Today a woman crossing the street in front of a hospital, which she plans to enter to have an abortion, could be hit by a car and lose her baby. if the driver of the car was at fault she could legally sue the driver for the loss of her child's life. Yet the same woman could also proceed into the hospital without an accident, and legally have her child's life taken away through abortion.
Today more unborn children and infants die from abortion than from any other form of accidents or diseases. The most dangerous place for a developing child today is in his or her mother's womb.
Today many legislators are fighting to outlaw all forms of capital punishment, even for the worst of criminal offenders, because this is viewed as cruel and unusual punishment. Yet, many of the same individuals can vote to approve the killing of thousands of innocent, unborn children.
Some people say the fetus (unborn child) is not really human, therefore it can be killed.
At 3 weeks after conception a baby's heart begins beating.
At 6 weeks after conception a baby's brain waves are traceable.
At 11 weeks after conception all of the baby's internal organs are present and functioning.
If there is a time after conception in which the living and growing unborn child is not human. who and what is it then? If we search biological classifications of living organisms, how would we classify this living and growing fetus if it were not a human being? If this matter of determining when the unborn child is a human being is so unclear, how do we dare to say that abortion is permissible, and not murder?
Murrelet and sebekm thank you for your response.
Murrelet I read the piece on the link you posted.
Thank you for that as a start.
I'll read it again before I make any further comment.
For the rest of you please I'm not interested in childish barbs being hurled back and forth.
However I do appreciate any serious comments.
A very wise old retired Army Sargent once told me to "Never argue with a fool because the bystanders can't tell who is who".
"A very wise old retired Army Sargent once told me to "Never argue with a fool because the bystanders can't tell who is who"."
Another variation of this is:
Never wrestle with a pig, because everyone gets dirty but the pig loves it.
Don't know if the dust has settled yet... but the biggest intrusion into personal lives is a majority of basically white conservative males telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her uterus. Abortion to my mind, is between the woman, the doctor, and her spiritual beliefs and or the father of the child, if she has both or either one. Not the father tho of she was raped, or the victim of incest.
Other than that....everyone else butt out.
JimmyMack thank you too for the above response.
"Abortion to my mind, is between the woman, the doctor, and her spiritual beliefs and or the father of the child"
I have no problem with that statement.
I hope to get response from yet others who are out there.
Again thanks to all.
I don't do research on this computer very well so I'll ask for some help here.
When did we legalize abortion in this country?
Are there countries where it remains illegal?
Were there places where it was legal before the USA?
timeontarget commented on Monday, Jan 23, 2012 at 15:16 PM
For the rest of you please I'm not interested in childish barbs being hurled back and forth.
timeontarget, not sure if you ever noticed but murrelet is always the one that starts the childish barbs being hurled on every blog.
Abortion involves the death of a separate body, her unborn child's. To argue that the living fetus is part of the mother's body defies reason: which organ of her body is it? When the unborn child's heart beats, whose heart is it? When the fetus's brain waves can be traced, whose brain is it? To willfully end the life of another for one's own convenience has always been viewed as murder.
I understand, and I'm listening please carry on.
I must go to my chores now but I'll be back later today or tomorrow.
I'm interested in information as well as thoughtful commentary from all sides.
It is amazing that often those stressing the need to stop abortion are accused of trying to force their beliefs on others. In reality, all who participate in an abortion force their views on another, viz., on the unborn child - so strongly in fact, that it results in his or her death. If the unborn child is a human being when examined rationally, ethically, and morally, how can one be accused of trying to force his own belief on another when trying to protect the life of the child from his or her murderer?
God's Word never treats the soul as being created in the womb at some point after conception. Rather, in Psalm 51:5 David tells us: "Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." How can an unborn child, while yet in the womb, possess a sinful nature which separates him from God, and yet possess no soul? Can anything be shapen in iniquity while remaining soul-less? David confesses his united soul-body creation even more plainly in Psalm 139: 13-16, For Thou hast possessed my reins: Thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise Thee; for I (soul and body) am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in Thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Further, in Gen. 9:4 we read, "the life thereof which is the blood thereof " This phrase is the basis for many other passages of Scripture which equate blood with life, and call the shedding of blood sin Jer. 22:3; Ps. 106:37-38; Dt. 19:10,13; 21:9; 11 Ki. 24:4; Prov 6:16-17, etc.). in other words, since every fetus has its own blood, the shedding of that blood is as surely the taking of life (soul and body) as it would be in any other circumstance or situation.
The Word of God forbids murder - by abortion or any other means - because God created man in His own image.
Contrary to Scripture, abortionists principally and inevitably reject the sacredness and value of life, treat God's complex creation as nothing more than a growing cell, and deny that the life of a human being is created for a never-ending eternity. At minimum, abortion reduces man to an animalistic level, ignoring the very mark of true personhood - his never-dying soul.
Iky; just out of curiousity...how you feel 'bout the death penalty for say a convicted child killer...?
Not takin sides here or nuttin...just wonderin...
What is murder as defined by the Bible? Is it the taking of a life, the life of a convicted criminal, the life of someone on the battlefield, a blasphemer?
What I can see on this issue is most pro-lifers are really anti-abortioners. There is a significant difference between the two.
Thanks to all who provide thoughtful comments.
Murrelet I think I might try to order that book you mentioned.
Jimmy Mack your last post above is truly thought provoking.
I personally think I am for the death penalty, especially in the case of the murder of a child or helpless old or infirm.
Then again I've never served on a jury for murder.
Therefore I suppose I really don't know.
JimmyMack, I support the death penalty I just don't support taking a babies life just for the convenience of the mother.
You can take Murrelet out of the Trailer Park but you can't take the Trailer Park out of Murrelet.
If murrelet would stop porking that livestock or vice-verse she would be a nicer person.
My lifetime started during an age when the only birth control was a condom or a douche bag both of which were risky.
My first child was conceived out of wedlock.
The options were illegal abortion, give the child up for adoption, give the child to a close family member or friend.
Although the child was conceived out of wedlock it was not an accident.
Quite the opposite, the Mother and I both wanted the child very much, however we were both teenagers.
Mine and her parents both discouraged us from getting married.
We wanted to be married and in the end we convinced first my parents and then hers to allow the marriage.
I convinced first my Father and then my Mother to allow the marriage by using the argument that I did not want to live with the knowledge that I had fathered a bastard child.
That pregnancy resulted in the birth of my best friend for my lifetime to this date.
We have now shared well over a half century of good times as well as bad times together.
The road has been bumpy but I would not have had it any other way.
God's Word teaches us that Divine sovereignty excludes all abortions - even in such cases as rape, incest, or possible retardation.
Abortion treads into Divine territory by taking into the hands of man that which belongs to the sovereign Jehovah alone. "The Lord killeth and maketh alive" (I Sam. 2:6). Humanistic abortionists think it cruel to cut off all abortions entirely, especially in cases of rape, possible handicaps or retardation, and incest. Their cruelty charge, however, falls back on themselves.
With respect to rape, studies reveal that it seldom results in pregnancy. A study in Minneapolis of 3,500 consecutive rapes revealed not a single pregnancy. Besides, will abortion of the innocent product of a rape return the mother to an unviolated, unassaulted state? Will abortion apprehend the rapist? Will abortion restore the mother to her pre-raped state of peace of mind? In a sense, abortion of the unborn baby produced by rape is just as violent an act as the rape itself. Instead of adding crime to crime.
Senator Jesse Helms wrote:
Unless the abortion decision is reversed by an amendment to the Constitution, the future of America is in grave doubt, for no nation can remain free or exercise moral leadership when it has embraced the doctrine of death.
Murrelet feels insecure and inferior and is scared all the time, that's why she wants to drag other people down with her, that's why she belittles others.
Some people are so miserable that the only way they can be happy is to spread the misery around. it's born of insecurity, i.e., the only way they can feel good about themselves is to make others feel bad. it's about them, not about you.
Belitting others makes murrelet feel better about herself. It gives her a way to point out another person's flaws so that murr may hide her own.
Back to the discussion of abortion.
I failed to mention earlier the best way of all to avoid pregnancy is simply to abstain from sex when the woman is most fertile.
My wife avoided it for over a year while engaging in unprotected sex fairly regularly.
I don't know just how she did it but it involved study of the menstrual cycle.
There were times when she just said no not today.
My wife is no longer with us but I'd appreciate it if any of our ladies would enter into comment on this line of thought.
I don't know if any of our ladies on "this here" blog are old enough to remember sex without the pill or if they are bold enough to discuss it on "this here" blog.
Thanks to all for your participation.
Sebekm if you are still following this blog I was hopeful that you would repost some of what you had posted on that blog which was taken down be our webmaster.
Hi TOT: I'm still here. I thought I'd stay out until the scrum settled down.
"There were times when she just said no not today."
That's the kind of "control" I was talking about. Women have had it since time immemorial. Nancy Reagan said the words, albeit in another context:
Just Say No.
No matter what the Bible says, my hunch is that it wasn't any ol' serpent, or any ol' apple that tempted Adam: it was Eve goin' without her fig leaves. That's all it took, in that Garden with only one man and one woman. Eve said "yes," and according to the Good Book, God said "Get Out."
So then they got to begettin' and being fruitful and multiplyin' and all that sort of stuff. Adam surely was in Hog Heaven. Then came the Elohim, but that's another story. Long before Roe v. Wade.
More philosophical folderol later.....
Excuse me Sebekm but it isn't only the woman's reponsiblity "to say no" (the rhythm method) or to take the pill or whatever method is used. Last time I checked, it took two to tango. Therefore both should equally bear responsiblity.
Yeah, yeah blame the women Seb (LOL) we're the reason you guys can't hold it together. Poor babies. Truth is if Eve wasn't there you guys would have found a tree or goat or something. (:D)
I didn't say it was ONLY the woman's responsibility. Read my post carefully: I said the woman has CONTROL. When it comes to reproduction, it does take two to tango, but ONE can kill the whole deal. And women have been doing it forever (killing the whole deal, that is). Until just recently - in the grand scheme of things.
Men have ALWAYS chased and they always will. Their desire to dally in the valley remains essentially unchanged and unlimited. The only thing that HAS changed in these days of "liberation" is women's attitudes and willingness to "put on the brakes" when it isn't legal. They used to do it; AFTER THEY GET MARRIED THEY DO IT; why not before? MUST they prove that they are as irresponsible as the males who throw caution to the winds?
Our grandmothers and great grandmothers didn't think so.
As for Eve, trees and goats - I don't think Roe v. Wade applied back in those days (or even now - for trees and goats, that is).
And That IS the subject of this blog string, isn't it?
...and I'm also referring more to what is commonly called "abstinence" than to the rhythm method of birth control. I'm not sure what the statistics are, but I suspect there are far more abortions in cases of pregnancy "out of wedlock" than there are of married couples who want to abort a child that they have conceived during their marriage.
I'm talking about those hot nights in the back seat or at the Ace Motel where "nature" takes its course. The rule used to be "not without the license." Now it's "girls just want to have fun" (too).
Have we really made "progress" going from puritanical attitudes to unfettered fornication? The welfare rolls would seem to say "no."
Hello sebekm and Murrelet I just got in and I thank you both for your responses and for your staying respectful towards each other.
Murrelet I just read the infanticide piece and I must say it was interesting but to me it was somewhat almost , well I just don't know right now.
It is late in the day and I am tired .
I'll read it again tomorrow morning and perhaps even again later.
Thanks to all for thoughtful commentary.
I believe that the legalization of abortion was one of the most profound things to have happened in my lifetime.
1. I am not a conservative.
2. If you notice, in my comments I said nothing about a woman's right to control her uterus. I was talking about the traditional, historical control a woman has over the sex act itself.
I can't imagine that any woman - if she was being completely honest and truthful - would deny this.
3. I did not say that "everone abstained prior to marriage before the Pill was perfected." I only suggested that abstinence was preferable to abortions?
Do you disagree? Would you rather have abortions?
4. Let's look at a little history:
According to the CDC, the total number of births in 2006 was 4.3 million. Illegitimate births amounted to 38.5% of this total. In 1980, the CDC stats reflect that only 665,747 unmarried women gave birth, accounting for 18.4% of the total.
Why has there been such a huge increase in unwed mothers? According to the CDC, the increase in the 80s and early 90s resulted primarily from an increase in the birth rate for unmarried women (quoting from their 2006 report): “the (principal)factor in the long-term increase in the number of births was the growth in the number of unmarried women of childbearing age.”
I suppose you could say that the government might be LYING about this, but I choose to believe them since they have no real reason to lie.
I contend that illegitimate births are one of the primary factors which DRIVE the welfare system in this country today.
Do you disagree?
...and let's get even a bit more "basic":
Q: Why do women have abortions?
A: To solve what they see as a "problem."
Plain and simple.
I contend that "abortion-on- demand" as a problem-solving tool is treating the symptom rather than treating the problem.
Q: What has been the result of employing abortion-on-demand to solve the unwanted pregnancy "problem" over the past 30 years?
A: An exponential explosion in more unwanted pregnancies.
Is this a SANE way to deal with a problem? I don't think so.
And aside from these questions, you still have the "morality" questions and the "right to life" questions, and all the rest. But back to the basic question of this blog - "Abortion Good or Evil???????"
I say NEITHER. I contend it's just BAD PUBLIC POLICY.
Now almost all of the comments on this blog string are informative and interesting.
I like this very much.
Thanks to each one of you all for your input.
I hope yet to get more input from our readers.
Friday and weekends are busy for me so I might not be back until Monday.
Hopefully everyone will have a good weekend.
"Seb(e)km, women had NO control over their reproductive lives until the Pill was perfected. Without the advent of the Pill, there would have been NO sexual revolution."
I assume we're talking about American society here. In that case - so all live births by women since the 1600s in the United States were as a result of rape, incest, or carnal knowledge? I find it unbelievable that a woman would say this. Women have ALWAYS had cotrol over their reproductive lives - other than those actual cases of rape, carnal knowledge, or incest. The vast majority of grown, mature women have controlled their "reproductive lives" by simplying saying NO. They realized this because they were taught so by their mothers, grandmothers, etc., that it was their responsiblity to do so. Those women who CHOSE to "reproduce" irresponsibly - for what ever reason (e.g. to "get" a husband) - STILL had "control" over their "reproductive lives" because they chose to reproduce out of wedlock.
The ultimate responsiblity for reproduction lies with the female because the vast majority of reproductive activity is accomplished by and within the female. This always has been and always will be true until some idiot figures out how to hybridize a male for childbearing purposes. (With all the wacky things going on in this world, I'm sure somebody will want to do that.)
No matter how you style it, for the male it continues to be a variation of "slam, bam," and "thank you, Ma'am." Take a look at the way relationships are portrayed in the media. Everything is disposable nowadays, to include husbands, wives, children, parents. The divorce and unwanted pregnancy rates have skyrocketed since the beginning of "the sexual revolution." Paraphrasing your good buddy Ronald Reagan: Are we REALLY better off now than we were 50 years ago (as far as morality and the propagation of the species goes)? I say NO.
Now if we don't like something or somebody, we just get rid of it (or them). We live in a disposable society because we have made it so. Within our cultural framework, abortion is a natural element.
And reverting to the question of abortion - as the stallion said to the mare - let's "back up on it" a bit:
Q: Why does the practice of abortion exist?
A: To solve the "problem" of unwanted pregnancies.
Q: For society's sake - be it for cultural, religious, or moral reasons - is abortion REALLY the preferred method of dealing with this particular problem?
A: I submit to you that the resounding answer is NEGATORY.
Q: How has the "problem" of unwanted pregnancies been dealt with down through the ages?
A: SOMEBODY said "no."
Assuming that the nature of males is always to be on the prowl (with all due respect to those of you out there who have never been), I contend that it is the ULTIMATE CONTROLLER of reproduction who bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that society isn't deluged with unwanted pregnancies - as it is today.
As I said, your grandmothers and great grandmothers knew this - as did the grandfathers and great grandfathers. They insisted on legitimacy before pregnancy. With the sexual revolution came an ability for women to engage in indiscriminate sexual activity, but somewhere along the line they have forgotten that it is their ultimate responsibilty to preclude "unwanted" human life. It can be argued that "birth control" should be a shared responsibility, but (aside from the unwanted) it is the MOTHER who always suffers most in these situations, isn't it? I submit that we handicap them by not training them that unless we have a case where "push comes to shove" (in which event you call the police), in the final analysis it is they who have the control, and it is they who must just say no.
In the alternative, we now have "disposable babies" (or embryos, or fetuses, or whatever). Why? BECAUSE WE CAN. Is this the best way to handle the "problem."
I say absolutely not. It may be a sign of the times, but I think it STINKS.
History is history. Let's put aside the plight of women down through the centuries for a moment, since only the contemporary situation has anything to do with the basic purpose of this blog string. Also, let's exclude those cultures who currently practice female infanticide as a means of population control, and focus on what happens only in the United States. (Also - I'll overlook your misandristic tendencies if you will forgo categorizing my remarks as misogynistic.)
Let's focus on ABORTION.
My argument has more to do with the past 50 years than the prior thousands. So when women were "property" or (according to you) had "no control" and supposedly had to become pregnant "against their will" (in or out of marriage) and/or in opposition to their "true feelings" (as in rape, incest, carnal knowledge or the customs/traditions/mores of the society in which they lived) really has nothing to do with the basic question postulated by the original blog post:
"Abortion Good or Evil???????"
It has only been since Roe v. Wade that this question has been seriously considered. EVERYTHING I'VE SAID RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF ABORTION and abortion alone. You can dance around the issue if you want, but I'm talking about ABORTION. Not women's rights, or how women have been used, abused, mistreated, etc., but whether abortion is the preferred solution to unwanted pregnancy in United States society TODAY.
So let's back up again:
Q: Why do women currently have abortions?
A: To solve what they see as a "problem."
Q: For society's sake - be it for cultural, religious, or moral reasons - is abortion REALLY the BEST WAY to deal with this particular problem in the United States today?
A: ABSOLUTELY NOT. "Abortion-on- demand" as a problem-solving tool is treating the symptom rather than treating the problem.
Q: What has been a result - direct or indirect/intentional or unintentional - of employing abortion-on-demand to solve the unwanted pregnancy "problem" over the past 30 years?
A: An exponential explosion in more unwanted pregnancies.
Abortion is BAD PUBLIC POLICY. It provides an easy solution to irresponsible conduct and further contributes to the moral decay of a society. When a society loses respect for life, it loses respect for itself. Its decline and ultimate destruction is sure to follow. We need to be treating the problem by teaching responsible behavior in the home and teaching respect for life - ALL LIFE - if we as a society are to survive.
That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
(Pls replace the word "forgo" with the words "refrain from" in the first paragraph of the above post.)
"There is no point in blaming women alone for the consequences of the sexual revolution for, while it is true that the Pill made it possible, it is equally true that men have taken full advantage of it and have oftentimes used it as a way to abdicate their responsibility for their inability to keep it in their pants."
I am not "blaming" anybody, but I am pointing out that while it may be a shared responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies, the female has the ultimate responsibility for what happens as she experiences (or you could say she "suffers") the ultimate consenquences for her (as well as the male's) activities.
That's part of the problem with today's society as a whole. People are unwilling to accept responsibility for THEIR OWN ACTIONS. They expect their parents, or their neighbor, or the government to bail them out of situations that they get themselves into.
Women should be trained to understand their bodies and the male mentality, so that they can make appropriate choices consistent with their own needs and the needs of society. I doubt that most parents put this to their daughters in this way. I have.
When you allow irresponsible sexual behavior to be "corrected" with abortion, you are devaluing the sexual experience (God/Nature DID intend it for PROCREATION - NOT RECREATION - No?) and you are devaluing life itself.
If women won't accept the ultimate responsiblity, who will? The government? Considering the course of human history, do you expect MEN to do it?
You can run from this issue, but you can't hide.
Abortion is not the answer.
Have a nice weekend.
I'm grateful to all who have posted informative commentary to this blog.
I'm particularly grateful to Murrelet and sekekm for their very informative commentary.
I am reading and rereading every point you post.
It would be wonderful if all people would give some serious thought to this subject.
You have your head buried in the sand, Murrelet. I never said that women were solely responsible for pregnancies. However, I do believe that they bear the ULTIMATE RESPONSIBLITY for UNWANTED PREGNANCIES.
Let me 'splain it to you:
*It takes two to tango.
*Once the dancing is done, who gets stuck with the results?
*The one who gets STUCK is STUPID if she doesn't do everything she can to prevent getting STUCK (with a pregnancy that is unwanted, that is). THIS MEANS SHE MUST *THINK AHEAD*.
*We need to train our daughters to think ahead before they decide to spread. It's that simple. Are you fornicating with a bum? Do you WANT to become pregnant? These are two questions she should be thinking about before she decides to "take the plunge." Especially in this day and age where the media recommends background checks of prospective dates, you would think that the STUCKEE would care enough about herself and the consequences of her actions to THINK before nature takes its course.
*When it comes to PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies, abortion is like closing the barn door after the horse is gone.
*Abortion is the LEAST preferred method of "birth control." If it isn't, it should be.
Any time you have the issue of whether or not you are destroying life, to do so should be your LAST choice, shouldn't it?
I'll let you have the last word on the matter, because after this post I really am gone from this here blog string. But here's MY last word:
I don't see what is so difficult to understand here. It's not a matter of chauvinism, it's a matter of PRACTICALITY. I'm sorry if you don't like it because (as you say) you are a female, but them's facts of life.
And they will continue to be the facts of life until males are biologically stuck with giving birth.
So let's recap, shall we?
*It takes a male and a female to cause a pregnancy.
*Once that pregnancy has occurred, the female completes the biological process of procreation.
*In nature, males typically "take off" after the sexual act (except in a few species like seahorses), but we human beings are "civilized" so we have laws and rules that govern our conduct.
*Used to be that abortions were against the law. Now we have "progressed" to where they aren't but the results are skyrocketing illigitimate births and abortions.
*This is progress?
This has been very interesting.
Cal Thomas wrote an interesting column about a year ago entitled "America's moral slide continues" or something like that.
I don't know how to go back and pull that column up and I'm not sure that I have the title just exactly right.
His commentary would add to this blog.
I personally do not feel abortion is right nor should it be a method of bith control. Birth control should be pre-conception, whether it is abstinance, or a control device. I am a firm believer in birth control. We all know that no matter how much preching teens will do what they have always done.
The problem however is what to do with all of the children if abortion was prohibited. Children in state care usually stay in that care for a long time. and despite what you always hear the majority of children in state care are five years old or younger.
For every two children adopted, one child ages out of the system. So this is not going to work if you look at the number of adoptions each year.
No Murrelet, the bible was based on historical events, however hundreds of years later after generation and generation added their own spin on it. I don't feel the bible is intended to be a verbatim document but a path or a tool towards morality.
None of us know what God said as he has never spoken to us, has he(?) So it is what is in your heart, your soul, your morality that helps us decide such things.
My personal belief is that it is wrong. I think some women that go into deep depression afterward would agree.
We would have to think long and hard if Roe vs. Wade was overturned as the foster system is run backwards now imagine an influx of double the population of children. Incopetencies would be glaring!
Murrelet the bible has been proven to be correct on numorous occasions by scientist, but you believe as you like, its your soul.
As for laws, the laws of man are to be obeyed, but I didnt say the bible was a basis for a law.
In my opninion the laws of God trump the laws of man, because men sometimes don't do the right thing, nor make the right laws. Men sometimes follow the path of least resistance, or the pocketbooks, or bank accounts. Do the right thing sometimes requires a sacrifice.
I said my opinion is its wrong to committ abortion, I stand by that.
Murrelet, I never had said to impose it on anyone, your soul is yours, as is it the other people who choose to disobey the bible. I am told to tell people what the bible says, you can choose whatever you like, your choice, free will.
The bible has been proven on many occasions, They know Jesus was real, they know where his tomb was, They just found in the last few years proof of moses, and tombs in several areas of the world that show the parting of the sea. the tombs date back to his time period. Many other things have been proven.
you can say what you like, live how you like, but I choose to believe in God's word. My choice free will, now if you want to force your opinions on other people maybe you should live in a communist country? They hate the bible too
I too said in MY OPINION I think it is wrong. But hey you want to talk about rights.... What about the rights of the prospective father. He really has none if you decide to keep the child he is bound to pay for it but if you decide to kill the child he has no options. Is that right Murrelet?
Wow this is very interesting.
I remember how things were before abortion became legal.
We can argue the religious side of this issue and at the same time argue the political side.
My purpose in posting this blog was to demonstrate that legalized abortion upon will has had a profound effect on what we have become as a nation of people.
It seems to me that we have become so diverse that we may have lost sight of the fact that we are all subject to loyalty to our government and the laws which were written by our founding fathers.
In essence we have become too tolerant of deviance for my comfort.
What we've become as a society is I think the issue here.
We've certainly changed drastically in this past century.
Has it been for better or worse?????
It all depends on how you look at it all TOT. For example: Look at all the medicinal advances we as a people have accomplished that have saved millions, while at the same time look at mankinds ability to annihilate the planet and everyone in it via the spread of nuclear weapons. Would we all be better off dealing with the next Black Plague without the nuclear element? Or would we all be better off free from disease while waiting to go out in a nuclear holocaust?
For what its worth...I prefer the latter. At least with a defcon 1 warning I would have the opportunity to climb up on my roof and have a fleeting glimpse of the final light. Better that, I blieve, than sweating my life out with a killer fever and gradually wasting away in my bed.
TOT if you look at the way people treat each other in daily events, its easy to see how our society has changed, ts not for the better. you see people being nasty, no mean, no horrible just because they disagree. Then you see people who wouldnt help you by letting you use a phone when you need it, or give you 75 cent for a phone call. Or you see people pass by homeless people and sneer at them, as if they have the plague. I am saddened by this behavior, but sadly its our country, no the world that has changed to be inhumane as we have grown.
I work hard at being the opposite, and pray for those who need prayers, what else can I do.
I also will not accept this attitude of "it is what it is" we can change everything, if we choose to.
Bill McDonald you are spot on.
Murrelet men will never get pregnant because that is not the natural order.
Women and men are quite different because of the natural order.
They will never be equal and I'm not saying that one or the other is superior they are simply different.
Jimmy Mack it certainly does depend on how you look at it.
Yes we have achieved many technical advances which have left us with an aging more dependent population which is less able to prosper and becomes an ever increasing burden upon the treasury.
While at the same time with birth control and legalized abortion there have been millions of children who never saw the light of day.
We've become a tired old society of takers and I include myself at the forefront of that group among "those on this here blog"
I think it is natural to want to have children and prepare them to take our place when the proper time comes.
It is our children which we need to look to for our care in our later years.
But these younger generations are each one less self reliant than the ones before.
Meanwhile as we argue this point the young welfare queens of the current young generation continue to pop out babies which are destined to become hopelessly locked into a not promising future.
There was a time long ago when we were concerned about children being born out of wedlock.
There was a time when men and women wanted to reproduce and watch and nurture that child to take their place over time.
We wanted to plant a flower and watch it grow.
That was a long time ago.
May God have mercy on us each and every one.
Murrelet, Maybe if you post the same sentence by Gloria Stienham it will coe true and men will become pregnant.
Men were generally though of having rational thought. (Learned through natural consequesces) though today where everyone gets a trophy and so many single moms raising boys trying to teach them to be men, the way they think is right. That is not working out so well. Boys are more impulsive tan ever and rarely learn as consequences are not appropriate to the behavior.
Time on target is right we are failing as a nation and as parents in a lot of cases. Abortion is not the answer. Men need to step to the plate and parent their kids and mentor others. But good men get scared off as someone will complain if you scold their kid or pat them on the back. You can not win in a society that stops us from helping eachother through fear.
So what do we do? Few men step up and when they do they have in the back of their minds "What can be misconstrude about this" for everything they say or do with the child. In a sociaety where parents are more likely to go punch out the teacher than to hold thier child accountable for misbehaving at school. Where women think the only way to get by is to stay with someone abusive or keep having children as a safety net to keep food stamps and rent paid.
It is now an ugly world we are in and the on;ly ones who can fix it is us.
Pogo said it about fifty years ago.
I don't remember exactly what he said but it amounted to the fact that we have ourselves become the enemy to be guarded against.
Well this has been about as good as I had been hopeful it would be.
Thank you sebekm and Murrelet for interesting exchanges.
I think I gained insight from both of you.
Iknowyou, Jimmy Mack, up2sumptin, icyman61 and Bill Macdonald all contributed meaningful comments.
I'm grateful to each of you.
Jimmy Mack it does depend upon how you look at it. And there will always be different perspectives from different folks.
Sebekm as I think you said somewhere else on this medium "we can disagree without being disagreeable".
Bill Macdonald if we don't attempt to fix it it will remain broken.
Someone said to me just yesterday afternoon. The way to improve the world is to improve yourself first.
Lets all work together at making this a better place.