Goodreads Tea Party discussion

183 views
Man Haters > Pro-Life v Pro-Choice [Pro-Theocracy v Pro-Freedom]

Comments Showing 1-47 of 47 (47 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Ilyn (last edited May 17, 2009 11:05AM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
My posts on the Thoughts and Opinions group: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

1. Conservative or Liberal? Neither. I'm a Jeffersonian.

“Conservatives” vs. “Liberals” - http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/con...

I am for equal inherent inalienable rights - I revere Thomas Jefferson and his words:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."


message 2: by Ilyn (last edited May 17, 2009 07:22AM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
Lauren asked: "What guides your thoughts when there is a topic that Jefferson knew nothing about?"

Answer: What guided me to revere him: reason and logic.


message 3: by Ilyn (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
2. Stand on abortion

There is a huge difference between having personal convictions (e.g. never have an abortion) and wanting to impose, to force others, to follow your convictions.

Excerpts from my novel:

Man, by nature, is fallible and not omniscient. Teenagers could make mistakes and get pregnant. The Republican Party holds that such youngsters have no window to change course, and must go through a lifetime paying for a mistake. The party holds itself as an advocate of life, yet champions forcing a woman, or even a girl, to suffer the toils of unchosen paths.

A political party that wants to impose a tortured life on a citizen is a monster. It is against happiness; hence, it is not pro-life. After imposing a no-abortion policy, it would prohibit birth control and divorce, by force. Think back – the power loom and anesthesia were denounced as sins; Galileo was convicted of heresy because he advocated that the Earth revolves around the sun.

*
Support for serfdom leading to job-eradication is hugely bipartisan. Democrats are for socialism and the Republican Party is not for capitalism.

Republicans staunchly support tyrannizing job-creators with regulations like antitrust and insider trading. The Republican Party is not for freedom: it is not pro-choice, the cornerstone of liberty. It dishonestly describes itself as pro-life. Inasmuch as the Republican Party blanks out the life of the pregnant human being, since it champions destroying the life of an actual human being, most of the time: a young girl, and because it advocates force – it advocates forcing a female human being to go through a lifetime paying for a mistake - the Republican Party is certainly not pro-life. It is paving the way towards the worst scourge of mankind: theocracy.


message 4: by Ilyn (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
Alexandra said: "Ilyn, what you are describing is accidental birth-as in, getting pregnant because you weren't careful enough. I think that even though you consider it a pure mistake, don't you think that the woman would come to love that mistake? I know there are uncaring mothers out there-it's obvious, but I still don't think that death is the right option. You are cutting them off before they have even a chance, and that is just not right."


message 5: by Ilyn (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
My response:

The moral issue is whether an embryo (i.e. In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.) has rights.

The legal issue: Roe v. Wade held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable." The fetus-stage comes after the embryo-stage.

*
'Society increasingly uses cessation of brain activity to define when life ends. Why not use the onset of brain activity to define when life begins?' (Easterbrook G., Abortion and Brain Waves)

*
The pregnant human being is an actual being - she has rights. The embryo is a potential being - it has no rights. In freedom, an actual human being owns his/her own life. A pregnant girl/woman has the right to determine and pursue her own happiness.

No one has the right to coerce. The advocacy or sanction of coercion is the mark of evil.


message 6: by Ilyn (last edited May 17, 2009 07:49AM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." - http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/Mor...

Poll question: With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?

The issue is theocracy or freedom. The anti-abortion argument is based on religious beliefs. One could be personally anti-abortion yet respects the right of girls/women to decide what's best for them.


message 7: by Jacqueline (new)

Jacqueline (thestarforum) Ilyn wrote: "2. Stand on abortion

There is a huge difference between having personal convictions (e.g. never have an abortion) and wanting to impose, to force others, to follow your convictions.

Excerpts ..."



Our government gives the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Right to life begins at conception in my opinon. Having giving birth, having watched children born to parents at 21 weeks and survive completely healthy, proves that life has begun. A mistake has consequences, and if you have really looked at the difference between someone who has a aborted a baby and someone who has given that baby up for adoption, you would know that just because someone has had an abortion, doesn't mean their are done paying the consquences. Studies have shown that women who abort have long-term mental suffering, much more so than a woman or girl who finishes the pregnancy and gives that child up for adoption.

The only circumstance where that should possibly be considered is -- incest, rape, or health of the mother.

I respectfully disagree with your psosition, as the right to life, places highest on my list of things the government is here to protect.

People make mistakes. We all do. But if more of us were expected to pay the consequences, rather than getting a "get out of jail free card" we would have a society that thought more about their choices.

End of soapbox.


message 8: by Tracy (new)

Tracy Lea (tracylea) | 37 comments Jacqueline, while I agree with you that women that have abortions may have years of mental suffering for their decision, it is still their decision. The only thing I have to add is that I don't think that government should be stepping in on this soooooo personal decision. A woman has the right to do what ever she decides with her body, whether to have an abortion or a hysterectomy or take out all her vital organs! The government should not be mandating stipulating or funding such decisions! This is as personal as who you desire as your life partner, it is personal....not community based and necessary for government control. Even when a women is faced with the consequences of a rape or incest situation, it is still a personal matter, for her and her alone and there are many doors that she can walk through to help her deal with her situation that does not involve government.


message 9: by Jacqueline (last edited May 19, 2009 12:28PM) (new)

Jacqueline (thestarforum) Tracy wrote: "Jacqueline, while I agree with you that women that have abortions may have years of mental suffering for their decision, it is still their decision. The only thing I have to add is that I don't th..."

It's isn't a personal decision at all. It is unfortunate that life of an unborn child is treated with less respect than the egg of an eagle. This child has the right to life. It is alive. Doctors have performed surgery on children and that child has reached out of the womb to grasp the instruments. Unborn children shield thier eyes from light when being photographed inside the womb. This is a child....a life....and our government shouldn't be paying for anyone to get an abortion...I agree with that, but they should be protecting LIFE.

There are people on the other side of this issue that claim that until a child is 2 years old it really doesn't understand much, so it could be killed at the parents' desire.. I realize that is an extreme, but why draw a line? It's a child right when it's conceieved. You sound like Barrack Obama .. "we shouldn't punish them with a baby...." A baby is a blessing....never a punishment...but it is the consequence of having sex. Imagine that....having a consequence.

A difficult consequence, but the only cosequence that should be allowed. The RIGHT TO LIFE is precious, and that child has that right. The woman gave up her rights when she had unprotected sex. SHe had the right not to triffle with creation, but once she triffled, it's just too bad. If every woman had the child she was carrying I honestly believe our morals in this country would be elevated to amazing heights. People would realize their consequences would be forthcoming, and not cheat creation by ending life....

IT'S A LIFE!!!


message 10: by Tracy (new)

Tracy Lea (tracylea) | 37 comments You sound very emotional, therefore, I won't argue the emotional point your making, I think you missed my point....it is NOT THE GOVERNMENT's ISSUE!! The government should NOT be PAYING for these decisions. You mention The Right to Life and the woman gave up her rights, yet earlier you mention you could consider giving back her right to abort if she were raped or incest?? Sounds like GOVERNMENT getting into our business to me. Telling us when how and what for...why if they can make those decisions for us, why bother thinking at all, we hand over our paychecks and let the government govern!!


message 11: by Ilyn (last edited May 20, 2009 09:54AM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
Something with no brain activity, like an embryo, is not alive. To claim that an embryo is a living person is like saying the sun revolves around the Earth.

One who sacrifices a living human being over the non-living is a moral descendant of Galileo's persecutors. Socialism is evil, but theocracy is much much worse.


message 12: by Ilyn (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
“Belief in a Cruel God makes a Cruel Man” - Thomas Paine

*
From Reason Reigns:

... She pondered the responsibility of having a baby.

Vangel counseled, “God is so loving that He allows man a window to change course, that one may not go through a lifetime paying for a mistake. He is so good that He always keeps the door to happiness open. Your own life is precious. Right to life dictates that you not suffer the toils of unchosen paths. Life is not just breathing… A baby is a great responsibility; you can’t renege on it. A chosen responsibility is a fount of pleasure.”


message 13: by Catamorandi (last edited May 19, 2009 06:01PM) (new)

Catamorandi (wwwgoodreadscomprofilerandi) I am basically against abortion. However, I do not deny someone who wants an abortion to have one. I think everyone should decide for themselves what they will do in that given situation. It's your body, and you have the right to do what you feel you must do under any given circumstances.


message 14: by Catamorandi (last edited May 19, 2009 05:50PM) (new)

Catamorandi (wwwgoodreadscomprofilerandi) There are certain situations where I think abortion should definitely be allowed. I think it should be allowed if the mother was raped/incested. I think it should be allowed if the mother is under 17. I think it should be allowed if the baby will be stillborn. I also think it should be allowed if they know the mother will die after childbirth.


message 15: by Jacqueline (new)

Jacqueline (thestarforum) No matter which side you are on, life or choice, the government should be NO WHERE near the issue of abortion as a tax payer burden. I believe that an embryo is alive. Whether or not you do is your decision. I am not a flat earther, and this has nothing to do with socialism, Ilyn. A baby is a great responsibility, but having one, does not mean you are responsible. There is always the choice of adoption, giving that child a chance if you are not willing to create, or cannot create a family that it can belong to. There are plenty of parents waiting for those children. But you are saying that with choice there are no consequences. God may forgive you in an instant, but He does not take away consequence. You can be forgiven if you decide being gay is inappropriate, but if you get aids He will allow that. It's a natural consequence of the choice. Having a child is the natural consequence of the choice of sex.

You obviously believe that it's fine to just skip the consequences of choices. A women's life is hers to decide, but once that line is crossed, it's crossed. Not just HER life anymore. Why else would someone who kills a pregnant woman be charged with double murder?


message 16: by Ilyn (last edited May 19, 2009 07:08PM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
Jacqueline, imposing one's religious beliefs is theocracy. Pronouncing a pregnant human being rightless is theocratic. Even God does not impose - He gives us free will.

I am with Thomas Jefferson: “Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments.”

Pro-freedom voters would choose socialism, being the lesser evil, over theocracy. I hope the Republican Party will begin assuring voters that the Party is not for theocracy.


message 17: by Ilyn (last edited May 20, 2009 10:01AM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
Giving one's baby up for adoption must be lifetime torture for most Moms. I don't wish it on anyone.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is great, but those against abortion are usually against birth control, too.


message 18: by Jacqueline (new)

Jacqueline (thestarforum) Ilyn wrote: "Jacqueline, imposing one's religious beliefs is theocracy. Pronouncing a pregnant human being rightless is theocratic. Even God does not impose - He gives us free will.

I am with Thomas Jeffers..."


What do you think of this quote, "Moral values are being neglected and prayer expelled from public schools on the pretext that moral teaching belongs to religion. At the same time, atheism, the secular religion, is admitted to class, and our youngsters are proselyted to a conduct without morality.....we are caught in a current so strong that unless we correct our course, civilization as we know it will surely be wrecked to pieces."

Theocracy is when ONE relgious belief surpasses and controls everything. I come from a place that in order for society to maintain order many aspects of society must hold equal value and control in that society. Those 7 things are: government, business, religion, education, media, community, and family. All are vital to a society running smoothly. Each section has a place and needs to hold control equally. When one rises above the others that's when we have problems. Currently we have government, business, and media running everything else. And we are moving toward government being the overall power.

The Republican party isn't going to be the place that change begins. It will take place with the individual freedom lovers educating themselves.

I think abortion is morally wrong. And in the words of The 5,000 Year Leap Prinicple # 2 "A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuas and morally strong." And #4 "Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained."




message 19: by Ilyn (last edited May 21, 2009 03:42AM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
We have freedom of religion. Everyone is free to be a religionist, deist, atheist, or agnostic. This is great.

I very strongly disagree with # 4 -> religion backed by government is theocracy. Look at history: Galileo, the Inquisition, the religious wars. Look at countries living under islamic laws.

About # 2 - respecting rights is the greatest virtue.


message 20: by Ilyn (last edited May 21, 2009 03:43AM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
From Reason Reigns:

“It is not God’s will that you hurt anyone.”

“I am well-versed on the Holy Book. Those who influence people to disobey the Holy Teachings must be punished. Those who flaunt that they do not need God, those who worship pleasure and science, must be made to see the error of their ways. I must defend God’s will.”

“God does not need defenders. He does not punish. Every act or inaction of man has inevitable consequences; God lets man go through those consequences. The Lord gifted us with free will. ___, follow His example. Do not force your beliefs on others. Do not let Alisa and Lola die.”

“Infidels must be banished!”

“God is all-good and all-loving.”


message 21: by Jacqueline (new)

Jacqueline (thestarforum) #4 says nothing about government backing up a specific religion or establishing one. But if the people do not choose religion (any religion) we will not maintain our freedom. And from your book Royal Serf you claim God does not punish. But allowing our consequences to remain intact, or withholding blessings, will be a form of punishment for those who are not obeying the laws of God.

At this point we will have to agree to disagree. I don't believe infidels must be banished. They must be left alone to worship or not how they see fit. From my own religion -- "We claim the priviledge of worshiping the Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worhsip how, where, or what they may." Article of Faith # 11


message 22: by Jacqueline (new)

Jacqueline (thestarforum) Ilyn wrote: "Giving one's baby up for adoption must be a lifetime torture for most Moms. I don't wish it on anyone.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is great, but those against abortion are usually against b..."


Just so you know, I am not against birth control. It is important that a man and woman make decisions together on their family. They need to be emotionally prepared to handle a new child in their lives. But if one is willing to go into sex without thinking things through, there are consequences.

I also don't believe we would have as many abortions in this country, if there were not programs that advocated abortion that receive government funding.

I know many women on both sides of the coin, they've had abortions, and those who have given children up for adoption. In ALL cases from my experience, those who have given their child up, know they made a wonderful decision to bless the lives of the family the child was placed in, and gave the child a wonderful life. While those that had abortions are left much more empty.


message 23: by Nina (new)

Nina I have always thought it strange that when a woman wants an abortion it is always assumed that the fetus is not a "living" thing in her body; yet, when or if that same woman was murdered while still carrying the fetus the murderer is charged with TWO counts of murder..As he should be..There is too much using of abortions as a method of birth control..I totally agree with Jacqueline. To commit the murder of an unborn child is not the way to teach young girls under the age of 17, the rights of human life..Yes, the sad thing is that the girl did make a mistake but how dumb do you have to be to not know the consequences of sex? Yes, I thouroughly agree that the unwed pregnant woman or girl needs help and I am sorry for the person but I am also sorry that a life is being destroyed..That life never had even a chance to make a mistake and yes, I think it is none of the grovernment's business..And I don't think it is a religious belief..IF I were an atheist I would think the same way..Although I also don't judge. It's between the person and their conscience but I do think the act of abortion is murder and it seems to me to be pretty hard to think otherwise. nina


message 24: by Ilyn (last edited May 21, 2009 03:47AM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
To claim that abortion is murder based on the TWO counts of murder when a pregnant female is murdered is to grossly evade the following:

* that abortion is legal in this country
* that the US Supreme Court ruled that abortion is a fundamental right
* that those who undergo abortion and those who perform abortion are not charged with any crime


message 25: by Ilyn (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
When a person has no brain activity, he/she is considered dead. This is a scientific judgement.

An embryo has no brain activity. What is the basis for the claim that an embryo is a living human being?


message 26: by Ilyn (last edited May 20, 2009 07:05PM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
To impose or wish a tortured life on a mother and her baby is monstrous.


message 27: by Ilyn (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
It's easy to condemn one who engages in unprotected sex. It takes cruelty to force her not to undo her mistake.

I greatly admire uncommon kindness - Victor Hugo's Bishop Myriel in Les Misérables:

After years of imprisonment for stealing bread for his starving sister, the peasant Jean Valjean is released. Rejected by innkeepers who do not want to take in a convict, Valjean sleeps on the street. He finds Bishop Myriel who feeds and gives him a bed. In the night, Valjean steals the bishop’s silverware and runs. He is caught, but the bishop rescues him by claiming that the silver was a gift, and then gives him two precious candlesticks as well.

Alone, benevolent Bishop Myriel tells Valjean:

"Jean Valjean, my brother: you belong no longer to evil, but to good. It is your soul that I am buying for you. I withdraw it from dark thoughts and from the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God!"


message 28: by Renee (new)

Renee (rjmiller) Wow, what a strong issue to debate. I have children, and while abortion is something I don't think I'd consider I'd hate for that right to be taken away from me. My youngest was born with a genetic disorder and while she is fine now, we got lucky. The next pregnancy could result in many physical and neuroligical disorders, the genetic disorder runs in my side. If I were to find through an amneo that this was to be the case, I would likely opt to have an abortion.
Why? First, I don't believe that it would be fair to the child to suffer through a painful infancy and childhood filled with doctors, hospitals, and such. Such a life is not a life, I've been through that on a smaller scale already. Second, it is unfair to my other children to grow attached to a sibling that is unaware of them and would most likely die before reaching puberty. Third, it's my choice, not the government and not the church. Who made them God? No one.
One might argue, who made me God and afforded me the right to abort my child? No one, but it is my body and my life and there are many things to consider aside from when the life is a life or whether or not I could live wtih the decision. Of course it would haunt me, but that is my business.
I don't think government or church or anyone else who doesn't know my life or situation should be allowed to dictate what I do with my body.
While I disagree with using abortion as birth control, I think it is something that should be between a woman and her doctor and the father of the baby in cases where the father has rights. Rape and incest of course would be when the father has no rights.
I think that this issue has veered way off the path of what the arguement should be about. It's irrelevant whether anyone thinks I am a good person, or whether I will go to hell for making that decision. I won't get into what I think of organised religion, that is another topic all together.
Perhaps we should worry more about the children who are already here and whose parents shouldn't be allowed to be parents. Let's get angry and self righteous over the abuse and horrors these children must suffer on a daily basis. Sure they're alive, but for how long?


message 29: by Nina (new)

Nina Ilyn wrote: "Giving one's baby up for adoption must be lifetime torture for most Moms. I don't wish it on anyone.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is great, but those against abortion are usually against bir..."
No, I must disgree with you on that issue. I know many who approve birth control and not abortion..nina




message 30: by Ilyn (last edited May 22, 2009 02:54AM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
It is a fact that a very powerful religion is against contraception.

I posted in message 3: There is a huge difference between having personal convictions (e.g. never have an abortion) and wanting to impose, to force others, to follow your convictions....

One's personal stand on abortion (or on anything) is none of my business. And none of the government's. That one wants to force his/her beliefs on others is my business, especially since one powerful political party has been hijacked by theocrats.


message 31: by Renee (new)

Renee (rjmiller) I agree with Ilyn completely. To have beliefs is fine. When you start shoving your feelings, beliefs, morals down someone else's throat, you are stepping on their personal rights and freedoms.
YOu have the right to state your opinion, and so does everyone else. When you start going beyond simply saying, that is not for me or I feel this way, then it's wrong.

For many women the choice between adoption, abortion and keeping the child is a personal one. It shouldn't be shoved back down her throat. It was most likely the hardest choice she's ever made. To assume she is not suffering is crazy.




message 32: by Ilyn (last edited May 22, 2009 02:59AM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
Hi Nina, Renee, Jacqueline, Randi, Tracy, and everyone. Have a wonderful Memorial Day weekend.


message 33: by Renee (new)

Renee (rjmiller) Are you forced to pay for it? I was under the impression that women paid for their abortions. How are you forced to pay for abortions in other countries?

If you are unhappy about this, then how do you feel about paying the cost for unwanted births, feeding and clothing these children for as long as they are in the system or for as long as the teen mom must stay on welfare?
I don't know, but paying once beats paying forever.


message 34: by Ilyn (last edited May 24, 2009 04:37PM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
Hi Marge & Renee,

I totally agree that rights-respecting people should not be forced to do anything, including paying tax.

From Royal Serf: The government should be supported by funds raised through lotteries, voluntary donations, and other fundraisers that do not infringe rights.


message 35: by Ilyn (last edited May 24, 2009 04:33PM) (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
Also from Royal Serf:

Fox: “Many voters say you are crazy because of your policy to end all taxes. You speak of reason and reality, yet it is unrealistic to finance the government by what you call, ‘funds raised through lotteries, voluntary donations, and other fundraisers that do not infringe rights.’”

Apollo: “Everyone who cherishes Liberty and Rights would support a good government. Citizens who give to charity or purchase insurance would give money to a good government. Just as uncommon individuals voluntarily join the police force or enlist in the armed forces to defend their country, uncommon citizens shall surely aid their government.”


message 36: by Renee (new)

Renee (rjmiller) Since I am a Canadian citizen with no knowledge of your medical system, I wouldn't know that your taxpayers pay for abortions. Isn't that what your health insurance covers?
I didn't say it was "right" that someone else paid for it at all. I stated that the taxpayers would pay whether the abortion was given or not. Either for the mother to raise the child, the government to place it in a home, or for the abortion. If I'm forced to pay anyway, I'd rather pay the least amount.

I'd like to point out that you would pay taxes no matter what, the government would simply allocate it somewhere else. Abortions are not taking away a new car or a better home, your taxes are. They would remain the same no matter what the government used them for. That statement makes no sense.




message 37: by Renee (new)

Renee (rjmiller) Canada? Brute force of government? Are you kidding me?

The decision to abort a child indicates a behavioral problem? So a mother who is about to have a child with sever birth defects should be forced to carry it, watch it suffer, and eventually bury it anyway. That's perfectly logical to me.

Why is it loathesome to say you would pay taxes anyway? Because it is true and you can't argue with it.

I'm sorry Marge but you stopped making valid points a few posts ago. This discussion is going nowhere.


message 38: by Tracy (new)

Tracy Lea (tracylea) | 37 comments Good discussions on a very HOT topic! ;~)

In all of the thread, I agree, whether you are for it or against it....it is a personal decision that only a woman can make and that the Government should not be imposing their will or tax payers money to provide. I do understand there are people that are unfortunate finacially and would like to consider their options...well, even those that are fortunate finacially, everyone should consider their consequences to their actions, before, this kind of decision has to be broached, then make their own decision based on their personal needs.


message 39: by Renee (new)

Renee (rjmiller) Good points Tracy. It's nice to have a cool head intervene and state the facts so perfectly.
There is no "right" answer here unless you are the one who has to make the decision you can't know how you would feel. There are huge consequences of course, but you should be free to consider them.


message 40: by Renee (new)

Renee (rjmiller) Marge;
You have attacked me from the first post I put here. Without provocation you have been hateful, accusatory, and mean. You didn't TELL me any of that. You did not say you were pro choice. You did not say you didn't care whether they had them. In fact, you were quite upset about women having abortions for any reason. Perhaps if your statements had been calm and rational you might have been able to state what you meant but you did not.
I don't understand why I'm being bullied over a simple statement that was not inflammatory. I said I feel there is not "right" answer unless you are the one dealing with the situation. How is that "not getting it"?
NO I haven't read Ayn Rand, if you support such reading,I'm not interested.
To say that I have no principles because I defend my position in a discussion that is essentially a debate really is stupid.
I have very strong principles, and I stand by them. I'm sorry they aren't very Christian or American in your eyes. I still believe in them.
Perhaps you should look at some of Ilyn's posts and get a grip on how to debate. Attacking and degrading does not get your point across. I can see her position, understand it, and respect it whether I agree or not. Why? Because she has not gone on the defensive simply because my opinion isn't the same.

I am only sorry for everyone else having to read these exchanges. I'm sorry for them that I let you get under my skin and it has gone on this long because it is really not worth the argument. If you cannot do anything but insult and bully, I am done discussing anything with you.


message 41: by Robert (new)

Robert Ilyn wrote: "My posts on the Thoughts and Opinions group: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

1. Conservative or Liberal? Neither. I'm a Jeffersonian.

“Conservatives” vs. “..."


I agree with your position (with respect to those who do not), Ilyn. Further, I think it's very well conceived and informed. Best wishes and good luck!



message 42: by Ilyn (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
Thank you, Robert. Congratulations and Good Fortune on your books.


message 43: by Ilyn (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
"Don't allow men to be happy. Happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient. Happy men have no time and no use for you. Happy men are free men. So kill their joy in living. Take away from them what they want. Make them think that the mere thought of a personal desire is evil."

- Elsworth Toohey (The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand)


message 44: by Ilyn (new)


message 45: by Ilyn (new)

Ilyn Ross (ilyn_ross) | 1280 comments Mod
Unsafe abortions kill 70,000 a year http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyl...


message 46: by Jenrlarson (new)

Jenrlarson | 1 comments If the Tea-Party hopes to limit government, then cutting the abortion rhetoric out of the party's intentions is paramount. If we value freedom, then we are pro-choice - freedom from government making a medical decision concerning a citizen.


message 47: by Kendall (new)

Kendall (kendallfurlong) | 1 comments You point out one of the more glaring inconsistencies in Tea Party politics. Lack of consistency doesn't appear to bother them, however; there are many others.


back to top