START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
People

Rant

To At Least One Indonesian Mother, Size DOES Matter.

Posted 3 months ago|90 comments|403 views
Written by
Most mothers sincerely want what's best for their children. They work hard, as do fathers, to see that their offspring are healthy, educated and safe. Some parents work two sometimes three jobs in order to send their children to private schools, feed them only organic foods, buy them specific clothing or take them on fantastic vacations. Whatever they think is "best" for their child.

Surely, each parent wants every child to have a happy, successful and prosperous life. In many cultures, however, parents focus all of their energies on the success of their children because it is assumed that they will become the child's responsibility in their golden years. I imagine efforts toward the ultimate success of their offspring can be extremely motivational … and arguably selfish.

Recently, an Indonesian woman drowned her nine-year-old son in a bathtub. Apparently, she was worried that his "small penis" would affect his prospects for the future. The 38-year-old mother from the nation's capital, Jakarta, allegedly told police that her son had a small penis before he was circumcised and that it appeared to shrink further after the operation.

The woman, reportedly, told investigators that she had intentionally drowned her son in a bathtub filled with water …

Please visit http://wp.me/p1se8R-3K5 for the full blog post.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
3 months ago: Peter Singer and the likes would applaud such an act.

In a morally relativistic world, what difference does it make anyway? Is what this woman done any worse than aborting a baby that may have Down's Syndrome or some other type of potential, physical challenges?

As for Singer, I find it sickening that there are many folks out there just like him.
3 months ago: She unapologetically murdered her son. What difference does it make, you ask? Choosing to abort a pregnancy is not against the law but murder certainly is.

I, too, think that Singer is a bit of a nutjob but a comparison between the killing of a 9-year-old boy and the ending of a pregnancy is unfair.
3 months ago: Agreed, the comparison is unfair.

Anti-abortionist don't make the distinction between a walking, talking, thinking individual and an undetermined possibility to become such.
3 months ago: Six,

Until I am walking and talking I have NO RIGHTS whatsoever?

I respect you but that's some of the worst BS you have EVER posted.

That is worse than a disappointing statement; It's reprehensible.
3 months ago: Actually by law you don't have any rights until you are 18 years old.

In reality your right to life begins somewhere around 12 weeks after conception but could be pushed a few more weeks along depending on the state, the doctor and the reasons why the question is being asked.

As for walking and talking, that was an exaggeration because it was directed at ANTI-abortionist attempting to equate a young boy (nine years old) to the same physical status as a fertilized egg.

I don't think fertilized eggs walk and talk, but I know that nine year old's do so to me they are not equal.

Just because I am pro-abortion does not mean I am pro-murder. I do have my limits for when abortion can be preformed. I just have a different view of when "human life" begins.
3 months ago: "In reality your right to life begins somewhere around 12 weeks after conception but could be pushed a few more weeks along depending on the state, the doctor and the reasons why the question is being asked."

So then any abortions after that point SHOULD be considered MURDER in fact even if not considred murder by our legal system?

That's a better stance than many but I believe still falls short. However we ave to sttart somewhere to get folks to put wat is going on in perspective and get this madness under control if not eliminated.

If most of the pro-death organizations spent as much time supportin gadoption referrals and other types of financial, psychological and medical support for expectant or high risk mothers, this scourge and blight could be reigned in.

As it is the butcher shops are full speed ahead and even have the nerve to try and get Crisis Prenancy centers that don't provide abortions SHUT DOWN. Sick.

The motivations are clear and have been from the time these centers were targeted toward and planted in poor and minority communities. Nothing has changed other than smoke screens to cover up the real intentions.
3 months ago: What right did she have to do that? She didn't own him.
She is a selfish and ignorant person and I hope she gets locked up for life.

This child, Huey, was 9 years old. By that time they are vibrant and full of life. There are set laws in place against murdering a person. I'm against abortion, but this is murder without any political discussion to whether it is right or wrong.

3 months ago: The comparison is absolutely fair.

Suppose the law changes tomorrow, then what? Should we no longer me morally outraged because the government and maybe even a majority of people now say it is ok or legal to murder those under ten years old?

I don't think so. Get real.

This woman's atrocity and the example I gave are the same. It is never right to end an innocent life for our capricious whims. Both acts are equally wrong, selfish and despicable.
3 months ago: Clearly your argument is based on the belief that life begins at conception. Not all will agree.
3 months ago: Agreement does not make right or wrong. SOmeting can be a right and still be wrong.

If the law changed tomorrow to legitimize the killing of 10 year olds, would you consider that to be a moral law even though it is a legal right? If you disagree with it, would you stand up against it or would you just let it go?
3 months ago: That would eventually wipe out the human race. I don't think that would ever happen because of a few crazy people's abuse. The majority of parents love their kids.
This concept could lead to an increase in serial killers. That will never happen.
I am against abortion, but I don't say it is the same.
3 months ago: Dia where does life begin to you. It has to start at the beginning and the beginning is conception. Without conception there is no life.
Oh well.
3 months ago: What does that have to do with the murder of a 9 year old boy? You are attributing one event with the other when the two are not related. Well unless you are implying that the woman who murdered her son because she was worried about him providing for her retirement is the same as:

rape, incest, mother has health problems, fetal health problems, unready for responsibility, is too immature or young to have child (ie under 16), woman's parents want her to have abortion, has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood, husband or partner wants her to have abortion,
has all the children she wanted or all children are grown, can't afford baby now,
concerned about how having baby would change her life, and doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant.

These are the reasons for a abortion given in survey's from 1987 to 2011 from those whom have done it in the states. The question of abortion isn't black and white. It also has circumstances and situations attached to it. When simply it isn't your body that is having this child and also it isn't your choice to make.

Is it fair to make a family that can not afford to have a child have one? is it fair to make a impoverish family care for a handicapped child when they can not support themselves? Well the easy answer is they shouldn't have had sex in the first place.Not allowed to use contraceptives because that is morally wrong too.

So now your stand point would be a married couple can not be intement with one another simply because they lack the means to take care of a child? Now you are deciding for them if they should have been married in the first place. Since they lack the means to live and care for one another.

You see how quickly your moral high ground erodes from doing the right thing to ruling a persons life? Life isn't so simple as black and white. It is a multitude of colours and grays.
3 months ago: "Ruling a person's life". What a concept! Isn't that the idea?
3 months ago: I'm with Huey that life begins at conception. It's a little life force coming together struggling to live with all its heart and might. It fights to live.
A living being is just that. Nobody has a right to stop that goal to live.

Huey in one sense is not entirely wrong. A life that is functioning out in the world has already made their place, and then anyone out and out planning to kill them is in another category and a homocidal maniac.
3 months ago: This kind of thinking would only encourage murderers to do go all out. It wouldn't end at 10 years old. Everyone would be a target.
3 months ago: What this mother has done is a very serious crime. She should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. To end her child's life over something so trivial as getting a good wife and ensuring she has a happy retirement is ridiculous.

A child trust in there parents to not hurt them let alone kill them. It is a betrayal of the highest level of trust we can give to someone. I hope she lives until she is 110 years old and has a long, long time to think on what she has done. But then, I am implying that she has the capacity to rationally think about what she did in the first place.
3 months ago: To the max! It sure is a betrayal.
Even at this time when my kids are big, I'm still protective.
To kill a child is sick, cold, and selfish. I couldn't even look at that person.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
3 months ago: I can sort of understand where Huey is coming from because I was raised Catholic. They believe that life begins at conception. But then again the Catholic church also thinks that condoms are a sin and 98% of Catholics use contraceptives in violation of the Catholic strictures. You would have to be nuts to equate a few differentiated cells to the life of a mother, yet to the radical anti abortionists who make no accommodation for the safety of the mother, that is the case. Skin cells also have the genetic material that can be cloned to create a new human, yet millions of skin cells are sloughed off every day.

Life is sacred and should be respected and protected, yet many of these same anti abortionists would shoot and kill someone that looked at them sideways without a thought, and these are the folk who also support the death penalty and send our young men off to be slaughtered in some senseless war.

I am not too familiar with What Peter Singer, but it seems that what he believes is that all life is sacred including other animals. We do terrible experiments on chimpanzees and other animals and his book Animal Liberation, condones setting them free. Chimpanzees are humans closest relatives sharing over 99% of the same genes.

I consider a fetus to be a potential human and the value of that fetus increases as it approaches viability. Koko the gorilla could communicate and had a vocabulary of thousands of words. She was judged to have the equivalent intelligence of a six year old child. Why don't the radical anti abortionists get all excited about the genocide of the wild apes? Would a week old blastula be valued more than a chimpanzee? Would it make any difference if that chimpanzee was a loving mother?

Pigs are also very intelligent, and have feelings, yet few people protest the slaughter houses or the inhumane conditions they are raised in.

Killing any child is wrong and anyone that considers doing that is certifiably insane by definition.

Content Removed by Sunny1
3 months ago: Wow.

No wonder we have the problems we have with regard to the value of human life.

A baby in the womb is not deserving of protection and a chipanzee is 99% human?

I'm sure if it came to it, a person like youself that had a choice of killing a Down's Syndrome baby or killing KoKo the Gorilla, that baby has no chance at all.

Pretty damn sick if you ask me.
3 months ago: Al, silence is golden. You prove my point.
3 months ago: The chance of being born is just that.
We all have to start to grow from somewhere in every aspect of life, so why can't we consider it from the very start of being a mass of cells. We don't have all the answers at this time.

Many Catholics don't believe in the rigidity of the church which can hurt more than help. I don't get angry with the faith. Someday they will have to make changes. It depends on who is running the show.
In the case of the choice between saving a mother or child that would be up to the mother I would think. I know that it would sicken me to lose a child. I had one miscarriage, and it hurt me for a long time to lose my first.
The choice of life would be a last minute call.
The laws can't govern every human condition of life. It's still going to come down to the individual, and to that person alone, there is no law that wasn't meant to be broken if they agree with it or don't agree with it.
3 months ago: You wonder why a mother who loses her child by miscarraige, sickness, or accident becomes distraught. In her mind, that child is a person right at conception. Why is it that so many others know better than the mother?
3 months ago: Because "mothers" given choices, might make one that "others" don't like.
3 months ago: A good mother wants her child.
Any other decision made by a women, not a mother, because she isn't one if she chooses for the healthy child to be aborted, is not worthy. In that case, maybe the father wants the child or the family and will take that child and raise it. No one should kill a child.

3 months ago: A person can not pick and chose what tenant of their chosen religion to follow or to ignore. They have agreed to follow it and its leaders and that is what they must do or they must pick another or none. To do any less is to live the life of a hypocrite. They can work from within to change it but must follow it until it is changed.

A miscarriage is not a choice and is usually not wanted and results in different emotions than those brought about by having made a choice.
3 months ago: If a person is confused by religion all they have to do is follow the word of God and that's all. Not everyone can follow rules, but they can follow God. Doesn't mean anything. A church provides a foundation which most people need in religion. People bring about the change if it is a good thing for all.
You are more rigid than I am in your ideas. Who can tell anyone, do it or else?
I know many priest who think differently than the church and many rebel. Sooner or later something will change regardless of what I think or you think.

Of course a miscarriage is not a choice when it happens, and it is unfortunate. You are talking to one who knows that pain.
I was trying to compare those real emotions of a mother's loss with those other women involved politically and don't even think for themselves. It is about them, not the baby. A baby shouldn't have to fall into the hands of choice to whether it has a right to live.

3 months ago: Yes when it comes to others who espouse a religious idea as unrefutable law for all, as in believe or something bad will happen to you after you die, I am very rigid - they must adhere to all the "rules" they claim they believe in or they are hypocrites. Other than that I'm pretty flexible.

Set the moment when a baby becomes a baby rather than egg and sperm or even fertilized egg. Now get everyone in the world to agree with your "moment". Until then, the choice is the "mothers" or shall I say egg carrier.
Content Removed by Sunny1
3 months ago: I don't believe anyone should force their beliefs on another person. I don't believe anything bad happens to you after you die. I do believe that God is good and forgiving or else we would all meet somewhere not so good. None of us are perfect.

From what I have seen from some pretty bad dudes, is that they get it right back here on this earth if they do harm to others.I don't think I ever believed in fire and brimstone. I do believe people can be the devil himself and do bad deeds continuously. They are incorrigibles and the prisons are full of them.

How are you flexible if you don't have true understanding of other people's thinking. There are no rules set in stone because rules change and people make the rules, but God doesn't change. I think religion (church) can misguide people many times because they don't have the flexibility in thinking and must follow rules. I will never be rigid in my thinking.

Well, Six, unless you can get pregnant and carry a baby for nine months, then you don't understand that a mother who is really a mother knows her baby from the moment of conception. She feels it in her heart. I don't see what is wrong with that. Any child with a caring and loving mother has a chance and is lucky when born. A father is the same way if he is truly a parent to be.
"An egg carrier" that's kind of cold, except some people deserve that. Then, of course, what is going on in the world today doesn't paint a good picture of all women who are pregnant, especially when they are drug users or give their children HIV. Babies can be born in laboratories then what will be have to say about it. Where is choice there? When are then alive and worthy to live at that point?

You are intelligent and flexibility should come with that. I can see another person's point of view. I do see and understand where you are coming from.
3 months ago: NY Laws to protect the unborn:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/ai...

States listed to protect the unborn:
http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/State...
3 months ago: Rattled the right cages and got the Reponses I expected.

Anyone who cannot see the connection and believes that the sole connection is religious is about as ignorant as it gets.

Baby in the womb is just as alive as any 9 year old. The killing of either is murder and needs to be seen for the repugnant act that it is.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
3 months ago: The Guttmacher Institute is a research organization that operates under so-called "guiding principles" that include support for legalized abortion.

In 2004, the institute conducted a survey of women who had abortions. When women having abortions were asked what their primary reason was, 4% said it was because of their personal health, 3% said it was because of possible problems affecting the health of their unborn child, and less than 1% said it was because of rape or incest.
There are your reasons. Given by a pro-abortion organization. Babies are killed in this country and around the world most of the time for convenience.

Every time I see a response that ignores that MONYUMENTAL FACT, I realize how ignorant and blind people can choose to be. Sick.

Abortion is a legal right, but it is still WRONG; Just as wrong as killing any other child whether some folks will admit to that truth or not, that does not change the facts.
3 months ago: Very true and when you look at the full data those numbers jump up to the 21% level with the upper mains being: the pregnancy is threatening the mothers life and the unborn child has multiple health problems. Rape gets it own category and pct and incest also gets its own category.

Choosing to end a life is never easy, nor should it be done out of hand because of inconvenience. Which also happens and also has a high pct when you add up: parents said no kids for jou! Or the woman will end up a single parent, or she doesn't want the child, or her partner doesn't want it etc...

But again we come back to the colour of our world. A babies life doesn't stop after birth, nor does its care. Quality of life is also a factor, it is well and good to say no life should ever be ended for any reason. But it isn't you who has to take care of that infant child. They will either end up in a orphanage, foster care, or gang cared for. A few will make it into the homes of good people who will love and raise them. But the bulk will get eaten by the system. That is one more criminal on the streets or a homeless individual without education and prospects.

If all the social programs in our world functioned as they were supposed too and every family was loving and caring this wouldn't be a issue. Our world isn't that nice nor that idealistic in nature. But then the problems in our world are easy to solve, we just choose not to solve them. In the end you can picket another persons choice and condone it. But what have you done to end the reason those parents have to go to that clinic?

You block social programs to help them: health care, it is un American for the government to step in, Money shouldn't be spent on these things it caused our problems! Government need to butt out of education, no contraceptives, no health education, no sex education aloud, crime etc... Each of these things adds to that woman being there, eliminate the reason for them to go. Then you are left with only health
3 months ago: "A child trust in there parents to not hurt them let alone kill them. It is a betrayal of the highest level of trust we can give to someone."

I couldn't agree with that sentiment more.

It is truly overwhelmingly tragic and abominable that today, the womb of a mother, is the most DANGEROUS place to be on planet earth. Hands down.

That speaks volumes as to where people's heads are as well as to where the masses of humanity are heading.
3 months ago: When I was having my children the world seemed like a better place. It was more about families.
Today it has grown cold and colder by each day, but I refuse to give in to it.
Those reasons they give for abortions are generic and not real.
It is like anything else where the intention is to get what they want at any cost, including lying through their teeth.
It's all about the kids with me. You don't ever harm them. They have to be given a chance.
Again, what about the babies that will be kept on ice in labs Will they be considered masses of cells only.
3 months ago: Those reason are generic because it comes off of a statistic sheet listing the categories for reasons couples have for a abortion over the last 27 years. Which: "Causes a health risk to the mother" is the category term for everything that can cause complications to the mother. If you want specific conditions it causes I can list them. As a mother you should already know them, like fetal diabetes. There are some serious health risks you can developed while having a child.

For example my sister wasn't ever supposed to have children. My sisters life nearly ended to have my nephew. A child she only wishes when she wants to play at being mom. I love my nephew, but when I was asked him or my sisters life. My sisters life took priority, now with everything she has done to him in his short 3 years of life. I would have dragged her to that clinic myself, as horrible as that may sound to you sunny. I have to stand by and watch as her and her husband do everything in their power to psychologically mess him up. I get to watch and it rips me apart every time.

It also becomes a total different story when you have to hold a living thing in your arms and try comforting it as it is convulsing and dieing. Who's life is more important? who do you pick when that choice is yours to make? Abortion isn't so simple a thing that you go have it done on a Sunday and you are back to your normal life Monday morning.

Are there people who do it for the wrong reasons? yes there are, just like there are religious people who only quote the bible and point fingers when it suites them to do so. But you had better never turn that book around and tell them to actually read what it says.

Abortions have there place and there are good causes for them to happen. Even when you do not want them too happen. Some times you do not get to make that call because the woman whom you love is going to die if it doesn't happen.
3 months ago: Nethel, you certainly have experienced life at a young age. You can only watch and your hands are tied.
I know the physical reasons why, Nethel. What I simply don't understand is a mother not wanting her child.
A mother's life should take priority when there has to be a tough choice of life or death.
Too bad you can't raise the child? I had a neighbor who was not good and had two kids. Her sister filed to take them away from her.
I don't like people who have kids and get pregnant again and want an abortion because they simply don't want another one.
3 months ago: I know there are plenty of people out there with arguments on both sides. Wish I could see it.
Content Removed by Sunny1
Content Removed by Huey Newton
Content Removed by Huey Newton
3 months ago: (Sorry for the deletions)

"You know what gets me is that conception is recognized as a baby's beginnings when it isn't wanted." Sunny1

If what you mean is that the baby's beginnings are NEVER acknowledged or recognized unless the baby is wanted, you are absolutely right.

If that WERE NOT the case there NEVER would have been a time in our nation or anywhere else, that partial birth abortions were legal or that they were not universally and without reservation condemned. NEVER.

"All we are dealing with is the removal of parasitic fetal tissue. No big deal. No reason to think more deeply than that about it either." – The Lost Boys and Girls Knuckle Draggers Club, LLC.

It's thinking like that leads both directly (to the unashamedly wicked) and indirectly (to the willfully ignorant and the blind) that leads to what DAO brought to our attention here.

The sad part is that some folks just refuse to connect the dots. So the tragedies like these continue to happen.
3 months ago: I'm saying that a baby's beginnings will be recognized at conception by the mother when she is irritated that she is carrying it and does not want it. So right there at that point, she considers it a life, and it is a living breathing person while other people say it isn't.
It only testifies to the fact that it is a human life at conception.
Where others argue it isn't a life only cells, she recognizes it then. It is all arguments, politics, and a lot of noise.
3 months ago: Sorry Huey I typed it wrong:
Huey, it is hard to fight the world even with a new born baby at risk of being killed.
If a mother and father love that child from the very first, the chances of its survival is great. Conception and a child are one in the same. No difference. People are thrilled over a baby being born.
When a child is unloved and unwanted at conception, there is no connection to that child. There is a lot of resentment. You are dealing with a crazy world.
You know what gets me is that conception isn't recognized as a babies beginnings when it isn't wanted.
3 months ago: I really don't understand why it isn't acknowledged as the beginning of life.
It is a way out for them to get rid of it and fight over it and debate it.
How do they know anyway?
At least a mother knows for certain that there is a live being there from conception.
3 months ago: "Abortions have there place and there are good causes for them to happen."

What? OMG. G – is for "GOSH"

There is NEVER a good cause for aborting unwanted children. Since when is pre-mediated murder ever "a good cause."

There may be an empathetic cause; a tragic and unfortunate cause; but never is there a GOOD CAUSE.

Am I right on this one, or does someone want to run at me and fight this one out?
3 months ago: I think the phrase "good cause" was used improperly by Nethel. A better phrase would have been "good reason". You can still argue that there are no good reasons for an abortion but since you are fanatically anti-abortion, it is your duty to deny any good reason for one to occur. A cause has a lot more to it than a reason because it brings to mind groups of people while a reason can be more personal.

You are right there are no good causes for abortions. There are many good reasons, even if you can't agree with any of them.

IMO, As for your disclaimer that OMG was short of Oh My Gosh, sorry, no matter how you try to spin it, OMG is short for Oh My God. Same as saying any other emphatic response to something that shocks or surprises you, there is the root saying and there are alternate sayings that you can try to pass off as what you meant to say but they all lead back to the root saying and mean the same thing. Either you do not say such things or you do.

My dad used to say "Well I'll be John Brown" when he was surprised or pissed, but I always knew he meant "Well I'll be Jesus Christ" or if really pissed "Well I'll be God Damned". No matter how you try to gloss it over, the root meaning is always there so either don't say it at all or be honest about it.

I am as flexible on that as you are on when a child comes into existence.

We are a society that functions best under a set of laws that we have, or our ancestors have, agreed to. At present, what you call murder IS NOT what the law calls murder.

Your stance is that when the sperm fertilizes the egg a fully developed child is formed that can be murdered. Any further back along the development path and all you have is an egg and a sperm and unless you really want to press the point, destroying either of them is not murder.

As you know, I'm a bit more lenient since I have different opinions on what chemical birth control actually does with the egg and sperm and any eggs already fertilized. There is a point when I will call some abortions murder but they are much further along the timeline.

What the women in the story did was murder. I'm pretty sure she is mentally ill.
3 months ago: The OMG thing was a joke. I really didn't expect it to get dissected or hit a sensitive spot with you. My bad.

Anyway, Nethel can speak for himself as to whether e meant "good cause" or "good reason." I hear where you are coming from.

And far as "good reason" there can be some understandable circumstances, but those would be few and far between if folks were taught to actually value the sanctity of human life, were not so incredibly self-centered and irresponsible.

"At present, what you call murder IS NOT what the law calls murder." Just like partial birth abortions were at one time NOT considered murder.

My point still stands, a legal RIGHT can still be WRONG.

Folks just need to stop playing games and admit to the dastardly deed they are continuously perpetrating on te defenseless and the innocent and stop acting like no one should be outraged and that anyone who speaks up for the unborn is some type of loon.
3 months ago: When the pregnancy puts the mothers life at risk, when the child's quality of life is less then 10pct from health defects. When the woman was raped and/or is being forced to have children. Those are good reasons for to have abortions available.
3 months ago: So at what point during the pregnancy do those "good reasons" become justifications for legal murder?

BTW - those are by far, the smallest percentage of "good reasons" that abortions are performed. The vast majority are done for purely selfish motives.
3 months ago: When you have to choose between the mother and the child or lose one/both. Do not confuse what I am saying for not knowing the full weight of the decision. You will notice that in all my posts that I have a very specific set of circumstances when I say abortions are a choice. I include the other catagories for abortions because it happens. I couldn't hold my position of having that choice by ignoring the others simply because they remove credibility of my position.

Huey, even my good reasons are selfish ones. There is always an alternative to the abortion. What I am saying is weighing those alternatives against the abortion also has to be looked at. Sure you can just have the child and then give it away to the state, one more kid in the system. But as I have already explained, that isn't a solution when you look at the whole.

Picking the mother over the child is selfish because I am saying they are more important then the child regardless of its development level in the womb. The difference is I accept the full gravity of that decision and I will not shrink the responsibility of that decision. My good reasons account for about 42-45% of all abortions, 21% health risk to mother, 21% health of the child, rape 1%, incest 0.5%-1% etc...

The other 58% include forced abortions by family, spouse and the mother. But also includes the family can not support the child. So rather then all the medical expenses of taking the child to term and birthing, they decide to abort it. Is that a wrong choice? depends on how you are looking at it.

I can afford a child, you can afford a child, they can not, nor the medical expenses involved. To do so pushes them further under the water and it is killing them slowly. That is the reality of there situation. But I didn't include that 21% into my good reasons, because I was taught to make it work and do without if I have too.
3 months ago: But that is my stand point and not something I can enforce or project onto another person. That is the standard I hold myself too and can not hold anyone else too it. I have admitted already that yes, there are abortions that do not have a circumstance for the abortion. Ie the parents simply do not want the child and terminate it. Do I think that is wrong? yes, because there are alternatives too it. But I can not hold them to that because it isn't my decision to make.

I will however defend the right for those people to make that choice and for those who truly do need the abortion. I have known families you desperately wanted children but the wife could not carry a child to term because of the health impacts.

One couple I know tried 5 times, 3 times her body rejected the child and two abortions because both her and the child were going to die if it continued. Can I look my friend in the eye and tell him he should have let both of them die? I can not, because in his place I would have made the same decision as him. Just like I know when my fiance and I decide to have children we will be in for a long ride and she may not be able to at all because she has a hyper thyroid condition that messes with her. Which will make it difficult for us to have children.

That doesn't bother me, we can adopt and I will not love that child any less for it.
3 months ago: I re-iterate -

"So at what point during the pregnancy do those "good reasons" become justifications for legal murder?"
3 months ago: Again: When you have to choose between the mother and the child or lose one/both
3 months ago: Again, what?
3 months ago: I think it was pretty clear when the good reasons become justification for murder. When the mothers life is at risk because of the pregnancy and to continue it will result in her death or hers and the child's. There is no miss interpretation in that statement you can make. It has a single interpretation of when.
3 months ago: Wanted to make sure YOU used the word, not me.

Too many people candy coat this issue rather than deal with what it actually is.
3 months ago: I already had multiple times, but my points still stand on abortion.
3 months ago: No. You had not.

You had previously only used the word MURDER in connection with that Indonesian woman killer her son. You had not used the word MURDER in regard to abortion and the killing of unwanted babies.

Now you have. I give you credit for honesty and candor.

I wish other folks would be as honest and acknowledge the truth about this issue too.

Too many folks still want to make excuses and deny reality rather than accept responsibility and truly own up to all of the consequences of their actions.
3 months ago: Huey, there is no other interpretation of: if the mothers life is at risk abort the pregnancy. You are ending a life to preserve another. There is no room for miss interpretation of that sentence. You can use the term murder, kill, ended, aborted, they all mean the same thing in the context being used.

But as I said, the choice of abortion is the sole decision of the parents. Not ours, abortions also have there purposes ie, saving the mothers life from a terminal pregnancy. That choice is theirs, not mine, nor anyone else. It is an option they have. If you want to drop the other 58% of abortions I would start with health care, education, employment, wages, cost of living and all the factors that add up to your current economic problems and inequalities. 58% is a lot and where you should focus your attention over those who choose to have an abortion for health reasons.
3 months ago: A direct answer is often the best answer. I get tired of some dodging specifics when it comes to issue of monumental proportions like this one.

Murder is murder regardless of how you slice it. There are those that refuse to call abortion murder. I am glad you are not in that number because that mean you at least admit and understand it.

"But as I said, the choice of abortion is the sole decision of the parents."

That is correct. A lot of times however, the parents do not have all the information and make poor choices.

It's good to know there are folks and agencies out there to support and help the parents makes choices that lead to life and not death. They need our utmost support especially when they are experiencing pressure to either refer women for abortions as a front-line option or else close their doors.
3 months ago: What about those who take matters into their own hands and don't care.
They are everywhere. They are ignorant and will continue their dark and devious practices no matter what the law states.
"Choice" that's a big word.
I believe with what is out there that many are incapable of choice and do what they want and never get caught.
3 months ago: Sunny the logic behind making abortion clinics available to the public is the same for when it started. The back alley abortion clinics caused a lot of fatalities from improper procedures, poor health conditions and untrained individual performing them. By moving it out of the underground system you can impose quality restrictions, safety protocols and training standards. It is also recorded and filed for references and has a paper trail that one can follow if something is not on the up and up.

There will always be people who use the service like a get out of jail free card. That will not change if the clinics go back to the back alley or stay where we can monitor them. Just like there will always be war and always criminals. All we can do is limit the number of them by providing education, knowledge and a place in our societies for them. They still have to make the choice to do so. You can not force a choice on another person.

Only explain your standpoint on the subject and if they revise their opinion based on what you have informed them. Then great, if not, that is their choice. Doing what ever they want is also a choice they make. That is why we have social laws and social contracts to provide a semi structured system of behavior and laws. If you break them you are punished for the transgression. Our problem right now is abusive uses of the system and not providing proper oversight to those we elect into positions of influence.

But that comes back to people being too lazy to take active interests in the system.
3 months ago: Try to fix the 50% that listen that's all you can possibly attempt to do.
You are right in your comment.
People will always revert in doing what they want and not think twice about it.
I have no idea on how they will regulate any of this.


Content Removed by Sunny1
3 months ago: NETHEL

WAKE UP!
He's still sleeping out there.
I can't wait to hear what he has to say.
3 months ago: I am awake Sunny, just do not have a lot of time in the mornings for lengthy replies :)
3 months ago: Wow, you get up early in the morning?
I was only kidding.
3 months ago: My day starts early Sunny, get up work out, eat, get ready for work, work 8-12 hours, go to school for 2-3 hours, do home work, eat, sleep. Rinse and repeat until done this semester.
3 months ago: Good for you.
It will pay off for you.
3 months ago: Can't spell today. Apologize.

Since we have the responsibility of being the bearers of children and create them, it is our responsibility to see that they survive. We are given that responsibility whether it is in the stages of sperm/egg, fertilized egg, or not, we are still responsible to see that the child is born when he or she is ready. We protect our health, so we have to protect the unborn. That guarantees that life goes on.
I'm speaking from an obvious point of view.
It is so simple.
3 months ago: If a child is born with down syndrome, it doesn't mean it won't be loved and cared for. These children have potential. Parents are very dedicated to them.

http://www.pathfindervillagestories.org/

Cerebral palsy is caused by damage to the motor control centers of the developing brain and can occur during pregnancy, during childbirth or after birth up to about age three. Premature babies are vulnerable.
New medical treatments increased the survival percentage.

The thing here is that children can be ill before birth or after.
They can get sick at any time. We don't rid ourselves of them when they become ill or have a problem. Same thing as carrying a child.
That Indonesia woman got rid of her child because the child she thought was not perfect. Look how selfish that choice was.
It isn't all cut and dry. It has to be a really bad medical reason.

3 months ago: If you made 9/hr and your husband made 11/hr could you afford to live, pay for medical expenses (do not forget the mother is now out of work and the house hold is on a single income now). Plus pay for the medical treatments for a disabled child, education and upkeep fees for 18 years. Can that family provide higher level education and opportunities for him/her?

"All you need is love", were life that simple we wouldn't have poverty, poor health, war and a controlling elite.
Content Removed by Sunny1
3 months ago: I'm certain there are a lot of people out there at this time going through it.
Plus, there are plenty of grants out there for higher education for anyone willing to go to school.
Nobody said it was easy. People do it somehow.
3 months ago: For that matter we can say kill everyone who isn't perfect.
Children, teenagers, seniors, everybody.
Kill because their skin is a different color.
Kill because they come from another culture.
Kill because the mother was raped and doesn't want to birth the child.
(She could give it away to someone who will love it).

No matter how a child arrives here, they were meant to live.
All the same.

3 months ago: They tried that in ww2, it didn't end well for them. I wouldn't recommend it.
3 months ago: I know. That was a bad time in history.
Even today when I think about it, I wonder how people were so taken in by that mad man.
3 months ago: Because the world forced them into that position. Germany was so crippled after WW1 that the people were very angry and resentful. It was very easy for Hitler to explain why they were hurting and who's fault it was. Political groups use the same tactics he did. Terms like: it is un American, if you were any kind of patriot you would..., or That idea is (insert rival political group here) and you do not want to be them!

Basically a political figure used the peoples own patriotism against them to rise to power. It was a snowball that turned into a avalanche. Who is causing our economic hardships! well it is the Jews, or the Natives or the Japanese, or the Mexicans who are taking our jobs. They are using our resources and causing economic strain on our country. These people get so desperate they will believe anything so long as it gets them out of the hole they are in. So long as it looks like it works.

Eventually they had to go with the flow or get crushed. People forget the first country the Nazi invaded was their own. It is a historical lesson that shouldn't be forgotten as history tends to repeat itself.
3 months ago: Hitler came in for the kill. He saw his opportunity.
My co worker, a young Jewish girl, was deathly afraid that it could happen again.
I looked at her in shock that she should feel this way. She was only in her 20s at the time.
At this time, everyone must be aware of the power monger terrorists that are out there, and they will forever be there ready to seize that moment of weakness if we don't keep our guard up. We keep them at bay, and so far, so good.
We have strong countries.
3 months ago: It isn't the power monger terrorist you have to worry about, WW2 started domestically and then spilled out over the world. It has been done with religion, politics and economics. Each time from the same two simple trains of thought: "Only we should rule" and "we are better then everyone else so they should do as we say".
3 months ago: People make decisions according to who they are and their circumstances.
Nothing will ever change that, not even laws.
3 months ago: Many people do survive for their children to make it.
There was a person in the family who had 2 deaf boys. She and her husband picked up and went to live and work by a hospital for the deaf. They give up their home, but the boys were their life's blood.
They saw to it that the boys had jobs and before she died she made sure they were set for the rest of their lives. They both were trained and skilled so they held down jobs.
This story was based upon love. All they needed was love. Love can provide the essence to get through the hardest situations.
People don't all feel that way and won't give up anything. They think of themselves and their needs.
Some people tell me their pets, dog or cat, are their children. That's good for them. They didn't want kids in the first place.

I understand what you are saying and your philosophy.

For me when it comes to a mother dying and leaving several kids behind with no one to raise them but a father that must provide, then that is where choice comes in. It is a tough one to make.
If a child is so physically messed up before birth, and it doesn't have a chance to live, then choice comes in there because of unbearable suffering in would bring to the child. Otherwise, you have to give life a chance and enable it.
It is all circumstances. Those people that throw away their lives and don't think twice about tossing a baby in the garbage or sewer deserve to be treated the same. Not everyone has a good heart or human feelings.
3 months ago: Nethel, school is draining. I finished after about 2.5 years. At least I learned a new skill suitable for the times. Thinking of getting a group of people together and opening my own business. I don't want to work for anybody anymore because you can't trust the economy. Never secure with other people running the show. Rather take my chances. Meanwhile I can work from home.
3 months ago: Huey, I don't think people can answer because of the different issues involved with abortion.
Murder is just that "Murder".
You can make a choice let the Mother die and that is Murder.
You can say let the baby go and that is Murder.
Neither one is safe or should be sacrificed. Sometimes it is in the hands of God.
Aborting a child for no reason except to get rid of it is murder.
This is a social issue that nobody has yet to get a grip on.
It's difficult because you are dealing with all kinds of thinking, religious philosophies, cultures, environments. People may be raised harsher and less sensitive.

At one time my aunt was in that position, she was older and had several children. She was about 49, and her husband had to make a choice right that second. They said mother or baby.. He chose my Aunt. It is almost as if God only can make the choice, but sometimes the burden falls on us to bear. It is a cross to carry the rest of your life.

Killing something as beautiful as a child is unthinkable to me, but to someone else they don't bat an eye and will do it in a flash. People won't be backed into a corner on this issue and will stick to what they believe in order to deal with it if the mother is ill and a choice has to be made.

Young mothers don't know very much. They more or less react than think much about raising a child if they can't do it. They don't think and at times they feel ashamed of what their friends will think of them, or they will lose their friends. They think about the father of the child not wanting them. It all very shallow. Perhaps that's why so many are aborted. They don't know any better.

3 months ago: Nonbelievers and believers have deeply rooted opinions.
We think differently from one another, and at the same time, we wind up in the same life boat trying to save each other from these problems.
Sometimes I wonder whether we will sink or swim, but I do know it will be as one.
What is that common ground or glue that brings us together?
That is a thought to attend. Bottom line is the law will make the decision for us if we can't agree.
3 months ago: Diatribes - you never answered my question so I will re-post it.

"If the law changed tomorrow to legitimize the killing of 10 year olds, would you consider that to be a moral law even though it is a legal right?"

Also -

If you disagreed with it (the law), would you stand up against it and fight or would you just let it go?"
3 months ago: I'll toss in my two cents: No such law could be passed in a legal system like our own. It would be repealed before the ink even dried on the page. This is because it infringes on the legal rights of the child.

The difference between being a born individual and a yet to be born individual. Is the entitlment to certain basic human rights. Where an unborn person is not because they are not yet a legal entity separate from the mother. As the mother has full legal rights to her body and power of attorney to decide any medical procedures she under goes.

Our legal system for that has changed a bit, granting the unborn partial legal status once they reach a level of maturity that they can be considered a independent entity of the mother. The mother has full rights to her own legal person and while the unborn child is not considered a independent entity she is with in her legal rights to decide if she wants to terminate the pregnancy. Along with accepting all the medical risks for that decision.

Now hypothetically should we be in a system where it does allow the murder of a 10 year old child solely on the basis of the parents concern of that child being a provider for their golden years. Which allowed them to kill the child should they not be in the top 1 or 2 pct of society.

The law would never have come into place because to enact such a law would mean the previous generation were denied their legal right. For you to ensure their welfare. Which means you would also be executed for failure to provide for them. The law would never get passed because it is counter productive. That and there is no law stopping you from killing your children already. Only a consequence from doing so, nothing can stop you from doing it in the first place. Other then a witness who will attempt to prevent it from happening.
3 months ago: DAO - Nethel thre in his two cents on the hypothetical.

You wrote this piece. Are you now going to ignore an honest question from a faithful reader?

What would you do? What stance would you take if that were in fact a reality?

I'll await your answer.
3 months ago: Nethel, You said: It isn't the power monger terrorist you have to worry about............

And every one of them that tried has been insane and met their downfall.
3 months ago: Have they? From where I am sitting I still see ethnic cleansing, religious/political/sexual persecutions, a single nation dictating global laws all others must follow or be invaded, terrorism, dictatorships, ruling elites and global enterprises that control the vast majority of our economic systems.

As well as governmental groups that priorities their own agendas over top of the people they represent. Because our political system has changed from one of representation to a system of political segregation. I see a lot of things going on in the world and I have to ask myself are we any further ahead then we were with Hitler? Because the lessons we learned from WW1 and 2 seem to not have smartened us up at all.

Well it has made political parties smarter. They learned one group of political activists can take over a country. Start a war the likes of which no one wants to ever repeat. Except we are not doing a very good job of not repeating it.
3 months ago: And no place to run.
3 months ago: You can run from the worlds problems, put your head in the sand and pretend they do not exist. Or simply in most cases people just ignore/ignorant of the realities around them because they are inconvenient/out of sight. But that is one of the hilarities of our world. You can ignore it, but it isn't going to ignore you. Eventually you have to take the blinders off and actually look around. Then start asking the hard questions of yourself.
3 months ago: Diatribes - you never answered my question so I will re-post it.

"If the law changed tomorrow to legitimize the killing of 10 year olds, would you consider that to be a moral law even though it is a legal right?"

Also -

If you disagreed with it (the law), would you stand up against it and fight or would you just let it go?"

I posed these questions to you several days ago.

WHY are you having such a DIFFCULT time answering?
3 months ago: DAO - I didn't know you could be so lame like that.

It's my feeling that when one posts a RANT or a RAVE they should do their best respond to comments from their audience. I guess you don't hold yourself to that type or high of a standard.

What makes this site exciting is that we challenge each other to think and consider things from the other side. We often dialogue about tough and often uncomfortable issues. It takes persons of a certain cut to be able to do that.

Your ignoring my question speaks to your character and shows a profound insecurity on your part. That's unfortunate and I hope you grow up and get over it.

I have enjoyed reading your pieces, but now I guess I have to look at them in another context.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2013 RantRave