Yoga Posturas » Yoga Exercise » ABORTION AND RESPONSIBILITY
ABORTION AND RESPONSIBILITY
Question:
If it’s not a child it’s not murder. Shoew me how it is murder, and where the child is in all this?
I’m replying only to those messages I see in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic at this point, as I have unsubed from talk.abortion (too much talk). From the Catholic (and straight-line deterministic universe) point of view, the child is less than 9 months down the line of greatest probiblity on the time axis. The question then becomes "Should we or should we not do everything humanly possible to protect that future child?" I say yes, and I also (for once) agree with the conservative columnist Cal Thomas when he wrote (in an article that probabally appeared a week late given my local paper) that before we can make abortion for convience illegal we must first make caring for unwanted children LEGAL AND SUPPORTED. You miss the point that sex *occasionally* leads to pregnancy. It isn’t inevitable. And even with the best contraception in the world contraception occasionally fails. Now would you suggest that a married couple abstain from sex for the rest of their (possibly fertile) lives after they’ve already had their preferred two or three children? Or would you suggest that the woman gets a hysterectomy (major, major surgery even these days, with months and months of recovery time before she can even care for her kids by makintg them a hot drink)… because that is the *only* way to ensure no more pregnancies occur.
Is the Karma Sutra on the list of forbidden books in England as well? Or aren’t you aware that there are other things besides sexual intercourse that the inventive couple can do to create intimacy (as I remember, only two out of the first 47 techniques of lovemaking in the Karma Sutra can result in pregnancy. Then again, 23 of the others can’t be done by westerners who haven’t taken yoga exercise for years). A WOMAN HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO BECOMES PREGNANT. So… if it’s only the woman’s business to take responsibility, what business is it of yours, TOM!
Tom’s being a bit catty about this one (Tom Catty, get it?). Actually, I can think of 5 distinct individuals or groups that SHOULD take responsibility according to Pope John Paul II: 1 Mother 2 Father 3 Maternal Grandparents 4 Paternal Grandparents 5 Church JP2 doesn’t trust governments very well, it seems. That’s right. It doesn’t. Why do you think it does?
Some people think they have a reason and purpose for living that was decided before they were born. We already treat fellow equal human beings in all sorts of abominable ways… dropping bombs on them, caring more for our comfort than theirs… you and me and everyone else. *Nobody* with the time and wherewithal to post to thse newsgroups is innocent in that regard.
True enough, as far as it goes. For what reason are those laws passed? To benefit the land or to benefit those who pass the laws?
Sometimes both. Yes. All human beings – you, me, everyone – we are *all* selfish.
I’m not so sure about that one. After all, there’s a reason why some of my admittedly young generation waste their time on others and are considered SLACKERS! For instance? What is your meaning, the meaning of your existence? What about the meaning of my existence? What is the meaning of the existence of my children?
The survival of the DNA. No, just kidding, unless you have some religious belief towards this then there is no meaning. Otherwise, we would just be procreating like any other animal species. Who have no choice in the matter. We do. Why do we? Why don’t my cats have a choice? Why do I?
Do you? Do you really have any more choice in the matter than your cat does? Ted http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
Response:
I had numerous exchanges with folks on abortion and I have decided that I just won’t get into the discussion anymore. Those pro-abortion folks
musta been a lonely discussion. no one is proabortion. I have exchanged posts with are too worried about losing a debate rather than worrying about whether their decision to have abortions might actually be the murder of children
and you seem to be worried that they are not. . Here are some key points to the pro-abortion arguments:
IOW no points at all since no one is proabortion A WOMAN HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO BECOMES PREGNANT
and having an abortion is a responsible act. just ask the woman involved. of course thats one thing prolifers never consider: the woman involved. to them she’s just federal property. official evolutionist ‘goon squad’ member… if you want to know who WF3H is, go to the qrz database and type in ‘wf3h’ at the prompt.
Response:
I don’t even have to read it. I just *know*. EEeeeeee……<squeal I had numerous exchanges with folks on abortion and I have decided that I just won’t get into the discussion anymore. Those pro-abortion folks I have exchanged posts with are too worried about losing a debate rather than worrying about whether their decision to have abortions might actually be the murder of children. Here are some key points to the pro-abortion arguments:
Awwwww….Tommy-boy is pouting. He wants to win an argument. He wants to convert somebody. He wants people to look up to him and love him for who he is and stop making fun of what he says. He wants RESPECT. Of course he doesn’t want it the Old Fashioned Way, do he? He wants people to applaud his posts because they share his concern over the MURDER OF CHILDREN. (b-b-b-but why is he posting in alt.abortion about murdering children? Oh, I get it. He thinks that’s what is discussed here – how to stop such a Bad Bad Thing. <boggle) 1. Woman have no role in getting pregnant. They are powerless to prevent pregnancy. It just happens. My comments: this one I just don’t understand. There is only one way (usually, normally, etc.) for a woman to get pregnant. She decides to have sex with a human male and then has sex with a human male. Getting pregnant doesn’t just happen. A WOMAN HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO BECOMES PREGNANT.
I don’t understand it either. There is only one way (usually, normally, etc.) for a woman to be killed by a meteorite. She decides to stand outside of a bomb-proof Nuclear Shelter and then stay outside same having a NORMAL (emphasis mine) LIFE. Getting killed doesn’t just happen. A WOMAN HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO GETS KILLED. I don’t actually mean to imply that a woman has no responsibility for pregnancy. It is true that pregnancy isn’t caused by failure to sterilize toilet seats, it also true that having sex means a willingness to be pregnant. Proof is left to the reader which should be understood to mean that others (most better than me) have torn this chestnut to ribbons and most of the arguments are known to most of the readers of this group. I’m not going to convince somebody like Tommy-boy by saying them again. He can’t see it. Some people are tone-deaf, Tommy represents those whose brains are idea-proof. 2. A human being is defined not by any meaning we give, but simply by physical, biological and legal definition. My comments: If this is true, then it doesn’t mean anything to be human. Therefore, if humans are defined in the above ways, then really humans can be dealt with in inhuman ways. After all, we can pass laws to develop land or protect it. Depending who is in office decides. Just like humans. To be human, is more than just fitting a definition. To be human is to have meaning and give meaning, otherwise, you are just an object. Making the decisions to bring a new human life into this world is what it is to be human. Otherwise, we would just be procreating like any other animal species. When the process begins on bringing a new life into this world begins (and it begins with two people) a human life has already been defined and given meaning.
So, um, what meaning does an unwanted fetus have and what meaning does it give? You aren’t saying that it has some intrinsic meaning simply by existing are you? Like a, well, a valuable OBJECT? — # # user fg at sub-domain portal domain com #
Response:
I had numerous exchanges with folks on abortion and I have decided that I just won’t get into the discussion anymore. Those pro-abortion folks **musta been a lonely discussion. no one is proabortion. —- Either you are for abortion, or you are not. Double talk doesn’t change anything. I have exchanged posts with are too worried about losing a debate rather than worrying about whether their decision to have abortions might actually be the murder of children **and you seem to be worried that they are not. —- Why would I be worried that abortion is not the murder of children? That is nonsensical. And it is a stupid thing to say. I would be thankful that it wasn’t. . Here are some key points to the pro-abortion arguments: **IOW no points at all since no one is proabortion —- Once again (with infinite patience) — you are either for or against. A WOMAN HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO BECOMES PREGNANT **and having an abortion is a responsible act. just ask the woman involved. —- I wish you could ask the child involved. Come to think of it, how many woman (who’ve had abortions) have you asked? My child was killed (when I was 23) when my girlfriend (unknown to me) had an abortion. She never got over it and neither did I. So, instead of spewing arguments out of your ass, WHY DON’T YOU GO ASK THOSE WOMEN WHO’VE HAD ABORTIONS. IF YOU GOT THE GUTS. of course thats one thing prolifers never consider: the woman involved. to them she’s just federal property. —- this argument is not about politics. it is about life. And you are an idiot.
Response:
—- I wish you could ask the child involved. Come to think of it, how many woman (who’ve had abortions) have you asked? My child was killed (when I was 23) when my girlfriend (unknown to me) had an abortion.
This woman was unknown to you, it was probably not your ‘child.’ — "I think of myself as a person who will eat your lunch one day."
Response:
I had numerous exchanges with folks on abortion and I have decided that I just won’t get into the discussion anymore. Those pro-abortion folks **musta been a lonely discussion. no one is proabortion. —- Either you are for abortion, or you are not. Double talk doesn’t change anything.
gee im an atheist who is prochoice on religion. does that make me a xtian atheist? yeah it sure sounds like prolife logic. restricted…limited… —- Once again (with infinite patience) — you are either for or against.
wrong, of course. i am in favor of allowing nazis to march in skokie. i am not a nazi. i am in favor of allowing people to choose catholicism. i am not a catholic too bad your dogmatism has blinded you to logic A WOMAN HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO BECOMES PREGNANT **and having an abortion is a responsible act. just ask the woman involved. —- I wish you could ask the child involved.
wrong. i ask the woman involved. its her body Come to think of it, how many woman (who’ve had abortions) have you asked?
2 My child was killed (when I was 23) when my girlfriend (unknown to me) had an abortion. She never got over it and neither did I
ah, well. both of the women i know who’ve had abortions (1 of them had 2 abortions) are doing well. . So, instead of spewing arguments out of your ass, WHY DON’T YOU GO ASK THOSE WOMEN WHO’VE HAD ABORTIONS. IF YOU GOT THE GUTS.
i did. and i do volunteer escort duty at the local abortion clinic. and given the proclivity of you prolifers to engage in terrorism, its ironic that you ask if i have guts. —- this argument is not about politics. it is about life. And you are an idiot.
ah, you’re so SWEET!!! i love it when prolifers say nice things about me!! official evolutionist ‘goon squad’ member… if you want to know who WF3H is, go to the qrz database and type in ‘wf3h’ at the prompt.
Response:
My SO reckons it’s on a Roman Catholic "forbidden" list, but he confirms that it’s not banned in any way here as a national policy… and yes we do have a copy and we probably have a choice of text or illustrated editions in the bookshop in town.
It’s also on the Southern Baptist "forbidden" list, which is why it is missing out of so many libraries. The point being that there are other ways to bond a couple intimately and sexually than plain old fashioned baby-making. You’ve lost me here. Nobody can control whether or not they become pregnant, but they can take responsible steps to reduce the risk down to negilible proportions, and if it still happens then abortion is available.
I say that, given the discussion above, they can take responsible steps to reduce the risk down to ZERO, and abortion as a birth control technique would never be required for such couples. What argument have I destroyed? There is no way to *totally* ensure no pregnancy if a girl/woman is fertile, however careful they are. Please clarify.
See your copy of the Kama Sutra. Vaginal intercourse is not the only form of human sexuality. But only Vaginal Intercourse will result in a pregnancy for human beings. Ted http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
Response:
[Karma Sutra (sp?)] As well?? I didn’t know it was forbidden anywhere. I think we have a copy here in the house, but if not I’m sure I could go to a reasonably sized bookshop and buy a copy today off the open shelf. I’ve certainly seen copies floating around for years and never heard that it was forbidden reading in any way. Where is it forbidden? Many public libraries in America are forbidden from carrying it, for two reasons that I can see: Right wing Culture in the United States is both Christian (not allowing Hindu influence) and anti-sex.
My SO reckons it’s on a Roman Catholic "forbidden" list, but he confirms that it’s not banned in any way here as a national policy… and yes we do have a copy and we probably have a choice of text or illustrated editions in the bookshop in town. [animals] Yes, because I know how reproduction takes place and what actions of mune can cause it. All I have to do is refrain from those activities, or pre-arrange a protection strategy to prevent pregnany occurring. I can make a conscious decision, the cat is driven purely by instning without knowledge of the connection between copulation and reproduction. In that case, you’ve just destroyed one of the major pro-abortion arguments that they can’t control pregnancy and therefore they need it as a birth control method.
You’ve lost me here. Nobody can control whether or not they become pregnant, but they can take responsible steps to reduce the risk down to negilible proportions, and if it still happens then abortion is available. What argument have I destroyed? There is no way to *totally* ensure no pregnancy if a girl/woman is fertile, however careful they are. Please clarify. Pat Winstanley http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html
Response:
A WOMAN HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO BECOMES PREGNANT. So… if it’s only the woman’s business to take responsibility, what business is it of yours, TOM! Yes, Tom stepped into that one.
Motherhood necesarilly implies fatherhood.
Agreed. Pat Winstanley http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html
Response:
that before we can make abortion for convience illegal we must first make caring for unwanted children LEGAL AND SUPPORTED. Absolutely! And also help prevent children being unwanted due to lack of infrastructure for the parents to raise that child.
I was quite suprised to see Cal Thomas support this position. However, it is the correct path. Even the Grand Knight of the Catholic Knights of Columbus once said "Charity is our greatest weapon against abortion". As well?? I didn’t know it was forbidden anywhere. I think we have a copy here in the house, but if not I’m sure I could go to a reasonably sized bookshop and buy a copy today off the open shelf. I’ve certainly seen copies floating around for years and never heard that it was forbidden reading in any way. Where is it forbidden?
Many public libraries in America are forbidden from carrying it, for two reasons that I can see: Right wing Culture in the United States is both Christian (not allowing Hindu influence) and anti-sex. I was about to mention that you’d have to be a contortionist for some of those positions… definitely not for the non-supple!
True. None of us do as much as we *could* do for others, therefore we are all selfish. Every penny we spend on ourselves over and above our needs is selfish because there are people all around us (and not just those in far away countries) who have less than they need. And I’m as guilty of that form of selfishness as everyone else.
Ah. Most of my pennies above and beyond my job, my rent, and my food goes into the collection plate on Sunday (especially the pennies, they are pretty worthless these days and rather heavy to drag around for more than a week. The collection plate is a good place to clean out my pockets, as is the salvation army pots). Yes, because I know how reproduction takes place and what actions of mune can cause it. All I have to do is refrain from those activities, or pre-arrange a protection strategy to prevent pregnany occurring. I can make a conscious decision, the cat is driven purely by instning without knowledge of the connection between copulation and reproduction.
In that case, you’ve just destroyed one of the major pro-abortion arguments that they can’t control pregnancy and therefore they need it as a birth control method. It’s no use me telling my cats that if they have sex with each other we are going to be overrun by kittens. They don’t and can’t make the connection. I have to make the decison for them and have them ‘done’, both males and females. Out of the nine cats here none are now able to reproduce, but all can have just as much sex as they can get another cat to agree to… just as they did before we had quite so many!
I would say this has very little to do with decision and much more to do with the fact that from an evolutionary standpoint, it’s good for a species to overrun the planet if it’s food source is still available. That covers my POV on human reproduction as well, we might as well continue reproduceing to the limit of the available food supply (which, except locally, we haven’t come close to yet). Ted http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
Response:
[snips] that before we can make abortion for convience illegal we must first make caring for unwanted children LEGAL AND SUPPORTED.
Absolutely! And also help prevent children being unwanted due to lack of infrastructure for the parents to raise that child. Is the Karma Sutra on the list of forbidden books in England as well?
As well?? I didn’t know it was forbidden anywhere. I think we have a copy here in the house, but if not I’m sure I could go to a reasonably sized bookshop and buy a copy today off the open shelf. I’ve certainly seen copies floating around for years and never heard that it was forbidden reading in any way. Where is it forbidden? Or aren’t you aware that there are other things besides sexual intercourse that the inventive couple can do to create intimacy (as I remember, only two out of the first 47 techniques of lovemaking in the Karma Sutra can result in pregnancy. Then again, 23 of the others can’t be done by westerners who haven’t taken yoga exercise for years).
I was about to mention that you’d have to be a contortionist for some of those positions… definitely not for the non-supple! Yes. All human beings – you, me, everyone – we are *all* selfish. I’m not so sure about that one. After all, there’s a reason why some of my admittedly young generation waste their time on others and are considered SLACKERS!
None of us do as much as we *could* do for others, therefore we are all selfish. Every penny we spend on ourselves over and above our needs is selfish because there are people all around us (and not just those in far away countries) who have less than they need. And I’m as guilty of that form of selfishness as everyone else. For instance? What is your meaning, the meaning of your existence? What about the meaning of my existence? What is the meaning of the existence of my children? The survival of the DNA. No, just kidding, unless you have some religious belief towards this then there is no meaning.
That’s my feeling too. Otherwise, we would just be procreating like any other animal species. Who have no choice in the matter. We do. Why do we? Why don’t my cats have a choice? Why do I? Do you? Do you really have any more choice in the matter than your cat does?
Yes, because I know how reproduction takes place and what actions of mune can cause it. All I have to do is refrain from those activities, or pre-arrange a protection strategy to prevent pregnany occurring. I can make a conscious decision, the cat is driven purely by instning without knowledge of the connection between copulation and reproduction. It’s no use me telling my cats that if they have sex with each other we are going to be overrun by kittens. They don’t and can’t make the connection. I have to make the decison for them and have them ‘done’, both males and females. Out of the nine cats here none are now able to reproduce, but all can have just as much sex as they can get another cat to agree to… just as they did before we had quite so many! Pat Winstanley http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html
Response:
A WOMAN HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO BECOMES PREGNANT. So… if it’s only the woman’s business to take responsibility, what business is it of yours, TOM!
Yes, Tom stepped into that one. Motherhood necesarilly implies fatherhood. -Alan Wostenberg
Response:
I had numerous exchanges with folks on abortion and I have decided that I just won’t get into the discussion anymore. Those pro-abortion folks I have exchanged posts with are too worried about losing a debate rather than worrying about whether their decision to have abortions might actually be the murder of children. Here are some key points to the pro-abortion arguments: 1. Woman have no role in getting pregnant. They are powerless to prevent pregnancy. It just happens. My comments: this one I just don’t understand. There is only one way (usually, normally, etc.) for a woman to get pregnant. She decides to have sex with a human male and then has sex with a human male. Getting pregnant doesn’t just happen. A WOMAN HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO BECOMES PREGNANT. 2. A human being is defined not by any meaning we give, but simply by physical, biological and legal definition. My comments: If this is true, then it doesn’t mean anything to be human. Therefore, if humans are defined in the above ways, then really humans can be dealt with in inhuman ways. After all, we can pass laws to develop land or protect it. Depending who is in office decides. Just like humans. To be human, is more than just fitting a definition. To be human is to have meaning and give meaning, otherwise, you are just an object. Making the decisions to bring a new human life into this world is what it is to be human. Otherwise, we would just be procreating like any other animal species. When the process begins on bringing a new life into this world begins (and it begins with two people) a human life has already been defined and given meaning. — Tom Bombadil There and back again
Response:
I had numerous exchanges with folks on abortion and I have decided that I just won’t get into the discussion anymore.
Don’t let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out. You’re not the first clueless one to wander into talk.abortion and get spanked. Those pro-abortion folks I have exchanged posts with are too worried about losing a debate rather than worrying about whether their decision to have abortions might actually be the murder of children.
You don’t have enough brains to pull off the "condenscending ass" routine. Cut it out. Here are some key points to the pro-abortion arguments:
Having fun with your strawmen? 1. Woman have no role in getting pregnant. They are powerless to prevent pregnancy. It just happens. [...] A WOMAN HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO BECOMES PREGNANT.
And she may make a responsible choice by having an abortion. Not being God, you don’t get to define "responsible". Burns you up, doesn’t it? 2. A human being is defined not by any meaning we give, but simply by physical, biological and legal definition.
What _are_ you babbling about? Things are defined by definitions, by definition. "Meaning" gets attached on top of the definitions. My comments: If this is true, then it doesn’t mean anything to be human.
Why? I can write a definition of "death", and then attach meaning to it not included in the definition. Your comment is simply wrong. —
Response:
I had numerous exchanges with folks on abortion and I have decided that I just won’t get into the discussion anymore. Those pro-abortion folks I have exchanged posts with are too worried about losing a debate rather than worrying about whether their decision to have abortions might actually be the murder of children.
If it’s not a child it’s not murder. Shoew me how it is murder, and where the child is in all this? Here are some key points to the pro-abortion arguments: 1. Woman have no role in getting pregnant. They are powerless to prevent pregnancy. It just happens.
Occasionally, if the conditions are right. No woman can create a pregnancy even if she uses a turkey baster every day for a year… hence infertility clinics! No man can make a woman pregnant either. It needs a live human sperm to meet a live human egg at just the right time, and the union of the two little human lives to be successful in order for the egg to be fertilised. Then it needs the mixture of cells to find its way to the inner uterine wall and catch hold halfway down as it falls off the precipice that is the end of the fallopian tube… most don’t make it… they don’t catch or they lose their grip… and that’s the end of that little "baby"! What do you think the woman does to *make* herself pregnant? My comments: this one I just don’t understand. There is only one way (usually, normally, etc.) for a woman to get pregnant. She decides to have sex with a human male and then has sex with a human male. Getting pregnant doesn’t just happen.
You miss the point that sex *occasionally* leads to pregnancy. It isn’t inevitable. And even with the best contraception in the world contraception occasionally fails. Now would you suggest that a married couple abstain from sex for the rest of their (possibly fertile) lives after they’ve already had their preferred two or three children? Or would you suggest that the woman gets a hysterectomy (major, major surgery even these days, with months and months of recovery time before she can even care for her kids by makintg them a hot drink)… because that is the *only* way to ensure no more pregnancies occur. A WOMAN HAS TO BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO BECOMES PREGNANT.
So… if it’s only the woman’s business to take responsibility, what business is it of yours, TOM! 2. A human being is defined not by any meaning we give, but simply by physical, biological and legal definition. My comments: If this is true, then it doesn’t mean anything to be human.
That’s right. It doesn’t. Why do you think it does? Therefore, if humans are defined in the above ways, then really humans can be dealt with in inhuman ways.
We already treat fellow equal human beings in all sorts of abominable ways… dropping bombs on them, caring more for our comfort than theirs… you and me and everyone else. *Nobody* with the time and wherewithal to post to thse newsgroups is innocent in that regard. After all, we can pass laws to develop land or protect it. Depending who is in office decides.
For what reason are those laws passed? To benefit the land or to benefit those who pass the laws? Just like humans.
Yes. All human beings – you, me, everyone – we are *all* selfish. To be human, is more than just fitting a definition. To be human is to have meaning and give meaning
For instance? What is your meaning, the meaning of your existence? What about the meaning of my existence? What is the meaning of the existence of my children? , otherwise, you are just an object.
And, so…? What does it matter that we are just objects? Making the decisions to bring a new human life into this world is what it is to be human.
As is making the decision not to. Otherwise, we would just be procreating like any other animal species.
Who have no choice in the matter. We do. Why do we? Why don’t my cats have a choice? Why do I? When the process begins on bringing a new life into this world begins (and it begins with two people) a human life has already been defined and given meaning.
What meaning is that? How about talking about what you mean rather than hiding behind hackneyed cliches? Pat Winstanley http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html
Response:
Related Posts
Categories: Yoga Exercise | 
No Comments »