Hi Angel. I agree with you completely and thank you, again, for this post
Hi Angel. I agree with you completely and thank you, again, for this post
Hi Mike, AS USUAL, both you and Bill present well thought out responses to one of the most difficult decisions any human being has to make, and which Angel has thoughtfully chosen to make us also think about. I find the hypocrisy of "pro life" vs "pro choice" indefinable. Isn't pro life a choice? Isn't the right to choose an inalienable right? I have ALWAYS fought for MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE, no matter what the subject. Whether in my medical care, my religion, my education, my career choice, my volunteer and charitable works, my life partner, my recreational decisions, YES, in ALL THINGS, I DEMAND the RIGHT to CHOOSE for myself. Politics seems to be pulling people towards what some choose to see as a simpler time. It IS easier not to HAVE to make a choice, rather to be told what is the "correct" choice, leaving the morality issue up to someone/anyone else. This is where organized religion always plays such an important part in humanity's actions. HOWEVER, I believe that we relinquish a great amount of humanity along with our personal responsibilities when we allow ourselves to be "TOLD" what is right. Unfortunately, with abortion, there will be devasting choices being made FOR some who would choose to do things differently. Not to diminish the value of a fetus, we MUST always consider the end result of our actions, and history has proven our past actions to be less than stellar when it comes to abortion. I must agree that by our inability (or unwillingness) to care for so many already living, we relinquish our right to make such a choice on behalf of ANYONE other than oneself. Let the choice and the end result be with the one who has to live with it, and allow that FREEDOM OF CHOICE to carry the weight with which it should be valued. Anyone who thinks an abortion, for any reason, is an EASY choice, has not had to make that choice.
Last edited by dadnabbit on Fri May 31, 2019 5:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
I wasn'lt going to weigh on this subject...too emotional...and I thought I just might not be totally capable of controlling my own emotions on the subject. But after reading all the great responses to a very difficult issue, I decided to put my two cents worth in. I can't really add anything to the already super responses, but the post by Dadnabbit kinda kicked in one of my pet peeves. I dislike the label Pro- Life. EVERYBODY is pro life! It makes it sound like the Pro-Choice people are pro-death. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I've always thought that the two labels should be Pro Choice and No Choice! After all, it's all about choice! So why not call it what it is.
Probably because the Pro-Life people wouldn't like to see that.. No-Choice sounds a lot worse than Pro-life...and calling it that label might make them think about things a little differently. Yes, choosing not to have an abortion is definitely a choice. I wonder how they'd feel if things were reversed and they were told they HAD to have an abortion...maybe due to a congenital problem with the fetus, or only one child allowed. It could happen...it has happened. (Thnk China and Nazi Germany) I bet they would become "Pro Choice" in a heartbeat...once they had their own choice taken away from them. Think about it, Pro-Lifers...before you try to take other people's right to choose away from them. No Choice can work both ways!
There has to be support for woman and children to go along with this. I think there is not so it would be wrong to make choices for them. Do children have a safe foster care or orphanage system? Are they free from abuse? There are too many sad stories. Woman need affordable child care so they can get back into the work place. Unwed mothers need housing and other support. I do not think abortion should be used as contraception. Children need sex education and the means to deal with contraception. No choice is not a choice.
I feel we’re blessed with the wisdom and respect shared here and look forward to all you folks have to say.
It's funny, but your staement has a subtle implication that you, as an ostomate consider yourself "different" and are not part of society as we have it today in this country. I never joined this site under the supposition that I was different. I think all topics as mundane as some may be are eligible to be discussed in here. This is not a place for outcasts, as you seem to be implying in a not so seriptitious way.
I feel very strongly that there should be a separation between church (cultures) and state (government).
Religion and culture tend to go hand in hand. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4200 religions in the world. I respect everyone’s right to their religion/culture. Who am I to say what people should believe in, and who are people to say what I should believe in? This can create a lot of divisions, because everyone wants to be right.
Individually, we are in charge of our life’s experiences, values, ethics, knowledge and beliefs. Everyone has a story to tell and we believe these stories based on how informed we are about the world. We cannot compare realistically, unless we experience other ways of living and believing. If we stay in one place our whole life, we believe in the demographics of that particular place therefore we are none the wiser.
In order to compare, I prefer to give equal time to all news media, as media can adversely influence the unknowing. There is always another side to every story and I want to know every side before I make a decision.
There are five types of government systems in the world: monarchy, democracy, oligarchy, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. Not all types allow their people to vote. Government policy and constitution are very difficult and sometimes almost impossible to change - and often they are interpreted according to religion and culture.
My opinion is that government should concentrate on governing the country by dealing with trade, infrastructure, health, economy, defense, education, etc. because, honestly, we will never all think the same. Would a country be further ahead if it concentrated on the good of all, not the good of a few which, we all know, can change when a party changes. Divisiveness is so exhausting.
Does Roe vs Wade change whenever a different party is governing? If that is the case, why make these precedents. Perhaps we should treat people non-discriminately rather than judge. “Never criticize a man/woman person until you've walked a mile in their moccasins.”
Now, to tie this to the ostomy site. Every ostomate has a story to tell according to their experiences. As members we choose to support everyone on the site, rather than judge according to our belief systems. I think that is why this site – for the most part – works.
Now, if only government could focus😊
G’morning: I like to thank all of you for participating . I couldn’t have pulled this off without each one of you. It’s a learning experience which allow One another understanding. In all we have shown great respect for one another.
Last edited by Angelicamarie on Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:59 am; edited 2 times in total
Another "Landmark" 7-2 decision from an all male Supreme Court. (Exactly like Roe 116 years later)
This should have settled the debate for all time that there is no such thing as "settled law" and that men (and women) make terrible rulings sometimes.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that the U.S. Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and therefore the rights and privileges it confers upon American citizens could never apply to them.
The plaintiff in the case was Dred Scott, an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri, which was a slave-holding state, into the Missouri Territory, most of which had been designated "free" territory by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued in court for his freedom, claiming that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed, and was legally no longer a slave.
Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in U.S. federal court, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States." Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 purporting to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery."
Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American citizen, any federal lawsuit he filed automatically failed because he could never establish the "diversity of citizenship" that Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires for an American federal court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a case. After ruling on these issues surrounding Scott, Taney continued further and struck down the entire Missouri Compromise as a limitation on slavery that exceeded the U.S. Congress's powers under the Constitution.
Two justices—John McLean and Benjamin Robbins Curtis—dissented from the Court's opinion, writing that the majority's historical survey was inaccurate and that legal precedent showed that some black people actually had been citizens at the time of the Constitution's creation, and also that the majority's opinion went too far in striking down the Missouri Compromise.
At what point do we say no, you can’t murder your child? If the baby is born and the mother doesn’t like the way the baby looks can she have it smothered to death, or euthanized like a dog? What is God going to say when the person who murders their child stands before him. That child is half of the fathers DNA, yet he has no choice in any decisions. He can be forced to pay for the child even if he doesn’t want it, yet if he does want it, it can be murdered with him having no say. I always hear the argument that it’s the mothers body, but it’s not the mothers body that dies. Have we as humans lost all humanity that we are willing to murder children as they are born? If that’s the case, we are a sad lot that should go extinct!
Don't think this is a platform for political points!
Second abortion is murder period. That being said I'm so sick and tired if hearing your body your right. REALLY?? So when you do want a child and it's your body who's body do you use to have that child? Someone's son and they have NO F*** rights none. I've seen what this does in 2 circumstances and its devastated both my sons. My oldest 29 waited for the ONE we taught I'm respect and love N he dated the same girl all through high school and thought they would marry. Well sadly she cheated and left him. He was use to the love story of his dad and I we have been together since we were 15. It took him a long time to trust again and finally at 21 he did and fell in love. When they got engaged and planned their wedding they moved in together. He waited 22 years for the one ( as he put it) and yes I mean he had not had sex we taught him well. Because yes you can keep from getting pregnant either ways then using abortion for birth control. Sadly his love or who he thought was she was not a virgin and would not wait for marriage and the first time they had sex she conceived. Our son was thrilled he could not wait. They were all ready getting married it was planned so to him their family was just more complete. About 2 months later she walked out and killed his baby she told him she was to young for kids. He wanted to raise the baby on his own said hs would sign papers saying she has no responsibilities and she said she would rather kill the baby. My son is 29 and July is still awful for him that's when their baby was due.
Our 16 year old whom we adopted from Korea ( thank God abortion is against the law there) his bio/father has no idea he exist and our son really struggles with this. He had NO rights because he is the man and they have no say. So women can have sex with our sons use them when they want a child but if they are not in the mood to get a parent screw them. Oh and don't forget the child support we wouldn't want men to ever forget that. So if there can't be a law to stop killing our sons children ( if they want to raise them) then if a man doesn't want to he a part of a child's life hs shouldn't be forced to pay for that child HOW IS THAT ANY DIFFERENT?? Its not but my son even though he is still hurting 8 years later said he would never do that either and I know he wouldn't we did not raise him that way. He and his wife just lost their first baby last year and here are all these women killing babies.
The new law states that it can still be done before the heartbeat if someone is raped they have plenty of time to get it done because you should go right away. The morning after pill is also still there. As for incest if you do your research 80% of the cases do not abort the babies because the family's are afraid of being caught so the women deliver anyway. Its sick and sad but it's true.