Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Along with crmeatball's comment, and I know this may not be a popular thing to post, sometimes members of the church become more concerned with what other people think of them, putting it ahead of what God thinks of them. God has made it pretty clear though His prophets that abortion as a means of birth control is abhorrent in His sight, which is why He wants His people to stay clear of submitting to them, supporting them, arranging them, or paying for them. Actions speak louder than words. It is hard to reconcile in my mind saying the words "I do not support your decision to have an abortion" with the action of going to the clinic when the abortion is performed.

Wisteria wrote:Along with crmeatball's comment, and I know this may not be a popular thing to post, sometimes members of the church become more concerned with what other people think of them, putting it ahead of what God thinks of them. God has made it pretty clear though His prophets that abortion as a means of birth control is abhorrent in His sight, which is why He wants His people to stay clear of submitting to them, supporting them, arranging them, or paying for them. Actions speak louder than words. It is hard to reconcile in my mind saying the words "I do not support your decision to have an abortion" with the action of going to the clinic when the abortion is performed.

That's true. If I were to feel that it were not right to go, then I wouldn't. Looking at it, you can always support them emotionally when they get back from the clinic.

I think it's kind of sad that we're focusing on so much that has so little to do with the actual issues here. Most of us here think that generally abortion is wrong. The question here is, should this chick support her friend?

My thinking is, when my friends have hard decisions like that to make, I do my best to be there for them. Everyone in this world has people judging them for their decisions--and especially the hard ones. I try to make it clear to my friends that I understand what they're going through, or at least I'm trying. If they want judgment, they have the rest of the world to go to. People going through hard times need friends and love.

Look at it this way: you're not going to get disciplined by the Church for supporting your friend. And if you reject her now in her time of trouble, she's not going to be very likely to listen to what you have to say about it or anything else related to it anytime soon. For the sake of this girl's emotional and spiritual health...

...

wired wrote:

Imogen wrote:

Katya wrote: Do you personally know anyone who takes that stance? I always hear about such people, but never seem to meet any . . .

actually i do. i'm not close to them. we do theater together here in texas. but these people (it's a mother/daughter team) are CRAZY. i can't stand them. and not just because they're anti-choice.

Ah. Strawman arguments. If I am against abortion, I am against choice. What if I am against suicide, am I anti-choice? Or how about euthanasia? Anti-choice. Against people allowing to kill whoever they want? Anti-choice.

That is like me saying people for abortion are anti-life. How do you like that label?

i've been called anti-life before. i AM pro-life, meaning i think every child deserves to be born into a loving home with parents who want and are able to care for them. but yes, all of those things you mentioned above make you anti-choice in my eyes. i don't feel like getting into all my personal beliefs, but as i've said a LOT on this board, i'm of the Mill school of thought. and that's that.

Lexi, I am thinking in terms of the girl supporting her friend. I stand with Orb this time. In fact, I think that a lot of times when we make the right decision, things get worse in the short term.

Imogen wrote:every child deserves to be born into a loving home with parents who want and are able to care for them.

Adoption.

Also, Imogen, I think you're awesome. Every child *does* deserve to be born to a family with parents who want them and support them . . . although I think we disagree on the practical end of how that should happen . . .

thanks wisteria. i just see so many kids down here whose parents ignore them. kids at the store in winter with no coat and shoes, and i just want to take them all home. but that's not possible cause i'm poor.

and i know adoption is an option, but there are so many kids already in the system who need to be adopted, and no one will take them. people only want to adopt babies, and there are kids suffering in group homes and foster care. i guess my feeling is that too many children who are already born need homes, and no one is jumping up to take them. it seems...wrong.

Yeah, but the demand for babies is high, and that is what we are talking about, kids given up at birth. Many families who are unable to have children wait years for the opportunity to gain a new addition to their family...

Yeah . . . that's a hard one. Does anyone have more insights into the adoption system and why there are both so many couple who have to wait so long to adopt, yet there are so many kids who need homes? I have four adopted cousins. My aunts and uncles have gone though a lot of heartache while they've waited years to be able to adopt their children. Is it just a bad case of bureaucracy?

Because the requirements for having a baby naturally are much much much lower than the requirements for being eligible to adopt a baby...

From what I've heard/read while stocking the Family Relations section while on the clock and therefore didn't read much, most people want to adopt babies. If the kids are about 2 or above, fewer people want them.

Which is terrible... I've been thinking, myself, and if it ever becomes a reasonable option, I'd like to adopt some older ones. Babies are great, but older kids are great too.

On a related note, I'm one of those odd people who want to teach not kindergartners (aww so cute and sweet and easy to manage!) but teenagers. I'm planning for high school.

Weirdo! ;D

Imogen wrote:

wired wrote:
Ah. Strawman arguments. If I am against abortion, I am against choice. What if I am against suicide, am I anti-choice? Or how about euthanasia? Anti-choice. Against people allowing to kill whoever they want? Anti-choice.

That is like me saying people for abortion are anti-life. How do you like that label?

i've been called anti-life before. i AM pro-life, meaning i think every child deserves to be born into a loving home with parents who want and are able to care for them. but yes, all of those things you mentioned above make you anti-choice in my eyes. i don't feel like getting into all my personal beliefs, but as i've said a LOT on this board, i'm of the Mill school of thought. and that's that.

Wow. I can only assume you did not read my entire post, particularly the final line of the first paragraph "Against people allowing to kill whoever they want? Anti-choice." (That is decidedly against John Mill's ideas on freedom and falls more toward Anarchic Darwinism.) The issue at hand is not whether or not people should be allowed to make choices, it is whether or not abortion should be a choice for people to legally use. If we make laws against theft, to label that anti-choice is absurd. It is not a matter of choices we are determining, it is a matter of responsibilities for those choices.

And to cite Mills as the source of your philosophy which propels you to pro-human fetus abortion, when Mills himself never made a statement on abortion, indicates that you either think that either feel a fetus does not have any rights or that its rights are subordinate to the utility of the mother. Pray tell, is a father allowed to make a request on the issue or is only the mother's utility considered? Mills never once supported abortion. He supported individual rights.

Regardless of whether or not you've been called anti-life before, I would hope you do not return the discourtesy in the future. Doing so is simply seeking to put your opponents' views in the worst light possible.

i do believe the fetus' rights are subordinate to the mother. fetus' are parasites until they're born. and while a man is free to make a request for an abortion, only the person who will actually go through the procedure has the right to make that decision. it's not your right or anyone else's to tell me what i can and can't do with my uterus. it's part of MY body, not yours.

and yes, i believe my views line up with Mill's exactly. he believed in individual rights, as you say. i believe it is every individual's right to decide what to do with their own body as long as they make well thought out decisions. meaning, if i want to smoke pot on my couch and watch TV, that's none of your business. if i decide i need to have an abortion, none of your business. it is only when my decisions harm others that they are wrong. so smoking pot and going for a joyride is not allowed. but i don't believe a fetus is a person the same way i am a person. it does not have the same rights i have. i should not have to go through a long and possibly difficult pregnancy to ease your mind or because of your beliefs. i should be allowed to make those choices for myself. so he may not have said anything specifically about abortion, but i interpret his philosophy as allowing it.

Imogen wrote:i do believe the fetus' rights are subordinate to the mother. fetus' are parasites until they're born. and while a man is free to make a request for an abortion, only the person who will actually go through the procedure has the right to make that decision. it's not your right or anyone else's to tell me what i can and can't do with my uterus. it's part of MY body, not yours.

and yes, i believe my views line up with Mill's exactly. he believed in individual rights, as you say. i believe it is every individual's right to decide what to do with their own body as long as they make well thought out decisions. meaning, if i want to smoke pot on my couch and watch TV, that's none of your business. if i decide i need to have an abortion, none of your business. it is only when my decisions harm others that they are wrong. so smoking pot and going for a joyride is not allowed. but i don't believe a fetus is a person the same way i am a person. it does not have the same rights i have. i should not have to go through a long and possibly difficult pregnancy to ease your mind or because of your beliefs. i should be allowed to make those choices for myself. so he may not have said anything specifically about abortion, but i interpret his philosophy as allowing it.

Well, since I'm a guy... and the fetus is 50% me, genetically... I think I should have _SOME_ say in what goes down.

What if I don't want you killing my child?

well, if we're not in some sort of committed relationship, you need to give me a good reason to do it. if we are in a relationship, than i imagine that would be a moot point because i would certainly not abort a child i was having with a man i love and am committed to. but that's why i'm on birth control. i don't actually have to worry about this.

Imogen wrote:fetus' are parasites until they're born.

Oh, come on, you don't think breastfeeding is parasitic? The fact that the baby cannot survive without near constant care and attention? Why should the baby stop being a parasite at birth? Just because werf isn't physically attached to the mother...

orb360 wrote:

Imogen wrote:i do believe the fetus' rights are subordinate to the mother. fetus' are parasites until they're born. and while a man is free to make a request for an abortion, only the person who will actually go through the procedure has the right to make that decision. it's not your right or anyone else's to tell me what i can and can't do with my uterus. it's part of MY body, not yours.

and yes, i believe my views line up with Mill's exactly. he believed in individual rights, as you say. i believe it is every individual's right to decide what to do with their own body as long as they make well thought out decisions. meaning, if i want to smoke pot on my couch and watch TV, that's none of your business. if i decide i need to have an abortion, none of your business. it is only when my decisions harm others that they are wrong. so smoking pot and going for a joyride is not allowed. but i don't believe a fetus is a person the same way i am a person. it does not have the same rights i have. i should not have to go through a long and possibly difficult pregnancy to ease your mind or because of your beliefs. i should be allowed to make those choices for myself. so he may not have said anything specifically about abortion, but i interpret his philosophy as allowing it.

Well, since I'm a guy... and the fetus is 50% me, genetically... I think I should have _SOME_ say in what goes down.

What if I don't want you killing my child?

Ditto to that. Which, when you look at Mill's definitions of property and rights (if you want to so basely think of a fetus as property), he would be totally supportive of the idea that a mother could not abort a child without the father's consent.

Furthermore, to quote you, "i believe it is every individual's right to decide what to do with their own body as long as they make well thought out decisions." And with those decisions comes responsibility. There were decisions made prior to the development of that boy or girl in your womb that placed it there. If you make those decisions, you ought to live with the responsibility. It is not a matter of "easing my mind because of my beliefs" that I oppose abortion - I oppose abortion because it is one of the ill-conceived ideas which eliminates responsibility for one's actions at the expense of another potential human beings freedom to choose.