Federal Judge: Late-term abortion ban unconstitutional

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Well it just seems like when it comes to 'her body/her decision' the courts give no rights to the man. (truly I can't believe I'm arguing this...), however, IF she CHOOSES to keep the child, the man will be forced to pay child support for at least 18 years.

Now don't get me wrong, the child needs to be supported and we all have our responsibilities, but what about fairness, whether or not we'll argue morality of the discussion?

Deoen't this issue give you a headache?!?!?
Nonetheless, it is extremely important.
I have to go cook, no, though.

More good points on your part, especially about the child support!
Seems unfair for a woman to decide HERSELF whether or not I will be a father, and then if she decided I will be I am obligated to pay child support for 18 years. Talk about having no say in the matter!

More reason for us men to be careful where we put it and why.
Can you dig it?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Deoen't this issue give you a headache?!?!?
Nonetheless, it is extremely important.
I have to go cook, no, though.

More good points on your part, especially about the child support!
Seems unfair for a woman to decide HERSELF whether or not I will be a father, and then if she decided I will be I am obligated to pay child support for 18 years. Talk about having no say in the matter!

More reason for us men to be careful where we put it and why.
Can you dig it?

Yes, good lesson, take heed! Enjoy the cooking and congrats to your mom.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

That's a pretty good question Kathianne.

I think that while the child/baby/fetus, what have you, is in the woman, it is her responsibility to see that it is carried to full term (unless she were to get an abortion) and also to have a healthy baby. Granted I understand that sometimes a baby is born with handicaps that have nothing to do with the mother being irresponsible in any way i.e. drinking, smoking, drugs, etc. I don't think the man can do much in that sense seeing as that the baby is developing inside the woman.

If the baby is born, it is now both the man and the woman's responsibility because the baby is now outside of the woman's body and now the man has access to be responsible over the future of the baby as well. Hence child support. But this is just my opinion.

 

[UsaPride]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
If for what ever reason the woman that the man is with doesn't want to carry the child

See, that's where my problem lies, "if she doesn't want to carry the child". I think others have expressed alot of how I feel about it, but basically, she wanted to have sex (I'm not talking about in cases of rape) she got pregnant, she has the baby and HE has to be responsible for it. It doesn't matter if HE wants a child or not. If he doesn't ,she can still keep it and make him pay, which he should! But if HE wants to keep HIS child, she can abort the baby because it's HER body. It's wrong!
And someone saying that a man should have no opinion on abortion because it's "her body, her choice", it's ridiculous!! It's no longer HER body, it's a home to that unborn child!!

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Hannitized
See, that's where my problem lies, "if she doesn't want to carry the child". I think others have expressed alot of how I feel about it, but basically, she wanted to have sex (I'm not talking about in cases of rape) she got pregnant, she has the baby and HE has to be responsible for it. It doesn't matter if HE wants a child or not. If he doesn't ,she can still keep it and make him pay, which he should! But if HE wants to keep HIS child, she can abort the baby because it's HER body. It's wrong!
And someone saying that a man should have no opinion on abortion because it's "her body, her choice", it's ridiculous!! It's no longer HER body, it's a home to that unborn child!!

As I said, even if we leave aside the (im)morality of abortion, there is something inherently unfair about the way things are working now.

 

[nycflasher]

oops

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by nycflasher
oops

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by Hannitized
See, that's where my problem lies, "if she doesn't want to carry the child". I think others have expressed alot of how I feel about it, but basically, she wanted to have sex (I'm not talking about in cases of rape) she got pregnant, she has the baby and HE has to be responsible for it. It doesn't matter if HE wants a child or not. If he doesn't ,she can still keep it and make him pay, which he should! But if HE wants to keep HIS child, she can abort the baby because it's HER body. It's wrong!
And someone saying that a man should have no opinion on abortion because it's "her body, her choice", it's ridiculous!! It's no longer HER body, it's a home to that unborn child!!

Again, I see where you are coming from. In my opinion (off topic) I think anyone who considers or uses abortion as a contraceptive is abusing the privalage.

Back on topic, the only thing I disagree with you is your last comment that a women's body is no longer her body when she is pregnant. I have to say that I see it as both, her body and a home for the developing embryo.

I still feel that the man can have an opinion, but ultimately it is up to the woman.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Yes, good lesson, take heed! Enjoy the cooking and congrats to your mom.

Thank you.
Should be a nice weekend amongst family(some new) and friends.
I may read the following poem at her wedding:

Shakespeare-- Sonnet 116

Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Admit impediments. Love is not love

Which alters when it alteration finds,

Or bends with the remover to remove:

O no! it is an ever-fixed mark

That looks on tempests and is never shaken;

It is the star to every wandering bark,

Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.

Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks

Within his bending sickle's compass come:

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,

But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

If this be error and upon me proved,

I never writ, nor no man ever loved.



William Shakespeare

(1564 - 1616)

or

a passage from Anne Morrow Lindberg's A Gift From the Sea:

" A good relationship has a pattern like a [country] dance and is built on some of the same rules. Now arm in arm, now face to face, now back to back - it does not matter which. Because they know they are partners moving to the same rhythm, creating a pattern together, and being invisibly nourished by it.

The joy of such a pattern is . . . the joy of living in the moment. One cannot dance well unless one is completely in time with the music, not leaning back to the last step or pressing forward to the next one, but poised directly on the present step as it comes. Perfect poise on the beat is what gives good dancing its sense of ease, of timelessness, of the eternal.

But how does one learn this technique of the dance? Why is it so difficult? What makes us hesitate and stumble? It is fear, I think, that makes one cling nostalgically to the last moment or clutch greedily towards the next."

Let me know if you know any good love/marriage poems/lyrics. Thanks.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by nycflasher

What does all of this suggest about the origins of the Bible?

It suggests that no one has the original text written at the time as yet.

It just seems that this particular bible was written down and scribes meticulously transcribed it letter for letter. For if one letter is incorrect or a flek of ink comes off one letter in the entire 354,300 Hebrew letters, the entire copy is null and void.

 

[Annie]

While the Lindberg history does not thrill me, I like that choice better than the Bard one. Weddings are fun and I hope the weather cooperates. I'll tell you, it's cool, 54F in Chicago and overcast. Was beautiful this morning though.

 

[UsaPride]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
Again, I see where you are coming from. In my opinion (off topic) I think anyone who considers or uses abortion as a contraceptive is abusing the privalage.

I don't mean to be a harper or anything, like Kathianne, I try to stay away from this topic. I have so many contradictory feelings when it comes to abortion. But, the "her body, her choice" just rubs me the wrong way. It's really a dumb "slogan" for pro abortion.

Back on topic, the only thing I disagree with you is your last comment that a women's body is no longer her body when she is pregnant. I have to say that I see it as both, her body and a home for the developing embryo.

Agreed. I do see it as both. But when "Her body" comes up, then I have to say "baby's HOME", you know. But I do agree with you.
edited to say~ Agreed that it's her body and baby's home, BUT, I don't think it's right to use "her body" for abortion.

 

[Shazbot]

Originally posted by ajwps
So we (humans) are G-d's children and your dog (animals) are
G-d's creation and together all G-d' children are His creations. All G-d's children got to have shoes. Let's play with symantics.

Again, you've lost me. Let's see...my dog is a creation of God, but is not one of His children. I am also a creation of God, but I am one of His children (kind of a "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" sort of thing). That gives me a leg up on both importance and responsibility.

Originally posted by ajwps
You might be interested to know that dolphins are now considered by many scientists to have an equal ability to think and reason like humans. They seem to have the same ability to understand, make choices, reason, decide and do evil things by hurting other aquatic animals and doing good by protecting humans in shark infested waters.

http://www.currybean.i8.com/custom2.html

What many scientists think does not really concern me. There is a difference between instinct and conscience. There is also a difference between intelligence and knowledge.

Originally posted by ajwps
You say if a 1) baby is acting 2) baby is reacting = 3) good sign that it the baby is indeed alive.

I think that this thought process is also symbolic as that verse in Genesis 2 does not relate to breathing oxygen as the fetus takes in oxygen through the umbilical cord, but 'breath of life' does not mean oxygenation of blood but with the first breath of oxygen through the NOSTRILS brings both oxygen and the life force many consider a soul. But that is only the Bible's opinion.

...

Exactly... The breath of life does indeed refer to what humans consider a spirit or a soul. Read that Genesis 2:7 verse again carefully.

King James Version

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and (then) breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit); and man became a living soul.

No soul/spirit then there is no life and the fetus has not had the breath of life breathed into it's nostrils as yet. Do you now understand the concept?

The spirit does not enter the body through any physical means, such as breathing. It's interesting to see how the scripture you just cited states that God is the one placing the "breath of life" (spirit) into the body. Maybe the problem here is a misunderstanding of what spirit is. I do not agree that it is merely "life force." Your spirit is you. Your body is merely a shell of sorts. We are children of God because our spirits are literally His children. As much so as I am my mother's son. If you could see your spirit, it would look like a man (or woman, depending on your case). Whether it would look like your body or not is unknown to me, though I would wager they would resemble. Your spirit is your immortal identity, clothed in a mortal body. The phrase "breath of life" is used symbolically for the spirit due to the very fact that without my spirit, I would die, just as I would die without being able to breathe.

Originally posted by ajwps
My point is that Adam besides meaning 'man' also means 'earth soil' in Hebrew. The original language of the Bible from which the King James Version and all other versions derived the first part of the Old Testament.

Again, your point being...? I have never disagreed with you that man was formed from the dust of the earth.

-Douglas

 

[5stringJeff]

Here's my non-religious take on why I am pro life:

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote about "certain unalienable rights... among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." I don't think it's an accident that the words are in that order. One cannot pursue happiness unless one is free to do so; likewise, one cannot obtain liberty if one is dead. Thus, I conclude that life is a more fundemental unalienable right than liberty, which in turn becomes a more fundemental right than the pursuit of happiness.

So, let's apply this to the abortion debate. On one side, we have the pro-choice argument that it's a woman's right to choose what she wants to do with her body, and that by restricting abortion, we are restricting her liberties. Meanwhile, the pro-life side argues that the baby growing inside the mother has a life of its own, and abortion ends that life. Given that life is a more fundemental right than liberty, I believe that it is more important to protect the life of the baby than to protect the liberty of the woman to have an abortion. I will say, however, that in about 98% of abortions, the female had the liberty to participate in sex or not to participate.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by Hannitized
I don't mean to be a harper or anything, like Kathianne, I try to stay away from this topic. I have so many contradictory feelings when it comes to abortion. But, the "her body, her choice" just rubs me the wrong way. It's really a dumb "slogan" for pro abortion.


Agreed. I do see it as both. But when "Her body" comes up, then I have to say "baby's HOME", you know. But I do agree with you.
edited to say~ Agreed that it's her body and baby's home, BUT, I don't think it's right to use "her body" for abortion.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Here's my non-religious take on why I am pro life:

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote about "certain unalienable rights... among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." I don't think it's an accident that the words are in that order. One cannot pursue happiness unless one is free to do so; likewise, one cannot obtain liberty if one is dead. Thus, I conclude that life is a more fundemental unalienable right than liberty, which in turn becomes a more fundemental right than the pursuit of happiness.

So, let's apply this to the abortion debate. On one side, we have the pro-choice argument that it's a woman's right to choose what she wants to do with her body, and that by restricting abortion, we are restricting her liberties. Meanwhile, the pro-life side argues that the baby growing inside the mother has a life of its own, and abortion ends that life. Given that life is a more fundemental right than liberty, I believe that it is more important to protect the life of the baby than to protect the liberty of the woman to have an abortion. I will say, however, that in about 98% of abortions, the female had the liberty to participate in sex or not to participate.

Agreed!

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I will say, however, that in about 98% of abortions, the female had the liberty to participate in sex or not to participate.

She or her partener also had the liberty to practice contraception once the decision was made to participate in sex.

This could have been done without any gnashing of teeth. A very simple thought process for those prone to taking responsibility for their life and actions.

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
You beat me to the answer!

But I did pretty much answer Dillo's question in not so many words in an earlier post:



But you explained it much better ajwps.

So are you saying that because " the cooking" occurs in the womans body that she should be the only one who is responsible for taking care of it and the only one who has the now legal right to determine if it lives or dies? Fathers are responsible to care for the fetus too and it would be neglect if he did not. I think abortion should be illegal except in cases of incest, rape, or severe risk to the mothers' health.

Since abortion is now legal, where are the rights of the father? Men can be fantastic parents however must they yield to the wishes of the mother simply because nature chose this way to procreate? If she chooses to have the baby and not include the father in it's life, she still has the right and is assisted by governmental agencies to recieve financial support from the father for 18 years! This is the so-called choice a woman wants?

While I agree that women have suffered and still suffer from male domination, this hostage taking situation is certainly not the way to gain in prominance, respect nor wealth and is merely lost in the argument over when life begins. Do you really believe that the real issue here is NOT a feminine equality issue that has run amok?

 

[Shazbot]

Originally posted by dilloduck
So are you saying that because " the cooking" occurs in the womans body that she should be the only one who is responsible for taking care of it and the only one who has the now legal right to determine if it lives or dies? Fathers are responsible to care for the fetus too and it would be neglect if he did not. I think abortion should be illegal except in cases of incest, rape, or severe risk to the mothers' health.

Since abortion is now legal, where are the rights of the father? Men can be fantastic parents however must they yield to the wishes of the mother simply because nature chose this way to procreate? If she chooses to have the baby and not include the father in it's life, she still has the right and is assisted by governmental agencies to recieve financial support from the father for 18 years! This is the so called choice a woman wants?

While I agree that women have suffered and still suffer from male domination, this hostage taking situation is certainly not the way to gain in prominance, respect nor wealth and is merely lost in the argument over when life begins. Do you really believe that the real issue here is NOT a feminine equality issue that has run amok?

I'll have to agree here. I mean absolutely no disrespect to women, but to be honest, it didn't surprise me at all that the judge who made the call (in the article at the first of this thread) was a woman. Not to be stereotypical or anything, but I'd say a lot of why this is such a big issue today stems from women's rights activism. Oftimes we find that some people's motivation to do something is because they can - not whether or not they should.

-Douglas

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by Shazbot

Again, you've lost me. Let's see...my dog is a creation of God, but is not one of His children. I am also a creation of God, but I am one of His children (kind of a "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" sort of thing). That gives me a leg up on both importance and responsibility.

You are again playing with words (symantics). Why do you use the word 'children' when referencing the Creator. You may think that a man-god can be measured, weighed, seen on a cross or come down in a Holy Ghost form to father human-god babies. Unfortunately G-d cannot be seen and is not a human being and does not have children through sex with a engaged woman. The Creator of the universe does not have 'children' for that word is used as a metaphor for one of His CREATIONS. You are not a kid, an offspring of nor a blood relative of the Creator. You are entitled to your beliefs but when you decide that abortion is taking a human life (soul, spirit or life) but when your god or Jesus or Paul of Tarsus never said one single word in the New Testament Gospels about abortion being the same thing as killing there must be something missing here. Remember Jesus read Genesis 2:9 and new the meaning of life being breathed into the nostril of mankind only after he was fully formed. I can read the same language that Jesus spoke during his time on earth and the meaning of the words in that language are very clear and do not appear like a parable.

What many scientists think does not really concern me. There is a difference between instinct and conscience. There is also a difference between intelligence and knowledge.

Really??? How do you know these differences? Are you a god or the Creator of the universe claiming to know things beyong the scope of human beings. I do not claim that I know the difference and no one else can claim to have divine knowledge that you seem to take for granted.

The spirit does not enter the body through any physical means, such as breathing.

Is that your LITERAL INTERPRETATION or do you have some special knowlege from G-d? Do you have a personal knowledge of the Creator and the formation of this universe that can be interpreted differently by everybody who reads a Gideon Bible?

It's interesting to see how the scripture you just cited states that God is the one placing the "breath of life" (spirit) into the body. Maybe the problem here is a misunderstanding of what spirit is. I do not agree that it is merely "life force." Your spirit is you. Your body is merely a shell of sorts.

What is YOU? If you do not have a life force (soul) and your body is just a shell (pile of dust) of sorts who do YOU think you are? Again, did G-d call you and explain the differences you expound on with such certainty? He never called me except what I can read of His original words (not in English).

We are children of God because our spirits are literally His children. As much so as I am my mother's son. If you could see your spirit, it would look like a man (or woman, depending on your case). Whether it would look like your body or not is unknown to me, though I would wager they would resemble.

You are truly amazing. 1) You say that the Creator of the universe actually fathered me and you. What egocentrism you have. 2) You think that my 'spirit' (whatever that is) looks like a human being but possibly not my current contenance. Truly an amazing deduction when no one living in the entire world has such divine knowledge. Wagering about what no one knows is like drinking the Atlantic Ocean with a straw. The odds of doing so are the same as your bet that your spirit resembles you and at what age do you think your spirit self looks like?

Your spirit is your immortal identity, clothed in a mortal body. The phrase "breath of life" is used symbolically for the spirit due to the very fact that without my spirit, I would die, just as I would die without being able to breathe.

I am having difficulty understanding your statement here. You say that without your 'immortal spirit' you would die. Well that is incorrect as there are many people who are brain dead (in coma and no brain activity defining life has left the body and there is no remaing spirit remaining in this living shell) whose bodies live, breath, take nutrition, have pupil response and have all the other body function that you have right now. I can tell you that the fetus forming in a mother's womb has the same body functions and even have a rudimentary electrical brain acativity but the Bible that Jesus knew gave evidence that the spirit you so freely speak of with certainty is NOT present.

Read Exodus 21:22-23. Again in the original Hebrew the words are not in a parable or hinted at. If an woman loses her unborn child by a man accidentally hitting her, there is only a small fine to pay to the father for loss of a future worker but if the woman being struck comes to harm (dies) then the man doing the striking can have his life taken (life for a life). Remember that one. There is no murder if the child has not taken its first breath.

Again, your point being...? I have never disagreed with you that man was formed from the dust of the earth.

I can sse it is difficult for you to understand but the Bible says that man and woman are created (formed) by the dust of the earth and THEN and only THEN does G-d put the spirit (soul, life essence) or whatever words you wish to use enter into that empty shell and make a living human being.

The Bible cannot make it any clearer.....