| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"IAAH" |
| Date: |
04 May 2005 01:59:39 PM |
| Object: |
Re: THE THIRD VICTIM OF ABORTION |
On Wed, 04 May 2005 18:34:28 GMT, "- krp" <web2457k@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1115230639.943508.139090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You are FAR WORSE than Christian fundamentalists. You take THEORY
as
IRON BASED SOLID FACT!
It is a fact, you moron. It is not a theory.
To YOU ------ to most of the world with functioning brains it is a
"THEORY!" And - dumbass - no matter how LEARNED a theory MAY be, it is
STILL just a THEORY............. AN OPINION....................
You mean like the theory of gravity? You think that gravity is an
opinion?
No gravity falls under the category - more or less - of a "LAW" in
science. the Big Bang is a theorem nothing more.
No, the effects of gravity fall under a 'law'. The calculations are
trivial. How it works is something quite different, and far more
complex.
A theory can be proven or disproven, and it requires objective facts
and evidence to prove it or disprove it. What's more, a scientific
theory can also be a fact. The two are not incompatible are in any way
exclusive of each other.
It CAN be a fact it CAN also wind up being absolute *****! Such as
the "THEORY" that the Earth was FLAT! Or the THEORY that the sun revolved
around the Earth. Let me remind you that lots of people held those THEORIES
as angrily as you hold yours to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.
Certainly, theories can be wrong. All you need to do is provide
reliable evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory and cannot be
reconciled. Many have tried and failed, but maybe you can be the
first. Evolution has withstood every challenge thus far, however.
Now, 'intelligent design' falls under the 'hypothesis' category
(actually, not even that, since it's lacking in rationality). Perhaps
you could also furnish some good evidence to support that conjecture
(a more fitting term than 'hypothesis') as well.
An opinion requires neither proof nor evidence, which is why religion
and religious beliefs are never better than opinions.
In your OPINION.
You might actually try learning what a sientific theory actually is.
Hmmmmmmmmm having a SCIENCE degree - I think I know.
I think you've forgotten, then. When you equated theory and opinion
you certainly gave up any entitlement to consider yourself any sort of
authority on the subject.
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: THE THIRD VICTIM OF ABORTION |
04 May 2005 02:24:06 PM |
|
|
The Third Victim of Abortion
By Nathan Tabor
The Illinois Leader
http://www.illinoisleader.com
Thursday, April 14, 2005
OPINION - "There are two victims to every abortion, but
only one survives."
This quote, frequently heard among pro-life advocates,
acknowledges that every abortion produces both a dead
baby and a wounded mother. Both are victims of violence
and trauma. The baby's life is brutally ended and the
mother's is emotionally scarred, at the very least.
But for every abortion there is also a third victim that
gets overlooked most of the time. That victim is the
father of the aborted child. Now I know that this isn't
the politically correct approach, since modern feminists
insist that abortion is all about the mother's body, her
feelings and her choices. But I think we need to
acknowledge that those potential fathers-to-be may have
feelings, too.
I know of one case where a young couple was planning to
be married. They lived a hard-partying lifestyle, and the
pretty young woman got pregnant.
But she didn't tell the father until several weeks after
she had aborted the child. He was crushed and hurt and
angry.
"I wanted to marry you," he screamed. "We were already
engaged. How could you kill my child? Why didn't you even
tell me?"
"I was afraid you wouldnąt want me any more if I got
fat," she replied. "Besides, what do you care? It was my
choice. It doesn't have anything to do with you."
Her response was as telling as her unilateral decision to
terminate the pregnancy. To her, the father was really
just a sperm donor. He had no feelings and no rights. Why
should he even care? The couple soon broke up, largely
because of this conflict.
The cynical feminist view that sees all men as selfish,
unfeeling louts is seriously flawed. And it is also
logically inconsistent with the rest of the commonly
accepted gender roles expected of parents in society.
Before birth, does a father have the same rights as a
mother? Yes, if the mother decides to keep the baby.
Together they make the decisions about where to live,
what doctor to see, what nutrition plan the mother should
be on, how they will divide the responsibilities after
birth, and much more.
Anticipating delivery, the typical father is deeply
concerned for the health and safety of both the mother
and child.
After birth, does a father have the same rights as the
mother? Yes, assuming the couple is married, they make
all the important life decisions together, such as what
to name their baby, and where to send the child to
school. It's hard to imagine a happier picture than that
of a proud papa cradling his newborn baby in his arms.
Even where the parents are unmarried or divorced, the
courts give certain parental rights to non-custodial
fathers. They can spend time with the child, take trips,
make decisions about the child's future and of course pay
out the money needed to support the child.
Does a father have to pay child support, even if he never
wanted the child?
Yes, and rightfully so. He made the decision to gratify
himself sexually, just like the woman did. So why should
she alone have to bear the burden of raising the child
for the rest of her life? Some men really are unfeeling
louts who donąt care about their offspring, but the law
still holds them responsible for the support of their
children.
But what about the father who fervently wants his unborn
child to live? Does he have the right to stop the mother
from having an abortion? No. So, then, fathers have to
pay child support, but have no say in the abortion
decision.
This is a glaring problem and it should be solved. Why
shouldnąt the mother just deliver the baby, even if she
doesnąt want to keep it, and then turn it over to the
father, who does love it and who wants to raise it?
What will it take to right this injustice? Men will have
to organize and demand that the laws be changed. The
emerging Fathersą Rights movement may be very similar to
the uphill fight of the brave women suffragettes who
organized and won equal voting rights.
The radical feminists' lopsided emphasis on the mother's
alleged right to choose has traditionally been
counterbalanced by the pro-lifers' emphasis on the unborn
child's inalienable right to life. To me, Life trumps
Choice any day of the week.
But it's high time we gave some serious thought to the
rights of the father, who really is the third victim of
any abortion. After all, at least one-half of every child
is the biological and genetic product of the father. That
father may want to see his son learn to throw a baseball,
or watch his daughter learn to dance. That father
deserves a voice.
http://www.illinoisleader.com/opinion/opinionview.asp?c=24711
- - - - - - -
Posted on 4/14/2005 5:34:01 PM PDT by metalmanx2j
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
