I'm suspicious that this really happened to you, considering how many different people have claimed to have had the same experience.
As I said, the story sounded very familiar and I was suspicious. Long ago, I was a born-again-christian and was entirely immersed in the culture. I have first-hand knowledge of the tactics of anti-choice/forced childbirth advocates. For instance, transforming a discussion on the death penalty into an argument about abortion is a classic diversion.
BJ, as I said, I was suspicious of your story, not just because of the similarity to the "I'm lucky to be alive" urban myth.
For instance, while I suppose it's possible, a coffee table book showing the development of a fetus in an orthopedic surgeons office? I've seen that type of book in Ob/Gyn offices, yes, but it would seem out of place in an orthopedic surgeon's office. Another inconsistency I found is your original statement claims the birth mother was 15, and later you say she was 16 years old.
Also, you say this book made you realize that every fetus is sacred, yet you later say that after your son's teacher brought up his unusual declaration many years ago, "I had never thought much about the topic until I heard this and then questioned my own values concerning the sanctity of life" which would indicate that you'd come to the realization back then, rather than just a month ago. In subsequent comments you talk about women in your office walking around wearing their abortions like a "badge of honor," implying you were thinking about these things even further back.
You also imply that your son came up with the "lucky to be alive" scenario on his own, yet I find it hard to believe a child that young spontaneously made those connections. Someone had to tell the child of his "luck," otherwise how could he have made the connections in the first place? Not only that, I find it hard to believe a 5th grade teacher is conducting a sex education class much less a discussion on abortion.
Finally, as the mother of an adopted child borne of a schizophrenic mother, I can say I do have experience with agonizing over what I would tell my daughter when she asked where she came from. Like many adoptees, her questions arose from the fear of being unwanted or abandoned, and I was ever conscious that my answers could have a profound effect on her self-esteem and feelings of worth, which is why she was always told that her birth mother loved her very much, but was too ill to care for her. She now has contact with her birth mother and understands that she is loved and wanted by all involved. I find the idea of telling an adopted child that his birth mother wanted to abort him psychologically abusive; especially at such a young age, when children are already struggling with their identity and self-esteem. Obviously, you had the right to tell your child whatever you wanted about his origins, though you deny having told him yourself, which would indicate that someone else did - even worse, in my book. Of course you have a right to your opinions about abortion, just as others here have the right to theirs, but if you're going to use personal anecdotes to push your point, make sure they're internally consistent, because your credibility will be called into question.
As for this statement...
The question that was originally asked was if any one found an hypocrisy between the impassioned support of a convicted killer and the complete lack of passion for an unborn infant.
...no one was supporting a convicted killer, they were discussing the morality of the death penalty, which is a very different thing. And as far as I could tell, there is no "lack of passion" here; on the contrary, many argued your attempt to assign a "lack of passion" with your comments about "inanimate toys" and abortion "being in vogue." When you trivialize the very emotional decision many women have had to make concerning an unexpected pregnancy, you should expect pushback - I would say, with your calculated code words, you've invited it.
Another inconsistency I found is your original statement claims the birth mother was 15, and later you say she was 16 years old. - - - she got pregnant when she was 15 and had the child after she turned 16. would you like to know her birth date? How about her place of residence and her social security number?
Also, you say this book made you realize that every fetus is sacred, yet you later say that after your son's teacher brought up his unusual declaration many years ago, "I had never thought much about the topic until I heard this and then questioned my own values concerning the sanctity of life" which would indicate that you'd come to the realization back then, rather than just a month ago. In subsequent comments you talk about women in your office walking around wearing their abortions like a "badge of honor," implying you were thinking about these things even further back. - - - - the story about my son was over 10 years ago the book in the doctor's office was last year.
You also imply that your son came up with the "lucky to be alive" scenario on his own, yet I find it hard to believe a child that young spontaneously made those connections. Someone had to tell the child of his "luck," otherwise how could he have made the connections in the first place? Not only that, I find it hard to believe a 5th grade teacher is conducting a sex education class much less a discussion on abortion. - - - sex education does start at a young age. The fact that this teacher was discussing abortion was disturbing to all the parents in the end and was not part of the curricular, which became another matter. Regarding my son, have you worked in a soup kitchen, have you been the director of a city's retarded adult program for 3 years, have you organized fund-raising walk-a-thons for a children's disease, have you volunteered to coach 10 year olds in a youth basketball league in an underprivileged area, have you volunteered to mentor disadvantaged youth in seeking employment, have you tutored illiterate adults, and do you stop when ever you see someone homeless and put your hand in your pocket to give them money? The answer for you as it is for me is, "No." He did this while going to school and while he began his career. While you sit there pontificating and mastering some sort of conspiratorial web, he helps people. In fact he left his new career in investment to go back to school and pursue a new career in medicine. I don't know where all this came from (certainly not me). It came from his realization of his adoption from a very young age and his need to understand that (the way he pursues every other topic). Where he came up with his view of abortion I don't know. But he has always been a very insightful individual who has always had an insatiable thirst for knowledge and understanding.
"I find the idea of telling an adopted child that his birth mother wanted to abort him psychologically abusive; especially at such a young age, when children are already struggling with their identity and self-esteem." - - where did you get that from???? Of course she did not want an abortion, otherwise she would have had one. Finally, as the mother of an adopted child borne of a schizophrenic mother, I can say I do have experience with agonizing over what I would tell my daughter when she asked where she came from. Like many adoptees, her questions arose from the fear of being unwanted or abandoned, and I was ever conscious that my answers could have a profound effect on her self-esteem and feelings of worth, which is why she was always told that her birth mother loved her very much, but was too ill to care for her. She now has contact with her birth mother and understands that she is loved and wanted by all involved. - - - we were advised to tell our son at a very young age about the adoption and that his birth mother chose us (which is partially true because it also involved her mother). He did finally meet and speak with his birth mother who has her own family now. He has my wife's personality (thank goodness) and my drive to learn and achieve. His drive to be charitable and give back I believe came from viewing what I was doing in the course of business as well as his inherent feeling of how lucky he is to be alive and the opportunities he has been afforded.
...no one was supporting a convicted killer, they were discussing the morality of the death penalty, which is a very different thing. And as far as I could tell, there is no "lack of passion" here; on the contrary, many argued your attempt to assign a "lack of passion" with your comments about "inanimate toys" and abortion "being in vogue." When you trivialize the very emotional decision many women have had to make concerning an unexpected pregnancy, you should expect pushback - I would say, with your calculated code words, you've invited it. - - - - my son convinced me that there is a double standard to not believing in the death penalty as I have and not caring about eliminating unborn children. If you look at the statistics that I provided previously as to the reasons why women choose abortion, the overwhelming majority have to do with some sort of inconvenience. To me that is treating life as an inanimate object. But that was back in the 1970's and 1980's. The amount of abortions are continuing to decline as younger people are smarter and more careful. What would be ideal is if medical science could find a way of taking a fetus a mother does not want and incubating it till it is ready to be on its own. That would resolve all concerns.
But, since you've called the hand and shown us your cards, I have to say I'm impressed. Your son must be quite the prodigy to have become the director of a city program at the age of 16 or 17, according to your time line; especially considering city jobs require high school diplomas or the equivalent, not to mention the matter of previous management experience being a prerequisite for directorships. Good for him. What with all his accomplishments in such a short amount of time, though, I wonder when he found time to sleep! I'm curious, as well, how he managed to start a career in investment fresh out of high school. Doesn't that require some sort of higher education? Oh, right, prodigy...
"But, since you've called the hand and shown us your cards, I have to say I'm impressed. Your son must be quite the prodigy to have become the director of a city program at the age of 16 or 17," - - - I am afraid you are a bit off and kind of mixed things around. Walkathon at ages 13 and 14. He worked at a soup kitchen between his junior and senior high school years. He was director of this retarded adult program while he was in college for 3 years. I didn't say it was a city job. It was the city chapter of a national organization. And he did the other volunteer work after graduating college. He is 26 years old now. He has done things I never did or thought to and with every experience he learned things directly about people that you and others only assume. I have learned more from him than he has learned from me. He has a moral compass that is based on his own life experiences and his own understanding that as he called a "twist of fate" he could have never had the opportunities he did have or never have been born at all.
Waitaminit. Earlier you said it was a month ago! You, sir, are busted! I'm beginning to believe you've made this whole thing up.
The reason I brought this up was that a month ago I was sitting in the office of an orthopaedic surgeon and was browsing through a coffee table book that was actual photographs of conception through birth and every small step in between. It described in detail each organ and appendage development.
the book in the doctor's office was last year.
And as to that:
Regarding my son, have you worked in a soup kitchen, have you been the director of a city's retarded adult program for 3 years, have you organized fund-raising walk-a-thons for a children's disease, have you volunteered to coach 10 year olds in a youth basketball league in an underprivileged area, have you volunteered to mentor disadvantaged youth in seeking employment, have you tutored illiterate adults, and do you stop when ever you see someone homeless and put your hand in your pocket to give them money? The answer for you as it is for me is, "No." He did this while going to school and while he began his career. While you sit there pontificating and mastering some sort of conspiratorial web, he helps people. In fact he left his new career in investment to go back to school and pursue a new career in medicine.
My answer to that is "no, I pay taxes so that government can do properly its job, instead of starving it and forcing people to rely on mendicity and charity"
And as to what your kid (who was apparently in 5th grade 10 years ago) did while studying, what can I say? 3 years the director of a programme, an investment banking career already done with, studying medicine, all these extra-curricuar activities... Very impressive. Would you mind asking him to post a diary about it, it would be most fascinating to hear about. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
He already read the comments of you and your crowd and has an extremely low opinion of you. He did not like investment banking (or the people). I can't say I blame him.
A man named John Evander Couey was sentenced to be executed for the crime of kidnapping, raping, torturing, and slowly killing a 9-year-old girl named Jessica Lunsford, by burying her alive in his yard. You people's attitude is to reach out save this man for humanitarian reasons. Yet you have no humanity to a helpless and innocent fetus trying to have a life after being conceived.
Your response to that is this must be some sort of Republican trolling right wing conspiracy. Which is a convenient cover for the fact that you people are blatant hypocrites who have no consience, no soul, and simply follow along with the rest of crowd.
I do not believe that you or I have the right to take a life unless that life is directly threatening your life.
That makes sense, and is indeed consistent. Where we disagree, and I guess this is not something that can easily be argued one way or another, is that a fetus is a life. If you don't mind me asking some further questions to react further to your position, could you tell me:
I can understand if a woman somehow finds herself carrying a fetus and finds it inconvenient to her life for whatever reason and does not want it. I have a fundamental and moral issue with treating that like an inanimate object without finding alternatives. A solution that would satisfy all would be to have the ability to remove an unwanted fetus, place it in some special incubation chamber until full term. Unfortunately that does not yet exist.
Oh, and some very popular views state that recently born children are inherently guilty... Funny paradox. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
How do you justify that there is life before the point where there is a nervos system? how do you justify that this is life when the fetus consists of stem cells? how do you justify that there is life before the circulatory system starts working? how do you justify the existence of life before the development of the brain?
and how do you claim that we are Hypocrites and yet you are not when you support the death penalty?
I have a concience, a soul and don't simply follow the crowd as you so patronisingly put it. Yet you would probably see me as more evil than the rest of the people who you are discussing things with here, as I have on more than one occasion taken a friend to an abortion clinic, and helped them through the mental and emotional problems that came with this. The idea that these people didn't consider what they were doing and just treated this like a casual bit of cosmetic surgery is the soryt of sick idiotic argument I normally expect from the religiously brainwashed and stupid. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
A man named John Evander Couey was sentenced to be executed for the crime of kidnapping, raping, torturing, and slowly killing a 9-year-old girl named Jessica Lunsford, by burying her alive in his yard. You people's attitude is to reach out save this man for humanitarian reasons.
My position is that it is better for the guilty to be insufficiently punished than for an innocent to be wrongly punished. My position is that it is not because some depraved people kill in horrible ways that we should do the same. My position is that our standards should be higher.
Yet you have no humanity to a helpless and innocent fetus trying to have a life after being conceived.
A fetus is not alive, at least not for a number of months. And if anyone can be described as helpless and innocent, it's the pregnant woman. Or are you saying that unprotected sex is a crime - but only for the woman, not the man?
When you will spend as much effort demonising deadbeat fathers as you do abortions, then you will have the beginning of some moral consistency. Otherwise, as DeAnander eloquently stated above, you're just out to control women, nothing else. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Not alive??? So a fetus by your definition is "dead" until some magical time when it leaves the womb? Do I have that right? Some how these appendages and organs magically appear at different stages. Is that right?
What you probably are trying to say is that something is not alive until it can breathe and live on its own without the support of the mother's womb. My answer to that is when a human must survive with an artificial lung or any life support machine, we should turn off that machine and consider the person dead?
And what does deadbeat parents have anything to do with the discussion of the taking of a life?
Am I out to control women? No. Anyone who knows me would find that laughable. But woman should control themselves and responsible. Today young woman are far more aware and responsible which has led to the decline of abortions.
I'll ask the question I've asked before and you appear to have ignored, why are you convinced that a fetus is a person at the point when it is just a bundle of stem cells? why are you convinced it's a living person before it has a nervous system? why are you convinced that it is alive before it has any developed organs? Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
This commenter seems to ignore most comments except the ones he can pretend to take offense to and be derisive about. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
I'd already come to the conclusion that a subtle aplication of the clue stick was probably the only thing that would help. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
I don't know what the scientific definition of a "person" is, so I would regard it as a living fetus. I believe that a human starts at conception because it is a rapidly developing process. No one has been able to factually state that a fetus/baby/person starts at any other point than conception.
An abortion is the termination of a living fetus and morally needs to be regarded in that way.
so I would regard it as a living fetus. I believe that a human starts at conception because it is a rapidly developing process. No one has been able to factually state that a fetus/baby/person starts at any other point than conception.
Well that depends on your definition of rapidly. To start with it takes about three weeks before cell types even start to differentiate beyond basic cells. up till roughly four weeks you kill more cells scratching yourself than you do if an embryo is terminated. It isn't till roughly five weeks that organs start to develop so if you want to look at an absolutely earliest point where any nervous signals can occur you're lookin at ten weeks after conception. there are roughly 200 seperate biological stages in the development from conception to birth, Developmental biologists will tell you that at least 40 of these have just as good a claim to being the beginning of life as conception.
And I would argue that that is a completely artificial assumption forming a circular argument. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
By your argument you would have to regard the fetus as not alive until when exactly?
Neurobiologically a fetus does not become a persson till Nine months after birth (18 months after conception) Humans are unique in that their young are born without their brains being fully formed, due to the size of the head and the pelvic canal
It is arguable (and has been argued by eminent biologists) that personhood is a continuum from non personhood that exists as a pile of cells to personhood where the individual exists. the argument that Morally we must consider personhood to exist fully formed at the point of conception is incredibly simplistic. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
if your embryo has continued through all stages of development then its an adult. So how can there be an inevitability about an adult? as for
I am not a believer in legislating people's lives and choices and prefer that they make their own and informed decisions based on all information and access to all choices.
I think one of the underlying problems with this choice is how women are viewed who do get pregnant out of wedlock. When I ws growing up they were treated as virtual pariahs of society. Today there is much more tolerance but not entirely and particularly if they are involved in a career.
The inevitability is that when an embryo is created the process of human development immediately begins and does not end until we are much older. Unless something terrible happens along this path, the embryo will inevitably become a child and an adult and have a full life. Of course there is never any guarantee of any of that.
So far I think the best option has been given by Colman: perform a Caesarean section and if the fetus survives, give it up for abortion. Before the time that premature children are known to survive with any probability (currently 22 weeks) jus perform a simple abortion. It is already considered risky to perform an abortion in the second trimester (13 to 26 weeks?) anyway. Some other arbitrary threshold (say, 1/2 or 1/3 probability of survival to 1 year - these must be tabulated) could be used.
The thing is, we know from experience that if contraceptive/abortive methods are made illegal, women will find ways to procure them anyway, often at great risk to their own lives. To think the women approach these problems frivolously or that if they take a different decision from the one you think they should they haven't thought it through properly is borderline offensive.
But, ultimately, for you an I to discuss all this is academic since we're men, we don't get pregnant and we don't get abortions, and if our partners were to get pregnant or abort they would bear the brunt of the physical and emotional stress whatever they (we?) decide to do. Which reminds me of the battle cry of the abortion-right activists in Spain in the 1980's: nosotras parimos, nosotras decidimos (we give birth, we decide), and is why I think that those who argue that ultimately reproductive health issues are about patriarchal control of women's bodies have a lot going for them. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
"give it up for abortion" - - - - you of course meant "adoption."
No one I know or myself is advocating the making of contraceptive/abortive methods illegal. So that is not the issue I have.
"we don't get pregnant and we don't get abortions" - - - but it takes two to tango and it is equally the men's responsibility for contraception as it is the women's. I think younger generations are far more responsible and knowledgeable in this area than prior generations have been. Someone mentioned that the epidemic of HIV/AIDS is one reason for that.
The battle cry of the abortion-right activists in Spain in the 1980's: nosotras parimos, nosotras decidimos (we give birth, we decide) - - - - and my response to that is why did you get pregnant in the first place? If you feel empowered and capable of making this decision where was that same empowerment and sense of responsibility when you decided to get pregnant in the first place? I believe that we have a fundamental responsibility to all levels of life and not just some arbitrary level for political expediency or for some lifestyle convenience.
Well, this is not necessarily true, not in the US and not in Western Europe.
In many US states "readily available" means you have to go to (the much vilified by yourself) Planned Parenthood to get condoms or the day-after pill. Doctors may refuse to prescribe birth control pills. In Spain there are several regions where abortion is not available through the public health system, and one in which it is not available at all, despite being legal. Lots of pharmacists claim conscientious objection to refuse to sell contraceptives.
it takes two to tango and it is equally the men's responsibility for contraception as it is the women's. I think younger generations are far more responsible and knowledgeable in this area than prior generations have been.
"Much more responsible" does not mean "universally responsible". More often than I would have thought possible or liked I hear stories of men telling women they knocked up that it's their problem exclusively because they're the ones getting pregnant. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
In Spain there are several regions where abortion is not available through the public health system (source)
"Lots of pharmacists claim conscientious objection to refuse to sell contraceptives." - - - while I am sure there are some religious nut pharmacists in the U.S. I have never heard of one.
"Much more responsible" does not mean "universally responsible". More often than I would have thought possible or liked I hear stories of men telling women they knocked up that it's their problem exclusively because they're the ones getting pregnant." - - - I used to hear that 20 or more years ago. Young people today in the U.S. have been brought up with serious sex education, more open dialogue with parents and doctors, and are making better choices. The only situation I have heard of recently was a young man of 24 and a girl he dated who was a year older. She got pregnant through him. They decided they wanted to child but were not in love to get married. She had the baby and I am sure they have figured out how to manage the situation. I think one major difference was 30 years ago women were not of equal status with men and today they are (and then some).
What you find when you make something illegal (alcohol, abortions, etc.) is as you said people will find a way to do it but it will be in a dangerous way.
You are grossly uninformed. You should do some actual research on the topic (besides reading right-wing propaganda) before having further discussion on the topic.
btw, if you're not pushing for legislation or change in the law, then what is your point, exactly, in discussing this on a political forum? Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
"if you're not pushing for legislation or change in the law, then what is your point, exactly, in discussing this on a political forum?" - - - - You speak of human right issues and I believe if progressives are humanitarians then it should not begin at birth.
And do yourself a favor and try coming up with an original idea of your own if you don't agree with something other than "besides reading right wing propaganda."
Honestly, try doing some reading. And I don't know what else to call it when you repeat right-wing propaganda that has no basis in fact. I'd say the same if you were pushing creationism -- it's simply made up. If you choose to believe it on faith, fine, but don't expect a good reception among people who value informed opinions and reasoned debate. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
The school of fish political commentary simply shows you are uninformed and like I said have no original ideas of your own.
I just get upset when people resort to political labels of any kind. It is worth replacing "republican propaganda" with what you actually mean. Particularly since I have never been a member of the Republican Party now or in any prior lifetimes (to my knowledge).
frankly that's fairly insulting, I've attended abortions, I've spent several months studying the morals and ethics of abortion during my degree, and you're more informed on the grounds of one half baked anecdote? Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
Heh. Don't flatter yourself by thinking you've done any more than repeat stale talking points poorly. At most, you've mildly annoyed some, and greatly amused me, for which I'll give you credit.
What I'm glad about is you've revealed yourself and I'll know in the future to take your assertions with a grain of salt.
I think one major difference was 30 years ago women were not of equal status with men and today they are (and then some).
Now theres a telling Misogynistic phrase and a half. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
in developed western countries that is an outdated idea. Contraception is readily available nowadays and easily accessible to men and women - young and old.
I think you need to recognise that your ascribing life to the point of conception is as arbitary as any of ours. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
As to the failure rate, like any product it does happen. We all know someone who had a defective contraceptive and suddenly he's a daddy.
"I think you need to recognise that your ascribing life to the point of conception is as arbitary as any of ours." - - - - Actually I do recognize that but would like other to recognize that as well, think more about it, as not just dismiss abortion as something just to be disposed of. Progressives are supposed to be humanitarians and that should not begin at birth.
The one incredible thing about medical science is how rapidly it has progressed particularly in the issue you raised about premature babies. I would imagine that there would be a time soon where they will have the ability to extract an embryo or fetus and have the means to incubate them to full term.
Do you believe in abortion for any reason? Rape, incest, or to save to save a woman's life?
Also, quit being so rude and personally insulting. It makes you look like an asshole and detracts from any point you may have. Are you trying to discuss opposing points of view? or merely pick fights? Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Expelling a fetus as you described it cannot be murder since it is lawful and for any reason. I do believe in extacting the fetus in those extreme cases such as rape, incest, and definately when it threatens the life of the mother.
The fundamental problem I have is how one regards that early life form. Proponents of a abortion do not regard that life form until it is at an advanced stage and close to full term and able to function if born premature. I would argue that the life form may not be fully formed but it is alive and rapidly developing. It does depend on the birth mother for life and could not survive if extracted too early.
Then how do you seperate an early fetus that is dependent on the birth mother for survivial and an adult who through some unfortunate accident requires life support systems to survive?
The rudeness is only there to answer rude and defamatory remarks.
Personally, I trust women to make their own medical decisions. Circumstantial legislation such as you seem to be advocating does nothing but ensure that women suffer and die needlessly. It doesn't work.
Everything you've been saying about abortion being in "vogue" and women going around having them "without remorse" is simply malicious propaganda that is completely beside the point and highly offensive, which is one of the reasons you've gotten the sort of response you have. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
"Circumstantial legislation such as you seem to be advocating" - - - actually I am not advocating any legal changes - only personal responsibility, better education, and better options.
This is not about a personal story
You have been telling a personal story all the way through this subthread.
Can we take it you're now withdrawing it?
Frankly, I don't know why you felt you needed to do it. Having lurked here for a long time, I believe the people on this blog are more than fair in giving others the freedom to state their positions, and they've been painstakingly civil to you as they argue their own. (And before you start listing the instances of dire rudeness from others, I'm not interested). Basically, you've wasted an opportunity to present your side of the issue by using subterfuge and insulting language when you could have had a pleasant, if heated, exchange. It's too bad.
A parting word of advice: Anecdotal observations are not considered statistically valid. Expect to be challenged every time you use it to "prove" a point.
Again with presenting anecdotal evidence as fact. Sigh.
Try googling "child psychology adoption."
BJ, you use the term "gotcha" to anyone who has presented evidence countering your claims. Does this mean you admit that you have been "gotten?"
Also, since I haven't stated my opinion on the issue at all (apologies again for being off topic), on what basis do you assume my "moral hypocrisy?"
apologies again for being off topic
I dear say!
Otoh, considering the topic is really the death penalty you were by far not the first :-)
Welcome to ET btw. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Like I said before I believe that one cannot morally take another's life unless that life is endangering yours.
My apologies to everyone for the disruption - I've seen this pattern so many times, I just had to say something.
Troll-rated for the continued assertion that iamcoyote is making up a story.
Progressive thinking is about thinking outside the box.
You started this discussion with:
Why do the very same people who passionately oppose the death penalty have no problem supporting the right of a woman to abort an unborn child for any reason and at any stage?
The conservative religious movement in America (and elsewhere) has been churning this line out for three decades now. It's interesting to see you consider it "progressive" and "outside the box".
You came up with that all by yourself or did you look it up in your little book of "talking points." Try coming up with original thoughts of your own rather than repeating old lines.
Project much? You have a normal feeling for a moment, then it passes. --More--
And of course YOU know what all adoptive people feel - what a time-waster. Yes, I shouldn't have wasted time on you. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
So - since your son seems to be a mature, capable, articulate person - perhaps it would now be only fair to the other discussants in the thread if he were to open an account here and tell us all about this himself.
Fair or not fair?
Who is "you people"? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I didn't ask for quotes from you. I asked for your son, since he's apparently so vital to this debate, to get an account and come here and tell us about his thinking himself.
