P.S. Do you first judge the woman for having the abortion and then judge her for not raising her child right? For being poor, uneducated? For going on welfare? For needing help from a society that marginalizes her? For not getting it? Do you sponsor a single mother yourself? You aren't coming across as demonstrating a shred of understanding on this issue from a realistic standpoint. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emily.mae50@...> wrote :
As I said, I agree with what Karen Armstrong writes. When the founding *fathers* wrote what they did, they were not thinking of this issue.... "Indeed I want to argue that America is the only country that has the misfortune of being founded on a philosophical mistake--namely, the notion of inalienable rights. We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a creature. Notice that the issue is inalienable rights. Rights make a certain sense as correlative to duties and goods, but they are not inalienable. For example, when the lords protested against the king in the Magna Charta, they did so in the name of their duties to their underlings. Duties, not rights, were primary. The rights were simply ways of remembering what the duties were." (Taken from this...you sound Christian Mike, so I include this and this link for you. Has some interesting points.) ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDERSTOOD http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDE... http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html ABORTION, THEOLOGICALLY UNDERSTOOD 1991 Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality, Inc. Published by and available from: ... View on www.lifewatch.org http://www.lifewatch.org/abortion.html Preview by Yahoo RE: ".....birth control,( I don't want it now. It'll mess up my plans for life, I can't afford it, I don't know who the father is, etc)" This speaks to your assumptions and prejudice regarding an issue that is more often than not, deeply personal for a woman. You demonstrate a closed mind when you assume you know what women are thinking. How many interviews have you done? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Your position that to abort is a personal one and should not be legislated. My position is that you don't have the right to take another person's life. It is a founding principal of our government and has been recognized from *IT's* very inception. Life is considered an *unalienable* right. Unalienable means *it can not be denied*. In other words, your right to privacy ends with your body and you can not deny another person's greater right of life, unless it threatens yours. Life trumps privacy. The overwhelming majority of abortions are done as birth control,( I don't want it now. It'll mess up my plans for life, I can't afford it, I don't know who the father is, etc) not to protect the mother's life from complications that could lead to possible death. From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell' Was this the answer to my question? I appreciate that you've articulated your position here. I believe that the decision to abort is a personal one and one that should not be legislated. It isn't a casual decision and don't assume that the law which allows it turns it into one. You have a position—does your position lead to positions on policies and social structure that are consistent with this position? How do you define compassion? I agree with the position stated below. "Nearly every abortion represents a human tragedy. This is something that the shrill rhetoric of the Christian right tends to ignore. Perhaps, when facing the possibility of terminating a pregnancy, we should return to the ancient insight that while it is an inexorable law of life that our survival often depends upon the death and suffering of others, there is something terrible about this, and that we must force ourselves to look clearly at what we are doing. Thus, while it may be religiously impossible to sanction abortion undertaken for trivial reasons - for mere social or professional convenience - it may be tragically necessary to sacrifice a potential life to nurture the life we have already. This is also a sacred requirement. The foetus may have to die for the sake of its mother's physical or psychological health, for the economic survival of the family, or to prevent a marital breakdown that would damage its siblings. And that is why the woman has to make this painful choice, as only she can evaluate her circumstances. But we should never lose our sense of the awful gravity of the procedure, because - as in ancient religion - therein lies our sense of life's sacred value." ~Karen Armstrong ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : We hold these truths to be self evident... certain unalienable Rights,among these are LIFE! Unalienable is defined as, *can not be denied*. Without the most fundamental right of life, no other rights matter. When does life begin? Theologically, that is open to discussion. Biologically, it begins when Conjoined DNA begins to divide. It is the very beginning of life, it's self.That DNA is not the mother's, it's not the father's, it is the unique DNA of separate human being with all of it's potential from beginning to end. It has a right that can not be denied. Socially and theologically speaking, that unalienable right to life is considered sacred as long as it is innocent. Violate specific laws of society and that sacred value can be forfeited by the law breaker, it's his conscious decision. But never was it intended to to be denied on a basis of someone else's circumstances/ convenience. Do we really want to go down that road? Hitler did, as did many other tyrants and they have been traditionally labeled as EVIL, even Anti-Christ. I speak in biological terms of life because we value our society in secular terms and spiritual values are not considered valid anymore because certain people don't want other's religions imposed upon them.. From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 1:44 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell' To me, black and white thinking takes on the cloak of "casual, indifferent, etc.", or "blasé," if you will. The remark "Oh shit! I missed my period! I'm really *f"ed* now!" seemed off the cuff and appeared to indicate a prejudiced and surficial understanding of the issue...."blasé." Curiously, Mike, do you believe in the soul? Do you believe in the eternal soul? Do you believe that the soul dies along with a potential life that was aborted by the mother, a potential life that could not survive independently at 6 weeks and that even nature aborts naturally at times (called miscarriages). Do you believe that it could be possible that if there is a soul, that the soul may "live" to incarnate in a different host/mother? Just food for thought. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : I draw the line with *murder* as one human willfully killing another innocent human. There's manslaughter, accidents etc.Then there is killing for food.I can admire one who observes ahimsa as going above and beyond the call of duty as a penance. From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell' ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : "My blase attitudes", did I get that right? How can anything be more blase than to sweep away and destroy an innocent human life because you're not ready to be responsible for*it* yet? It's freaking murder! A women's right to murder? The Supreme Court will wake up one day, just as they did when they ruled one human can not own another or that Slaves were not 3/5ths of a human being, because "all men are created equal" under the law. That took two hundred years to get right , but it happened. Science is moving the understanding of life forward very fast. If the science of DNA can put a person in prison for life for a crime, it will save a life that is innocent of a crime. It's not her body that she kills. FYI, all person's involved in the creation of another, need to be equally responsible for that life. Yes, that presents new social problems but the first rule is do no harm to innocent life. I love your passion, Mike. I am of the belief that all lives are created equal. When I say that I mean ALL lives. Human or animal. Blasphemous? Perhaps. Maybe. Likely. To kill any thing is a kind of murder. Killing a fetus is destroying life. Butchering a terrified, bleating cow is destroying a life. Euthanizing an old and decrepit dog is destroying a life. Is life sacred? Probably. What is sacred? Anything that is created. Is allowing something to live sometimes opening the way for suffering? Yes. Is destroying a life sometimes decreasing the chances of suffering? Yes. Is it better to overdose a dangerous horse with phenyl barbital so it doesn't kill somebody merciful? Is aborting an unwanted baby the right thing to do? Is there ever the justification for causing death of a living being? It all gets so complicated. Is the death penalty ever warranted? Are unwanted, unloved, abused children happy to have been given the chance to live despite the fact they may have been conceived by rape? I can't answer this but what I do know is that human beings are given hundreds of chances to make choices every moment of every day and the freedom to make those choices must remain intact. From: "emily.mae50@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell' There is another issue I'd like to comment on about ignorant men thinking they know all about pregnancy and childbirth and raising children on their own with no support—particularly the ones that think they should judge, condemn, and legislate women's rights. Yes, Mike, it's the girl "who missed her period" that's at fault, right? Not the boy or man with the raging hormones who pressured her and pressured her and pressured her to give in to his desires and then left the scene.....give me a break. I'm not saying you shouldn't stand by your religious convictions, but maybe you ought to dig a little deeper into your "blasé" attitudes. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are *Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Your right to *privacy* will not stand against another person's right to Life.... much longer, religion or no religion. You will need to abolish the first amendment that grants freedom of political speech and freedom of religion first. Everyone knows that the overwhelming majority of abortions in this country are simply birth control, "Oh shit! I missed my period! I'm really *f"ed* now!" It's rarely about health or life of the mother. Fifty-three million abortions can not account for that. " "Why would I want my daughter to be *punished* with a child?" Obama's words, not mine. This is the mind set of *Me first* and to hell with what's right. It is the purest of evil and it will not stand. From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 'Debate from Hell' Whether you like it or not, abortion is legal in this country. To jeopardize the health of poor women because of your religious convictions is untenable.
