Abortion @ MindSay 
For the benefit of society as a whole, a mental zeitgeist of personal sovereignty needs to be blanketed through all aspects of life.
I personally dont know what to think of this issue. Abortion. All i know is it is a big one in the United States. Some people are for it, some people are 100% against it. Personally im that 28% of American that has no idea what catagory to fall under. Yes, I realize its killing. And im most instences its a horrible thing to do. BUT on that same note, you may not want to believe it, but sometimes its necessary. Take for instence my aunts sister. Mentally Handicap. Somehow she found a way to have sex, but was not stable enought to have a baby. They had to remove the baby, otherwise it would have killed her. That baby did have a chance at life, but a low chance. Why risk losing a mother, and the baby? You would have killed two in one.
Think about that. I am open to comments, and your views on this touchy subject. Please do not leave rude and unecessary comments.
Thank you,
Sarihanna
Thursday 18 September 2008
by: Hillary Rodham Clinton and Cecile Richards, The New York Times
Senator Hillary Clinton speaking in New York. (Photo: Reuters)
Last month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women's rights and women's health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing - whether it's a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government - certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.
Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.
Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.
The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD's and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.
The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified "other medical procedures" that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.
Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of "other medical procedures." Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?
The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider's conscience. But where are the protections for patients?
The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.
--------
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Democratic senator from New York. Cecile Richards is the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Okay, I admit it. I am shocked by the mean-spirited posts I keep seeing about Sarah Palin’s decision to keep her little son even though he has Down’s Syndrome. AND because they blame her for sacrificing her daughter on the altar of her Abstinence policy by “forcing” her to have her baby.
First of all, her daughter could have had an abortion herself if she didn’t want the child, because you can do that in America. But instead, she and her “baby daddy” (a term I find denigrating and disrespectful) are going to get married! Very commendable in my opinion. Their child will have TWO parents! I know, I’m too old fashioned for this world today, but I still think it is better for two struggling parents to do their best to raise a child, and LOTS of children were conceived BEFORE marriage, and it didn’t “RUIN” their parents’ lives, OR THEIR OWN!!!
When my children were younger, before they were of the age to engage in sexual intercourse, I talked to them at length about responsibility. I told them clearly that if one of them got pregnant, or got someone else pregnant, then they were going to be parents, and I was going to be a grandparent! Period!
How dare we teach our children that murder of an unborn baby is an acceptable method of “fixing” their mistakes? That abortion would be an acceptable form of “birth-control”?
And how dare we judge another because she DIDN’T have an abortion??? Because she DIDN’T make her daughter have an abortion for being unmarried and getting pregnant??
HAVE WE GONE JUST PLAIN NUTS???
Forget religion! How about common decency??? Maybe decency just isn’t common any longer in our glorious FREE COUNTRY!
No matter Palin’s politics (I am neither Republican nor Democrat, as most know already), there are some things that should not be the domain of small-minded, foul-mouthed do-nothings! And Sarah Palin has my congratulations for keeping her commitment to the RIGHT TO LIFE!
Rev. Cathian
*sigh*
Being a Christian does not mean I'm better than you. Ever.
Means I acknowledged that I wasn't good enough.
Being a Christian does not mean I'm against legalizing abortion.
I'm opposed to the concept of abortion, sure. I think most people are.
But I do think that people are going to be irresponsible.
And I do think that women get pregnant even if sex wasn't their choice.
And I think that if abortion isn't legalized somewhere, people who are desperate will find a method that isn't legal.
And I'm pretty sure that if abortion is illegal, you can't have standards set for abortion clinics. I'm very definite about this one - you're working with a particularly sensitive area of someone's anatomy, and there's a lot that can go wrong. This needs to be made safe, or at least, a lot safer, and we can't do that if the entire concept is outlawed.
But, I also think Obama's wrong, and I honestly think that this issue (along with the concept of gay marriage) is one that should be decided at the state level. Not, definitely not at the federal level.
Being a Christian doesn't mean that I think that a particular candidate is the one who should be in power, simply because he's also a Christian.
The job of our leaders is to be just, to be fair, to keep the promises they've made, to always work for the good of their people.
One of the greatest points of our nation's creation was that it was not designed as a safe haven for Christians and for people who follow the God of the Bible, but instead was intended to be a place of religious freedom. Our Constitutional right is, for every American citizen, to believe what we choose to believe. Our officials have the job of upholding that freedom.
Being a Christian doesn't mean I have a bone to pick with homosexuality.
I am of the rather matter-of-fact opinion that God made some people gay.
I'll acknowledge that it's a minority, but where I went to school, being brunette made me the minority. Choosing numbers as a basis for morality is a mite silly, dontcha think?
I honestly think that if you can't serve God with your orientation, then neither can I with mine.
I do think the Bible's pretty clear on promiscuity, that your sexuality is a gift from God with a purpose in mind, and a few other thoughts on that*. I think that abusing this particular gift is against God's plan, but I don't think it matters what your orientation is.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I don't think my gay friends are at all more promiscuous than my straight friends. I do, however, think they're more vocal, but that might just be the ones I hang out with.
Being a Christian doesn't mean I dislike atheists, pagans, agnostics, muslims, puppies, the Schwann man, zebras, cacti, strawberry push-ups, calamari, or daisies.
If I dislike you, it's because you annoy me. It's got nothing to do with your beliefs. :P
Sorry. Needed the silly note. Seriously, Christ came and changed everything. We're not called to wipe out, attack, or deliberately make life harder for people who don't believe in him. We've got two missions: love, and serve.
We are told to 'make disciples'. Okay, yes. This is true. But, among my friendly (and aggressively friendly) Bible-thumpers, has anyone encountered the phrase, "People will never care how much you know, until they know how much you care?"
Honestly, some of the churches I've encountered seem far more concerned with filling a quota than offering a hand, or even knowing a person. We have the ability to help, what are we doing? We're in a fallen world, and our record has been trashed by people believing more than caring. I don't care if you're not the one who trashed it - if someone else littered in your park, you would still pick it up.
Being a Christian doesn't mean it's my job to run your life.
For the record, my sisters are pretty good about bringing me up on when I'm getting overbearing in their lives. I can get a little hurt and defensive about this at times, but I do appreciate this. I can have the opinion that some particular pursuit is destructive (say, heroin), but at some point I'm pretty sure I remember one of the New Testament writers telling us that it's a bit ridiculous to expect someone who doesn't follow God...to follow God's law.
The analogy I've used would be that if my British friend came over to the States and started getting visibly annoyed with me because I break some of England's laws. Yes, at one point, we were under England - but we declared ourselves separate some time ago. If I elected to move to England and somehow gain citizenship, then it would be appropriate for my Brit friend to be annoyed with me for breaking English law, and call my attention to it.
Being a Christian doesn't mean I'm a vegetarian.
'nuff said.
A number of people, including a bunch of the people I know, have started using the term "Christ-follower" to describe themselves. I like it. It's a reminder of what we're supposed to be, that this particular term has a purpose, beyond going to church or, as BK says, "checking the box". But I think it's also us wanting to get away from what Christians have done in the past. Because we've done some horrible things to people and to humanity. Sometimes trying to convince everyone to follow God. Sometimes trying to use God for our own purposes.
We've done some good things, too. Schools, a fair amount of the early roots of medicine, taking down music so that it could be read again later, all things that the church did.
We don't want you to think that we're lukewarm in our faith, just checking the box. We don't want you to think that we're going to force you to convert the minute you let your guard down. We want you to see the way we live, and see Christ, and understand this is who we follow.
But, oh, we screw up. I know how I want to live, and how I want to carry on my relationships, and I'm still so, so far below the standard I desire, the image I want to project. And so I have to ask your forgiveness.
I seriously considered taking on the name of "Christ-follower". But, for me, that's not right. Because I'm still not ready to give up on saving the name of "Christian". And, yeah, there's been a tremendous wreck through history of what's been done under that name. And, yeah, I recognize that I'm just one person, with a pretty spotty record, lacking a degree in Bible study, missions, theology, or anything else that would indicate I've spent some pretty college credits on learning about this.
So, I'm a Christian.
That means that I believe in Christ. Christian, by definition, "Little Christ." I believe he's the son of God, and to make this paragraph a lot shorter, I believe in the Bible. I do believe that there are parts of the Bible we have today that were not in the originals, or that were difficult to translate from Hebrew to English, but I don't believe that those parts cancel out the great truth of God's love, what he said we were worth, our sin, or what he did for us.
That means that I want God as the first love in my life. First love, greatest leader, and my foundation. Means that I spend time getting to know the Bible because otherwise I think it's very easy to get led off track by well-meaning teachers. Means that my goal is to live a life that makes God look good. I mess up. A lot. I haven't given up yet.
This isn't supposed to be a theological discussion. This is just...I'm tired of what we act like, and what people think we are, and I wish I had a way to fix it all. This is some stuff I've been thinking about for a little while, and it needed to be said. I suppose, to conclude, this is what I believe.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]