Can you explain this stand on abortion?

Comments

Tom Garrett 1 year, 6 months ago

I've tried to make my stand on abortion as clear as I can. What I say is that an abortion is plainly the killing of a human being, but since we kill other human beings, for other reasons, and we say those reasons are good enough, the question to me is not whether or not abortion is the killing of a human being, but whether or not we will allow this particular type of killing.

I am not a woman, and so I feel that is not a question I am qualified to answer. Ask me in my next incarnation.

I do, however, take exception to a comment made by Representative Joe Walsh of Illinois. He says that if woman's life is in danger it is not a sufficient reason to abort a baby.

I quote: "Life of the woman is not an exception."

He adds, "..."there's no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing, with advances in science and technology."

Frankly, I find his view to be hard to understand. There are cases in which there is no chance for the child. For example, a fetus which develops out of the uterus cannot live, and this occurs somewhere between 1 of every 40 to 1 out of every 100 times. If something is not done the chances that the mother will live are not much better. There are other cases too.

What I do I not understand is the kind of closed mind that refuses to take action to SAVE a life?

Can anyone explain that to me?

0

Pat Randall 1 year, 6 months ago

He is a stupid man and probably has illegimate kids running all over the place without paying child support.

I am not defending abortion, except for saving the life of the mother. That is the ONLY reason for an abortion.
If you want to dance, you must pay the fiddler.

Mr. Naughton, This is an opinion as I don't know the man that Tom is talking about, but it isn't any of Walch's business anyway.

0

Bernice Winandy 1 year, 6 months ago

Tom, how can you be sure that you will come back female? Are you just being hopeful to come back as the "better sex" after spending ?????? years as the other? :-)

To let the mother die with hope that the baby will survive is not medically sound as you could end up losing both. Also, does the mother have other children, who will take care of them?

Frankly, I am sick and tired of all of this abortion talk. This country was founded under separation of church and state principles. Anti-abortion sentiments are based on church teaching and should not be part of the political talk.

Did you hear what Joe Biden said in the vice president debate. He said that he was Catholic and I believe he also said it is the core of who he is. He said he accepts the church's teaching on abortion. However, he also said that he did not believe that he had the right to impose his beliefs on others. I thought that was a good answer. I am sure that there are those who will think he was copping out.

In the past and present has harm been done in the name of religious beliefs?

I would like to see more counseling and support given to women in unwanted pregnancy situations. If you convince a woman not to abort her baby, do you have an obligation to give her financial assistance? Do you have to assist her through the first years of the child's life? What supportive programs should be put in place? How will these programs be paid for?

By the way I do not believe in abortion.

0

Tom Garrett 1 year, 5 months ago

"Tom, how can you be sure that you will come back female?"

I'm not. I just figured the coin could flip either way. Of course, if I haven't been good I could also come back as a cockroach.

"Anti-abortion sentiments are based on church teaching and should not be part of the political talk."

Actually, Bernice, I do not think that anti-abortion sentiments are based entirely on church teaching. It's a question, like any other question. Some politicians have made it as religious issue for their own reasons. For some people, an occasional election becomes a one-issue battle.

"I would like to see more counseling and support given to women in unwanted pregnancy situations. If you convince a woman not to abort her baby, do you have an obligation to give her financial assistance? Do you have to assist her through the first years of the child's life? What supportive programs should be put in place? How will these programs be paid for?"

Lot of questions. I don't have answers for them.

0

Pat Randall 1 year, 5 months ago

The mother should have DNA tests done and if she does not put the baby for adoption then the father should pay child support. Not to say the mother gets to sit home, she needs to work too. The obligation of raising the child is either the natural parents or adoptive parents. Not our responsibilty.

There is much safer, cheaper, and moral birth control than abortion.

0

Tom Garrett 1 year, 5 months ago

"The mother should have DNA tests done and if she does not put the baby for adoption then the father should pay child support."

I agree that we should not have people on welfare who have kids by fathers who never pay for their own children. I'm not crazy about some of the child support laws, and I've seen far too many court decisions that forced some poor guy to pay far too much, but that's beside the point. A racket is a racket.

"Not our responsibilty."

Trouble is, we have a responsibility directly to the child, who isn't to blame for all this. And so we get stuck with our moral stance. It's a choice, but we make it.

"There is much safer, cheaper, and moral birth control than abortion."

There are lots of them. They all work. It is downright hard for a woman to get pregnant by accident. There's bound to be a slip up now and then, but by and large it's quote easy to avoid having children.

Just as a laugh, I'll tell you a true story about my doctor back in Port Arthur, Texas.

I noticed that some of the teenagers in my chemistry classes from year to year were from my own doctor's family. I mentioned it to the other chemistry teacher. He told me that he too had had some of his kids and that doc had 13 kiddos, and he added, "You'd think he would know how that happens." :-)

I never brought it up with my doctor, of course. He was the best, by the way. One day he looked at me, though, and said that he was going to close his office. When I asked why he said he was going to work for Texaco as a company doctor because her was tired of seeing his patients die.

I'd never thought of that. That's another reason I'm glad I decided not to go into medicine (I had given it a lot of thought).

0

Pat Randall 1 year, 5 months ago

I don't feel the least bit sorry for the fathers having to pay, and I did say the mother needed to work too. Think how much cheaper it would have been for birth control. Neuter them if they aren't married and father a second baby. Same with the mothers if they have a second one with no husband. I am very serious.

0

Tom Garrett 1 year, 5 months ago

" Neuter them if they aren't married and father a second baby."

That's an interesting recommendation.

"Same with the mothers if they have a second one with no husband. I am very serious."

Ditto.

0

Pat Randall 1 year, 5 months ago

He was a wrestler that was elected governor of Minn. Saved the state billions of $ with his welfare system.

0

Tom Garrett 1 year, 5 months ago

What was his "welfare system?"

"Beat me two times out of three and you get twenty bucks a month?" :-)

Anyway, being a Minnesota politician is no great recommendation. Maybe you remember these folks just taken off the top of my head:

Eugene McCarthy

Hubert Humphrey

Walter Mondale

And the only guy I've seen lose for 40 years straight: Harold Stassen

Not mention the Mister Slimeball In Person: Al Franken

0

Pat Randall 1 year, 5 months ago

Darn it Tom, I am almost as old as you and can't remember everything. I'll try and then everyone will jump on here and give me heck. He cleaned up the welfare system by sending the mothers that were on welfare sitting on thier butts to some kinds of schools so they could get jobs. I think it was for 2 years. Then they went to work or they didn't draw any welfare money. There was a kid count and if they had anymore with out support they did not get any money for that child and maybe all welfare was cut off. Can't remember. That was one way he saved the state money. You are the one that does research, GO FOR IT.

0

Pat Randall 1 year, 5 months ago

Tom, His real name is James George Janos born July 15 1951. He took the name Ventura when he was a wrestler I think.

0

Tom Garrett 1 year, 5 months ago

Pat,

I didn't disagree with you. I just know nothing about him. I remember when he got elected (back in the 90's sometime), but I know nothing about him beyond that.

He perhaps changed his name for a good reason. Janos (or Janus, or Yanous, or Yonus) was a two-faced Roman god. I can just see what some TV ad could do with that during an election.

His idea was not new. In New Jersey, I remember, and quite some time ago (in the 1970's) some towns created what was known as "workfare." The people who didn't belong on the welfare rolls moved elsewhere. The rest stayed.

Mind you, I am NOT opposed to welfare. I am not opposed to anything where all of us help some of us, those who genuinely need help. I believe it is the right thing for us to do, and I'm quite willing to pay my share of the taxes to do it. But, like anyone else, I don't like cheaters of any kind and have no problem with a system that roots them out, provided it is done fairly and honestly, and not as part of political grandstanding. Nevertheless, welfare for those who are down in their luck is a given as far as I am concerned. What else? We let people suffer while we are the richest nation in the world?

As for Minnesota, I honest to God have not been impressed with the politicians they have turned out over there. Look at that list I put up. McCarthy, Humphrey, and Mondale were all duds of the worst kind. And Harold Stassen was even worse.

And Bernice? What drum? I don't get it. Those folks I mentioned were part Democrat and part Republican. I rather liked Mccarthy. He was gentle man, but his ideas were dead in the water for the time and the world situation. So were Humphrey's. And Mondale served with Jimmy Carter, who was useless as a president, but a great man when it came to other things. You ought to read about the things he did after he left office. Few people are aware of most of them. He is personally responsible for ridding the Earth of a scourge that harmed millions of people every year--and he has done a lot more.

As for Al Franken, go read some of the filth he has written and you'll see why I think he's a cockroach.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.