 |
www.justiceforchandra.com
Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9274
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| benn wrote: | I am against abortion, except to save the life of the mother. There is one aspect of abortion that does not seem to get much consideration, when a baby is killed before it is born that means that all the relatives of the mother and father have lost a family member.
Since many family members are related to an unborn baby should not the family members get a chance to vote on whether an unborn baby is going to be killed? If a vote of all family members was necessary there might be fewer abortions.
Jerry Falwell has a home for unwed mothers, which is never mentioned much, and some of the mothers keep their babies and some of the babies are adopted out. Falwell told of one case where the Father of the mother was also the father of the mother's child. This was a case of incest, but the baby was adopted out just like the other babies. I think that Falwell said that the adopting parents were aware of the child's background.
I could preach a sermon here, but I won't. Do we really have Freedom of Religion?
benn |
hmm, well, let's say you wanted be a Muslim. Here you can do that. Let's say you wanted to be a Christian in a Muslim country. You;d probably be shot. How many Christian ministers have been shot in Iraq in just the last week? I lost count.
I think you can worship any way you like here. I would call that Freedom of Religion.
rd |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9274
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| propria wrote: | >>> It's one of those things people come down hard on one way or the other. <<<
you're certainly right about that, rd ...
and i am one of the folks holding the belief that abortion at any point after conception takes a human life. however, i also have great respect for other folks' right to hold their own beliefs and to act on them, so i do not support outlawing abortion altogether. instead, i want to see my money protected from bearing the costs of abortion in any way, shape or form ... i don't want my tax money paying for abortions performed on women whose medical costs are covered by state or federal governments, and i don't want my insurance premiums or the cost of my own medical care being affected in any way by the costs associated with abortion. i don't even want my tax money going to any medical or social service facility that provides any kind of abortion related services, with the sole exception of emergency care when a botched abortion endangers the mother's health ... and yes, a woman who has aborted her baby is still a mother, she's just the mother of a dead baby instead of a live one, as a blood test of her hormone levels would readily prove.
before anybody has a hyssie fit over what a cold hearted monster i am to support leaving all those promiscuous women out there on their own with no way to pay for their deadly birth control, let me point out that tax dollars are not the only way to pay for abortion services. in addition to the option of raising funds to pay for abortions howard dean style, getting a few dollars here and a few dollars there from ordinary folks who want to support the cause, there seem to be an awful lot of rich folks out there taking a stand for a woman's right to choose to kill her baby, so they could chip in to sweeten the pot for women seeking abortion on demand. the hollywood set, for instance ... a crowd of pro-abortion types who could easily pay for a major percentage of the annual cost of abortion services all by themselves ... could contribute and/or raise funds that would be held in trust and disbursed to pay for abortions for any woman who wanted to abort her baby but couldn't afford the cost.
in addition to the 'true believers' paying for the costs of abortions, pro-abortion doctors could discount or contribute their services, or even form their own insurance companies [like the american medical association has done with blue cross/blue shield] so that women could just buy abortion insurance the same way they buy birth control pills, but without needing a prescription. establishing and maintaining the physical facilities necessary for providing abortion services could be handled by pro-abortion property owners deeding the required buildings over to the cause, or at least providing clinic space rent free, just to take the pressure off the rich pro-abortion folks who would be forking out cash as they put their money where their mouth is around a woman's right to choose. i'm a woman, and i have a right to choose, too ... i choose to not spend my money helping women kill their babies when the people who think that's just fine could and should be the ones paying that cost. there are remarkably few genuinely unsolvable problems in the world at large, but there are precious few people out there who are willing to put their money where their mouth is in order to achieve a solution.
nanci |
I certainly agree with all that, nanci. The Soviet Union form of birth control was abortion, and not many people would make that their first choice for birth control. Any medical aid here needs to be just as you describe. There was an article the other day that said welfare continues to go down. The psychological chain of dependency has been broken because they know it has a time limit.
Same must be true of any medical aid. There can't be Soviet style abortion assembly lines set up, and with vigilance such as yours there won't be. I saw an article a week or two ago about how teenage births are starting to drop dramatically. It goes right along with the welfare drop. They were connected and everyone knew it, and the cycle is broken.
We can't create a new cycle with taxpayer funded abortions. Just as teenagers stopped having children when they stopped getting welfare for life, that will also affect their lifestyle. There should be both privately funded adoption services and privately funded birth control services. I know the adoption services are there, and yes, those who support the choice of abortion can pay for providing any alternatives.
rd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benn
Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good reply rd. I am a little concerned about that word worship. I guess it depends upon the way it is used. I know some non christians used to advocate that everyone worship only in their churches.
I think that we have to consider....if I should die tonight (and that can be anyone) where would I be, and who would be there to help me? I don't know where I might be, and there would be only one person who could help me.
I read something a little scary yesterday, if it was correct. I was reading some medical literature and one figure given was that 25% of the people in the U.S. do not live to age 65. That is a little scary, if true.
benn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rd
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9274
Location: Jacksonville, FL
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That seems high, benn. I don't know. Up until 1945 wars and disease killed so many people it would be a dramatically larger percentage than today, and that was 59 years ago, so I don't think we have enough years in the modern era post world wars and medical advances to have a baseline for 65 years pecentage yet. And even then the sampling would be very small.
For a larger group that goes back before 1945, then yes, at least 25% didn't make it to 65. I think you know how rough it was better than anyone else reading this. :)
rd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benn
Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rd, well I know who wrote the message, he is a medical specialist. He sends out messages as part of a mailing list. I will look and see if I can find it. If not I will have to look for other figures.
He may have referred to people with certain medical conditions.
benn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
benn
Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 2136
Location: Sacramento, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here are some figures for smokers and non smokers.
I have not found what I read before about 25% dying before age 65. I might have deleted it.
http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/scary.htm
>>>Percentage that die between the ages of 35 and 65 years:
Men Women
non-smoker 12% 9%
ex-smoker 16% 10%
current smoker 25% 16%<<<<
Well if I had wanted to say quit smoking this would have been a good post, without any comments. I still don't see the original figure that I read somewhere.
Smoking helps you get there faster. ...:)
benn
>>>One in four male smokers aged 35 can expect to die before the age of 65 if they continue to smoke COMPARED to only one in eight for men who have never smoked.<<< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
