AddThis Social Bookmark Button
logotype

Angie Jackson - Tweeting Abortion

Tweeting A Live Abortion... Seriously!??!?! "Father, please forgive me if I go out of line on this one... Amen" I prayed this while typing this out. Abortion is one of my 'peeves' if you canc all it that.

So I was listening to talk radio this morning, Pat Cambell on KFAQ to be exact, and PC informs his audience of a woman (I use this term loosely (PCs words, not mine)) who was recording her abortion endeavor via Twitter.

Several things went through my head:
  • "Are you kidding me?!?!"
  • "This is disgusting!"
  • "Poor baby."
  • ...among others...

  • So I went to his site, clicked his blog and clicked on the tag for twitter: #livetweetingabortion.

    Of course you get the plethora of pro-lifers and pro-choicers. This was expected.

    The warriors fighting for life and the thieves taking it away.

    I've found that this woman's name is: Angie Jackson. Evidently she has had a pretty messed up life according to her own posts. She doesn't really have any family to speak of, or that she will speak to, her 1st and evidently only son has issues since birth, the story goes on for her. She supposedly grew up in a Christian based home and has turned her back on God. Not sure what denomination, could have been a cult... who knows. (BTW I am not insinuating that it was a cult.) She said that being Christian is what made her insane and the only sanity she has found is in atheism, or anti-theism as she puts it.

    Also I guess she requires more attention: ABC's Angie Jackson Live-Tweets Her Abortion on Twitter news Posting

    Apparently she was informed by the medical community to not get pregnant again. But to have all three forms of birth control to fail... very unlikely. If she was so worried about it then it should be easy for her to NOT have sex. Otherwise it would simply be foolish on her part to continue. Sex is not a need, but a want. Even medically it is not required. So again for her to have sex would be negligence on her part.

    And besides... the medical community has been proven wrong numberous times. I am confident that even if the pregnancy went south, that she would have been able and had time to save herself AND the baby, of course as long as the baby had enough time to be a pound or more.

    The way I see it this abortion was a want... not a need.

    Anyway continuing on...

    My main points:
  • "What a heartless person do you have to be to want to do something like this (abortion)... legal or not. (Some medical reasons are questionable.) Then to post it for the world to see."
  • "How careless do you have to be to support something like this."
  • "Her comments alone prelude to the fact that she has done this several times before, what a disgusting person."
  • "To commit infanticide... that is what people like this are doing."
  • "How can someone take their hatred and angst and direct it toward their own unborn child."
  • "This baby is a person, regardless how small."
  • "You're no better than the Nazis."

  • That last one... yes, abortion simply doing because, this is how I see it. The Nazis had the same reasons, slightly altered of course.

    This woman, no better than Hitler, no better then his soldiers... my reasoning:
  • Hitler wanted to 'cleanse' his race of a foreign people... this woman wants to 'cleanse' her body of this foreign baby. I say foreign because she won't even recognize it as her own.
  • Hitler wanted to not only remove these people but to destroy them... this woman had the same motive and action... the baby was destroyed.
  • Hitler performed some of the most horrific 'experiments'... although abortion is no longer an experiment... it looks like one. And obviously the pills still are, since it didn't do the job the 1st time.

  • To want to do something like sucking a baby out of a womb... to literally tear them apart like some sort of cooked meat... to poison a person to death for just being there.

    It isn't their fault!

    God tells us clearly that every child, no matter how small... is still a person. God knew us since before we were formed on our mother's womb. God feels the pain that each and every child that is aborted goes through. Every tear, every torn limb. Every punctured skull. Every brain sucked...

    Abortion isn't a 'medical procedure' like this woman and the medical field tells us. It is murder of another person. It is legal infanticide of our own race.

    To make things worse, I found this article from Jill Stanek: Live Tweeting Abortion part V: YAY! I'm bleeding.

    So I read the article, not going to bother with parts 1-4. Part 5 is enough for me. Later, after typing most of this, I read Parts 1 and 2 to get more background about Angie Jackson.

    Evidently this woman is trying to 'save her life'. Maybe she should have thought about that BEFORE taking RU-486 or whatever that drug is. Do your research before taking unknown drugs. It is stupid to take them and NOT know what they're going to do.

    Furthermore, if you are unable to get pregnant, welfare will take care of surgical costs... take out what makes you a woman! Or get your tubes tied. or how about just abstaining from sex all together. Wow... what a though... denying yourself sex. She evidently has a lack of control to prevent things like this.

    Why is there such anger from pro-lifers... simple... it is to get you to understand what you are doing to your yourself, your own children and to society. This woman has such hatred that she is willing to go through pain an suffering for weeks to prevent it. To risk herself to get rid of another. Abortion separates a society. It is kill your own children... what else could be more gross, disgusting, wrong, evil... need I go on?

    Having a child is one of the most beautiful and health beneficial things that you can do as a woman. Science has found several times that multitudes of cancers and illnesses go away during pregnancy and then afterwards, if she breastfeeds, those same 'side effects' of pregnancy can continue... a healthier you and baby. Minus the obvious toll it takes on the mother's body... it is rather beneficial for both mother and child.

    It is pretty obvious that there are other health issues that this woman has. And I'd bet that a good part of them she might have done to herself by not taking care of herself.

    Please forgive me:
    I try my best to promote a healthy conversation and mindset. I also noted several times that it is the actions of a person that you should get angry about, not the person themselves.

    But I have one question... how many times does a person do the same thing over and over with no regrets, to make that apart of who they are?

    Abortion is a very hot topic. Obviously it makes me very emotional as well as other things. Most abortions are not needed, they are wanted. Those are the ones that make me so angry that I can explode. I just want to tell that person so many things... mostly to get them to really understand that this isn't a rights issue... it is a life/health issue.

    So for women to say something to the effect of "What about my rights?!"... what about your rights!?!? What about the rights that you are forcibly removing from that child?

    The right that you enjoy every waking moment, not just the right to life.
    The right of enjoying something.
    The right experiencing happiness.
    The right to experience passion.
    The right of having their own family.
    The right of interaction with other human beings.
    The right of telling someone that they love them.
    The right to breathe on their own.
    The right to have a chance.

    So if you support abortion as a way of birth control, a way to make life easier on yourself, to cop out of having a child... and you complain about your own rights being hindered... think about the rights that your are taking away from someone else as you sit in the abortion clinic.

    Anger aside... please consider what you are doing and how it affects not just yourself. Don't think about the cost, the time, the effort of having a child... think about the more important issue... are you willing to remove the life of another just because you don't want to deal with it?

    My main fault with all of this is that she didn't even give the child a try... she never gave them a chance.

    I pray for you, for your family and for all of the never-born children.

    God bless and deliver us from the wicked, evil, and vile mindset of abortion,
    Johnathan

    Comments   

     
    # parsh 2010-03-16 03:38
    Genocide is destroying a race.
    She had ONE abortion.

    And to take out what makes you woman. THAT is disgusting.
    Think of it this way, if you got a girl pregnant and it ended up killing her, maybe you should chop off what makes you man.. ALL of it, so that you can avoid making a baby all together?

    Sex is an instinct. So.. it IS a need. There is a need to reproduce.

    You need to read a book other than the bible.
    Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
     
     
    # johnathanamber 2010-03-16 10:34
    Parsh,

    Thanks again for continuing.

    I don't believe that I said that removing the womb, etc. wasn't damaging to a woman. I can understand that. But if your goal is to not get pregnant... even ever... then the only fool proof solution is to remove them. There have been cases where women have been pregnant even after getting their tubes tied. You'd have to agree with that as some level. BTW... that DOES NOT mean to also remove the vagina... that can stay obviously... so it would be the same if a male was to remove his testicles... his penis is still there and can be used. The same goes for a woman... she can still use her vagina.

    I am sure you can also agree that having an abortion isn't healthy for her also... as the woman is having physical changes as well as chemical and mental changes to prepare for the baby. So neither option is a great option and both are damaging to different degrees. The different is that another life is involved with one of those options.

    Birth control, sure I suppose. Sex Education... personally this needs to be taught by the parents... but parents today won't teach their kids much else other than how to get to school to be taught by someone else. Agreeing with abstinence is besides the point... for some it works rather well, and better in some cases than protection. I do not see why it can't be taught along with birth control and other educational points. let the kid make up their own mind. No reason to be stupid about sex and not know there is the option of abstinence. The problem is that it isn't being taught at all. So some kids think it isn't even a choice... going on...

    Making birth control available... that one I am mixed on... I do NOT agree that teenagers should be given anenues of birth control from the schools. That isn't their resposiblity... again it is the parents.

    Agreed that birh control isn't foolproof.

    Abortion today is taught as if it is lightly... kids today think.. 'oph if I get pregnant I can just have an abortion.' And this is further induced (no pun instended) by the fact that schools are teaching that an embryo isn't alive but a 'glob of tissue' when in fact it is alive.

    Given since Roe vs. Wade... the amount of deaths due to 'alley-abortions' are lessened... but the issue really isn't even abortion... it is teaching our kids to be respectable toward the opposite sex and to teach them that they should wait for the right person... this isn't just a marriage thing but also it would decrease disease.. we know this. If you have only one person you are sexual with you can't spread a STD via having sex.

    Yes I would rather have abortions in a hospital or clinic... but several things need to be established before hand:

    If she is underage, what is the age of the father? If he is overage... go get him.
    If she is underage, have her parents been notified?
    What does the father want?
    Are the parents/relatives willing to take the child in?
    She she in danger of having the child? If not, can a C-Section be done? At what term before she is in danger?

    Girls should not be able to have abortions whenever they want... they are kids and the people responsible for her need to know of what is going on. Kids have dies because of a botched abortion and the parents didn't know. if the baby will be taken care of by way of custody to those individuals... the child should live.

    As for a rape victim... that is always tricky and I always have sympathies for the mother... but again it isn't the child's fault. So adoption/relative should be considered. What sense does it make to let the raper win by both raping the mother and her killing the child? That child could use their mother's story to drastically reduce or end rapes... or become a scientific genius... we don't know. Regardless it isn't the child's fault and they shouldn't have to pay for the mistake of another. It is a life we are considering not just the ruining of antoher.

    To me ther is no difference between a rape embryo and a failed birth control embryo... they are still both live beings.

    OK, as much as I'd like to say 'eye for an eye'... this really isn't the Christian way and it IS NOT what Christ taught. So, yes they should be punished... with murdering them... no... that is what jail is for. It should be considered like manslaughter in the judicial system. In the Old Testament it was 'eye for an eye', but not since Christ redefined it. The abortionists should live but obvously their rights taken away just like any other murderer.

    Christian groups SHOULD NOT be killing anyway... those groups are backwards and do NOT adhere to thr life teachings of Christ and God's Word. I am not affiliated to those groups that I am aware of. their motive is easy... 'eye for an eye'. They mustn't have read the entire New Testament OR they've disregarded it.

    So simply because sperm only has half of the genetic code needed to create a human being... it is less than bacteria? Or Omebas?

    My wife and I were talking about this as we were driving from Missouri ater my Grandfather passed last week... if the work was overpopulated... how is it that I can't want in ANY section of any of the highway we used to get home... and find someone living within 100 feet away? You can't... There maybe AREAS where it is over populated... but the world itself is not populated. There is still plenty of room to roam in the US alone to find a quiet place to meditate or even live.

    Any of those 49 million could have helped the environment, could have harmed it... we will never now. Maybe one of them could have found a way to reverse some of the damage done.. but we'll never know.

    I do not believe in global warming... it is pretty cold outside still. (Another discussion.)

    God bless you Parsh, your family and thank you, (let's continue if you don't mind)
    Johnathan

    PS: I might not answer until later... but I will answer. :D
    Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
     
     
    # Johnathan Morlock 2010-03-16 10:40
    Parsh,

    Thank you very much for reading my article and commenting.

    You are right, Genocide is destroying a race... in this case you can argue that it is a race of children that are being destroyed. Regardless... it is destroying a group of people for simply being there... not much different than from what was happening to the Jewish people in World War II. Abortion is simply done out of comfort.... very few are out of necessity. In the above case... it is questionable at the very least.

    Parsh... when does it become wrong to kill another person? One? Ten? 1 Million? Since Roe vs. Wade... literal millions of babies have been murdered... when is it wrong in your eyes?

    Evidently, you've misunderstood part of my article... my reasoning to recommend removing the organs that make her a 'woman'... is to save lives and not kill them. If she honestly believed that it was to 'save her life' to have an abortion... then she would have already done this. By NOT doing it would be foolish on her side and stupid to continue having sex... since she is so worried about it. Murdering innocent children is disgusting... removing a woman's parts to prevent pregnancy... that is saving lives... to include her own... as she puts it.

    As for 'thinking of it your way'. There is a fundamental difference to between me and you... I would let the child live and I would raise the child. Even if I didn't want it. From the words you've typed. it sounds like you'd rather kill them for your own comforts. That is disgusting.

    BTW, the chances are that if the mother's life is in danger... they can remove the baby before it kills her and chances are that the baby would survive, as long as it was allowed to continue to grow enough to survive with assistance. And being removed from the mother before the 3rd trimester is very possible. Even back in the 1980's. In most cases it isn't the 1st and 2nd trimester that kills the mother, but the 3rd. So in most cases your argument is NULL.

    There are people that have abstained from sex... therefore it is nothing more than a want or a desire... it is NOT instinct. If that were the case then why would marriage be important to the foundation of society? Why not just sleep around with anyone when the 'instinct' urges you? Oh wait... most people are already for LACK of control. Hence why things like STDs are everywhere... because people can't seem to control themselves. They'd rather do whatever makes them feel good rather than do the right thing and control themselves.

    A desire to reproduce is not a need. Not everyone wants to reproduce... hence the rampant issue of abortion. Hence this article.

    To imply that I am uneducated simply because I read the Bible is the same as me implying that you are uneducated because you have NOT read the Bible... I've read plenty of books... the ones public school has to offer... and others I've found or were given to me. You have not seen my library of books. Aside from that... if your implication was that I don't know enough about other points of view... that is regardless of how many books I've read... I get plenty of that here. For instance, this comment from you and others.

    Overall it is simple... I want to save lives where as you and others with your same viewpoints... would rather sacrifice lives for you own comforts.

    Thank you and God bless,
    Johnathan
    Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
     
     
    # foo 2010-03-16 12:42
    Genocide is the intentional selective killing of a certain race for the purpose of eliminating that race. Trying to kill the Armenians in your country because you don't want any in your country - that is genocide. Abortion? If you accept that it is murder that still doesn't make it genocide.

    You're just using the word genocide because it sounds scary.
    Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
     
     
    # parsh 2010-03-16 13:49
    I simply don't think that an embryo, something that has no bones, no brain, no heart, no mind, is a person. It's a bundle of cells similar to cancer. (and I realize that sounds cold, and I realize the difference of cancer and an embryo, cancer kills)

    I think we're better off worrying about the people ON the earth right now that are suffering then we are to worry about bundles of cells.

    I don't think marriage is a foundation of a society. I think it's a trend set by religion. Just because people don't marry doesn't mean they sleep around with everyone. But sex is a pillar of marriage. It's emotional bonding, physical bonding, so on and so forth. Sex happens and birth control fails. But the fact of the matter is, if you are not ready to be pregnant and have kids, or go through the stress of deciding whether or not to put your child up for adoption you shouldn't have to. Even if you are married.

    So for women to say something to the effect of "What about my rights?!"... what about your rights!?!? What about the rights that you are forcibly removing from that child?

    I'm not sure if you realized it by writing this statement, but you've really insulted a lot of women, including myself. Our right come before that of a bundle of cells. We are the ones carrying it around for 9 months, nourishing it, and giving birth (which is no walk in the park). Not to mention the cases where it is sometimes harmful. Do you think c-sections are fun? No, probably not. And why would we even want to risk dying in the 3rd trimester? What about the children, families and friends we are leaving behind?

    It's the people here and now we need to worry about. It's the people in Africa and on the streets we need to worry about. So saying I don't like human life or anything along those lines is wrong. I do care for human life, and I'm sure other pro-choice (and pro-life) people do as well. But I care about the human life that is here and now.
    Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
     
     
    # johnathanamber 2010-03-16 15:40
    @foo,

    My choice of words was flawed, I concede to that fact and I will also update the article. Personally since Genocide includes anything religious, political and racial... I do not see why age can not also be included. It is a group that is 'pointed out' or 'fits a criteria' and is exterminated.

    @parsh,

    Understood that science tells us something different. That an embryo is nothing more than tissue... but you can't make life with nothing or a 'glob of tissue'. Life creates life. Nothing in the world can create life out of nothing or from death. You CAN used the nutrients from something that has died to nourish a living thing.

    Question... we've all seen a sperm on TV and old PE/Sex Ed videos... it wiggles its tale and aimlessly go in any direction unless it knows there is an egg to get to. Is that sperm any more dead? It looks alive to me... a simple organism... but it is alive. Bacteria is alive... that is smaller than sperm, yet it lives. To me the argument of 'a glob of tissue' is also NULL for the fact that there is something alive and it grows. The egg is implanted with a live sperm and a baby is made... therefore something is alive during the entire process. Just because a species or a living creature can't talk like us, or looks like us or interacts like us, doesn't make it any less alive.

    As for worrying the people that are already here... those are just the same people that were allowed to grow outside their mother's womb. And as I've mentioned... there is a solution to this... remove the parts in her that can create a child... that saves her life as well as any subsequent child she decides to kill off. That doesn't make her any less of a woman. It simply saves lives in this case.

    Angie was willing to sacrifice weeks of pain and torture just to stop this baby from growing. There is a problem with that.

    Marriage has been around for thousands of years... and it doesn't just come from religious point of views. It is a union between two people to commit themselves to another person and only them. It is the best solution to start a family and for society to flourish. Even atheists get married.

    The problem is today that there are no consequences for actions. You run a red light, kill someone, you go to jail (a lot of cases are mangled due to people messing with the legal system, but they should be punished), if you have sex and get pregnant... guess what... killing a child isn't justified just because you are scared or worried... Everyone thinks they can get instant satisfaction no matter what they do or how they pursue it. That's the problem... not every is instant... and not everything you do is consequence-less. Every child is a blessing, not a curse. And it shouldn't be seen as one. It wasn't the child's fault it was made, even out of wedlock or out of passion at a party... why should it sacrifice for someone else's choice?

    So for women to say something to the effect of "What about my rights?!"... what about your rights!?!? What about the rights that you are forcibly removing from that child?

    As for the above... first off I didn't think it was insulting... my articles are not meant to harm but to get people to think about their actions. It is our actions that cause trouble for all of us. So, to minimize issue with ourselves and others, we have to limit our actions... we can't control others. I've obviously meant to offense to anyone, and if you taking it that way, then let me take this moment to again state... I meant no offense but to get you to think about what it is you are doing. Parsh that includes you, please don't take offense. I am simply standing up for the silent ones that sacrifice their lives, for the most part, for comforts.

    There is nothing wrong with healthy discussion... and this is a topic that is important to discuss.

    If I wanted to hurt people then I would cuss, curse and swear about them. I would call them names openly and proclaim that. That is not what I am doing here.

    I do my best to not insult anyone, however that is pretty much impossible since everyone has their own POV and will take things differently.

    I do not see how anyone's right can come before another person, no matter how small. Even if it is only a couple of weeks old.

    I realize that women are the ones that are capable to have children... that is easy to understand. My wife and I had 4 kids, I was there when they were born, and I will be there when they grow up... I will be there for my children. My wife and I share the same beliefs and stand on this. We see life begin in our 'loins' (Trying to be polite for the younger audience.) and it grows into a human being from the beginning. Life is through and through the entire process.

    To be a mother is a great honor. To have children and to raise them to be good people, is a great honor. To be able to create and carry children, is a great honor. I respect my wife for having gone through that. I comfort her anyway I can to make her feel comfortable with herself before, during and after our children were born.

    So I understand and respect what woman go through. I know it all isn't pretty and is painful and some things are not enjoyable at all. But to raise a family and see your children grow and learn and to know that you are your spouse... created that beautiful little child... I would do anything for them and I want to do that same for other children as I can.

    My point in suggesting the removal of her womb, ovaries, etc... it not to allow her to die... but to allow her to continue to live and as 'free' as she wants. It is the ONLY solution to make sure she lives and other babies won't die. And this goes with woman who is in her same shoes... you don't ever want kids... don't ever want to have to deal with pregnancy... sure you can castrate your partner... but you can still get pregnant by another partner. So the problem isn't solved.

    My whole point in this is to stop the horror, heartache, pain, suffering that families and individuals go through when they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

    Please don't take offense... but what is life if it is not shown through our children? What is life if it is not allowed to continue? To grow, to love... the people we see today are the same people on their mother's womb. Sure people today are suffering... there will always be people who suffer... no matter what happens... but for those babies to be killed... that is the most atrocious thing we can do to our own people.

    And for people like yourself that don't see/realize that this thing called abortion is so wrong and backwards... the only things I can do is to try to give the unborn a voice.

    Just to get a better idea of what I am trying to portray... since Rose vs. Wade the total number of 'reported' abortions are: 49,551,703 (www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html).

    Parsh (and others), do you not think that this is major issue? The fact that 49 million people are not here because of abortion? Obviously this number would be larger IF we knew the actual amount of people aborted since it started. the entire US population is around: 308,879,906 (www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html). The total aborted since 1973 is more than 1/6 of the population. Those numbers, to me, are frightening.

    Does this not concern you?

    BTW, the number above are from out government here in the US.

    Thank you and God bless,
    Johnathan
    Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
     
     
    # parsh 2010-03-16 16:29
    Removing your sex organs is on the same level as removing your breasts, and I'm sure that if you ask any breast cancer survivor who had to have her breasts removed, that she feels she lost a part of who she was, a part of her identity. It's emotionally damaging to a woman.

    Not to mention, removing a woman's sex organs can thrust her into pre-mature menopause which is not healthy for her.

    I think we can agree on birth control being available, cheap and sex education being a large part in our schools. But I don't agree with abstinence (different argument). (In my high school they taught abstinence only and they didn't bother to teach about other forms of birth control..)

    I agree that we need to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies everywhere by educating people and making birth control available.

    But birth control fails sometimes. No matter how careful you are there's always that tiny .001% chance.

    I think abortion should be available as well. It's not something people take lightly. But it NEEDS to be legal because the back alley abortions are far more dangerous to women and result in infection and probably death. I'd rather people go in to a clinic where things are clean, and people know what they are doing then a coat hanger situation. If a woman HAD to abort, wouldn't you agree?

    (These next few questions are not intended as attacks, I merely want to know your opinion)

    As a side question, I'm just curious how you feel about a rape victim finding herself in this kind of situation. I mean, you might say it's okay because she was rape, you might say you'd prefer her to keep it (even though it would be a constant reminder), or you might say something else.

    A lot of people would say "Well y'know it's okay, she was raped."
    But my question for that is "What is the difference between a rape victim's embryo/fetus and the embryo that is the result of a broken condom?" Aside from the circumstances.

    I'd also like to know your opinion on killing abortion doctors. Especially Christian groups killing abortion doctors (I know that not just Christian people kill them, but I figure you can answer what their motive may be better than say an Islamic group, and what not)

    (As another small side note... I don't think I would consider a sperm "alive" in the sense that a person is "alive" because a sperm only contains half a person's genetic material and we seem to have no problem killing sperm
    Also, the world is over populated as it is. I'm not sure another 49 mil. people would help the environment, global warming, etc... Again, I know that sounds cold.)
    Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
     
     
    # parsh 2010-03-17 02:15
    I'd like just to clear a few things.
    Are viability and life different things for you or the same?

    A fetus is viable at 24 weeks. Before that it is dependent on the mother for everything.

    And is human life more important than animal life?

    People hunt. People eat beef, pork, chicken so on and so forth. We're capable of living a vegan/vegetarian life style but we still insist on killing animals. People kill bugs. People run over dogs and cats (hopefully by accident). Why are human lives considered so much higher than animal lives?

    I'd like to point out that, yes a sperm (and egg) is less than bacteria and amoebas. It contains half of someone's genetic material, it does not ingest nutrients nor does it produce anything (on its own) where as bacteria do. Bacteria live on their own. Sperm will die with in a few hours of being outside the males body (unless in a female). It's "living" but is not alive if that makes sense. It lacks many components to live on its own, but it is a living cell. I wouldn't consider my skin cells to be alive.

    I think at one point you said that you and your wife both agree that life begins in your loins (correct me if I'm wrong). So, if it DOES begin there, wouldn't every period she has be considered a waste of a life that could have been? Same if you use condoms say. Or I suppose any kind of birth control to be honest. But if it starts in the loins it just keeps going back.

    I agree with you that sex ed should be taught by parents. But we're going to end up with sex ed teachers in schools teaching them about sex anyway so we should really be creating a health criteria from which to learn from. Most kids spend most of their day at school away from their parents. I should clarify that I think it's fine if abstinence is taught in schools but it should not be the ONLY thing taught. I don't live in the states but I read that Texas has the most abstinence only classes and yet it also has the highest rate of pregnancy in teens. We need mixed sex ed.

    Utah is trying to pass a bill right now I believe (I think it's Utah...) where a woman has to get a man's permission to abort. Outside of a healthy monogamous relationship I don't think the father has much choice in the matter.

    No I lied.. It's not Utah, it's Ohio.. I thought Utah because they are trying to make miscarriages illegal. (If you want to read up on that http://theweek.com/article/index/200171/Utah_Making_miscarriages_a_crime) But the bill I was speaking about before is called the Father Bill (http://www.lifenews.com/state4302.html)

    I'd be curious to know your opinion on both matters if you care to share.

    I also feel like I need to clear this up about myself since I've gotten a few emails (not from here but when I've simply said "I'm pro-choice.") telling me I'm a murder and a backwards twisted being.

    It's pro-CHOICE. Not anti-life. If the woman decides to keep the baby, give it up for adoption or abort, that's fine. I feel it's the woman's body therefore her right to choose. It's not the state's right, nor any God's right (I say "any" because there are so many religions). The mother is a constant in the equation, the father is a variable. But the mother no matter what will have to deal with what goes on.

    With the rape situation, I have to point out it wasn't the mother's fault either. It wouldn't be her choice to become pregnant. She might not be ready for a kid at all. I don't think the raper goes "Oh hah, I raped her AND she had to kill the kid. Awesome." He's in it for the rush of attacking his prey, getting off, and leaving. He probably doesn't think twice about it afterward unless he finds himself in a court room.

    p.
    Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
     
     
    # johnathanamber 2010-03-17 16:57
    Parsh,

    Thank you again for the comments.

    Yes, I do not see the difference between whether a baby can live outside the womb and actually being outside the womb. If it needs some time to mature and will live outside the womb... so be it.

    God sees the baby as a person at every stage of life, from conception to birth. Why should I see it any different? Because science isn't sure? Why should I believe something that scient can't prove... when life begins? Besides I've already made the point that there is life during the entire process... it may not be a human yet, but it is alive.

    There are those people who are dependant on others to live... are they any different than a fetus that is dependant on it's mother to live? Those that are dependant on others to live have just enoughr ight to live as a fetus.

    Yes, human life is more improtant. We are the crown jewel of God's creation... there is a reason why animals have not developed into what we are or can do what we do. Animals are here as companions, helpers and food. they are not the same as humans. Here's a question for you Parsh... if we perform the same type of abortions on animals... would that be inhumane? I just about guarantee that if a baby fox or a tiger or a dog was aborted by sucktion, pill or any other means... PETA would be all over it. We offer more right to animals than we do out own unborn. It should not be that way.

    As I've stated above... everything is God's creation... but WE are created in HIS image. We are not like Him in the effect of being exactly like Him in power and glory... but we ARE like Him in image and imagination. Human being have a growing desire to create, to change, to become better than we are. It is greed, lust, envy and the other selfish motives that destroy us and everything we do to better ourselves. Once we get past the point of being selfish and start to know that everything we do should benefit each other... the world would be a perfect society... that wil take a lot of doing and time.

    On another note... in the Old Testament before the Flood of Noah, it wasn't really certain whether people could eat animals... but after the Flood, we were allowed to.

    As for killing bugs and other life... accidents happen, that can't be avoided. However if you are doing it intentionally for safety reasons... for instance to kill a poisoneous spider from biting your child... why not? You are protecting yourself and your family. You are supposed to do that. If you run over a deer and it was an accident... then it was an accident. The deer's parents aren't going to sue you are hunt you down. But if you hit a child, you can bet the parents will find retribution.

    Also, very few animals in the world create anything outside of what they need. i.e. beavers create dams for shelter, bird create nests, etc. How many animals create to just create. because they enjoy it. Whether that be some sort of structure or image. None that I can think of. Each animals creted structure if for its own self or family to live in and be protected. Oh and apes paint because we give them paint... not because they've decided to try to create paint and then paint on the ground. We had to assist in that. They didn't do it themselves. That is a big difference between animals and humans. we are capable of so much more.

    Although I am not sure how the sperm uses semen to survive, that is what semen is used for. That could be what they 'ingest' to survive for days within the female. With it only have 23 chromosomes which is half of the genetic code needed to produce a human... doesn't make it less of an organism. it does have a short life span, but it does live a limited life. I've seen various answers from both pro-life, pro-choice and even atheists. Each group says 'Yes' and 'No'. My opinion is that no matter how small... single celled or multi-celled, if it moves, it is alive. If it ingests, it is alive. If it reacts to its surroundings, it is alive. Note that not each of these has to be met in order for me to consider it alive.

    I guess that is where we are fundamentally different. I DO consider skin cells to be alive. The cell the basic unit of life for all living things. Even the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_%28biology%29scientific community () sees the cell to be alive.

    You are right. I did mention that life begins in our loins. Sperm is still alive within me even before it is passed outside of me. You are also right in the sense that with every period my wife has would be a waste of a life. But there is nothing we can do to prevent that. It is an invoulintary waste. Actually I do think about that from time to time. Wondering what child would never be because of her periods, etc. I wish that every egg and sperm could be used to produce a child. But that isn't feasable unless we were to freeze every egg she has and every sperm I have.

    Right abstenance should be taught along with the current Sexual Education curricullum. It is possible and feasible. Why is it denied now? Other than for religious reasons... I do not see why it is no longer offered. I do believe that kids should be taught to be smart about sex and how it all works. i do not believe I've ever denied that. Not saying that you said I've denied it BTW.

    As for that bill... I udnerstand and approve of that. Since the child is both of theirs he should have a say. Really if the father really wanted to push it... there might be some legal ground there. if a father wanted the child and the sex was consented by both parties, he should be able to say whether he wants to raise it or not. the mother has only to birth the child. All other responsibility is on the father. Why is that a bad thing?

    Making miscarriges illegal? Not sure how they could do that since most miscarriages are accidental and the body simply rejects the baby. Nothing illegal about that. Hold on let me read it...

    Interesting, and excerpt:
    Quote:
    "intentional, knowing, or reckless act" would be treated as illegal abortions, punishable by life in prison. As a response to a single incident in which a woman allegedly paid a man to beat her and induce a miscarriage
    I am mixed... obviously if a woman has a miscarriage, and it was induced, I consider it abortion or murder. However to make it illegal in the term as making 'miscarriages illegal'. That is difficult to determine. What is to stop a mother to induce a miscarriage to get her ex-boyfriend in jail? Or even to get someone else in jail who has nothing to do with the baby, like a relative of the father, etc. I understand where they are coming from but it simply isn't practical and can cause more problems. They should treat each one on a case by case basis and it should be treated as manslaughter or murder cases.

    Now for the 2nd, Father's Rights Bill. The father should have a say reguardless. If he wants to raise the child, he should be given that right. I'm fine with the punishments if someone is portraying as a bioligical father when they really aren't. Now obviously I DO NOT like abortion nor do I approve of it. I still consider it murder. I am not so sure about if the father can't be found to deny the abortion all together. The reason being that if the woman is dedicated to get rid of her baby she will find another means, which would probably bieng in a non-sterile environement by someone who doesn't know what they are doing, which could kill the mother. Abortions should be done in a clinic with the right equipement and medical personell. My reasoning is solely to save lives and not kill both mother and child. I know some Christians will hate me for saying that... but I do know that Christ hates abortion, but I also do know that He loves both mother and child.

    I cetainly hope that you have not gotten emails from others as a result of you commenting on this site. That is something I also do not condone... there is a place and time for that... and it isn't from this site. I apologize if you had. Those people who have nothing better to do than to name call and fight dirty... I don't approve of them. This battle needs to be faught sensibly, intelligently, legally and in the prayer closet.

    Sometimes it can be mistaken that pro-choice people are also anti-life. I am sure most are not the case.. in all probility they are also the ones who are fighting for animal rights at the same time. Not saying they shouldn't also have the right to live... but that is my point is part of this is that if the same measures that people perform abortions on human children... groups like PETA would have a fit is this same thing happened to an animal. That is was inhumane, etc.

    Agreed that the mother's body is her own. But the baby ISN'T just hers nor is it HER body. It is two people's parts in one form. Therefore since it takes two to tango, the father should have a say. If she doesn't want the child, fine, she doesn't have to... but killing it shouldn't be an option simply because she doesn't want it.

    As for your last comment... two wrongs don't make a right. How just are we to kill the child? You are right about the criminal probably doesn't think about it.

    God bless,
    Johnathan
    Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
     

    Add comment

    Comment Policy
    1. Please be polite and courteous.
    2. Please don't use profanity.
    3. We are here to discuss, not bash each other.


    Security code
    Refresh