President Obama reverses abortion-funds policy

[flyingace]

Truer words have never been spoken....

It seems like every day I read in the newspaper about yet another child killed by a parent or shaken or beaten so severely that they're handicapped for life. It breaks my heart-if you don't want it, give it up for adoption or at least take it to a place where you can drop off babies without being arrested. If you get pregnant and know you don't want it, then you should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy. That's what I think.

 

[jillio]

I'm afraid I disagree. Whilst they have a problem killing any child wether before or after birth is not the answer.

The answer is the use of better birth control so they don't get to kill in the first place. It woman who have an abortion if they produce a 2nd child, how come they have a 2nd child. Why can't they be steralized after the first child. Then they aren't traumatised by an unwanted abortion.

And Obama's reversal allows for birth control and education to be part of the services delivered by these organizations. It is not limited to abortion services only. It is comprehensive in its nature regarding reproductive health care.

 

[jillio]

I believe it will be banned someday as well. Unless it's proven that it really is something else besides a human being that is developing in the womb. Obviously I'm being sarcastic on that last point, since the technology available today(and it gets better all the time) is aMAzing..showing how the baby(oops..fetus) develops over time. And it's how we all developed.

Roe v Wade has absolutely nothing to do with the philosphies of when life begins. It is a privacy issue. Medical science has already determined the point of viability, and that is the philosphy accepted by law, as medical science is considered to have expertise in medical issues.

To overturn Roe v Wade under moral grounds is a violation legal principles.

 

[Byrdie714]

Give this unwanted child to the parents who can't have children. Let them adopt unwanted child. What's wrong with that ? This unwanted child could be a singer, or president, or lawyer or doctor ....

When the parents get old, they could always get help from their child to take care of them in time of needs.

You have a good point. However--you have to encourage the pregnant lady to carry it to full term for it to ever happen.

 

[jillio]

It seems like every day I read in the newspaper about yet another child killed by a parent or shaken or beaten so severely that they're handicapped for life. It breaks my heart-if you don't want it, give it up for adoption or at least take it to a place where you can drop off babies without being arrested. If you get pregnant and know you don't want it, then you should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy. That's what I think.

Once a child has been born and is severely injured from abuse, that child will, under most probability, never be fortunate to be adopted, and will simply remain a ward of the state for his/her entire life. To think that every child surrendered will find a loving adoptive home is nothing short of fantasy.

 

[Jiro]

Roe v Wade has absolutely nothing to do with the philosphies of when life begins. It is a privacy issue. Medical science has already determined the point of viability, and that is the philosphy accepted by law, as medical science is considered to have expertise in medical issues.

To overturn Roe v Wade under moral grounds is a violation legal principles.

which is why I asked people especially pro-lifers if they have read Roe v. Wade case. methinks they don't

 

[jillio]

which is why I asked people especially pro-lifers if they have read Roe v. Wade case. methinks they don't

Evidently not, because they don't seem to grasp the legal principle behind the ruling. Viability is a medical ethics issue, not a legal one.

 

[Jiro]

Evidently not, because they don't seem to grasp the legal principle behind the ruling. Viability is a medical ethics issue, not a legal one.

i surely miss debating with a religious scientific person. you don't come across this kind of person often.

 

[jillio]

i surely miss debating with a religious scientific person. you don't come across this kind of person often.

I am not necessarily religious, but I am spiritual, and consider myself to be very ethical. In fact, I am legally obligated to follow a particular code of ethics, and part of that is keeping moral issues and legal issues separated.

 

[naisho]

i surely miss debating with a religious scientific person. you don't come across this kind of person often.

Hard to say.. but I can see why, think about a sec.

Scientists would be more inclined to believe in the evolutionary theory that man was derived from apes, Homo erectus, the big bang, etc.

Religious people just believe we were created by God and that's final, no exceptions.

Thus a scientist who is into religion either isn't good at his job or is very contradictory!

 

[Jiro]

I am not necessarily religious, but I am spiritual, and consider myself to be very ethical. In fact, I am legally obligated to follow a particular code of ethics, and part of that is keeping moral issues and legal issues separated.

Yes but my college friend is. he is very religious but at same time - he is also a scientific person.

 

[jillio]

Yes but my college friend is. he is very religious but at same time - he is also a scientific person.

Science and religion do not necessarily contradict each other. I know many individuals in the scientific field that hold to strong spiritual beliefs. They only contradict each other when one does not take the time to reconcile the issues.

 

[Jiro]

Science and religion do not necessarily contradict each other. I know many individuals in the scientific field that hold to strong spiritual beliefs. They only contradict each other when one does not take the time to reconcile the issues.

yes exactly. which is why it is very very very interesting to hear their POV on certain issues. it is fascinating to hear about their religious approach in their scientific work/view.

 

[jillio]

yes exactly. which is why it is very very very interesting to hear their POV on certain issues. it is fascinating to hear about their religious approach in their scientific work/view.

I agree. The two can be reconciled, and very effectively so, if one only makes the effort to think.

 

[Jiro]

of course - I disagree with some of their views but hey.... "agree to disagree" and at least their arguments are nowhere as fallacious as you-know-who

 

[jillio]

of course - I disagree with some of their views but hey.... "agree to disagree" and at least their arguments are nowhere as fallacious as you-know-who

Exactly. One can concede a point one disagrees with as being valid if it is adequately supported.

 

[naisho]

I suppose it also depends on certain branches of science. For instance, an Anthropologist -- I understand not all, but surely most in this profession would genuinely "disagree" with the fact that man was created by a higher power, a Biologist, entirely specific by branch, though not all, would presume that we progressed from the simple prokaryotic bacterial cells into protists and amoebas and eventually metamorphasized into what we are today, homo sapiens created of zillions of eukaryoites working in conjunction.

Though there are some scientists who follow the religion in their line of duty, sometimes it may be for other reasons aside from studying/praising God, or more specifically we could get into specific religions where not all coincide but that's not the point.

Point is, it probably really depends on which profession of a scientist we are talking about, and what religion issue we are talking about as well.

 

[jillio]

I suppose it also depends on certain branches of science. For instance, an Anthropologist -- I understand not all, but surely most in this profession would genuinely "disagree" with the fact that man was created by a higher power, a Biologist, entirely specific by branch, though not all, would presume that we progressed from prokaryotic bacterial cells into protists and amoebas and eventually metamorphasized into what we are today, homo sapiens created of zillions of cells working in conjunction.

Though there are some scientists who follow the religion in their line of duty, sometimes it may be for other reasons aside from studying/praising God, or more specifically we could get into specific religions where not all coincide but that's not the point.

Point is, it probably really depends on which profession of a scientist we are talking about, and what religion issue we are talking about as well.

Actually, and anthropoligist would be more inclined to include a spiritual perspective, as anthropology is a holistically based science.

 

[Dutch]

Roe v Wade has absolutely nothing to do with the philosphies of when life begins. It is a privacy issue. Medical science has already determined the point of viability, and that is the philosphy accepted by law, as medical science is considered to have expertise in medical issues.

To overturn Roe v Wade under moral grounds is a violation legal principles.

Look, I realize you and others and even the courts, as you say, don't want to talk about what is being terminated when an abortion occurs. That is what needs to change. There is nothing "private" about killing another separate human being. The same goes for the media- when's the last time you saw a piece done on what we're actually talking about here?

Morals? Common sense? Whatever term you want to use. It's a human being that is developing inside the womb, not a cancer.

 

[jillio]

Look, I realize you and others and even the courts, as you say, don't want to talk about what is being terminated when an abortion occurs. That is what needs to change. There is nothing "private" about killing another separate human being. The same goes for the media- when's the last time you saw a piece done on what we're actually talking about here?

Morals? Common sense? Whatever term you want to use. It's a human being that is developing inside the womb, not a cancer.

You are again confusing the issue of viability with privacy. Roe v Wade was not determined on issues of viability, it was determined on the right to privacy. Viability was determined long before Roe v Wade became an issue. Viability was determined way back when states decided the legality of abortion independent of federal rulings.

If you want to talk about what actually happens during an abortion, I would suggest that you educate yorself regarding the scientific facts, rather than relying on irrelevant moral and emotional arguments in an attempt to discuss legality and science.