Commentary and Philosophy
Viewing comments for Chapter 148 "50 Million and Counting"My thoughts about t
65 total reviews
Comment from Nina Dorman
Hi there,
I enjoyed your poem as it was filled with intense emotion and passion. The best writing, in my opinion, is that which causes the greatest emotion or forces its audience to consider life and their beliefs. Your use of repetition throughout the poem instilled a great deal of conflict and emotion. Great job!
Nina
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
  |
Hi there,
I enjoyed your poem as it was filled with intense emotion and passion. The best writing, in my opinion, is that which causes the greatest emotion or forces its audience to consider life and their beliefs. Your use of repetition throughout the poem instilled a great deal of conflict and emotion. Great job!
Nina
Comment Written 02-Feb-2019
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
-
Thank you so much Nina. I appreciate your review and comments very much.
Comment from misscookie
Amen!
You captured my attention from the first line to the last
Your words are sad but true
I agree with you all the way.
This is what I call a food for thought write.
Thank you for sharing.
Cookie
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
|
Amen!
You captured my attention from the first line to the last
Your words are sad but true
I agree with you all the way.
This is what I call a food for thought write.
Thank you for sharing.
Cookie
Comment Written 02-Feb-2019
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
-
Thank you misscookie. I appreciate your review and comments.
-
It was my pleasure take care.
Cookie
-
It was my pleasure take care.
Cookie
Comment from Boogienights
Thank you for sharing this very powerful message, its thought provoking to say the least. Whatever side a person is on, pro choice or pro life, it must give both sides pause to think about abortion to a child already born. I find it abhorrent. Your solution seems viable but what if....the woman gets pregnant again just for financial gain and threatens abortion again? Should sterilization be involved? It's a difficult question.
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
|
Thank you for sharing this very powerful message, its thought provoking to say the least. Whatever side a person is on, pro choice or pro life, it must give both sides pause to think about abortion to a child already born. I find it abhorrent. Your solution seems viable but what if....the woman gets pregnant again just for financial gain and threatens abortion again? Should sterilization be involved? It's a difficult question.
Comment Written 02-Feb-2019
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
-
Thank you Boogienights. I wouldn't be in favor of that. I'd put a limit of one payment, possibly 2, to one person.
Comment from Stephanie Launiu
Well, you've certainly been clear on your anti-abortion stand. Good for you! I agree with about 75% of your position, but I still believe that the mother has her free agency. I was in college when Roe v Wade became the law. It isn't as simple as rolling back the law anymore. Even if the Supreme Court overturned it, the laws would revert to state law, and we'd be split about 50-50 on abortion in the states. I believe that life begins at conception, but it's unviable and not able to survive without the mother. I definitely think that abortion after the first trimester should be illegal, but offering women money to have a baby would just open up a can of worms and cause poor women to have more kids I think. Thank you for opening yourself up to people like me droning on and on about what we think. You have stated your case and given us statistics, and for that I admire you.
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
|
Well, you've certainly been clear on your anti-abortion stand. Good for you! I agree with about 75% of your position, but I still believe that the mother has her free agency. I was in college when Roe v Wade became the law. It isn't as simple as rolling back the law anymore. Even if the Supreme Court overturned it, the laws would revert to state law, and we'd be split about 50-50 on abortion in the states. I believe that life begins at conception, but it's unviable and not able to survive without the mother. I definitely think that abortion after the first trimester should be illegal, but offering women money to have a baby would just open up a can of worms and cause poor women to have more kids I think. Thank you for opening yourself up to people like me droning on and on about what we think. You have stated your case and given us statistics, and for that I admire you.
Comment Written 02-Feb-2019
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
-
Thank you Stephanie. for you thoughtful review and comments. i would put a payment limit one how many times a woman can get paid. The issue with the states is a good point.
Comment from catch22
Hello Poet, well, you are certainly taking a hard line and over simplified stance on an important issue that has more complexity than you present. There are multiple considerations that went into the decision of Roe. The most important of all is that a control over one's own body is a right to privacy--which is a basic and fundamental HUMAN RIGHT. That means that a woman has the right to privacy with how to decide what to do to her body. Now, this right MUST be balanced with the developing life of a fetus. Before the fetus is VIABLE (or can survive without the mother), the mother's rights over her body need to take precedent because they are human rights. The decision in Roe was to leave the question of fetal viability to the doctor performing the procedure. THAT'S what Roe really said and your poem presents an unfair picture of this decision to preserve basic human rights for the mother and the doctor to practice in the mother's best interest. Do some research into this to understand the foundation of the law, rather than spouting simplified and dangerous arguments about your views with resect to a woman's reproductive rights. Your solution also would violate a woman's right to privacy in the Bill of Rights by denying her access to abortion completely--which violates her right to privacy before a fetus is viable. Now, you might argue about the issue of viability of a fetus (and many legal minds have), but that decision was left to the discretion of states and doctors according to the original Roe decision. I think you need to be fair to both sides when you present an opinion as truth. Just saying. The poem stirs the emotions for sure, but there needs to be balance.
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
|
Hello Poet, well, you are certainly taking a hard line and over simplified stance on an important issue that has more complexity than you present. There are multiple considerations that went into the decision of Roe. The most important of all is that a control over one's own body is a right to privacy--which is a basic and fundamental HUMAN RIGHT. That means that a woman has the right to privacy with how to decide what to do to her body. Now, this right MUST be balanced with the developing life of a fetus. Before the fetus is VIABLE (or can survive without the mother), the mother's rights over her body need to take precedent because they are human rights. The decision in Roe was to leave the question of fetal viability to the doctor performing the procedure. THAT'S what Roe really said and your poem presents an unfair picture of this decision to preserve basic human rights for the mother and the doctor to practice in the mother's best interest. Do some research into this to understand the foundation of the law, rather than spouting simplified and dangerous arguments about your views with resect to a woman's reproductive rights. Your solution also would violate a woman's right to privacy in the Bill of Rights by denying her access to abortion completely--which violates her right to privacy before a fetus is viable. Now, you might argue about the issue of viability of a fetus (and many legal minds have), but that decision was left to the discretion of states and doctors according to the original Roe decision. I think you need to be fair to both sides when you present an opinion as truth. Just saying. The poem stirs the emotions for sure, but there needs to be balance.
Comment Written 02-Feb-2019
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
-
Thank you for you well stated review and commets. The problem I have is that it is couched in legal and medical terms, when this is a morality issue. Your premise it is based on a mother's health, when in fact the majority of abortions are based on convenience. ?A 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute found that the reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman?s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents? or partners? desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.?
So, how many gererations are we going to destroy, just because it is inconvenient?
-
Hi that is not what I said. The decision was made on the basis of Human rights. The right to privacy is the foundation of the law. Your opinion of morality is likely not based on the same standard. If it is based in Christian dogma, I urge you to remember that the USA is founded on a separation of Church and State. The Bill of Rights specifies that all human beings have the right to privacy. When do these rights get conferred is not a moral question only, but a medical one. Please consider this going forward. Thanks for the engaging dialog, but remember to balance you opinions or you will not be fair minded. Blessings to you and good luck.
-
Ok, fair enough.
-
BTW, what did you think of my proposed solution to pay a financial incentive to give birth and adopt? Seems like you didn't read that far.
-
Hi T, I think you did not really get what I was saying either. I did read your notes and by restricting access to abortion across the board, you would be in violation of a basic human right, privacy. As for incentives, I am all for it, just not a sweeping ban on a woman's rights to privacy over
their body. That is not about convenience but freedom. Something to consider going forward. It must be a choice and the option should exist, especially in the early portions of a pregnancy. That was the original language of Roe.
Comment from Thomas Bowling
Bravo. Last year, I read a post by an elderly woman defending abortion. In my review I said you look like a sweet grandmother. Why do you want to murder babies?
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
 |
Bravo. Last year, I read a post by an elderly woman defending abortion. In my review I said you look like a sweet grandmother. Why do you want to murder babies?
Comment Written 01-Feb-2019
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
-
Thank you Thomas. I appreciate your review and excellent comments. I appreciate the stars as well.
Comment from Wabigoon
Treischel--
Not surprising I guess coming from a man. Coming, I presume from a religious background that absolutely opposes birth control of any sort. So women should just be vessels for "God" to pass His story into reality? He has, you know, according to you, First Rights, just like the Kings of England. We achieved our freedom from them and here you still are proclaiming that the King has First rights, and we dare not "abort" his story from the Garden. MURDER you say! And you do not utter a thing about better birth control, about how women should have the right to control their wombs. Just, God, must control the womb so any sort of deformity including the End of the World can pass through it.
Wabigoon/Jeff
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
|
Treischel--
Not surprising I guess coming from a man. Coming, I presume from a religious background that absolutely opposes birth control of any sort. So women should just be vessels for "God" to pass His story into reality? He has, you know, according to you, First Rights, just like the Kings of England. We achieved our freedom from them and here you still are proclaiming that the King has First rights, and we dare not "abort" his story from the Garden. MURDER you say! And you do not utter a thing about better birth control, about how women should have the right to control their wombs. Just, God, must control the womb so any sort of deformity including the End of the World can pass through it.
Wabigoon/Jeff
Comment Written 01-Feb-2019
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
-
Thank you Wabigoon. Your argument is facetious. This is an issue of morality. ?A 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute found that the reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman?s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents? or partners? desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.?
How many generations are we going to destroy, because it is "inconvenient" to have a baby. There is no excuse not to practice birth control civilly.
Yes, I am a man. And I considered in 1977 aborting my own daughter who is now 43 and has 3 children. I watched and even supported as my daughters, early on, aborted my grandchildren. I've come to personally realize the evil in this practice.
-
Treischel--
Oh, I think the Catholic Church has a lot to do with it and it will take generations to undo what they and other religious organizations have done. I think freely available birth control without the frown of the physician and better sex education would go a long way toward making this a much less important problem. Our local quack caused my daughter to cry when she asked about birth control. Is a fertilized egg a person? Does it have a soul, the right to control a woman's life? I doubt it in both cases. Much more could be done to see when and how the soul enters into the picture. The tone of your piece is, to say the least, damning. I think you would do better with the kind of tone in your note. The tone of the piece raises hackles instantly -- not that I haven't been guilty of that. "Abomination" is the word used by fundamentalist pastors who probably have a thing going on the side. Never mind that. Thanks for the letter and the news about your daughter. I have two kids and one's about to be a father.
Best
Wabigoon/Jeff
Comment from donette1914
very heartbreaking and the baby doesn't get to chose
As you draw ones in, it becomes so believable and so very sad
your words flow smoothly
very well penned
donette1914 Feb 1 2018
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
|
very heartbreaking and the baby doesn't get to chose
As you draw ones in, it becomes so believable and so very sad
your words flow smoothly
very well penned
donette1914 Feb 1 2018
Comment Written 01-Feb-2019
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
-
Thank you donette. I appreciate your review and comments.
Comment from susand3022
Dear Trieschel, first I must speak on my 5* rating. This is only because there is nothing technically wrong with it... in other words it's pretty much a must for the actual review part.
Now for my "personal opinion" on the matter, which has nothing at all to do with your actual poem. I completely agree with this new "late-term-abortion" thing... it can't be a choice that anyone can just make at any old time for any old reason. There are ways of taking a child from it's mother after a certain time when life is viable outside the womb that has no effect on the life of the child and will still preserve the life of the mother.
On Roe v. Wade however, I have to stand on the side of the woman's choice to choose. There are just too many circumstances in this society, especially today, where children are unwanted, uncared for and raised by people who have no right being parents at all. This is unfortunately what exhists in our country today already. Now... take away choice and you will add all of the children that would have been born of rape and incest...(to the unwanted and miserable and unloved list yeah... nice life for them to look forward to...) not to mention all of the teenagers who terminate so they can go on to college and get degrees and lead, hopefully, productive lives...(these are kids who may be resented by their parents and grandparents for ruining their parent's lives though the fault is in no way theirs) now add all of the children who will be born to drug addicts and prostitutes who would otherwise terminate but can't anymore... who will take care of these kids when their mother's can't... you know they won't... will you? will your neighbors? will your friends??? Where is all of this money going to come from for all of the medical expenses for these children and all of their detox?
Now... I'm really going to ask you one more thing... the one thing that was helped greatly by the leagalization of abortion. The end of the "back room abortions." People who call themselves doctors in back rooms with dirty instruments, or worse.... picture your daughter, or granddaughter, desparate... in the bathroom with a coat-hanger... because that's what you're asking to go back to. Be careful what you wish for.
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
|
Dear Trieschel, first I must speak on my 5* rating. This is only because there is nothing technically wrong with it... in other words it's pretty much a must for the actual review part.
Now for my "personal opinion" on the matter, which has nothing at all to do with your actual poem. I completely agree with this new "late-term-abortion" thing... it can't be a choice that anyone can just make at any old time for any old reason. There are ways of taking a child from it's mother after a certain time when life is viable outside the womb that has no effect on the life of the child and will still preserve the life of the mother.
On Roe v. Wade however, I have to stand on the side of the woman's choice to choose. There are just too many circumstances in this society, especially today, where children are unwanted, uncared for and raised by people who have no right being parents at all. This is unfortunately what exhists in our country today already. Now... take away choice and you will add all of the children that would have been born of rape and incest...(to the unwanted and miserable and unloved list yeah... nice life for them to look forward to...) not to mention all of the teenagers who terminate so they can go on to college and get degrees and lead, hopefully, productive lives...(these are kids who may be resented by their parents and grandparents for ruining their parent's lives though the fault is in no way theirs) now add all of the children who will be born to drug addicts and prostitutes who would otherwise terminate but can't anymore... who will take care of these kids when their mother's can't... you know they won't... will you? will your neighbors? will your friends??? Where is all of this money going to come from for all of the medical expenses for these children and all of their detox?
Now... I'm really going to ask you one more thing... the one thing that was helped greatly by the leagalization of abortion. The end of the "back room abortions." People who call themselves doctors in back rooms with dirty instruments, or worse.... picture your daughter, or granddaughter, desparate... in the bathroom with a coat-hanger... because that's what you're asking to go back to. Be careful what you wish for.
Comment Written 01-Feb-2019
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
-
TThank you susan. Your words are well considered and I appreciate your logical response. You must not have read my notes where I offered a solution that is possibly a more reasonable approach. Concerning the backroom scenario, My 50Million number is actually understated,that was a 2011 number. Today it is 68 million and counting. Let that number sink in. 68,000,000. Compare that number to your concern. Do you really think there would be that many backroom abortions? No.
Now think about that number again. That's just here in the United States. Whole generations destroyed. Did medical concerns cause this?
?A 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute found that the reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman?s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents? or partners? desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.?
So, these children were destroyed because it was "inconventient". This is a moral issue.
Comment from gramag4
AMEN!! This is a powerful writing! I know your heart is in it. This is such an ugly epidemic in our nation. Thank you for sharing your voice about this. I agree 100%. It seems that the slide is becoming more slippery all the time. God help us with this abomination!
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
|
AMEN!! This is a powerful writing! I know your heart is in it. This is such an ugly epidemic in our nation. Thank you for sharing your voice about this. I agree 100%. It seems that the slide is becoming more slippery all the time. God help us with this abomination!
Comment Written 01-Feb-2019
reply by the author on 02-Feb-2019
-
Thank you gramag, Amen.
