking for ways to fight abortions beyond overturning Roe v. Wade and were energized by a recent suggestion from Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who greeted marchers Monday on Capitol Hill and will be the keynote speaker at a March for Life dinner Monday night. "I'm thrilled to death with her," Murray said. "One of the things she said she wants to do is defund Planned Parenthood. If we do that, we don't have to worry about the law as much." As much as abortion opponents want the law changed, she said, "if we can defund the whole business and get rid of the whole abortion business in our country, the law can be on the books, but we have to make sure that we protect every single child and that's unborn and born." Christopher Pushaw, an attorney from Wayne, Pennsylvania, marched alongside Murray as they made their way past the Capitol in matching knit caps with "Pro-Life" stitched on the front. "I'm a lawyer and abortion is the law of the land and I have to respect that because it's constitutional. Morally and spiritually I think it's repugnant," Pushaw said. "So I think it's more of an educational mission at this point. I would love to see it be overturned but part of it is just witnessing now, you know, a critical mass of people saying this is wrong and we oppose it even though it's the law of the land," he said. Pushaw said there are different approaches within the anti-abortion movement. "There's the Genocide Project down there," he said pointing back a few blocks. "It's that visceral depiction of what happens in an abortion, and I think that, for me, is a little polarizing. But I don't question their conviction in doing it. I'm just more trying to make it as non-sectarian and educational as possible in keeping the conviction. You don't need to scream. There's 100,000 people and the statement is made load and clear."
The rally drew from many parts of the country. Marchers held banners from churches in Missouri and parochial schools in New Jersey. Many of the marchers were young. Alex Perry, 16, and Will Stancil, 17, were given the day off from their school. They attend a Catholic high school in Hyattsville, Maryland, where, they said, many of their friends and classmates are pro-choice. "There's very few who are pro-life in our school, even though it is encouraged," Perry said. "Nobody forces it on you. No one tries to sway you one way or the other. Everyone knows it's a really personal decision," Stancil said. Heather Dougherty, a Catholic from Pittsburgh, said that for her the march was intensely personal. "I've been marching all my life because I was an unplanned pregnancy," she said. "My parents were in college, they weren't married, and rather than abort me, my parents chose to give me up for adoption. And so I was blessed that she chose life." She added, "I think we need to come at it from all sides. You can't just change the laws. You have to change the hearts of the people who are looking for it. You need to make people aware adoption is an option if they can't support a child." About 15 abortion rights supporters stood outside the Supreme Court building as the march unfolded. They chanted and held signs of their own, imploring the court and Congress to keep abortion legal. U.S. Capitol Police said there were no arrests as a result of the march and counterprotest.
« Previous entryArmageddon illustrated
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
I am 17, Catholic, and Pro life. My mother was only 15 when she got pregnant with me and I thank God every day that she chose adoption over abortion. There are options out there for unplanned pregnancies! People need to look past the religious and political nature of abortion. Think of how you would feel if you were in your mothers womb and heard the words "unplanned pregnancy or abortion." No voice of your own to speak up and cry for life. Only today would you say "oh no that would be terrible if I had not lived." I cannot stand how people say "population control" or "survival of the fittest" when it comes to this issue. WHERE IS THE COMPASSION? People can tell you to put aside the emotion and be logical about it and that's fine, there are many logical arguments that lead to tell the conscience that abortion is wrong. The fact that thinking about your own mortality brings a sense of specialness, thankfulness for life and a plethora of other emotions only proves that we cannot simply say that abortion is okay. My emotion is so strong towards this issue because it affected me the day i was concieved and still effects me as well as others today. I am simply thankful my mom chose life and I think every day about the thousands of children who were killed before they had even a chance to experience life outside the womb. These mothers need an environment where an unplanned pregnancy is looked upon as a blessing, not a disease.
@ Jordan
Thanks for a sincere and articulate post, Jordan. I think you've beautifully stated the concept that every abortion, in addition to ending a life, minimizes the value of all existing human life. But we have to be careful to not endorse unplanned pregnancy (even as a blessing) over rational and responsible family planning; we're already seeing a growing trend of that in the certain cultural and economic segments of our society. Moral and ethical people cannot and do not consider abortion as a method of family planning. Stand your ground. Reflect the heat from those who are of a different opinion.
Good post, Jordan.
@Let Us Prey
You said: "Moral and ethical people cannot and do not consider abortion as a method of family planning."
I am an atheist. I am pro-choice. I am also 100% behind gay rights. I am neither immoral nor unethical. I just don't let a Bronze Age god dictate my morals to me.
I have been married to the same woman for more than 30 years. I have never been arrested, or accused of any crime. I give to the local food bank.
You non-thinking sheep always want to give your god a pass, on all the suffering and evil in the world. This is ludicrous, considering all the misery and death this desert hobgoblin is responsible for.
If your god was not an perverted idiot, He would not give the gift of life people who cannot care for it.
Psalm 127:3 – Children are a gift of the LORD
Notice how god doesn't check to see if a woman is capable of raising a child, before he gives a baby to them?
Women in poor countries bear children, only to have them die, because Mom has no food.
Women addicted to drugs are given babies, when they are totally incapable of taking care of themselves, much less a child.
Girls are blessed with a baby they don't want. Why are babies given to women who don't want them?
If god would be more careful with giving out gifts/children, abortion wouldn't be needed.
We should start real $ex education in school. Not abstinence only. Real education about the use of birth control.
We will never totally eradicate abortions. Only a god could do that, and he either does not care, or does not exist.
God murdered directly, or had murdered, men, women, animals, and children INCLUDING babies.
Where was His regard for life? Can an immoral god be the objective moral law giver?
You said: "Stand your ground. Reflect the heat from those who are of a different opinion."
Practice what you preach. All you do is cover your ears and say, " is not, is not". You have no business giving any advice to an underage person. Damn, man! You have no proof of anything you prattle on about.
So, show little Jordan! Reflect the heat back to me. LOL
Cheers!
@Let Us Prey
A P.S. to my comment:
Psalm 127:3 – Children are a gift of the LORD
All these babies are given to women who do not want / cannot hope to care for them.
On the flip side, there are women who try desperately to have their own child. Can't your god tell the difference?
Now we could say, that this is an opportunity for people to adopt. And many choose to do so. But, it is not usually a first choice. And not in keeping with the "gift of god" concept.
God either does not care, or does not exist.
Cheers
@ David Johnson
I've copied a response I made to you in the Shriver string. It went unanswered, and it seems to be appropriate now as well, so here:
------
@ DJ
Rockhounds and Dawkins and Wiki ... oh my!
I don't care about the secular/sacred 'argument', Dave. I just want a little accuracy in play here, ex., we are still learning (about our physiology) and everything is obviously a 'work in progress'. Whether evolutionary, by design; either with a simple nudge here and there from a guiding force or a chromosome or cell that appears 'cause it just makes sense..
We don't know, Dave. We can't. There's no way. The universe is simply not meant to be, or not able to be, understood – at least by us, and not now. Any concept we may have about 'God or god' is a figment – of reality, imagination, or understanding. Anyone that adopts a belief about God is going on.. faith. That's all. Anyone that promotes a denial of god is going on... logical supposition. That's all.
These two are meant to co-exist only in terms of social decency and consideration. Inherently, they don't 'work and play well with each other,' but I don't understand why you're so.... aggressive? Or mean-spirited ? (pun intended..) Really, David, what's the point ? I think back to our conversation (when I was 'Dancing with Trolls') and how we talked about my wife, your niece and the utility, futility, powerlessness, or embarrassment of faith. It served a purpose – at some level, to some degree. I understand making a decision not to believe... but why do you continue to be so hateful of other that are?
Unless, of course, you're simply trying to p!ss people off for fun...
-------
So,
Jordan, stated "People need to look past the religious and political nature of abortion." Although he said he was Catholic and pro-life, the focus of his statement was a concern over compassion. That was all. Read his post again. I was responding to Jordan from a moral & ethical perspective as well, not a spiritual one. I said nothing of God/god in my response to him other than to acknowledge his 'blessing' statement. You should remember from our other conversations and postings that I do not endorse organized religion. I hold a personal belief, and how I 'practice' this belief is just that – personal.
But off you go on another rant nonetheless... maybe the words Catholic, pro-life, and blessing set the firehouse alarms off in your mind. You are obsessed, David. It's not healthy, and to constantly thrust and parry your attacks is, well, kind of a nuisance. Some people feel obligated to respond to you because they are unfamiliar with you and sense that you could benefit from a few kind words. Or maybe their Irish is up because of something you've said, and they feel compelled to defend themselves. Either way – you get the idea.
Dave – look around on these blogs. Compare the tone of the conversations to what was happening last autumn and earlier. It used to be a bash-fest. A free-for-all, no holds barred insult carnival. "Comics, trolls, and knuckle-draggers," et.al. Civility was pretty much the exception, not the rule. Times are changing, Dave, and now your 'style' has become the exception. I've toned down considerably, save the occasional satire, but my 'wall' is pretty much down (of course I'm still a 'work in progress' too – I want to be like Peace2All and get lotsa' compliments...) But there's no longer a real need for 'offense as a best defense.' Most of the folks that were 'behinds' last fall (I include myself) have adopted civility. There's only a few of you left that haven't, Dave, and you're quickly becoming dinosaurs.
Quite honestly, David, I don't know what to make of you. You can hold a coherent conversation, and in your next breath act like you have some kind of serious 'thing' going on that affects you ability to reason and get along with others. Thankfully, I have no personal experience with what can cause this degree of contempt and hostility on your part. I don't know what happened in your life that precipitated your refusal or inability to tolerate the needs or choices of others, but it was obviously significant. I'm sorry. I wish I could help you with this. I don't think I can.
What I can tell you is that this blog 'membership' has become less tolerant of insecure bullies. Have you noticed how many of your posts go unanswered lately?
@Let Us Prey
OOOoooo! Damn! I'm on fire! I just can't take this kind of heat being reflected back on my argument. LOL
You said: "I don't care about the secular/sacred 'argument', Dave."
You argument was typical. A variation of "god works in mysterious, not discernible by humans, ways". Give god a pass on all things horrid.
So, you have no argument. Only the hands over the ears position. And you don't care, that what you bleat is B.S.
Prattle on Christian Soldier! Prattle on!
Cheers!
@ David Johnson
"So, you have no argument."
That's right, Dave. You figured it all out.
*sigh*
-–
@ Jordan
You can only try your best, but sometimes you have to walk away.
Dorthy,
I have attended the March for Life many times and have always been disappointed with the news coverage and crowd estimates. The organizing committee should hire a non-biased, professional group to do an actual count of the number of marchers. Said committee should also consider moving the March to May or October in order to allow the "AARPies" to participate.
This is BS. Many of the marchers were young? I'd say 80% of them if not more were under the age of 26.
There were a quarter million people there, just like there have been for the past 8 years, and this is the 38th year in a row that there has been a march. Frankly, if it weren't for the fact that it is in DC and people can't necessarily take the time off every year and make the trip, there would be several hundred times that amount. The fact that there are young people there en masse says a huge amount. And before you say, "Yeah, they're sheeple and they just wanted a day off from school," keep in mind that it is a day in late January. When I went a few years ago, it was freezing cold and raining. Yesterday was brisk, but sunny and dry, at least, but many of my students who went came to school much more tired than normal. They had to get there early (they met at the school at 4:30 and left at 5:00) and didn't get back till dinner time. I'd rather comparatively sleep in and spend my day inside in the warmth if I were your average teen.
Frankly, I'm disappointed that such a major event gets only a blip in a blog tucked away from the front page. It's not like it's a surprise event, and it's not like DC is such a far away place that sending someone to cover the event is a burden. The "Restoring Sanity/Keep Fear Alive" and Glenn Blech rallies got a ridiculous amount of coverage for their events that drew comparable or even fewer numbers of people. Where's the fair and unbiased coverage, CNN?
You're looking for love in the wrong place.
You may be right, LetUsPrey, but I could have sworn the news was supposed to be a snapshot of the major daily events. You know, news. Yesterday there were three separate stories on the cold weather on the front page of the US edition.
It was in Section D, page 4 of my local paper. Quite honestly, Dorothy, and I'm saying this without trying to minimize the importance of the topic, I think the ongoing abortion rights battle has become so ingrained into our society that it no longer qualifies as 'news.'
Dorthy,--
I have attended the March for Life many times and have always been disappointed with the news coverage and crowd estimates. The organizing committee should hire a non-biased, professional group to do an actual count of the number of marchers. Said committee should also consider moving the March to May or October in order to allow the "AARPies" to participate.
Dorthy,
See also Deborah Howell's review on Washington DC marches/demonstrations and crowd estimates that was published in 2007. I have added the web address five times and each time it gets rejected. Another CNN filter issue no doubt. This time probably because it has a competi-tor's name in it i.e. the Washington Post. Google "Deborah Howell" demonstrations 2007 to get the article.
And why is there never much said about the guilt/sin-free option i.e. adoption??
o The numbers, the calculations and two "bottom liners":
"Facts on Co-ntraceptive Use
http://www.gu-ttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
January 2008
WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?
• 62 million U.S. women (and men?) are in their childbearing years (15–44).[1]
• 43 million women (and men) of reproductive age, or 7 in 10, are se-xually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they or their partners fail to use a contraceptive method.[2]
• The typical U.S. woman (man?) wants only 2 children. To achieve this goal, she (he?) must use contraceptives for roughly 3 decades.[3]
WHO USES CONTRACEPTIVES?
• Virtually all women (98%) aged 15–44 who have ever had inte-rcourse have used at least one contraceptive method.[2](and men?)
• Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using one.[2] (and men)
• 31% of the 62 million women (and men?) do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had inter-course; or are not s-exually active.[2]
• Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk of unwanted pregnancy but are not using contraceptives.[2] (and men?)
• Among the 42 million fertile, s-exually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.[2] (and men?)
WHICH METHODS DO WOMEN (men?) USE?
• 64% of reproductive-age women who practice contraception use reversible methods, such as oral contraceptives or condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.[2]
FIRST-YEAR CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES
Percentage of women (men?) experiencing an unplanned pregnancy (a few examples)
Metho Typical
Pill (combined) 8.7
Tubal sterilization 0.7
Male condom 17.4
Vas-ectomy 0.2
Periodic abstinence 25.3
Calendar 9.0
Ovulation Method 3.0
Sympto-thermal 2.0
Post-ovulation 1.0
No method 85.0"
(Abstinence) 0
(Mas-turbation) 0
More facts about co-ntraceptives from
guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
"CON-TRACEPTIVE METHOD CHOICE
Con-traceptive method use among U.S. women who practice con-traception, 2002
Method No. of users (in 000s) % of users
Pill 11,661 30.6
Male condom 6,841 18.0 "
i.e.
The pill fails to protect women 8.7% during the first year of use (from the same reference previously shown).
i.e.
0.087 (failure rate)
x 62 million (# child bearing women)
x 0.62 ( % of these women using contraception )
x 0.306 ( % of these using the pill) =
1,020,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of pill use.
For male condoms (failure rate of 17.4 and 18% use level):
1,200,000 unplanned pregnancies during the first year of male condom use.
The Guttmacher Insti-tute (same reference) notes also that the perfect use of the pill should result in a 0.3% failure rate
(35,000 unplanned pregnancies) and for the male condom, a 2% failure rate (138,000 unplanned pregnancies).
o Bottom Line #1: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and S-TDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the pill or condoms properly and/or use other methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.
Bottom line #2-
Currently, a perfect barrier system does not exist. Time to develop one! In the meantime, mono-ma-sturbation or mutual ma-sturbation are highly recommended for hete-rose-xuals who need a contraceptive. Abstinence is another best-solution but obviously the se-x drive typically vitiates this option although being biological would it not be able to develop a drug to temporarily eliminate said drive?
From your own stats:
Pill failure rate: 8.7%
Condom failure rate: 17.4%
Sympto-thermal (a natural family planning method): 2.0%
Abstinence: 0%
....sounds to me that making a better barrier method isn't the key, but learning about yourself and your cycle and controlling yourself is. How about we educate people that way? It's cheaper, better for the environment and, apparently, more effective.
Dorthy,
Of course you are correct. Unfortunately the "hot" part of the cycle for women makes such practice difficult.
I know you're being sarcastic, but there's enough attacks on the First ammendment. We don't need to be de-sensitizied to these attacks. All of the attacks need to be addressed. Net-neutrality, political correctness, "a stop to vitriolic rhetoric" all attack the first ammendment.
@ Tom
No, you have it backwards. They occur because of 1A, not in conflict with it. I can be as vitriolic or politically-incorrect as I care to. There are limits, of course, but the point is that most of what you label as 'attack on' is what I would consider as 'exercise of' 1A. That includes as much sarcasm as I care to muster.
Net-neutrality being subjected to the same democratic process as anything else in our country. I personally don't agree with 'limitations' or other controls being allowed, but the net, by it's own design, will always be in flux and subject to external influences.
@Tom
In a way... aren't ya' kind of doing the very thing that you are accusing -Let Us Prey of; telling him to 'not say' what is on his mind...?
And, again... -Let Us Prey was being 'sarcastic.'
You 'will' know when he is very seriously making a point. There will be 'no' misunderstanding.
Peace...
Prey, Find a way to silence people? Really?! Do you know that people have a right to protest? Stalin, Mao and Hitler found a way to silence people. Do you really want to live in THAT kind of society?
Good grief people.... Sarcasm, already!! Please read the string....
Goodness.
Hundreds of thousands were there. On if you don't like one don't get one comment from earlier. Well if you don't like the Tucson shooting then don't buy a gun.....why should we control guns hmmmm? Becasue someone killed lots of people, well abortion has killed lots of people too should it be controlled also?
At what stage does an embryo end and a fetus begin?
When does the light of consciousness filter through to the womb?
Do these distinctions really matter when contemplating the sanct.ity of life?
Personally, I don't think so. Abortion is killing a potential human.
I don't think that is a particularly negative thing in many circu.mstances.
In 1900 in some U.S. cities, up to 30% of infants died before reaching their first birthday. Today the rate is .07%!
Global population has increased from 2 to 7 billion in less than 100 years.
There are simply too many people!
Any species left to expand unabated will eventually die off, drowning in it's own waste – and we are well on our way. The species must be culled in order to remain healthy. Normally, this culling would be done by natural processes like disease or predation – but we have largely conquered disease and have no predator save for ourselves (barring statistically insignificant instances like bear attacks and whatnot).
As unpleasant as it may be to face up to reality, a large portion of the species will die unnatural deaths sooner or later, be it in war or as a result of the pressure we have put on our environment (not just AlGoreMageddon global warming, but the inevitable proliferation of deadly diseases rushing through overcrowded urban centres).
Think of abortion as a pre-emptive measure.
So I ask the readers of this blog, which is more moral:
to condemn a child to a brutish life with an impoverished parent who never wanted them or to abort immediately after conception (a la morning after pill)?
@Doc Vestibule
Thank you for your post. As always, you are a breath of fresh sanity.
Abortion is an important part of the family planning toolbox.
Cheers to you!
David Johnson
"Abortion is an important part of the family planning toolbox."
... and too many women treating it like taking a car to the garage could be part of the problem, Dave.
@ Doc Strangelove
"Think of abortion as a pre-emptive measure."
Whoo-hoo ! (arm raises uncontrollably in Nazi salute...)
@Let us Prey
Learn to stop worrying and love the RU486.
Lulz!
@Doc Vestibule
Finally! Someone who agrees with me about all that "excess population."
Humbug!
I'd also be open to implementing Swift's "modest proposal".
@ Doc Vestibule
Well, to quote -you-
"everybody likes barbeque."
2 of my sons were there, and it was hundreds of thousands, not thousands. And the majority of participants were youth. My kids traveled on a caravan with 180 other teens. 27,000 teens filled the Verizon center for a Mass, and the tickets were sold out.
Young people have the technology, they've seen the ultrasound pictures, and they know the truth. Those old,stale lies about blobs of tissue and uterine material just won't cut it anymore. The tide is shifting.
See http://www.thineeyes.org/
I agree. I did not feel very strongly about the issue, but when I saw the sonogram of my unborn son at 4 months, that woke me up! Also, this was 15 years ago, and I understand that the images are even better now. Anybody who can see a sonogram and not recognize a human being has something wrong either with their eyes or with their brain.
Did you all forget the fact that you were once a fetus? Why do you have to use words to hide behind what an abortion actually does? It murders a life. The Dread-Scott decision was a very dark time in our nation's history, it declared that some people could be defined as property and not human. Declaring a fetus not human, and thus not protected under the law, where does the rest take us? Handicapped, old, non productive, economically draining, etc... why should they live? perhaps a parent could decide at anytime they don't want to support a child, and just end its life.
So how about we just declare that women no longer own themselves while pregnant. Let's make them nothing but the slaves you want them to be. Let's force by law the woman to have something within her she does not want. Let's make it a law that there is such a thing as the right to be a parasite. Let's make it a law that there is such a thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being.
Let's turn morality and property rights upside down. That is what you desire.
@ Don
Depending upon how far along, this is already done, on all counts. State laws vary during the first trimester. Laws on the 2nd and 3rd trimesters are fairly consistent.
Let's mot twist the issue. The question is whether or not, a woman can choose or is forced to bring a life into this world. As difficult as this choice is for a mother, if it is made for her by those who judge her, the child may be born, but may be sentenced to a cruel life of abuse, if it is uwanted, unloved, etc. So while those, who feel moraly superior and self righteous feel good, there is another screwed up unwantd human beeing walking the streets. Another shooter, serial killer, rapist, you name it. Then, everyone wonders how can this be; whatever went wrong. Bottom line is, that we can not legislate morality. It just does not work. What else are we going to be told that we can and can not do.
Well, except for that 'slave' hoohaa.
Don
So how about we just declare that women no longer own themselves while pregnant. Let's make them nothing but the slaves you want them to be. Let's force by law the woman to have something within her she does not want. Let's make it a law that there is such a thing as the right to be a parasite. Let's make it a law that there is such a thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being. Let's turn morality and property rights upside down. That is what you desire.
-----–
Don, such a sad argument. Let try the old atheist argument of DNA, Is the DNA of you finger nails the EXACT same as the DNA of YOUR hair? Yes because it comes from the same individual. Now then, is the DNA of that BABY (because that is exactly what it is), the exact DNA of the mother? NO why? The mother and the BABY are not the same individual. The mother's wo-mb is the incubator, the protector of that BABY as GOD has graciously designed. It is NOT mother's body Don, it is a separate although not viable but still a separate developing individual or person! Politically, would we be having threats of Social Security going backrupt if we allowed the growth of 7-8 million more taxpayers? Think about that! I cannot say all would have been productive citizens but who can say otherwise? We never gave them that opportunity Bob!
@ Ykcyc
Probably not a good idea to advance your opinion based on assumptions. Lots of criminals come from 'wanted' pregnancies. Lots of wonderfulness comes from adoptions. That only begins the permutations.
We've always legislated morality with respect to the needs/standards of maintaining a civil society.
Ykcyc
Let's mot twist the issue. The question is whether or not, a woman can choose or is forced to bring a life into this world. As difficult as this choice is for a mother, if it is made for her by those who judge her, the child may be born, but may be sentenced to a cruel life of abuse, if it is uwanted, unloved, etc. So while those, who feel moraly superior and self righteous feel good, there is another screwed up unwantd human beeing walking the streets. Another shooter, serial killer, rapist, you name it. Then, everyone wonders how can this be; whatever went wrong. Bottom line is, that we can not legislate morality. It just does not work. What else are we going to be told that we can and can not do.
-----
How about ADOPTION! We adopt pets! Are not people more important? According to God, YES!
@Steve the real one
People are not more important, although they would like to think so.
@Let Us Prey
You are the one missing the point. While it is not something I would consider, I don't have the moral right to force that responsibility on someone who does not want it or is not readyfor it. We don't have the moral right to force this responsibility on someone to bring life into this world against their wishes. You can't force anyone to live or to love. It is simply not the responsibility of strangers to dictate choices that impact someone's life to that extent.
@Steve the real one
People are not more important, although they would like to think so.
-------
Really? You have children? if so do you tell them that?
Why then did God out of everything He made took time time to form man with His hands, everything else was created with his words? Why then did He breathe the breath of life ONLY in man? Why did He ONLY give dominion to Man? Why Ykcyc? God told Adam to take care of the garden and did not tell that to a tree or an animnal But He did to Adam! People are more important! Even human laws recognize that! Unjustly take a HUMAN life and it is murder!
@Steve the real one
I do have children. I do tell them that all life is sacred and that they are very special and unique, just like everybody else. Christial life is not more important than a Moslim one. If your "god" needs your help – it is only "your" idea of "god".
Ykcyc
@Steve the real one
I do have children. I do tell them that all life is sacred and that they are very special and unique, just like everybody else. Christial life is not more important than a Moslim one. If your "god" needs your help – it is only "your" idea of "god".
-----
Slow down! I never said my life is important than a a muslim's life! I said or what I meant was Humans are more important than trees, more important than animals! That was the topic! Earlier YOU said: "PEOPLE are not more important, although they would like to think so". Only here you did you inject religion! PEOPLE! Not Christian people, not Muslim people . Simply PEOPLE! Nice attempt to deflect the topic!
@ Ykcyc
"You are the one missing the point. I (we) don't have the moral right.. "
You, or a couple of friends? No. It is society's right (and responsibility) based on deliberated and arrived upon priorities that have been identified as necessary to maintain social continuity. We all have a say- strangers or not. That happens on an ongoing basis. But in our social democracy, there has to be, by necessity, a final process (vote) that represents a combination of a 'mean' of social norms -and- an equitable structure of rules enforcing those norms thus ensuring survival of the society.
@Steve the real one
Take it easy, doode. Check the dosage. You asked me a question and I was telling you what I tell my children. You are the one twisting what I say. I would like to see how you would survice without all the trees and animals. Hell, as long as there are supermarkets and Wallmarts you are going to imagine yourself as a superior being with the moral right to tell others what they should and shouldn't do. But don't worry, it will all end. It has to. God gets, what God want's. God help us all!
FOR YOU WILL NOT BE “SAVED” BY PRAYING TO “YOUR LORD”
BECAUSE THE WORD YOU USE, IS “MAN-MADE HOLY WORD”!
WHAT YOU BELIEVE, YOUR THOUGHTS ARE TRULY INSANE AND ABSURD!
YOUR WORDS ARE SIMPLY NOISE AND NOTHING ELSE!
THESE WORDS WILL NEVER BE A SIGN OF FAITH
BECAUSE THE WEALTH IS HEALTH OF TONGUE AND MIND
WHICH YOU DO NOT POSSES, NOR MANY OF YOUR KIND
THE MIND IS TWISTED AND THE TONGUE IS MEAN
DO IF YOU WILL, DESCRIBE THE PAIN OF SIN!
SO WHAT IF WORDS SEEM BEAUTIFUL, YOU'RE BLIND!
YOU THINK YOU ARE SO POWERFUL, SO WEAK IS HUMAN KIND:
EACH PERSON CHOOSES WHAT THEY WANT TO BE,
EACH HAS THEIR “BRAINS AND PERSONALITY”,
EACH ONLY SEES THE THINGS THEY WANT TO SEE,
EACH HAS THEIR OWN REALITY!
Ykcyc
@Steve the real one
Take it easy, doode. Check the dosage. You asked me a question and I was telling you what I tell my children. You are the one twisting what I say. I would like to see how you would survice without all the trees and animals. Hell, as long as there are supermarkets and Wallmarts you are going to imagine yourself as a superior being with the moral right to tell others what they should and shouldn't do.
---------–
I am calm as I could be ! I never said creation was not important! Tree asborb CO2 and expel oxygen so we can live. The ground produce food so we can live! Animal are important because theyare a food source, so we cam live! I have dogs that I love. I would not abuse them because they are important to me! Where did I state I was morally superior to anyone? You don't have to listen t one word I say, not one and that is your choice! Don't pretend you can read my heart as I am superior to no one! I just know Christ Jesus in te pardon of my sins and it appears you do not! Lets just agree to disagree because you are coming out of left field. Nice chatting with you!
@Steve the real one
You are right.
It is not your fault.
I am so wii.
Have a nice life / afterlife...
Ykcyc
@Steve the real one
You are right.
It is not your fault.
I am so wii.
Have a nice life / afterlife...
-------
I am not assigning blame, I am just saying somewhere the topic train jumped the track! Thanks for the opportunity and hope to see you in Heaven! that way we can both enjoy the after life! See you around the blog! Take care and love those children as hard as you can, one day they will be raising there own and would not need you as much! They grow up too quickly!
Actually Steve, that you think it's a sad argument shows how little you value self-ownership. You own yourself, Steve. You don't own anyone else. Stop thinking that you own others. Stop desiring to have slaves, Steve. The woman's womb is her property; it's not the property of the fetus. And it's certainly not your property.
@ Don
Once again, you're applying your abstract ideals to a concrete reality. Just a quick 'fer instance or two.
> If someone becomes a danger to themselves or others, they become a ward (protectee) of the state. Can you think of some examples? I'm sure you can.
> Someone mismanages their personal finances such that creditors must resort to civil action to collect on their bills. If the debtor is unfit to manage their own finances, a court-appointed guardian may be named.
There's all kinds of circu-mstances whereby the individual may lose their rights to person, property, or action. Then your concept of them "owning themselves" becomes not only moot, but outright incorrect.
Any pro-choice argument that ignores the psychological repercussions of abortion is not an informed argument. I know a woman who, many, many years ago, aborted twice against her husband's (not me..) knowledge and wishes in order to further her career. She went vary far up the corporate ladder as she was a very 'bright' person.
And she bawls uncontrollably every Mother's Day.
@Let Us Pray
I alre-ady sta-ted that it is not some-thing that I would con–sider, but that I have no mo-ral gro–und to fo-rce up on o-thers and take res-ponsi-bility for the con-seq-uenses. But bas-ed on your posts, you find re-asons to justify your "moral" ground to dic-tate and force respo-nsib-ility on to others, rega–rless of their quali-fications, circu-mstan-ces, or a back-ground. On the other hand, you seem totally un-con-cern with millions already living children starving to death every day. Where is you com-pas-sion? Where is your god? Why did they have to be born into a life of suff-ering, only to die of star-vation? You need to rem-ember that when you in-flu-ence oth-ers to make this kind of a de–cision, like it or not, you as-s-ume respo-nsibility for the con-seque-nces. How do you justify that or know the outcome of what you are imp-osing on to others? Do you know the co-nseque-nces ah-ead of the time? I still be-lieve it is a per-sonal dec-ision and should be up to indi-vidual invo-lved and not up to rel-igious -n-uts, dict-ating mo-rality to oth-ers. That is ex-actly the rea-son that Mu-sl-im cou-ntries are as me-ssed up, as they are. You are pre-ac-hing the same thing they do with a slig-htly diffe-rent fla-vor.
@ Ykcyc
Well, friend, I don't know what post(s) of mine you pulled -all that- out of, but I'll stand by this one:
"a (vote) that represents a combination of a 'mean' of social norms -and- an equitable structure of rules enforcing those norms thus ensuring survival of the society." January 25, 2011 at 11:48 am
The majority of social need must fit in the bell curve – not in the outer distributions. We should allow for "reasonable accommodation," ex., early term abortion, fine, if you choose. However, late term abortions should be outlawed except in 'health of the mother' cases. But, as always, this is imho, your opinion will vary depending on how much weight you give your personal interests (over the welfare of the general society.)
So, if we assume gawd does exist, then he is the biggest abortionist. But then again, Christians approve that because they have accepted the fake bribe of eternal life in luxury.
With respect to destroying sperm (or eggs) as being akin to abortion, give us a break!!! Human male sperm is analogous to the millions of tons of inactive deuterium floating harmlessly in the ocean but combine it in a fusion reaction, it becomes the energy of the Sun.
And Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rationale for killing the unborn or those suffering from de-mentia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???
We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succ-umb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!
–
o Bottom Line #1: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and S-TDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the pill or condoms properly and/or use other methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.
Bottom line #2-
Ccurrently, a perfect birth control/STD barrier system does not exist. Time to develop one! In the meantime, mono-ma-sturbation or mutual ma-sturbation are highly recommended for hete-rose-xuals who need a contraceptive. Abstinence is another best-solution but obviously the se-x drive typically vitiates this option although being biological would it not be able to develop a drug to temporarily eliminate said drive?
We "free Willy! the whale, but we kill Billy the man-child!
"...the whole world is under the sway of the evil one." 1 John 5:19
Correct! Green Peace would have a field day if it were baby seals!
Steve (the real one)
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Karen, get ready for the r-a-pe an in-cest questions, there are coming!
Sorry, Anne, you miss the point. If you don't want to have a baby don't engage in activity that could result in a pregnancy. So what exactly IS the difference between abortion and murder? Inquiring minds need to know.
And I suppose if you don't want a broken bone, don't engage in activities which could lead to one. And then certainly don't get the bone set, because that's just not taking responsibility, right?
Don
And I suppose if you don't want a broken bone, don't engage in activities which could lead to one. And then certainly don't get the bone set, because that's just not taking responsibility, right?
---------
Would that activity create life, Don? How is this anywhere close to abortion?
The jv basketball game is apparently over... Don's home!
It doesn't have to create life, Steve. Whyever are you under the delusion that it does? Think before you post, please. It will help you to not look so gormless.
Don,
So the s-ex act does not create life? Never did I said 100% of the time BUT the primary purpose IS to create life! Besides, if no life is being created, what is being aborted?
It doesn't have to, Steve–especially if the people so performing the act are both sterile.
Consenting to s.ex does not mean consenting to pregnancy. Further, the woman owns her body; she can have the fetus removed from her body if she so chooses. If you disagree, you necessarily believe that the woman doesn't own her body. Which means you believe she is a slave.
@ Don
"... the woman owns her body; she can have the fetus removed from her body if she so chooses.
Up to a point, depending upon circu-mstances and prevailing state law.
"If you disagree ... you believe she is a slave."
And exactly what's up with your fixation on this 'slave' nonsense? Who exactly is she being a slave to? The husband? The child? Society? Her conscience? Maybe you have slavery confused with social, ethical, and moral responsibility.
In order for people (incl. me) to take you seriously you need to stop speaking in abstract absolutes
Thank you Anne, I agree completely with you on this one. The "we said so" religion at work again.
These are the same people who condemn Islam for forcing their beliefs on others but yet would do the same thing here, in a heart beat. Hypocrites!
If only we could find a way of silencing all these disagreeable people... the world would be a better place.
Prey, First amendment???
Steve, sarcasm???
Prey,
I guess that would depend on who you are trying to silence. In truth, silencing anyone again, First amendment? No sarcasm!
@Let Us Prey
You said: "If only we could find a way of silencing all these disagreeable people... the world would be a better place."
If only we could find a way to rid society of religion and belief in non-existent gods...the world would be a better place.
@ David Johnson
See, Dave – that's the difference between you and I. I was being sarcastic.
Ron, playing that card is kind of weak when you're standing behind a ruling from an unelected Court which overturned laws passed by the elected legislatures of 49 different states.
Who's side silenced the voice of the people, Ron?
If you don't like abortion, don't get one. That's the difference between pro-choice and anti-abortion. The same people that think Mrs. Obama shouldn't tell them how to feed their children have no problem telling women they have to bring a fetus to term if they get pregnant. If you don't believe in it, don't do it. But don't tell others they have to have a baby.
@ anne
" But don't tell others they have to have a baby."
Free speech is a wonderful thing – or do you prefer 'but don't' speech?.
"If you don't like abortion, don't get one. That's the difference between pro-choice and anti-abortion. The same people that think Mrs. Obama shouldn't tell them how to feed their children have no problem telling women they have to bring a fetus to term if they get pregnant. If you don't believe in it, don't do it. But don't tell others they have to have a baby."
Yeah, and if you don't like stealing, don't steal. But don't tell me I can't.
And if you don't like assault, don't assault someone. But don't tell me I can't.
And if you don't like murder, don't murder someone. But don't tell me I can't.
Ridiculous logic. And guess what, it's NOT your body. It's someone else's that happens to be located in yours.
Wait...
Do you hear yourself? You don't want people to be told to have a baby yet I am positive you want laws to tell people not to kill each other. There is absolutely no difference in the life of a baby dependent upon his/her mother in the womb than a person walking the street dependent upon the government to keep killers off the street. OPEN YOUR EYES and YOUR HEART!
It seems to me that these protesters care only about these "people" until they're born. They'd make such a bigger impact on improving life if they cared for the kids whose lives are awful right now instead of trying to force women to have children that they either can't raise or whose lives will be destroyed or made agonizing by defects.
@ JPDG, abortion is legal, the activities you listed are all crimes. You don't even make a good strawman argument. Try something like, "I don't want a gun. You can have a gun, but don't tell me I have to." See? Owning a gun is legal but not obligatory. Makes a little more sense, no?
Looks more like 1 – 3 people from the photo, not thousands...
Come on, Scott.. you can count higher than that...
http://www.astantin.com/march-for-life-astantin-20110124/march-for-life-photo1-live-from-the-march-for-life/
You're either lying or stupid. No third alternative.
The days of slaughtering innocence are numbered.
@Jason No, abortion will just evolve. Insurance companies will figure a way to cover it, private groups will subsidize it. Barring a flat-out law against abortion, we'll always have legal abortion. And if Roe v. Wade goes by the wayside, we'll go back to the back alleys and trips to Canada and Mexico. But then, any woman who dies in a back-alley abortion derserves what she gets, right?
Jason, do you feel the same way about ending the slaughter of innocent muslims?
Just wondering if you're at all consistent in your reasoning.
ScottK: If this was responsible journalism, it would have reported that nearly 18,000 youth filled the Verizon Center for the Mass and Rally and nearly 10,000 more at the DC Armory. Estimates were there were between 100,000 and 200,000 participating in the March For Life. CNN obviously downplays this number not only in how they express the numbers, but by their choice of photos. If you want a more accurate account of the scope of the event you might try visiting the website of The National Cathoilc Register. For a layman's point of view perspective that is more representative than CNN's coverage (in case you believe NCR is biased), search You Tube videos posted by participants. Oh...if you happen to go the You Tube route, be sure to view the videos posted from the national event in Washington, DC yesterday – not to be confused with the local marches that took place in many other cities – obviously also not covered by CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC. Another resource of interest is the newsbusters dot org website regarding the lack of coverage.
I was there and it was close to 400,000. CNN downplayed the numbers. SHOCKER!