Constitutional Amendment Banning Abortion

[Annie Oakley]

Yeah.

If you think I'm vociferous in my anti-abortion stance, you should really hear what my wife says about abortion. She has no doubt that our three kids (and the miscarriages) were individuals from the very beginning. She loved them from the moment they started making her throw up constantly.

It sounds like she is a great mother. Sorry you had to suffer miscarriages, they are terribly difficult to deal with.

 

[cce1302]

Here they are from Easter Sunday. Brandon's 4, Jake's 2.5, and Allison's almost 1.

He just turned 4 and got glasses

Here's the three again

And yes, my wife is an awesome mom!

 

[henktermaat]

Here they are from Easter Sunday. Brandon's 4, Jake's 2.5, and Allison's almost 1.

He just turned 4 and got glasses

Here's the three again

And yes, my wife is an awesome mom!

 

[Annie Oakley]

Your kids are adorable. Bet they keep you hopping!

 

[finity]

With today's technology, "life of the mother" shouldn't every be a concern with the options we have.

True. In a perfect world we wouldn't ever have to worry about the life of the mother being in danger.

The perfect world scenario would be one in which everybody had equal access to medical care no matter their income. Most here are strongly against that so I guess that means that some abortions are still necessary to protect the life of the mother.

Let me also note the statistics on abortion. Very few people (even liberal family of mine) have an idea just how many we've murdered. Not to diminish the holocaust, but we've "achieved" 49+ million abortions a year within the United States.

Abortion in the United States

Not even close.

Its closer to about 1.2 million per year from the sources I've found.

Think about the number you quoted. There are only a little over 300 million people in the entire U.S. & that population includes men, kids & older women who can't even get pregnant so the number would probably be closer to 100 million women of child bearing age. Are you telling me that logically you think that 1/2 of the women of child-bearing age are having abortions each year?

ETA: That number you quoted is the total number of abortions from 1973 to now, & the good news is that the numbers are dropping every year.

As far as the "rape and incest" goes, two wrong's don't make a right -- period. People everyday live with the consequences of the actions of others. Why should this be any different?

So I guess you need to turn your guns in then, because killing is wrong & two wrongs don't make a right.

I guess we should get rid of the court system as well, because its not right to lock somebody up in a cell. Just let the guy who robs you go because two wrongs don't make a right.

It sure is big of you to offer to make the victim of a rape be further traumatized by forcing them to carry the rapists child for nine months as a reminder everyday of what happened to them.

My wife was raped 20 years ago & she still has problems dealing with it. Luckily she didn't get pregnant or any STD's.

How dare you tell her, in essence, to "just get over it & carry the kid"?

 

[Annie Oakley]

Finity, thank you for your post. My heart goes out to your wife and to you as well.

I think that some of the posters here have never had to face up to the lifetime of problems a rape causes. They can't imagine the damage done to the soul and psyche. They can't imagine because they would not consider raping. They don't know of the damage because they haven't had to watch someone they love try to deal with it. Most women would rather die than carry a child conceived during a rape.

Incest is the absolute betrayal of trust and I can't imagine any sane woman voluntarily carrying a child to term in this circumstance.

 

[public servant]

Again...while I largely oppose abortion...but understand that as a man it's not my place to tell a woman what is acceptale to do to her body... +1 to the two posts above this.

 

[cce1302]

Finity, thank you for your post. My heart goes out to your wife and to you as well.

I think that some of the posters here have never had to face up to the lifetime of problems a rape causes. They can't imagine the damage done to the soul and psyche. They can't imagine because they would not consider raping. They don't know of the damage because they haven't had to watch someone they love try to deal with it. Most women would rather die than carry a child conceived during a rape.

Incest is the absolute betrayal of trust and I can't imagine any sane woman voluntarily carrying a child to term in this circumstance.

Annie, you make many assumptions in this post that are out of place.

 

[techres]

We are beginning to stand on a precipice in this conversation. Several posters are saying "no sane woman would" vs other saying "women can and would".

Let's be careful not to "call out others" in such a way as to force/tempt them into sharing more than they would intend just to prove their argument.

This is an open forum and people need to be careful what they share. Let's keep this discussion going in such a way that we do not turn this into a dumping of private information and opening closets without careful consideration.

And let's be careful not to ask that disclosure of others in order to prove a point.

 

[bigg cheese]

True. In a perfect world we wouldn't ever have to worry about the life of the mother being in danger.

The perfect world scenario would be one in which everybody had equal access to medical care no matter their income. Most here are strongly against that so I guess that means that some abortions are still necessary to protect the life of the mother.



Not even close.

Its closer to about 1.2 million per year from the sources I've found.

My bad there ... I typed the "grand total" by mistake. I yield to your correction In all seriousnes though, that number is greater than all casualties, not just fatalities, that the US has suffered in every war, ever. That is outrageous.

So I guess you need to turn your guns in then, because killing is wrong & two wrongs don't make a right.

What??? You don't even get it. What you are suggesting is get rid of Justice. One person commits a crime -- person goes to jail, capital punishment, whatever.

What you seem to be suggesting is that if I get robbed, I should get to punish his wife or some other innocent party. The unborn child didn't DO anything to get murdered. It was just "at the wrong place at the wrong time." All I'm saying is that there are many instances where we have to suffer the consequences of others' actions, like that doofball who dropped his gun in a Lowe's or something. They could ban guns for that, affecting me. I didn't do it, but I am still affected.

It sure is big of you to offer to make the victim of a rape be further traumatized by forcing them to carry the rapists child for nine months as a reminder everyday of what happened to them.

You blame "me" for the actions of the rapist? what did you think of my hypothetical post a page or two back? Seriously, I want to know, would you murder the three-year old child of the rapist, just so you or your spouse feel better?

My wife was raped 20 years ago & she still has problems dealing with it. Luckily she didn't get pregnant or any STD's.

How dare you tell her, in essence, to "just get over it & carry the kid"?

All I'm saying is that murder doesn't justify more murder. I'm not saying "tough luck." If the rapist is caught, kill, castrate, or do what you will to him, but don't harm the innocent -- period.

 

[paddling_man]

We are beginning to stand on a precipice in this conversation. Several posters are saying "no sane woman would" vs other saying "women can and would".

Let's be careful not to "call out others" in such a way as to force/tempt them into sharing more than they would intend just to prove their argument.

This is an open forum and people need to be careful what they share. Let's keep this discussion going in such a way that we do not turn this into a dumping of private information and opening closets without careful consideration.

And let's be careful not to ask that disclosure of others in order to prove a point.

^^ That's one of the most reasoned pieces of wisdom I've seen posted by a mod (and I am one on another forum.) Very, very well said.

 

[Annie Oakley]

I sincerely apologize if I have over stepped any bounds here. I will now step out of the discussion.

 

[bigg cheese]

Finity, thank you for your post. My heart goes out to your wife and to you as well.

I think that some of the posters here have never had to face up to the lifetime of problems a rape causes. They can't imagine the damage done to the soul and psyche.

I'll not post links, for the sole reason that I'll start a "link war" that I've seen before in which there is simply a cascade of statistics and articles. I understand that there are articles on both sides, supporting what you say, and also articles that interview people who say it is worse now that they know they have ended a life.

Most women would rather die than carry a child conceived during a rape.

I would question that kind of a blanket statement. No disrespect intended though.

Incest is the absolute betrayal of trust and I can't imagine any sane woman voluntarily carrying a child to term in this circumstance.

I thought I wasn't supposed to push my beliefs on you. The only place I know of that says incest is morally wrong is in the Bible. It is unwise from a scientific standpoint due to genetic defects manifesting themselves in a magnitude much greater than in those that are "less related," but I don't know anything about morality in science.

 

[techres]

I sincerely apologize if I have over stepped any bounds here. I will now step out of the discussion.

You did not step over any bounds here at all. No reason to leave the conversation at all.

 

[paddling_man]

I'm ok with a person who sticks to their convictions; I may feel they're wrong and may disagree, but I can respect that.

I have greater issues with those who may be quite verbally dogmatic, with reasoning that is flawed to the point of being hypocritical. No one responded to my post earlier...

I believe many of those who would profess being Pro-Life - "life" for them begins at fertilization of the egg by sperm - most of these folks, barring the devout Catholics, feel that birth control is okay. The pill, condoms, etc..

"Birth Control" when exercised through invasive abortion or the "morning after" pill is wholesale murder, per their standards.

I would put this to you... do your research lest the glass houses be erected.

The Pill - it works in three ways. One of those ways is like the "morning after" pill in that a fertilized egg (life, per your standards) is unable to survive due to the uterine wall being non-viable to "stick." If you use the Pill as birth control, the moral high ground becomes a slippery slope.

The Pill is designed to interfere with several normal functions of fertility in order to make a woman 1) unable to conceive due to temporary sterility or sperm immobility, and/or 2) unable to carry a pregnancy to term (an early abortion).

This process can be accomplished in various ways.

1. Suppressing Ovulation: When a woman ovulates, hormones released from the pituitary , a gland located at the base of the brain, stimulate her ovaries to ripen and release an egg. The combination pill usually interrupts the release of these pituitary hormones resulting in no egg being released from the ovary, thus preventing pregnancy from occurring. With no egg available for fertilization, the woman is chemically sterile. The progestin-only pill, however, has a weaker effect. It generally does not suppress ovulation.1
2. Inhibiting Implantation: Another important aspect of fertility is the process by which the lining of the uterus is replenished and maintained. After an egg is fertilized, it normally implants in this lining (endometrium), drawing nourishment and sustenance. The progestin component of the combination pill and the progestin-only minipill cause the inner lining of the uterus to become thin and shriveled, unable to support implantation of the embryo(newly fertilized egg).2
3. Impeding Sperm Migration: Preceding ovulation, a woman’s cervix produces a watery mucus through which sperm swim to meet the egg. The mucus also provides nourishment to sustain the life of the sperm cells. This mucus thickens under the influence of a progestin and so impedes sperm migration.3

There are two other factors in a woman’s fertility that may be affected by the Pill.

1. Making changes in the Fallopian Tubes: Progestins lower the efficiency with which the fallopian tubes propel eggs from the ovaries toward the uterus. This can cause the embryo not to reach the uterus in time to implant successfully.4
2. Stopping a Pregnancy: After an ovary releases an egg, the woman’s cycle is controlled by a gland that is formed from the now-empty egg sack, the corpus luteum; this normally functions long enough to give an embryo time to implant in the uterus and for the placenta to begin to support the pregnancy.

However, hormones from the Pill can cause the corpus luteum to function inadequately, allowing the lining of the uterus to be shed before the embryo can successfully implant.5

About the Pill

 

[Bill of Rights]

...The unborn child didn't DO anything to get murdered....Seriously, I want to know, would you murder the three-year old child of the rapist, just so you or your spouse feel better?



All I'm saying is that murder doesn't justify more murder. I'm not saying "tough luck." If the rapist is caught, kill, castrate, or do what you will to him, but don't harm the innocent -- period.

I can appreciate your points. The problem here is, as I said before, one of definition. There is some point at which one or two cells divide enough to be called life. Where we define that point is where we differ; you and others draw the demarcation at fertilization. The Catholic church, to my understanding, draws it at the mere possibility of fertilization. Still others draw it at the first breath of air into the lungs, and others, myself included, draw it at the point of viability.

Science tells me that my interpretation is the most logical. Your religion tells you that yours follows God's will. I will not say that your or anyone else's answer is incorrect, only that it is not one I share.

I do not believe that fetal death due to attack on a pregnant mother should constitute a murder charge unless the fetus is at a point of viability AND the assailant intended to do harm to that fetus. (without intent, it's not murder on an adult either, though criminally negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc., or whatever the IC includes within the umbrella of crimes ending the life of another person are still possibilities) I don't expect you to agree, any more than you expect me to agree with you... though in some ways, we've already determined mutual agreement. It's a matter of definition as well as a matter of belief. I don't deny you yours.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bigg cheese]

You are right of course. It always comes down to what constitutes life. And of course, that is where we part ways.

Where I find a inconsistency is how murder, as a "moral wrong" can exist in a world that was allegedly an accident, with no purpose, and us killing each other would merely be animals thinning the herd, just because it is what we do.

If you believe in God as the creator of the universe, then I would ask, "how do you know?," and "is it worth the risk of being wrong?"

As faith-driven as it is, and I freely admit it, I can appeal to a higher power. The most science (in the hands of an a-deital individual) can do is appeal to the intellect of man, and no man's opinion is therefore worth more than that of another.

 

[agentl074]

To engage in this dialectical conversation... science and theology/spirituality do intersect in areas. The problem with the abortion/life debate is the politics. The bible has been influenced via politics; subsequently, many books have been left out of the canon. Where does life began? Well some spiritualists, Catholics, Agnostics, Scientologists etc. would all argue. Who is right? We do not know.

I believe that the shell of life starts at the basic cellular division. However, I believe that the spirit or consciousness of the living organism has to root itself into the body - basically when the body is viable and life sustaining - producing vital signs.

 

[bigg cheese]

You are right. Even I do not know beyond the reasonable doubt when life begins. All I can do is use what I know of Scripture to help mold my reasoning. I believe that life begins at conception. Why? Because the Word says that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made."

Let's also remember that Jesus and John the Baptist "leapt" in their mothers' wombs when they came near. The Bible doesn't specify how far along they were, so it is reasonable to stay on the safe side and just not do it at all.

It is your opinion that the Bible is influenced by politics... I disagree and I will leave it at that. Faith has to begin somewhere, and this is where I choose to exert it.

 

[Donnelly]

I would say that life begins when it has a separate DNA structure than the host (mother) and is self-replicating (growing). Hmm, I guess that would mean at conception.