| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"aut" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2005 09:07:27 AM |
| Object: |
Achieving peace in the abortion war |
Is it possible to achieve peace in the abortion war?
Read: MacNair, Rachel: Achieving peace in the abortion war: Predictions
on Possible Social Impacts of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and
Cognitive Dissonance as Structural Stressors, Kansas City 2000 =3D
www.fnsa.org/apaw from: www.rightorwrong.tk
MacNairs Book is great. Personally I think it is possible to achieve
peace in the abortion war. "The us vs. them mentality is a convenient
dodge that avoids responding to the harder work of removing the reasons
that lead people to wars and abortions..." (The Washington Post
11.4.1992)We need to get away from this convenient dodge. Don=B4t we?
Dominik
.
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Achieving peace in the abortion war |
20 Aug 2005 01:08:54 PM |
|
|
On 20 Aug 2005 07:07:27 -0700,
"aut" <auto400840@hushmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to achieve peace in the abortion war?
Sure. And it WILL happen. Just the same way that it happened
in the case of the bigotry against millions of people that was known
as segregation. People OUTGREW their childish and delusional
hatefulness then, and ultimately, the Anti-Choicers will do the same,
and their loathsome agenda against millions of women will be an
extinct thing of the past.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Achieving peace in the abortion war |
20 Aug 2005 11:44:05 AM |
|
|
On 20 Aug 2005 07:07:27 -0700, "aut" <auto400840@hushmail.com> wrote:
.....
Personally I think it is possible to achieve peace in the abortion war.
Why do you think that something that has been going on for a few
thousand years will suddenly end?
"The us vs. them mentality is a convenient
dodge that avoids responding to the harder work of removing the reasons
that lead people to wars and abortions..."
It is impossible to remove all the reasons that lead people to abort
pregnancies. Thus there will always be abortions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "aut" |
|
| Title: Re: Achieving peace in the abortion war |
20 Aug 2005 12:27:16 PM |
|
|
Paul Anderson: "It is impossible to remove all the reasons that lead
people to abort
pregnancies. Thus there will always be abortions."
That is true. It is impossible to remove all the reasons. But it is
possible to remove most reasons. F.E. it is possible to educate males
that they are responsible for their children and women. F.E. it is
possible to develop safer contraceptives. F.E. it is possible to create
a working sphere which is more friendly to women. F.E. it is possible
to give financial aid to women in need. F.E. it is possible to give
pregnant women emotional support from the whole community. F.E. it is
possible to educate the public about the humanity of the unborn child.
Some still talk about a "blob of tissue" although anybody can see the
child in video.
By the way: It is undisputed that the youth (USA) became and becomes
more pro-life.
Paul Anderson: "...will suddenly end?"
I did not state that abortion will suddenly end. I asume that you have
not read MacNairs Book.
Dominik
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Achieving peace in the abortion war |
20 Aug 2005 01:38:38 PM |
|
|
On 20 Aug 2005 10:27:16 -0700,
"aut" <auto400840@hushmail.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
It is impossible to remove all the reasons that lead people
to abort pregnancies. Thus there will always be abortions.
That is true. It is impossible to remove all the reasons. But it is
possible to remove most reasons. E.g., it is possible to educate
males that they are responsible for their children and women.
Which would have NO impact on abortion. Which has nothing
to do with children, since ALL children have already been *born*.
As for being "responsible" toward women... I remind you that whether
or not a woman chooses to harbor a potentially UNwanted entity in her
body for 9 months is NO one else's business but HERS. But fair-minded
partners often will pay the fee for the abortion, for women who choose it,
as a trade-off for the discomfort and inconvenience she experiences in
the course of accessing it. Which is a very responsible and sensible
thing for him to do.
E.g., it is possible to develop safer contraceptives.
The most effective contraceptive in the world are only as good as
the degree to which they are employed properly by their potential users.
E.g., it is possible to create a working sphere which is more
friendly to women.
The BEST way to be woman-friendly is to recognize that their
reproductive choices are THEIR business *only*. And to therefore
keep noses OUT of it.
E.g., it is possible to give financial aid to women in need.
Including providing the abortion fee in the event of financial
hardship, to women who choose the remedy of abortion.
E.g., it is possible to give pregnant women emotional support
from the whole community.
INCUDING being supportive of those who choose abortion,
and employing NO coercion against their choice.
E.g., it is possible to educate the public about the humanity of
[mere reproductive entities]...
...vis-a-vis PEOPLE, who've achieved **personhood,** Biblically
and legally, by being BORN. (The equivalent of acorns compared
to oak trees.)
A GREAT way to educate the public is to disseminate the
fact-filled outline below, as far and wide as possible. (GO for it!
I've purposely declared it FREE of copyright protection, as long
as it is not altered in any way, and no portions of it are omitted or
added-to.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the 21st century to date,
in the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic
period of time for any nation in the entire history of the
world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion
and talk.abortion on Aug. 13, 2000,
and updated since.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Achieving peace in the abortion war |
20 Aug 2005 11:14:49 PM |
|
|
On 20 Aug 2005 10:27:16 -0700, "aut" <auto400840@hushmail.com> wrote, in
part:
F.E. it is possible to educate males
that they are responsible for their children and women.
People would need a reason to take more responsibility -
F.E. it is
possible to educate the public about the humanity of the unborn child.
If so, why has it taken so long?
Perhaps peace would be achieved if the public did generally believe in
the humanity of the unborn child after a certain point - and there was
also a consensus that, before that point, opposition to abortion would
require some philosophical assumptions that one couldn't legitimately
expect everyone else to share.
The trouble is, though, so far, people who tend to be pro-choice are
only likely to admit the unborn child has "humanity" after 24 weeks or
thereabouts - and people who tend to be pro-life are more likely to be
thinking in terms of seven weeks, or less, if they see any need to
compromise on a developmental basis.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Achieving peace in the abortion war |
21 Aug 2005 07:07:35 PM |
|
|
"John Savard" <jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote in message
news:4307fe5a.6738227@news.usenetzone.com...
On 20 Aug 2005 10:27:16 -0700, "aut" <auto400840@hushmail.com> wrote, in
part:
F.E. it is possible to educate males
that they are responsible for their children and women.
People would need a reason to take more responsibility -
F.E. it is
possible to educate the public about the humanity of the unborn child.
If so, why has it taken so long?
Perhaps peace would be achieved if the public did generally believe in
the humanity of the unborn child after a certain point - and there was
also a consensus that, before that point, opposition to abortion would
require some philosophical assumptions that one couldn't legitimately
expect everyone else to share.
The trouble is, though, so far, people who tend to be pro-choice are
only likely to admit the unborn child has "humanity" after 24 weeks or
thereabouts
Wrong.
We neither confirm nor deny the "hummanity" of a fetus, since it really
isn't the point. What *IS* the point is minding our own damn business and
allowing the pregnant woman to determine the course of her own life and
pregnancy.
The real difference is this:
"Her body is harboring a fetus."
The "pro-choicer" puts an extreme emphasis on the first two words of that
sentence, with little, is any, regard for the last two words. The
"pro-lifer" emphasizes the last two words, and the woman can ***** herself as
far as the use of her body, consequences be damned.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Achieving peace in the abortion war |
21 Aug 2005 08:54:37 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:07:35 GMT, "The Other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yeehaw.com> wrote, in part:
We neither confirm nor deny the "hummanity" of a fetus, since it really
isn't the point. What *IS* the point is minding our own damn business and
allowing the pregnant woman to determine the course of her own life and
pregnancy.
That certainly is the belief of certain hardcore pro-choicers. However,
if that belief were required to support legal abortion, abortion would
be illegal.
Most people who acquiesce in the legality of abortion do so because they
do not believe that an unborn child becomes a human being, who it would
be murder to slay, until late in pregnancy or until birth.
For one thing, abortion is often seen as the _active_ slaying of a fetus
by a doctor, not as the _passive_ withdrawal of aid and assistance by
the mother (or, if you prefer, gestating woman) by many who are not
"pro-life".
For another, parents are seen as responsible for providing the
necessities of life to their children. Only a minority of people
question the legitimacy of demanding child support payments of fathers.
Since the fetus depends for its very life on one person - that person is
under an obligation unlike that which we feel we do not have to the
starving in Africa and so on. And sex is usually consensual, thus it
would seem the woman is more likely to be responsible for the fetus'
predicament than the fetus himself or herself.
The idea that a pregnant woman could just walk away from *a real person*
and let him or her die, because she is not obligated to stay pregnant on
that person's behalf, is _not_ one that a significant proportion of the
public would rest easily with. Only if a fetus is seen as no more a
human being than a cow, a pig, or a dog is no issue raised for most
people.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
.
|
|
|
| User: "aut" |
|
| Title: Re: Achieving peace in the abortion war |
22 Aug 2005 02:46:11 PM |
|
|
"We neither confirm nor deny the "hummanity" of a fetus, since it
really isn't the point..."
You neither confirm or deny? Do you neither confirm or deny that you
drink beer or orange juice?
"And sex is usually consensual, thus it would seem the woman is more
likely to be responsible"
Both parents are eqally responsible. The unborn child is not
responsible at all. The parents are in the situation voluntary. The
child is involuntary in the situation. By the way: 50% of unborn
children are female. Females are much more often aborted.
I don=B4t want to outlaw abortion, so in this sense I=B4m pro-choice. But
I want to reduce the number of abortions performed through social
measures. That is possible. So it should be done.
If I were the supreme court, I would not totally overrule Roe vs. Wade,
but give it a amendment. F.E. a amendment to save women from being
coerced into abortions. A great number is coerced.=20
Dominik
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "aut" |
|
| Title: Re: Achieving peace in the abortion war |
21 Aug 2005 10:51:54 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton: "Bible"
I=B4m Atheist and not interested at all in it.
C=2EC.: "since ALL children have already been *born"
No. Unborn children are not born yet.
C=2EC.: "Which is a very responsible and sensible
thing for him to do."
How responsible and sensitive. It is responsible to take care of your
child and your spouse.
C=2EC.: "vis-a-vis PEOPLE, who've achieved **personhood,**"
When did you achieve personhood? Who were you before birth? Another
person? A blob of tissue?
You give no evidence whatsoever why unborn children are not human
beings.
Everybody can see the moving child in video
http://www.unborn.com/movies/10weeks.rm .
Sperm and ova are not human beings. Nobody ever claimed this.
C=2EC.: "...against millions of people that was known
as segregation..." Abortion is a form of segregation against millions
of people.
C=2EC.: "Abortion-on-request enables women to: -- Put their lives
back on track immediately" A pregnant women is not "on track"?
You see pregnancy as a disease to be cured.
Paul Anderson: "and everything to do with people not behaving the way
others want them to behave." What is about rape? Do you really want
to controll rapists? It=B4s their choice to rape. P.A.: "All your
"FE"s prove you are one of those who wish to control
others..." You want to control unborn children. None of my FEs is
about control. Dave in Lake Villa: "Once abortion is illegal and
totally banned..." I don=B4t want to ban abortion! I want to reduce
abortion through social measures.
C=2EC.: "the Anti-Choicers will do the same..." The
"Anti-Choicers" grew everyday. Especially among young people. Why?
Because anybody can actually see the moving child in video.
Dominik
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Achieving peace in the abortion war |
20 Aug 2005 02:47:10 PM |
|
|
On 20 Aug 2005 10:27:16 -0700, "aut" <auto400840@hushmail.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson: "It is impossible to remove all the reasons that lead
people to abort
pregnancies. Thus there will always be abortions."
That is true. It is impossible to remove all the reasons. But it is
possible to remove most reasons.
BFG. As long as there are any abortions there will be those who
disapprove of them.
....
I did not state that abortion will suddenly end. I asume that you have
not read MacNairs Book.
Nope. And judging by your posts there is no need for me to do so.
The "abortion war" has nothing to do with people having abortions and
everything to do with people not behaving the way others want them to
behave. All your "FE"s prove you are one of those who wish to control
others.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
