[GCFL-discuss] Dull Abortions

Sat Jan 19 23:58:22 CST 2008

I would still like a legal way to make the 15 year old no longer alive. 
Those are hateful words, but we are at our rope's end with this child.  He 
is on a waiting list for a children's home in our state.  His attachment 
disorder and its symptoms are overwhelming us and our immediate family.  I 
am ashamed of my inability to have "fixed him" or loved him "all better".  I 
made light (sort of, but not really) my intense negative feelings for him 
right now and shouldn't have brought him up at all.  He came to us broken 
and damaged and he (like Humpty Dumpty) can't be put together again.  I 
still have hope that once HE decides to work on healing, he will be 
successful.  I pray that day comes sooner than later for him.

I am pro-life, but I don't prejudge someone based on their views of 
abortion.  You are right, there are so many more important things.  The way 
I deal with being pro-life is to make sure that I am in the position to:  1. 
care for (and adopt) the babies and children that are mistreated, abused, 
inconveniently conceived, or unwanted.  2. contribute to organizations that 
make a difference in the lives of children and ones that educate women/girls 
about the hazards of unprotected sex.  3. befriend/encourage women who have 
been affected by their abortion and/or adoption experience.

Regarding making a candidate's appeal to me based on his/her stance on the 
abortion issue is a ridiculous thing!  I prefer to look at their ability to 
affect my life and the lives of others in my country.  I firmly believe that 
a (wo)man with integrity and a moral compass that is not broken is one of 
the top things I look at.  I must depend on the media for information, so 
who knows how faithful and honest and upstanding a person REALLY is.  Only 
God can look at the heart.  I must depend on their reported actions and 
attitudes.  I would NOT have voted for JFK based on his womanizing, no 
matter what good he might have done for the US.  He was an unrepentant 
adulterer and could not be trusted to make the best decisions for the 
citizens of the US and the world.

As an aside, at this point in my life I cannot imagine EVER voting for a 
woman.  I do NOT want a female president.  And I especially don't want 
Hillary Clinton in any form of leadership.  I would have moved out of NY had 
I lived there when she was elected.  She is scary.
Jeanene

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List" <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net>
To: "Red" <jeanenehea at comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [GCFL-discuss] Dull Abortions

> I'm going to keep this short and separate, because the best thing to do
> about abortion is stop discussing it. The whole debate is silly, and
> distracts from more important subjects. But I have found endless reasons
> and ways to distinguish between aborting a first trimester fetus and
> murdering a disobedient fifteen year old.
>
> 1) If kicked out of the house, the fifteen year old is capable of
> foraging for food, finding shelter, eating, sleeping, and generally
> surviving, without ever receiving any help from mommy and daddy again.
> That doesn't mean parents should necessarily have the right to kick him
> out of the house, but I believe some states still allow parents to
> declare their child incorrigible and make him/her a ward of the state.
>
> 2) If expelled from the mother's womb, accidentally, spontaneously, or
> deliberately, there is absolutely no way a first trimester fetus would
> survive.
>
> 3) In fact, although a new-born baby is unlikely to survive without
> parental nurturing, once out of the womb, any of 4 billion other living
> human beings can take full responsiblity for care and feeding, at no
> further cost to the mother. Not so a first trimester fetus.
>
> 4) I have a similar opinion when unmarried fathers wail "But that's my
> baby too!" IF the expectant woman chooses to carry the child to term,
> THEN the father absolutely should have first right to adopt if the mother
> wants to give the baby up. But daddy just cannot carry the growing fetus
> for nine months in his own abdomen. Sorry, life isn't always fair.
> Besides, if daddy wanted rights to the fetus, he should have married the
> woman before sowing his seed so carelessly. Yeah, some people say the
> same about a woman wanting an abortion, but life isn't always fair. Women
> have to do all the work up until birth, so in this sense, daddy is the
> one who should have been more careful.
>
> 5) A newly fertilized egg is not a human being. It is a self-executing
> chemically coded ZIP file which, if it finds the proper nurturing
> environment, will grow into a human being. Until extraction is complete,
> it is not even in line to grow up to 15. Besides, coding errors and
> viruses can corrupt the program. Pretty soon we will have the technology
> to turn it into a brand new pancreas instead, which is a good thing if
> you happen to have pancreatic cancer. Christian theologians have had many
> opinions over when a soul attaches to the body, but few suggested any
> sooner than 40 days, many said at the time of quickening, some even said
> not until birth. God knows, and he isn't telling.
>
> Mostly, I find the first trimester unsuitable for STATE intervention. We
> can't impose conformity on everyone about everything, even when we are
> right, or think we are. 99% of us can agree on not murdering 15 year
> olds. Its hard to get 25% of us to agree on any firm policy about
> abortion. Most of us have second thoughts about any statement of policy.
> So, let's not try to write a law. The closer the fetus is to being a
> baby, the more its chances of survival outside the womb, the more it is a
> suitable subject for public policy.
>
> Siarlys
> _______________________________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss 