News & Politics - The abortion debate - Page 16

**Callace** · 09-11-2009, 09:20 AM

That is so sad

I am happy that he made a good thing out of the experience, bt getting inspired to help others, at least.

**sunnykerr** · 09-11-2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Shooting Suspect Offended by Anti-Abortion Material

Authorities have charged an Owosso, Michigan, man with two counts of first-degree premeditated murder in the Friday shooting deaths of an anti-abortion activist and another man, a prosecutor's office said.

Authorities say the suspect, Harlan James Drake, was offended by anti-abortion material that the activist had displayed across from the school all week.

Drake, 33, is accused of shooting anti-abortion activist Jim Pouillon, 63, and Michael Fuoss, 61, who were killed in separate locations Friday morning, the prosecutor's office in Shiawassee County said.

Authorities also have charged Drake with a felony firearm count and carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent, the prosecutor's office said.

Drake also is suspected of "attempting to locate a third victim without success," the office said.

He was arraigned Friday and is being held without bail, the office said. It was not immediately known whether he had an attorney.

Pouillon, whose anti-abortion activity was well-known in the area, was protesting across the street from Owosso High School about 7:20 a.m. Friday when he was killed by several shots fired from a passing vehicle, Owosso Police Chief Michael Compeau said.

Several people witnessed the shooting, and one was able to provide a license number, he said.

About an hour later, Owosso police officers found the suspect, Compeau said.

"At the time of his arrest, the suspect made statements that he was involved in another homicide in Shiawassee County the same day," he said.

Sheriff George Braidwood said a call had come to a 911 dispatch center about 8:17 a.m. saying that an employee at Fuoss Gravel, outside Owosso, had discovered the owner, Michael Fuoss, dead. He had been shot several times, Braidwood said.

Authorities believe that Fuoss and the suspect knew each other, Braidwood said.

According to Sara Edwards of the county prosecutor's office, authorities do not believe that Drake knew Pouillon.

Operation Save America, the anti-abortion group of which Pouillon was a member, said in a written statement that he was "well known for his love of Christ and unborn children."

The Owosso school district went into immediate lockdown after the shooting outside of the high school and remained so until the suspect was in custody, Compeau said.

The high school's administration offered parents the option of picking up their children, he said. All after-school activities were canceled, he added.

Owosso, a town of about 15,000 people, is about 25 miles west of Flint, Michigan.

Police: Shooting suspect offended by anti-abortion material - CNN.com

Well, Drake may claim that he was offended by the anti-abortion material (and, let's face it, that's the whole point of that material, right?) all he wants, but nothing justifies taking the life of a human being like that. Never mind the fact the second murder pretty much undermines that whole defense anyway.

Besides, it's a sad, sad day when moral outrage translates into morally outrageous actions. There should be no place for this type of viciousness on our modern society. We should be free to debate ideas and pursue our ideals. Isn't that what democracy is about?

**wanderer78** · 09-11-2009, 11:28 PM

That's horrid. There was no reason for that. Especially near a school.

Sadly, my first thought was that pro-lifers are just going to jump on that story.

Star425 · 09-12-2009, 06:44 PM

We talk about religion, which is an institution run by men...what about a women's ability to choose. Or are we still living in the dark ages?

2old2care · 09-13-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star425 (View Post)

We talk about religion, which is an institution run by men...what about a women's ability to choose. Or are we still living in the dark ages?

We are still living in the dark ages unfortunately. As a male, I firmly believe in the woman's ability to make an inform decision on whether she should go through a pregnancy or not. It should not be up to religion or those who holds right wing political views regardless of their gender.

**sunnykerr** · 09-14-2009, 06:54 PM

Here, here!

Abortion, above anything else, is a women's health issue.

We can all debate the morality of abortion till the cows come home. We can go over the spiritual implications of it till we're all blue in the face. We can draw up contracts deciding to whom it should apply and to whom it should be banned.

But the problem with all that is that abortion will always be there. So it's not like it's a simple issue - by no means is it that. However, it seems the only moral high ground we can occupy with it is to decide whether it's really society's business to get between a woman (or a girl) and her right to control her own body, her own reproductive health, her own life.

Violet-Shadow · 10-12-2009, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

But the problem with all that is that abortion will always be there. So it's not like it's a simple issue - by no means is it that. However, it seems the only moral high ground we can occupy with it is to decide whether it's really society's business to get between a woman (or a girl) and her right to control her own body, her own reproductive health, her own life.

I'm new to the fanforum and I stumbled across the debate. I didn't read through everyone's opinions but just skimmed through some. This certain comment I had to respond to.

The problem I have with this statement is that it assumes that there is only one moral high ground. As a pro life woman, I believe the moral high ground isn't whether society should come between a woman and her "right to choose," but, rather, whether or not a woman has the right to end the life of the baby inside of her.

I can't really write much else because this is a very emotional topic for me, as it is for many, on both sides of the issue, I am sure. I only brought this up not to start a debate but to point out that people's views of the "moral high ground" vary greatly.

So...that's it.

Edited to Add: So I was reading through some more posts and I discovered that there don't seem to be many pro lifers posting here and I would just like to speak my mind on a couple of things.

First off, IA with those who wrote that it doesn't make sense that supposed pro life people would kill those who perform abortions. They cannot call themselves "pro life" IMO if they do something so horrible. I hate it when I hear the stories of people who commit such acts.

Secondly, I was reading one post (or more) that claimed that conservative pro lifers don't believe in birth control. I do - as long as the baby's not hurt in anyway (and I believe that life begins at conception, meaning that I do not support the morning after pill). I also don't believe that care for children should end at birth. I have my associates degree in Child Development and am currently a preschool teacher. I believe in the sanctify of the child's life no matter how small or how old. I believe it's important to take care of children, to support them in their growth and development, to try to end the suffering of children all over the world. I consider myself to be an adovocate for children's rights (again, no matter how small or how old those children might be).

**TheAngel** · 10-13-2009, 05:44 AM

See, but you see a fetus as a living creature and for me, until it's viable outside the womb on it's own without extreme medical care, barring unforeseen events, it's nothing more than a kidney or a liver. I mean, if you look at the relationship between a fetus and the mother, it's a parasitic one. It's not fair to make a woman go through all that for a child she doesn't want. I refuse to sacrifice my health and well being to have a child I don't want and therefore, if abortion wasn't legal, I'd find some other way to do it. With the population being what it is, and natural resources dwindling, I don't see why this is such a big issue. If you look at all the parents who have children and don't want them but don't go through with adoption. I don't understand why a crack addicted mother who can't afford prenatal care, much less to feed and clothe a child, has more of a right to give birth than I, a responsible adult, does to abort an unwanted child. I'm an advocate for Children's rights. I've worked with children for years, but I'm also an advocate for abortion rights and individual women's rights because I don't believe a child, a baby, and a fetus are the same thing.

hlgreenie · 10-13-2009, 01:51 PM

So I don't usually come to the news and politics thread, but I just saw this topic and figured I might as well post my opinion.

Personally I am 100% pro choice. Now let me be clear and don't think abortion is a positive thing and I absolutely don't think it's something one should do lightly, but I think that the issue is the woman's decision and it's not the states or anyones business how the woman decides. I don't think it is fair to make a woman have a child if that's not what she wants!

Basically that's my 2 cents.

Violet-Shadow · 10-13-2009, 02:34 PM

Well, TheAngel, I'm of the oppsosite mind. I view the child as a child starting at conception. That's why I cannot support abortion. I don't think of the relationship as parasitic. If that's true, then, really, the child is a parasite long after birth as well, for even after exting the womb the child cannot care for his or herself. And it's such a big issue to those of us who are pro life because of our view of when life starts. It's a HUGE issue because of that (to us who are pro life).

**TheAngel** · 10-13-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violet-Shadow (View Post)

Well, TheAngel, I'm of the oppsosite mind. I view the child as a child starting at conception. That's why I cannot support abortion. I don't think of the relationship as parasitic. If that's true, then, really, the child is a parasite long after birth as well, for even after exting the womb the child cannot care for his or herself. And it's such a big issue to those of us who are pro life because of our view of when life starts. It's a HUGE issue because of that (to us who are pro life).

Well, yeah, but I do believe children have parasitic relationships with their parents long after birth, which is why I don't plan on having children at any point. That's my choice and my option to do so. The same way that I can't tell you to have an abortion, you shouldn't be allowed to tell me that I can't have one. And it's all based upon the definition of life, anyway, which is very subjective. If you're pro-life, I can promise I won't make you have an abortion, but otherwise, I don't want laws governing what I can and cannot do with my body.

**sunnykerr** · 10-13-2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Violet-Shadow (View Post)

I'm new to the fanforum and I stumbled across the debate. I didn't read through everyone's opinions but just skimmed through some. This certain comment I had to respond to.

The problem I have with this statement is that it assumes that there is only one moral high ground. As a pro life woman, I believe the moral high ground isn't whether society should come between a woman and her "right to choose," but, rather, whether or not a woman has the right to end the life of the baby inside of her.

I can't really write much else because this is a very emotional topic for me, as it is for many, on both sides of the issue, I am sure. I only brought this up not to start a debate but to point out that people's views of the "moral high ground" vary greatly.

So...that's it.

Violet Shadow, I want to thank you for expressing your opinion in such an eloquent and thoughtful matter. You're quite right in saying that we don't have many (if any) pro-lifers expressing their views on here, so I'm very grateful to you for doing so.

I hope you understand that the fact that my opinion is different does not, in any way, prevent me from wanting you to feel free to express yourself.

Allow me to clarify my statement, then. It's not that I believe there is a singular moral high ground. Because I have personal issues with abortion myself.

I just think that it's not the role of the law to decide for women what their moral stand should be. I believe in the secular carriage of law. It's the only way we are all equal before the law. So I don't believe we ought to legislate against the right to abortion based on moral beliefs. Because that's between the woman in question and God.

And I believe that, legislating against abortion does nothing but discriminate against women who can't afford to travel where they can procure a safe abortion. Because abortion has happened since the dawn of time. Whether it should or shouldn't happen... it happens. All the time. And, absolutely, we should avail ourselves of each and every way to prevent the need for it.

But, in the meantime, I believe in a woman's right to be safe.

I have my own opinions about abortion, and they guide my own behaviour.

fetch · 10-14-2009, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

Violet Shadow, I want to thank you for expressing your opinion in such an eloquent and thoughtful matter. You're quite right in saying that we don't have many (if any) pro-lifers expressing their views on here, so I'm very grateful to you for doing so.

I hope you understand that the fact that my opinion is different does not, in any way, prevent me from wanting you to feel free to express yourself.

Allow me to clarify my statement, then. It's not that I believe there is a singular moral high ground. Because I have personal issues with abortion myself.

I just think that it's not the role of the law to decide for women what their moral stand should be. I believe in the secular carriage of law. It's the only way we are all equal before the law. So I don't believe we ought to legislate against the right to abortion based on moral beliefs. Because that's between the woman in question and God.

And I believe that, legislating against abortion does nothing but discriminate against women who can't afford to travel where they can procure a safe abortion. Because abortion has happened since the dawn of time. Whether it should or shouldn't happen... it happens. All the time. And, absolutely, we should avail ourselves of each and every way to prevent the need for it.

But, in the meantime, I believe in a woman's right to be safe.

I have my own opinions about abortion, and they guide my own behaviour.

Truthfully, I'm not sure I fully understand the concept that life begins at conception. Some conceptions never make it to the pregnancy stage.

Violet-Shadow · 10-14-2009, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post)

Violet Shadow, I want to thank you for expressing your opinion in such an eloquent and thoughtful matter. You're quite right in saying that we don't have many (if any) pro-lifers expressing their views on here, so I'm very grateful to you for doing so.

I hope you understand that the fact that my opinion is different does not, in any way, prevent me from wanting you to feel free to express yourself.

Allow me to clarify my statement, then. It's not that I believe there is a singular moral high ground. Because I have personal issues with abortion myself.

I just think that it's not the role of the law to decide for women what their moral stand should be. I believe in the secular carriage of law. It's the only way we are all equal before the law. So I don't believe we ought to legislate against the right to abortion based on moral beliefs. Because that's between the woman in question and God.

And I believe that, legislating against abortion does nothing but discriminate against women who can't afford to travel where they can procure a safe abortion. Because abortion has happened since the dawn of time. Whether it should or shouldn't happen... it happens. All the time. And, absolutely, we should avail ourselves of each and every way to prevent the need for it.

But, in the meantime, I believe in a woman's right to be safe.

I have my own opinions about abortion, and they guide my own behaviour.

Thank for your respectful response. As a pro life conservative who lives in a very liberal area, my beliefs are not always received with any type of kindness or respect, so so I appreacite your response.

You are very right, abortion does happen (to me, that is a very big unfortunate) but I believe that if it wasn't available then less women would go through with the procedure. Right now, it is more often used as another method of birth control rather than as a way of keeping the woman safe if her health is at risk (although, yes, I do understand that are some women who go through with abortions because they are at risk, health wise). Instead of passing laws that make abortion available even more (and in later terms), I believe that there should be a certain amount of education given about sexual protection, including the teaching of abstinence. I would rather if this type of education not be taught in public schools, as I feel that it's the parents job to teach such things, but, sadly, not all parents take the responsibility to do so and so it needs to be taught in the public forum.

I do take a moral stand against abortion but it's more than that. Since I believe that life starts at conception, I believe that an abortion is equal to taking someone's life. So I guess that's a moral stance, but ending abortion is about saving a life, saving many lives, from my POV.

I also understand that, as TheAngel stated, our opinions on abortion are subjective. They are very much based on our worldviews, whatever they might be.

**sunnykerr** · 10-14-2009, 07:35 PM

Hey, I want people of varying opinions to feel welcome on this thread. Personally, that's how I learn.

The thing about abortion, for me, is that it's happened before abortion was legalized.

When I was talking about supporting women's right to safety, I didn't actually mean with regards to late-term abortions, though that's certainly a good point to keep in mind.

What I meant is that, for me, the availability of legal abortion is what allows women who want an abortion to stay safe. That's why I believe in the right to abortion. Not because I have no objections to it, morally, but because it keeps women alive.

It wasn't that long ago that women would die from back-alley procedures in unsanitary conditions and without the aid of a licensed medical practitioner.

I agree that better sex ed is probably key to reducing the need for abortions, and I have zero objections to abstinence being a significant part of that education. I do think some basic facts need to be added to that education, though, like the importance of contraception and the truth about people get and pass on STDs. I believe people with the right information are better equipped to make good choices for themselves.

I used to be very anti-late-term abortion. But, the more I learn about it, the more I become very ambivalent. Late-term abortions are very rarely practised. And, in the United States particularly, there's an increasingly smaller amount of doctors even willing to perform them. But when they are performed... well, there are two very good reasons why they should be available, in my mind anyway. First of all, there are the cases where the mother's health is in jeopardy. That much is usually accepted, so I won't say any more. But, then, there are also the cases where the child is diagnosed with the kind of illness that guarantees it will live a short and excruciatingly painful life. I think those cases should be left to the parents, not to legislators who are far removed from the reality of it.