Pro-choice / Sexual Harrasment laws

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note from Morgan
*These posts were moved from the health care reform thread to here. Some of it might get a bit lost in the translation. . . sorry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Renee wrote:

lol Cincy, come on! We point out the obvious and we're malcontents?

This plan has some good points, but nothing is worth turning this much control over to the government. If this plan could guarantee FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE TO ALL...I would still vote no if it meant the loss of privacy, loss of control, and centralization of federal powers. I don't need the President to be my daddy. I need the President to remember he's my employee.

So, you are saying you are pro-choice?

The President is neither your daddy nor is he your employee....he is the elected head of the executive branch of our government. The only real power any president has that scares me is the right to declare war....other than the power to veto a bill, he is very limited on what he can and can't do when it comes to legislation.

So does everyone get to pick and choose which laws, individually as they pertain to them equate 'loss of privacy, loss of control and centralization of federal powers." If that is the case, don't ALL laws restrict the actions of individuals?????

The argument of many in favor individual's rights (not necessarily you, Renee...I forget if you are pro-Life, pro-Choice on that issue) pales when you examine their stated position on abortion. Those same people would overturn Roe v. Wade in a heartbeat if they could. And what could be more restrictive of privacy, control and result in less centralized (translated: deaths from backroom illegal abortions) than taking away a woman's right (now a legal right) to decide, to choose in this matter.

The reference to malcontents was directed toward those who are so anxious to jump on the bandwagon about how terrible this new law is without considering the negotiations and fine tuning that are still taking place. And, as noted in another thread on this same subject, the issue of children/pre-existing conditions and 2014 was basically resolved earlier today. So what was "obvious" a few days ago is no longer even accurate.

Cincy, You are missing the point. I don't personally know anyone that is against adult's or children being able to get coverage with or without pre-existing conditions.

It was the lie we were sold about children being covered in 6 months. We were told over and over that children would be covered in 6 months, and only after they pass the bill do they realize that it will be 4 years. The idiots didn't even bother to read it - This bill is a huge deal, the least they could have done is read it, and not lie.

What would you say to those parents that have very sick children that believed they only had to hang on for 6 more months and finally they would be able to get coverage?

Would you honestly say "Full protection in 2014 is much better than no protection now (or ever, if some had their say)."

I think children should have been eligible as soon as the bill was signed into law.

What if some of those children don't have 4 years? What if they only have maybe a year? Can you imagine how those parents felt when they realized they were lied to?

Talk about false hope and promises!

cincy wrote:

So, you are saying you are pro-choice?

The argument of many in favor individual's rights (not necessarily you, Renee...I forget if you are pro-Life, pro-Choice on that issue) pales when you examine their stated position on abortion. Those same people would overturn Roe v. Wade in a heartbeat if they could. And what could be more restrictive of privacy, control and result in less centralized (translated: deaths from backroom illegal abortions) than taking away a woman's right (now a legal right) to decide, to choose in this matter.

I am absolutely, unequivocally pro-life. This in no way contradicts with my conservative viewpoint. I believe in limited government. I believe that the government has the responsibility to promote the general welfare, per our constitution, and the wholesale slaughter of our unborn cannot in any way be justified. And please don't sing the incest/rape/life of mother song. Those abortions result in approximately 1% of all abortions annually. That song has no meaning in honest intellectual debate.

Given this belief...you bet I would overturn Roe v Wade. And celebrate in the doing. Individuals have no innate right to kill another human being, except in case of self-defense, and even that has limits. Certain deaths, such as war or criminal defense, are losses but justified. The right to kill one's unborn child is NOT a right to privacy. That is rhetoric that has been repeated until people accept it as true. By claiming it so, and selling the idea to people, it becomes a constitutional right. Generations of Americans have been sold this faulty bill of goods.

Because I choose to fight for the rights of the unborn, that in no way means I want to give Washington access to my private records. If I have gall bladder surgery, Washington will know. They will also have access to my checking accounts to make sure I pay.

I'm asking you, cincy, can you really equate the issues with integrity?

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, Renee. . . but let's look at this realistically.

Abortion is a slippery slope. When you remove religious beliefs from the equation, for every good reason against it there is an equally good reason for it in a vastly overcrowded world. For each child denied a wonderful existence in a happy home there is another that would have been born to a crack addicted, disease ridden mother. No child should be unwanted and no child should be neglected. Abortion saves children from both of these things. But even given that fact I find no way around the fact that its killing and the sanctity of life is disrespected each time someone smothers out a life simply to finish college.

Now adding back morality I have to agree with you Renee that there is never a good reason to take the life of another human being. . .the question of course being what constitutes a life. For me and obviously for you it begins at conception but where do either of us have the right to impose that belief on another ? God isn't here to answer. We must each decide for ourselves which would of course give some weight to pro-choice.

I am also going to put a mirror up for you to look into and ponder here.

You said . . .

Individuals have no innate right to kill another human being, except in case of self-defense, and even that has limits.


Do you truly believe that Renee ?

because you go on in the very next sentence to contradict yourself completely.


Certain deaths, such as war or criminal defense, are losses but justified.

that certainly sounds like just what you claimed abortion to be . . .rhetoric repeated until even you believed it.


But again I'm with you. For me . . .Life begins at conception and humans should not take another human's life. The difference for me is I go all the way. I'm anti-war, anti death penalty. No killing. None. Never. However, I feel the medical profession makes tough calls all the time on when to end life for the good of everyone concerned and I think they should be allowed to make this one also. I don't care if its one in 10,000. There are still times when this medical procedure is best for all involved and it should remain available for medical purposes.

I do realize that if its available it will be used at will for Buffy to attend her finishing school but I'd still prefer to see it at least labeled as medically necessary.

~

~

I suppose we've started a whole new debate here but since most of us have not read the entire health care bill and there is already another thread discussing it . . . I guess we'll just veer off topic here into the quicksand.

lol Morgan, I love the way you present your arguments, and I've long said, if I can't ponder my own and defend them...what good are they? And I learn things here.

The whole debate about respecting life is difficult. My priest and I disagree on certain aspects and I'm balancing my beliefs with church teachings...and stubbornly holding on to my own in certain aspects.

I'm proud of you for your absolute stance. I really am. I'm just so not there. I guess a part of me is too uncivilized to not know how very close I could come to killing; this man, in his fifties, was flat out ogling my 11 year old daughter at the state fair some years back...and you know the difference between a look and the sick feeling when its a "wrong" look...anyway, I went after him. I shoved him up against the wall and would have easily clawed his eyes out before Joe pulled me back (he thought I'd gone nuts!). The dude ran off with my voice yelling at his back telling him what I thought of him. Bottom line: in protection of my children, I am not civilized. And this was for a look. To protect my children, I could kill.

Your argument about abortion in an overcrowded world ignores one huge fact: babies don't spring up out of nowhere. Reproduction can be avoided. I completely support birth control, or how about just a little self control? Why does an unborn child have to pay the price because someone else chose to have sex, unwilling to accept the natural consequences that could come from having sex?

Everyone brings up the back rooms again, but the fact is, most women are not forced into this procedure. They make the choice. They can readily accept death for their child but not risk to their own health? How wonderfully selfish of them.

As to the protection of life, the slippery slope and deciding for ourselves: as a nation, we MUST err on the side of life. They cannot prove that life does NOT start at conception. Yet unborn children are not registered voters, and that is why this is even an issue.

Finally, you say that abortion saves children from being unwanted or neglected. If that were true, then we wouldn't have the horrifying number of neglected and abused children now. Is it possible that since as a society we have so degraded the value of a child, the weak find it easy to view them as less?

There are no clear answers, and I understand the argument (even if I do not agree) that we must take God out of the equation. HOWEVER, until as a society we begin to err on the side of valuing LIFE, we will continue to erode into a culture of death. The challenge I've presented to other pro-choice debaters, and have never rec'd a good answer to, is this:

For each side, WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG?

If the pro-life position is wrong, but the laws change to prohibit abortions, there will be many unwanted babies born. There will be more adoptions. There will be increased strain on the welfare systems and health services. There will be overcrowding. Many women will die or get injured getting unsafe abortions.

If the pro-choice position is wrong, and things stay the way they are, millions of lives with purpose and meaning are eliminated, an utter holocaust of generations. Millions of babies will die. Millions.

If I say nothing else, can you honestly not see the balance tips far more to one side?

It's very late, and I will probably add or amend this after I've had some sleep, but I'm pretty sure I stand by all I wrote, lol! See you tomorrow, and thank you my friends for honest debate, even on such a volatile issue, that never loses respect. Cincy, Janey, Morgan, thank you.

I tend to come down on the side of Morgan that there are many instances where the choice of death (capital punishment) or senseless wars resulting in death are not what I desire. Capital punishment and abortion issues are legal issues, just as national health care is. I brought up abortion and right to life as an EXAMPLE of a legal issue where the choice option is now the law, attempting to illustrate that voices that often cry out for the rights of the individual (federalists/Constitutionalist) find instances (such as abortion) where the do not look at matters on an individualized basis. To those people, I would just hope they can look at this new national health care plan as a way that many lives will be saved and prolonged, or lived to a higher degree of quality. If bringing that about means a loss of some individual freedoms or more government involvement in implementing programs to effectuate the law, to me, the end result is more than worth it. If it’s not worth it to someone else....if the end result is not in their view worth their own individual sacrifice or inconvenience, they can work to repeal the law just as some would like to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Sometimes (and I am so so very NOT talking about Renee or anyone else here), people use the argument that the government is too involved to simply mask and put a pretty face on their selfishness. They are not willing to have their own financial well-being jeopardized so that others less fortunate may benefit. For many people, it really does all come down to the money and to their complacent belief that they will never be among those who need the assistance, that someone they know will never be in that situation. Health care is just the most recent battle for those people who fight every school bond issue simply because their own children are grown or attending private schools; who want to do away with the welfare system, etc. I also know that among that very same group of people, there are so many who will be first in line to volunteer and to donate in times of crisis because most Americans are, by nature, a giving and generous group of people.

Health care, abortion, capital punishment, violent deaths through accident or war....all of those things are for me “but for the grace of God” issues. The issues among them where I actually do have a chance to impact the outcome and make that grace a universal possibility are, for me, not financial considerations or threats to my privacy, but rather a method of putting my faith into action.

So that's why, after 20 years of trying to see this come about, I am celebrating where others might not be.

I do believe the government is way more involved in our lives than it should be.

For instance, why is it a legal issue if a boss uses sex or pressure to have sex to control your future ? Why is it not a public issue taken up by the companies and used as a bargaining chip to get you to work for a certain company. We are a company free of sexual harassment - we'll fire anyone who does. Simply don't work for the other guy - its your choice or hell go sleep your way to the top in the company that allows it. It's your choice. Instead you can sue the whole company for the actions of an individual because the government has their hand in it. Result ? cost to the consumer.

And on and on


But back to the abortion issue. Renee, like all things you need to walk a mile in someone's shoes before you can truly say you know what you would do. Perspective changes everything . .

I don't believe in abortion. I would never have one. I'd face the consequences of my own health to give birth to a child. But is that whats best really ? What about the other children I might leave motherless. What about the child I died to give birth to ? Did I truly give them a better life ?

I know what I believe and what decision I would make but I can also see all sides of the problem is all I'm trying to say.

Try making this decision

Your mentally ill child is institutionalized at 12 years of age. She hears voices in her head that tell her to do terrible things. She tries to kill herself because she believes she caused an earthquake half a world away that killed people. She is lost to reality. She doesn't adapt well to the hospital and somehow even with strict supervision she manages to run away. She lives on the streets for 10 long months in any way that she can. Despite your best and daily heart wrenching efforts along with what seems like half the city to find her you can't. She's now 13 years old and hopelessly mentally lost and confused. You get a phone call from another mother to come and get her. She's pleading to come home. She'll only come if you swear no more mental hospital.

You run to her side and find her emaciated and dirty, drug addicted and shivering, covered in impetigo sores with a horrible chronic cough and lying in a fetal position. She crawls into your lap like a baby and sobs. You rush her to the closest hospital despite her fears and they admit her in restraints. She looks so helpless.

The test results show she has pneumonia, she's dehydrated and emaciated and in the horrors of cocaine withdrawal. Oh yes, and she's 4 months pregnant.

The baby is deemed not viable and will be born to a confused, lost, struggling for her own life barely 13 year old with a penchant for running away. The doctors say her fragile mental state will never survive the birth of the child forget the pain of giving it up and it will most certainly not be adoptable. If you keep the child it will be exposed daily to the confusion of its mother and what if she runs with it ? Worse yet, what if she takes it and lets it die ?

She's barely 13. Only you can make this decision and you strongly don't believe in abortion.

Remember how you said you'd kill to protect your child ?

In the words of the Catholic priest in this situation. 'God wants you to follow your heart. He gave you everything you need to make this decision. Look deep and place yourself in his hands and follow your heart.'


~


It isn't always as easy as it sounds, Renee. Yes, I know this is one baby but there are many reasons why someone makes this decision. And many, many of these babies would be born to crack addict mothers and be horribly abused and neglected. Many more would simply be dealt with as an inconvenience.

Yes, I agree prevention would be the right thing but what happens when no one is listening. What do we then do with the resulting pregnancy ?

I'm with you. No killing. None. Ever. But I also see the results of such strong unbending statements. I see the reality of it and its not pretty.

Sometimes I lean towards God knows we'll find a medical way to control these things . . . who knows . . . maybe he's up there saying ' I gave you the answer - why aren't you using it'.

I'm conflicted to say the least.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Morgan said:

For instance, why is it a legal issue if a boss uses sex or pressure to have sex to control your future ? Why is it not a public issue taken up by the companies and used as a bargaining chip to get you to work for a certain company. We are a company free of sexual harassment - we'll fire anyone who does. Simply don't work for the other guy - its your choice or hell go sleep your way to the top in the company that allows it. It's your choice. Instead you can sue the whole company for the actions of an individual because the government has their hand in it. Result ? cost to the consumer.

When a person sues a company for sexual harassment, a competent and far-reaching attorney (such as the ones I work for) will ask the court if it goes to trial or the other side if a settlement is negotiated that the company be ordered to train its management personnel on sexual harassment policies. When the government becomes involved and says sexual harassment is agains the law, there is no need for a company to state that they will fire anyone who engages in those actions....it's a given. Also, when you sue a company for the actions of one of its individual employees who has engaged in sexual harassment, you have to prove that the company either knew about the harassment and failed to take corrective action. The harassed employee has to show that she made the person's actions known and nothing was done about it.

Do you really think anyone is going to go into a job interview and be told...."we, or people who work here, are gonna sexually harass you. Deal with it or go somewhere else." Far more likely that the company will have handbooks and manuals stating they comply with anti-discrimination and harassment laws and once someone is actually hired and working, they will find out if someone they work with is a harasser and whether the company stands behind its policies.

But thats exactly my point cinc

The government making it illegal is pulling it out of a company level. I don't think it's their business. It's invasive. It's up to the individual company to police its employees and create their own value systems. They can then use those value systems like other benefits to bring in the best employees. If you're employer is Howard Stern then you wouldn't expect that benefit. No, they don't need to tell you in black and white its just not a sexual harassment free workplace you're applying for.

Because the government stepped in a whole new level of jobs was created just to police the system. Good for the people working them but bad for the consumer paying for it.

The law doesn't pertain to all companies across the board anyway. How do you have a workplace free of sexual harassment when you are a strip club ? It's a legal business and certainly they can not protect their employees from sexual harassment. And what about Stern there ? What are his employees exposed to ? And how can the government draw a line on how medical employees touch each other ? Believe me, in a hospital setting all that goes right out the window. Now you're getting into intent which is way out of their league.

Anyway I find that kind of thing way too invasive into the private sector.


~~~

Morgan Rowan wrote:

It isn't always as easy as it sounds, Renee. Yes, I know this is one baby but there are many reasons why someone makes this decision. And many, many of these babies would be born to crack addict mothers and be horribly abused and neglected. Many more would simply be dealt with as an inconvenience.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Morgan, my beautiful Joey, my nephew in this picture, was born to a crack addict and was removed from the home at 1 month because he was being abused. My brother and his wife adopted Joey two years later, even though they were told he tested 5% of normal and that he would never walk. Six months after adoption, my beautiful Joey tested 95% of normal and was running around the house. He will always have challenges, but the love and joy this guy brings to the world...he's like an angel.

The world would be a lesser place without Joey. His start in life was unfair but at the very least, his birth mother didn't abort him and for that I pray for her and give thanks.

How many Joey's has this world lost to abortion? People are better when they're around Joey. It's remarkable but true. How many smiles will never be seen, how many moments of heroism have we lost, moments where Joey's drive to learn, to walk, to run, to love...how many of those moments that in turn inspired others to be better...how many of those moments have been lost to a medical procedure?

The crack addict argument would have judged it better to abort my nephew. Where there is life, there is hope.

Your example of the 13 year old, though tragic, is still not enough to get me to abort the child. You say the child is not viable. If they baby is not viable, then abortion is an acceptable answer (and not against any Catholic teachings), but if you meant to say the baby IS viable, then I would have my daughter bear the child, and raise it myself. I would never give up hope that I would find the way to make it work. I would work equally hard for the 13 year old to get her the help she needed, including hospitalization if necessary. Again, where there is life, there is hope.

And let's just say that the worst scenario of your example came true, and two lives are left to terrible suffering because of my decision. As tragic as that is...it simply cannot balance the scales of millions of babies destroyed. There is simply no honest way those scales can balance.

~

I'm with you Renee in many ways but I still signed the papers and would do it again and may God forgive me.

~

Morgan Rowan wrote:

But thats exactly my point cinc

The government making it illegal is pulling it out of a company level. I don't think it's their business. It's invasive. It's up to the individual company to police its employees and create their own value systems. They can then use those value systems like other benefits to bring in the best employees. If you're employer is Howard Stern then you wouldn't expect that benefit. No, they don't need to tell you in black and white its just not a sexual harassment free workplace you're applying for.

Because the government stepped in a whole new level of jobs was created just to police the system. Good for the people working them but bad for the consumer paying for it.

The law doesn't pertain to all companies across the board anyway. How do you have a workplace free of sexual harassment when you are a strip club ? It's a legal business and certainly they can not protect their employees from sexual harassment. And what about Stern there ? What are his employees exposed to ? And how can the government draw a line on how medical employees touch each other ? Believe me, in a hospital setting all that goes right out the window. Now you're getting into intent which is way out of their league.

Anyway I find that kind of thing way too invasive into the private sector.


~~~

I understand what you are saying, but disagree. Are you perhaps just seeing this from a one-on-one and monetary basis rather? The reason there are laws against sexual harassment (as defined by the government and protected by the legal system) is that people who are subjected to harassment are damaged. Of course, the examples you cite like a strip joint, etc. involve jobs where there is a lesser degree of control, but also there is an assumption of risk. That doesn't mean, however, that an employee there can never have a legitimate case of sexual harassment. Kinda like saying a rape victim asked for it.

Let’s say you have a working mom who takes a job at a restaurant and her manager starts out making suggestive comments guised as compliments, starts inappropriate touching, making sexually oriented comments or jokes. The employee wants to “get along’ and not upset her boss, so she doesn’t do anything. The manager sees that as her being okay with things and it progresses to the point where he is making her so uncomfortable. She tries to fix it herself and tells him to stop or she will report his actions. The manager then escalates his harassment, telling her she has to sleep with him, etc. or he will fire her. He tells her he will say he fired her because she had a bad attitude (or whatever reason he can) and if she makes her complaint, it will be her word against his. Rarely do people who sexually harass their employees have witnesses they are doing it.

So, would your answer be that she should just go get another restaurant job? What if that is the only job she is qualified to do and there are only a couple of restaurants in town and they are not hiring? What is the employee in question is an occupation that is of a more professional nature where she is earning in the hundreds of thousands of dollars? Should she be expected to give that up just because someone is harassing her?

Without government involvement, sexual harassment could never be prevented nor would companies be held responsible for the actions of their employees. You can’t expect the business world to govern itself if there are no consequences. Likewise, you can’t expect the general public to provide the necessary monies, programs and protections that laws like welfare and now national health care mandate unless there are laws to see that they actually do. Do you really think people who are upset about their taxes being raised are going to voluntarily ante up the funds? Do you really think not having laws against sexual harassment will ensure a person a right to work at their chosen profession free of such kind of stuff or if they are robbed of their livelihood because of it, the company should not be penalized?

~
Should she just get another job ? Simple answer . . .Yes

Does it matter how much she is making there ? No

that's my point - if she's a good employee she is valuable to a better company who stands by their no-sexual harassment policies. She leaves and goes to a better place. It becomes a perk like anything else and no government intervention and our freedom to be idiots if we chose to be is preserved. If the government however wants to give the better company a tax break to cover their sexual harassment policing costs I might not be against that. I'd have to think on it a bit.

It's the American way.

Morgan Rowan wrote:

~
Should she just get another job ? Simple answer . . .Yes

Does it matter how much she is making there ? No

that's my point - if she's a good employee she is valuable to a better company who stands by their no-sexual harassment policies. She leaves and goes to a better place. It becomes a perk like anything else and no government intervention and our freedom to be idiots if we chose to be is preserved. If the government however wants to give the better company a tax break to cover their sexual harassment policing costs I might not be against that. I'd have to think on it a bit.

It's the American way.

Nope, the American way is to protect its citizens and their right to the pursuit of happiness. Your way sounds more like the cowboy way. LOL!

So, let's say she does leave and moves on to a better place. What if the person who takes her place is subjected to the same kind of sexual harassment, but because it is goes unpunished or remedied, she becomes so distraught faced with her "choices" of staying or moving on that she can't sleep at night. She becomes depressed. Clinically depressed. Now, you are not just talking about a financial decision, but also a physical and mental one.

I am wondering if you are just playing devil's advocate on this one??? Giving me a chance to "take the higher ground" and be more "politically correct?????" I'm having a hard time believing you are serious (but correct me if I'm wrong).

Nope

I'm serious

I don't need to be protected from my own decisions or from the advances of other human beings and I don't need the government to make sure my life is cushy and free from stress. I need them to keep the shores safe and the roads clean so I can go make my own mistakes.

But honestly cincy, if I worked for a lawyer I'd see it in legal terms too. I don't have any problem with the sense of what you are saying - I just don't agree with it.

Morgan Rowan wrote:

Nope

I'm serious

I don't need to be protected from my own decisions or from the advances of other human beings and I don't need the government to make sure my life is cushy and free from stress. I need them to keep the shores safe and the roads clean so I can go make my own mistakes.

But honestly cincy, if I worked for a lawyer I'd see it in legal terms too. I don't have any problem with the sense of what you are saying - I just don't agree with it.

It is great that you don't need the protection and can live a stress-free life without it and can live with your own mistakes. But what about those who can't.

I'm like you....can't imagine ever personally choosing abortion. But am still pro-choice.

Sometimes, it really really really isn't all about me.

Morgan Rowan wrote:

~

I'm with you Renee in many ways but I still signed the papers and would do it again and may God forgive me.

~

He does and I don't judge you. I love you. And I'm so so sorry you ever had to make that nightmare choice.

It is great that you don't need the protection and can live a stress-free life without it and can live with your own mistakes. But what about those who can't.


I'd say they need more help then the government can give them and will continue to be miserable for as long as someone coddles them into believing its the governments fault.



Government's job in my opinion is not to insure we find happiness, its to protect our right to seek it on our own.

The only way I want them to pave for me is the one under my car tires.




As for health care - I'm all for making it affordable but mandatory ? yikes.


~

Renee

no bash here I do it too - but again you waffle here. I'm just trying to make a point that it isn't as black and white and right and wrong as you'd like others to believe.


you said . . .
Your example of the 13 year old, though tragic, is still not enough to get me to abort the child. You say the child is not viable. If they baby is not viable, then abortion is an acceptable answer (and not against any Catholic teachings), but if you meant to say the baby IS viable, then I would have my daughter bear the child, and raise it myself.

Abortion is an acceptable answer ? It's murder of the unborn. . . or it is not ? Why special circumstances for only those things you yourself can find a place for in your heart. Can't others make their own decisions on what fits into their lives also ? That smacks of choice. But in this case you. . . (or your religion ) want to be the judge of the proper choice.

Even if I agree with you, Renee, which actually I do, I don't want to be forced to live by your rules or worse yet by the religious beliefs I didn't choose, that you are living by.


Let's go back to my decision. No, the baby was not deemed viable. She had lost too much weight, had been too badly infected with disease, drugs and malnutrition, etc. for the baby to survive with no serious problems. Could it have by the miracle your nephew did or even the miracle she herself is ? Of course . . . all things can happen.

What you fail to factor in is the mental health of the child I already had in my arms. She was barely 13 and desperately sick and so lost in mental illness she had tried to burn down my house with my infant son in it. Her mental health was precarious at best and there was no current placement for her. It would take months to again find proper placement for her and in the meantime she was free to harm the fetus even more no matter how good my intentions were to stop her. The fracture of her psyche at birth was the biggest fear to her doctors and they felt it was not a risk that should be taken to support the child in my arms already alive.

Here's the difference in what you chose and I didn't. I did not say to myself its ok - the church allows it. I did not say I'll risk her life at any cost to see a new life into the world that I'm not sure I can protect.

I said . . . God forgive me. I know what I'm doing but I'll do what I have to do to protect this child. I am fully knowingly breaking your commandment to not kill. I'll take whatever punishment that brings and bear in willingly because you gave this child to me to protect and to love. You trusted me and it's what's best for her. Then I turned her over to a social worker to see her through it because I simply couldn't. I couldn't be there for her. I had sinned against God in a way I never thought I would and I needed time to feel whole and worthy again.

I'm not sure I still do.

But I'd do it again if I had to. It was the best choice I could make with the facts at hand and I need to believe that God only asks that of us. The best choice we can make.

So who knows - maybe somewhere deep inside I'm pro-choice . . . kinda.

I waffle. I'm human.

~~

Don't mean this in a mean or whatever way some may take it, but I wish someone had made a separate thread for the abortion issue. It's a very important issue and should be discussed.

Just a suggestion, so don't get mad at me, please. I honestly am not trying to stir the pot or anything.
Any chance we could do that? I have something I would like to add.

Okay, I see where the confusion stemmed in my answer. When you said the baby was not viable, I related that to my own experience with that word. That is how a doctor referred to my baby that was miscarrying, that the baby simply couldn't live, there was no saving the baby. I misunderstood your example to mean the baby was already dying or had already lost its life. After looking up the word, I see where in this case it was used to mean, "Could not live outside the womb". Totally different circumstance where the same word was used.

The reason I brought up the church was simply in reference, not as reason.

Finally, I think that it's important to realize that RELIGION is different than VALUES. I strongly believe that as a society we must value life, not because God says so but because it is right to do so. That is a point that can be reached across many religions, those who are agnostic or atheist. Valuing life is not solely a religious belief. These beliefs should not be forced upon anyone because they are tied to a religion, but rather they should be the value basis upon which we build our laws.

Ok heres kind of my stance

Such a slippery slope - no easy answers

I don't believe in abortion on demand, (or capital punishment or 'approved' killing of any form

BUT

I do believe in allowing the medical profession to use this necessary medical procedure as they see best.

Sooooooooooo

I guess I'm pro-choice kinda sorta but sure wish as a group of humans we learned the sanctity of life and made better ' choices '


Heres the discussion we were having on the health care thread - just moving it to this one.

I'm fortunate. I've never had to face the decision of whether to undergo an abortion for any reason. It's hard for me, in my present situation and under the conditions I find myself now and the things in my life that have gone before, to even imagine opting to choose abortion.

I don't assume, however, that someone less fortunate faced with that decision is not faced with the same questioning of their own values (and sometimes religious beliefs) or that they take the choice lightly. I would love to see more tax dollars going into counseling those women who are either considering the choice and to those afterward who are dealing with the consequences of their choice.

But I can't sit back in the "lap of luxury" for never having been faced with the decision and fault or question the right of someone whose situation is totally different from mine. Nor can I question their "values" or assume mine are better, more respectful of life, etc. than theirs are. So, I guess on that slippery slope that Morgan refers to, I would find it hard to navigate the slope in my warm, well-protected, anti-skid snow boots without at least considering the footing of another woman sliding and falling in worn-out, summer flip flops.

So, once again ....the "but for the grace of God" mindset that colors most of my political beliefs.