Fetal Rights?

[stonehearted 0]

Guess: You drew our fire with your comments on choice. And you have been duplicitous in both your behavior and philosophy on this matter.

 

You're right about my comments on choice. There was no rhetorical context for that remark, and you-all are right to have been confused and upset by it. It didn't fit here, and I apologize for that, for what it's worth. As for the duplicity, you have that wrong. As a political issue (that's what theist insists we're discussing here), it is rather complex, and I do teach my students to begiin complicating matters when they write by examining multiple perspectives. That's not duplicity but critical thinking. It gets them past writing only what they feel at the moment, past bumper-sticker "philosophy."

 

I've also seen theist's posts on Beliefnet, and I appreciate his efforts. I can't remember whether I've entered any of the abortion frays there. If not, it's probably because I feel he's carrying on as well as possible. Truth is, I don't check in there very often.

 

Guess: The reasons you provide for your methods of debating women abortionists don't come across to me as logical or philosophical or even effective. It sounds to me as if you are justifying your preference. That's all.

 

B: Do you mean my explanations of rhetorical considerations? It's not justifying any preference of mine, except to try to make a connection so I can make my point. It's classical rhetoric, that's all. My degrees are in English, and my MA specialization was rhetoric and writing. All that means is that my experience is different from yours. There's nothing I can do if you're unable to appreciate that.

 

G: Now you have vehemently stated your opposition to abortion and yet by your trick she can decide. Theist and I simply don't respect this.

 

B: I stated my opposition in the first paragraph of my first post. No tricks here. What I've said is that she will decide, one way or another, under one law or another. Nothing you or I can do about that, except to do what we can to help her make the right decision. The only real solution is to give people spiritual knowledge; without that everything we do is futile, violent by Srila Prabhupada's definition.

 

[stonehearted 0]

Didn't you go to the link before you started posting? That's why I opened with the remark about "tissue." Not getting that this is a developing human is absurd.

 

What effect does seeing this have on your opinions about abortion?

 

(And theist, you're not going to post D&C pix, are you?)

[stonehearted 0]

Guess: Theist and I also have alot of experience with abortion issues and advocates. And we are in agreement on the futility of arguing with them.

 

B: I've conceded the futility of arguing, especially with the professional advocates. They have too much invested in their position to really listen. But it's sometimes possible to loosen them if they see you're actually listening and responding to what they actually say. We have different approaches, and I respect yours. Part of the problem is arguing on their ground. All I do is give their position enough of a nod to get their attention by kletting them know I heard it (and they're not used to that), then argue, as I did in '76, on the basis of Bhagavat philosophy. Even if they don't come around, they will have heard something new, something actually beneficial. I'm a lot more interested in devotional service, and these issues are for me just pretexts for trying to change the culture by injecting Krishna consciousness. As I've indicated before, I think all the politicians, right, left, and center, whatever their party, are pretty much full of ..

[Guest guest]

"... I do teach my students to begiin complicating matters when they write by examining multiple perspectives."

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. Guess I'll need a degree for that one.

 

Your other explanations are inconsistent with your previous statements. But this is getting off topic and more personal. I'm not interested in pursuing it.

 

Whatever. I'm cool.

[livingentity 0]

"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

--- Susan B. Anthony in her publication The Revolution, July 8, 1869

 

************

"Child murderers practice their profession without let or hindrance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned ... . Is there no remedy for all this ante-natal child murder? ... Perhaps there will come a time when ... an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood ... and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with."

--- Sarah Norton. Woodhull's and Claffin's Weekly, Nov. 19, 1870

 

**********

 

"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

--- Elizabeth Cady Stanton in a letter to Julia Ward Howe, Oct. 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library

************

 

"When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society -- so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged."

--- Mattie Brinkerhoff. The Revolution 3(9):138-9, Sept. 2, 1869

 

 

[livingentity 0]

if you found out today that your biological father had raped your mother, would you feel you no longer had a right to live?

 

[theist 1]

No guest , we are on the same page here, no doubt.

 

Babhru I don't think there is a formulaic way to present any issue really. Different minds speaking to yet different minds. The approaches and responses will always be varied.

 

Example someone may first meet me and be jarred by something I say, by my bluntness. Then that person may meet you and your approach may draw them in. Perhaps I broke the solid frozen soil and perhaps you planted the seed. Good cop bad cop.Breaking frozen ground always has a degree of violence in it. The thing is the law must be brought to bear as soon as possible. let them argue from the position of trying to rechange the law. Let's at least try to stop the bulk of the problem by using the law and educate further from there.

 

Great quotes LE. And from the late 1800's. Society has certainly digressed from there.

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

I like the good-cop bad-cop analysis. I appreciate your kindness. There's more than one way to slice a mango.

 

And thanks, le, for the quotations. I've seen them before, but it's always fun to read them, especially since so many of those quoted are feminist icons.

[stonehearted 0]

Yes, you are.This has been far too personal for far too long. I think it would have been more appropriate in the World Review forum, and the discussion was focused far too much on my heresy (although I know how you all benefit by fixing your minds on me /images/graemlins/wink.gif ).

 

The only thing interesting left here is whether there has been any movement on I_l_k's part. We're geezers, and she's young. She needs some room to develop.

[I_love_krishna_ 0]

In reply to :

______________________

What effect does seeing this have on your opinions about abortion?

 

 

_________

 

Now I feel bad about all this. You can't scrape off that little baby... its just wrong. But when I think about the mother then I think about her status... the whole thing is just so sad.

 

I guess the only way to change this is to bring every one to a platform of KC and loving krishna.

 

I thought they didn't abort fetuses if the pregnancy passed the third trimester, when the baby resembles a human.

 

But I had no idea they take a little baby like that and shed it to pieces /images/graemlins/confused.gif .

 

that is just so sad

[Guest guest]

if you found out today that your biological father had raped your mother, would you feel you no longer had a right to live?<<

 

I'll remember this question LE. Really brings it home.

 

 

[Gauracandra 1]

The woman who was at the center of Roe vs. Wade (the U.S. Supreme Court abortion decision) today is prolife. What happened as I recall, she had two daughters afterwards. When they grew up and found out that they could have been aborted and that their sibling was aborted, they disowned their mother. The mother after much introspection became a born again Christian and now is anti-abortion. Pretty interesting.

[stonehearted 0]

That's the plaintiff's real name. She has a book out, too.

[livingentity 0]

heh heh - did I scare you? Anyway, I thought it over and felt that this was appropriate in the Spiritual Discussion section.

 

So there! Got somethin' ta say 'bout it! Let's take it outside!! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

 

stonehearted; "I think it would have been more appropriate in the World Review forum".

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

You'n me, out back, kiddo!

 

(Hmmm . . . Maybe we should have taken your hint and kept the discussion spiritual.)

[stonehearted 0]

The House of Representatives passed the bill banning "partial-birth abortions." This one doesn't have the "health" exception which would have opened the doors to exceptions based on adverse mental-health exceptions (the woman is emotionally distressed by the pregnancy). But, oh boy, watch out for court challenges from the other side. The Supremes previously struck down a similar Nebraska (?) law.

[livingentity 0]

It is bad enough that people see nothing wrong with killing a baby but now they want to torture the poor little living entity in the process.

 

For those who do not know what a partial birth abortion is - to put it very briefly it is pulling the baby's body out of the birth canal and leaving the head inside. The doctor then opens the child's skull and sucks it's brains out.

 

I guess he leaves the head inside so he does not have to see the pain and agony on it's sweet little face - pleading for it's life!!

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

I think the only reason they leave the head inside is so they can say it hasn't been born yet, so it's "only" an abortion, not murder. (ahem!) This is a society in desperate need of real help. No material "solution" will solve such profound spiritual problems.

[livingentity 0]

fail to see that this is murder. Hard as I try I can not understand.

 

Would they be able to do this to their own offspring or that of a relative? If not, then how can they see the difference?

 

They are demons on the level of Kamsa - killing little babies.

[livingentity 0]

I posted the original story here because of the subject matter -

 

Does an unborn human being have the same rights as we do - the born? Does the unborn human being have the right to be protect from violence and murder just as we have this right?

 

If you think about it - you will understand why I decided to put this in the spiritual discussion section. I really did not bank on anyone here not understanding that abortion is murder. But I think we may have raised someone's consciousness to this understanding. Hare Krsna!!

 

 

[livingentity 0]

Somewhere I remember reading Prabhupada telling us how bad this age of Kali will become and just how degraded we will be. I remember Him saying that we will become so degraded that we will eat our own children!!

 

At first I thought - no way - how could we get to that point? Now with partial birth abortions - I understand that we may not be so far off afterall.

 

What's next embryo farming for scientific research etc?

[I_love_krishna_ 0]

Could be just a rumour , but thats where the society is going today. Talking about it here though is not going to do much, We need to take action and do what we can.

 

 

[Guest guest]

And we all know where that will lead.

 

If they can breed qualities like intelligence or beauty or anything else into people, guess who'll get them and who won't?

 

Do you really think the government and affluent class will bestow higher qualities on what may be viewed as competitors?

 

Of course not.

 

They will try to breed a slave race and reserve the more desirable attributes for themselves.

 

Guess Guest

[Gauracandra 1]

The lady behind Roe vs. Wade is now officially requesting that the Supreme court overturn that decision in light of new evidence about the nature of when & how life begins. I saw an interview with her, and didn't realize that she never actually went through with the abortion. In the end she carried the child to full term and then gave it up for adoption. Anyways, these next stats come from Planned Murder - I mean Parenthood, so take them a bit with a grain of salt. I don't believe the last one that says that 43% of all women will have an abortion. But I figured it might add to the discussion.

 

Fast Facts: U.S. Abortion Statistics

Tuesday, June 17, 2003

 

The following are some statistics about abortion in America:

 

Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.

 

Approximately 1.5 million U.S. women with unwanted pregnancies choose abortion each year. Most are under 25 years old and unmarried. Women who are separated from their husbands and poor women are more likely to choose abortion than other women. More than two-thirds of the women who seek abortions have jobs. Nearly one-third are in school. More than two-thirds plan to have a child in the future.

 

Approximately 6 million women in the U.S. become pregnant every year. About half of those pregnancies are unintended. Either the woman or her partner did not use contraception or the contraceptive method failed.

 

Each year more than one million U.S. teenagers become pregnant — one in nine women aged 15-19 and one in five who are sexually active.

 

In 1988, the teenage pregnancy rate was 113 per 1,000 women aged 15-19. The rate was 74 per 1,000 among those aged 15-17.

 

50 percent of teenage pregnancies conceived in 1987 resulted in a birth, 36 percent in an abortion, and an estimated 14 percent in miscarriage.

 

The number of abortions for every 100 live births showed a gradual decline since 1980 (35.9) to 1992 (33.5). The number of legal abortions increased slightly from 1995 (at 1,210,883) to 1996 (at 1,221,585). This is an increase of 0.89 percent. Since the national population increased by about 0.92 percent from mid-1995 to mid-1996, the abortion per-capita rate has decreased slightly.

 

CDC figures for 1995 show that 20 percent of women having abortions are in their teens; 33 percent are ages 20 to 24, and 47 percent are ages 25 or older.

 

Eighty percent of women having abortions are single; 60 percent are white; 35 percent are black.

 

Eighty-two percent of the women having abortions are unmarried or separated.

 

Almost half of American women (43 percent) will have an abortion sometime in their lifetime.

[theist 1]

"What's next embryo farming for scientific research etc? "

 

Looks like it. The AMA today came out in favor of using cloned human embryos for scientific reasearch.