I work for the military (I’m a civilian now) and a few weeks ago, before this hit the news, I was looking on my base for a Humanist chaplain to talk to and was annoyed we didn’t have one. I didn’t know that we weren’t ALLOWED to have one because they don’t exist.
As a Humanist, I believe in a lot of the same things as Christians, just not the “supernatural” part, for lack of a better word. I think human consciousness and intelligence is an awesome natural phenomenon that seems rare in the universe and that we should celebrate being human and being alive by living rich and fulflilling lives. I also believe that living a meaningful life that helps others and works to improve the human condition is the purpose of our lives.
Lately, I’ve been feeling burnt-out in my office job, feeling like I’m not helping anyone or doing any meaningful work. I wanted to find a Humanist councelor of some kind to talk to. Not a psychologist, because I don’t need mental health counseling, but someone with the same beliefs to help me find the right path. I remembered meeting our base’s head Christian chaplain and remembered he was friendly and said they have chaplains for all beliefs (even a Buddhist and Wiccan chaplain!), but unfortunately, not my belief.
I could talk to a religious chaplain, and that would probably be somewhat worthwhile, but when we disagree on such a substantial issue (the existance of God/gods), how could I get helpful advice from him?
May 20, 2013 at 2:21pm
Um, this was the first lesbian relationship the older girl had ever been in. That doesn’t really sound like some kind of pro- lesbian recruiter to me.
Also, no one’s trying to “recruit” people into being gay, because that would be pointless. You can’t change your sexual orientation. The fact that people are either born gay or straight is a big part of the LGBT movement, so why would they want to “recruit” people when that would basically be admitting that sexual orientation is a choice (which it isn’t)?
May 20, 2013 at 2:18pm
So you’re telling me people would be outraged if a male high school senior was dating a sophomore or freshman girl? Because I really don’t see that happening.
May 20, 2013 at 2:16pm
I think it would be just as dumb if they were a hetero couple. When I was in high school none of the senior class boys got arrested and charged with a felony for being in a consensual relationship with a sophomore or freshman girl. They’re both in high school (heck, even in the same classes) and they were both minors when their relationship began. I would find that perfectly acceptable regardless of what gender they are.
May 20, 2013 at 2:12pm
This is absolutely ridiculous. Both girls entered into their relationship voluntarily; there was no abuse or “sexual battery” involved! It’s absurd that the younger girl’s parents can have the older girl charged with a FELONY crime despite the insistence of the younger girl that everything was consensual and no abuse occured.
Laws differ from state to state, but in most, this is the way the law works.
May 16, 2013 at 2:34pm
@JAEMD: I completely agree! Thank you for talking some sense into this situation. The abortion argument is the epitome of patriarchy in our society in that so many people want the government (made up of mostly men) to make decisions about what should occur within an individual woman’s body. People talk about how they want small government, but legislating a woman’s uterus is the exact opposite of that. We think it’s ridiculous and silly when we hear stories about the government of North Korea requiring its citizens to only have certain hairstyles, but this is a thousand times worse! Telling a woman that she must sacrifice her individual liberty as a “punishment” for having sex while the man gets nothing but a “tsk tsk, shoulda been more careful” is a perfect example of why we do NOT respect gender equality in this country.
May 16, 2013 at 2:16pm
Yeah, if we could just get rid of all the women there’d be no more abortions! Oh, wait…
Maybe women are more pro-choice because they are the ones whose bodily autonomy is up for debate here?
May 16, 2013 at 10:47am
Why is this sick? The cells created from this process are more effective for stem cell therapy than harvested adult stem cells. It’s not “creating life only to destroy it”, it’s creating cells that could be directed to form into anything. Just because “baby” is one of the things they could form doesn’t make any difference. They aren’t babies, they’re liver cells, neurons, bone marrow, etc. And they aren’t destroyed, they’re implanted back into the patient, a.k.a. the body from whence they obtained their DNA or “life”.
May 16, 2013 at 10:37am
I think it’s ironic that the same types of people who think a two-month-old fetus is a baby with rights that trump the rights of the woman are the same people who insist that children are under the authority of the parents (i.e. to be disciplinde how the parents want, be taught how the parents want) and do not have personal individual rights. So you want the government to intervene and protect the rights of a fetus but when it comes to actual children, the government should butt out and leave it up to the parents to raise them how they see fit? I think you have it backwards, if you ask me.
May 16, 2013 at 10:28am
Watch out, guys. This person quoted Switchfoot lyrics!! He must mean business!
May 16, 2013 at 10:23am
By “the means” do you mean extracting a skin cell from a patient, engineering it into a stem cell, directing that stem cell to duplicate and form bone marrow cells, and then injecting those bone marrow cells back into the leukemia patient? Because I see nothing wrong with that.
May 16, 2013 at 10:22am
Being pro-choice doesn’t mean you loooove abortions and want everyone to have one. You can be against abortion and still believe people can make their own choices.
May 16, 2013 at 10:09am
Well seeing as how both the National Institute of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynogologists have declared that Plan B does NOT cause abortion, I’m going to disagree with you there. Medical experts describe pregnancy as beginning with implantation and define abortion as the termination of a pregnancy, so if there is no implantation there’s no pregnancy to terminate and therefore no abortion.
@Fish_Bone: So you think women who have sex and become unintentionally pregnant should be punished for having sex by being forced to carry a pregnancy they don’t want?
@Jodi: Most pro-choice people, including the current management of Planned Parenthood, do not agree with Sanger’s philosophies. She is considered an extremist crazy person. Nobody WANTS abortions to happen, and definitely not for some sort of eugenic goal, they just want women to be treated like human beings with full control over their own bodies and freedom to make choices for their own reproductive health.
May 16, 2013 at 9:14am
Tell that to the leukemia patient who can receive life-saving bone marrow grown from this procedure.
May 16, 2013 at 9:11am
I agree with you. I’m pro-choice but if I were to become accidentally pregnant, I would not choose to have an abortion. Key word being CHOOSE. We need to respect women’s autonomy to make their own choices about their own bodies. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want treats her as less than human. Let her make her own decision.
May 16, 2013 at 8:57am
Just because a fetus CAN be a baby does not mean it IS a baby. Forcing a woman to incubate a fetus inside her own body when she doesn’t want to is an affront to her personal liberty and bodily autonomy. It’s called pro-choice because we believe women are human beings who don’t need politicians and clergy making decisions about what they can do with their bodies, they should be able to choose for themselves. Does that mean all women would choose to have abortions? Definitely not, and nobody would want them to. But women need to have that choice.
I understand your frustration,we are free people but there are consequences for our actions, remember the intent of planned parenthood as understood by the creator margret Sanger ,to remove those less desired by the collective,they where poor and black.they where trying to sterilize those they deemed unworthy of reproduction,most of the time the procedure ended in sterilization....I don't want to pay for fertility meds for those who now decide the baby is wanted and use abortion as birth control more EDUCATION ,LESS REGULATION
Sorry, you are flat-out wrong Charper.
The affront to liberty here is taking away another's right to life (the greatest and most important of all liberties) because that life is uncomfortable or inconvenient.
"we believe women are human beings who don’t need politicians and clergy making decisions about what they can do with their bodies"
instead of women add babies to your statement above
You can dress up the argument with words like incubate in order to insulate the facts. Look at the photos for the Gosnell case and the new case in Texas. Your points sound good on paper but in practice it is horrible.
@Fish_Bone: So you think women who have sex and become unintentionally pregnant should be punished for having sex by being forced to carry a pregnancy they don't want?
@Jodi: Most pro-choice people, including the current management of Planned Parenthood, do not agree with Sanger's philosophies. She is considered an extremist crazy person. Nobody WANTS abortions to happen, and definitely not for some sort of eugenic goal, they just want women to be treated like human beings with full control over their own bodies and freedom to make choices for their own reproductive health.
Yeah sure, avoid the responsibility of parenting...kill a baby. This is what elective abortion boils down to. People make the decision to engage in behavior which produces a child, then they don't like the results of their behavior, then they think killing their child in the womb is a legitimate solution. Having a child is the single biggest wake up call a person can have to turn their lives around. Abortion just continues to feed poor lifestyle choices.
I wonder how quickly this debate would go away if men could become pregnant.
Charper: simple answer, YES.
If you don't want to a baby, make the choice to keep your panties on. It's not that difficult to understand.
The "choice" comes before conception. Do I, as an unmarried man or woman want to engage in sexual activity, knowing full well, that a pregnancy could occur; not to mention STD's, HIV, etc?
Do I as a married man or woman desire to engage in an adulterous affair, fully knowing there will be consequences? ( not only in this life, but the one to come)
When a pregnancy does occur, we are talking about a separate person involved. They have their own genetic make-up. They are not a "parasite" as pro-abortion folks would have us believe. They need to be nourished, just as a post born child needs constant care for the first couple years for his life for survival.
The mantra of "choice" has left a legacy of sixty million little boys and girls.
That's really something to be proud of, eh?
I Posted this under the wrong comment: So I’m “re-posting” it.
just because It needs to be repeated again and again…AND AGAIN..!
t truly sickens me how most of the “pro-choice” people have boiled down the medical term “fetus” ,for the name of a baby that is still in the womb.. That’s the ONLY reason their called “fetuses” ..! It’s the stage of their life..! Just like “adolescents” is a stage of a life. And that’s the ONLY reason they should be called “fetuses”
..Their NOT some kind tumor that is either benign or malignant ….!
The FETUS that is left to natural course of events will ALWAYS become a BABY.( A LIFE)… That the pro-choice have deemed not worthy to have any rights ,until it on the other side of the birth canal. And then STILL some of the sick pro-choice SOBS still don’t think that’s not good enough.
"The choice is made when the panties come off."
Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. That's assuming consent is even involved in the sex at all.
God has endowed us as his children the ability to combat evil.. All of us as human beings should be ashamed at how poorly we excessive this gift. Where we fail, this is where Jesus has taken up the fight for us. Believe me, some of the horrible things that happen in the world cause me to break down and beg God to step in and clean house. Perhaps he's giving us more time to do all we can to combat evil first.
Locked, did you take a 5th grade biology class? Did your parents ever explain to you how babies are made? If you don't know or if you just don't understand the process, there are many books you could use to educate yourself. There are also online resources to help.
I think it's ironic that the same types of people who think a two-month-old fetus is a baby with rights that trump the rights of the woman are the same people who insist that children are under the authority of the parents (i.e. to be disciplinde how the parents want, be taught how the parents want) and do not have personal individual rights. So you want the government to intervene and protect the rights of a fetus but when it comes to actual children, the government should butt out and leave it up to the parents to raise them how they see fit? I think you have it backwards, if you ask me.
Charper, did you really just equate murder with parenting?
"did you take a 5th grade biology class? Did your parents ever explain to you how babies are made?"
Oddly, the topic of sexual consent was not discussed when I learned the basic biological process of pregnancy. May have been because I was in 5th grade several decades ago. More likely it's just a failing on your part that you prefer to lob insults and refuse to respond on topic.
Consenting to sex does not mean you consent to pregnancy. And you again ignore the idea that consent might not even be involved.
Let's see if you do better with analogies. If you drive a car, does that mean you're consenting to die in a crash? Or do you wear a seatbelt, drive safely, have a car with airbags, carry insurance, etc.? Vehicular death is a possibility - but it's clear you're doing everything possible to avoid it or mitigate its effects precisely because you aren't consenting to be killed just for driving.
'So you think women who have sex and become unintentionally pregnant should be punished for having sex by being forced to carry a pregnancy they don’t want?'
Boy, do you have that backwards...The ONLY one who is "punished" in your twisted scenario is the BABY...who is then "forced" from its (lousy) mother's womb.
...abortion is NOT a form of birth control...
I agree with Fishbone, learn to keep your damn panties ON...!!
@Cosmic - Your argument is a false choice because God gave us freedom of choice. We create evil with our choices. If you're so devoted to your faith in atheism, you should re-read Books 1 & 2 of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.
'Consenting to sex does not mean you consent to pregnancy.'
Of course, it's all fun and games until PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for one's actions come into play...The result of promiscuous behavior will usually result in an unwanted pregnancy. If you believe sex should only be recreational, get sterilized.
Charper, we believe the fetus is under the authority of his/her parents as well. We don't believe that authority extends to terminating the life of the child regardless of whether he/she is born or not.
Really, do you believe forcing a child to eat her vegetables is along the same lines as killing her?
The act of sex is what? For fun? Scientifically, the act of sex is the act of procreation. The only "natural" way to procreate is by performing sex. EVERYONE knows that there is a risk involved when having sex. That is why parents teach children they should wait until they are married and stable to have sex because of the fact that a child could be conceived.
Your comment about what could be a baby isn't a baby...what else is it and what else could it be?
When does life begin? Heartbeat? Brain activity? If that's the case, heartbeat at 10 weeks and brain activity at 13 weeks. If not, is it whne the government can grant it a social security number?
Murder is already illegal. Why is the government playing this abortion game? Make a ruling on scientific evidence when life begins and leave it at that.
I can't believe you related a pregnancy to a car crash! Wow! Having a child is a wonderful gift to this earth when born to parents who give a damn, a car crash is terrible to anyone. But using your anology: I wear a seatbelt while driving car, yes. I also know that if I drive on the downtown roads after 2 a.m. on a Saturday night the chances of me getting into a crash with a drunk driver increases. So I CHOOSE NOT to drive after 2 a.m. on the weekends.
If I have sex and do not want to get a girl pregnant, I wear a condom for safety. True, they are not 100% but neither is a seatbelt.
@CHarper - Let me clear up the irony you interpret: a 2-month-old fetus has a right to life EQUAL to the right of the mother. Ergo, the vast majority of pro-lifers are fine with abortion in cases where the mother's health is jeopardized. No one argues that the baby's life is more important than the mother's, but many pro-choicers (as you just did) prioritize the life of the mother (or her finances, comfort, or convenience) above the baby's right to LIFE.
These same people who want to retain responsibility for their progeny and thereby object to government/arbitrary intrusion do so for the welfare of their own child(ren) until said child(ren) are adults capable of making their own decisions.
Do you not believe that one of the core functions of government is to protect its citizens? Oh, you just think the government should only protect those who can speak for themselves? Then, why are you opposed to the government protecting defenseless living human beings who just so happen to be attached to their mothers?
By your same argument, all parents have the right to be child abusers, and should be treated as such. If that were the case, those same people who "have it backwards" would oppose strong punishment, including Capitol Punishment, for child abusers. But that's not the case, is it?
"Of course, it’s all fun and games until PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for one’s actions come into play"
You're more than free to feel that way. Consider, however, that some may think having an abortion is more responsible than giving birth. By your own words, you should be supporting that choice.
"If you believe sex should only be recreational, get sterilized."
Certainly an option. Yet, would you advocate the government forcing sexual people to get sterilized? Or would you support their choice to do so... if they choose of their own free will?
"can’t believe you related a pregnancy to a car crash!"
I can't believe that you don't believe in the concept of consent. And, like everyone else who's responded so far, you ignore that consent is not always present.
"Wow! Having a child is a wonderful gift to this earth when born to parents who give a damn, a car crash is terrible to anyone."
I don't disagree with your statement on having a child, but I'd also point out that you had to add "parents who give a damn" to make it true. Obviously someone who doesn't want to be pregnant and doesn't want a child is not going to consider pregnancy to be wonderful. Also, I'd argue repair shops like car crashes, actually. Ambulance chasing lawyers too.
"So I CHOOSE NOT to drive after 2 a.m. on the weekends."
If you did drive after 2 am on the weekends, do you consent to die? Do you cancel your insurance, take off your seatbelt, and look forward to cars hitting you? You are not refuting my analogy at all - indeed, you're only proving it.
"If I have sex and do not want to get a girl pregnant, I wear a condom for safety. True, they are not 100% but neither is a seatbelt."
Exactly. You don't consent to pregnancy (although it might happen). You try to avoid it because you -don't- want it to happen; you consent to have sex, but not to get the girl pregnant. Again, thank you for supporting the analogy. Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.
'By your own words, you should be supporting that choice.'
Personal Responsibilty requires foresight, not hindsight, aka considering the consequences of one's actions beforehand...stop twisting my words...Abstinence has never led to an unwanted pregnancy, it is only one option out of many that are readily available for preventing the undesired. Occasionally, accidents do happen, even with birth control...but not 50+ MILLION and counting.
Society is irresponsible, 'If it feels good, do it' mentality...worry about the consequences later...
Well...those consequences are stacking up, and the future is grim indeed...
"Personal Responsibilty requires foresight, not hindsight, aka considering the consequences of one’s actions beforehand…stop twisting my words…"
So if someone uses birth control, and it fails, and they have an abortion... is that not them taking personal responsibility? It seems you are the one twisting words. You don't agree with their concept of "responsibility," so when you say it, you mean "be forced to give birth." Is that not correct? I don't mean to twist your words - you are saying that "personal responsibility" means "if you get pregnant, you must give birth" right?
Some people would likely consider such a definition incredibly irresponsible.
"Abstinence has never led to an unwanted pregnancy, it is only one option out of many that are readily available for preventing the undesired. "
This is a far cry from the sterilization you advocated before, at least. This I could get on board with.
"...some may think having an abortion is more responsible than giving birth." Like who? Who believes that aborting a baby is "responsible" in any way? Maybe giving a baby up for adoption is responsible, but murdering it? I thought abortions were supposed to be "safe, legal, and rare?" In what case is abortion actually responsible other than in the extremely rare cases of the mother's health?
To you, getting sterilized is "certainly an option." You are correct that pro-lifers do not condone forced sterilization like the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, did. They key here is personal responsibility. If a sexually-active woman engages in sex, yet doesn't want to be "burdened" with a pregnancy, baby, or the myriad of birth control options, then her personal responsibility is to choose a solution that works for her (including, but not limited to, sterilization). The fallacy lies in the fact that when choosing abortion, "her" decision directly causes the murder of another, innocent life. So, I'm all for women having every option they need for their own purposes. But, when "prevention" becomes "murder," then there's a problem. And, given the epidemic of women in this country currently using abortion as birth control because they've been taught that it's an entitlement ("my body, my right"), we have the widest-scale genocide in human history.
"Like who? Who believes that aborting a baby is “responsible” in any way?"
Presumably the women having the abortions done.
"In what case is abortion actually responsible other than in the extremely rare cases of the mother’s health?"
You honestly cannot think of any other situations? Yikes.
"To you, getting sterilized is “certainly an option.”"
Sterilization is always an option. I don't think it's a good one, nor do I advocate that all people looking to avoid pregnancy get sterilized, like Deception did.
"They key here is personal responsibility."
Already went over this. Read the posts with Deception about this. Your definition of "personal responsibility" likes means "forced to give birth if pregnant." Your definition likely differs from the definition a woman having an abortion would use.
"The fallacy lies in the fact that when choosing abortion, “her” decision directly causes the murder of another, innocent life."
If my sister would die if I didn't give her a kidney, it would make me a jerk for not doing so, but it's still my choice.
"I’m all for women having every option they need for their own purposes."
Apparently you're not?
"we have the widest-scale genocide in human history."
Then go blow up some abortion clinics. Would you not kill a few to stop what you consider to be genocide? No? Then I don't think you actually believe what you say you do. Your actions don't reflect it.
Who else? People rationalize their own decisions constantly. What reference to any arbitrary definer advocates abortion as responsible?
No, I can't think of any other situation where abortion is the "responsible" choice. There are a few other situations that can be reasonably argued as "appropriate," but not "responsible."
That's not at all what Deception said. S/he said that sterilization should be practiced by those who believe sex is solely recreational & not procreational.
"Forced to give birth if pregnant" - Now you're getting the hang of it!
To use the car analogy: if I want to get paid, I need to go to work. In order to go to work, I need a car, a bike, or public transportn (don't conflate with work-from-home or other transportn options). If I CHOOSE to get a car, and on my way to work one day, I inadvertently cause an accident, I have a list of new responsibilities (not run from the scene, provide insurance info, notify authorities, go to court, pay subsequent fines, etc.). There is no way for me to go back and un-do the accident. I can't kill the person I hit, thereby negating my responsibilities relating to the accident, or else that's murder. But, you would like women to believe they can in fact murder to obfuscate liability. And yes, every woman old enough to have sex & conceive understands that an "accident" can happen.
Now, if a woman decides to give her baby up for adoption, then I could certainly see that as respons
Blow up abortion clinics? Hmmm...sounds like you have some violent tendencies that you may want to get checked out. As many people believe, we all have free will, and therefore, I can't force anyone to think abortion is wrong by force.
And, I'm sure you'll jump to the inconclusion that outlawing abortion is "forcing" my will upon other women (I've not suggested Roe v. Wade repeal, either). Wrong again. I'm simply advocating for the babies that have no vote as of today so that they aren't exterminated against their wills. But, you don't seem to think defenseless, innocent babies have any rights until they can live on their own outside the womb.
And that presents a quandary. What about those babies born with severe birth defects requiring the assistance of a machine or an imminent organ transplant? Could not those babies be aborted post-birth by that definition?
Locked- I think blowing up abortion clinics would be extremely counter productive because the media would paint christians as villians and it would be much harder to bring the gospel to non-believers. This is a situation where I feel like vengeance is God’s. I am 100 percent sure non of them will be going to heaven with their current path unless of course they repent. Additionally, it’s a big debate on how to combat evil. For Christians who are peaceful, we need to make sure socially it is unacceptable and like slavery change attitudes over it. It’s exactly the same with Hitler and Nazi Germany what if Hitler never really posed a threat to the U.S. (this goes with Japan as well) and they just wanted to take over Europe and Asia, should we have gotten involved to stop their genocides. What about when Stalin did it to Russia? How Mao Zedong? If God told us too absolutely, there is a strogn chance to intervene to wipe out evil even if he doesn’t say it. This is where it is good to balance and weigh options about your success and how many of your people would die etc. Israel kicked ass because they had God directly intervening for them but with us it’s iffy especially id we live under his judgement. This is where for intents and purposes it’s complex rather than simple. No one denies there is a lot of evil by killing people and babies but the question is what kind of action should we take
"Who else? People rationalize their own decisions constantly. What reference to any arbitrary definer advocates abortion as responsible?"
Your own definition is arbitrary. I'm not seeing how this makes your point.
"No, I can’t think of any other situation where abortion is the “responsible” choice"
As said - yikes.
"That’s not at all what Deception said. S/he said that sterilization should be practiced by those who believe sex is solely recreational & not procreational."
Indeed, you are correct. I apologize for misreading the statement. But that likely doesn't include most sexual people who will want to procreate at some point... but not now.
"If I CHOOSE to get a car, and on my way to work one day, I inadvertently cause an accident, I have a list of new responsibilities."
Ones which can be foreseen, avoided, or mitigated to an extent. But let's focus on your example of bodily injury to someone else. If the person you hit needs new organs, you are not forced to give up your own body to provide them. You will be legally punished if they die, of course; but control of your own body is sacrosanct. Is that not the case with a woman's right to choose?
"And yes, every woman old enough to have sex & conceive understands that an “accident” can happen."
And unlike when I was born, today there is birth control that mitigates a lot of that. And abortion instead of making a girl "take a trip" for several months.
"Blow up abortion clinics? Hmmm…sounds like you have some violent tendencies that you may want to get checked out."
I consider myself rather calm, actually. But if I had the chance to stop a genocide - say, at a concentration camp - by blowing up the barracks of the officers? You bet I would! I'm surprised you wouldn't.
"As many people believe, we all have free will, and therefore, I can’t force anyone to think abortion is wrong by force."
But you just called it genocide? This is why I find these terms so dishonest when used like this. You throw out "genocide" for emotional impact, and then when people ask why you don't act on them you go "Whoa, I didn't mean, like, REAL genocide!"
"I’m simply advocating for the babies that have no vote as of today so that they aren’t exterminated against their wills."
I advocate for the same thing. You really should read my posts; I wish every fetus was wanted, and became a healthy baby. I think adoption or personally raising a child is a much better choice, and I am disgusted by the idea of abortions of convenience. But I don't think it's the government's place to decide for a woman.
"But, you don’t seem to think defenseless, innocent babies have any rights until they can live on their own outside the womb."
"Could not those babies be aborted post-birth by that definition?"
By your definition? Yes. By legal definition, no.
Apparently I've spoken a taboo truth for my post(s) to not go through...whatever...
"don't tell me what to do! don't tell me what to do! it's my body! my choice!" Really? So, since it is your body and your choice then how about when you cut yourself we let you bleed to death? or if you get an STD we let you rot to death? Or if you get drunk and crash your car we let you just sit in the driver's seat and become a stiff corpse? I have no problem with "interfering" in your body and your "choices" whatsoever. In fact, I say that if you take drugs, drink, drive drunk and crash yourself, cut yourself, the rest of us REFUSE to interfere in your "choices."
"I have no problem with “interfering” in your body and your “choices” whatsoever."
Well, that's terrifying. You're fine with the government euthanizing you when you hit, say, 70? Let's make it more passive - no drugs, do medical aid at all for us senior citizens... you have no problem with that?
I certainly hope people with your views do not come to power.
So I am curious, if you go out target shooting, and take all reasonable precautions against hitting bystanders with stray bullets, yet for whatever reason you pull the trigger and a bystander is hit with the stray bullet, do you have an obligation to help that person who was wounded?
Does that obligation increase the more reckless you are with your precautions?
Is this not the same situation between having sex and shooting guns, that no matter the precautions there is always the risk of creating a life/taking a life?
May 16, 2013 at 8:22am
No it doesn’t, learn some science. It is basically just a giant dose of the normal birth control pill. It puts a hold on ovulation for 24 hours or so until any sperm that might be hanging around die. No ovulation = no egg to be fertilized = no abortion to be had.
May 16, 2013 at 7:35am
This is exactly why we need to have Plan B and other birth control as available as possible, so women never get in this situation in the first place. Monsters like Gosnell take advantage of women in desperate situations, and it doesn’t have to be that way. By making birth control and emergency contraceptives available over the counter for everyone and teaching proper sex-ed in schools (i.e. how to use contraceptives properly, how to practice safe sex, etc) we can eliminate the need for the majority of abortions. When will people figure this out?
Plan B is not a contraceptive; it induces abortion.
No it doesn't, learn some science. It is basically just a giant dose of the normal birth control pill. It puts a hold on ovulation for 24 hours or so until any sperm that might be hanging around die. No ovulation = no egg to be fertilized = no abortion to be had.
Charper1013: You might want to look at this link. In addition to preventing ovulation, Plan B also prevents the fertilized ovum from attaching to the uterine lining; thus, it does cause the death of an albeit small but nonetheless unique human being. So, yes; Plan B does in some cases cause an abortion.
Well seeing as how both the National Institute of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynogologists have declared that Plan B does NOT cause abortion, I'm going to disagree with you there. Medical experts describe pregnancy as beginning with implantation and define abortion as the termination of a pregnancy, so if there is no implantation there's no pregnancy to terminate and therefore no abortion.
It's been figured out long ago and passed from generation to generation.
It is called "taming your lusts", "overcoming your desires", "mind over matter", "look before you leap", "putting off the 'natural man'".
In short, chastity before marriage and fidelity after marriage.
Sorry; but human life begins at conception- i.e., the merging of the sperm and the egg, then it's an abortion to knowingly cause the uterus to reject that human life before implantation. Ectopic pregnancies are still human life. A miscarriage is still human life. Even Webster's dictionary defines conception as that: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception
Every single human life is unique. Every person deserves life.
And secondly, we have had free access to birth control for DECADES. The instance of "unwanted" pregnancies have gone up, not down. The number of abortions have not become "rare"; they've escalated. Having access to birth control only leads to more abortions. That's why Planned Parenthood just LOVES 'teaching' our children about safe sex- they know kids are going to either do it more, or do it wrong, or both- which leads to more pregnancies and more abortions and - SHOCK!- more money for them. It's all about the Benjamins, baby.
It's the "safe sex" propaganda that has brought us to this point, that full term infants are sacrificed at the altar of "choice".
Here is the definition of safe sex according to the Bible: One man and one woman married until death do us part, and committed to a life of faithfulness to each other.
It can be achieved with the help of the Lord.
What a fulfilling life!
Great phrase "fulfilling life"!
So many people are shortsighted and substitute 'pleasure' for 'joy'.
SUGABEE -- You may argue when life begins all you want, but pregnancy is clearly defined by science as when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Until then, the woman is not pregnant and it is not an abortion to prevent the egg from implanting. Arguments like yours are not about preventing abortion from about controlling a woman's access to all birth control.
BROTHER_ED -- You think simple fidelity prevents pregnancy? You don't think married couples use birth control?
Distractions from his point aside, CHARPER makes a very valid argument. If you wish to prevent abortion, stop fighting all efforts to make birth-control readily and easily available and stop fighting all efforts to stop teenagers who are perfectly capable of making babies from learning how to prevent that.
"This is exactly why we need to have Plan B and other birth control as available as possible, so women never get in this situation in the first place. "
LOL Oh yeah, that has worked real well. (sarcasm)
I guess we needed a "plan B" because "plan A" (the birth control pill) didn't work as well as everyone thought it would. But "plan C" (abortion) is still widely used today. There just isn't a magic pill to erase sin, folks.
May 3, 2013 at 12:06pm
Almost all pro-choice people and the modern Planned Parenthood do not agree with or support Sanger’s opinions. She does not represent the opinions of modern feminists and pro-choice people. Do some research.