No Child Unrecruited...

January 29, 2005

You speak for yourself, Shane, which is "I'm right, you're all wrong."

It is impossible to talk to you.

Kim

January 29, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

How 'bout you let me speak for myself, Shane?

I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth. So please point out where I am misunderstanding you. Try not to make it too long <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

It seems the following is your position:

1. Those that favor war but oppose abortions are hyporcrits because if they oppose killing innocent life they should oppose war.

2. Abortion is morally wrong but should be legal so it is safe (for the mother not the baby).

3. Although over a million are killed each year due to abortion and only a fraction of that number are killed in war, war is worse than abortion.

4. If women didn't abort their children, the government would just send them off to war to die when they were older.

My response is simple:

1. War is not choosen in order to avoid a few months of inconvience. War is the last resort in confronting an enemy with evil motives.

2. Legal abortion is realtively safe for the mother however many suffer emotional consquences. It is never safe for the baby.

3. Abortion and war are both terrible. A war that can be avoided is a greater sin than an abortion that can be avoided because more die in a war than in a single abortion. However allowing abortion to be legal results in more deaths than going to war.

4. Since over a million are aborted each year and less than 100,000 are killed in war (including enemy soldiers and civilians) it seems the government couldn't have all the aborted babies killed in war if they were not aborted.

January 29, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

You speak for yourself, Shane, which is "I'm right, you're all wrong."

Actually I look to be challenged. That is why I listen to and read a variety of news sources with varying political leanings. I also listen to and watch preachers with various beliefs, including many non-Adventists.

Saying "I disagree" is not the same as saying "You are wrong" I can say that I disagree and than give the reasons I disagree without saying the other person is wrong. Now the reasons I give for disagreeing may make it obvious the other person is wrong OR they may make it obvious that I don't know what I am talking about. Either way, I try to let each individual draw their own conclusion.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

It is impossible to talk to you.

Than talk with me. Participate in the exchange of ideas. Don't try to jam your ideas down others' throughts and than condemn them because they don't agree with you. We are all sinners and our preception of reality is tainted by our experience and education. Each one of us can be mistaken. None of us are infallible.

January 30, 2005

Quote:

I definitely hear your concerns and share them. But my concern is that those who coin terms like "globalist myths" are actually the ones who are manufacturing the problems you voice concern about, and foisting that blame onto a convenient scapegoat/enemy figure they have erected to deflect detection off of themselves. Do you get what I'm saying here? It's like the way "terrorist" and "al-qaeda" got bandied about all over the place post-9/11, to the point now where it's like all anyone has to do is invoke one of those terms and everyone scurries like little lab mice to eradicate the supposed "threat" --when the THREAT, the REAL THREAT, is coming from those making them scurry by invoking those words, NOT from what those words mean!!! Again, you know, it's like reading about the Salem Witch Trials all over again and realizing the REAL "witchcraft" -- the real EVIL -- came from those who were holding the trials, NOT those being accused!

Yes, I do get exactly what you're saying above.

Quote:

I understand and share also your frustration with what's going on with the kids. But as a person with mental health issues who has two children who have mental health issues, I have to say that it was

precisely

this kind of inbred distrust of the mental health field -- that they were all a big conformity conspiracy, just trying to target the kids that weren't "sheeple" for conformity training, etc. -- that kept me from getting help for myself and for my kids for very

real

problems for a

number

of years.

Yeah I do have concerns, like mandatory mental health sceening being done on perfectly healthy kids. I also believe that normal kids are being (over)medicated for having different learning styles or personalities.

That the mental health field does a service cannot be denied, esp, when imbalances are pinpointed. But sceening should be voluntary and sought out, not forced on everyone for our own good, don't you think?

Quote:

You might find this article very educational and informative -- I know it really opened my eyes and turned on the lights on a number of areas. It's long so take it slow and in chunks ...

The "Chemical Imbalance" in Mental Health Problems

.

The link didn't work. Took me to the site, but didn't pull up the article. They have a pull down menu, if you post the title, I might be able to search for it. Thanks!

January 30, 2005

Quote:

Sister Rosie, you may want to speak for yourself and not for Nico or Kim. I try never to speak for others.

I have no problem with speaking up when I see somone else's position mis-stated. That is my right, this is, after all, still America, is it not? You posted that Kim was in favor of "aborting drug addict babies", and her post never said that at all.

January 30, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

You posted that Kim was in favor of "aborting drug addict babies", and her post never said that at all.

Let's see:

Kimberly:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane, some women should not be having children. What about those drug moms who have 10 babies and expect their relatives to care for them or they end up in foster care? And the tax payers (us) end up supporting these kids!! Those children suffer from life-long disabilities, too.

How about if we sterilize those types of women in the first place, then we won't have to be so worried about abortion.

That seems to imply that if these "women that should not be having children" do get pregnant that the babies should be aborted. Sister Kimberly seems to put forth two options; sterilization or abortion. Maybe Kimberly can clarify.

Kimberly:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

And I also believe not all babies were meant to be born.

Now here she refers to the unborn children as babies (which they are) and states that not all of them were meant to be born. That sounds a lot like she is in favor of abortion. Again, may be she can clarify.

January 30, 2005

Quote:

How 'bout you let me speak for myself, Shane?

I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth. So please point out where I am misunderstanding you. Try not to make it too long

OK, first things first: what I posted here originally was a "wry observation" and not intended as a statement of my position on anything. It was like the dry humor of a columnist.

Quote:

1. Those that favor war but oppose abortions are hyporcrits because if they oppose killing innocent life they should oppose war.

I would say: it is hypocritical to support ANY war that involves killing civilians (men, women, children who are not specifically deployed to combat duty) while opposing abortion, yes. The link in my mind: both involve the wrongful taking of innocent life (and the corresponding devaluation of life, whether by saying "just a fetus" or "just collateral damages").

Quote:

2. Abortion is morally wrong but should be legal so it is safe (for the mother not the baby).

I believe abortion should never be used as cheap or casual birth control. I believe the effective method for reducing abortion is not through criminalizing it but through education and outreach efforts to mothers AND potential babies. I strongly believe those wanting to make a difference ought to be ready to go way beyond "the second mile" to assist those who are quite blatantly unready for parenthood as evidenced by the desire to abort itself.

I also believe some fates are far worse than death.

Quote:

3. Although over a million are killed each year due to abortion and only a fraction of that number are killed in war, war is worse than abortion.

War is worse than abortion because it produces horrors that are fates worse than death, and does so for persons of live birth who already possess the necessary faculties for full comprehension of their pain, suffering, and terror in the experience. Abortion always has an end, in death, in peaceful sleep, whereas war produces horrors and devastations that last for generations to come.

Quote:

4. If women didn't abort their children, the government would just send them off to war to die when they were older.

I do find it ironic that anyone could support compulsory conscription (that's "draft" -- I think you said you did not?) and yet oppose abortion, as if the life of a child would be any less precious after having known him or her for 18 intimate years as a mother or father!!! But no, this does NOT equate to "it's OK to abort because the government will see to it that your kids get killed anyway".

(to be continued)

January 30, 2005

(continued from above)

[:"red"] (The following are Shane's views quoted and my responses) [/]

Quote:

1. War is not chosen in order to avoid a few months of inconvience. War is the last resort in confronting an enemy with evil motives.

This current war was neither a last resort nor justified on the grounds claimed for it. It could be argued that this present war was, in fact, entered to spare our nation (and more to the point, the top corporations affiliated with those in current administrative power) a "few months of inconvenience" indeed. But laying that aside -- it has still taken the lives of innocent civilians, destroyed their homes and families, wrecked their world.

I agree war SHOULD be last resort, and for a superpower like the USA should NEVER be pre-emptive -- we have perhaps a greater responsibility than any other nation in the world how we use our engines of war, our sheer resources and power (money, troops, equipment, etc.) and God's eye upon it, pray you mark.

Quote:

2. Legal abortion is relatively safe for the mother however many suffer emotional consquences. It is never safe for the baby.

Agreed. It ends the life of the fetus and does not guarantee no repercussions for the mother. It is already a delicate and unhappy situation -- I don't believe ANY pregnant woman truly WANTS to abort -- so making of her a criminal on top of so much fear and anguish going on just seems cruel and unusual punishment in my book.

Quote:

3. Abortion and war are both terrible. A war that can be avoided is a greater sin than an abortion that can be avoided because more die in a war than in a single abortion.

I agree both are terrible. I agree a war that can be avoided is worse than an abortion that can be avoided, and yes, clearly more die in war than in a single abortion, plus war creates horrors and devastations that last for generations. Not all of war's horrors end in the "peaceful" sleep of death.

I've mentioned before, Shane, that you and I agree on a lot of things concerning abortion. What we disagree on (it seems) is how to approach it. You seem to favor a legislative solution. I'm opposed to that and favor an educational/outreach solution. By that I do not mean an "in your face" one but one that reaches out in compassion to the all-important decision maker: the individual pregnant woman and elicits her sympathy and cooperation in understanding all the ramifications involved in holding a new life in her hands.

Personally I'd love to open an orphanage for abortion survivors -- grab welfare moms and others who are off to the clinic and offer to take their babies in either until they can care for them or until the kids are adopted. Yeah, but me and what bank?

Till then, I exercise my views about abortion in the best way I know how: by not having one. I figured out back in the early 1990s I could not afford to have more children so I opted for a permanent form of birth control (tubal ligation). I birthed and raised three. I did have a "number four" scare -- in 1991 -- before the tube-tying that ended in what I believe to have been an early miscarriage (6 weeks) brought on by fasting for five days straight, but without medical confirmation I cannot know for sure. It's just what I believe happened. Soooo ... I know all about that "I-killed-my-baby" kind of guilt just from that experience. It's horrible.

January 30, 2005

Rosie:

On the drop-down menu, pick CATEGORY: Managing Mental Illness and then click the link for "The Chemical Imbalance in Mental Health Problems"

or go here: http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=160

or here:

http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/print.php?artID=160

January 30, 2005

Quote:

That the mental health field does a service cannot be denied, esp, when imbalances are pinpointed. But sceening should be voluntary and sought out, not forced on everyone for our own good, don't you think?

I agree, definitely. At the very least there should be a presenting problem before a screening is requested or recommended -- for example, if a child is doing poorly all of a sudden, or crying in class, or skipping a lot, or showing obvious symptoms that things are wrong -- and then it should not be mandatory but recommended to the parent and let the PARENT decide who, what, when, etc. for their own child. Or if the child thinks he or she needs it but the parents won't allow, I think a teenager should have some rights in that area, to manage his or her own mental health care where it can be shown there is a definite need and the parent may be anosognosic (lacking awareness or insight into the reality of the issue).

January 30, 2005

And finally (and this is just a comment, not a position on any 'side' in the discussion), the relevant number of deaths is not just the 1,000 Americans, but the 100,000 Iraqis who the article in the Lancet says have died in this war *in addition to the number that would have died under Saddam in the same period*.

January 30, 2005

Yet the 100,000 that have died are less than 10% of those aborted each year.

Makes one wonder... Was Hitler waging war on all of Europe worse than his slaughter of the Jews? Hitler was guilty of two crimes. The first was starting WW2 and the second was the Holocaust. Which was worse? How many died in the war? Between 400,000 and 500,000 Americans I believe. I don't know how many from other countries. And I believe he killed 6 million Jews.

January 30, 2005

Finally, every single life lost is a tragedy. I agree with you that a million abortions a year is a holocaust, and we should do whatever we can, consistent with love, to halt it. To me, that means getting beside women and helping them, rather than yelling and pointing... and realising that men are responsible for every single pregnancy too...

January 31, 2005

This is a good place to start.

[]http://www.clubadventist.com/ubbthreads/attachments/154057-billboard.jpg[/]

January 31, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

men are responsible for every single pregnancy too...

A lot of men preasure women into abortions. That is why Susan B. Anthony (the first American woman to vote) was opposed to abortion.

February 1, 2005

Shane, are you against abortion in the case of rape or incest as well?

Do you think a 13 year old should have her father's or rapist's baby?

Kim

February 1, 2005

That is a tough question that you could ask yourself too. I believe that in the case of rape or incest the victem should have the right to abortion. Most pro-lifers would agree with me on that.

However that was not your question. Your question was if I think it is right or wrong, not if I think it should be legal. I can tell you what my wife believes. She says if someone raped her she would have the child and give it up for adoption.

February 3, 2005

Two quick points, from an outsider, ie. non american

1. Conscription by stealth, seems to fly in the face of freedom of choice, the pillar of American society

2. I am anti-abortion, and not one to make judgement on one who does. The tone of the previous threads seems to take a blanket approach to what is an individual scenario.

February 3, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

2. ... previous thread seems to take a blanket approach to what is an individual scenario.

Well spoken, David!

This issue should be decided ONLY by the mother alone, in consultation with her doctor.

(and I loved your expression: Conscription by stealth.)

February 3, 2005

Total freedom is anarchy which is not a pillar of American society.

February 4, 2005

Quote:

Finally, every single life lost is a tragedy. I agree with you that a million abortions a year is a holocaust, and we should do whatever we can, consistent with love, to halt it. To me, that means getting beside women and helping them, rather than yelling and pointing... and realising that men are responsible for every single pregnancy too...

I'm totally with you on this. Those that stood on lines to scream and holler condemnatory and hostile invective at scared young women trying to enter clinics -- not to mention murderers who bombed clinics in the name of "pro life" (yeah RIGHT) -- have given the entire pro-life movement a nearly permanently tattooed black eye. This is a delicate and sensitive work and there is no room in it for that sort of garbage. Rather as Bravus pointed out there is much room for practical good that can be done ... and that includes bringing young fathers to account for their responsibility as well. It takes two to tango. I bet if instead of abortion there was a law passed to FORCE young men to scrap their plans for the next 20 years to raise the baby THEY made, we'd see less premarital sex. HAH!

February 4, 2005

Quote:

I can tell you what my wife believes. She says if someone raped her she would have the child and give it up for adoption.

No disrespect meant to your wife personally, Shane, but that's the kind of thing that's always easy to say ... until it happens to you.

February 4, 2005

Quote:

Total freedom is anarchy which is not a pillar of American society.

Isnt heaven a place with total freedom from sin

(i'll get my coat!)

February 5, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Those that stood on lines to scream and holler condemnatory and hostile invective at scared young women trying to enter clinics

Now why would anyone want to scream at scared young women trying to enter a clinic where they were going to kill their child?

Actually, those I have spoken to that have worked outside of abortion clinics have not yelled any condemnation but offered alternative services. And that is exactly what needs to be done. Instead of telling these scared young women to kill their children, we should extend the hand of help and tell them we will take care of them during their pregnancy and arrange for adoption if they need or help them with baby needs if they choose to keep the child.

February 5, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

No disrespect meant to your wife personally, Shane, but that's the kind of thing that's always easy to say ... until it happens to you.

So if I were to share that my wife was raped would that make her opinion legitamte in your mind <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Sign In

No Child Unrecruited...

Recommended Posts

Kimberly

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Rosie

Rosie

Dr. Shane

Nicodema

Nicodema

Nicodema

Nicodema

Bravus

Dr. Shane

Bravus

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Kimberly

Dr. Shane

David_McQueen

Jeannieb43

Dr. Shane

Nicodema

Nicodema

David_McQueen

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity