it's been 30 years - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-22-2003, 07:18 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Discoteque's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hotter 'n' hell Texas: Dallas
Posts: 3,568
Local Time: 01:00 AM
it's been 30 years

i know this is a very inflamatory topic, but IMO, this is a VERY sad anniversary in U.S. politics: the Roe vs. Wade decision. Hard to believe it's been 30 years. I won't expound on the good, the bad, or the ugly about the topic, but the facts are clear:

- More than 43 million unborn children have been aborted. That's more than the entire population of CANADA.

- In one year alone, more children are aborted in America than were killed in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars. Combined.

But there is one more thing: what the enemy meant for evil, the Lord has turned to good: Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" in the lawsuit (and a member of my own church!), found salvation through Jesus Christ a few years back.
__________________

__________________
Discoteque is offline  
Old 01-22-2003, 07:31 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:00 AM
I think that everything happens for a reason, perhaps. Roe v. Wade is also the decision that first stated that the Constitution implicitly guarantees us a right to privacy. Of course, if Bush is trampling over privacy, I'm sure he'll stack enough judges to overturn Roe v. Wade entirely.

I do find myself saddened over abortion in its entirety. I've never fully understood why women have them in the first place, but I'm also male. I guess I never really *have to* understand. Part of me hopes that, someday, the ruling will merely be irrelevant; that people will stop having them on their own volition, rather than because a law tells them not to. Quite frankly, people will continue to have them--Roe v. Wade or not. It is my hope that all of us Christians can get beyond legal political wranglings, and attempt to solve the reason why women have them in the first place. *Only* until then will we be able to end abortion, and, at that point, legality or illegality will be irrelevant.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-23-2003, 12:35 AM   #3
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Castro Valley, CA
Posts: 997
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Discoteque, i totally agree with you these babies shouldn't be killed. People just have a hard time thinking of them as babies.

and what would we do with an extra 43 million people in the US? i can't even find a good job...but maybe one of these aborted would be really smart and start a company i could work for...

why does Bono not ever say anything about this?
__________________
DebbieSG is offline  
Old 01-23-2003, 03:21 PM   #4
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Can't agree with you more Melon. People need to stop trying to legislate people in to following their perception of Christian morality and start changing hearts one on one. I too am greatly saddened by those abortion figures. What is worse though is the way abortion is dropped by so many doctors as the sole solution. "Not sure you can handle a kid, abort!", "Worried about how this will affect your career, abort!", "there's a such and such percent chance of deformity, abort!". I'm not saying all doctors are like this but I have heard it time and time again. There is a mindset out there that threatens to devalue human life. Mindsets cannot be changed through legislation, only through calm dialogue and understanding. You cannot legislate a Christian society, only work to make a society made up of Christians.
__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 01-23-2003, 08:24 PM   #5
ONE<br>love, blood, life
 
hippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lookin' for the face I had before the world was made
Posts: 12,144
Local Time: 02:00 AM
I'm glad you brought this up, Disco. I've been wrestling with this issue for years now. And this is what I've come up with: I'm a Christian and I would never have an abortion for any reason. But I am also a feminist and I cannot believe that the government of the United States can even assume to be able to control a woman's body. Though I would never practice it myself, I have to stand up for a woman's body being her own. I will, however, work to change attitudes about abortion. I think a lot of Christian people get really hung up about this issue. Because there *is* such a dialectic, it's difficult sometimes to find a compromise. I've made my own compromise and I hope others can, too.

Peace.
__________________
Write for Interference!
Email or PM me (kim@interference.com) if you're interested.
hippy is offline  
Old 01-23-2003, 08:31 PM   #6
ONE
love, blood, life
 
adamswildhoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Somewhere in NorCal
Posts: 10,333
Local Time: 10:00 PM
I am against Abortion completely, but I dont think that the govt should take away a woman's right to treat her body she feels it needs to be treated. I do think however if the "woman" thinks that she is pregnant and she doesnt want it, its her responsiblity to take care of it before it becomes a fetus.
And if you are really wondering why my opinion is of this nature is because had the doctors made the decision, instead of my mother I would have been aborted.
__________________
adamswildhoney is offline  
Old 01-23-2003, 08:58 PM   #7
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 01:00 AM
I listened to a bioethicist's thoughts on this anniversary, and he had a few interesting points. From Scott Klusendorf:

The unborn differs from the newborn in four ways, none of which are relevant to its status as a human being. Those four ways are size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.

Size: the unborn are smaller then newborns, but since when has size had anything to do with the rights that people have? Men are generally larger than women, does that mean they deserve more rights? Is Shaquel O'Neal more of a person than feminist Gloria Steinem simply because he is larger? Clearly size isn't the issue.

Level of development: True, the unborn are less developed than newborns, but this too is morally irrelevant. A newborn for that matter is less developed than a toddler. A toddler is less developed than an adolescent. An adolescent is less developed than an adult. But we speak of all as equally human. Is a child of four, for example, less of a person because she has not yet developed sexually? It follows, then, that the ability to perform human functions is not a necessary condition for human personhood. Rather, a person is one with the natural, inherent capacity to give rise to personal acts--even if she lacks the current ability to perform those acts. People who are unconscious do not have the present capacity to perform personal acts. We don't kill them because of it. Nor should we kill the unborn.

Environment: True, the unborn is located in a different place, but how does a change in location suddenly change a non-human entity into a human one? Did you stop being human when you walked from your house to the car? From the kitchen to the den? Clearly, where one is has no bearing on who one is. A child in the incubator of her mother's womb is no less a child then the one being sustained by neonatal technology. Ladies and gentlemen, you don't stop being human simply because you have a different address.

Degree of dependency: If viability is what makes one human, then all those dependent on kidney machines, heart pace-makers and insulin would have to be declared non-persons. There is no ethical difference between an unborn child who is plugged into and dependent upon its mother and a kidney patient who is plugged into and dependent upon a kidney machine. Siamese twins do not forfeit their right to live simply because they depend on each otherís circulatory systems.

We can see, then, that the unborn child differs from a newborn one in only four ways--size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency-- and none of those differences are good reasons for disqualifying it as fully human.


____________


Hippy, he spoke of a conversation he had recently with a woman who felt the way you do (assuming I am understanding your point of view correctly). She said that she felt that killing babies was wrong, and that she would never have an abortion herself, but she thought women should have the right to choose. He asked if he was hearing her right: she thinks that it is wrong to kill babies, but it should still be legal to kill babies? She realized that by calling it a 'choice', she had glossed over that small detail.

Any thoughts, comments, comebacks to any of the above statements?
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 12:44 AM   #8
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 06:00 AM
As I said above I'm anti-abortion, but I don't belive in legislation preventing it either. The ultimate goal should be to produce a society in which no abortions are performed. Now the woman in question may have meant what I just said, or that abortion only felt wrong to her and that it was perfectly alright for people who don't feel it is wrong to have abortions. I think in this day and age things have come full circle. People are afraid to speak their beliefs lest they offend someone. There is a huge gap between speaking your beliefs and ramming them down someone's throat or harming them. I quite frankly am very tired of being told that I'm sexist and trying to take away the rights of women to control their bodies when I say that abortion is wrong. I usually don't bring it up to avoid getting my head cut off and put up on a spike.
__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 12:47 AM   #9
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 01:00 AM
What if the fetus is female? Why doesn't she get a choice?
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 10:59 AM   #10
ONE<br>love, blood, life
 
hippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lookin' for the face I had before the world was made
Posts: 12,144
Local Time: 02:00 AM
Yay discussion lol

I understand what you're saying, Beth, and I agree completely. I don't think that abortion should be practiced and I will encourage anyone who is thinking of getting an abortion to choose some other option. But here's where things start to get sticky... As melon said, the Roe v. Wade decision carried so many others with it... not only is it about abortion, it's a decision that's been carried through to freedoms for everybody: the right to privacy, the right to do with your body what you will, etc. When Roe v. Wade is taken away, then those freedoms go to. And it's THAT I cannot agree with. I'm against abortion completely for the reasons that everyone has stated so far, but I don't think the government should dictate what I should and shouldn't do.
__________________
Write for Interference!
Email or PM me (kim@interference.com) if you're interested.
hippy is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 04:34 PM   #11
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by hippy
I don't think the government should dictate what I should and shouldn't do.
For better or worse (usually better), they do dictate alot the things we should and should not do, ie, they say we have to pay taxes and we are not allowed to murder someone. But we still have the choice as to whether or not we will actually do those things. If we dislike someone, we can choose to speak with them about the problem, or choose to ignore them, or choose to ridicule them, or choose to physically harm them, or even choose to kill them. We always have those choices - some are legal, some are illegal. We haven't lost the choice when we make something illegal, we are imposing consequences for making that choice.

Something else that bothers me is the fact that our society places more value on animals than these babies. PETA has offered research laboratories $250K to replace their tests using rats with human embryos instead. The couple a few years back that gave birth to their baby in a hotel room, smashed it's head in, and tossed it in a dumpster, got a sentence of only 2 years, but it was actually less than that due to their early release for good behavior. Around that same time, a man in Wisconsin (?) was sentenced to 10 years in prison for killing cats. You all know that I am an animal lover, but this really disturbs me that we are furious with people who hurt animals yet are silent about the loss of so many lives to abortion (mothers *and* babies) each day.
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 07:54 PM   #12
ONE<br>love, blood, life
 
hippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lookin' for the face I had before the world was made
Posts: 12,144
Local Time: 02:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave


For better or worse (usually better), they do dictate alot the things we should and should not do, ie, they say we have to pay taxes and we are not allowed to murder someone. But we still have the choice as to whether or not we will actually do those things. If we dislike someone, we can choose to speak with them about the problem, or choose to ignore them, or choose to ridicule them, or choose to physically harm them, or even choose to kill them. We always have those choices - some are legal, some are illegal. We haven't lost the choice when we make something illegal, we are imposing consequences for making that choice.
I would say this, when abortion is illegal (and was) what was a woman's option? What was the consequence for doing something illegal? Many women were forced to undertake EXTREMELY dangerous abortion operations. It did not stop the abortions from happening, it only made them more dangerous.

What I am saying is that, in my opinion, the government has no right to tell a woman that it's illegal to do something with her body. They can, however, make it safe for her if she has to do it. I also know that many women who have had experience with abortion clinics (both the people who work there and the people who've gone there for abortions) counsel the women in other options before they will do an abortion.

As I've said, I don't agree with abortions. I would never have one and I do not condone their use in any situation. But as a woman I also cannot approve a government that would take away my right to medical care (because that's what it is). I would rather have the right to do with my body what I know is best in a safe environment than be forced to have a "black market abortion" and end up dead because of it. There are always women who will have abortions, I don't think that this should be a taboo subject anymore. I also believe that not enough research has been done. Like with the AIDS virus for a larger portion of the 80s, the subject of abortion is highly controversial and hasn't been treated with the respect it needs. I think that a fundamental change in our society needs to take place before any woman would feel that she could raise a child instead of aborting it. And since that change can never happen the way things are set up now, I would rather that it be safe and that women have the ability, but also the responsibility, to take care of their bodies themselves.

I'm sorry for stirring up a controversy over this. I don't think it has to do with anything one religion or another says. The basic reason this problem persists is because not enough people know the facts about abortion, and no one seems willing to understand why women would have abortions in the first place. It's *those* issues that need to be addressed first, in my opinion.

This is just another one of the reasons I'm getting out of the United States as soon as I can.
__________________
Write for Interference!
Email or PM me (kim@interference.com) if you're interested.
hippy is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 10:21 PM   #13
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 01:00 AM
So, just curious, what's the general consensus out there - is the unborn a member of the human family or not?
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 10:31 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:00 PM
The unborn child is a member of the family.

Anyone who has had a child realizes this at the first ultrasound.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-24-2003, 11:24 PM   #15
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Castro Valley, CA
Posts: 997
Local Time: 06:00 AM
I think the little egg changes the moment the little swimmy thing crashes through and gives it the fertilization that makes cells start splitting.

the women doesn't own anything, God does!

does anyone agree with me?
__________________

__________________
DebbieSG is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com