Sasun Posted October 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 I found the following from the web, something to think about: link http://www.gargaro.com/mother_teresa/quotes.html "America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters" And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign." (Mother Theresa -- "Notable and Quotable," Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. " --------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Sasun - sorry I'm not buying it. I really don't think that these views have much to do with the reality of the situation...sorrry I just don't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 (edited) Sasun - sorry I'm not buying it. I really don't think that these views have much to do with the reality of the situation...sorrry I just don't...Thoth, this is a question I keep thinking and thinking and am not 100% sure. Mother Theresa (and many others) simply assume that it is a child, a human being. That maybe true in later stages, but if not then what to do? I guess that is the question. Nevertheless, the above quotes do appeal to me a lot. Edited October 23, 2003 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Sasun - a fetus is in no way a child. Certainly with modrn technology the point at which a fetus is viable could perhaps be even earlier then now...but I still do not at all see the fetus as a child...and this relationship that she is trying to make - that abortion has anything to do with actual child rearing - realtionship between parent and chidrn - is completely spurious - IMO. Look - I'm not at all a fan of abortion - but sometiems I believe it is necessary...and other times I think it becomes an option - perhaps a perferrable option - not that there might also not be others. Bottom line though is that I think many make a much bigger deal out of this issue then it deserves - considering the real problems we have in this world - regarding the state of children and otherwise... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Well, I don't know Thoth. That's the only thing I am sure of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 (edited) a fetus is in no way a child.True but when you plant a sunflower seed do you expect a potato? It is pure science that life begins as soon as the egg is fertilized.This issue is very private and personnall and I will leave it at that. Edited October 23, 2003 by Armat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 i agree w armat- because each situation is different- for example in china one of the most overpopulated countries-if not the one itself- the number of children one can have is limited- and most chinese men prefer a baby boy over a girl, to pass on the last name- or genes- and in some situations when they find out the sex of the fetus and if a girl they will viably desier an abortion- i strongly disagree with such things because i believe that the gender of the child does not matter but in a case such as- if the parents are aware before the child is born that the child will have a dibilitating disease- or disorders such as down syndrome- it should be up 2 thwe parents to decide whether they want to end the childs life or not..there are other controversis to that but lets leave it as is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Good points angel. By the way, I wonder if the Chinese have problems having children after the first one was aborted. We are told by the doctors that it is dangerous to have an abortion at the first pregnancy, that in such cases subsequent births are endangered. Anyway, maybe we shouldn't discuss this anymore. I am starting to get a headache and don't seem to come to any lasting conclusion. But we are not really talking about anyone specifically so I don't see any privacy issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 true true true...sasunik- lol im jk- dont tell me ur like 50 cus last time i said something like that i offended pple- lol anyay true its a controversial issue- but we gotta learn 2 live w these things b/c thyre all around us- oh and bout that one issue- having a child after an abortion- i m not sure- but i bet they would have problems- because the whole uterine wall is sometimes damaged- which during preganacy nurtures the fetus- i cant be sure- id have to be a biomed major 2 know- its rather interesting though- hut imo abortion can cause more emotional problems than physical............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Yes A4h - good points.. I once dated a gal who had had an abortion before i dated her (perhaps a few years before - or several)...well - for whatever reason - damage - like you said - she could not physically have children anymore...and believe me - if she could have - we would have - not out of desire to have kids (then/with her) - but because we never used any birth control (and I is an extremely fertile puppy...LOL) I very much agree on the aborrance of the Chinese (selective, and otherwise) practice (that is also a racial policy in a sense - as it disproportionatly affects the many indiginous peoples - such a s the Uighurs - who relay on larger families to sustain their (non-collectivized) agricultural way of life. While the Chinese program has certainly yielded good population control results (and much of the world sorely needs this...) - I would fully ageree that forced abortions are absolutly the wrong way to go. I am really greatly opposed to anything that is imposed upon individuals by the state (such as this) - just in general...and something as personal as this even more so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 true true true...sasunik- lol im jk- dont tell me ur like 50 cus last time i said something like that i offended pple LOL angel4hope no I am not 50, I'm 60s (nearly dead), but I certainly felt like a kid when you called me sasunik Ok, just kidding no I am much younger (31) and I feel even younger talking to hyeforum kids Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 lol sorry- hehe cool-i feel much more mature talkin 2 u guys- some pple in my age group are so immature- all they care about is drinking getting high and having sex- anyway- u cant have a normal conversation w a peer these days w out getting into subjects like smoking/drinking/,....parties- whose doing who whose datingwho...blah- 2 me it deosnt matter its just gossip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Good points angel. By the way, I wonder if the Chinese have problems having children after the first one was aborted. We are told by the doctors that it is dangerous to have an abortion at the first pregnancy, that in such cases subsequent births are endangered. Anyway, maybe we shouldn't discuss this anymore. I am starting to get a headache and don't seem to come to any lasting conclusion. But we are not really talking about anyone specifically so I don't see any privacy issues. The Chinese population planner probably actually like that. As for there now being more males than females in China - it is not the policies of the state that are sexist, but the choices of the parents! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 (edited) Domino, I don't think that an immoral decision made by me can ever be good. This maybe a matter of definition of what 'good decision' means to you. I am assuming the good decision is the moral one, whether or not it is good for me. Choosing what music to listen is not they type of decision I had in mind in my previous post. Actually anything would be a moral choice it seems to me. You still owe me an explanation - why destroy order when the pregnant woman is a rape victim, but not destroy it when the pregnant woman is not a rape victim. I mean, if you care about the order, why does it matter for you?Sasun, I never said that it was not destroying an order when the woman is pregnant from rape and decised abortion. I MEntioned that in the cases of abortion, you only try to minimize the "unmoraliness." Edited October 23, 2003 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Sasun, I never said that it was not destroying an order when the woman is pregnant from rape and decised abortion. I MEntioned that in the cases of abortion, you only try to minimize the "unmoraliness." Do you mean abortion in case of rape is reducing immorality (unmoraliness?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Do you mean abortion in case of rape is reducing immorality (unmoraliness?) NO Sasun. If the woman was to keep it, and view the child as the trace of her psychological murder, and because of that, the relation with the child is affected in a way that the child does not recieve all the care he/she needs... having the child will be unmoral, but on the other side, abortion as well is ummoral... the choices the woman will make will be amoral, one like the other, the best she can do is minimize this unmoraliness by the best decision she wil take for her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 NO Sasun. If the woman was to keep it, and view the child as the trace of her psychological murder, and because of that, the relation with the child is affected in a way that the child does not recieve all the care he/she needs... having the child will be unmoral, but on the other side, abortion as well is ummoral... the choices the woman will make will be amoral, one like the other, the best she can do is minimize this unmoraliness by the best decision she wil take for her. Well, Domino, first of all I disagree that raising that child would be immoral. Obviously, the child has no fault. Second of all, I find your approach subjective. So if she considered a choice that's the best for her subjective needs is less immoral? I don't think so. I think there is one choice that is objectively moral, and that's the choice she has to make. P.S. On the side note, look how many words you invented unmoralinessamoral ummoralunmoral Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Sasun, if a woman could make an objective choice for something such as decising to have an abortion, you will even not be here posting a thread questioning what is moral. Something objective can not be debated, it's true. LIke 2+2 = 4. What I bring is the apposit of subjectivity, because everything that could be debated by bringing theses and anti-theses and that you can not use the KANtian approch or the rational approch, then, the choices will have nothing to do with rational morality, since rational morality will find both choices unmoral. RAIsing a child and not caring for him like you should, is unmoral, this is not only about raising a child. A woman that will have an unwanted child, and consider this child as an accident, or view it as the mark of her psychological murder, there is chances that this woman will NOT take care of the child like she should, by doing that, she is preventing the child to construct his order... not providing the child with every basic things, when you can and when you should is unmmoral. So yes! A woman that does this, will make an unmoral act, even if she has chosen to not have abortion. A child is not a toy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 A child is not a toy. OK, so child is not a toy, let's kill the child. Is that your point? Who is to say that the child will not be raised properly? I am pretty sure if the woman does decide to keep it, she will also give all necessary motherly care. I came to one more general conclusion: you are assuming that there are situations (such as the case of pregnancy with rape ) that it is not possible for the person to make a moral decision. In other words, we can't avoid to be immoral. I disagree with this view. I believe that in every situation, no matter what, there is a moral decision, and for this reason we are ultimately moral beings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Sasun, reread my previous posts, I did say that the large majority of those that decided to keep the child were happy to do it. I also said that I Was for the legalization, but in a controlled way, and for specific reasons. BUt what you are doing here, is supposing that in every situation there is a moral solution, this is not right, how can it be, when for a same specific situation, one can support two different solutions by as strong argument in both cases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Sasun, reread my previous posts, I did say that the large majority of those that decided to keep the child were happy to do it. I also said that I Was for the legalization, but in a controlled way, and for specific reasons. If that is the case, then how can be sure about it? That is my point in general, that we cannot know for sure. How can you know what is the moral decision? If your rule takes exceptions then it's not a rule, is it? BUt what you are doing here, is supposing that in every situation there is a moral solution, this is not right, how can it be, when for a same specific situation, one can support two different solutions by as strong argument in both cases? No matter how strong the arguments, there is a moral decision. In general when facing a moral dilemma we may not be aware of all the options at hand (not in the case of abortion as there seem to be just 2 decisions, yes or no, or rather a 3rd decistion - yes+adoption). The moral decision may not have occurred to us and not be included in the arguments. My point is - we don't have all the knowledge to make the right decision with 100% certainty. (btw, my answer was "I haven't thought about it thoroughly"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 Sasun, reread my previous posts, I did say that the large majority of those that decided to keep the child were happy to do it. I also said that I Was for the legalization, but in a controlled way, and for specific reasons.If that is the case, then how can be sure about it? That is my point in general, that we cannot know for sure. How can you know what is the moral decision? If your rule takes exceptions then it's not a rule, is it? No matter how strong the arguments, there is a moral decision. In general when facing a moral dilemma we may not be aware of all the options at hand (not in the case of abortion as there seem to be just 2 decisions, yes or no, or rather a 3rd decistion - yes+adoption). The moral decision may not have occurred to us and not be included in the arguments. My point is - we don't have all the knowledge to make the right decision with 100% certainty. (btw, my answer was "I haven't thought about it thoroughly"). When we can't be sure, it is because of our limit. The only way I can answer to that is to refer to Socrates "Sagesse" for him, there is an ulimate man "sagesse" which is our limit, and there is another one that is absolute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted October 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 When we can't be sure, it is because of our limit. That's what I meant. The only way I can answer to that is to refer to Socrates "Sagesse" for him, there is an ulimate man "sagesse" which is our limit, and there is another one that is absolute. Let me guess who is that absolute... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.