No need - Page 35

cactusman · 10-09-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

cactusman, I have not insulted you or any of the other things that you said that I did.
Yes, you have. Some how claiming I need a good mother. Who then? You?

You wrote on my page that you liked how I don't lash out and insult people, even though they might justifiably deserve it. That's why you added me as a friend. Remember? Go to my page and read what you wrote. Actually, I think I've done a relatively good job of not calling names, or making fun of another person's faith, with a couple of exceptions.

I find it insulting that you think that what you have learned in your religion
Its not my religion that puts me in the pro life category; its my sense of right and wrong. Any way you spin it, a baby, fetus, embryo, a life is ended. Thats what women want to be empowered with? I'm not against women's rights; I'm for the rights of the baby as well.

gives you the right to blanket judgements and and opinions that can't be based on any actual experience.
The baby actually dies.

And even if your sister experienced it and shared it with you, that does not give you the woman's experience.
Is she now a man?

I'm sorry that you think that by telling you the truth about the history of the religion that you believe in, I am insulting you. It is the truth as I have come to understand it, and I am entitled to my opinion on what I have found.
And now you're making blanket statements. You pick and choose parts of history in a vain attempt to justify your hatred. Jesus told His disciples that His followers would be delivered up to the powers that be, whether religious establishment or gov't. I get persecuted by church goers. They judge me on my appearance, my tattoos.

You can say whatever you like about my parents, that does not hurt me in the slightest. Especially if it is the truth. I have done so myself in regards to their parenting. Have at it.
No, I consider you a friend and don't want to lose that.

Besides, thats not the topic.

And I don't want to win this debate.
Then why do you keep beating that drum?

I want for women to be given sovereign rights over their own bodies
If thats the case, then babies should be given those same rights.

and spiritual growth.
So what if women want to be in the LDS church and totally dominated? Do you agree with their decision?

I'm not arguing that a woman should be allowed to abort a 30 week fetus, I am arguing that it is within her right to have an abortion in the first trimester.
If a women should sovereign rights, then she should be able to have partial birth abortions. This is your argument. To call it anything else would be dishonest.

You can think it is murder all you like,
It is.

but you cannot decide based on an ancient book and some clever manipulations of the masses, that you have a superior knowledge over what another individuals best life is, or how to live it.
Its not about me deciding for you; its about you making the right choice.

And I know all about Christian charities remember? I worked in several, for a long time. Hands on, volunteering and helping my fellow man. That does not change the fact that even though there have been great things done in the name of religion, that there haven't been equally heinous and evil things done. And that there aren't truths outside of it's doctrine, or that their doctrines aren't what they would have you believe.
Killing your baby is heinous; especially since most of the time its simply for convenience.

Instead of getting pissed about it, why not actually investigate what I say, and maybe what you find will at least give you enough reason to believe what you do, and let others make their own life decisions.
I do investigate. Actually, I've remained quite calm and patient with you, while you on the other hand lash out like a cornered cat. Its only debate, no one is forcing you to log in.
Your research is not about finding the truth; its because you have an axe to grind with Christianity. How many years have you spent trying to disprove the Bible?
The Bible states that we must test the Word to other doctrines.

Because my beliefs might insult you, but they don't infringe on your Constitutional rights or limit your freedoms.

Thanks for the awkward apology. I forgive you. Lets still remain friends.

Catus Felidae · 10-09-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cactusman

Its still fact; most of these so called circumstances you base your views on are not that common.
What does this have to do with the debate?

It has to do with the fact that you cannot know that there is 'no need' for abortion until AFTER the pregnancy has ended.

There is no way that you, or any doctor, can assure any woman that she will experience a normal, ie not life threatening, pregnancy.

I knew, due to pre existing conditions, that my last pregnancy probably would have killed me.

I did not know during my fourth pregnancy, that things were going to go very wrong six hours into labor. The only reason that my son and I are alive, is that labor started with my water breaking, so when the placenta detached, I was already in the hospital.

A friend of mine had no idea that her first pregnancy was going to kill her.

To state that there is 'no need' for abortion, is to imply that all pregnancies will end happily. You don't know that for a fact. A lot of pregnancies are just fine, until they aren't, and it's no comfort to the woman, or those she leaves behind to know that it was 'uncommon'.

waitingtables · 10-09-2008, 01:11 PM

cactus, what I said regarding needing a mother was done from what I have gathered through your posts and how they lack any real consideration for the women's perspective or experience. The whole of our society needs a good mother, rather than the punishing father figure that the three major religions base their deity on. It was meant to be a bit more general than specific. In our country we are constantly hearing about family values and the role of parents in bringing up their kids. Yet, we as a society believe in a creator in whose image we were created, yet that creator is completely male and doesn't need a woman's hand in looking after what has been created. These Bible doctrines are blatantly used as tools to keep one half of humanity in a lower and less respected position. If that is the God you worship, you need a mother to balance out what consequences this type of belief cause. And the consequences are evident everywhere you look. The Old Testament is chock full of deliberate punishments for even thinking that there might be a feminine aspect of deity, and the story of creation in it was a lesson in what happens to those who fall back into the earlier practises of Goddess worship.

Your opinion on abortion is that it is killing a baby who has all the rights that are given to the born individual even in the first trimester. And for your information, I do only agree with abortion if it is done in the first trimester, unless the mother's life is at risk. Period. I've said that many times consistently.

If a woman chooses to become a member of the FLDS as an adult, then that is her choice. But what is not her choice is allowing her 14 year old daughter to be married off to someone. I think that's pretty clear. Abuse isn't okay, believing in your version of religion is okay. Mandating that everyone must follow a religion's doctrines is not okay, and limiting the freedoms that are provided to us as citizens here is also not okay.

And I'm not saying that your sister is a man, just that you are, and no matter how you are affected by her experience, it still does not miraculously give you the experience. That's all. You are not equipped.

And although I might come off as angry, which I didn't think I was doing, I'm not angry. I'm challenging your position on subjects with my positions. It seems that maybe you are getting a bit angry that I will not acquiesce.

Bronwyn · 10-09-2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cactusman

How about don't have sex? I can guarantee a woman won't get pregnant if she doesn't have sex.

Sex is fun, It can be a great stress reliever.

And whatever WOULD the hormone-driven males in this world do if there weren't females who enjoyed the act without strings attached?

OnTheLeft · 10-09-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cactusman

How about don't have sex? I can guarantee a woman won't get pregnant if she doesn't have sex.

How about men control their sperm? I can guarantee a woman won't get pregnant if a man effectively controls his sperm.

cactusman · 10-10-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catus Felidae

It has to do with the fact that you cannot know that there is 'no need' for abortion until AFTER the pregnancy has ended.

So abortion is the answer for the 'what if' scenario?

There is no way that you, or any doctor, can assure any woman that she will experience a normal, ie not life threatening, pregnancy.

Ultra sound gives an idea. But, you're right. Still, thats not a good reason to abort. Hence, no need.

I did not know during my fourth pregnancy, that things were going to go very wrong six hours into labor. The only reason that my son and I are alive, is that labor started with my water breaking, so when the placenta detached, I was already in the hospital.

Imagine your life without your son. Would you rather not have him?

To state that there is 'no need' for abortion, is to imply that all pregnancies will end happily. You don't know that for a fact. A lot of pregnancies are just fine, until they aren't, and it's no comfort to the woman, or those she leaves behind to know that it was 'uncommon'.

No need according to my first post.

cactusman · 10-10-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waitingtables

cactus, what I said regarding needing a mother was done from what I have gathered through your posts and how they lack any real consideration for the women's perspective or experience.

And my posts are in regard to the lack of consideration for the baby's life. What really bothers me about the abortion issue is that certain women feel that they need to make it a right; that right is to kill the living being inside of them. I have no issue with women having equal rights with men.

The whole of our society needs a good mother, rather than the punishing father figure that the three major religions base their deity on. It was meant to be a bit more general than specific.

No it wasn't. It was directly related at Christianity. And to compare Christianity to Islam, in regards to women, is missing the mark. If you have studied Christianity as you stated, then you would understand.

In our country we are constantly hearing about family values and the role of parents in bringing up their kids. Yet, we as a society believe in a creator in whose image we were created, yet that creator is completely male and doesn't need a woman's hand in looking after what has been created.

God is neither man nor woman. He is not limited to a gender. Don't think finite. I already explained this in the religion forum. Why are we debating religion here?

These Bible doctrines are blatantly used as tools to keep one half of humanity in a lower and less respected position.

Not true. So many women played very important roles in the Bible.
So many women play important roles today, in regard to infant rights.

Your opinion on abortion is that it is killing a baby who has all the rights that are given to the born individual even in the first trimester. And for your information, I do only agree with abortion if it is done in the first trimester, unless the mother's life is at risk. Period. I've said that many times consistently.

But giving exclusive, sovereign rights to the mother is in contradiction to 1st trimester only; it limits her rights.

And I'm not saying that your sister is a man, just that you are, and no matter how you are affected by her experience, it still does not miraculously give you the experience. That's all. You are not equipped.

Maybe not physically, but mentally.

And although I might come off as angry, which I didn't think I was doing, I'm not angry. I'm challenging your position on subjects with my positions. It seems that maybe you are getting a bit angry that I will not acquiesce.

Then lets stick to the topic.

cactusman · 10-10-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheLeft

How about men control their sperm? I can guarantee a woman won't get pregnant if a man effectively controls his sperm.

How? Condoms are not effective 100%. Not having sex is the only guarantee.

Catus Felidae · 10-10-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cactusman

So abortion is the answer for the 'what if' scenario?

For many women, yes it is.

Ultra sound gives an idea. But, you're right. Still, thats not a good reason to abort. Hence, no need.

You're very handy at assigning rights. You assign a blastocyst the 'right to life' as long as it's not terminated by a few select methods, and now you're assigning yourself the right to decide whether or not a woman should risk her health and life.

Who are you to assign these rights? What superior 'whatever' gives you that right?

Imagine your life without your son. Would you rather not have him?

Had I not had my son, I would not be able to 'imagine my life without him'. I lost three before my first child was born. Do you honestly imagine that I sit around bemoaning how different my life would be had I not miscarried?

.No need according to my first post.

According to your first post, you see no need for abortion unless the mother will die. Problem is: You can't know which mothers will die and which won't. Until you can predict that with 100% accuracy, you don't qualify to decide who can abort and who can't.

You state there is 'no need' for abortion in cases of rape because the fetus is 'innocent'. You totally fail to take into consideration the mother. I'm sure that some women can psychologically handle gestating the child of their rapist. I'm also sure that many cannot. Who are you to decide for them?

As far as disabled goes, I also worked with disabled adults for a few years. I do not know how you 'know' that you have never met one who "doesn't wish they had never been born' simply because many of them could not comprehend the question any more than a person of average IQ can comprehend quantum physics.

After years of working with these children of a lesser god, I strongly feel that the question is not 'do we have the right to abort', but is in fact, 'do we have the right NOT to abort'. What gives Jane Doe the right to decide that someone else will live an inferior life that has no potential and is fraught with suffering.

waitingtables · 10-10-2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

And my posts are in regard to the lack of consideration for the baby's life. What really bothers me about the abortion issue is that certain women feel that they need to make it a right; that right is to kill the living being inside of them. I have no issue with women having equal rights with men.

The baby doesn't have a life yet, it's life is dependent on it's development in the womb. And a first trimester fetus could not live outside it's mother's body if it were removed. And a woman does have a right to privacy and medical treatment to do with her body as she chooses, until state law puts a date on when the fetus actually becomes something that the state has a vested interest in.

Quote:

No it wasn't. It was directly related at Christianity. And to compare Christianity to Islam, in regards to women, is missing the mark. If you have studied Christianity as you stated, then you would understand.

It has nothing to do with Islam at all. A mother is a mother no matter what religion you are. I simply think that it is apparent to me that all of those religions have done an awful lot of damage to the mother and to women in general. And that they are all off balance in regards to the human condition. And that it doesn't have to be that way. And that I picked up from your posts that you might have a problem with women because of your adherence to the literal translation of the Bible.

Quote:

Not true. So many women played very important roles in the Bible.

Yes, even more than you know. There are some women who have been completely removed or been altered into something other than what they truly were. And none of them in the Bible are given equal position as men, because that is how that society believed it should be. And that is okay for 2000 years ago, but not any longer. To use the Biblical women as a defence for religious misogyny is not furthering your point.

Quote:

But giving exclusive, sovereign rights to the mother is in contradiction to 1st trimester only; it limits her rights.

The Supreme Court has decided that in the case of abortion the state has the right to set the limit for how long a woman has to have an abortion. In most states it is up until 24 weeks. I think that is too long, and that it should be restricted to the first trimester unless the health of the mother is at stake.

Quote:

Maybe not physically, but mentally.

No, not mentally either. You are not a woman, and cannot mentally relate to what it is to be a woman, or a mother. No matter how much you think you can.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode